Best Practices in the Management of Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients Who Will Not Undergo Transplant

March 16, 2010

No survival advantage of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has been documented for patients older than 65 years, and in the era of thalidomide (Thalomid), bortezomib (Velcade), and len­alidomide (Revlimid), ASCT has a diminished role in the front-line treatment of older patients with myeloma.

No survival advantage of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has been documented for patients older than 65 years, and in the era of thalidomide (Thalomid), bortezomib (Velcade), and len­alidomide (Revlimid), ASCT has a diminished role in the front-line treatment of older patients with myeloma. For these individuals and for those who cannot or choose not to undergo ASCT, the initial treatment regimens now recommended by both the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the International Myeloma Working Group are melphalan (Alkeran)/prednisone/thalidomide (MPT), bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone (VMP), and lenalidomide/low-dose dexamethasone. Melphalan/prednisone should no longer be considered the reference treatment, although it may be appropriate for a small number of patients with serious comorbidity and/or poor performance status. Advantages of VMP over MPT include rapid response, high rates of complete response, patient compliance, and more extensive evidence of efficacy in patients with certain cytogenetic abnormalities. Lenalidomide/low-dose dexamethasone is particularly appropriate for patients with preexisting neurotoxicity and those who wish to postpone ASCT. Toxicity profiles differ among the newly established and emerging regimens, and oncology teams must take care to apply the appropriate risk management measures, including dose reduction where necessary.

Supported by an educational grant from Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Multiple myeloma is predominantly a disease of the elderly. In the United States, two-thirds of patients are ≥ 65 years old at diagnosis and 85% of all patients are ≥ 55 years old.[1] Recent studies have documented improved survival of myeloma patients, but mainly in younger patients.[2-4] In the United States, the 5-year survival rate for patients diagnosed at ≥ 65 years old is still unacceptably low: 27%, compared with 49% for patients diagnosed at younger ages.[1]

Fortunately, the range of treatment options for older patients has expanded in recent years. This is due to the changing definition of who qualify as “elderly”; the introduction of the novel agents thalidomide (Thalomid), bortezomib (Velcade), and lenalidomide (Revlimid); and the continued safety optimization of high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). New guidelines from the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) recommend reduced dose intensity ASCT for patients 65 to 70 years of age.[5] National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines do not specify an age limit for ASCT in myeloma patients,[6] and patients as old as 80 have participated in trials and institutional protocols of ASCT in the United States. Even so, no survival advantage of ASCT has been documented for patients > 65 years old. Particularly now that thalidomide, bortezomib, and lenalidomide are available, ASCT has a diminished role in the front-line treatment of older patients with myeloma.

TABLE 1

Front-Line Therapies for Patients With Multiple Myeloma Who Will Not Undergo Transplantation

It is well established that chronologic age alone is not reliable in estimating life expectancy, functional reserve, or the risk of complications from cancer chemotherapy. The NCCN guidelines on treating older adults with cancer recommend using Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment tools to assess the patient’s likely tolerance of treatment by formally assessing comorbidities, functional status, geriatric syndromes, polypharmacy, nutrition, socioeconomic status, and personal preferences, in addition to life expectancy.[7] Of these, functional status is perhaps the most important. In elderly persons, dysfunction in instrumental activities of daily living is independently predictive of death, and functional measures contribute prognostic information that is independent of that obtained by evaluating comorbidity.[8,9]

Once a patient with previously untreated myeloma is deemed ineligible or chooses not to undergo ASCT, a number of treatment options are available. The purpose of this review is to compare safety and efficacy data on the standards of care (Table 1)[5,6] as well as several emerging regimens.

