Citations

AbstractThe Fas/Fas ligand (FasL) pathway is widely involved in apoptotic cell death in lymphoid and nonlymphoid cells. It has recently been postulated that many chemotherapeutic agents also induce cell death by activating the Fas/FasL pathway. In the present study we compared apoptotic pathways induced by anti-Fas or chemotherapeutic agents in the Jurkat human T-cell leukemia line. Immunoblotting showed that treatment of wild-type Jurkat cells with anti-Fas or the topoisomerase II-directed agent etoposide resulted in proteolytic cleavage of precursors for the cysteine-dependent aspartate-directed proteases caspase-3 and caspase-7 and degradation of the caspase substrates poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) and lamin B1 . Likewise, affinity labeling with N-(Nα-benzyloxycarbonylglutamyl-Nε-biotinyllysyl)aspartic acid [(2,6-dimethyl-benzoyl)oxy]methyl ketone [Z-EK (bio)D-amok] labeled the same five active caspase species after each treatment, suggesting that the same downstream apoptotic pathways have been activated by anti-Fas and etoposide. Treatment with ZB4, an antibody that inhibits Fas-mediated cell death, failed to block etoposide-induced apoptosis, raising the possibility that etoposide does not initiate apoptosis through Fas/FasL interactions. To further explore the relationship between Fas- and chemotherapy-induced apoptosis, Fas-resistant Jurkat cells were treated with various chemotherapeutic agents. Multiple independently derived Fas-resistant Jurkat lines underwent apoptosis that was indistinguishable from that of the Fas-sensitive parental cells after treatment with etoposide, doxorubicin, topotecan, cisplatin, methotrexate, staurosporine, or γ-irradiation. These results indicate that antineoplastic treatments induce apoptosis through a Fas-independent pathway even though Fas- and chemotherapy-induced pathways converge on common downstream apoptotic effector molecules.

Abstract Introduction: Multiple myeloma (MM) accounts for about 20% of deaths from hematological cancers and remains incurable despite conventional and high-dose chemotherapy. Two phase III trials in patients with relapsed or refractory MM (MM-009 and MM-010) showed that lenalidomide combined with dexamethasone resulted in significantly improved response rates and significantly prolonged median time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) compared with dexamethasone alone. This current sub-analysis of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone therapy assessed whether there was a survival benefit in maintaining patients on therapy after achieving their best response and what the impact of early discontinuation on TTP and OS was. Methods: Of the 353 patients from MM-009 and MM-010 treated with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone, 32 did not respond. Of the remaining 321 responding patients, 214 had a partial response (PR) or better and 107 patients had stable disease (SD). In this post-hoc sub-analysis, we first assessed the outcome of continuing treatment for ≤10 months vs. >10 months in all 321 patients who achieved SD or better, after they achieved their best response. In this landmark analysis, OS was measured from the time of achieving best response to death from any cause or to last contact. In a second analysis, we assessed the impact of early discontinuation due to adverse events or withdrawn consent on OS and TTP in all patients who achieved SD or better. Therefore, we excluded patients who discontinued treatment due to disease progression, death, or lack of efficacy. Patients who achieved SD or better and who continued on therapy were compared with those who discontinued. OS and TTP were assessed from time of randomization. Results: In the landmark analysis, of the 321 responding patients (≥PR, n=214; SD, n=107), 223 patients received treatment for ≤10 months after achieving their best response and 98 patients for >10 months after achieving their best response. Patients who continued therapy for >10 months after achieving their first best response had significantly longer OS vs. those who received therapy for ≤10 months (not reached vs. 23.4 months; p<0.0001). At 24 months after achieving their best response, significantly more patients were alive if they continued therapy >10 months vs. ≤10 months (93.8% vs. 48.4%, p<0.0001). In the second analysis, in order to evaluate the impact of discontinuation in patients achieving SD or better, we excluded 134 patients due to disease progression, death, or lack of efficacy. Of the remaining 187 responding patients, 72 discontinued treatment for AE (n=42) or withdrew consent (n=30), while the remaining 115 patients continued treatment. Median OS and TTP were significantly longer for patients who continued vs. those who discontinued treatment (median OS: not reached vs. 29.5 months, p<0.0001; median TTP: not reached vs. 13.6 months, p<0.0001). Conclusions: In patients achieving SD or better, prolonged duration of treatment was associated with significantly longer OS and TTP. In contrast, early discontinuation of treatment led to reduced OS and TTP. Therefore, efforts should be made to manage adverse events while maintaining patients on therapy. Furthermore, maintaining treatment with lenalidomide and dexamethasone after achieving the optimal response ensures a significant improvement in OS for patients with relapsed or refractory MM.

