Phase 2 studies of lenalidomide, subcutaneous bortezomib, and dexamethasone as induction therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone versus bortezomib, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRD), and bortezomib, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (PAD), are commonly used in induction regimens for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) in China. This real-world study enrolled 390 patients, 195 receiving VRD and 195 receiving PAD induction. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and stringent complete remission/complete remission. Across the entire cohort, VRD demonstrated significantly improved five-year overall survival (OS) (74% vs. 59%, p = 0.0024) and five-year PFS (67% vs. 37%, p = 0.0018) compared to PAD. Notably, the median OS and PFS were not reached for VRD-treated patients, while they were 77 months (60-not reached [NR]) and 46 months (36-NR), respectively, for PAD. In patients with standard-risk cytogenetics, VRD showed superior five-year OS (83% vs. 58%, p = 0.0038) and PFS (78% vs. 48%, p = 0.0091) compared to PAD. However, these differences were not statistically significant in high-risk patients. For transplanted patients, VRD was associated with superior five-year OS (91% vs. 67%, p = 0.014) and PFS (79% vs. 47%, p = 0.015) compared to PAD. In non-transplanted patients, VRD showed a trend towards improved five-year OS (p = 0.085) and PFS (p = 0.073) compared to the PAD group. In conclusion, VRD displayed superior OS and PFS outcomes in standard-risk patients and those who underwent transplantation. These findings suggest potential advantages of VRD over PAD in real-world clinical settings for NDMM treatment. However, due to the imbalance in transplantation rates between the VRD and PAD groups, limitations in testing for high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRA), and the difference between the received cycles and salvage therapies, the conclusions of this study should be interpreted with caution.

Proteasome inhibition in combination with immunotherapies: State-of-the-Art in multiple myeloma

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a malignant plasma cell disorder accounting for around 1.8% of all neoplastic diseases. Nowadays, clinicians have a broad arsenal of drugs at their disposal for the treatment of MM, such as proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs, monoclonal antibodies, bispecific antibodies, CAR T-cell therapies and antibody-drug conjugates. In this paper we briefly highlight essential clinical elements relating to proteasome inhibitors, such as bortezomib, carfilzomib and ixazomib. Studies suggest that the early use of immunotherapy may improve outcomes significantly. Therefore, in our review we specifically focus on the combination therapy of proteasome inhibitors with novel immunotherapies and/or transplant. A high number of patients develop PI resistance. Thus, we also review new generation PIs, such as marizomib, oprozomib (ONX0912) and delanzomib (CEP-18770) and their combinations with immunotherapies.

Lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone induction therapy for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a practical review

For patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, survival outcomes continue to improve significantly: however, nearly all patients will relapse following induction treatment. Optimisation of induction therapy is essential to provide longer term disease control and the current standard of care for most patients incorporates an immunomodulatory agent and proteasome inhibitor, most commonly lenalidomide and bortezomib in combination with dexamethasone (RVD), with maintenance until progression. Historically there has been limited access to RVD as an induction strategy outside of the United States; fortunately, there is now increasing access worldwide. This review discusses the rationale for use of RVD as induction therapy and aims to provide guidance in prescribing this regimen in order to optimise efficacy while minimising the toxicities of treatment. We also highlight the increasing evidence for the utility of addition of a monoclonal antibody to the RVD backbone to deepen responses and potentially provide longer disease control.