Advertisement
help button home button The Oncologist
HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow eLetters: Submit a response to this article
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Reprints/Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kane, R. C.
Right arrow Articles by Pazdur, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kane, R. C.
Right arrow Articles by Pazdur, R.
The Oncologist, Vol. 8, No. 6, 508–513, December 2003
© 2003 AlphaMed Press

FDA COMMENTARY

Velcade®: U.S. FDA Approval for the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma Progressing on Prior Therapy

Robert C. Kane, Peter F. Bross, Ann T. Farrell, Richard Pazdur

Division of Oncology Drug Products, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, United States Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland, USA

Correspondence: Robert C. Kane, M.D., F.A.C.P., U.S. FDA, HFD-150, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857, USA. Telephone: 301-594-2473; Fax: 301-594-0499; e-mail kaner{at}cder.fda.gov


   LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Top
 Learning Objectives
Abstract
 Introduction
 Background
 Clinical Development
 Accelerated Approval
 References
 
After completing this course, the reader will be able to:

  1. Discuss the rationale and requirements for accelerated cancer drug approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
  2. Identify the current indications for the use of a recently approved agent, bortezomib (Velcade®, PS-341), in the treatment of multiple myeloma.
  3. Describe the plans for the further clinical development of this agent as part of accelerated approval by the FDA.
  4. Explain the mechanism of action of bortezomib and its role in cancer treatment.

Access and take the CME test online and receive one hour of AMA PRA category 1 credit at CME.TheOncologist.com


   ABSTRACT
Top
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
Introduction
 Background
 Clinical Development
 Accelerated Approval
 References
 
Bortezomib (formerly PS-341), a promising new drug for the treatment of multiple myeloma, recently received accelerated approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the therapy of patients with progressive myeloma after previous treatment. Two phase II studies of bortezomib used the same schedule of twice-weekly i.v. dosing for the first 2 weeks of each 3-week cycle. In a randomized study of 54 patients, two doses were compared (1.0 and 1.3 mg/m2) and objective responses occurred at both dose levels (23% versus 35%), including one complete response in each arm. In the other phase II study, 202 heavily pretreated patients (median of six prior therapies) all received the same schedule at 1.3 mg/m2. Of 188 evaluable patients, complete responses occurred in five (3%) and partial responses occurred in 47 (25%). The median duration of response was 365 days. The most clinically relevant adverse events were asthenic conditions, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, thrombocytopenia, and a peripheral neuropathy that often was painful. This report highlights the FDA analysis supporting the accelerated approval.

Key Words. Multiple myeloma • Bortezomib • Velcade® • Accelerated approval


   INTRODUCTION
Top
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
Background
 Clinical Development
 Accelerated Approval
 References
 
On May 13, 2003, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for bortezomib (formerly PS-341), Velcade® for Injection (Millenium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Cambridge, MA), for use as a single agent for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma after two prior therapies and progressing on their most recent therapy. In 1998, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., submitted an Investigational New Drug Application for bortezomib and in January, 2003, a New Drug Application (NDA) was filed. At the time of the NDA submission, melphalan, cyclophosphamide, and carmustine had been FDA approved for myeloma treatment, and pamidronate and zoledronate were approved for reducing skeletal-related events. This commentary reports on the supporting data, the review process, and the standards of evidence employed in the approval of bortezomib.


   BACKGROUND
Top
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Background
Clinical Development
 Accelerated Approval
 References
 
The clinical development of bortezomib (Fig. 1Go) followed preclinical observations of its ability to inhibit reversibly the proteolytic (chymotryptic) activity of the proteasome complex in mammalian cells. Inhibition of the intracellular protein degradation pathway (proteasome) alters the levels of numerous intracellular signaling and regulatory proteins as well as other proteins and, in some fashion, then alters the regulation of cellular processes that may lead to growth arrest or apoptosis. Recovery of proteasome activity was nearly complete by 48–72 hours following bortezomib dosing in preclinical models. At present, the relationship between these or other intracellular effects of bortezomib and the clinical results is uncertain. In the future, pharmacodynamic correlations (proteasome inhibition and/or other proteomic measures) in patients may provide more accurate dosing than the current toxicity end points.



View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Chemical structure of bortezomib.

 

   CLINICAL DEVELOPMENT
Top
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Background
 Clinical Development
Accelerated Approval
 References
 
Criteria to Assess Efficacy of Bortezomib in Multiple Myeloma
To describe the effect of bortezomib therapy in myeloma, we examined different systems of classifying response to therapy for myeloma patients. Earlier studies of myeloma variously described treatment benefits as responses, improvements, remissions, and plateaus to refer to reductions in the percent of the monoclonal myeloma protein (M-protein component, paraprotein) or its production rate in serum or urine, marrow plasmacytosis, or immunoglobulin levels. After the introduction of VAD (vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone) chemotherapy and, more recently, with high-dose/stem cell transplant therapy, complete responses have been reported. The original Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) criteria [1] for objective response ("remission") required: a decrease in the synthetic index of the serum M-protein component of 75% or more and to <25 g/l, usually measured by serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP); a decrease in urinary light chain excretion of 90% or more and to <200 mg/24 hours; improvements in bone pain and performance status; no increase in bone lesions, and no hypercalcemia. The SWOG classification did not distinguish a complete response category, since it was not considered achievable. To reflect more effective therapy and to provide more consistency, a new system of classifying treatment responses in multiple myeloma has been introduced by an international committee representing the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, the Autologous Blood and Marrow Transplant Registry, and the International Bone Marrow Transplant Registry—the Blade criteria [2].

