4.7 Article

Bortezomib, dexamethasone, cyclophosphamide and lenalidomide combination for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: phase 1 results from the multicenter EVOLUTION study

期刊

LEUKEMIA
卷 24, 期 7, 页码 1350-1356

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/leu.2010.116

关键词

multiple myeloma; clinical trial; bortezomib; lenalidomide; multidrug combination; phase 1

资金

  1. Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Celgene
  2. Millennium Pharmaceuticals
  3. Celgene

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This phase 1 study (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00507442) was conducted to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of cyclophosphamide in combination with bortezomib, dexamethasone and lenalidomide (VDCR) and to assess the safety and efficacy of this combination in untreated multiple myeloma patients. Cohorts of three to six patients received a cyclophosphamide dosage of 100, 200, 300, 400 or 500 mg/m(2) (on days 1 and 8) plus bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) (on days 1, 4, 8 and 11), dexamethasone 40 mg (on days 1, 8 and 15) and lenalidomide 15 mg (on days 1-14), for eight 21-day induction cycles, followed by four 42-day maintenance cycles (bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2), on days 1, 8, 15 and 22). The MTD was the cyclophosphamide dose below which more than one of six patients experienced a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Twenty-five patients were treated. Two DLTs were seen, of grade 4 febrile neutropenia (cyclophosphamide 400 mg/m(2)) and grade 4 herpes zoster despite antiviral prophylaxis (cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m(2)). No cumulative hematological toxicity or thromboembolic episodes were reported. The overall response rate was 96%, including 20% stringent complete response (CR), 40% CR/near-complete response and 68% >= very good partial response. VDCR is well tolerated and highly active in this population. No MTD was reached; the recommended phase 2 cyclophosphamide dose in VDCR is 500 mg/m(2), which was the highest dose tested. Leukemia (2010) 24, 1350-1356; doi:10.1038/leu.2010.116; published online 27 May 2010

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据