Advertisement

Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients: a multicenter retrospective comparative analysis

  • Kazuhito SuzukiEmail author
  • Nobuhiro Tsukada
  • Noriko Nishimura
  • Yasuyuki Nagata
  • Kiyoshi Okazuka
  • Yuko Mishima
  • Masahiro Yokoyama
  • Kaichi Nishiwaki
  • Tadao Ishida
  • Shingo Yano
  • Yasuhito Terui
  • Kenshi Suzuki
Original Article

Abstract

The combination of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRD) is used as induction treatment in multiple myeloma; however, the optimum schedule for this regimen remains controversial. In this retrospective study, we compared the efficacy and tolerability of twice-weekly VRD (twVRD) and modified VRD-lite in transplant-eligible myeloma patients. Fifty-five patients (median age 61 years) were included; 22 received twVRD (bortezomib [1.3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8, and 11] and lenalidomide [25 mg/body on days 1–14] over 21-day cycles) and 33 received modified VRD-lite (bortezomib [1.3 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15, and 22) and lenalidomide [15 mg/body on days 2–7, 9–14, 16–21] over 28-day cycles). Overall response, very good partial response, and complete response rates after VRD were 96.4%, 45.5%, and 20.0%, respectively (median follow-up period, 17.7 months). The 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival rates were 95.8% and 98.2%, respectively. The response rate and PFS were similar between the groups, regardless of cytogenetic risk and age. The incidence of peripheral neuropathy ≥ grade 2 and thrombocytopenia ≥ grade 3 was higher in the twVRD group (27.2% vs. 0.0%, P = 0.003 and 27.2% vs. 0.0%, P = 0.003). In conclusion, modified VRD-lite had similar efficacy with, but better tolerability than, twVRD in transplant-eligible patients.

Keywords

Multiple myeloma Bortezomib Lenalidomide Induction treatment Peripheral neuropathy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the attending doctors and nurses at the Jikei University Kashiwa Hospital, the Japanese Red Cross Medical Center, the Cancer Institute Hospital, the Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, and Hamamatsu University School of Medicine. We would also like to extend our gratitude to the myeloma patients and their families for consenting to participate in our study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

