1 Department of Clinical Therapeutics and Internal Medicine, University of Athens School of Medicine, Athens; 2 Saint Savvas Cancer Hospital, Athens; 3 Department of Hematology, Theagenion Cancer Hospital, Thessaloniki; 4 Department of Hematology, Genimatas General Hospital, Athens; 5 Department of Hematology, University of Patra, Patra; 6 Metaxa Cancer Hospital, Pireus; 7 Department of Hematology, Democritus University, Alexandroupolis; 8 Papageorgiou Hospital, Thessaloniki; 9 Sismanoglion Hospital, Athens; 10 Airforce General Hospital, Athens; 11 General Hospital of Kerkira, Kerkira; 12 Venizelion Hospital, Heraklion; 13 Department of Blood Bank and Laboratory Hematology, Univarsity of Patra, Patra, Greece
Received 12 December 2002; revised 14 February 2003; accepted 18 March 2003
![]() |
Abstract |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The combination of vincristine and doxorubicin administered as a continuous infusion via an indwelling catheter together with intermittent high-dose dexamethasone (VAD) is an effective primary treatment for patients with symptomatic multiple myeloma. In order to avoid the need for an indwelling catheter, which imposes logistic problems for outpatient administration, several phase II studies have explored the feasibility and efficacy of VAD-like outpatient regimens. We designed a prospective randomized study to compare the objective response rates of two VAD-like outpatient regimens as primary treatment for symptomatic patients with multiple myeloma.
Patients and methods:
Patients were entered in a randomized study regardless of age, performance status and renal function. One hundred and twenty-seven patients received VAD bolus, which consisted of vincristine 0.4 mg i.v., doxorubicin 9 mg/m2 i.v. and dexamethasone 40 mg p.o. daily for four consecutive days and 132 patients received VAD doxil, which consisted of vincristine 2 mg i.v. and liposomal doxorubicin 40 mg/m2 i.v. on day 1 and dexamethasone 40 mg p.o. daily for 4 days. The two regimens were administered every 28 days for four courses and in courses 1 and 3, in both arms, dexamethasone was also given on days 912 and 1720.
Results:
An objective response was documented in 61.4% and 61.3% of patients treated with VAD bolus and VAD doxil, respectively. Hematological and non-hematological toxicities were mild or moderate and equally distributed between the two treatment arms with the exception of alopecia, which was more common after VAD bolus, and of palmarplantar erythrodysesthesia, which was more common after VAD doxil.
Conclusions:
Our multicenter trial, which included an unselected patient population, indicated that both VAD bolus and VAD doxil can be administered to outpatients and can provide an equal opportunity of rapid response in many patients with multiple myeloma.
Key words: chemotherapy, liposomal doxorubicin, multiple myeloma
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
![]() |
Patients and methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Statistical analysis
The primary objective was to compare the overall response rates of the two regimens. The null hypothesis was that the VAD doxil regimen should show a response rate of at most 15% lower than that of the VAD bolus regimen. No statistically different responses would lead to the conclusion that the VAD doxil regimen was equivalent to (or better than) VAD bolus regarding antitumor effectiveness. According to previous experience the expected response to VAD was considered to be 70%. To show such a difference by a one-sided hypothesis test based on a 2 distribution with a continuity correction (significance level
= 5%; power 80%), the inclusion of 128 patients in each treatment arm was required. Performing an intention-to-treat analysis a total of 256 eligible patients would be needed to reach the desired power. To account for patients lost to follow-up,
5% were added to the above-calculated sample size.
All case report forms were reviewed by the Data Monitor for completeness, accuracy, eligibility criteria and assessment of the outcome variables. All data were entered into a computerized database and analyzed with the SAS and SPSS version 8.0 programs.
Response rates were compared using the 2 test. Comparison of treatment groups according to all toxicity categories was done by Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Time to progression and overall survival were estimated by the non-parametric method of KaplanMeier and were compared by the log-rank test.
Patient characteristics
Between February 1999 and June 2001, 272 patients were randomly allocated, 136 to each arm. Thirteen patients never received either regimen and 259 patients received treatment and were evaluable for toxicity and response; 127 patients received VAD bolus and 132 patients received VAD doxil. Patients and disease features are shown in Table 1. Staging was performed according to Durie and Salmon [9]. The majority of patients had poor prognostic features, which were equally balanced between the two treatment groups (Table 1).
|
Evaluation of response
Routine hematological and biochemical tests, serum monoclonal protein concentration and/or urinary light chain excretion and ß2-microglobulin were performed at the beginning of each course of treatment and every 34 months thereafter. Bone marrow aspirate and/or bone marrow biopsy were performed before the first course of treatment and 46 weeks after administration of the fourth course of treatment.
