Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Bortezomib
Carlyn Rose C. Tan1 • Saif Abdul-Majeed2 • Brittany Cael3 • Stefan K. Barta1
© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018
Abstract Proteasome inhibitors disrupt multiple pathways in cells and the bone marrow microenvironment, resulting in apoptosis and inhibition of cell-cycle progression, angiogenesis, and proliferation. Bortezomib is a first-in- class proteasome inhibitor approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma and mantle cell lymphoma after one prior therapy. It is also effective in other plasma cell dis- orders and non-Hodgkin lymphomas. The main mechanism of action of bortezomib is to inhibit the chymotrypsin-like site of the 20S proteolytic core within the 26S proteasome, thereby inducing cell-cycle arrest and apoptosis. The pharmacokinetic profile of intravenous bortezomib is characterized by a two-compartment model with a rapid initial distribution phase followed by a longer elimination phase and a large volume of distribution. Bortezomib is available for subcutaneous and intravenous administration. Pharmacokinetic studies comparing subcutaneous and intravenous bortezomib demonstrated that systemic expo- sure was equivalent for both routes; pharmacodynamic parameters of 20S proteasome inhibition were also similar. Renal impairment does not influence the intrinsic phar- macokinetics of bortezomib. However, moderate or severe hepatic impairment causes an increase in plasma concen- trations of bortezomib. Therefore, patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment should start at a reduced
dose. Because bortezomib undergoes extensive metabolism by hepatic cytochrome P450 3A4 and 2C19 enzymes, certain strong cytochrome P450 3A4 inducers and inhibi- tors can also alter the systemic exposure of bortezomib. This article critically reviews and summarizes the clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of bortezomib at various dosing levels and routes of administration as well as in specific patient subsets. In addition, we discuss the clinical efficacy and safety of bortezomib.
Key Points
Bortezomib is a first-in-class selective and reversible proteasome inhibitor that targets the 26S proteasome and is highly active in multiple plasma cell disorders and non-Hodgkin lymphomas.
Subcutaneous and intravenous administration of bortezomib result in equivalent systemic exposure and comparable pharmacodynamic effects.
The pharmacokinetics of bortezomib is not affected by renal impairment but is influenced by hepatic impairment and cytochrome P450 drug interactions.
& Stefan K. Barta [email protected]
1 Department of Hematology/Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, 333 Cottman Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19111, USA
2 Office of Clinical Research, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
3 Department of Pharmacy, Bone Marrow Transplant Program, Jeanes Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA
⦁ Introduction
Bortezomib (PS-341) is a first-in-class, potent, selective, and reversible proteasome inhibitor. This drug was initially developed for use in the areas of inflammation and cachexia until the establishment of its antitumor activity in the late 1990s [1]. Initial screening of the National Cancer
Institute’s (NCI) tumor cell lines revealed that bortezomib possessed potent and wide-ranging anti-tumor activity [2]. Following its rapid clinical development, bortezomib received US Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and mantle cell lymphoma following at least one prior therapy. The ubiquitin-proteasome pathway plays a significant role in neoplastic growth. It is responsible for the degra- dation of most intracellular proteins, which is required for cell-cycle progression and mitosis [3–5]. The proteasome is also required for the activation of nuclear factor-jB by degradation of its inhibitory protein, IjB [6]. Nuclear factor-jB is required to maintain cell viability through the transcription of inhibitors of apoptosis. Therefore, stabi- lization of the IjB protein and blockade of nuclear factor- jB activity make cells more susceptible to apoptosis [7–9]. Bortezomib inhibits the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway by blocking the activity of the 26S proteasome, which is a large multi-subunit complex comprising a 20S proteolytic core and one or two 19S regulatory particles. Bortezomib specifically binds to the chymotryptic site within the 20S proteasome [10, 11]. As a result, bortezomib disrupts multiple downstream signaling pathways in cells and in the bone marrow microenvironment, inducing apoptosis and inhibiting cell-cycle progression, angiogenesis, cell adhe-
sion, and proliferation [7, 12–17].
Bortezomib alone and in combination with multiple anti-cancer agents has shown substantial activity in MM in both newly diagnosed (ND) and relapsed/refractory (RR) settings and has been incorporated in multiple initial, maintenance, and relapse regimens [18–23]. In 2006, the Food and Drug Administration granted approval to borte- zomib for the treatment of patients with mantle cell lym- phoma who had received at least one prior therapy based on results of the phase II PINNACLE study. In addition, bortezomib has demonstrated significant clinical activity in various other plasma cell disorders and non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHLs), and excellent reviews of this topic are available elsewhere [24–26].
Subcutaneous bortezomib was associated with an improved safety profile, including a significant reduction in peripheral neuropathy compared with intravenous borte- zomib [27]. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network panel recommends that subcutaneous administration is the preferred route for bortezomib based on results of the MMY-3021 trial. This phase III trial randomized 222 patients with relapsed MM to bortezomib administered through the intravenous or subcutaneous route and found that subcutaneous bortezomib was non-inferior to intra- venous bortezomib with regard to the overall response rate (ORR), time to progression, or 1-year overall survival (OS) [27].
The aim of this article is to critically review and sum- marize available clinical pharmacokinetic and pharmaco- dynamic data for bortezomib in the targeted patient population and specific patient subsets. In addition, we discuss the influence of extrinsic factors as well as the efficacy and safety of bortezomib.
⦁ Pharmacological Properties
Bortezomib (Velcade®) is a boronic acid dipeptide derivative with a high degree of selectivity for the pro- teasome without inhibiting many common proteases [2, 28]. It is available for intravenous injection or subcu- taneous use. The chemical name is [(1R)-3-methyl-1- [[(2S)-1-oxo-3-phenyl-2-[(pyrazinylcarbonyl) amino]pro- pyl]amino]butyl] boronic acid with the chemical structure presented in Fig. 1.
The molecular weight is 384.24. The solubility of bortezomib, as the monomeric boronic acid, in water is 3.3–3.8 mg/mL in a pH range of 2–6.5.
⦁ Drug Formulation and Administration
Bortezomib is formulated with mannitol as a lyophilized powder. The recommended standard dose and schedule for single-agent bortezomib is 1.3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8, and
11 of a 21-day cycle. The twice-weekly schedule was selected based on pharmacodynamics findings from animal studies of inhibition of proteasome activity, which showed activity returning to baseline within 48–72 h following bortezomib dosing [2]. For extended therapy of more than eight cycles, bortezomib can be administered on a once- weekly schedule for 4 weeks (days 1, 8, 15, and 22) every 35 days.
Fig. 1 Structural formula of bortezomib (PS-341, Velcade®): [(1R)- 3-methyl-1-[[(2S)-1-oxo-3-phenyl-2-[(pyrazinylcarbonyl) amino]propyl]amino]butyl]
⦁ Clinical Pharmacokinetics
The pharmacokinetics of bortezomib has been studied in multiple preclinical, phase I and II clinical trials. Various dosing schedules and routes of administration have been investigated in patients with advanced hematologic and solid malignancies. However, given the toxicity of borte- zomib, healthy volunteer studies were not performed. The NCI Cancer Treatment Evaluation Program Organ Dys- function Working Group conducted specific phase I studies in patients with renal and hepatic impairment [29, 30]. An overview of the pharmacokinetic parameters following various dosing levels, routes of administration, and single- and repeat-dosing administration are presented in Tables 1 and 2 and Fig. 2.
