BACKGROUND: A rapid and early monoclonal (M) protein response during initial therapy in patients with multiple myeloma had been identified as a predictor of superior long-term outcome in some--but not all--studies. METHODS: To determine if the parameter of M protein reduction was of value in the relapsed and/or refractory setting, retrospective landmark analyses were performed at the end of cycles 2 and 4 of a phase 3 study, which randomized such patients to receive bortezomib alone or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) with bortezomib. RESULTS: Compared with a <25% reduction in M protein at the landmark time point, patients with a 50% to <75% reduction after cycle 2 had a significantly lower hazard ratio (HR) for time to progression (HR = 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.64; P <.001), as did those with a ≥75% reduction (HR = 0.26; 95% CI, 0.15-0.45; P < .001). In all of these groups, PLD + bortezomib provided superior outcomes to bortezomib alone, and did so without an increase in the risk of adverse events overall and with a predictable toxicity profile. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses supported the possibility that a robust early M protein response is a good prognostic factor for long-term outcome of myeloma patients with relapsed and/or refractory disease receivingbortezomib or PLD + bortezomib.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: A rapid and early monoclonal (M) protein response during initial therapy in patients with multiple myeloma had been identified as a predictor of superior long-term outcome in some--but not all--studies. METHODS: To determine if the parameter of M protein reduction was of value in the relapsed and/or refractory setting, retrospective landmark analyses were performed at the end of cycles 2 and 4 of a phase 3 study, which randomized such patients to receive bortezomib alone or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) with bortezomib. RESULTS: Compared with a <25% reduction in M protein at the landmark time point, patients with a 50% to <75% reduction after cycle 2 had a significantly lower hazard ratio (HR) for time to progression (HR = 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.64; P <.001), as did those with a ≥75% reduction (HR = 0.26; 95% CI, 0.15-0.45; P < .001). In all of these groups, PLD + bortezomib provided superior outcomes to bortezomib alone, and did so without an increase in the risk of adverse events overall and with a predictable toxicity profile. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses supported the possibility that a robust early M protein response is a good prognostic factor for long-term outcome of myelomapatients with relapsed and/or refractory disease receiving bortezomib or PLD + bortezomib.
Authors: K Shimizu; E Nagura; N Hirabayashi; A Wakita; H Takeyama; H Sao; M Nitta; K Kawashima; H Saito Journal: Int J Hematol Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 2.490
Authors: Robert Z Orlowski; Arnon Nagler; Pieter Sonneveld; Joan Bladé; Roman Hajek; Andrew Spencer; Jesús San Miguel; Tadeusz Robak; Anna Dmoszynska; Noemi Horvath; Ivan Spicka; Heather J Sutherland; Alexander N Suvorov; Sen H Zhuang; Trilok Parekh; Liang Xiu; Zhilong Yuan; Wayne Rackoff; Jean-Luc Harousseau Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-08-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sundar Jagannath; Paul G Richardson; Bart Barlogie; James R Berenson; Seema Singhal; David Irwin; Gordan Srkalovic; David P Schenkein; Dixie L Esseltine; Kenneth C Anderson Journal: Haematologica Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Paul G Richardson; Pieter Sonneveld; Michael W Schuster; David Irwin; Edward A Stadtmauer; Thierry Facon; Jean-Luc Harousseau; Dina Ben-Yehuda; Sagar Lonial; Jesús-F San Miguel; Jamie D Cavenagh; Kenneth C Anderson Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2007-04-19 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: C G Schaar; J C Kluin-Nelemans; S le Cessie; P F H Franck; M C te Marvelde; P W Wijermans Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Robert A Kyle; Morie A Gertz; Thomas E Witzig; John A Lust; Martha Q Lacy; Angela Dispenzieri; Rafael Fonseca; S Vincent Rajkumar; Janice R Offord; Dirk R Larson; Matthew E Plevak; Terry M Therneau; Philip R Greipp Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: K Shimizu; O Kamiya; N Hirabayashi; A Ichikawa; K Kawashima; M Kobayashi; H Mizuno; E Nagura; M Nitta; H Saito; H Sao; T Shibata; H Takeyama Journal: Jpn J Cancer Res Date: 1999-03
Authors: Colin A Hutchison; Joan Bladé; Paul Cockwell; Mark Cook; Mark Drayson; Jean-Paul Fermand; Efstathios Kastritis; Robert Kyle; Nelson Leung; Sonia Pasquali; Christopher Winearls Journal: Nat Rev Nephrol Date: 2012-02-21 Impact factor: 28.314
Authors: Constantin Lapa; Katharina Lückerath; Uwe Malzahn; Samuel Samnick; Herrmann Einsele; Andreas K Buck; Ken Herrmann; Stefan Knop Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2014-09-15
Authors: M Michallet; C Chapuis-Cellier; T Dejoie; C Lombard; H Caillon; M Sobh; P Moreau; M Attal; H Avet-Loiseau Journal: Leukemia Date: 2017-06-30 Impact factor: 11.528