Regimens Incorporating Newer Agents

Thalidomide/Dexamethasone

TABLE 2

Clinical Trial Data on Newer Front-Line Therapies for Multiple Myeloma Patients Who Will Not Undergo Transplantation

For patients unable or unwilling to undergo early ASCT, thalidomide plus dexamethasone (thal/dex) has been compared with dexamethasone monotherapy and with melphalan (Alkeran)/prednisone (MP). When compared with dexamethasone alone, thal/dex resulted in significantly higher response rates (Table 2),[10-19] but grade ≥ 3 adverse events were more common.[10] In the comparison with MP, grade 3/4 toxicity was greater with thal/dex and overall survival (OS) was significantly shorter (Table 2).[11]

The NCCN lists thal/dex among the options for front-line treatment of transplant-ineligible myeloma, although not with its highest level of evidence or consensus (Table 1). The IMWG recommends against using thal/dex as standard therapy for elderly patients ineligible for ASCT, especially at higher doses, mainly due to its major toxicities of peripheral neuropathy (PN) and sedation.[5]

MP + Thalidomide

Three published phase III trials have investigated MP + thalidomide (MPT) regimens of various dose and duration as initial therapy for myeloma (Table 2). All of them have demonstrated improved response rates with MPT compared with MP, but not necessarily improved OS rates.

The first of these, by the Italian Multiple Myeloma Study Group (GIMEMA), found that adding thalidomide to MP significantly improved the complete response (CR) rate and overall response rate (ORR; defined here as at least partial response [PR]) in patients 60 to 85 years old (Table 2).[13] However, there was no significant advantage with respect to OS after a median follow-up of 38 months (Table 2). Survival from progression or relapse was significantly better in patients who received MP at diagnosis and then received thalidomide- or bortezomib-based salvage therapy, compared with those who received MPT initially.[13] Rates of selected grade 3/4 adverse events with MPT in this and the other studies discussed in this article are given in Table 2.

The IFM (Intergroupe Francophone du Mylome) 99-06 trial, on the other hand, showed that MPT significantly extended survival for older patients (65–75 years of age) with previously untreated multiple myeloma.[14] The MPT regimen was better than MP in terms of CR and OS (Table 2) as well as progression-free survival (PFS). Median follow-up (51.5 months) was substantially longer than that in the Italian study discussed above,[13] and other differences included patient age (no patient older than 75 vs 25% patients of advanced age in the Italian study), number of MP cycles (12 vs 6), thalidomide dose (up to 400 mg/d vs 100 mg/d), and use of maintenance thalidomide in the Italian study. At the time of first relapse, about 15% of patients were unable to receive salvage therapy; as the investigators noted, this strongly suggests that optimum front-line treatment is of major importance in elderly patients with myeloma.

In the more recent IFM 01/01 trial, limited to patients ≥ 75 years of age, MPT as initial therapy again significantly prolonged OS and PFS compared with MP.[15] At the time of relapse, 81% of patients in the MP group and 53% of those in the MPT group received thalidomide, bortezomib, and/or lenalidomide, and survival time after progression was similar in the two groups. Again, as the researchers note, this finding emphasizes the need for the best possible front-line treatment in elderly patients.

MP + Bortezomib

The major investigation of MP + bortezomib (VMP) for myeloma patients not undergoing ASCT was VISTA (Velcade as Initial Standard Therapy in Multiple Myeloma: Assessment with Melphalan and Prednisone).[16] This phase III trial enrolled patients who were ineligible for ASCT due to age ≥ 65 years or coexisting conditions. The trial was stopped by monitoring committee recommendation after the third interim analysis (at median follow-up of 16 months), which determined that VMP was superior to MP across all prespecified efficacy endpoints: time to progression (TTP) (the primary endpoint), CR, ORR, time to subsequent therapy, and OS (Table 2). Time to response was 1.4 months vs 4.2 months with MP.

Longer follow-up (26 months) confirmed that VMP was superior for all efficacy endpoints.[20] Median OS was not reached in either arm; the 3-year OS rate was 72% for VMP and 59% for MP. Overall survival was not affected by renal impairment at baseline or by the prognostically adverse cytogenetic abnormalities t(4;14), t(14;16), or del(17p). Initial treatment with VMP did not preclude successful use of thalidomide- or lenalidomide-based therapy at relapse, or successful retreatment with bortezomib. In a recent update to the VISTA trial which further extended these observations after a median follow-up of 36.7 months, a 35% reduction of risk of death with VMP vs MP (hazard ratio [HR] 0.653, P = .0008) was reported.[21] Based on these findings, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a supplemental new drug application (SNDA) for bortezomib, which expands the label to include these long-term overall survival data and provides specific dosing recommendations for patients with hepatic impairment.[22]

The VISTA investigators determined that quality of response improves with prolonged VMP treatment.[23] Median times to first response, best response, and CR were 1.4, 2.3, and 4.2 months, respectively, vs 4.2, 4.9, and 5.3 months with MP. Prolonged therapy also maximized CR achievement with VMP in that 28% of CRs as best response occurred during cycles 5 to 9. Compared with PR or very good partial response (VGPR), CR was associated with significantly longer TTP, as well as a significantly longer treatment-free interval-a measure of clinical benefit that is important to many patients.