Abstract Introduction Few treatments options are available for patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have previously been treated with lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT), and their prognosis is poor. Pomalidomide (POM) is a distinct IMiD® immunomodulatory agent with a mechanism of action consisting of direct anti-myeloma, stromal-support inhibitory, and immunomodulatory effects. In randomized phase 2 and 3 trials (MM-002 and MM-003), POM plus low-dose dexamethasone (POM+LoDEX) demonstrated marked efficacy in RRMM pts who had received multiple prior therapies, including LEN and BORT. This side-by-side analysis presents the most recent survival and safety data from these trials. Methods The MM-002 and MM-003 trials enrolled pts with ≥ 2 prior therapies, including LEN and BORT. In MM-002, pts received POM (4 mg/day on days 1–21 of each 28-day cycle) alone or in combination with LoDEX (40 mg/week). In MM-003, pts were randomized 2:1 to receive POM+LoDEX or high-dose DEX alone (HiDEX) (40 mg/days 1–4, 9–12, 17–20 in a 28-day cycle); HiDEX was chosen as the comparator to isolate the effects of POM, as at the time of trial design it was the standard salvage therapy for heavily pretreated pts. Thromboprophylaxis was required for all pts treated with POM and pts at high risk of developing venous thromboembolism. Data cutoff was February 1, 2013 for MM-002 and March 1, 2013 for MM-003. The primary endpoint in both trials was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), response rates, duration of response, and safety. Results In each study, pts had received a median of 5 prior therapies (range 1-17), and all pts had received prior LEN and BORT. In MM-002, 113 pts were treated with POM+LoDEX and 108 were treated with POM alone (60% of POM alone pts subsequently received DEX). A total of 79% of pts were LEN refractory; 62% were refractory to both LEN and BORT; and 35% had received LEN as their last prior therapy. With a median follow-up of 14.2 months (mos), median PFS was 4.2 mos, OS was 16.5 mos, and overall response rate (ORR, defined as at least a partial response) was 33% with POM+LoDEX (Table 1). In MM-003, 302 pts were treated with POM+LoDEX and 153 pts were treated with HiDEX (50% of HiDEX pts subsequently received POM). A total of 94% of pts were LEN refractory; 74% were both LEN and BORT refractory; and 29% had received LEN as their last prior therapy. Survival outcomes were similar in MM-003; with a median follow-up of 10 mos, median PFS was 4.0 mos, OS was 12.7 mos, and ORR was 31% with POM+LoDEX. In both trials, LEN as last prior therapy did not impact response, PFS, or OS vs the overall population. Commonly observed adverse events (AEs) are presented in Table 2 for pts treated with POM+LoDEX. Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia was 28% and 13% in MM-002, and 26% and 22% in MM-003 for the POM+LoDEX arms, respectively. AEs were generally manageable for POM+LoDEX in MM-002 and MM-003 with dose interruptions (67% for both) and reductions (29% and 26%, respectively), and standard supportive care, including growth factor support (46% and 43%), red blood cell transfusions (45% and 49%), platelet transfusions (14% and 20%), and anti-infective agents (89% in both trials). Rates of POM discontinuation due to treatment-related AEs were low (2–4% with POM+LoDEX). In MM-002 and MM-003, 49% and 51% of pts in the POM+LoDEX arms experienced neutropenia of any grade. With appropriate AE management, 9% and 23% had dose interruptions, 4% and 8% had dose reductions, and 1 pt in both MM-002 and MM-003 discontinued due to neutropenia. Febrile neutropenia developed in 3% and 10% of pts; 1% and 4% had dose interruptions, 0% and 2% had dose reductions, and no pts discontinued due to febrile neutropenia in the MM-002 and MM-003 studies, respectively. The majority of infections occurred in the absence of neutropenia of any grade (54% in MM-002 and 66% in MM-003). The rate of POM discontinuation due to infection was low (1% in MM-002 and 2% in MM-003). Conclusion In both the MM-002 and MM-003 trials, POM+LoDEX consistently extended PFS in advanced RRMM pts. PFS, OS, and ORR were not negatively impacted in patients who were refractory to LEN or BORT, even as last prior therapy. Both trials demonstrated that with dose modifications and supportive care POM was well tolerated, leading to few discontinuations. POM+LoDEX should be considered a standard of care for pts with advanced RRMM who have exhausted LEN and BORT. Disclosures: Siegel: Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Richardson:Millennium: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dimopoulos:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Song:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Vij:Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium: Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Baz:Millenium: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Hofmeister:Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Weisel:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Jagannath:Millennium: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria. Lonial:Millennium: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Delforge:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria. Talpaz:Ariad, Sanofi, Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ariad, Novartis, BMS, Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Ariad, BMS, Sanofi, INCYTE: Research Funding. Moreau:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. San Miguel:Jansen, Celgene Corporation, Onyx, Novartis, Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Karlin:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Expert board committee Other, Honoraria. Goldschmidt:Celgene Corporation, Janssen, Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Oriol:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Alegre:Janssen: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Cavo:Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Martinez-Lopez:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Casey:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sternas:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jacques:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Anderson:Onyx: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Gilead: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; sanofi aventis: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Oncopep: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Acetylon: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Equity Ownership.

