The majority of newly diagnosed myeloma patients do not fulfill the inclusion criteria in clinical phase III trials

The Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome conducted a randomized trial to compare bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) with bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (VCD) as induction before high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Overall, a total of 340 patients were centrally randomly assigned to receive VTD or VCD. After 4 cycles, on an intent-to-treat basis, 66.3% of the patients in the VTD arm achieved at least a very good partial response (primary end point) vs 56.2% in the VCD arm (P = .05). In addition, the overall response rate was significantly higher in the VTD arm (92.3% vs 83.4% in the VCD arm; P = .01). Hematologic toxicity was higher in the VCD arm, with significantly increased rates of grade 3 and 4 anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia. On the other hand, the rate of peripheral neuropathy (PN) was significantly higher in the VTD arm. With the exception of hematologic adverse events and PN, other grade 3 or 4 toxicities were rare, with no significant differences between the VTD and VCD arms. Our data support the preferential use of VTD rather than VCD in preparation for ASCT. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01564537 and at EudraCT as #2013-003174-27.

To characterize efficacy and safety of bortezomib-based versus nonbortezomib-based induction regimens through an integrated analysis of data from phase III studies in transplantation-eligible patients with previously untreated myeloma.

The combination of melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT) is considered standard therapy for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma who are ineligible for stem cell transplantation. Long-term treatment with thalidomide is hampered by neurotoxicity. Melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide, followed by lenalidomide maintenance therapy, showed promising results without severe neuropathy emerging. We randomly assigned 668 patients between nine 4-week cycles of MPT followed by thalidomide maintenance until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (MPT-T) and the same MP regimen with thalidomide being replaced by lenalidomide (MPR-R). This multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 3 trial was undertaken by Dutch-Belgium Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology and the Nordic Myeloma Study Group (the HOVON87/NMSG18 trial). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). A total of 318 patients were randomly assigned to receive MPT-T, and 319 received MPR-R. After a median follow-up of 36 months, PFS with MPT-T was 20 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 18-23 months) vs 23 months (95% CI, 19-27 months) with MPR-R (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72-1.04; P = .12). Response rates were similar, with at least a very good partial response of 47% and 45%, respectively. Hematologic toxicity was more pronounced with MPR-R, especially grades 3 and 4 neutropenia: 64% vs 27%. Neuropathy of at least grade 3 was significantly higher in the MPT-T arm: 16% vs 2% in MPR-R, resulting in a significant shorter duration of maintenance therapy (5 vs 17 months in MPR-R), irrespective of age. MPR-R has no advantage over MPT-T concerning efficacy. The toxicity profile differed with clinically significant neuropathy during thalidomide maintenance vs myelosuppression with MPR.