Most recently, the VISTA investigators reported reassuring data about PN, which was grade 3 in 13% of patients and grade 4 in < 1%.[24] Overall, 79% of all events improved by ≥ 1 grade within a median of 2 months, including 60% that completely resolved within a median of 6 months. The only baseline factor associated with worsening of PN was preexisting ≥ grade 1 PN.

No head-to-head study has compared MPT and VMP, but a recent meta-analysis of the phase III studies determined that better response rates could be expected with VMP than with MPT.[25] In comparing data on MP, MPT, and VMP, Yeh and colleagues calculated an 81% probability that VMP was the most efficacious in terms of ORR and > 99% probability that VMP was the most efficacious in terms of CR. The investigators estimated that a patient was twice as likely to achieve CR with VMP than with MPT. The VMP and MPT regimens were similar with regard to OS and PFS.

Noting that it remains to be seen whether an alkylating agent or an immunomodulatory drug is the optimal partner for bortezomib, the Spanish PETHEMA/GEM group is conducting a phase III trial comparing VMP with bortezomib/thalidomide/prednisone (VTP) in patients > 65 years of age.[17] In this study VMP is being modified: patients receive only six cycles and bortezomib is given on a weekly schedule after cycle 1. Patients in the VTP arm receive the same bortezomib and prednisone regimen as patients in the VMP arm, but instead of melphalan, they receive continuous thalidomide at 100 mg/d. On initial analysis, no significant differences between arms were observed with respect to the primary endpoint, ORR, or the CR rate (Table 2).

Lenalidomide/Low-Dose Dexamethasone

As with thalidomide, the initial approach to using lenalidomide in the treatment of newly diagnosed patients was to pair it with dexamethasone. In a phase II trial, lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rev/dex) induced responses in 91% of 34 patients, including CR in 6%, similar to response to thal/dex.[26] This trial was not limited to transplant-ineligible patients, and a more recent analysis distinguishes between the 13 patients who discontinued Rev/dex to proceed to ASCT and the 21 who continued on Rev/dex for a median of 19 cycles.[27] (The latter group included two patients who died before a decision about ASCT could be made.) As in the overall cohort, the depth of remission in the no-transplant group improved over time. After four cycles of therapy, 44% of the entire cohort had at least VGPR; over time, that rate improved to 56% for the entire cohort and 67% for the no-transplant group.

TABLE 3

Guidance for Using Front-Line Therapies in Multiple Myeloma Patients Who Will Not Undergo Transplantation

The most common grade 3/4 nonhematologic toxicities with Rev/dex were fatigue (15%), muscle weakness (6%), anxiety (6%), pneumonitis (6%), and rash (6%). These toxicities were similar to those noted in the dexamethasone-only arm of a phase III trial that evaluated thal/dex as pretransplant induction therapy.[28] Concerned that high-dose dexamethasone might be greatly contributing to the toxicity of Rev/dex, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) initiated the phase III E4A03 trial to compare lenalidomide plus standard high-dose pulse dexamethasone (RD) against lenalidomide plus low-dose weekly dexamethasone (Rd).[19,29] This trial was not limited to transplant-ineligible patients.

In the primary analysis of response and safety after four cycles, neither the CR rate nor the ORR was significantly better with Rd than with RD (Table 2).[19] However, among patients > 65 years of age, the probability of survival in the Rd group was significantly greater than that in the RD group at both 1 and 2 years.[29] Moreover, in the entire cohort, the lower dexamethasone dose was associated with substantially less deep-vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism, infection/pneumonia, any grade ≥ 3 nonhematologic toxicity, any grade 4/5 toxicity, and risk of death within 4 months.[19]

The ECOG investigators performed a landmark analysis of 142 patients in the E4A03 trial, median age 66 years, who did not undergo ASCT and continued on Rd for more than four cycles.[19] Continued Rd was highly active in these patients (Table 2). In fact, the 2-year OS rate was comparable with that of the original intent-to-treat population that received Rd and with that of the patients who received RD or Rd for four cycles before proceeding to ASCT.