Abstract Systemic mastocytosis (SM) is a rare hematologic neoplasm characterized by abnormal growth and accumulation of tissue mast cells (MC) in various organ systems, including bone marrow (BM). Indolent and advanced forms of SM have been described. Whereas patients with ISM have a normal or near normal life-expectancy, patients with advanced SM, including those suffering from mast cell leukemia (MCL) have a poor prognosis. In these patients, neoplastic MC are usually resistant against conventional drugs and various targeted drugs. In rapidly progressive aggressive SM (ASM) and MCL, polychemotherapy followed by allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHCT) has been proposed. However, outcome of alloHCT in advanced SM is unknown, and it also remains uncertain whether clinically relevant graft-versus-SM (GVSM) effects may occur in these patients, as only sporadic case reports have been published. We performed a retrospective multi-center analysis to evaluate the outcome of alloHCT in patients with advanced SM. Fifty-four advanced SM patients receiving SCT in 32 transplantation centers in Europe and America were identified between 1990 and 2013. The median patient age was 45 years. Donors were: HLA identical siblings (31), unrelated donors (URD) (15), umbilical cord blood donors (UCB) (2), and haploidentical donors (1). In 5 patients, stem cell source was not defined (5). Thirty-four patients received myeloablative conditioning (MAC) and 18 received reduced intensity conditioning regimens (RIC). In 2 patients, conditioning regimen was not specified. Indications for alloHCT were SM with an associated clonal hematologic non-mast cell lineage disease (SM-AHNMD) (n=32), MCL (n=13, including one with MCL-AHNMD), 8 with ASM and 1 with myelomastocytic leukemia (MML). The most prevalent AHNMD was acute myeloid leukemia (AML, n=16). With follow-up of 35-6180 (median 365) days, SM responses (defined as ≥50% decrease in BM mast cells ± decrease in serum tryptase ± regression of other organ manifestations) were observed in 39 patients (72%), including complete responses (CR) documented in 12 patients (22%). Eleven patients had stable disease, whereas 4 patients (7%) progressed immediately after alloHCT (primary resistance). In addition, 10 patients progressed (5 of them within 100 days) after an initial response. Progression was most frequently seen in MCL patients (n=6, 50%). In the AHNMD group, only 8 patients relapsed/progressed (25%). The overall survival (OS) and SM progression-free survival (PFS) at 1 year were 63% and 50% for all patients, 77% and 68% for SM-AHNMD, 63% and 50% for ASM, and 25% and 17% for MCL, respectively. The strongest predictive variable associated with inferior survival was a diagnosis of MCL. Other factors associated with poor outcome were: Karnofsky performance status ≤70%, ≥2 SM regimens given before alloHCT (e.g., steroids, cladribine, chemotherapy, tyrosine kinase inhibitor), donor source (alternative donors-UCB and haploidentical compared to sibling or URD), SM progression within the first 100 days, normal cytogenetics (compared to t(8;21) (q22;q22), and RIC (compared to MAC). The following variables were not associated with poor outcome: patient and donor age, recipient-donor sex match status, graft source (BM vs. peripheral stem cells), BM mast cell percentage at time of alloHCT, and CR status of AML or SM response at time of alloHCT. This largest multi-center analysis of results in advanced SM provides evidence for clinical efficacy of alloHCT, presumably because of a GVSM effect of alloHCT (achieving CR, and response to donor-lymphocyte infusions and RIC alloHCT). However, responses varied among different SM categories: while patients with SM-AHNMD enjoyed excellent outcomes, the OS for MCL patients in general, was poor. Nevertheless it is remarkable that 3 of 13 patients with MCL – an otherwise fatal disease with a median survival of &lt;12 months – became long-term survivors after alloHCT. In summary, our results support development of a prospective alloHCT study, with the aim to optimize therapy and to improve overall outcome in advanced SM. Based on our pilot study, alloHCT should also be considered in practice for eligible and fit patients with SM-AHNMD (if treatment of AHNMD component needs alloHCT or SM component is aggressive), rapidly progressing ASM, MCL and MML when a suitable HLA-matched sibling donor or URD is available. Disclosures: Vercellotti: Sangart Inc.: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Akin:Novartis: Consultancy. Valent:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Context and objective Approximately 5-10% of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients carry MYC gene translocations (MYC-translocation+) with a poor prognosis after standard chemotherapy. MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients carrying BCL2 translocations (MYC+/BCL2+ double-hit lymphoma) have a worse survival. The efficacy of adjuvant radiotherapy in this setting is unknown. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of radiotherapy as a part of the therapeutic regimen for patients with MYC-translocation+ DLBCL. Patients and methods From the International DLBCL R-CHOP consortium program, we selected 581 patients with de novo DLBCL treated with standard R-CHOP immunochemotherapy (diagnosed and treated from 2000 to 2010). We excluded patients with transformed DLBCL, primary mediastinal, cutaneous, testicular or central nervous system large B-cell lymphomas, patients with HIV infection, and patients not treated with R-CHOP. The median follow-up was 54.9 months. Fluorescence in situ hybridization assessing MYC was performed for all the patients (n=581) and results were correlated with available clinical data to identify clinicopathologic features associated with MYC translocation, and to evaluate the prognostic significance of MYC translocations regarding overall survival (OS, from the time of diagnosis to death from any cause) and progression-free survival (PFS, from the time of diagnosis to relapse or death from any cause). In the MYC-translocation+ DLBCL group, 38 patients received chemotherapy alone and 21 patients received chemotherapy with adjuvant radiation therapy. The clinicopathologic features and survival of MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients treated with (n=21) and without radiotherapy (n=38) after immunochemotherapy were compared to in order to evaluate the radiotherapy efficacy and other confounding factors. Results MYC translocations were detected in 59 DLBCL patients (10.2%). Patients with MYC-translocation+ DLBCL more often had bulky tumors, involvement of multiple extranodal sites, and poorer OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.0, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20 - 3.35, P= .0083) and PFS (HR: 1.96, 95% CI: 1.22 - 3.13, P= .0005) independent of the International Prognostic Index score. Poor survival was primarily attributable to patients with MYC+/BCL2+ double-hit DLBCL who were predominantly of germinal center B-cell subtype. Among MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients, a better survival was achieved in patients who received radiotherapy (for OS, HR: .32, 95% CI: .15 - .71, P= .0049; for PFS, HR: .35, 95% CI: .17 - .73, P= .0043). Conversely, radiotherapy abolished the adverse impact of MYC translocations. In addition, radiotherapy was associated with better survival in the subset of patients with MYC+/BCL2+ double-hit lymphoma (P = .017 for OS, and P = .05 for PFS). However, owing to the common use of radiotherapy as consolidation therapy, the favorable prognoses in the group of patients who received radiotherapy could also be attributed to limited-stage disease and more frequent complete remission (CR) after first-line treatment and therefore these factors confound interpretation of the data. To address these issues, we evaluated radiotherapy efficacy in separate patient groups: patients who achieved CR, non-CR (PR/SD/PD) patients, and patient with stage I/II, or stage III/IV disease. The efficacy of radiotherapy appeared more apparent in patients with advanced disease who did not achieve CR after first-line chemotherapy. Multivariate analysis after adjustment for stage and IPI score validated that radiotherapy significantly improved OS (HR: .28, 95% CI: .10 - .81, P= .018) and PFS (HR: .32, 95% CI: .13 - .80, P= .015) of MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients. Conclusions The presence of MYC translocations in DLBCL is an important biomarker that facilitates prognostic prediction and treatment stratification independent of the IPI score. For chemoresistant MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients, radiotherapy seems to be an effective adjuvant regimen likely due to the higher frequency of extranodal involvement and bulky disease in MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients. Our results provide a rationale for larger scale studies to assess the potential role of radiotherapy in the management of MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients, particularly patients with MYC+/BCL2+double-hit DLBCL. Disclosures: Winter: Millenium: Research Funding; Novartis : Research Funding; Pfizer (Wyeth): Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding; Janssen (Pharmacyclics): Research Funding; Spectrum (Allos): Consultancy; Sanofi Aventis: Consultancy; Tgen: Consultancy; AMBIT Biosciences (Spouse): Research Funding; Celgene (Spouse): DSMB, DSMB Other, Research Funding; Ariad Pharmaceuticals (Spouse): Research Funding; Novartis (Spouse): Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen (Spouse): Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas (Spouse): Research Funding; Caremark/CVS: Consultancy; Pfizer (Spouse): Consultancy; Sanofi Aventis (Spouse): DSMB, DSMB Other; Bristol Myers Squibb (Spouse): DSMB, DSMB Other; UptoDate, Inc.(Spouse): Patents & Royalties.