K. Suzuki received personal fees from Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Celgene, outside the submitted work; N. Tsukada received a personal fee from Takeda, outside the submitted work; N. Nishimura received personal fees from Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., and Chugai Pharmaceutical. Co., Ltd., outside the submitted work; Y. Mishima reports personal fees from Chugai Pharmaceutical. Co., Ltd., Roche group, outside the submitted work; M. Yokoyama received personal fees from Chugai Pharmaceutical. Co., Ltd., outside the submitted work; K. Nishiwaki reports grants from Novartis Pharma K.K., and grants and personal fees from Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co, Ltd, outside the submitted work; T. Ishida received personal fees from Janssen, Celgene, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Takeda, outside the submitted work. The other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Kumar SK, Rajkumar SV, Dispenzieri A, Lacy MQ, Hayman SR, Buadi FK, et al. Improved survival in multiple myeloma and the impact of novel therapies. Blood. 2008;111:2516–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Palumbo A, Cavallo F, Gay F, Di Raimondo F, Ben Yehuda D, Petrucci MT, et al. Autologous transplantation and maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:895–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gay F, Oliva S, Petrucci MT, Conticello C, Catalano L, Corradini P, et al. Chemotherapy plus lenalidomide versus autologous transplantation, followed by lenalidomide plus prednisone versus lenalidomide maintenance, in patients with multiple myeloma: a randomised, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:1617–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cavo M, Beksac M, Dimopoulos MA, Pantani L, Gay F, Hájek R, et al. Intensification therapy with bortezomib–melphalan–prednisone versus autologous stem cell transplantation for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: an intergroup, multicenter, phase III study of the European Myeloma Network (EMN02/HO95 MM Trial) [abstract]. Blood. 2016;128. Abstract 673.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Attal M, Lauwers-Cances V, Hulin C, Leleu X, Caillot D, Escoffre M, et al. Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone with transplantation for myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1311–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Durie BG, Hoering A, Abidi MH, Rajkumar SV, Epstein J, Kahanic SP, et al. Bortezomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma without intent for immediate autologous stem-cell transplant (SWOG S0777): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2017;389:519–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    O'Donnell EK, Laubach JP, Yee AJ, Chen T, Huff CA, Basile FG, et al. A phase 2 study of modified lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone in transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol. 2018;18:222–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Greipp PR, San Miguel J, Durie BG, Crowley JJ, Barlogie B, Bladé J, et al. International staging system for multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:3412–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Palumbo A, Avet-Loiseau H, Oliva S, Lokhorst HM, Goldschmidt H, Rosinol L, et al. Revised international staging system for multiple myeloma: a report from International Myeloma Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2863–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kumar S, Paiva B, Anderson KC, Durie B, Landgren O, Moreau P, et al. International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:e328–e346346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kanda Y. Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software 'EZR' for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013;48:452–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Richardson PG, Weller E, Lonial S, Jakubowiak AJ, Jagannath S, Raje NS, et al. Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone combination therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood. 2010;116:679–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roussel M, Lauwers-Cances V, Robillard N, Hulin C, Leleu X, Benboubker L, et al. Front-line transplantation program with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone combination as induction and consolidation followed by lenalidomide maintenance in patients with multiple myeloma: a phase II study by the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:2712–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cornell RF, D'Souza A, Kassim AA, Costa LJ, Innis-Shelton RD, Zhang MJ, et al. Maintenance versus induction therapy choice on outcomes after autologous transplantation for multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2017;23:269–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chakraborty R, Muchtar E, Kumar S, Buadi FK, Dingli D, Dispenzieri A, et al. The impact of induction regimen on transplant outcome in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in the era of novel agents. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2017;52:34–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bringhen S, Larocca A, Rossi D, Cavalli M, Genuardi M, Ria R, et al. Efficacy and safety of once-weekly bortezomib in multiple myeloma patients. Blood. 2010;116:4745–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mateos MV, Richardson PG, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, Anderson KC, Shi H, et al. Effect of cumulative bortezomib dose on survival in multiple myeloma patients receiving bortezomib–melphalan–prednisone in the phase III VISTA study. Am J Hematol. 2015;90:314–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harousseau JL, Palumbo A, Richardson PG, Schlag R, Dimopoulos MA, Shpilberg O, et al. Superior outcomes associated with complete response in newly diagnosed multiple myelomapatients treated with nonintensive therapy: analysis of the phase 3 VISTA study of bortezomib plus melphalan–prednisone versus melphalan–prednisone. Blood. 2010;116:3743–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mateos MV, Oriol A, Martínez-López J, Teruel AI, Bengoechea E, Palomera L, et al. Outcomes with two different schedules of bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) for previously untreated multiple myeloma: matched pair analysis using long-term follow-up data from the phase 3 VISTA and PETHEMA/GEM05 trials. Ann Hematol. 2016;95:2033–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maruyama D, Iida S, Ogawa G, Kusumoto S, Fukuhara S, Fukuhara N, et al. Randomized phase II study to optimize melphalan, prednisolone and bortezomib in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM): Japan Clinical Oncology Group study (JCOG1105). EHA. 2018;PF572.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moreau P, Avet-Loiseau H, Facon T, Attal M, Tiab M, Hulin C, et al. Bortezomib plus dexamethasone versus reduced-dose bortezomib, thalidomide plus dexamethasone as induction treatment before autologous stem cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood. 2011;118:5752–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moreau P, Pylypenko H, Grosicki S, Karamanesht I, Leleu X, Grishunina M, et al. Subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of bortezomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma: a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority study. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:431–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moreau P, Attal M, Pégourié B, Planche L, Hulin C, Facon T, et al. Achievement of VGPR to induction therapy is an important prognostic factor for longer PFS in the IFM 2005-01 trial. Blood. 2011;117:3041–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McCarthy PL, Holstein SA, Petrucci MT, Richardson PG, Hulin C, Tosi P, et al. Lenalidomide maintenance after autologous stem-cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:3279–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Hematology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kazuhito Suzuki
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Nobuhiro Tsukada
    • 3
  • Noriko Nishimura
    • 4
  • Yasuyuki Nagata
    • 5
  • Kiyoshi Okazuka
    • 3
  • Yuko Mishima
    • 4
  • Masahiro Yokoyama
    • 4
  • Kaichi Nishiwaki
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tadao Ishida
    • 3
  • Shingo Yano
    • 2
  • Yasuhito Terui
    • 4
  • Kenshi Suzuki
    • 3
  1. 1.Division of Clinical Oncology/Hematology, Department of Internal MedicineThe Jikei University Kashiwa HospitalKashiwa-shiJapan
  2. 2.Division of Clinical Oncology/Hematology, Department of Internal MedicineThe Jikei University School of MedicineTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Department of HematologyJapanese Red Cross Medical CenterTokyoJapan
  4. 4.Department of Hematology OncologyThe Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer ResearchTokyoJapan
  5. 5.Division of Hematology, Internal Medicine 3Hamamatsu University School of MedicineHamamatsuJapan

Personalised recommendations