Table 3[5,10,13,15,16,24,26,29-48] provides guidance for using standard anti-myeloma regimens in the nontransplant setting.

Emerging Induction Therapies

MP + Lenalidomide

In a phase I/II trial by GIMEMA that involved newly diagnosed patients ≥ 65 years, MP + lenalidomide (MPR) resulted in a CR rate of 24% and an ORR of 81%.[47] On exploratory analyses, VGPR or better was linked to significantly better 1-year event-free survival (EFS), and MPR overcame the adverse prognostic effects of del(13) or t(4;14). Myelosuppression with MPR was greater than the rates in most of the phase III studies of MPT. At the maximum tolerated dose of MPR, grade 3/4 neutropenia was detected in 52% of patients, thrombocytopenia in 24%, and anemia in 5%. Peripheral neuropathy did not occur, and the investigators suggest that a lenalidomide-containing regimen may be indicated for patients with preexisting PN.

Based on a subsequent analysis of cytopenia data, the investigators suspect that cytotoxic bone marrow injury with MPR is related to melphalan.[49] They recommend a lower number of MPR cycles or a lower dose of melphalan for patients who experience neutropenia or thrombocytopenia, especially those aged ≥ 75 years and those with previous prolonged exposure to cytotoxic agents.

In another phase I/II trial of MPR as initial myeloma therapy, adults of any age were eligible if they were not candidates for ASCT or declined it; the median age was 74 years.[48] The MPR regimen showed substantial activity (CR 12%, ORR 69%) and had a manageable toxicity profile. The most common grade 3/4 toxicities were neutropenia (58% of patients) and thrombocytopenia (27%). No patient developed PN or thromboembolic complications.

A phase III trial has been evaluating 459 patients, ≥ 65 years of age, with newly diagnosed myeloma who were randomly assigned to MPR followed by lenalidomide maintenance, MPR followed by placebo maintenance, or MP followed by placebo maintenance.[50] At a preplanned interim analysis with 50% of information available, the data monitoring committee detected a highly statistically significant improvement in PFS, the primary endpoint, for patients treated with MPR + lenalidomide maintenance compared with those who received MP. There was no significant different in PFS between the group that received MPR + placebo maintenance and the group that received MP.

Clarithromycin/Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone

Our group is investigating the combination of clarithromycin (Biaxin, 500 mg twice daily), lenalidomide, and low-dose dexamethasone (BiRD) for front-line treatment of myeloma. Clarithromycin has immunomodulatory properties[51] and it may also have a direct antineoplastic effect,[51,52] which suggested to us that BiRD would have excellent efficacy despite the lower corticosteroid dose.

A phase II trial of BiRD involved 72 patients (median 63 years). After a mean time on treatment of 368 days, 31% had achieved stringent CR.[53] An additional 8% achieved CR, and the ORR was 90%. A subset of patients developed atypical serum immunofixation patterns that were correlated with a remarkable 100% ORR and a 71% CR rate.[54] The major grade 3 or higher toxicities were cytopenias, thromboembolic events, myopathy, rash, and diverticular abscess. More than 70% of patients on BiRD who did not undergo ASCT achieved greater than VGPR. Their baseline characteristics did not differ from the overall study population; however, their older age and comorbidities led them to decline high-dose chemotherapy.[53]

The responses with BiRD were durable after 48 months of follow-up, with 46% of patients alive and in CR.[55] The 4-year OS rate was 93%. Median PFS and OS were not reached. The median EFS was 40.5 months and the 3-year EFS rate was 59%. Intriguingly, no survival advantage was found for patients who chose to go on to consolidative ASCT compared with those who stayed on BiRD therapy. Like some of the other newest combinations, BiRD is charting new territory in terms of depth and quality of response.

