VCD) Versus Bortezomib, Doxorubicin and Dexamethasone (Pad) in Newly Diagnosed Myeloma
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Leukemia (2015) 29, 1721–1729 © 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited All rights reserved 0887-6924/15 www.nature.com/leu ORIGINAL ARTICLE Phase III trial of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (VCD) versus bortezomib, doxorubicin and dexamethasone (PAd) in newly diagnosed myeloma EK Mai1, U Bertsch1, J Dürig2, C Kunz3, M Haenel4, IW Blau5, M Munder6, A Jauch7, B Schurich8, T Hielscher3, M Merz9, B Huegle-Doerr1, A Seckinger1, D Hose1, J Hillengass9, MS Raab9, K Neben9, H-W Lindemann10, M Zeis11, C Gerecke12, IGH Schmidt-Wolf13, K Weisel14, C Scheid15, H Salwender16 and H Goldschmidt1 We aimed at demonstrating non-inferiority of bortezomib/cyclophosphamide/dexamethasone (VCD) compared to bortezomib/ doxorubicin/dexamethasone (PAd) induction therapy with respect to very good partial response rates or better (⩾ VGPR) in 504 newly diagnosed, transplant-eligible multiple myeloma patients. VCD was found to be non-inferior to PAd with respect to ⩾ VGPR rates (37.0 versus 34.3%, P = 0.001). The rates of progressive disease (PD) were 0.4% (VCD) versus 4.8% (PAd; P = 0.003). In the PAd arm, 11 of 12 patients with PD had either renal impairment (creatinine ⩾2 mg/dl) at diagnosis or the cytogenetic abnormality gain 1q21, whereas no PD was observed in these subgroups in the VCD arm. Leukocytopenia/neutropenia (⩾3°) occurred more frequently in the VCD arm (35.2% versus 11.3%, Po0.001). Neuropathy rates (⩾2°) were higher in the PAd group (14.9 versus 8.4%, P = 0.03). Serious adverse events, both overall and those related to thromboembolic events, were higher in the PAd group (32.7 versus 24.0%, P = 0.04 and 2.8 versus 0.4%, P = 0.04). Stem cell collection was not impeded by VCD. VCD is as effective as PAd in terms of achieving ⩾ VGPR rates with fewer PD and has a favorable toxicity profile. Therefore, VCD is preferable to PAd as induction therapy. Leukemia (2015) 29, 1721–1729; doi:10.1038/leu.2015.80 INTRODUCTION (GMMG, EudraCT No. 2010-019173-16) was designed to assess Induction therapy (IT) followed by high-dose melphalan (HDM) two independent primary end points: and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard of 1. Demonstration of non-inferiority of bortezomib/cyclopho- care for younger multiple myeloma (MM) patients.1–3 ITs provide a sphamide/dexamethasone (VCD) IT compared to bortezomib/ crucial foundation for modern multi-drug-based myeloma treat- doxorubicin/dexamethasone (PAd) IT with respect to response rates (very good partial response (VGPR) or better, ⩾ VGPR). ment approaches, progressively inducing high rates of deep 4–8 2. Determination of the best of four treatment strategies with responses, thereby leading to prolonged progression-free fi 3,9–12 respect to PFS. The treatment strategies are de ned by PAd or survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). VCD IT followed by standard intensification therapy (HDM+ASCT), Bortezomib/dexamethasone-based IT regimens are commonly lenalidomide consolidation and maintenance treatment with combined with either cytotoxic agents, such as doxorubicin6,7 or 5,13–16 4,17 either lenalidomide for 2 years or lenalidomide until complete cyclophosphamide, or immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs, response (CR) is achieved. thalidomide and lenalidomide). The superiority of bortezomib- Herein we report the results of the first primary end point of the containing regimens to ITs without novel agents has been MM5 trial. demonstrated in a number of phase III trials.4,7–9,13,17 Until now, however, there has been no reported randomized phase III trial comparing a bortezomib/dexamethasone-based IT, with either PATIENTS AND METHODS doxorubicin or cyclophosphamide. Eligibility criteria The open-label, randomized, multicenter phase III clinical trial The key inclusion criteria were patients 18–70 years of age with MM5 of the German-speaking Myeloma Multicenter Group newly diagnosed MM18 who require systemic chemotherapy based on 1Department of Internal Medicine V, University Hospital Heidelberg and National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg on behalf of the German-Speaking Myeloma Multicenter Group (GMMG), Heidelberg, Germany; 2Department of Hematology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; 3Division of Biostatistics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; 4Department of Internal Medicine III, Klinikum Chemnitz, Chemnitz, Germany; 5Medical Clinic, Charité University Medicine Berlin, Berlin, Germany; 6Department of Internal Medicine III, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany; 7Institute of Human Genetics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; 8Coordination Centers for Clinical Trials (KKS), University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; 