Search

Multicentric Castleman disease ( MCD) is a rare lymphoproliferative disease with little known about its epidemiology or treatment modalities. Clinical and demographic data of MCD patients identified between 2000 and 2009 were collected from medical records at two United States ( US) MCD referral centres. ZIP codes identified patient residences; prevalence and incidence were estimated based on catchment areas. Patient clinical, demographic, and biochemical characteristics, drug therapies and medical utilization were descriptively reported. MCD patients ( n = 59) were 61% male, mean age of 53 years (median = 55 years) and 68% Caucasian. Of those with known human immunodeficiency virus ( HIV) status ( n = 41), 85% ( n = 35) were negative, 15% ( n = 6) were positive. Most frequent physician-reported symptoms ( n = 33) were fatigue (49%, n = 16), fever (39%, n = 13), and night sweats (30%, n = 10). The estimated US 10-year prevalence was 2·4 per million. During first year of follow-up after study entry, the top two systemic therapies ( n = 27) were monotherapies: prednisone (33%, n = 9) and rituximab (19%, n = 5). After a follow-up of 2 years, 92% of patients were alive. This study provides new information on MCD population demographics, treatment patterns, and medical utilization; a minimal US period prevalence rate is proposed. Study replication is needed to improve external validity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives The proteasome inhibitor bortezomib is approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) and, in the US, for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma following at least one prior therapy; the recommended dose and schedule is 1.3 mg/m² on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 of 21-day cycles, and the approved routes of administration in the US prescribing information are by intravenous and, following a recent update, subcutaneous injection. Findings from a phase III study demonstrated that subcutaneous administration of bortezomib, using the same dose and schedule, resulted in similar efficacy with an improved systemic safety profile (including significantly lower rates of peripheral neuropathy) versus intravenous bortezomib in patients with relapsed MM. The objectives of this report were to present a comprehensive analysis of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib, and to evaluate the impact of the subcutaneous administration site, subcutaneous injection concentration and demographic characteristics on bortezomib pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Patients and Methods Data were analysed from the pharmacokinetic substudy of the randomized phase III MMY-3021 study and the phase I CAN- 1004 study of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib in patients aged ≥ 18 (MMY- 3021) or ≤75 (CAN-1004) years with symptomatic relapsed or refractory MM after 1-3 (MMY-3021 ) or ≥ 1 (CAN- 1004) prior therapies. Patients received up to eight 21-day cycles of subcutaneous or intravenous bortezomib 1.3 mg/m² on days 1, 4, 8 and 11. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (20S proteasome inhibition) parameters of bortezomib following subcutaneous or intravenous administration were evaluated on day 11, cycle 1. Results Bortezomib systemic exposure was equivalent with subcutaneous versus intravenous administration in MMY-3021 [mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to the last quantifiable timepoint (AUClast): 155 vs. 151 ng⋅h/mL; geometric mean ratio 0,992 (90 % CI 80.18, 122.80)] and comparable in CAN-1004 (mean AUClast: 195 vs. 241 ng⋅h/mL); maximum (peak) plasma drug concentration (Cmax) was lower with subcutaneous administration in both MMY-3021 (mean 20.4 vs. 223 ng/mL) and CAN-1004 (mean 22.5 vs. 162 ng/mL), and time to Cmax (tmax) was longer with subcutaneous administration in both studies (median 30 vs. 2 min). Blood 20S proteasome inhibition pharmacodynamic parameters were also similar with subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib: mean maximum effect (Emax) was 63.7 versus 69.3 % in MMY-3021 and 57.0 versus 68.8 % in CAN-1004, and mean area under the effect-time curve from time zero to 72 h was 1,714 versus 1,383 %⋅h in MMY-3021 and 1,619 versus 1,283 %⋅h in CAN-1004. Time to Emax was longer with subcutaneous administration in MMY-3021 (median 120 vs. 5 min) and CAN-1004 (median 120 vs. 3 min). Concentration of the subcutaneous injected solution had no appreciable effect on pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic parameters. There were no apparent differences in bortezomib pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters between subcutaneous administration in the thigh or abdomen. There were also no apparent differences in bortezomib exposure related to body mass index, body surface area or age. Conclusion Subcutaneous administration results in equivalent bortezomib plasma exposure to intravenous administration, together with comparable blood 20S proteasome inhibition pharmacodynamic effects. These findings, together with the non-inferior efficacy of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib demonstrated in MMY-3021, support the use of bortezomib via the subcutaneous route across the settings of clinical use in which the safety and efficacy of intravenous bortezomib has been established. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to confirm overall survival (OS) and other clinical benefits with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) versus melphalan and prednisone (MP) in the phase III VISTA (Velcade as Initial Standard Therapy in Multiple Myeloma) trial after prolonged follow-up, and evaluate the impact of subsequent therapies., Patients and Methods: Previously untreated symptomatic patients with myeloma ineligible for high-dose therapy received up to nine 6-week cycles of VMP (n = 344) or MP (n = 338)., Results: With a median follow-up of 36.7 months, there was a 35% reduced risk of death with VMP versus MP (hazard ratio, 0.653; P < .001); median OS was not reached with VMP versus 43 months with MP; 3-year OS rates were 68.5% versus 54.0%. Response rates to subsequent thalidomide- (41% v 53%) and lenalidomide-based therapies (59% v 52%) appeared similar after VMP or MP; response rates to subsequent bortezomib-based therapy were 47% versus 59%. Among patients treated with VMP (n = 178) and MP (n = 233), median survival from start of subsequent therapy was 30.2 and 21.9 months, respectively, and there was no difference in survival from salvage among patients who received subsequent bortezomib, thalidomide, or lenalidomide. Rates of adverse events were higher with VMP versus MP during cycles 1 to 4, but similar during cycles 5 to 9. With VMP, 79% of peripheral neuropathy events improved within a median of 1.9 months; 60% completely resolved within a median of 5.7 months., Conclusion: VMP significantly prolongs OS versus MP after lengthy follow-up and extensive subsequent antimyeloma therapy. First-line bortezomib use does not induce more resistant relapse. VMP used upfront appears more beneficial than first treating with conventional agents and saving bortezomib- and other novel agent-based treatment until relapse.

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing gemcitabine+tipifarnib (G+t) or gemcitabine+placebo (G+p) in patients with pancreatic cancer, the primary endpoint of time to deterioration (TTD) was based primarily on patient-reported outcomes. Deterioration was defined as death or worsening of disease-related symptoms, based on patient-reported outcomes of pain intensity and analgesic use in a daily diary, plus investigator-rated weekly performance status. Secondary endpoints included survival and safety. Two hundred and forty-four patients were treated for a total of 4780 weeks, during which the diary was completed daily. Overall, the completion of the diary was found to be feasible: patients completed approximately 95% of scheduled diary entries. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two treatment arms. The primary endpoint of TTD was not significantly different between the G+t arm (69 days) and the G+p arm (91 days, P=0.40). Survival was not significantly different between the G+t arm (202 days) and the G+p arm (221 days, P=0.66). The combination of G+t had an acceptable toxicity profile, with primarily neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. Methodologically, measurement of patient-reported outcomes is feasible and useful in assessing the effect of anti-cancer therapy in pancreatic cancer if comprehensive initial and ongoing training is provided to all people involved, including not only the patients but also the study personnel.