4.7 Article

A high rate of durable responses with romidepsin, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma

期刊

BLOOD
卷 118, 期 24, 页码 6274-6283

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2011-03-339879

关键词

-

资金

  1. Celgene
  2. Vaccari Foundation
  3. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia
  4. Victorian Cancer Agency
  5. Leukemia Foundation of Australia
  6. Celgene Corporation
  7. Janssen Cilag

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report results from a study exploring the combination of romidepsin, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) previously treated with > 1 prior therapy. The primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination using a novel accelerated dose-escalation schedule in patients with relapsed or refractory MM. The secondary objective was to determine overall response (OR), time to progression (TTP), and overall survival (OS). The MTD identified was bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) (days 1, 4, 8, and 11), dexamethasone 20 mg (days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12), and romidepsin 10 mg/m(2) (days 1, 8, and 15) every 28 days. Thrombocytopenia (64%) was the most common >= grade 3 hematologic toxicity. Peripheral neuropathy occurred in 76% of patients (n = 19) (>= grade 3, 8%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1%-26%). Maintenance romidepsin 10 mg/m(2) (on days 1 and 8 of a 28-day cycle) proved feasible, with 12 patients receiving a median of 7.5 cycles (range: 1-29). An OR (M-protein) of > minor response (MR) was seen in 18 of 25 patients (72%); 2 (8%) had complete remissions (CRs) and 13 (52%) had partial responses (PRs), including 7 (28%) with very good PRs (VGPRs). The median TTP was 7.2 (95% CI: 5.5-19.6) months, and the median OS was > 36 months. This regimen shows activity with manageable toxicity and warrants further evaluation. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00431990. (Blood. 2011;118(24):6274-6283)

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