⦁ Absorption and Distribution
The pharmacokinetic profile of intravenous bortezomib is characterized by a two-compartment model with a rapid initial distribution phase followed by a longer elimination phase and a large volume of distribution [31, 32]. The distribution half-life is less than 10 min, followed by a long elimination half-life of more than 40 h [33]. In preclinical animal studies using radiolabeled bortezomib ([14C]PS- 341), intravenous administration of bortezomib resulted in rapid and widespread distribution in most organs with the highest levels identified in the liver and gastrointestinal tract [2]. There was no penetration in the central nervous system, testes, and eyes [2].
An increase in systemic exposure was seen following repeat-dose (cycle 1 day 11) vs. single-dose (cycle 1 day 1) administration at various dose levels and following an intravenous bolus or subcutaneous injection as presented in Tables 1 and 2 [32, 34]. Reece et al. evaluated the phar- macokinetics and pharmacodynamics of bortezomib in patients with relapsed MM after single and repeat intra- venous dosing at 1.0 and 1.3 mg/m2 [34]. The mean
maximum plasma concentrations (Cmax) of bortezomib after the first dose (cycle 1 day 1) were 57 and 112 ng/mL, respectively. On subsequent doses when administrated at the standard twice-weekly dose, the Cmax ranged from 67 to 106 ng/mL for the 1.0-mg/m2 dose and from 89 to120 ng/mL for the 1.3-mg/m2 dose. The mean Cmax and AUC were found to be similar following administration of the two dosing groups considering the observed modest-to- large pharmacokinetic variability [34].
Moreau and colleagues analyzed data from the phar- macokinetic substudy of the phase III MMY-3021 and phase I CAN-1004 comparing subcutaneous and intra- venous bortezomib and demonstrated that bortezomib systemic exposure was equivalent for both routes of administration [35]. In MMY-3021, the mean area under the plasma concentration–time curve from time zero to the last quantifiable timepoint (AUClast) for subcutaneous vs. intravenous bortezomib was 155 vs. 151 ng·h/mL; the geometric mean ratio was 0.992 [90% confidence interval (CI) 80.18–122.80]. Similar results were seen in CAN- 1004 with mean AUClast 195 vs. 241 ng·h/mL comparing subcutaneous vs. intravenous administration, respectively. The Cmax after subcutaneous administration was lower than intravenous administration in MMY-3021 (mean 20.4 vs. 223 ng/mL) and CAN-1004 (mean 22.5 vs. 162 ng/mL) [35]. Given the non-inferior efficacy seen with the subcu- taneous vs. intravenous administration of bortezomib in MMY-3021, Moreau and colleagues noted that efficacy is related to systemic exposure and not Cmax [27, 35]. Moreover, Moreau et al. discussed that the lower incidence of grade C 3 adverse events associated with subcutaneous bortezomib compared with intravenous administration in both MMY-3021 and CAN-1004 may be influenced by a number of factors, including pharmacokinetic parameters and differences in baseline susceptibility [27, 32, 35]. However, given the small number of patients who experi- enced grade C 3 adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy, from whom pharmacokinetic samples were
Table 1 Pharmacokinetic parameters (mean ± standard deviation) of bortezomib in plasma on cycle 1 day 11. Adapted from Moreau et al. [27, 32] and Reece et al. [34]
Parameter Dose (IV) Route (MMY-3021) Route (CAN-1004)
1.0 mg/m2 1.3 mg/m2 SC IV SC IV
AUClast (ng/mL) 137 ± 106 122.2 ± 67.4 155 ± 56.8 151 ± 42.9 195 ± 51.2 241 ± 82.0
Cmax (ng·h/mL) 106.2 ± 46.7 88.6 ± 47.6 20.4 ± 8.87 223 ± 101 22.5 ± 5.36 162 ± 79.9
tmax (min) – – 30 (5–60) 2 (2–5) 30 (15–60) 2 (2–30)
CL (L/h) 23.2 ± 17.8 28.0 ± 19.8 – – 6.22 ± 2.41 6.60 ± 3.15
t1/2 (h) 78.9 ± 50.9 75.6 ± 49.9 – – 95.2 ± 52.2 66.7 ± 40.7
AUClast area under the plasma concentration–time curve from time zero to the last quantifiable timepoint, CL clearance, Cmax maximum observed plasma drug concentration, IV intravenous, SC subcutaneous, tmax time to Cmax, t1/2 terminal half-life
Table 2 Pharmacokinetic
Parameter Single dose Repeat dose
parameters (mean ± standard
deviation) of bortezomib in plasma after single- administration on cycle 1 day 1 and repeat-dose administration on cycle 1 day 11. Adapted from Moreau et al. [35] and Reece et al. [34]
1.0 mg/m2 1.3 mg/m2 1.0 mg/m2 1.3 mg/m2
AUClast (ng/mL) 22.6 ± 12.6 31.5 ± 18.6 137 ± 106 122.2 ± 67.4
Cmax (ng·h/mL) 56.7 ± 36.3 112 ± 122 106.2 ± 46.7 88.6 ± 47.6
CL (L/h) 102.1 ± 48.1 111.6 ± 73.6 23.2 ± 17.8 28.0 ± 19.8
t1/2 (h) 30.7 ± 44.8 11.5 ± 12.7 78.9 ± 50.9 75.6 ± 49.9
Parameter Single dose Repeat dose
SC IV SC IV
AUClast (ng/mL) 92.1 ± 17.8 104 ± 99.0 195 ± 51.2 241 ± 82.0
Cmax (ng·h/mL) 16.5 ± 8.35 286 ± 466 22.5 ± 5.36 162 ± 79.9
tmax (min) 2.02 (0.57–4.00) 0.03 (0.03–0.97) 2.00 (1.00–4.00) 0.05 (0.03–0.50)
CL (L/h) 16.6 ± 5.82 17.9 ± 8.22 6.22 ± 2.41 6.60 ± 3.15
t1/2 (h) 65.7 ± 46.5 98.1 ± 145.0 95.2 ± 52.2 66.7 ± 40.7
AUClast area under the plasma concentration–time curve from time zero to the last quantifiable timepoint, CL clearance, Cmax maximum observed plasma drug concentration, IV intravenous, SC subcutaneous, tmax time to Cmax, t1/2 terminal half-life
Fig. 2 Mean (standard deviation) plasma bortezomib concentration–time profile after intravenous (IV) or subcutaneous (SC) injection of
1.3 mg/m2 on cycle 1 day 11, from MMY-3021. Reproduced from Moreau et al. [35]
available, they were unable to perform an analysis of associations between the incidence of adverse events and pharmacokinetic parameters [35].
The mean volume of distribution of bortezomib is very large and ranges from approximately 498–1884 L/m2 after single- or repeat-dose administration, indicating extensive peripheral tissue distribution of bortezomib [34]. Plasma protein binding of bortezomib is considered moderate and averaged 83% over the concentration range of 100–1000 ng/mL. The terminal half-life ranged between 10 and 31 h, and the systemic clearance ranged from 1095
to 1866 mL/min. Repeat dosing was associated with a substantial decrease in bortezomib plasma clearance (112 L/h for the first dose and ranged from 15 to 32 L/h following repeat dosing) and an increase in terminal half- life (76–108 h after the 1.3-mg/m2 dose) [34, 35].
3.2 Metabolism and Elimination
In-vitro studies with human liver microsomes and human complementary DNA-expressed CYP isozymes revealed that the primary metabolic pathway of bortezomib involves
hepatic oxidative deboronation by multiple CYP enzymes, including CYP3A4, CYP2C19, and CYP1A2 [36–38].