AbstractPrevious studies have shown that K562 chronic myelogenous leukemia cells are resistant to induction of apoptosis by a variety of agents, including the topoisomerase II (topo II) poison etoposide, when examined 4 to 24 hours after treatment with an initiating stimulus. In the present study, the responses of K562 cells and apoptosis-proficient HL-60 acute myelomonocytic leukemia cells to etoposide were compared, with particular emphasis on determining the long-term fate of the cells. When cells were treated with varying concentrations of etoposide for 1 hour and subsequently plated in soft agar, the two cell lines displayed similar sensitivities, with a 90% reduction in colony formation at 5 to 10 μmol/L etoposide. After treatment with 17 μmol/L etoposide for 1 hour, cleavage of the caspase substrate poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP), DNA fragmentation, and apoptotic morphological changes were evident in HL-60 cells in less than 6 hours. After the same treatment, K562 cells arrested in G2 phase of the cell cycle but otherwise appeared normal for 3 to 4 days before developing similar apoptotic changes. When the etoposide dose was increased to 68 μmol/L, apoptotic changes were evident in HL-60 cells after 2 to 3 hours, whereas the same changes were observed in K562 cells after 24 to 48 hours. This delay in the development of apoptotic changes in K562 cells was accompanied by delayed release of cytochrome c to the cytosol and delayed appearance of peptidase activity that cleaved the fluorogenic substrates Asp-Glu-Val-Asp-aminotrifluoromethylcoumarin (DEVD-AFC) and Val-Glu-Ile-Asp-aminomethylcoumarin (VEID-AMC) as well as an altered spectrum of active caspases that were affinity labeled with N-(Nα-benzyloxycarbonylglutamyl-Nε-biotinyllysyl) aspartic acid [(2,6-dimethylbenzoyl)oxy]methyl ketone [z-EK(bio)D-aomk]. On the other hand, the activation of caspase-3 under cell-free conditions occurred with indistinguishable kinetics in cytosol prepared from the two cell lines. Collectively, these results suggest that a delay in the signaling cascade upstream of cytochrome c release and caspase activation leads to a long latent period before the active phase of apoptosis is initiated in etoposide-treated K562 cells. Once the active phase of apoptosis is initiated, the spectrum and subcellular distribution of active caspase species differ between HL-60 and K562 cells, but a similar proportion of cells are ultimately killed in both cell lines.

