Incidence Of Non-hematologic Adverse Events Research Articles

The efficacy and safety of triplet regimens based on pomalidomide and dexamethasone for treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Triplet regimens based on pomalidomide and dexamethasone have been applied to treat relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, but the safety and efficacy are not yet very clear. This meta-analysis aimed at comparing the safety and efficacy of different triplet therapies and analyzing the best therapy regimen. A comprehensive literature search identified a total of 615 studies, and 22 studies assessing 1,889 subjects met the inclusion criteria of this meta: phase II/III trial, over 2 median lines of prior therapy, and detailed efficacy outcomes like overall response rate (ORR), overall survival, and progression-free survival (PFS). All statistical analyses were performed by Revman version 5.3, and the heterogeneity was tested by I2 (25% indicating low heterogeneity, 50% moderate, and 75% high). For those with less heterogeneity, fixed-effect model was used. With a significant high heterogeneity, a random-effect model was used. Pooled analysis showed ORR 66.2% across all triplet regimens based on pomalidomide and dexamethasone. Among all triplet regimens, therapy containing bortezomib showed the highest ORR (90.3%), and the one containing elotuzumab showed the lowest ORR (41.2%). The pooled ORRs for the remaining treatment regimens are as follows: cyclophosphamide (70.1%), isatuximab (66.3%), daratumumab (61.2%), clarithromycin (60.0%), pembrolizumab (47.3%). A total of 21 adverse events appeared in the included studies, with neutropenia being the highest incidence of hematologic adverse events (32.1%) and cough being the highest incidence of non-hematologic adverse events (43.3.%). Three-drug regimens based on pomalidomide and dexamethasone could yield excellent overall response rate to relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, but there are still various adverse events; therefore, consequent studies should address these adverse events.

Efficacy and safety of lenalidomide combined with bortezomib and dexamethasone induction therapy in newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide combined with bortezomib and dexamethasone (VRD) in the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) . Methods: A total of 150 newly diagnosed patients with MM diagnosed in The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University from November 2018 to February 2021 and received VRD as the induction regimen were included to evaluate the safety and efficacy of VRD induction therapy for newly diagnosed MM. Results: The median follow-up was 22 months, two patients (1.3%) died early after treatment, and 148 patients (98.7%) completed induction therapy. 116 patients (77.3%) were mobilized to collect autologous hematopoietic stem cells, 101 cases (87.1%) were qualified in the collection, of which 48 cases (41.4%) were excellent in the collection. The 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 59%, and the 3-year overall survival (OS) rate was 83%. After induction, complete remission (CR) /stringent CR rate was 54.4%, ≥ very good partial remission rate was 77.3%, overall response rate was 86.0%, and minimal residual disease negative rate was 46.0%. There was no statistically significant difference in the efficacy of cytogenetic high-risk patients compared with standard risk patients (P=0.456) . The median PFS time of cytogenetic high-risk patients was shorter than that of standard risk patients (not reached vs 33 months, P=0.014) . There was no statistically significant difference in the median OS time (not reached vs not reached, P=0.072) . The highest incidence of hematological adverse events was thrombocytopenia (72%) , followed by neutropenia (42%) and anemia (20%) . The highest incidence of non-hematological adverse events was peripheral neuritis (56.7%) . The main digestive tract symptoms include constipation (30.0%) and diarrhea (17.3%) . Upper respiratory tract infection (23.3%) and lung infection (7.3%) are the main infections. The incidence of adverse thrombocytopenia (90.0% vs 63.7%, P=0.001) , neutropenia (54.2% vs 36.3%, P=0.038) , anemia (33.3% vs 13.7%, P=0.005) , diarrhea (27.1% vs 12.7%, P=0.030) , limb edema (20.8% vs 3.9%, P=0.030) , fever (20.8% vs 4.9%, P=0.006) , thrombosis (8.3% vs 0, P=0.016) , and renal function deterioration (20.8% vs 3.9%, P=0.030) in patients with renal insufficiency was higher than that in patients with normal renal function. Conclusion: The VRD regimen has a significant effect on newly diagnosed MM, does not affect the hematopoietic stem cell collection, and has controllable adverse events; however, the incidence of adverse events was higher in patients with renal insufficiency.

