4.7 Article

Community-Based Phase IIIB Trial of Three UPFRONT Bortezomib-Based Myeloma Regimens

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 33, 期 33, 页码 3921-+

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2014.58.7618

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Millennium Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose The US community-based, phase IIIB UPFRONT trial was designed to compare three frontline bortezomib-based regimens in transplantation-ineligible patients with myeloma. Patients and Methods Patients (N = 502) were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to 24 weeks (eight 21-day cycles) of induction with bortezomib-dexamethasone (VD; n = 168; intravenous bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2), days 1, 4, 8, and 11 plus oral dexamethasone 20 mg, days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12 [cycles 1 to 4], or 1, 2, 4, and 5 [cycles 5 to 8]), bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD; n = 167; bortezomib and dexamethasone as before plus oral thalidomide 100 mg, days 1 to 21), or bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP; n = 167; bortezomib as before plus oral melphalan 9 mg/m(2) and oral prednisone 60 mg/m(2), days 1 to 4, every other cycle), followed by 25 weeks (five 35-day cycles) of bortezomib maintenance (1.6 mg/m(2), days 1, 8, 15, and 22). The primary end point was progression-free survival. Results After 42.7 months' median follow-up, median progression-free survival with VD, VTD, and VMP was 14.7, 15.4, and 17.3 months, respectively; median overall survival was 49.8, 51.5, and 53.1 months, with no significant differences among treatments for either end point (global P = .46 and P = .79, respectively, Wald test). Overall response rates were 73% (VD), 80% (VTD), and 70% (VMP). Adverse events were more common with VTD than VD or VMP. Bortezomib maintenance was feasible without producing cumulative toxicity. Conclusion Although all bortezomib-containing regimens produced good outcomes, VTD and VMP did not appear to offer an advantage over VD in transplantation-ineligible patients with myeloma treated in US community practice. (C) 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

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