9Department of Internal Medicine V, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; 10Department of Hematology and Oncology, Katholisches Krankenhaus Hagen, Hagen, Germany; 11Department of Hematology, Asklepios Hospital St. Georg Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany; 12Department of Hematology and Oncology, Helios Hospital Berlin Buch, Berlin, Germany; 13Center for Integrated Oncology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany; 14Department of Hematology, Oncology and Immunology, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany; 15Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Köln, Köln, Germany and 16Department of Hematology and Oncology, Asklepios Hospital Hamburg Altona, Hamburg, Germany. Correspondence: Professor Dr H Goldschmidt, Department of Internal Medicine V, University Hospital Heidelberg and National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany. E-mail: [email protected] Received 3 November 2014; revised 12 March 2015; accepted 16 March 2015; accepted article preview online 19 March 2015; advance online publication, 8 May 2015 VCD is favorable to PAd as induction therapy in myeloma EK Mai et al 1722 Newly diagnosed symptomatic MM 18-70 years of age A1 + B1 A2 + B2 3 x PAd 3 x VCD 1) 1) Stem cell mobilisation (CAD + G-CSF) + leukapheresis First ASCT (melphalan 200 mg/m2) Second ASCT (melphalan 200 mg/m2) (if no nCR/CR) 2 x Lenalidomide A1 B1 A2 B2 Lenalidomide Lenalidomide Lenalidomide Lenalidomide for 2 years if no CR for 2 years if no CR 1) High Risk Patients, optional in Phase II trial for auto-allo SCT Randomized (n = 504) ineligible: VCD n =1 PAd n = 1 ITT (n = 502) Patients not receiving PAd (n = 251) VCD (n = 251) Patients not receiving allocated intervention due allocated intervention due to: to: - myocardial infarction - non-compliance (n = 1) prior to therapy (n = 1) Received allocated Received allocated - withdrawal of consent - death (n = 1) intervention (n = 248) intervention (n = 249) (n = 2) randomized PAd and One patient was excluded treated VCD (n = 1) from ITT due to unconfirmed diagnosis of symptomatic MM (see above) but received VCD 3 cycles n = 234 3 cycles n = 244 and was therefore 2 cycles n = 10 2 cycles n = 4 included in safety 1 cycle n = 5 1 cycle n = 1 analysis (n = 1) Excluded from PP Excluded from PP analysis analysis - incomplete induction - incomplete induction therapy (n = 9) ITT n = 251 ITT n = 251 therapy (n = 5) - missing response Per-Protocol n = 233 Per-Protocol n = 240 - missing response assessment (n = 6) Safety n = 249 Safety n = 249 assessment (n = 3) - randomized PAd and - patient not ITT not PP treated VCD (n = 1) but Safety (n = 1, see above) CAD + G-CSF CAD + G-CSF Stem cell collection Stem cell collection Figure 1. Flow chart and consort diagram of the GMMG-MM5 trial. (a) Flow chart: randomization was performed prior to start of induction therapy. Maintenance therapy consisted of either lenalidomide for 2 years or lenalidomide if no complete remission (CR) was achieved. (b) Consort diagram: 502 patients were randomized and received the hence displayed treatment. Abbreviations: ASCT, autologous stem cell transplantation; CAD, cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/dexamethasone; G-CSF, granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (lenograstim); ITT, intention-to-treat population; MM, multiple myeloma; nCR, near complete remission; PAd, bortezomib/doxorubicin/dexamethasone; PP, per-protocol population; safety, safety population; VCD, bortezomib/cyclophosphamide/dexamethasone. ‘CRAB’ criteria;18 World Health Organization (WHO) performance status Study design and treatment 19 0–2 or 3, if MM related; and measureable MM disease. Key exclusion The MM5 trial is a prospective, open-label, randomized multicenter phase criteria included: systemic light chain amyloidosis; peripheral neuro- III clinical trial (EudraCT No. 2010-019173-16). A total of 31 transplant pathy/neuropathic pain ⩾ 2° (National Cancer Institute Common centers and 75 associated sites throughout Germany are participating in Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, NCI CTCAE, version 4.0). this trial. The study was initiated by the GMMG and approved by ethics Patients with renal impairment (RI) or renal failure were not excluded committees in the University of Heidelberg and at all participating sites. from the study. Detailed inclusion/exclusion criteria are provided in the The MM5 trial is conducted according to the European Clinical Trial study protocol (see online Supplementary Material 1). Directive (2005) and the Declaration of Helsinki. Leukemia (2015) 1721 – 1729 © 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited VCD is favorable to PAd as induction therapy in myeloma EK Mai et al 1723 Figure 2. Induction treatments. Schematic view of induction therapy regimens within the GMMG-MM5 trial. Five hundred and four patients were included