Bortezomib metabolism by CYP2D6 and CYP2C9 enzymes is minor [38]. Deboronation produces two inac- tive enantiomers, M1 and M2, which are carbinolamide diastereomers that subsequently undergo hydroxylation to several minor metabolites [37]. Bile collected from borte- zomib-treated monkeys did not elicit inhibitory activity against the 20S proteasome. Therefore, deboronated bortezomib metabolites are inactive as 26S proteasome inhibitors.
⦁ Specific Patient Subsets
⦁ Pharmacokinetics in Subjects with Renal Impairment
The Organ Dysfunction Working Group of the NCI Cancer Treatment Evaluation Program conducted a study to eval- uate the safety, tolerability, maximum tolerated dose, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of borte- zomib in adult patients with cancer with various degrees of renal impairment [29]. Patients were stratified by 24-h creatinine clearance (CrCl) into five cohorts: normal (CrCl C 60 mL/min/1.73 m2, n = 15), mild (CrCl 40–59 mL/min/1.73 m2, n = 17), moderate (CrCl 20–39 mL/min/1.73 m2, n = 18), severe (CrCl \ 20 mL/ min/1.73 m2, n = 3), and dialysis dependent (n = 9). Patients were treated with intravenous doses of bortezomib at 0.7–1.5 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 every 21 days. Decreased CrCl did not affect bortezomib pharmacokinet- ics or pharmacodynamics. Across all five cohorts and dose levels, bortezomib had the characteristic multi-exponential disposition kinetics with a rapid initial distribution phase with a steep decline in plasma concentrations followed by a slower decline in the terminal phase. Mean plasma clear- ance values of bortezomib were similar across the renal function groups. In addition, renal impairment had no apparent effect on bortezomib dose-normalized Cmax or half-life [29]. Bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 was well tolerated, and the authors concluded that dose reductions are not necessary in patients with renal dysfunction receiving bortezomib [29].
⦁ Pharmacokinetics in Subjects with Hepatic Impairment
Because bortezomib undergoes oxidative hepatic metabo- lism, the Organ Dysfunction Working Group of the NCI Cancer Treatment Evaluation Program investigated the pharmacokinetics and safety of bortezomib in patients with varying degrees of hepatic impairment [30]. Patients were
assigned to four hepatic function groups defined according to bilirubin and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels relative to the upper limit of normal (ULN): normal func- tion (bilirubin and AST B ULN, n = 13), mild hepatic impairment (bilirubin B ULN and AST[ULN or biliru- bin [ 1.0–1.5 9 ULN, n = 17), moderate impairment (bilirubin [ 1.5–3 9 ULN, n = 12), and severe hepatic impairment (bilirubin [ 3 9 ULN, n = 18). As seen in prior studies, bortezomib exhibited multi-exponential dis- position kinetics on days 1 and 8 across all hepatic function groups with a rapid initial distribution phase followed by a slower decline in plasma concentrations in the terminal phase [30]. Geometric mean dose-normalized AUClast was greater on day 8 than on day 1. The distribution of dose- normalized bortezomib exposure was comparable in patients with normal hepatic function and mild hepatic impairment but was higher in patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment. The mean dose-normalized AUClast was increased by approximately 60% on day 8 in patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment [30]. Mild hepatic impairment did not affect either dose-nor- malized AUClast or Cmax.
Based on the pharmacokinetic results showing an
increase in systemic exposure for patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment and the safety findings, LoRusso et al. recommended that patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment should be started at a reduced dose of bortezomib (0.7 mg/m2) [30]. In contrast, exposure was not increased in patients with mild hepatic impairment com- pared to those with normal function. The authors concluded that patients with mild hepatic impairment do not require a starting dose reduction of bortezomib [30].
⦁ Effects of Extrinsic Factors on Bortezomib Pharmacokinetics
⦁ Drug–Drug Interactions
Drug–drug interactions (DDIs) are responsible for 20–30% of drug adverse reactions [39]. In cancer treatment, DDIs are prevalent mainly in elderly populations because of the long-term use of multiple medications [40, 41] and may account for approximately 4% of patient deaths [42, 43]. Moreover, 27–58% of ambulatory patients with cancer experience at least one potential DDI [44, 45]. Metabolism- related DDIs, especially those due to induction inhibition of CYP enzymes, are most common and can be life threatening. Cytochrome P450 3A4/5 is responsible for the metabolism of approximately 30–40% of clinically avail- able drugs [46]. As mentioned above, bortezomib under- goes extensive metabolism by hepatic microsomal CYP3A4 and CYP2C19 enzymes. Therefore, co-
administration of potent inhibitors and inducers of these enzymes can be anticipated to possess an effect on the efficacy and safety profile and elimination of bortezomib. Venkatakrishnan et al. showed that concomitant administration of ketoconazole, a strong CYP3A4 inhi- bitor, increased bortezomib mean exposure by 35% in patients with solid tumors [47]. Moreover, the blood proteasome inhibitory effect increased by 24–46% with the concomitant administration of ketoconazole as com- pared with bortezomib alone. In contrast, co-administra- tion of the CYP2C19 inhibitor omeprazole had no significant effect on the pharmacokinetics and the safety profile of bortezomib in patients with advanced solid
tumors, NHL, or MM [48].
A study by Hellman and colleagues assessed the effects of concomitant administration of a weak CYP3A4 inducer (dexamethasone) and a potent CYP3A4 inducer (rifampicin or rifampin) on the pharmacokinetics and the safety of bortezomib in patients with MM and NHL. Co-adminis- tration of rifampicin resulted in a 45% reduction in the systemic exposure of bortezomib, whereas concurrent administration of dexamethasone had no profound effects. Nevertheless, all treatment arms had a similar safety pro- file. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in proteasome inhibition parameters across treatment arms [49]. These findings are important in the context of fre- quent combination therapy of bortezomib with dexam- ethasone in the treatment of NDMM and RRMM.
⦁ Age
The median age of diagnosis for patients with MM is 70, and 60 years for patients with mantle cell lymphoma; 35–40% of patients with MM are aged older than 75 years at diagnosis [50, 51]. Therefore, understanding the effect of age on bortezomib pharmacokinetics is important as drug metabolism and clearance is dramatically affected by age [52]. While the activity of CYP3A4 is not significantly different between young and elderly patients, renal clear- ance is decreased by 50% in two-thirds of elderly patients [53]. However, as mentioned above, no dose reduction of bortezomib is required in patients with renal dysfunction [29].
In 2016, the effectiveness and patterns of bortezomib use were analyzed according to age in the VESUVE cohort trial using an age-stratified analysis [50]. This analysis included 779 patients with 46% aged B 65 years, 36%
between 65 and 75 years of age, and 18% [ 75 years of age. The analysis found that although the older group received a lower dose of bortezomib, they experienced more frequent drug adverse reactions, such as administra- tion-site problems and nutrition, metabolism, and cardiac disorders. Nevertheless, response rates and progression-
free survival (PFS) were not significantly different among the age groups [54].
Hanley et al. conducted a population-pharmacokinetic analysis of bortezomib in pediatric patients with leukemia. The model of analysis examined the influence of age, weight, body surface area (BSA), race, disease type, treatment plan stratum within the acute lymphoblastic leukemia population, and risk group within the acute myeloid leukemia population. Findings of this study in the pediatric population showed that the only recognized covariate on bortezomib clearance was BSA. Furthermore, there was no noticeable correlation between BSA-normal- ized clearance and age [55]. In an analysis of MMY-3021 and CAN-1004, which included patients with MM aged C 18 years in MMY-3021 and aged B 75 years in CAN- 1004, Moreau et al. found that bortezomib exposure was not affected significantly by age, BSA, and body mass index [35].