Abstract Background: The use of low-dose dexamethasone (Dex) in combination with lenalidomide (Len), an immunomodulatory compound, improves overall survival (OS) compared with high-dose Dex plus Len in patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) (Rajkumar et al. 2007). Two phase III randomised trials of pts with relapsed/refractory MM showed that Len/Dex had significantly better overall response (OR), complete response (CR), OS and time to progression (TTP) than Dex alone. Dex dose reductions were permitted in relation to severity of adverse events (AEs). We investigated the effect of Dex dose reductions on efficacy and tolerability of Len/Dex in relapsed/refractory MM. Methods: Data were pooled from the MM-009/010 studies for pts treated in the Len/Dex group who had an unchanged Len dose (n=233). Pts were treated with Len (25mg/day on day 1–21 of each 28-day cycle) and Dex 40mg on day 1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 (for the first four cycles). After four cycles, Dex 40mg/day was administered only on day 1–4. Dex dose reductions were: 40mg day 1–4 every 2 weeks (level -1), 40mg day 1–4 every 4 weeks (level -2), and 20mg day 1–4 every 4 weeks (level -3). Response to therapy, TTP, OS, and progression-free survival (PFS), as well as AEs were assessed. Response rate and TTP were based on data obtained before unblinding (June/August 2005 [MM-009/010]. Results: Of 233 pts in this post-hoc analysis, 177 pts were treated with Dex 40 mg/day throughout the study and 46 received Dex dose reductions. Forty-one pts received a dose reduction due to AEs. Baseline characteristics were balanced between treatment groups. Pts who received Dex dose reductions had a significantly higher OR rate, including a higher CR, compared with those who received standard Dex dose (Table). Pts in the Dex reductions group had significantly longer median TTP, median OS, and median PFS, compared with those who received Dex at the assigned dose. At the end of the study, rates of serious AEs, grade 3–4 AEs, treatment-related AEs and withdrawals because of AEs were comparable between pts who received Dex dose reductions and those who received an unchanged Dex dose. Although most Dex dose reductions were made for an AE, by reducing the dose pts were able to maintain a similar safety profile to those who did not require dose reductions. Grade 3–4 haematological AEs in pts who received Dex dose reductions and those who did not were neutropenia (23.7% and 32.6%, respectively), thrombocytopenia (8.5% and 6.8%, respectively) and anaemia (6.8% and 6.2%, respectively). No febrile neutropenia was reported in these pts. Conclusion: Dex dose reductions improved the efficacy of Len/Dex without affecting tolerability in pts with relapsed/refractory MM. Len/Dex Dex unchanged (n=177) Dex reduced (n=46) P *Most conservative median estimate obtained assuming all censored patients die right right after the censor date Response, % OR 50.8 69.6 <0.05 CR 13.0 23.9 <0.01 nCR 19.8 37.0 <0.01 PR 18.1 8.7 <0.01 Median TTP, weeks* >24.1 >59.9 0.002 Median OS, weeks* >109.7 >121.9 0.19 Median PFS, weeks* >24.1 >59.9 0.001

The Fas/Fas ligand (FasL) pathway is widely involved in apoptotic cell death in lymphoid and nonlymphoid cells. It has recently been postulated that many chemotherapeutic agents also induce cell death by activating the Fas/FasL pathway. In the present study we compared apoptotic pathways induced by anti-Fas or chemotherapeutic agents in the Jurkat human T-cell leukemia line. Immunoblotting showed that treatment of wild-type Jurkat cells with anti-Fas or the topoisomerase II-directed agent etoposide resulted in proteolytic cleavage of precursors for the cysteine-dependent aspartate-directed proteases caspase-3 and caspase-7 and degradation of the caspase substrates poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) and lamin B1 . Likewise, affinity labeling with N-(Nα-benzyloxycarbonylglutamyl-Nε-biotinyllysyl)aspartic acid [(2,6-dimethyl-benzoyl)oxy]methyl ketone [Z-EK (bio)D-amok] labeled the same five active caspase species after each treatment, suggesting that the same downstream apoptotic pathways have been activated by anti-Fas and etoposide. Treatment with ZB4, an antibody that inhibits Fas-mediated cell death, failed to block etoposide-induced apoptosis, raising the possibility that etoposide does not initiate apoptosis through Fas/FasL interactions. To further explore the relationship between Fas- and chemotherapy-induced apoptosis, Fas-resistant Jurkat cells were treated with various chemotherapeutic agents. Multiple independently derived Fas-resistant Jurkat lines underwent apoptosis that was indistinguishable from that of the Fas-sensitive parental cells after treatment with etoposide, doxorubicin, topotecan, cisplatin, methotrexate, staurosporine, or γ-irradiation. These results indicate that antineoplastic treatments induce apoptosis through a Fas-independent pathway even though Fas- and chemotherapy-induced pathways converge on common downstream apoptotic effector molecules.

