FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Adding bortezomib to the standard treatment regimen for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) did not significantly impact outcomes, findings from the phase-2 PYRAMID trial showed.
When the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib was combined with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) in patients with previously untreated non–germinal center B-cell–like (non-GCB) DLBCL, a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) was not observed.
There also was no increase in 2-year PFS among patients treated with the combination of bortezomib plus R-CHOP (VR-CHOP), according to findings from the open-label, randomized study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology ( 2017 Sep 1. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.73.2784 ).
Secondary endpoints of the study, including response rates and overall survival, also appeared to be similar with R-CHOP versus VR-CHOP.
“A potential reason for the lack of benefit with VR-CHOP was that only two doses of bortezomib were given per 21-day cycle, whereas the standard schedule for bortezomib in multiple myeloma is four doses per cycle on days 1, 4, 8, and 11,” wrote John P. Leonard, MD , of Weill Cornell Medicine and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, and his colleagues. “In this study, treatment duration was limited to six 21-day cycles of R-CHOP.”
The authors noted that previous research has demonstrated the feasibility of using VR-CHOP and similar immunochemotherapy regimens in DLBCL. In the current PYRAMID (Personalized Lymphoma Therapy: Randomized Study of Proteasome Inhibition in Non-GCB DLBCL) phase 2 trial, VR-CHOP was compared with R-CHOP in 206 patients with previously untreated non-GCB DLBCL who were selected by real-time subtyping conducted or confirmed at a central laboratory that used the Hans algorithm.
The cohort was randomized to receive six 21-day cycles of standard R-CHOP alone or R-CHOP plus bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 4, and the primary endpoint was PFS.
The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS was 0.73 (90% confidence interval, 0.43-1.24) and favored VR-CHOP (P = .611), while the median PFS was not reached in either group. At 2 years, PFS was 77.6% with R-CHOP, versus 82.0% with VR-CHOP.
Among patients with high-intermediate/high International Prognostic Index (IPI) risk, those rates were 65.1% with R-CHOP, versus 72.4% with VR-CHOP (HR, 0.67; 90% CI, 0.34-1.29; P = .606). For those patients at low/low-intermediate IPI risk, the rates were 90.0% for R-CHOP, versus 88.9% for VR-CHOP (HR, 0.85; 90% CI, 0.35-2.10; P = .958).
The overall response rate was 98% for R-CHOP patients and 96% for VR-CHOP, with complete response rates of 49% and 56%, respectively.
Time to progression rates at 2 years were 79.8% for R-CHOP, versus 83.0% with VR-CHOP (HR, 0.79; 90% CI, 0.45-1.37; P = .767). While median overall survival was not reached in either arm, the HR for the entire cohort was 0.75 (90% CI, 0.38-1.45; P = .763). Two-year overall survival was 88.4% and 93.0%, respectively.
In the high-intermediate/high IPI score group, 2-year overall survival was 79.2% with R-CHOP, versus 92.1% with VR-CHOP (HR, 0.62; 90% CI, 0.25-1.42; P = .638), and for those with low/low-intermediate IPI risk scores, 97.7% versus 93.8% (HR, 1.02; 90% CI, 0.34-3.27; P = .999).
Millennium Pharmaceuticals supported the study. Dr. Leonard and several of the coauthors reported relationships with industry.