Thus, the pharmacokinetics of bortezomib is likely not significantly affected by age-related renal changes, and age does not appear to have a significant impact on bortezomib exposure. However, detailed studies to evaluate the impact of age-related hepatic changes on bortezomib pharma- cokinetics are not available, and further research may be indicated.
⦁ Obesity
The impact of obesity on drug metabolism and elimination is dependent on a specific metabolic or elimination path- way. Clearance of CYP3A4 substrates is higher in non- obese patients as compared with obese patients. However, clearance of CYP1A2, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, and CYP2D6 substrates is lower in non-obese patients as compared with obese patients [56]. In clinical practice, the dose calcula- tion of bortezomib is based on BSA, and there have been no specific consideration for obese patients. Although Moreau and colleagues found that BSA or body mass index did not affect bortezomib exposure significantly, other pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters of bortezomib may be altered in the setting of obesity because obesity and body fat composition may alter the main metabolic pathways of bortezomib and require further investigation.
⦁ Clinical Pharmacodynamics
⦁ Pharmacodynamics
In preclinical studies, bortezomib was rapidly cleared from the vascular compartment and distributed widely following intravenous administration, suggesting that traditional
measurement of a plasma concentration may not be suffi- cient for measuring its activity [2]. A pharmacodynamic assay was developed as an alternative and/or complement to pharmacokinetic measurements to assess the activity of bortezomib at its target site, the proteasome, and to record the extent of enzyme inhibition over time [57]. In most clinical studies, pharmacodynamic parameters were cal- culated by analysis of data on the percentage inhibition of the activity of the 20S proteasome, a subunit of the 26S proteasome, in blood over time. The proteasome activity of 20S was measured in peripheral leukocytes, whole blood, and tissue biopsies using a previously described assay based on proteasomal chymotryptic and tryptic activities [57].
Early phase I studies in advanced solid tumors and hematologic malignancies demonstrated a clear dose-re- lated inhibition of 20S proteasome activity with increasing doses of bortezomib [31, 58, 59]. Maximum inhibition of 20S proteasome activity occurred within 1 h after borte- zomib administration, and complete recovery of 20S pro- teasome activity to baseline occurred within 72 h [31, 34, 58, 59]. A phase I study in advanced solid malignancies demonstrated an ED50 of 0.89 mg/m2 and an Emax of 92% [31]. In a phase I study involving patients with refractory hematologic malignancies, Orlowski and colleagues reported an ED50 of 0.46 mg/m2 and an Emax of
68.3 ± 12.2% [59]. Reece et al. demonstrated comparable maximum inhibition of 20S proteasome activity between
1.0 mg/m2 and 1.3 mg/m2 dose levels in patients with MM with the mean Emax following single- or repeat-dose administration ranging from 70 to 84% and from 73 to 83% for the two dose regimens, respectively [34].
Pharmacodynamic parameters of blood 20S proteasome inhibition were similar with subcutaneous vs. intravenous bortezomib as presented in Table 3 [35]. The mean maxi- mum effect (Emax) was 63.7 vs. 69.3% in MMY-3021 and
57.0 vs. 68.8% in CAN-1004. The mean area under the effect–time curve from time zero to 72 h was also com- parable: 1714 vs. 1383%·h in MMY-3021 and 1619 vs.
1283%·h in CAN-1004. Given the longer time to Cmax with subcutaneous administration, the time to Emax was longer in MMY-3021 with a median 120 vs. 5 min and CAN-1004 with a median of 120 vs. 3 min.
Consistent with the pharmacokinetic observation, renal impairment did not affect 20S proteasome inhibition [29]. In patients with hepatic impairment, 20S proteasome inhibition following dosing at 1.3 mg/m2 in patients with mild hepatic impairment was comparable to patients with normal hepatic function. For patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment, the magnitude of the pharma- codynamic effect in blood with doses of bortezomib 0.7 and 1.0 mg/m2 was similar to 20S proteasome inhibition with the 1.3-mg/m2 dose in patients with normal hepatic function [30].
6.2 Efficacy
Bortezomib has been shown to have its highest activity in MM and NHL. In 2003, bortezomib received its initial Food and Drug Administration approval in RRMM based on results from the phase II CREST (Clinical Response and Efficacy Study of Bortezomib in the Treatment of Relapsing Multiple Myeloma) and SUMMIT (Study of Uncontrolled Multiple Myeloma Managed with Protea- some Inhibition Therapy) trials [60, 61]. In the CREST trial, bortezomib given at 1.0 and 1.3 mg/m2 resulted in a complete response (CR) plus partial response (PR) rate of 30 and 38%, respectively. Results of this study suggest that a dose reduction strategy to manage certain dose-associated toxicities is feasible and bortezomib remains efficacious at a lower dose [60]. The SUMMIT trial enrolled 202 patients to receive bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 in a 21-day cycle for up to eight cycles [61]. The ORR (CR plus PR plus minimal response) was 35% with a median OS of 16 months and a median duration of response of 12 months [61].
The international, phase III APEX (Assessment of Proteasome Inhibition for Extending Remissions) trial
Table 3 Pharmacodynamic parameters (mean ± standard deviation) of bortezomib in plasma on cycle 1 day 11. Adapted from Moreau et al. [27, 32] and Reece et al. [34]
Parameter Dose (IV) Route (MMY-3021) Route (CAN-1004)
1.0 mg/m2 1.3 mg/m2 SC IV SC IV
Emax (%) 83.4 ± 7.02 78.6 ± 6.50 63.7 ± 10.6 69.3 ± 13.2 57.0 ± 12.8 68.8 ± 6.49
a
AUElast (%·h) 2567 ± 489
AUElast area under the effect–time cur 2278 ± 748a 1714 ± 617b 1383 ± 767b
ve from time zero to the last sampling timepoint, Emax
maximum 1619 ± 804b
20S proteasome 1283 ± 595b
inhibition, IV
intravenous, SC subcutaneous aLast sampling timepoint at 48 h bLast sampling timepoint at 72 h
compared bortezomib with high-dose dexamethasone in 669 patients with relapsed MM who had received up to three lines of therapy [18, 23]. The ORRs were 38% for bortezomib and 18% for dexamethasone (p \ 0.001). The 1-year OS rate was 80 vs. 66% (p = 0.003), respectively, with a hazard ratio (HR) for OS with bortezomib of 0.57 (p = 0.001) [18]. With a median follow-up of 22 months, the median OS was 29.8 months for bortezomib vs.
23.7 months for dexamethasone, correlating to a 6-month benefit despite a substantial number of crossovers from the dexamethasone to the bortezomib group [23]. Results of the APEX trial resulted in the full approval for bortezomib in 2005 for the treatment of RRMM.
For patients with NDMM, bortezomib in combination with melphalan/prednisone (VMP) and lenalidomide/dex- amethasone (VRd) is effective in both the transplant-inel- igible and transplant-eligible setting based on results from the VISTA (Velcade as Initial Standard Therapy in Mul- tiple Myeloma) and SWOG S0777 trials, respectively [19, 22, 62]. The addition of bortezomib to a backbone of melphalan/prednisone and lenalidomide/dexamethasone improved ORR [71% for VMP vs. 35% for melphalan/ prednisone (p \ 0.001), 82% with VRd vs. 72% with lenalidomide/dexamethasone (p = 0.02)] and OS [HR, 0.653 for VMP vs. melphalan/prednisone (p \ 0.001), HR 0.709 for VRd vs. lenalidomide/dexamethasone (p = 0.025)] with an acceptable safety profile [19, 22, 62]. In VISTA, VMP resulted in an improved time to progres- sion of 24.0 months from 16.6 months (HR 0.48; p \ 0.001) [19]. In SWOG S0777, the median PFS (43 months with VRd vs. 30 months with lenalidomide/ dexamethasone, HR 0.712; p = 0.0018) and OS (75 months with VRd vs. 64 months with lenalidomide/ dexamethasone, HR 0.709; p = 0.025) were significantly improved with the addition of bortezomib [22].
