Meletios Dimopoulos1, David S Siegel2, Sagar Lonial3, Junyuan Qi4, Roman Hajek5, Thierry Facon6, Laura Rosinol7, Catherine Williams8, Hilary Blacklock9, Hartmut Goldschmidt10, Vania Hungria11, Andrew Spencer12, Antonio Palumbo13, Thorsten Graef14, Joseph E Eid14, Jennifer Houp14, Linda Sun14, Scott Vuocolo14, Kenneth C Anderson15. 1. Department of Clinical Therapeutics, University of Athens, Athens, Greece. Electronic address: mdimop@med.uoa.gr. 2. Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ, USA. 3. Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA. 4. Lymphocyte Diseases Center, Institute of Hematology and Blood Diseases Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Tianjin, China. 5. University Hospital Brno, Brno, Czech Republic; University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic. 6. Hôpital Huriez Serv Maladies du Sang, Lille, France. 7. Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain. 8. Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK. 9. Middlemore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. 10. Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 11. Santa Casa de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 12. Alfred Hospital-Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 13. Division of Hematology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy. 14. Merck, Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA. 15. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess efficacy and tolerability of vorinostat in combination with bortezomib for treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: In our randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we enrolled adults (≥18 years) at 174 university hospitals in 31 countries worldwide. Eligible patients had to have non-refractory multiple myeloma that previously responded to treatment (one to three regimens) but were currently progressing, ECOG performance statuses of 2 or less, and no continuing toxic effects from previous treatment. We excluded patients with known resistance to bortezomib. We randomly allocated patients (1:1) using an interactive voice response system to receive 21 day cycles of bortezomib (1·3 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11) in combination with oral vorinostat (400 mg) or matching placebo once-daily on days 1-14. We stratified patients by baseline tumour stage (International Staging System stage 1 or stage ≥2), previous bone-marrow transplantation (yes or no), and number of previous regimens (1 or ≥2). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed adverse events in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number 00773747. FINDINGS: Between Dec 24, 2008, and Sept 8, 2011, we randomly allocated 317 eligible patients to the vorinostat group (315 of whom received at least one dose) and 320 to theplacebo group (all of whom received at least one dose). Median PFS was 7·63 months (95% CI 6·87-8·40) in the vorinostat group and 6·83 months (5·67-7·73) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·77, 95% CI 0·64-0·94; p=0·0100). 312 (99%) of 315 patients in the vorinostat group and 315 (98%) of 320 patients in the placebo group had adverse events (300 [95%] adverse events in the vorinostat group and 282 [88%] in the control group were regarded as related to treatment). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (143 [45%] patients in the vorinostat group vs 77 [24%] patients in the placebo group), neutropenia (89 [28%] vs 80 [25%]), and anaemia (53 [17%] vs 40 [13%]). INTERPRETATION: Although the combination of vorinostat and bortezomib prolonged PFS relative to bortezomib and placebo, the clinical relevance of the difference in PFS between the two groups is not clear. Different treatment schedules of bortezomib and vorinostat might improve tolerability and enhance activity. FUNDING: Merck.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess efficacy and tolerability of vorinostat in combination with bortezomib for treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: In our randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we enrolled adults (≥18 years) at 174 university hospitals in 31 countries worldwide. Eligible patients had to have non-refractory multiple myeloma that previously responded to treatment (one to three regimens) but were currently progressing, ECOG performance statuses of 2 or less, and no continuing toxic effects from previous treatment. We excluded patients with known resistance to bortezomib. We randomly allocated patients (1:1) using an interactive voice response system to receive 21 day cycles of bortezomib (1·3 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11) in combination with oral vorinostat (400 mg) or matching placebo once-daily on days 1-14. We stratified patients by baseline tumour stage (International Staging System stage 1 or stage ≥2), previous bone-marrow transplantation (yes or no), and number of previous regimens (1 or ≥2). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed adverse events in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number 00773747. FINDINGS: Between Dec 24, 2008, and Sept 8, 2011, we randomly allocated 317 eligible patients to the vorinostat group (315 of whom received at least one dose) and 320 to the placebo group (all of whom received at least one dose). Median PFS was 7·63 months (95% CI 6·87-8·40) in the vorinostat group and 6·83 months (5·67-7·73) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·77, 95% CI 0·64-0·94; p=0·0100). 312 (99%) of 315 patients in the vorinostat group and 315 (98%) of 320 patients in the placebo group had adverse events (300 [95%] adverse events in the vorinostat group and 282 [88%] in the control group were regarded as related to treatment). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (143 [45%] patients in the vorinostat group vs 77 [24%] patients in the placebo group), neutropenia (89 [28%] vs 80 [25%]), and anaemia (53 [17%] vs 40 [13%]). INTERPRETATION: Although the combination of vorinostat and bortezomib prolonged PFS relative to bortezomib and placebo, the clinical relevance of the difference in PFS between the two groups is not clear. Different treatment schedules of bortezomib and vorinostat might improve tolerability and enhance activity. FUNDING: Merck.
Authors: Heinz Ludwig; Pieter Sonneveld; Faith Davies; Joan Bladé; Mario Boccadoro; Michele Cavo; Gareth Morgan; Javier de la Rubia; Michel Delforge; Meletios Dimopoulos; Hermann Einsele; Thierry Facon; Hartmut Goldschmidt; Philippe Moreau; Hareth Nahi; Torben Plesner; Jesús San-Miguel; Roman Hajek; Pia Sondergeld; Antonio Palumbo Journal: Oncologist Date: 2014-07-25
Authors: Meletios A Dimopoulos; Robert Z Orlowski; Thierry Facon; Pieter Sonneveld; Kenneth C Anderson; Meral Beksac; Lotfi Benboubker; Huw Roddie; Anna Potamianou; Catherine Couturier; Huaibao Feng; Ozlem Ataman; Helgi van de Velde; Paul G Richardson Journal: Haematologica Date: 2014-09-26 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Dan T Vogl; Edward A Stadtmauer; Kay-See Tan; Daniel F Heitjan; Lisa E Davis; Laura Pontiggia; Reshma Rangwala; Shengfu Piao; Yunyoung C Chang; Emma C Scott; Thomas M Paul; Charles W Nichols; David L Porter; Janeen Kaplan; Gayle Mallon; James E Bradner; Ravi K Amaravadi Journal: Autophagy Date: 2014-05-20 Impact factor: 16.016