4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Safety and efficacy of bortezomib in high-risk and elderly patients with relapsed multiple myeloma

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
Volume 137, Issue 5, Pages 429-435

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2007.06585.x

Keywords

multiple myeloma; bortezomib; high-risk; elderly; ISS staging

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Adverse prognostic factors in multiple myeloma include advanced age, number of prior therapies, and higher International Staging System (ISS) disease stage. In the international, randomised, phase-3 Assessment of Proteasome Inhibition for Extending Remissions (APEX) study, bortezomib demonstrated significantly longer time to progression (TTP), higher response rates and improved survival compared with high-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma following one to three prior therapies. In this APEX subgroup analysis, efficacy of bortezomib and dexamethasone was compared in elderly (age >= 65 years) and high-risk (> 1 prior line of therapy; ISS stage II/III; refractory to prior therapy) patients. Bortezomib demonstrated substantial clinical activity in these patients. Response rate (34-40% vs. 13-19%), including complete response rate (5-8% vs. 0-1%), was significantly higher with bortezomib versus dexamethasone in all four subgroups. Similarly, median TTP was significantly longer with bortezomib versus dexamethasone, and 1-year survival probability was significantly higher in all subgroups. As in the total APEX population, rates of grade 3/4 adverse events were higher in bortezomib- versus dexamethasone-treated patients aged >= 65 years and with > 1 prior line, while rates of serious adverse events were similar; toxicities generally proved manageable. Bortezomib should be considered an appropriate treatment for elderly and high-risk patients with relapsed multiple myeloma.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available