Abstract The objective of this study was to analyze molecular changes that occur at the protein level in WM and IgM-MGUS in order to identify proteins dysregulated at disease progression and design new therapies. We employed antibody protein microarrays (BD Clonetech, CA) to measure changes in the patterns of protein expression between WM, IgM-MGUS and normal lymphoplasmacytic cells as control. The antibody array is a novel technique that assays protein differences directly by hybridizing fluorescently labeled protein mixtures from cell extracts onto a glass slide spotted with 512 different monoclonal antibodies specific for human proteins. CD 19+ and CD138+ purified lymphoplasmacytic cells were obtained from cryopreserved bone marrow samples of 5 newly diagnosed patients with WM and 5 patients with IgM-MGUS. Control plasma cells were obtained from 3 pooled CD19+ and CD138+ purified normal donor bone marrow cells. To assess differential expression, the mean of the ratios of Cy5/Cy3 for each sample were analyzed using the Clontech software to calculate an internally normalized ratio. The normalized data were analyzed by the Genespring software and changes of protein expression ≥2 fold in 60% of the samples as compared to normal control were identified in both WM and MGUS groups. There were 20 proteins upregulated in WM and 21 proteins in MGUS as compared to normal control cells These included proteins from the small GTPases such as the Ras, Rho and Ran families (Rab 4, MONA, RCC1, and CDC42GAP), Kinases/signaling proteins (ROK alpha, p62 dok, JAK, 14-3-3e), cyclin dependent kinase (CDK2), fatty acid synthase (HDAC3), NFkB pathway (IKKalpha, IKBe), and histone deacetylase. The WM and IgM MGUS differed in only 3 proteins using the 2-fold threshold. The WM samples showed overexpression of the heat shock protein Hsp90, the Ras family protein CDC25C, and the chemotaxis protein p43/EMAPII as compared to the MGUS samples. This is the first proteomic study of WM and MGUS patients. It identifies novel proteins dysregulated in WM that may serve in future clinical trials as targets for therapy such as Hsp90, NFkB, HDAC and fatty acid synthase. In addition, it identifies 3 proteins that identify disease progression from MGUS to WM, which could be useful for monitoring MGUS patients and designing targeted therapies to prevent progression to WM.

Abstract Background: Patients (Pts) with multiple myeloma (MM) who relapse within 12 months of autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT) have a poor prognosis. As reported by Mahmood et al. (ASCO 2007), of 432 pts who received SCT at the Mayo Clinic between 1994–2005, those with early relapse within 12 months (94/432– 22%) showed poorer median overall survival. Kaplan-Meier estimates of 12-month survival from the date of first relapse were 37% for pts relapsing within 12 months after SCT as compared to 85% for those relapsing after 12 months. In that study, pts had received regimens other than B. In a recent report of a large, phase III study (DOXIL-MMY3001), the combination of PLD+B improved time to progression (TTP) as compared to B alone (Orlowski et al. JCO 2007). The present analysis examined the 12-month post-randomization survival of patients who had early (<12 months) vs. late (≥12 months) relapse following SCT, as well as the effect of PLD+B vs. B alone in pts who had relapsed early. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of 646 pts who received intravenous B, 1.3 mg/m2 on days 1,4,8 and 11 of every 21-day cycle ± PLD, 30 mg/m2 on day 4. Results: 359 pts had previously received transplant, 114 (32%) of whom relapsed within 12 months from SCT. The median age, gender distribution, time from diagnosis trial enrollment, measures of disease burden (M-Protein levels and B2M) and renal function were comparable between the early and late relapse groups. There was no difference in overall response rates [complete + partial response (CR+PR)] or very good PR (VGPR) rates between the two groups, or between treatment arms within each group. There was no significant difference in TTP between early vs. late relapse groups (HR=0.94). 12-month survival from randomization was significantly lower in the early relapse group as compared to late relapse (83% vs. 92% respectively, p=0.009). However, within the early relapse group 12-months post-randomization survival rate was significantly superior following treatment with PLD+B as compared to B alone [52/56 patients (93%) vs. 43/58 patients (74%) respectively, p=0.01]. Correspondingly, TTP was better in this group with PLD+B vs. B alone (276 days vs. 205 days respectively, p=0.13). Overall, the toxicity profiles of the combination and B alone were comparable regardless of early or late relapse following SCT. Conclusions: The present analysis of the MMY3001 study corroborates the prior Mayo observation of lower survival in MM pts relapsing within 12 months of SCT. Importantly, it demonstrates that PLD+B may provide a therapeutic advantage for high-risk MM pts with early relapse following SCT.