Zhang, Shijia

Abstract Background: Bortezomib is a proteasome inhibitor that can lead to cell-cycle arrest and apoptosis. Bortezomib-based regimens are widely used as induction therapy of multiple myeloma (MM). Unlike lenalidomide (an immunomodulatory drug), the role of bortezomib in the consolidation and maintenance therapy of multiple myeloma is less clear. This study aims to examine the efficacy and safety of bortezomib-based regimens as consolidation/maintenance therapy in MM patients following induction therapy with or without autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Methods: PubMed, ASH, and ASCO databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RTC) of bortezomib-based regimens (either single-agent or combination) as consolidation/maintenance therapy for MM patients through July 2018. Study endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AE). Pooled hazard ratios (HR) for survival outcomes and relative risks (RR) for dichotomous data with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated with a random effect model using MedCalc (MedCalc Software, Ostend, Belgium). For studies that did not report HRs for survival outcomes but provided graphical survival curves, the log HRs and variances were estimated based on the method by Parmar et al (Stat Med 1998; 17: 2815-2834). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic of inconsistency, with statistically significant heterogeneity defined as I2 > 50% or p-value < 0.1. Results: Eight randomized controlled trials (7 phase III, 1 phase II; 2 were published in a single article) were identified. Bortezomib-based regimens were administered as consolidation treatment in 5 RTCs and maintenance therapy in 3 RTCs, following induction therapy +/- ASCT. A total of 2439 patients were included: 1154 patients received bortezomib-based regimens, and 1285 patients received non-bortezomib-based regimens or observation. Two RCTs (1 for consolidation, 1 for maintenance) did not provide HRs, which were estimated as described as above. Pooled data from the 8 RCTs showed that bortezomib-based consolidation/maintenance therapy improved progression-free survival (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.64-0.79, P < 0.001; I2 = 6.61%) and overall survival (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68-0.94, P = 0.005; I2 = 0%) compared to observation or regimens without bortezomib. When the 2 RCTs that did not report HRs were excluded from the meta-analysis, it did not alter the favorable outcome of bortezomib-based consolidation/maintenance therapy: PFS (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60-0.82, P < 0.001; I2 = 40.54%) and OS (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.91, P = 0.002; I2 = 0%). The PFS benefit was maintained in a subgroup analysis by the setting of treatment (consolidation, HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63-0.85, P < 0.001; I2 = 0%, maintenance, HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56-0.0.86, P = 0.001; I2 = 55.63%). Bortezomib-based therapy prolonged OS in the maintenance setting (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.86, P < 0.001; I2 = 0%) but not in the consolidation setting (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.77-1.33, P = 0.935; I2 = 0%). Regarding safety, bortezomib-based consolidation/maintenance therapy significantly increased the risk of grade 3 or 4 peripheral sensory neuropathy and neuralgia (RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.11-3.95, p = 0.022; I2 = 52.64%) compared to observation or regimens without bortezomib. There was a trend toward increased rates of grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.95-2.52, p = 0.08; I2 = 21.67%), GI symptoms (RR 2.54, 95% CI 0.63-10.25, p = 0.19; I2 = 76.72%), vascular events (RR 1.90, 95% CI 0.80-4.53, p = 0.15; I2 = 0.00%), and fatigue (RR 2.10, 95% CI 0.83-5.30, p = 0.12; I2 = 0.00%) with bortezomib-based consolidation/maintenance, but these did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: Bortezomib-based consolidation/maintenance significantly improves PFS and OS in MM patients following induction therapy +/- ASCT. The OS benefit appears to be limited to the maintenance setting based on a subgroup analysis. Bortezomib-based regimen increases the risk of grade 3 or 4 peripheral sensory neuropathy and neuralgia. Disclosures Bachanova: Gamida Cell: Research Funding; GT Biopharma: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

e20600 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have changed the treatment paradigm of advanced NSCLC and SCLC. The populations in clinical trials generally were composed of patients (pts) with excellent performance status (PS), a minimal number of prior lines of therapy, and no history of (h/o) autoimmune disease (AD). The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the predictors of survival in less fit and more heavily pretreated lung cancer pts at our institution. Methods: Medical records of lung cancer pts who started single-agent ICI from 2015 to 2018 were reviewed for data collection. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared by age, PS, smoking, PD-L1 expression, brain metastasis, prior lines of systemic therapy, h/o AD, and immune-related adverse events (irAE). Results: We included 150 pts who received at least 1 dose of nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab (median age 66, range 36-92, 56% female, 89% NSCLC, 97% stage 4, 13% never smoker, 34% ECOG ≥ 2, 37% ≥ 2 prior lines of therapy, 29% developed irAE). The overall response rate was 30% and clinical benefit rate 51% (3% CR, 27% PR, 21% SD). The median PFS was 3.7 months (m) overall and 12.3 m for those with ≥ 4 cycles of therapy. The median OS was 12.4 m overall and 26.0 m for those with ≥ 4 cycles. The median PFS and OS were not significantly different by age, PS, smoking, PD-L1, brain metastasis, prior lines of therapy, or h/o AD. The median OS was longer for pts with ECOG 0-1 than those ≥ 2 (14.6 vs 7.5 m, p < .001). The median PFS and OS for pts with irAE were longer compared to those without irAE (12.3 vs 2.6 m, p < .001 for PFS and 28.9 vs 9.1 m, p = .001 for OS). Multiple Cox regression analysis identified ECOG 0-1 (HR 0.54, p = .007) and irAE (HR 0.48, p = .003) to be independently associated with improved OS. 27 pts (18%) required steroids for irAE. There were no treatment-related deaths. Of 11 pts with h/o AD, only 1 experienced disease flare. Conclusions: The clinical benefit of ICIs persists in older or heavily pretreated pts. ECOG 0-1 and incident irAE predicted for improved survival. Survival for pts with ECOG ≥ 2 is very limited, suggesting ICIs should be used judiciously in this group. Therapy was well tolerated, with a low risk for flare of previous autoimmune disease.