Response criteria were adapted from those used by Samson et al. [4]. CR required a negative serum and urine immunofixation and <5% bone marrow plasma cells. Partial response (PR) required a reduction of serum and/or urine monoclonal protein by 50% along with reduction of bone marrow plasmacytosis by
50%. The condition of CR or PR required evidence of sustained response for at least 1 month. Lack of at least PR was considered as no response. All patients who discontinued treatment after the first course of treatment because of death, toxicity or the patients wish were rated as non-responders. Disease progression was for patients in PR an increase in monoclonal protein of 50% above plateau on two samples 4 weeks apart, and for patients in CR reappearance of detectable monoclonal protein and/or recurrence of bone marrow plasmacytosis. Bone marrow examination was not mandatory in patients with obvious reappearance of monoclonal protein of the same type as the initial one. The time to progression was calculated from the date of diagnosis to the date of disease progression for responders. Overall survival was defined from the date of diagnosis to the date of death due to any cause. Early death was considered death <4 months after the start of treatment due to toxicity or progressive disease.
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The objective response rate to either regimen is shown in Table 2. The objective response rate (i.e. CRs and PRs) was 61.4% for VAD bolus and 61.3% for VAD doxil. As expected, the time to response was short and, with either regimen, at least 50% reduction of monoclonal protein was noted within 2 months of treatment in 80% of patients. In responding patients, monoclonal protein response was confirmed by a repeat bone marrow examination after four cycles of treatment. We subsequently assessed the objective response rate in subsets of patients with adverse prognostic factors such as stage III, severe anemia, hypercalcemia, renal impairment, hypoalbuminemia and elevated serum ß2-microglobulin levels. There was no evidence that either regimen was more or less effective in any subset of patients (data not shown).
|
|
|
|
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
These data prompted many investigators to use VAD as first-line treatment in patients with multiple myeloma. Objective response rates ranging between 50% and 80% were reported, and these differences could be explained by different patient characteristics [4, 5, 14, 15]. Furthermore, remission rates and survival times were similar to those achieved by standard alkylating agent-based regimens. All these studies confirmed rapid onset of response. Indeed in one study, all patients responding to primary VAD, which included repeated courses of dexamethasone, showed a tumor-halving time of 1.4 months or less, permitting the recognition of response after only one course of treatment [5]. Thus a VAD-based regimen seems better for newly diagnosed patients when rapid control of multiple myeloma is necessary.
A disadvantage of the administration of VAD as continuous infusions is the necessity for a central venous catheter, which makes outpatient administration difficult and is associated with catheter-related problems such as infections and thrombosis in 24% of patients [16]. In order to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of VAD in a more convenient schedule, Segeren et al. [6] administered vincristine and doxorubicin as a rapid i.v. infusion in a large cohort of previously untreated patients 65 years of age and observed a 67% objective response rate. Our data confirmed the activity of VAD bolus in the context of a prospective randomized trial since we documented objective responses in 61.4% of patients. Furthermore, we observed that the VAD bolus regimen was equally effective in patients less or more than 65 years of age and we demonstrated that this regimen can be administered even to octogenarians.
Doxil is a stealth liposomal formulation of doxorubicin in which segments of hydrophilic methoxypolyethylene glycol are grafted onto the surface of each liposome. This technology provides several pharmacological benefits such as reduced uptake by the immune system and the heart, slow and steady plasma drug level, and enhanced extravasation through endothelial gaps in tumors [7]. Two phase II studies of VAD doxil as primary treatment for multiple myeloma indicated that this regimen induced objective responses in at least 80% of patients [17, 18]. Our prospective multicenter trial confirmed the activity of VAD doxil for previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma, albeit at a lower response rate of 61.3%. Furthermore, we observed that PR and CR rates after VAD bolus and VAD doxil were identical with either regimen and that four courses of treatment were adequate to induce a response. Thus limited primary treatment with such a regimen may avoid excessive myelosuppression and immunosupression and may reduce the severity of side-effects from long-term exposure to corticosteroids. Furthermore, this approach may also provide the best opportunity to collect adequate numbers of stem cells for patients who are candidates for high-dose therapy. From the present study, no conclusions can be drawn regarding time to progression and survival of our patients, since most patients received some form of maintenance or consolidation treatment. Nevertheless, we noted that the median time to progression was similar and that the survival curves appeared identical.
Despite the fact that at least one-half of our patients were 65 years of age both regimens were relatively well-tolerated. Approximately 75% of patients completed the planned four courses of treatment with either regimen. The degree of myelosuppression was similar between the two regimens. Early deaths that could be attributed to the toxicity of chemotherapy were observed in
5% of patients. Approximately one-fifth of patients treated with either regimen developed an infectious complication. Palmarplantar erythrodysesthesia was more common with VAD doxil and alopecia occurred more frequently after VAD bolus.
We conclude that, to the best of our knowledge, our study is the first multicenter trial to compare prospectively two outpatient VAD-like regimens. We did not use restrictions as far as age, performance status and renal function were concerned and we believe that our patient population was representative of myeloma patients in Greece. Our prospective randomized study indicated that these two VAD-like regimens can be administered on an outpatient basis and can provide an equal opportunity for a rapid response in many patients with symptomatic myeloma. We also confirmed that a limited number of cycles with either VAD bolus or VAD doxil is needed to induce a response.
![]() |
Acknowledgements |
---|
![]() |
Footnotes |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
2. Gregory WM, Richards MA, Malpas JS. Combination chemotherapy versus melphalan and prednisolone in the treatment of multiple myeloma: an overview of published trials. J Clin Oncol 1992; 10: 334342.[Abstract]
3. Barlogie B, Smith L, Alexanian R. Effective treatment of advanced multiple myeloma refractory to alkylating agents. N Engl J Med 1984; 310: 13531358.[Abstract]
4. Samson D, Gaminara E, Newland A et al. Infusion of vincristine and doxorubicin with oral dexamethasone as first-line therapy for multiple myeloma. Lancet 1989; 2: 882885.[Medline]
5. Alexanian R, Barlogie B, Tucker S. VAD-based regimens as primary treatment for multiple myeloma. Am J Hematol 1990; 33: 8689.[ISI][Medline]
6. Segeren CM, Sonneveld P, van der Holt B et al. Vincristine, doxorubicin and dexamethasone (VAD) administered as rapid intravenous infusion for first-line treatment in untreated multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 1999; 105: 127130.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
7. Gabizon A, Martin F. Polyethylene glycol-coated (pegylated) liposomal doxorubicin. Rationale for use in solid tumors. Drugs 1997; 54 (Suppl 4): 1521.[ISI][Medline]
8. Hussein MA, Wood L, McLain D et al. Phase II study of doxil, vincristine and decadron in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. Blood 1998; 92: 278b (Abstr 4144).
9. Durie B, Salmon S. A clinical staging system for multiple myeloma. Cancer 1975; 36: 842854.[ISI][Medline]
10. Jackson DV, Sethi VS, Spurr CL et al. Pharmacokinetics of vincristine infusion. Cancer Treat Rep 1981; 65: 10431048.[ISI][Medline]
11. Drewinko B, Alexanian R, Boyer H et al. The growth fraction of human myeloma cells. Blood 1981; 56: 333338.
12. Koskela K, Pelliniemi T, Remesk. VAD regimen in the treatment of resistant multiple myeloma: slow or fast infusion. Leuk Lymphoma 1993; 10: 347351.[ISI][Medline]
13. Alexanian R, Yar BS, Bodey GP. Prednisone pulse therapy for refractory multiple myeloma. Blood 1983; 62: 572577.[Abstract]
14. Monconduit M, Menard JF, Michaux JL et al. VAD or VMBCP in severe multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 1992; 80: 199204.[ISI][Medline]
15. Abrahamson GM, Bird JM, Newland AC et al. A randomized study of VAD therapy with either concurrent or maintenance interferon in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 1996; 94: 659664.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
16. Anderson H, Scarffe JH, Ranson M et al. VAD chemotherapy as remission induction for multiple myeloma. Br J Cancer 1995; 71: 326330.[ISI][Medline]
17. Tsiara SN, Kapsali E, Christou L et al. Administration of a modified chemotherapeutic regimen containing vincristine, liposomal doxorubicin and dexamethasone to multiple myeloma patients: preliminary data. Eur J Haematol 2000; 65: 118122.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
18. Hussein MA, Wood L, Hsi E et al. A phase II trial of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, vincristine and reduced dose dexamethasone combination therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. Cancer 2002; 95: 21602168. [CrossRef][ISI][Medline]