Multiple meta-analyses have demonstrated the benefit of bortezomib-based regimens as induction therapy in NDMM and in the management of RRMM as well as single-agent maintenance therapy; the addition of borte- zomib improved the depth of response, PFS, and OS [63–66]. Bortezomib as maintenance therapy for 2 years after autologous stem cell transplant in MM was well tol- erated and was associated with improved ORR [67]. Bortezomib has also been shown to improve the prognosis of patients with NDMM with del(17p) [64]. In the phase III UPFRONT study, maintenance bortezomib sustained responses achieved during bortezomib-based induction therapy in 89% of patients [68].
Bortezomib is active in mantle cell lymphoma in both ND and RR settings as demonstrated by the LYM-3002 study and the PINNACLE study, respectively [69–71]. The phase III LYM-3002 study compared VR-CAP (borte- zomib, rituximab, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and
prednisone) with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) and demonstrated that VR-CAP significantly improved median PFS (24.7 vs. 14.4 months, HR 0.63; p \ 0.001), CR rates (53 vs. 42%; p = 0.007) as well as the median duration of response (36.5 vs. 15.1 months) [69]. Although VR-CAP was associated with increased hematologic toxicities, the combination of bortezomib with chemotherapy in the treatment of ND mantle cell lymphoma was more effective than R-CHOP with significant improvements in PFS, response rates, and durability of response [69]. In the phase II PINNACLE study, single-agent bortezomib resulted in an ORR of 32% (95% CI 24–40) including 8% with a CR with a median duration of response of 9.2 months (95% CI 5.9–13.8) and a median OS of 61.1 months (95% CI 52.1–70.4) [70, 71]. Bortezomib demonstrated moderate activity in patients with RR mantle cell lymphoma, including patients who had received prior high-intensity therapy [70, 71].
In addition, bortezomib as a single agent and in com- bination with other anti-cancer therapies has been shown to be highly active in the management of other hematologic malignancies, including systemic light-chain amyloidosis and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenstro¨m’s macroglobulinemia [72–81]. The National Amyloidosis Center in Britain conducted a study with 20 patients with RR amyloidosis treated with bortezomib and reported a hematologic response rate of 80% including 15% with a CR and 65% achieving a PR [73]. In a phase II study with
27 patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Walden- stro¨m’s macroglobulinemia, bortezomib was associated with an ORR of 78% with major responses observed in 44% of patients. A phase II study of weekly bortezomib with rituximab in patients with ND lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenstro¨m’s macroglobulinemia demon- strated an ORR of 88%, including a major response in 65% of patients [80]. The estimated 1-year PFS was 79%. The Waldenstro¨m’s Macroglobulinemia Clinical Trials Group 05-180 study of bortezomib with rituximab and dexam- ethasone reported an ORR of 96%, including 83% achieving a PR [78]. At a median follow-up of 2 years, 80% of patients remained free of disease progression [78].
6.3 Safety
Two initial phase I trials of bortezomib in hematologic and solid tumor malignancies identified the maximum tolerated dose and established hematologic and non-hematologic dose-limiting toxicities [58, 59]. Bortezomib was admin- istered in nine doses ranging from 0.13 to 1.56 mg/m2 with hematologic and non-hematologic toxicities becoming significant after the first five dose levels [58]. There were no dose-limiting hematologic toxicities, but there was a correlation between dose and the development of
thrombocytopenia and neutropenia. Diarrhea and painful sensory neuropathy were the two dose-limiting non-he- matologic toxicities. The maximum tolerated dose was determined at 1.56 mg/m2.
Based on results of these phase I studies, the dose and schedule of bortezomib was selected to be 1.3 mg/m2 administered intravenously twice weekly for the phase II SUMMIT trial [58, 59]. Safety was a secondary endpoint of the SUMMIT trial [61]. Thrombocytopenia (28% of patients), fatigue (12%), neuropathy (12%), and neutrope- nia (11%) were the most common grade 3 adverse events, with drug-related adverse events leading to discontinuation in 18% of patients [61]. Thrombocytopenia developed primarily in patients with a low baseline platelet count and was transient. Peripheral sensory neuropathy was cumula- tive and dose related with the majority of patients achieving complete resolution or improvement of symp- toms during the follow-up period.
The MMY-3021 study assessed the safety and tolera- bility of subcutaneous vs. intravenous bortezomib. Grade 3 and higher adverse events were reported in 57% of patients in the subcutaneous group and 70% in the intravenous group, with 22 and 27% discontinuing treatment, respec- tively [27]. All grades of diarrhea and peripheral sensory neuropathy were lower in the subcutaneous group by 12 and 14%, respectively [27]. As a result of this study, sub- cutaneous administration became the preferred route.
Richardson and colleagues evaluated the frequency, characteristics, and reversibility of peripheral neuropathy from bortezomib treatment in the phase II studies, SUM- MIT and CREST. Treatment-emergent peripheral neu- ropathy in patients receiving bortezomib 1.0 and 1.3 mg/ m2 occurred in 21 and 37% of patients, respectively [82]. There was a higher incidence of grade 3 or 4 neuropathy in patients with evident neuropathy at baseline. Dose modi- fication guidelines were established to manage bortezomib- related neuropathic pain as detailed in Table 4 [82]. After
dose modification or on completion of therapy, resolution or improvement occurred in 71% of patients [82].
7 Summary and Conclusions
Bortezomib is a first-in-class reversible proteasome inhi- bitor with activity in a wide range of plasma cell and lymphoid malignancies that has been approved for the treatment of MM and mantle cell lymphoma after one line of therapy. The pharmacokinetic profile of intravenous bortezomib is best described by a two-compartment model with a rapid initial distribution phase followed by a longer elimination phase and a large volume of distribution. As an alternative to bolus intravenous delivery, subcutaneous administration of bortezomib was developed and was demonstrated to be non-inferior in regard to efficacy with an improved safety profile. Pharmacokinetic studies com- paring subcutaneous and intravenous bortezomib demon- strated that systemic exposure was equivalent for both routes; pharmacodynamic parameters of 20S proteasome inhibition were also similar. Other studies compared sin- gle- with repeat-dose administration and demonstrated that repeat dosing of bortezomib resulted in pharmacokinetic changes characterized by a reduction in plasma clearance and an associated increase in systemic exposure.
Bortezomib is moderately bound to plasma protein and is extensively metabolized by hepatic CYP enzymes to multiple inactive metabolites. Renal impairment does not influence the intrinsic pharmacokinetics of bortezomib, but moderate or severe hepatic impairment causes an increase in plasma concentrations of bortezomib. Therefore, patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment should start at a reduced dose. Moreover, co-administration of certain strong CYP3A4 inducers (rifampicin) and inhi- bitors (ketoconazole) can also alter the systemic exposure of bortezomib.
