The phase 3 trial HOVON-50 was designed to evaluate the effect of thalidomide during induction treatment and as maintenance in patients with multiple myeloma who were transplant candidates. A total of 556 patients was randomly assigned to arm A: 3 cycles of vincristine, adriamycin, and dexamethasone, or to arm B: thalidomide 200 mg orally, days 1 to 28 plus adriamycin and dexamethasone. After induction therapy and stem cell mobilization, patients were to receive high-dose melphalan, 200 mg/m 2 , followed by maintenance with ␣-interferon (arm A) or thalidomide 50 mg daily (arm B). Thalidomide significantly improved overall response rate as well as quality of the response before and after high dose melphalan. Best overall response rate on protocol was 88% and 79% (P ‫؍‬ .005), at least very good partial remission 66% and 54% (P ‫؍‬ .005), and complete remission 31% and 23% (P ‫؍‬ .04), respectively, in favor of the thalidomide arm. Thalidomide also significantly improved event-free survival from median 22 months to 34 months (P < .001), and prolonged progression free from median 25 months to 34 months (P < .001). Median survival was longer in the thalidomide arm, 73 versus 60 months; however, this difference was not significant (P ‫؍‬ .77). Patients randomized to thalidomide had strongly reduced survival after relapse. This trial was registered on www. controlled-trials.com as ISRCTN06413384.

Intravenous rituximab plus chemotherapy is standard treatment for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. A subcutaneous formulation of rituximab is expected to simplify and shorten drug preparation and administration, and to reduce treatment burden. MabEase (clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: 01649856) examined efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction with subcutaneous rituximab plus chemotherapy in treatment-naïve patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Patients were randomized 2:1 to subcutaneous rituximab (intravenous 375 mg/m2 cycle 1; subcutaneous 1,400 mg cycles 2–8) or intravenous rituximab (375 mg/m2 cycles 1–8) plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone every 14 or 21 days. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed complete response/unconfirmed complete response. Secondary endpoints included safety, treatment satisfaction (Cancer Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire and Rituximab Administration Satisfaction Questionnaire), time savings, and survival. Of 576 randomized patients, 572 (378 subcutaneous; 194 intravenous) received treatment. End of induction complete response/unconfirmed complete response rates were 50.6% (subcutaneous) and 42.4% (intravenous). After a median 35 months, median overall, event-free and progression-free survivals were not reached. Grade ≥3 adverse events (subcutaneous 58.3%; intravenous 54.3%) and administration-related adverse events (both groups 21%) were similar between arms. Injection-site reactions were more common with subcutaneous injections (5.7% versus 0%, respectively). Rituximab Administration Satisfaction Questionnaire scores for ‘impact on activities of daily living’, ‘convenience’, and ‘satisfaction’ were improved with subcutaneous versus intravenous injections; Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire scores were similar between arms. Median administration time (6 minutes vs. 2.6 to 3.0 hours), chair/bed and overall hospital times were shorter with subcutaneous versus intravenous rituximab. Overall, subcutaneous and intravenous rituximab had similar efficacy and safety, with improved patient satisfaction and time savings.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction. The standard first-line treatment of young and fit mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) patients consists of a rituximab containing induction of CHOP and high dose ARA-C, followed by high dose consolidation and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Thus far, almost all patients relapse after ASCT. Bortezomib is a proteasome inhibitor with activity in MCL. We investigated in a randomized phase II study whether there was any indication that maintenance therapy with bortezomib after ASCT could improve the outcome of treatment, measured as event free survival (EFS). Methods. Patients 18-65 years with newly diagnosed MCL were treated with 3 cycles of R-CHOP and 2 cycles of ARA-C (2 x 2 g/m2 iv d1-4) and rituximab (375 mg/m2, iv d11). Patients in PR or CR continued with ASCT after BEAM conditioning. Patients with a PR or CR after ASCT, with a neutrophil count > 0.5 x 109/l and platelets > 80 x 109/l were randomized between bortezomib and no further treatment. Bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 iv was given once every two weeks, for 2 years, starting between 6 - 12 weeks after transplantation. Results . Between October 2007 and February 2012, 140 patients aged 34-66 years (median 57) were registered. Five patients were not eligible. The MIPI score was low, intermediate, high or unknown in 57%, 32%, 10% and 1% respectively. All eligible patients started induction treatment with R-CHOP. Two patients did not receive the first ARA-C cycle, because of progressive disease and physician decision. Hundred-fifteen patients (85%) received the BEAM and ASCT. Reasons to stop protocol treatment before ASCT were: progressive disease (PD) (n=6), inadequate stem cell harvest (n=3), excessive toxicity (n=3), other reasons (n=8). The response after ASCT was CR/CRu in 99 patients (86%), PR in 15 (13%), unknown in 1 (1%). Only 62 patients (45%), aged 34-65 years (median 56) were randomized between bortezomib maintenance and no further treatment. Two patients were randomized, but not eligible. Reasons for no randomization were: not eligible (n=30), patient refusal (n=14), excessive toxicity (n=2, and other reasons (n=7). In each treatment arm 30 patients were included. The patient characteristics were well balanced, except the MIPI score. In the no maintenance arm 21 patients (70%) had a low MIPI, compared to 15 patients (50%) in the bortezomib arm, and 6 (20%) versus 11 (37%) patients had an intermediate MIPI score. In both arms 3 patients (10%) had a high MIPI. Fifteen patients (50%) in the maintenance group continued bortezomib for 2 years. Reasons to stop earlier were excessive toxicity (n=6), PD/relapse (n=4), patients refusal (n=3) and other (n=2). The main adverse events during maintenance therapy were neurologic (CTC grade 2: 14%, grade 3: 4%), and infectious (grade 2: 11%, grade 3: 7%). Three patients developed a secondary malignancy: a basal cell carcinoma in the no maintenance group, a melanoma and a prostate carcinoma in the bortezomib group. With a median follow-up of the patients still alive of 50.9 months EFS at 4 years for all patients is 61%, and the overall survival (OS) 78%. The median follow-up of the randomized patients still alive is 42.9 months. The EFS at 4 years is 72% without maintenance versus 71% in the patients randomized for bortezomib maintenance. The OS at 4 years also shows no significant difference between the groups, 90% versus 93% respectively. Conclusion. There is no indication that bortezomib iv maintenance in a frequency of once every 2 weeks does improve the EFS of newly diagnosed MCL patients after intensive induction treatment with R-CHOP, double ARA-C and BEAM followed by ASCT. Figure 1. Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 2. Disclosures Doorduijn: Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Off Label Use: bortezomib maintenance in MCL. Minnema:Celgene: Consultancy; Jansen Cilag: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Kersten:janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; takeda millennium: Research Funding; roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lugtenburg:Mundipharma: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Schipperus:Novartis: Consultancy. Zijlstra:Celgene: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy.