Proteasome inhibitors in cancer therapy Manasanch, Elisabet E; Orlowski, Robert Z
Nature reviews. Clinical oncology,
07/2017, Volume:
14, Issue:
7
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
Open access
The ubiquitin proteasome pathway was discovered in the 1980s to be a central component of the cellular protein-degradation machinery with essential functions in homeostasis, which include preventing ...the accumulation of misfolded or deleterious proteins. Cancer cells produce proteins that promote both cell survival and proliferation, and/or inhibit mechanisms of cell death. This notion set the stage for preclinical testing of proteasome inhibitors as a means to shift this fine equilibrium towards cell death. Since the late 1990s, clinical trials have been conducted for a variety of malignancies, leading to regulatory approvals of proteasome inhibitors to treat multiple myeloma and mantle-cell lymphoma. First-generation and second-generation proteasome inhibitors can elicit deep initial responses in patients with myeloma, for whom these drugs have dramatically improved outcomes, but relapses are frequent and acquired resistance to treatment eventually emerges. In addition, promising preclinical data obtained with proteasome inhibitors in models of solid tumours have not been confirmed in the clinic, indicating the importance of primary resistance. Investigation of the mechanisms of resistance is, therefore, essential to further maximize the utility of this class of drugs in the era of personalized medicine. Herein, we discuss the advances and challenges resulting from the introduction of proteasome inhibitors into the clinic.
Full text
Available for:
NUK, OILJ, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
The ubiquitin-proteasome pathway is involved in intracellular protein turnover, and its function is crucial to cellular homeostasis.
First synthesized as probes of proteolytic processes, proteasome ...inhibitors began to be thought of as potential drug candidates
when they were found to induce programmed cell death preferentially in transformed cells. They made their first leap into
the clinic to be tested as therapeutic agents 10 years ago, and since then, great strides have been made in defining their
mechanisms of action, their clinical efficacy and toxicity, and some of their limitations in the form of resistance pathways.
Validation of the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway as a target for cancer therapy has come in the form of approvals of the first
such inhibitor, bortezomib, for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and mantle cell lymphoma, for which this agent has become
a standard of care. Lessons learned from this first-in-class agent are now being applied to the development of a new generation
of proteasome inhibitors that hold the promise of efficacy in bortezomib-resistant disease and possibly in a broader spectrum
of diseases. This saga provides a salient example of the promise of translational medicine and a paradigm by which other agents
may be successfully brought from the bench to the bedside.
Summary Background Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is a reference treatment for patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. The combination of the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib with lenalidomide and ...dexamethasone has shown significant efficacy in the setting of newly diagnosed myeloma. We aimed to study whether the addition of bortezomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone would improve progression-free survival and provide better response rates in patients with previously untreated multiple myeloma who were not planned for immediate autologous stem-cell transplant. Methods In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma aged 18 years and older from participating Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) and National Clinical Trial Network (NCTN) institutions (both inpatient and outpatient settings). Key inclusion criteria were presence of CRAB (C=calcium elevation; R=renal impairment; A=anaemia; B=bone involvement) criteria with measurable disease (measured by assessment of free light chains), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–3, haemoglobin concentration 9 g/dL or higher, absolute neutrophil count 1 × 103 cells per mm3 or higher, and a platelet count of 80 000/mm3 or higher. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to receive either an initial treatment of bortezomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (Rd group). Randomisation was stratified based on International Staging System stage (I, II, or III) and intent to transplant (yes vs no). The VRd regimen was given as eight 21-day cycles. Bortezomib was given at 1·3 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11, combined with oral lenalidomide 25 mg daily on days 1–14 plus oral dexamethasone 20 mg daily on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12. The Rd regimen was given as six 28-day cycles. The standard Rd regimen consisted of 25 mg oral lenalidomide once a day for days 1–21 plus 40 mg oral dexamethasone once a day on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival using a prespecified one-sided stratified log rank test at a significance level of 0·02. Analyses were intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00644228. Findings Between April, 2008, and February, 2012, we randomly assigned 525 patients at 139 participating institutions (264 to VRd and 261 to Rd). In the randomly assigned patients, 21 patients in the VRd group and 31 in the Rd group were deemed ineligible based mainly on missing, insufficient, or early or late baseline laboratory data. Median progression-free survival was significantly improved in the VRd group (43 months vs 30 months in the Rd group; stratified hazard ratio HR 0·712, 96% CI 0·56–0·906; one-sided p value 0·0018). The median overall survival was also significantly improved in the VRd group (75 months vs 64 months in the Rd group, HR 0·709, 95% CI 0·524–0·959; two-sided p value 0·025). The rates of overall response (partial response or better) were 82% (176/216) in the VRd group and 72% (153/214) in the Rd group, and 16% (34/216) and 8% (18/214) of patients who were assessable for response in these respective groups had a complete response or better. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported in 198 (82%) of 241 patients in the VRd group and 169 (75%) of 226 patients in the Rd group; 55 (23%) and 22 (10%) patients discontinued induction treatment because of adverse events, respectively. There were no treatment-related deaths in the Rd group, and two in the VRd group. Interpretation In patients with newly diagnosed myeloma, the addition of bortezomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone resulted in significantly improved progression-free and overall survival and had an acceptable risk-benefit profile. Funding NIH, NCI, NCTN, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Oncology Company, and Celgene Corporation.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZRSKP
Immuno‐oncology therapies engage the immune system to treat cancer. BiTE (bispecific T‐cell engager) technology is a targeted immuno‐oncology platform that connects patients' own T cells to malignant ...cells. The modular nature of BiTE technology facilitates the generation of molecules against tumor‐specific antigens, allowing off‐the‐shelf immuno‐oncotherapy. Blinatumomab was the first approved canonical BiTE molecule and targets CD19 surface antigens on B cells, making blinatumomab largely independent of genetic alterations or intracellular escape mechanisms. Additional BiTE molecules in development target other hematologic malignancies (eg, multiple myeloma, acute myeloid leukemia, and B‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma) and solid tumors (eg, prostate cancer, glioblastoma, gastric cancer, and small‐cell lung cancer). BiTE molecules with an extended half‐life relative to the canonical BiTE molecules are also being developed. Advances in immuno‐oncology made with BiTE technology could substantially improve the treatment of hematologic and solid tumors and offer enhanced activity in combination with other treatments.
This review provides an overview of immuno‐oncology therapies and those in development. It specifically focuses on bispecific T‐cell engager (BiTE) technology, its mechanism of action, types of cancer in which it has had success, half‐life‐extended BiTE molecules, and their potential as an off‐the‐shelf, targeted immunotherapy.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is standard frontline therapy for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple ...myeloma (NDMM). The addition of daratumumab (D) to RVd (D-RVd) in transplant-eligible NDMM patients was evaluated. Patients (N = 207) were randomized 1:1 to D-RVd or RVd induction (4 cycles), ASCT, D-RVd or RVd consolidation (2 cycles), and lenalidomide or lenalidomide plus D maintenance (26 cycles). The primary end point, stringent complete response (sCR) rate by the end of post-ASCT consolidation, favored D-RVd vs RVd (42.4% vs 32.0%; odds ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-2.82; 1-sided P = .068) and met the prespecified 1-sided α of 0.10. With longer follow-up (median, 22.1 months), responses deepened; sCR rates improved for D-RVd vs RVd (62.6% vs 45.4%; P = .0177), as did minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity (10−5 threshold) rates in the intent-to-treat population (51.0% vs 20.4%; P < .0001). Four patients (3.8%) in the D-RVd group and 7 patients (6.8%) in the RVd group progressed; respective 24-month progression-free survival rates were 95.8% and 89.8%. Grade 3/4 hematologic adverse events were more common with D-RVd. More infections occurred with D-RVd, but grade 3/4 infection rates were similar. Median CD34+ cell yield was 8.2 × 106/kg for D-RVd and 9.4 × 106/kg for RVd, although plerixafor use was more common with D-RVd. Median times to neutrophil and platelet engraftment were comparable. Daratumumab with RVd induction and consolidation improved depth of response in patients with transplant-eligible NDMM, with no new safety concerns. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02874742.
•D-RVd improved sCR rates and MRD negativity vs RVd, both of which deepened over time.•No new safety concerns were observed with D-RVd, and no clinically significant impact on stem cell mobilization or engraftment was noted.
Display omitted
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
The clinical outcome of multiple myeloma (MM) is heterogeneous. A simple and reliable tool is needed to stratify patients with MM. We combined the International Staging System (ISS) with chromosomal ...abnormalities (CA) detected by interphase fluorescent in situ hybridization after CD138 plasma cell purification and serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) to evaluate their prognostic value in newly diagnosed MM (NDMM).
Clinical and laboratory data from 4,445 patients with NDMM enrolled onto 11 international trials were pooled together. The K-adaptive partitioning algorithm was used to define the most appropriate subgroups with homogeneous survival.
ISS, CA, and LDH data were simultaneously available in 3,060 of 4,445 patients. We defined the following three groups: revised ISS (R-ISS) I (n = 871), including ISS stage I (serum β2-microglobulin level < 3.5 mg/L and serum albumin level ≥ 3.5 g/dL), no high-risk CA del(17p) and/or t(4;14) and/or t(14;16), and normal LDH level (less than the upper limit of normal range); R-ISS III (n = 295), including ISS stage III (serum β2-microglobulin level > 5.5 mg/L) and high-risk CA or high LDH level; and R-ISS II (n = 1,894), including all the other possible combinations. At a median follow-up of 46 months, the 5-year OS rate was 82% in the R-ISS I, 62% in the R-ISS II, and 40% in the R-ISS III groups; the 5-year PFS rates were 55%, 36%, and 24%, respectively.
The R-ISS is a simple and powerful prognostic staging system, and we recommend its use in future clinical studies to stratify patients with NDMM effectively with respect to the relative risk to their survival.
New Drugs in Multiple Myeloma Kunacheewa, Chutima; Orlowski, Robert Z
Annual review of medicine,
01/2019, Volume:
70, Issue:
1
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
Multiple myeloma is diagnosed in over 100,000 patients each year worldwide, has an increasing incidence and prevalence in many regions, and follows a relapsing course, making it a significant and ...growing healthcare challenge. Recent basic, translational, and clinical studies have expanded our therapeutic armamentarium, which now consists of alkylating agents, corticosteroids, deacetylase inhibitors, immunomodulatory agents, monoclonal antibodies, and proteasome inhibitors. New drugs in these categories, and additional agents, including both small and large molecules, as well as cellular therapies, are under development that promise to further expand our capabilities and bring us closer to the cure of this plasma cell dyscrasia.
In the primary analysis of the phase 3 MAIA trial (median follow-up 28·0 months), a significant improvement in progression-free survival was observed with daratumumab plus lenalidomide and ...dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in transplantation-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Here, we report the updated efficacy and safety results from a prespecified interim analysis for overall survival.
MAIA is an ongoing, multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial that enrolled patients at 176 hospitals in 14 countries across North America, Europe, the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific region. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0–2, and were ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation because of their age (≥65 years) or comorbidities. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using randomly permuted blocks (block size 4) by an interactive web response system to receive 28-day cycles of intravenous daratumumab (16 mg/kg, once per week during cycles 1–2, once every 2 weeks in cycles 3–6, and once every 4 weeks thereafter) plus oral lenalidomide (25 mg on days 1–21 of each cycle) and oral dexamethasone (40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle; daratumumab group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). Randomisation was stratified by International Staging System disease stage, geographical region, and age. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, which was centrally assessed, and a secondary endpoint was overall survival (both assessed in the intention-to-treat population). The safety population included patients who received at least one dose of the study treatment. The results presented here are from a prespecified interim analysis for overall survival, for which the prespecified stopping boundary was p=0·0414. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02252172.
Between March 18, 2015, and Jan 15, 2017, 952 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 737 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the daratumumab group (n=368) or the control group (n=369). At a median follow-up of 56·2 months (IQR 52·7–59·9), median progression-free survival was not reached (95% CI 54·8–not reached) in the daratumumab group versus 34·4 months (29·6–39·2) in the control group (hazard ratio HR 0·53 95% CI 0·43–0·66; p<0·0001). Median overall survival was not reached in either group (daratumumab group, 95% CI not reached–not reached; control group, 95% CI 55·7–not reached; HR 0·68 95% CI 0·53–0·86; p=0·0013). The most common (>15%) grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (197 54% patients in the daratumumab group vs 135 37% patients in the control group), pneumonia (70 19% vs 39 11%), anaemia (61 17% vs 79 22%), and lymphopenia (60 16% vs 41 11%). Serious adverse events occurred in 281 (77%) patients in the daratumumab group and 257 (70%) patients in the control group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 13 (4%) patients in the daratumumab group and ten (3%) patients in the control group.
Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone increased overall survival and progression-free survival in patients ineligible for stem-cell transplantation with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. There were no new safety concerns. Our results support the frontline use of daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone for patients with multiple myeloma who are ineligible for transplantation.
Janssen Research & Development.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Proteasome inhibition has emerged as an important therapeutic strategy in multiple myeloma (MM). Since the publication of the first phase 1 trials of bortezomib 10 years ago, this first-in-class ...proteasome inhibitor (PI) has contributed substantially to the observed improvement in survival in MM patients over the past decade. Although first approved as a single agent in the relapsed setting, bortezomib is now predominantly used in combination regimens. Furthermore, the standard twice-weekly schedule may be replaced by weekly infusion, especially when bortezomib is used as part of combination regimens in frontline therapy. Indeed, bortezomib is an established component of induction therapy for patients eligible or ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation. Bortezomib has also been incorporated into conditioning regimens before autologous stem cell transplantation, as well as into post-ASCT consolidation therapy, and in the maintenance setting. In addition, a new route of bortezomib administration, subcutaneous infusion, has recently been approved. Recently, several new agents have been introduced into the clinic, including carfilzomib, marizomib, and MLN9708, and trials investigating these “second-generation” PIs in patients with relapsed/refractory MMs have demonstrated positive results. This review provides an overview of the role of PIs in the treatment of MM, focusing on developments over the past decade.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Proteasome inhibitors are key parts of our armamentarium against multiple myeloma, but the disease can become resistant through poorly defined mechanisms. In this issue of Cancer Cell, ...Leung-Hagesteijn and colleagues describe XBP1s− subpopulations of tumor cells that are resistant to bortezomib and may account for therapeutic failures in the clinic.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
PDF
