| 1. |
- Hjorth, Martin, et al.
(författare)
-
Thalidomide and dexamethasone vs. bortezomib and dexamethasone for melphalan refractory myeloma: a randomized study.
- 2012
-
Ingår i: European journal of haematology. - : Wiley. - 0902-4441 .- 1600-0609. ; 88:6, s. 485-496
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Objectives: Thalidomide and bortezomib have been frequently used for second-line therapy in patients with myeloma relapsing after or refractory to initial melphalan-based treatment, but no randomized trials have been published comparing these two treatment alternatives. Methods: Thalidomide- and bortezomib-naïve patients with melphalan refractory myeloma were randomly assigned to low-dose thalidomide + dexamethasone (Thal-Dex) or bortezomib + dexamethasone (Bort-Dex). At progression on either therapy, the patients were offered crossover to the alternative drug combination. An estimated 300 patients would be needed for the trial to detect a 50% difference in median PFS between the treatment arms. Results: After inclusion of 131 patients, the trial was prematurely closed because of low accrual. Sixty-seven patients were randomized to Thal-Dex and 64 to Bort-Dex. Progression-free survival was similar (median, 9.0 months for Thal-Dex and 7.2 for Bort-Dex). Response rate was similar (55% for Thal-Dex and 63% for Bort-Dex), but time to response was shorter (P < 0.05) and the VGPR rate higher (P < 0.01) for Bort-Dex. Time-to-other treatment after crossover was similar (median, 13.2 months for Thal-Dex and 11.2 months for Bort-Dex), as was overall survival (22.8 months for Thal-Dex and 19.0 for Bort-Dex). Venous thromboembolism was seen in seven patients and cerebrovascular events in four patients in the Thal-Dex group. Severe neuropathy, reactivation of herpes virus infections, and mental depression were more frequently observed in the Bort-Dex group. In the quality-of-life analysis, no difference was noted for physical function, pain, and global quality of life. Fatigue and sleep disturbances were significantly more prevalent in the Bort-Dex group. Conclusions: Thalidomide (50–100 mg daily) in combination with dexamethasone seems to have an efficacy comparable with that of bortezomib and dexamethasone in melphalan refractory myeloma. However, the statistical strength of the results in this study is limited by the low number of included patients.
|
|
| 2. |
- Lund, Johan, et al.
(författare)
-
Lenalidomide versus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone prolonged treatment after second-line lenalidomide plus dexamethasone induction in multiple myeloma
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Cancer Medicine. - : WILEY. - 2045-7634. ; 7:6, s. 2256-2268
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Lenalidomide (Len) plus dexamethasone (Dex) is approved for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). It is possible that single-agent Len may be effective as prolonged treatment regimen in RRMM once patients demonstrate an initial response to Len+Dex induction. Patients with RRMM who responded to first-line Len+Dex in an observational study (NCT01430546) received up to 24 cycles of either Len (25mg/day) or Len+Dex (25mg/day and 40mg/week) as prolonged treatment in a subsequent phase 2 clinical trial (NCT01450215). In the observational study (N = 133), median time to response was 1.7 (range 0.6-9.6) months. A complete response to all treatments received in both studies was observed in 11% of patients; very good partial response and partial response rates were 31% and 38%, respectively. Corresponding response rates in the subgroup of patients who did not enter the phase 2 trial (n = 71) were 3%, 18%, and 39%, respectively. Rates of disease progression at 2years in the phase 2 trial were 47% versus 31% for Len versus Len+Dex (P = 0.14). After 36months median follow-up in surviving patients, median time to progression was not reached with Len+Dex and was 24.9months (95% confidence interval 12.5-not calculable, P amp;lt; 0.001) with Len. Three-year OS among the total observational study population was 61% (95% CI, 52-69%). The corresponding rate among patients who entered the phase 2 clinical trial was 73% (95% CI, 60-83%) and was significantly lower among those patients who achieved PR but did not proceed into the phase 2 trial (55%; P = 0.01). In the phase 2 trial, OS was 73% in both treatment arms (P = 0.70). Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were more common with prolonged (phase 2 trial) versus short-term (observational study) Len administration but remained manageable. Prolonged treatment with Len with or without Dex provides sustained, clinically relevant responses and demonstrates an acceptable safety profile.
|
|