Nilotinib Combined with Multi-Agents Chemotherapy for Adult Patients with Newly Diagnosed Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: Results of a Prospective Study from a Single Center

Background: Imatinib combined with conventional chemotherapy has significantly improved the prognosis of adults with Philadelphia-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia ( Ph+ ALL ). Nilotinib, the second generation TKIs is approximately 30 fold more potent than imatinib and is active in vitro against multiple BCR/ABL mutations. Here, we report the efficacy and safety of nilotinib combined with multiple reagents chemotherapy in newly diagnosed patients with Ph+ ALL.Methods: Newly diagnosed Ph+ ALL patients aged 15 to 59 and with adequate organ function were recruited. The 4weeks induction cycle consist of vincristine, daunorubicin, cyclophosphamide and prednisone. After achieving hematological complete remission (HCR), patients received 2 years of consolidation and maintenance therapy. Consolidation therapy was including 7 courses of multiple drug chemotherapy or allogeneic/autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo/auto HCT). Nilotinib was the only drug for maintenance therapy. Nilotinib 400mg was given orally twice daily along with combination chemotherapy starting from day 15 of induction until the initiation of conditioning for transplantation, hematological relapse or continuing for 2 years since achievement of hematological complete remission (HCR).Central nervous system (CNS) prophylaxis was performed by intrathecally administering triple agents. The data cut-off day was June 1st 2015. HCR and molecular complete remission (MCR), overall survival(OS), hematologic relapse free survival (HRFS), toxicity, nilotinib concentration in serum and cerebrospinal fluid(CSF) were evaluated. MCR was defined as Bcr-Abl fusion gene becomes negative in bone marrow using quantitative RT-PCR.Results: A total of 30 patients (19 males and 11 females) were enrolled from September 2011 to November 2013. The median age was 40 (range 21-57) years old. The type of BCR breakpoint was minor in 24 patients, major in 2 patients and both in 4 patients. All the 30 patients (100%) and 8 patients (26.7%) achieved HCR and MCR respectively after the induction cycle. Cumulative MCR rate was 80%. 17 patients underwent HCT, 14 patients with alloHCT and 2 patients with autoHCT in first HCR, 1 patient received alloHCT after relapse. 9 patients died from leukemia relapse and 4 patients died post-alloHCT without relapse. The median HRFS and OS were 20.7 and 34 months respectively. The 4 year HRFS rate was 41% and the 4 year OS rate was 48%. The molecular response after induction has no impact on HRFS and OS. Patients achieving MCR had better HRFS (32 vs 8.9 months, p=0.006) but not OS(33.3vs 17.2months, p=0.068) than those patient without MCR. During induction, 23 patients experienced infectious fever including 2 patients with septicemia and 6 patients with pneumonia needing antifungal therapy. Intestinal obstruction occurred in 7 patients during induction and relived by interrupting nilotinib treatment. The incidence of non-hematologic adverse events (AE) over grade 3 during the study was 23% jaundice, 10% rash, 6.7% arthralgia and bone pain, 6.7%headache, 3.3% ALT elevation. No QTc prolongation over 500ms happened. Grade 2 tachycardia and premature ventricular contraction occurred in 2 patients and 1 patient respectively. During the high-dose methotrexate treatment cycle, delaying of methotrexate metabolism happened in 20 patients (66.7%), increasing creatine occurred in 8 patients (26.7%, grade 3 in 3 patients), 1 patient received haemodialysis. Nilotinib serum level reached to stable concentration after 15 days of administration. Only traces of nilotinib was detected in CSF.Conclusion: In this prospective study, combination of nilotinib and cytotoxic drug was shown to be effective and tolerable for adult Ph+ALL. Nilotinib could not penetrate the blood brain barrier. (ChiCTR-ONC-12002469) DisclosuresOff Label Use: nilotinib,the 2nd generation TKI, was approved for CML. Wang:Novarits and Bristol-Mayers squibb. G.S.: Consultancy.

Nilotinib Combined With Multi-Agent Chemotherapy For Adult Patients With Newly Diagnosed Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: Final Results Of Prospective Multicenter Phase 2 Study