Data from a case-matched study confirm that adding clarithromycin to Rd has significant benefit.[56] We matched the 72 patients, based on age, gender, and transplant status, with Mayo Clinic patients who had received Rd. Rates of CR were 46% with BiRD vs 14% with Rd (P < .001), and at least VGPR occurred in 74% vs 33% of patients (P < .001). BiRD was also significantly superior with regard to PFS and time to next treatment. The principal grade 3/4 toxicities of BiRD were hematologic, especially thrombocytopenia (24% vs 8% with Rd, P = .0012). Rates of neutropenia, infection, dermatologic toxicity, and venous thromboembolism were similar in the two groups. These differences are compelling but are yet to be confirmed by a randomized study.

Lenalidomide/Bortezomib/Dexamethasone

Another alkylator-free regimen showing promise for newly diagnosed myeloma is lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (RVD). Thirty-five patients (median age 59 years; range 22–86 years) were evaluable for both efficacy and safety in the phase II portion of a phase I/II study.[57] After four cycles of therapy (n = 31), the ORR was 78%, with 12% of patients achieving CR/near-CR (nCR) and 12% achieving at least VGPR. Among the 24 patients without CR at cycle 4, response improved between cycles 4 and 8 in 16 (67%) patients and the ORR was 100%, with 33% and 67% achieving CR/nCR or at least VGPR, respectively. After median follow-up of 19.3 months, median TTP, PFS, and OS were not reached; estimated 1-year TTP and PFS were 76%, and estimated 1-year OS was 100%. Deep-vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism occurred in 6%; there was no PN of at least grade 3 or treatment-related mortality.\

A Word About Maintenance

As reported above, phase III data suggest that MPR is superior to MP only when followed by lenalidomide maintenance.[50] In another phase III study, 511 patients > 65 years were randomly assigned to receive bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone/thalidomide (VMPT) followed by maintenance with bortezomib and thalidomide, or to VMP without maintenance.[58] Initially, patients received nine 6-week cycles of either regimen; the protocol was later changed to nine 5-week cycles with weekly bortezomib in all cycles. VMPT plus maintenance was superior with regard to response rates (CR, 34% vs 21%, P < .001; at least VGPR, 55% vs 47%, P = .07) and the primary endpoint, PFS (at 2 years, 70% vs 58%, P = .008). The change from twice-weekly to weekly bortezomib significantly decreased the incidence of grade 3/4 PN in both treatment arms without affecting CR rates or 2-year PFS, and of course, weekly bortezomib will give better dose intensity. This is the first report showing the superiority of a four-drug combination followed by maintenance compared with the most recent standard therapy, VMP.

Conclusions

For myeloma patients who are elderly or have significant comorbidities, the traditional purpose of treatment was palliation. But it is now reasonable to set a goal of achieving CR or nCR. Three highly active, newer combinations-MPT, VMP, and Rd-are recommended by the NCCN and the IMWG: Melphalan/prednisone should no longer be considered the reference treatment, although it may be appropriate for a small number of patients with serious comorbidity and/or poor performance status.

Both MPT and VMP have been demonstrated to have superior efficacy compared with MP. Advantages of VMP over MPT include more rapid response and higher rates of CR, which is associated with improved survival in the nontransplant setting.[59,60] Results of VISTA also support use of VMP in patients with high-risk cytogenetics and/or impaired renal function. The IMWG guidelines suggest considering Rd for patients who wish to postpone ASCT.[5]

Data from phase II trials suggest high efficacy rates for MPR, BiRD, and RVD, among other emerging regimens. Toxicity profiles differ among the newly established and emerging regimens, and oncology teams must take care to apply the appropriate risk management measures, including dose reduction where necessary. Additional prospective studies are needed to assess the optimal dosages and combinations in transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma.

Acknowledgements: The authors thank medical writer Faith Reidenbach for assistance with drafting the manuscript.

Address all correspondence to: Ruben Niesvizky, MD Weill Cornell Medical College 520 East 70th St Starr 341 New York, NY 10021 e-mail: run9001@med.cornell.edu

References:

References
1. Horner MJ, Ries LAG, Krapcho M, et al: SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2006, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD. Based on November 2008 SEER submission data, posted to the SEER website 2009. Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2006. Accessed January 22, 2010.
2. Kristinsson SY, Landgren O, Dickman PW, et al: Patterns of survival in multiple myeloma: a population-based study of patients diagnosed in Sweden from 1973 to 2003. J Clin Oncol 25:1993-1999, 2007.
3. Kumar SK, Rajkumar SV, Dispenzieri A, et al: Improved survival in multiple myeloma and the impact of novel therapies. Blood 111:2516-2520, 2008.
4. Brenner H, Gondos A, Pulte D: Recent major improvement in long-term survival of younger patients with multiple myeloma. Blood 111:2521-2526, 2008.
5. Palumbo A, Sezer O, Kyle R, et al: International Myeloma Working Group guidelines for the management of multiple myeloma patients ineligible for standard high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation. Leukemia 23:1716-1730, 2009.
6. National Comprehensive Cancer Network: NCCN Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Multiple Myeloma. Version 2.2010. July 1, 2009. Available at: http://www.nccn.org. Accessed January 22, 2010.
7. National Comprehensive Cancer Network: NCCN Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Senior Adult Oncology. Version 1.2009. January 2, 2009. Available at: http://www.nccn.org. Accessed January 22, 2010.
8. Reuben DB, Rubenstein LV, Hirsch SH, et al: Value of functional status as a predictor of mortality: Results of a prospective study. Am J Med 93:663-669, 1992.
9. Extermann M, Overcash J, Lyman GH, et al: Comorbidity and functional status are independent in older cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 16:1582-1587, 1998.
10. Rajkumar SV, Rosinol L, Hussein M, et al: Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of thalidomide plus dexamethasone compared with dexamethasone as initial therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 26:2171-2177, 2008.
11. Ludwig H, Hajek R, Tothova E, et al: Thalidomide-dexamethasone compared with melphalan-prednisolone in elderly patients with multiple myeloma. Blood 113:3435-3442, 2009.
12. Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Caravita T, et al: Italian Multiple Myeloma Network, GIMEMA: Oral melphalan and prednisone chemotherapy plus thalidomide compared with melphalan and prednisone alone in elderly patients with multiple myeloma: Randomised controlled trial. Lancet 367:825-831, 2006.
13. Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Liberati AM, et al: Oral melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide in elderly patients with multiple myeloma: Updated results of a randomized controlled trial. Blood 112:3107-3114, 2008.
14. Facon T, Mary JY, Hulin C, et al; Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome: Melphalan and prednisone plus thalidomide versus melphalan and prednisone alone or reduced-intensity autologous stem cell transplantation in elderly patients with multiple myeloma (IFM 99-06): A randomised trial. Lancet 370:1209-1218, 2007.
15. Hulin C, Facon T, Rodon P, et al: Efficacy of melphalan and prednisone plus thalidomide in patients older than 75 years with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: IFM 01/01 trial. J Clin Oncol 27:3664-3670, 2009.
16. San Miguel JF, Schlag R, Khuageva NK, et al: VISTA Trial Investigators: Bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone for initial treatment of multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 359:906-917, 2008.
17. Mateos M-V, Oriol A, Martínez J, et al: Bortezomib (Velcade)/melphalan/prednisone versus Velcade/thalidomide/prednisone in elderly (abstract A154). Clin Lymphoma Myeloma 9(suppl 1):S25, 2009.
18. Mateos V, Oriol A, Martinez J, et al: A prospective, multicenter, randomized, trial of bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone (VMP) versus bortezomib/thalidomide/prednisone (VTP) as induction therapy followed by maintenance treatment with bortezomib/thalidomide (VT) versus bortezomib/prednisone (VP) in elderly untreated patients with multiple myeloma older than 65 years (abstract 3). Blood 114:3, 2009.
19. Rajkumar SV, Jacobus S, Callander N, et al: Randomized trial of lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone versus lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in newly diagnosed myeloma (E4A03), a trial coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: analysis of response, survival, and outcome with primary therapy and with stem cell transplantation (abstract 8504). J Clin Oncol 26(May 20 suppl):2008.