Table 4 Dose modification of bortezomib in relation to the degree of peripheral sensory neuropathy. Adapted from Richardson et al. [82] Peripheral neuropathy severitya Modification of dose and regimen
Grade 1 (asymptomatic; loss of deep tendon reflexes or paresthesias) without pain
Grade 1 with pain or grade 2 (moderate symptoms; limiting instrumental ADL)
Grade 2 with pain or grade 3 (severe symptoms; limiting self-care ADL)
Grade 4 (life-threatening consequences; urgent intervention indicated)
ADL activities of daily living
No action required Reduced dose to 1.0 mg/m2
Withhold treatment with bortezomib until toxicity resolves, then reinitiate at a reduced dose of 0.7 mg/m2 once weekly
Discontinue treatment with bortezomib
aGrading based on National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, Version 4.03
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Funding No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this review.
Conflict of interest CRT, SAM, and BC have no conflicts of interest directly relevant to the content of this review. SKB has received research support from Merck, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, and Bayer and has received fees for participation in an independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for Janssen.
References
⦁ Sa´nchez-Serrano I. Success in translational research: lessons from the development of bortezomib. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2006;5(2):107–14. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd1959.
⦁ Adams J, Palombella VJ, Sausville EA, Johnson J, Destree A, Lazarus DD, et al. Proteasome inhibitors: a novel class of potent and effective antitumor agents. Cancer Res. 1999;59(11):2615–22.
⦁ Goldberg AL, Akopian TN, Kisselev AF, Lee DH, Rohrwild M. New insights into the mechanisms and importance of the pro- teasome in intracellular protein degradation. Biol Chem. 1997;378(3–4):131–40.
⦁ Ciechanover A, Schwartz AL. The ubiquitin-proteasome path- way: the complexity and myriad functions of proteins death. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1998;95(6):2727–30.
⦁ Ciechanover A, Orian A, Schwartz AL. Ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis: biological regulation via destruction. Bioessays. 2000;22(5):442–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1521- 1878(200005)22:5\442::aid-bies6[3.0.co;2-q.
⦁ Palombella VJ, Rando OJ, Goldberg AL, Maniatis T. The ubiq- uitin-proteasome pathway is required for processing the NF- kappa B1 precursor protein and the activation of NF-kappa B. Cell. 1994;78(5):773–85.
⦁ Beg AA, Baltimore D. An essential role for NF-kappaB in pre- venting TNF-alpha-induced cell death. Science. 1996;274(5288):782–4.
⦁ Van Antwerp DJ, Martin SJ, Kafri T, Green DR, Verma IM. Suppression of TNF-alpha-induced apoptosis by NF-kappaB. Science. 1996;274(5288):787–9.
⦁ Wang CY, Mayo MW, Baldwin AS. TNF- and cancer therapy- induced apoptosis: potentiation by inhibition of NF-kappaB. Science. 1996;274(5288):784–7.
⦁ Adams J, Behnke M, Chen S, Cruickshank AA, Dick LR, Grenier L, et al. Potent and selective inhibitors of the proteasome: dipeptidyl boronic acids. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 1998;8(4):333–8.
⦁ Adams J. The development of proteasome inhibitors as anticancer drugs. Cancer Cell. 2004;5(5):417–21.
⦁ Hershko A. Roles of ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis in cell cycle control. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 1997;9(6):788–99.
⦁ Oikawa T, Sasaki T, Nakamura M, Shimamura M, Tanahashi N, Omura S, et al. The proteasome is involved in angiogenesis. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1998;246(1):243–8. ⦁ https://doi. ⦁ org/10.1006/bbrc.1998.8604.
⦁ Zetter BR. Adhesion molecules in tumor metastasis. Semin Cancer Biol. 1993;4(4):219–29.
⦁ Read MA, Neish AS, Luscinskas FW, Palombella VJ, Maniatis T, Collins T. The proteasome pathway is required for cytokine-in- duced endothelial-leukocyte adhesion molecule expression. Immunity. 1995;2(5):493–506.
⦁ Hideshima T, Richardson P, Chauhan D, Palombella VJ, Elliott PJ, Adams J, et al. The proteasome inhibitor PS-341 inhibits
growth, induces apoptosis, and overcomes drug resistance in human multiple myeloma cells. Cancer Res. 2001;61(7):3071–6.
⦁ Hideshima T, Mitsiades C, Akiyama M, Hayashi T, Chauhan D, Richardson P, et al. Molecular mechanisms mediating anti- myeloma activity of proteasome inhibitor PS-341. Blood. 2003;101(4):1530–4. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2002-08- ⦁ 2543.
⦁ Richardson PG, Sonneveld P, Schuster MW, Irwin D, Stadtmauer EA, Facon T, et al. Bortezomib or high-dose dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(24):2487–98. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa043445.
⦁ San Miguel JF, Schlag R, Khuageva NK, Dimopoulos MA, Shpilberg O, Kropff M, et al. Bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone for initial treatment of multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(9):906–17. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1056/ ⦁ NEJMoa0801479.
⦁ Rosin˜ol L, Oriol A, Teruel AI, Herna´ndez D, Lo´pez-Jime´nez J, de
la Rubia J, et al. Superiority of bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTD) as induction pretransplantation therapy in multiple myeloma: a randomized phase 3 PETHEMA/GEM study. Blood. 2012;120(8):1589–96. https://doi.org/10.1182/ blood-2012-02-408922.
⦁ Palumbo A, Chanan-Khan A, Weisel K, Nooka AK, Masszi T, Beksac M, et al. Daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(8):754–66. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1606038.
⦁ Durie BG, Hoering A, Abidi MH, Rajkumar SV, Epstein J, Kahanic SP, et al. Bortezomib with lenalidomide and dexam- ethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma without intent for immediate autologous stem-cell transplant (SWOG S0777): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2017;389(10068):519–27. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140- ⦁ 6736(16)31594-X.
⦁ Richardson PG, Sonneveld P, Schuster M, Irwin D, Stadtmauer E, Facon T, et al. Extended follow-up of a phase 3 trial in relapsed multiple myeloma: final time-to-event results of the APEX trial. Blood. 2007;110(10):3557–60. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1182/blood- ⦁ 2006-08-036947.
⦁ Bose P, Batalo MS, Holkova B, Grant S. Bortezomib for the treatment of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Expert Opin Pharma- cother. 2014;15(16):2443–59. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1517/14656566. ⦁ 2014.965142.
⦁ Moreau P, Richardson PG, Cavo M, Orlowski RZ, San Miguel JF, Palumbo A, et al. Proteasome inhibitors in multiple myeloma: 10 years later. Blood. 2012;120(5):947–59. ⦁ https://doi.org/10. ⦁ 1182/blood-2012-04-403733.
⦁ Scott K, Hayden PJ, Will A, Wheatley K, Coyne I. Bortezomib for the treatment of multiple myeloma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;4:CD010816. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858. ⦁ cd010816.pub2.
⦁ Moreau P, Pylypenko H, Grosicki S, Karamanesht I, Leleu X, Grishunina M, et al. Subcutaneous versus intravenous adminis- tration of bortezomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma: a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority study. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(5):431–40. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470- ⦁ 2045(11)70081-X.
⦁ Teicher BA, Ara G, Herbst R, Palombella VJ, Adams J. The proteasome inhibitor PS-341 in cancer therapy. Clin Cancer Res. 1999;5(9):2638–45.
⦁ Leal TB, Remick SC, Takimoto CH, Ramanathan RK, Davies A, Egorin MJ, et al. Dose-escalating and pharmacological study of bortezomib in adult cancer patients with impaired renal function: a National Cancer Institute Organ Dysfunction Working Group Study. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2011;68(6):1439–47. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-011-1637-5.