We previously reported the interim analysis on the clinical outcome of nilotinib (Tasigna®, Novartis Pharma, Basel, Switzerland), when combined with multi-agent chemotherapy for newly diagnosed Philadelphia-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph+ALL) in adults. Herein, we reported the final results of the multicenter prospective phase2 trial of Adult Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Working Party, the Korean Society of Hematology. Newly diagnosed Ph+ALL patients aged 18 years old or more were eligible when they had adequate organ function. Diagnosis of Ph+ALL was performed via confirmation of the presence of Ph chromosome by conventional GTL-band technique, and/or positive molecular analysis with nested RT PCR for detection of BCR-ABL fusion transcripts. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects. All patients received induction treatment consisting of vincristine, daunorubicin, oral or parenteral prednisolone, and nilotinib. After achieving complete remission (CR), subjects received either 5 courses of consolidation followed by 2-year maintenance with nilotinib, or allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) depending on the donor availability, his/her tolerability, and patient's wish. Nilotinib was administered twice a day with a single dose of 400mg (800mg per day) from day8 of induction until the initiation of conditioning for alloHCT or the end of maintenance therapy. Minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring was performed at the central lab with quantitative RT-PCR assays for peripheral blood BCR-ABL RNA using LightCycler® Technology in serial; at the time of diagnosis, at hematologic CR(HCR), and every 3 months thereafter. BCR-ABL quantification was expressed relative to the amount of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PDH) mRNA. The molecular response was defined as complete (MCR, MRD-negative) if the BCR-ABL/G6PDH ratio was less than 1x10-6. Toxicity was graded according to National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (version 2.0). Subjects had been followed up for 2 years after alloHCT or during maintenance therapy. Data were frozen up in June, 2013. A total of 91 subjects (male: female = 45: 46) were enrolled onto the study between January 2009 and May 2012. The median age was 47 (range 18-71) years old. Type of BCR breakpoint was minor (e1a2) in 71% of patients. The median BCR-ABL/G6PDH ratio was 6.09 (bone marrow) and 3.28 (peripheral blood) at diagnosis. During induction, all subjects required blood product transfusion, and incidence of nonhematologic adverse events (AE) over grade 3 was 17% (jaundice), 18% (ALT elevation), 13% (lipase elevation), and 2% (pancreatitis). Neither QTc prolongation over 500ms nor significant arrhythmia happened among any subject and any cycle. HCR rate was 90% and median time to HCR was 27 days (range, 13-72); most of failure was due to death in aplasia (n=8). MCR rate at HCR was 55%, Cumulative MCR rate was 84%, and median time to MCR was 1.1 months (range, 0.6-15.8). Most common cause of dropout from study was treatment-related death (n=22; during induction/consolidation vs. after alloHCT = 12 vs. 10), and HREL (n=15). Nilotinib was interrupted 75 times among 64 subjects, reduced 14 times among 12 subjects, and discontinued permanently due to hematologic relapse (HREL, n=14), AE (n=6, over gr3:3), and other cause (n=2). Fifty nine patients underwent alloHCT, 34 with myeloablative and 25 with reduced-intensity conditioning. Incidences of acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and chronic GVHD were 41% and 29%, respectively. With a median follow-up of 20.7 months of surviving subjects, estimated hematologic relapse-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS) rate at 2 years were 74% and 70%, respectively. Among subject achieving MCR, 2-year molecular RFS rate was 56%. When events were defined as ‘dropout due to AE, isolated molecular / extramedullary relapse, HREL, and death from any cause', median event-free survival was 12.5 months. In this prospective study, nilotinib was shown to be effective for adult Ph+ALL, and concurrent administration of nilotinib with cytotoxic drug was well-tolerable, although death in aplasia during induction was the most common cause of failure of achieving HCR. In terms of MRD, potential of nilotinib to achieve and maintain MRD negativity were satisfactory (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00844298). Disclosures:Off Label Use: Nilotinib for Ph+ALL-sientific and academic purpose.

TAXTOX – a retrospective study regarding the side effects of docetaxel given as part of the adjuvant treatment to patients with primary breast cancer in Denmark from 2007 to 2009

Background. In 2007 docetaxel was introduced as part of the adjuvant setting offered to high risk breast cancer patients in Denmark. Meta-analyses had shown that taxane-containing chemotherapy reduced the relative risk of relapse and death by 20–30%, apparently with moderate side effects. The treatment was given as three cycles of cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m2) and epirubicin (90 mg/m2) followed by three cycles of docetaxel (100 mg/m2). Because of an apparent high incidence of side effects, especially febrile neutropenia (FN) and non-hematologic side effects, the DBCG (The Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group) initiated a retrospective study of adverse reactions to the newly introduced regime and all patients were offered primary prophylaxis with growth factors (G-CSF) pr 1/1-2008. Material and methods. Two medical doctors examined available journals and nurse charts from the 13 oncology departments in Denmark, and graded all side effects according to NCI CTC version 2.0. To be enrolled, the patients should have received three cycles of EC and at least one cycle of docetaxel. The side effects were investigated before and after routine use of G-CSF. Results. One thousand one hundred and forty-three patients entered the study. In 2007 (before G-CSF) the incidence of FN was 25% and 90.6% of the patients completed the planned treatment. In 2008 (after the introduction of G-CSF) the incidence of FN was 10% and 94.5% completed the treatment. The incidence of non-hematological adverse events, in 2007 and 2008 combined, was for neuropathy 35%, mucositis 75%, muscle and joint pain 53%, skin rash 25% and fatigue 43% (all grades). Conclusion. The introduction of G-CSF was justified because of the high incidence of FN. However, it could not have been predicted after reviewing the published literature. The incidence of non-hematological adverse events had been reported in some, but not all adjuvant taxanes studies. In the future, focus should be more on the side effects, especially when introducing new toxic systemic regimes.

