Summary Background High-dose dexamethasone is a mainstay of therapy for multiple myeloma. We studied whether low-dose dexamethasone in combination with lenalidomide is non-inferior to and has lower toxicity than high-dose dexamethasone plus lenalidomide. Methods Patients with untreated symptomatic myeloma were randomly assigned in this open-label non-inferiority trial to lenalidomide 25 mg on days 1–21 plus dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 of a 28-day cycle (high dose), or lenalidomide given on the same schedule with dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of a 28-day cycle (low dose). After four cycles, patients could discontinue therapy to pursue stem-cell transplantation or continue treatment until disease progression. The primary endpoint was response rate after four cycles assessed with European Group for Blood and Bone Marrow Transplant criteria. The non-inferiority margin was an absolute difference of 15% in response rate. Analysis was by modified intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00098475. Findings 445 patients were randomly assigned: 223 to high-dose and 222 to low-dose regimens. 169 (79%) of 214 patients receiving high-dose therapy and 142 (68%) of 205 patients on low-dose therapy had complete or partial response within four cycles (odds ratio 1·75, 80% CI 1·30–2·32; p=0.008). However, at the second interim analysis at 1 year, overall survival was 96% (95% CI 94–99) in the low-dose dexamethasone group compared with 87% (82–92) in the high-dose group (p=0·0002). As a result, the trial was stopped and patients on high-dose therapy were crossed over to low-dose therapy. 117 patients (52%) on the high-dose regimen had grade three or worse toxic effects in the first 4 months, compared with 76 (35%) of the 220 on the low-dose regimen for whom toxicity data were available (p=0·0001), 12 of 222 on high dose and one of 220 on low-dose dexamethasone died in the first 4 months (p=0·003). The three most common grade three or higher toxicities were deep-vein thrombosis, 57 (26%) of 223 versus 27 (12%) of 220 (p=0·0003); infections including pneumonia, 35 (16%) of 223 versus 20 (9%) of 220 (p=0·04), and fatigue 33 (15%) of 223 versus 20 (9%) of 220 (p=0·08), respectively. Interpretation Lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone is associated with better short-term overall survival and with lower toxicity than lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma.

In a longitudinal clinical study to compare two groups, the primary end point is often the time to a specific event (eg, disease progression, death). The hazard ratio estimate is routinely used to empirically quantify the between-group difference under the assumption that the ratio of the two hazard functions is approximately constant over time. When this assumption is plausible, such a ratio estimate may capture the relative difference between two survival curves. However, the clinical meaning of such a ratio estimate is difficult, if not impossible, to interpret when the underlying proportional hazards assumption is violated (ie, the hazard ratio is not constant over time). Although this issue has been studied extensively and various alternatives to the hazard ratio estimator have been discussed in the statistical literature, such crucial information does not seem to have reached the broader community of health science researchers. In this article, we summarize several critical concerns regarding this conventional practice and discuss various well-known alternatives for quantifying the underlying differences between groups with respect to a time-to-event end point. The data from three recent cancer clinical trials, which reflect a variety of scenarios, are used throughout to illustrate our discussions. When there is not sufficient information about the profile of the between-group difference at the design stage of the study, we encourage practitioners to consider a prespecified, clinically meaningful, model-free measure for quantifying the difference and to use robust estimation procedures to draw primary inferences.

Understanding the genetic mechanisms of sensitivity to targeted anticancer therapies may improve patient selection, response to therapy, and rational treatment designs. One approach to increase this understanding involves detailed studies of exceptional responders: rare patients with unexpected exquisite sensitivity or durable responses to therapy. We identified an exceptional responder in a phase I study of pazopanib and everolimus in advanced solid tumors. Whole exome sequencing of a patient with a 14-month complete response on this trial revealed two simultaneous mutations in mTOR, the target of everolimus. In vitro experiments demonstrate that both mutations are activating, suggesting a biological mechanism for exquisite sensitivity to everolimus in this patient. The use of precision (or “personalized”) medicine approaches to screen cancer patients for alterations in the mTOR pathway may help to identify subsets of patients who may benefit from targeted therapies directed against mTOR.