20. San Miguel JF, Schlag R, Khuageva NK, et al: Updated follow-up and results of subsequent therapy in the phase III VISTA trial: bortezomib plus melphalan-prednisone versus melphalan-prednisone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (abstract 650). Blood 112:650, 2008.
21. Mateos MV, Richarson PG, Schlag R, et al: Bortezomib plus melphalan-prednisone continues to demonstrate a survival benefit vs melphalan-prednisone in the phase III VISTA Trial in previously untreated multiple myeloma after 3 year follow-up and extensive subsequent therapy use (abstract 3859). Blood 114:2009.
22. Business Wire news release: FDA approves addition of sustained overall survival benefit to label for VELCADE® (bortezomib) for injection for patients with previously untreated multiple myeloma. Available at: http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmviewID=news_view&newsId=20100104006176&newslang=en. Accessed February 15, 2010.
23. Harousseau JL, Niesvizky R, Palumbo A, et al: A prolonged therapy improves quality of response, and CR associated with superior outcomes, with VMP (abstract A235). Clin Lymphoma Myeloma 9(suppl 1):S40, 2009.
24. Mateos MV, Richardson PG, Schlag R: Peripheral neuropathy with VMP resolves in the majority of patients and shows a rate plateau (abstract A172). Clin Lymphoma Myeloma 9(suppl 1):S30, 2009.
25. Yeh Y, Chambers J, Gaugris S, et al: Indirect comparison of the efficacy of melphalan-prednisone-bortezomib relative to melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide and melphalan-prednisone for the first line treatment of multiple myeloma (abstract 2367). Blood 112:2367, 2008.
26. Rajkumar SV, Hayman SR, Lacy MQ, et al: Combination therapy with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Rev/Dex) for newly diagnosed myeloma. Blood 106:4050-4053, 2005.
27. Lacy MQ, Gertz MA, Dispenzieri A, et al: Long-term results of response to therapy, time to progression, and survival with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone in newly diagnosed myeloma. Mayo Clin Proc 82:1179-1184, 2007.
28. Rajkumar SV, Blood E, Vesole D, et al: Phase III clinical trial of thalidomide plus dexamethasone compared with dexamethasone alone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: A clinical trial coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 24:431-436, 2006.
29. Rajkumar SV, Jacobus S, Callander N, et al: A randomized trial of lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone vs lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (E4A03): A trial coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (abstract 74). Blood 110:74, 2007.
30. Carlson K, Hjorth M, Knudsen LM: Toxicity in standard melphalan-prednisone therapy among myeloma patients with renal failure-A retrospective analysis and recommendations for dose adjustment. Br J Haematol 128:631-635, 2005.
31. Eriksson T, Hoglund P, Turesson I, et al: Pharmacokinetics of thalidomide in patients with impaired renal function and while on and off dialysis. J Pharm Pharmacol 55:1701-1706, 2003.
32. Harris E, Behrens J, Samson D, et al: Use of thalidomide in patients with myeloma and renal failure may be associated with unexplained hyperkalaemia. Br J Haematol 122:160-161, 2003.
33. Gentile M, Ciolli S, Petrucci MT, et al: Bortezomib based regimens in multiple myeloma patients with renal impairment: a preliminary retrospective Italian multicenter study (abstract 3681). Blood 112:3681, 2008.
34. Kastritis E, Anagnostopoulos A, Roussou M, et al: Reversibility of renal failure in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with high dose dexamethasone-containing regimens and the impact of novel agents. Haematologica 92:546-549, 2007.
35. Ludwig H, Adam Z, Hajek R, et al: Bortezomib-doxorubicin-dexamethasone for reversal of acute light chain induced renal failure in multiple myeloma: Results from a phase II study (abstract 3682). Blood 112:3682, 2008.
36. Dimopoulos MA, Richardson P, Schlag R, et al: Bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients with impaired renal function: Cohort analysis of the phase III VISTA study (abstract 1727). Blood 112:1727, 2008.
37. Roussou M, Kastritis E, Migkou M, et al: Treatment of patients with multiple myeloma complicated by renal failure with bortezomib-based regimens. Leuk Lymphoma 49:890-895, 2008.
38. Chen N, Lau H, Kong L, et al: Pharmacokinetics of lenalidomide in subjects with various degrees of renal impairment and in subjects on hemodialysis. J Clin Pharmacol 47:1466-1475, 2007.
39. Revlimid [package insert]: Summit, NJ: Celgene Corporation; 2009.
40. Niesvizky R, Naib T, Christos PJ, et al: Lenalidomide-induced myelosuppression is associated with renal dysfunction: Adverse events evaluation of treatment-naive patients undergoing front-line lenalidomide and dexamethasone therapy. Br J Haematol 138:640-643, 2007.
41. Batts ED, Sanchorawala V, Hegerfeldt Y, et al: Azotemia associated with use of lenalidomide in plasma cell dyscrasias. Leuk Lymphoma 49:1108-1115, 2008.
42. Palumbo A, Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, et al; International Myeloma working Group: Prevention of thalidomide- and lenalidomide-associated thrombosis in myeloma. Leukemia 22:414-423, 2008.
43. Lonial S, Richardson PG, San Miguel J, et al: Characterisation of haematological profiles and low risk of thromboembolic events with bortezomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 143:222-229, 2008.
44. Jagannath S: Treatment of patients with myeloma with comorbid conditions: Considerations for the clinician. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma 8(suppl 4):S149-S156, 2008.
45. Velcade [package insert]: Cambridge, MA: Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc; 2008.
46. Palumbo AP, Bringhen S, Rossi D, et al: A phase III study of VMPT versus VMP in newly diagnosed elderly myeloma patients (abstract 8515). J Clin Oncol 27(15s):2009.
47. Palumbo A, Falco P, Corradini P, et al: GIMEMA Italian Multiple Myeloma Network: Melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide treatment for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a report from the GIMEMA-Italian Multiple Myeloma Network. J Clin Oncol 25:4459-4465, 2007.
48. Roy V, Stewart AK, Bergsagel PL, et al: Phase II study of melphalan, prednisone and lenalidomide combination for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who are not candidates for stem cell transplantation (abstract 2769). Blood 112:2769, 2008.
49. Palumbo A, Falco P, Falcone A, et al: Melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide for newly diagnosed myeloma: Kinetics of neutropenia and thrombocytopenia and time-to-event results. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma 9:145-150, 2009.
50. Palumbo A , Dimopoulos MA, Delforge M, et al: A phase III study to determine the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide in combination with melphalan and prednisone (MPR) in elderly patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (abstract 613). Blood 114:253-254, 2009.
51. Ohara T, Morishita T, Suzuki H, et al: Antibiotics directly induce apoptosis in B cell lymphoma cells derived from BALB/c mice. Anticancer Res 24:3723-3730, 2004.
52. Nakamura M, Kamimoto T, Yoshimori T, et al: Clarithromicin induces autophagy in myeloma cells (abstract 3609). Blood 108:3609, 2006.
53. Niesvizky R, Jayabalan DS, Christos PJ, et al: BiRD (Biaxin [clarithromycin]/Revlimid [lenalidomide]/dexamethasone) combination therapy results in high complete- and overall-response rates in treatment-naive symptomatic multiple myeloma. Blood 111:1101-1109, 2008.
54. Mark T, Jayabalan D, Coleman M, et al: Atypical serum immunofixation patterns frequently emerge in immunomodulatory therapy and are associated with a high degree of response in multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 143:654-660, 2008.
55. Mark TM, Coleman M, Jayabalan D, et al: Extended follow-up results of BiRD therapy: Prolonged responses achieved (abstract A609). Clin Lymphoma Myeloma 9(suppl 1):S89, 2009.
56. Gay F, Rajkumar SV, Jayabalan DS, et al: Superiority of clarithromycin (Biaxin)-lenalidomide-low-dose dexamethasone (BiRd) versus lenalidomide-low-dose dexamethasone as initial therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (abstract 2868). Blood 114:1119-1120, 2009.
57. Richardson P, Lonial S, Jakubowiak A, et al: High response rates and encouraging time-to-event data with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: final results of a phase I/II study (abstract 1218). Blood 114:501-502, 2009.
58. Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Rossi D, et al: Bortezomib, melphalan, prednisone and thalidomide (VMPT) followed by maintenance with bortezomib and thalidomide for initial treatment of elderly multiple myeloma patients (abstract 128). Blood 114:128, 2009.
59. Kyle RA, Leong T, Li S, et al: Complete response in multiple myeloma: Clinical trial E9486, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study not involving stem cell transplantation. Cancer 106:1958-1966, 2006.
60. Harousseau J-L, Palumbo A, Richardson P, et al: Superior outcomes associated with complete response: Analysis of the phase III VISTA study of bortezomib plus melphalan-prednisone versus melphalan-prednisone (abstract 2778). Blood 112:2778, 2008.