A Phase II Trial Comparison of Once Versus Twice Weekly Bortezomib in CYBORD Chemotherapy for Newly Diagnosed Myeloma: Identical High Response Rates and Less Toxicity.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Abstract 616 Background: We have shown the three drug combination of cyclophosphamide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (CyBorD) to be highly active therapy in newly diagnosed myeloma while allowing stem cell harvest and transplantation (Reeder et al. Leukemia 2009; 23:1337-1341). However, twice weekly bortezomib and high dose dexamethasone have been shown to cause significant toxicities. In a prospective Phase II we modified CyBorD by using bortezomib once weekly and reducing the dexamethasone to “low dose dex” after the first two cycles in an attempt to reduce toxicity (cohort 2). We report the efficacy and toxicity of this modified regimen and compare the results to standard CyBorD (cohort 1). Patients and methods: 63 untreated symptomatic patients were enrolled on this Phase II trial (33 on cohort 1 and 30 on cohort 2). All are evaluable for response and toxicity. Treatment on cohort 2 consisted of oral cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 and IV bortezomib 1.5 mg/m2 days 1, 8, 15 and 22 and dexamethasone 40 mg by mouth days 1-4, 9-12, 17-20 in cycles 1 and 2, then 40 mg po days 1, 8, 15, 22 in cycles 3 and beyond. Cohort 1 used standard dosing of bortezomib and high dose dexamethasone throughout. Each cycle was 28 days. Acyclovir and a quinolone antibiotic prophylaxis were routinely used. Patients were evaluated for response and toxicity every cycle and were offered stem cell harvest and transplant after the 4th cycle but could continue up to 12 cycles maximum. Results: The median age for all 63 patients was 61 (36-74) years and 48% were female. Durie-Salmon stages were 47% II and 50% III and ISS stages I 43%, II 36%, and III 21%. Twenty-four percent of patients were genetic high risk (t(4;14) or deletion 17). Cohorts I and II were matched for age, gender and ECOG PS. ISS stages were higher in cohort 1 than cohort 2 (II/III 67% vs. 44%). The intent to treat (ITT) ORR (≥PR) for all 63 patients (cohorts 1 and 2) is 90% with 60% ≥VGPR. For cohort 2 (modified CyBorD) the ITT overall response (≥PR) was 93% (CR: 5, nCR: 7, VGPR: 6, PR: 10) with 60% ≥VGPR and 40% ≥ nCR. Those completing all 4 cycles of therapy had 92% ORR (24/26) and 65% (17/26) ≥VGPR. A comparison of response rates in cohorts 1 and 2 is shown in table 1. These high and comparable response rates were associated with fewer grade 3+ adverse events (AE's) than in cohort 1 (37% vs. 48%) and no grade 3 peripheral neuropathy (PN). The median follow-up for all 63 patients is 12.4 (2.8-29.2) months and 95% of patients are alive with 87% free from progression. Conclusions: Modified CyBorD with weekly bortezomib and reduced dexamethasone retains the high activity seen in standard CyBorD, but is less toxic and more convenient. Interestingly, this modified regimen allowed higher overall doses of bortezomib (5.2 vs. 6.0 mg/m2 per cycle) yet overall neuropathy rates were similar. This combination of a weekly alkylating agent with bortezomib and dexamethasone is well tolerated and produces high response rates in newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma. Disclosures: Reeder: Millennium (MPI): Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Reece:Ortho Biotech: Honoraria, Research Funding. Chen:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ortho Biotech: Honoraria. Hentz:Millennium (MPI): Research Funding. Fonseca:Otsuka: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Medtronic: Consultancy; Genzyme: Consultancy. Bergsagel:Merck: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Stewart:Proteolix: Honoraria; Millennium (MPI): Research Funding.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".