⦁ LoRusso PM, Venkatakrishnan K, Ramanathan RK, Saran- topoulos J, Mulkerin D, Shibata SI, et al. Pharmacokinetics and safety of bortezomib in patients with advanced malignancies and varying degrees of liver dysfunction: phase I NCI Organ Dys- function Working Group Study NCI-6432. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(10):2954–63. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR- ⦁ 11-2873.
⦁ Papandreou CN, Daliani DD, Nix D, Yang H, Madden T, Wang X, et al. Phase I trial of the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib in patients with advanced solid tumors with observations in andro- gen-independent prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(11):2108–21. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.02.106.
⦁ Moreau P, Coiteux V, Hulin C, Leleu X, van de Velde H, Acharya M, et al. Prospective comparison of subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of bortezomib in patients with multi- ple myeloma. Haematologica. 2008;93(12):1908–11. ⦁ https://doi. ⦁ org/10.3324/haematol.13285.
⦁ Schwartz R, Davidson T. Pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and practical applications of bortezomib. Oncology (Williston Park). 2004;18(14 Suppl. 11):14–21.
⦁ Reece DE, Sullivan D, Lonial S, Mohrbacher AF, Chatta G, Shustik C, et al. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of two doses of bortezomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2011;67(1):57–67. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-010-1283-3.
⦁ Moreau P, Karamanesht II, Domnikova N, Kyselyova MY, Vil- chevska KV, Doronin VA, et al. Pharmacokinetic, pharmacody- namic and covariate analysis of subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of bortezomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2012;51(12):823–9. ⦁ https://doi. ⦁ org/10.1007/s40262-012-0010-0.
⦁ Labutti J, Parsons I, Huang R, Miwa G, Gan LS, Daniels JS. Oxidative deboronation of the peptide boronic acid proteasome inhibitor bortezomib: contributions from reactive oxygen species in this novel cytochrome P450 reaction. Chem Res Toxicol. 2006;19(4):539–46. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1021/tx050313d.
⦁ Pekol T, Daniels JS, Labutti J, Parsons I, Nix D, Baronas E, et al. Human metabolism of the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib: identification of circulating metabolites. Drug Metab Dispos. 2005;33(6):771–7. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1124/dmd.104.002956.
⦁ Uttamsingh V, Lu C, Miwa G, Gan LS. Relative contributions of the five major human cytochromes P450, 1A2, 2C9, 2C19, 2D6, and 3A4, to the hepatic metabolism of the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib. Drug Metab Dispos. 2005;33(11):1723–8. ⦁ https:// ⦁ doi.org/10.1124/dmd.105.005710.
⦁ Ko¨hler GI, Bode-Bo¨ger SM, Busse R, Hoopmann M, Welte T, Bo¨ger RH. Drug-drug interactions in medical patients: effects of in-hospital treatment and relation to multiple drug use. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2000;38(11):504–13.
⦁ Egger T, Dormann H, Ahne G, Runge U, Neubert A, Criegee- Rieck M, et al. Identification of adverse drug reactions in geriatric inpatients using a computerised drug database. Drugs Aging. 2003;20(10):769–76.
⦁ Sokol KC, Knudsen JF, Li MM. Polypharmacy in older oncology patients and the need for an interdisciplinary approach to side- effect management. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2007;32(2):169–75. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2710.2007.00815.x.
⦁ Buajordet I, Ebbesen J, Erikssen J, Brørs O, Hilberg T. Fatal adverse drug events: the paradox of drug treatment. J Intern Med. 2001;250(4):327–41.
⦁ van Leeuwen RW, Brundel DH, Neef C, van Gelder T, Mathi- jssen RH, Burger DM, et al. Prevalence of potential drug-drug interactions in cancer patients treated with oral anticancer drugs. Br J Cancer. 2013;108(5):1071–8. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc. ⦁ 2013.48.
⦁ Riechelmann RP, Tannock IF, Wang L, Saad ED, Taback NA, Krzyzanowska MK. Potential drug interactions and duplicate prescriptions among cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(8):592–600. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djk130.
⦁ van Leeuwen RW, Swart EL, Boven E, Boom FA, Schuitenmaker MG, Hugtenburg JG. Potential drug interactions in cancer ther- apy: a prevalence study using an advanced screening method. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(10):2334–41. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1093/ ⦁ annonc/mdq761.
⦁ Zanger UM, Schwab M. Cytochrome P450 enzymes in drug metabolism: regulation of gene expression, enzyme activities, and impact of genetic variation. Pharmacol Ther. 2013;138(1):103–41. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pharmthera.2012. ⦁ 12.007.
⦁ Venkatakrishnan K, Rader M, Ramanathan RK, Ramalingam S, Chen E, Riordan W, et al. Effect of the CYP3A inhibitor keto- conazole on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of bortezomib in patients with advanced solid tumors: a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized, two-way crossover drug– drug interaction study. Clin Ther. 2009;31(Pt 2):2444–58. ⦁ https:// ⦁ doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2009.11.012.
⦁ Quinn DI, Nemunaitis J, Fuloria J, Britten CD, Gabrail N, Yee L, et al. Effect of the cytochrome P450 2C19 inhibitor omeprazole on the pharmacokinetics and safety profile of bortezomib in patients with advanced solid tumours, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or multiple myeloma. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2009;48(3):199–209. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.2165/00003088-200948030-00006.
⦁ Hellmann A, Rule S, Walewski J, Shpilberg O, Feng H, van de Velde H, et al. Effect of cytochrome P450 3A4 inducers on the pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and safety profiles of bortezomib in patients with multiple myeloma or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2011;50(12):781–91. ⦁ https://doi. ⦁ org/10.2165/11594410-000000000-00000.
⦁ Grelaud A, Fourrier-Re´glat A, Fitoussi O, Facon T, Jove´ J, Be´nichou J, et al. Patterns and effectiveness of bortezomib use according to age in the VESUVE cohort. Leuk Lymphoma. 2016;57(6):1349–54. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.3109/10428194.2015. ⦁ 1096354.
⦁ Vose JM. Mantle cell lymphoma: 2015 update on diagnosis, risk- stratification, and clinical management. Am J Hematol. 2015;90(8):739–45. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.24094.
⦁ Mangoni AA, Jackson SH. Age-related changes in pharmacoki- netics and pharmacodynamics: basic principles and practical applications. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;57(1):6–14.
⦁ Klotz U. Pharmacokinetics and drug metabolism in the elderly. Drug Metab Rev. 2009;41(2):67–76. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1080/ ⦁ 03602530902722679.
⦁ Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Ludwig H, Dimopoulos MA, Blade´ J,
Mateos MV, et al. Personalized therapy in multiple myeloma according to patient age and vulnerability: a report of the Euro- pean Myeloma Network (EMN). Blood. 2011;118(17):4519–29. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2011-06-358812.
⦁ Hanley MJ, Mould DR, Taylor TJ, Gupta N, Suryanarayan K, Neuwirth R, et al. Population pharmacokinetic analysis of bortezomib in pediatric leukemia patients: model-based support for body surface area-based dosing over the 2- to 16-year age range. J Clin Pharmacol. 2017;57(9):1183–93. ⦁ https://doi.org/10. ⦁ 1002/jcph.906.
⦁ Brill MJ, Diepstraten J, van Rongen A, van Kralingen S, van den Anker JN, Knibbe CA. Impact of obesity on drug metabolism and elimination in adults and children. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2012;51(5):277–304. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.2165/11599410- ⦁ 000000000-00000.