Bortezomib (Velcade)-Melphalan-Prednisone (VMP) Versus Velcade- Thalidomide-Prednisone (VTP) in Elderly Untreated Multiple Myeloma Patients: Which Is the Best Partner for Velcade: An Alkylating or An Immunomodulator Agent?

Melphalan – Prednisone (MP) has been the Standard of care for elderly multiple myeloma patients in the past 40 years. However, bortezomib and thalidomide-based combinations have demonstrated to improve the efficacy in terms of both response rate and time to events as compared to MP. In two recent Phase II and phase III trials we have shown (Mateos et al. Blood 2006; San Miguel JF et al. EHA 2008) that the combination VMP is highly effective, but it remains to be elucidated which agent is the optimal partner for bortezomib: an alkylating or an immunomodulatory drug. In order to answer this question in April 2006, Spanish Myeloma Group (PETHEMA/GEM) activated a phase III trial comparing VMP versus VTP in untreated MM patients older than 65 years. Patients in the VMP arm received intravenous bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 twice weekly (days 1, 4, 8, 11; 22, 25, 29 and 32) for one 6-week cycle (8 doses per cycle), followed by once weekly (days 1, 8, 15 y 22) for five 5-week cycles (4 doses per cycle) in combination with oral melphalan 9 mg/m2 and prednisone 60 mg/m2 once daily on days 1–4 of each cycle. Patients in the VTP arm received the same bortezomib and prednisone regimen, but instead of melphalan they received continuous thalidomide at dose of 100 mg daily. For both groups, treatment continued for a maximum of 6 cycles (31 weeks) unless disease progression or unacceptable treatment-related toxicity occurred. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) after induction therapy and secondary endpoints included time to progression (TTP), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), time to and duration of response, and safety. As of July 30, 2008, 246 out of 260 planned patients have been included in the study and 167 are evaluables for response to induction therapy and adverse events (AEs). Efficacy and toxicity analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. 80 patients were randomly assigned to receive VMP and 87 to receive VTP. Regarding baseline characteristics, including cytogenetic abnormalities, no significant differences were observed in both arms. No significant differences were observed in response rate: ≥ PR in 78% of patients in VMP and VTP groups respectively, with a CR rate of 18% vs 23% (p=NS) and CR/nCR of 38% vs 32% (P= NS). Only one patient prgressed under induction treatment in each arm. Median time to first response was similar in both arms (1,6 months) and there were not differences in the median time to achieve CR (4,4 vs 4,9 months). Regarding haematological toxicity, VMP resulted in higher incidence of ≥G3 neutropenia (34% vs 19%; p=0,009) and thrombocytopenia (21% vs 9%; p=0,01); in contrast, 157 related non-hematological AEs occurred in VTP arm vs 133 in VMP arm (p<0,005); and they were ≥G3 in 32% vs 25% (p=0,04). The most relevant toxicities included: ≥G3 cardiac toxicity reported in 7% of patients receiving VTP vs 0% in VMP arm; the incidence of ≥G3 thromboembolic events was 3,4% in VTP arm and <1% in VMP arm; finally, 15% of patients in VTP arm developed ≥G3 peripheral neuropathy and 9% in VMP arm. No significant differences were reported in other non-hematologic toxicities, including infections despite the higher incidence of neutropenia in VMP arm. Treatment discontinuation due to AEs was required in 8 patients in VMP arm and in 16 patients in VTP arm (p=0,08). Five patients in VMP arm and 7 in VTP group died during the induction phase due to AEs. In summary this initial analysis indicates that there are no significant differences in terms of efficacy between VMP and VTP, while the incidence of non-hematological AEs, specially cardiac events, was higher in the VTP arm, resulting in more serious AEs and treatment discontinuations.. These data suggest that thalidomide may not be the partner of choice for combination with bortezomib and other IMIDs such as lenalidomide should be explored. In addition, our data indicate that the modified VMP regimen used in this trial (weekly schedule after cycle 1 and only six cycles) is well tolerated although the CR rate is lower than in the VISTA trial.

Differences in hematological and non-hematological toxicity during treatment with imatinib in patients with early and late chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia

Imatinib is a relatively specific inhibitor of the BCR/ABL tyrosine kinase, effective in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). The aim of our study was to analyse the frequency and type of hematological and non-hematological adverse events in our series of late and early chronic phase patients with CML treated with imatinib and correlate the grade of hematological toxicity with the response obtained. Hematological events were seen in 59 out of 150 (39%) late chronic phase (CP) patients: of these, 24% experienced toxicity Grade 3–4. Of the 100 early CP patients, 26 (26%) had hematological adverse event: 7% experienced toxicity Grade 3–4 (p = 0.0001). We found that only in early CP patients, the occurrence of hematological side effects of any grade within 6 months of therapy had a negative influence on cytogenetic response. We compared the incidence of non-hematological adverse events occurring in late and in early CP patients and found that in these latter, some side effects were more frequent, such as weight gain, periorbital edema, muscle cramps, skin rashes, diarrhea, weeping. On the contrary, we found that bone pain and hemorrhagic events were more common in late CP patients. Grade 3–4 adverse events were recorded at rates below 4% and decreased over time: in late CP patients hemorrhages and muscle cramps were the most common side effects of Grade 3–4, whereas in early CP patients, the most frequent events were nausea, weight gain and cutaneous rash. We have observed that hematological and non-hematological side effects during imatinib therapy are different among late and early CP patients and that severe hematological toxicity may influence cytogenetic response only in early CP patients.

Melphalan, Prednisone, and Lenalidomide Treatment for Newly Diagnosed Myeloma: A Report From the GIMEMA—Italian Multiple Myeloma Network

Lenalidomide has shown significant antimyeloma activity in clinical studies. Oral melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide have been regarded as the standard of care in elderly multiple myeloma patients. We assessed dosing, efficacy, and safety of melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide (MPR) in newly diagnosed elderly myeloma patients. Oral melphalan was administered in doses ranging from 0.18 to 0.25 mg/kg on days 1 to 4, prednisone at a 2-mg/kg dose on days 1 to 4, and lenalidomide at doses ranging from 5 to 10 mg on days 1 to 21, every 28 days for nine cycles, followed by maintenance therapy with lenalidomide alone. Aspirin was given as a prophylaxis for thrombosis. Fifty-four patients were enrolled and evaluated after completing the assigned treatment schedule. The maximum tolerated dose was defined as 0.18 mg/kg melphalan and 10 mg lenalidomide. With these doses, 81% of patients achieved at least a partial response, 47.6% achieved a very good partial response, and 23.8% achieved a complete immunofixation-negative response. In all patients, 1-year event-free and overall survival rates were 92% and 100%, respectively. At the maximum tolerated dose, grade 3 adverse events included neutropenia (38.1%), thrombocytopenia (14.2%), febrile neutropenia (9.5%), vasculitis (9.5%), and thromboembolism (4.8%); grade 4 adverse events were neutropenia (14.2%) and thrombocytopenia (9.5%). Oral MPR therapy is a promising first-line treatment for elderly myeloma patients. Hematologic adverse events were frequent but manageable. A low incidence of nonhematologic adverse events was noted. Aspirin appears to provide adequate antithrombosis prophylaxis.

Spotlight on Paclitaxel in Ovarian Cancer*

Paclitaxel belongs to the group of antitumor agents called the taxanes. Its efficacy in advanced ovarian cancer has been established in large, randomized phase III clinical trials. When used in combination with cisplatin for first-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer, it is superior to cyclophosphamide/cisplatin, with gains in median survival of around 1 year. Paclitaxel plus carboplatin has similar efficacy to paclitaxel plus cisplatin. There is now consensus that paclitaxel plus either carboplatin or cisplatin is the recommended first-line therapy for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. The particular combination employed may vary between institutions and geographical regions, although paclitaxel plus carboplatin is generally better tolerated (i.e. lower incidence of non-hematologic adverse events) than paclitaxel plus cisplatin and is widely used in many countries. Paclitaxel is also used as monotherapy in second-line (salvage) treatment of ovarian cancer.