⦁ Lightcap ES, McCormack TA, Pien CS, Chau V, Adams J, Elliott PJ. Proteasome inhibition measurements: clinical application. Clin Chem. 2000;46(5):673–83.
⦁ Aghajanian C, Soignet S, Dizon DS, Pien CS, Adams J, Elliott PJ, et al. A phase I trial of the novel proteasome inhibitor PS341 in advanced solid tumor malignancies. Clin Cancer Res. 2002;8(8):2505–11.
⦁ Orlowski RZ, Stinchcombe TE, Mitchell BS, Shea TC, Baldwin AS, Stahl S, et al. Phase I trial of the proteasome inhibitor PS-341 in patients with refractory hematologic malignancies. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(22):4420–7. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2002. ⦁ 01.133.
⦁ Jagannath S, Barlogie B, Berenson J, Siegel D, Irwin D, Richardson PG, et al. A phase 2 study of two doses of bortezomib in relapsed or refractory myeloma. Br J Haematol. 2004;127(2):165–72. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2141.2004. ⦁ 05188.x.
⦁ Richardson PG, Barlogie B, Berenson J, Singhal S, Jagannath S, Irwin D, et al. A phase 2 study of bortezomib in relapsed, refractory myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(26):2609–17. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa030288.
⦁ Mateos MV, Richardson PG, Schlag R, Khuageva NK, Dimo- poulos MA, Shpilberg O, et al. Bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone compared with melphalan and prednisone in previ- ously untreated multiple myeloma: updated follow-up and impact of subsequent therapy in the phase III VISTA trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(13):2259–66. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.26. ⦁ 0638.
⦁ Botta C, Ciliberto D, Rossi M, Staropoli N, Cuce` M, Galeano T,
et al. Network meta-analysis of randomized trials in multiple myeloma: efficacy and safety in relapsed/refractory patients. Blood Adv. 2017;1(7):455–66. https://doi.org/10.1182/ bloodadvances.2016003905.
⦁ Liu J, Yang H, Liang X, Wang Y, Hou J, Liu Y, et al. Meta- analysis of the efficacy of treatments for newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma with del(17p). Oncotarget. 2017;8(37):62435–44. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget. ⦁ 18722.
⦁ Nooka AK, Kaufman JL, Behera M, Langston A, Waller EK, Flowers CR, et al. Bortezomib-containing induction regimens in transplant-eligible myeloma patients: a meta-analysis of phase 3 randomized clinical trials. Cancer. 2013;119(23):4119–28. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.28325.
⦁ Zeng Z, Lin J, Chen J. Bortezomib for patients with previously untreated multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta- analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Hematol. 2013;92(7):935–43. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-013-1711-7.
⦁ Sonneveld P, Schmidt-Wolf IG, van der Holt B, El Jarari L, Bertsch U, Salwender H, et al. Bortezomib induction and main- tenance treatment in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: results of the randomized phase III HOVON-65/ GMMG-HD4 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(24):2946–55. ⦁ https:// ⦁ doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.39.6820.
⦁ Niesvizky R, Flinn IW, Rifkin R, Gabrail N, Charu V, Clowney B, et al. Community-based phase IIIB trial of three UPFRONT bortezomib-based myeloma regimens. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(33):3921–9. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.58.7618.
⦁ Robak T, Huang H, Jin J, Zhu J, Liu T, Samoilova O, et al. Bortezomib-based therapy for newly diagnosed mantle-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(10):944–53. ⦁ https://doi.org/ ⦁ 10.1056/NEJMoa1412096.
⦁ Fisher RI, Bernstein SH, Kahl BS, Djulbegovic B, Robertson MJ, de Vos S, et al. Multicenter phase II study of bortezomib in patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(30):4867–74. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006. ⦁ 07.9665.
⦁ Goy A, Bernstein SH, Kahl BS, Djulbegovic B, Robertson MJ, de Vos S, et al. Bortezomib in patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma: updated time-to-event analyses of the multicenter phase 2 PINNACLE study. Ann Oncol. 2009;20(3):520–5. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdn656.
⦁ Kastritis E, Wechalekar AD, Dimopoulos MA, Merlini G, Hawkins PN, Perfetti V, et al. Bortezomib with or without dex- amethasone in primary systemic (light chain) amyloidosis. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(6):1031–7. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.23. ⦁ 8220.
⦁ Wechalekar AD, Lachmann HJ, Offer M, Hawkins PN, Gillmore JD. Efficacy of bortezomib in systemic AL amyloidosis with relapsed/refractory clonal disease. Haematologica. 2008;93(2):295–8. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.11627.
⦁ Lamm W, Willenbacher W, Lang A, Zojer N, Mu¨ldu¨r E, Ludwig H, et al. Efficacy of the combination of bortezomib and dexam- ethasone in systemic AL amyloidosis. Ann Hematol. 2011;90(2):201–6. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-010-1062-6.
⦁ Mikhael JR, Schuster SR, Jimenez-Zepeda VH, Bello N, Spong J, Reeder CB, et al. Cyclophosphamide-bortezomib-dexamethasone (CyBorD) produces rapid and complete hematologic response in patients with AL amyloidosis. Blood. 2012;119(19):4391–4. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2011-11-390930.
⦁ Venner CP, Lane T, Foard D, Rannigan L, Gibbs SD, Pinney JH, et al. Cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone ther- apy in AL amyloidosis is associated with high clonal response rates and prolonged progression-free survival. Blood. 2012;119(19):4387–90. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2011-10- ⦁ 388462.
⦁ Reece DE, Sanchorawala V, Hegenbart U, Merlini G, Palladini G, Fermand JP, et al. Weekly and twice-weekly bortezomib in patients with systemic AL amyloidosis: results of a phase 1 dose- escalation study. Blood. 2009;114(8):1489–97. ⦁ https://doi.org/10. ⦁ 1182/blood-2009-02-203398.
⦁ Treon SP, Ioakimidis L, Soumerai JD, Patterson CJ, Sheehy P, Nelson M, et al. Primary therapy of Waldenstro¨m macroglobu- linemia with bortezomib, dexamethasone, and rituximab: WMCTG clinical trial 05-180. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(23):3830–5. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.20.4677.
⦁ Chen CI, Kouroukis CT, White D, Voralia M, Stadtmauer E, Stewart AK, et al. Bortezomib is active in patients with untreated or relapsed Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia: a phase II study of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(12):1570–5. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO. ⦁ 2006.07.8659.
⦁ Ghobrial IM, Xie W, Padmanabhan S, Badros A, Rourke M, Leduc R, et al. Phase II trial of weekly bortezomib in combina- tion with rituximab in untreated patients with Waldenstro¨m macroglobulinemia. Am J Hematol. 2010;85(9):670–4. ⦁ https:// ⦁ doi.org/10.1002/ajh.21788.
⦁ Dimopoulos MA, Garc´ıa-Sanz R, Gavriatopoulou M, Morel P, Kyrtsonis MC, Michalis E, et al. Primary therapy of Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia (WM) with weekly bortezomib, low-dose dexamethasone, and rituximab (BDR): long-term results of a phase 2 study of the European Myeloma Network (EMN). Blood. 2013;122(19):3276–82. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2013-05- ⦁ 503862.
⦁ Richardson PG, Briemberg H, Jagannath S, Wen PY, Barlogie B, Berenson J, et al. Frequency, characteristics, and reversibility of peripheral neuropathy during treatment of advanced multiple myeloma with bortezomib. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(19):3113–20. ⦁ https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.04.7779.