For a complete response (CR), the Blade criteria require: disappearance of the monoclonal protein in serum and urine by immunofixation electrophoresis (IFE), reconfirmed 6 weeks later (two samples); a bone marrow aspiration (and bone biopsy, if performed) showing less than 5% plasma cells; no increase in bone lesions, and disappearance of any plasmacytomas. A Blade partial response (PR) is defined by: at least a 50% reduction in the level of the serum monoclonal protein, reconfirmed 6 weeks later; reduction in 24-hour urinary light chain excretion by >=90% and to <200 mg/24 hours, also sustained for 6 weeks; no increase in bone lesions, and at least a 50% reduction in soft tissue plasmacytomas. In summary, paraprotein response requires both a magnitude and a duration of reduction. Relapse and progressive disease criteria are also described.

We chose to report our analysis of bortezomib efficacy using the Blade as well as the SWOG criteria. In applying these criteria, our review process included examining the case report forms, laboratory results including electrophoresis patterns, and reports of the sponsor’s independent review committee. For the complete responders, we also examined the bone marrow aspirate and biopsy slides obtained pre- and posttreatment.

Response to therapy can be a surrogate marker for clinical benefit such as symptomatic improvement or extended survival. Among the many factors that may influence the relationship between tumor response to a therapy and patient survival, some measurable ones are the kinetics of tumor cell growth, type and toxicities of therapy, use of subsequent therapy, proportion of responding patients, assays used to assess response, statistical methods of analysis, length of follow-up, and duration of disease control. In myeloma, the relationship between response, that is, cytoreduction, as measured by the various response indices noted above, and survival prolongation remains uncertain [3]. Following VAD therapy [4], CRs, based on various criteria, were described in up to 25% of patients, but these CRs did not convey longer survival than lesser degrees of response using SWOG criteria [5]. Achieving a plateau phase (stable disease) has also been suggested to confer benefit similar to that of responders [6].

The traditional evaluation of myeloma treatment has relied heavily on measurements of the myeloma paraprotein, one of the earliest biomarkers in clinical oncology. One problem with use of the protein biomarker is that its level cannot be assumed to predict the myeloma tumor mass throughout the course of the disease process. Another variable is the sensitivity of the assay technique. IFE, a more recent assay method, is a more sensitive indicator [7] of M-protein component disappearance than SPEP but has not consistently been used to determine CR status; both may eventually be replaced by polymerase chain reaction-based assays for residual disease following therapy [8]. As progressively more sensitive assays of the biomarker protein are employed in assessing response, longer durations of benefit may be reflecting greater magnitudes of cytoreduction achieved following treatment.

Early efforts to link response to clinical benefits such as survival [9] were flawed by the use of invalid statistical methods and trial designs to compare the survival rate of responders with that of nonresponders. Various suggestions have been proposed to address this, such as the Mantel-Byer or landmark time analysis [10] or the nonparametric method of Simon and Makuch [11]. Survival benefits are usually the primary end points of current phase III comparative trial designs in which all patients receiving one therapy are compared with those receiving an alternative treatment. With this study design, interim demonstration of superiority in response rate and time to progression over standard therapy using objectively defined response and progression end points can provide a high degree of credibility of clinical benefit and is likely to predict a survival advantage as well.

Following transplantation for myeloma, CRs have been reported to convey prolonged disease control [12, 13]. In the report of Attal et al. [12], newly diagnosed patients with myeloma were prospectively randomized to receive either conventional chemotherapy or autologous transplantation. A 1-year (after diagnosis) landmark analysis procedure was used to show a survival advantage for complete responders. More recently, patients who achieved a CR with negative IFE results were reported to have a survival advantage over those with positive IFE results or partial responders [7].

Phase I Results
Phase I studies tested weekly and twice-weekly i.v. bolus (3–5 seconds) schedules for 2–4 weeks (Table 1Go). Toxicity patterns paralleled the preclinical findings. Hypotension and syncope occurred as higher weekly single doses approached 2.0 mg/m2 [14]. Diarrhea and neuropathy were the dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) with a schedule of twice-weekly treatment for 2 weeks followed by 1 week without treatment in each 3-week cycle [15]. Dosing twice weekly for 4 weeks out of 6 established a lower maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), 1.04 mg/m2, with DLTs of hyponatremia, hypokalemia, and malaise [16].


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Phase I and II clinical studies reviewed by the FDA in the approval of bortezomib
 
During phase I trials, some pharmacokinetic studies were completed. The mean elimination half-life of bortezomib after the first dose ranged from 9–15 hours at doses ranging from 1.45–2.00 mg/m2 in patients with advanced malignancies. The pharmacokinetics of bortezomib as a single agent have not been fully characterized at the recommended dose in multiple myeloma patients. In vitro studies indicate that bortezomib is primarily oxidatively metabolized via multiple cytochrome P450 enzymes. The major metabolic pathway is deboronation to form two deboronated metabolites that subsequently undergo hydroxylation to several inactive metabolites. The effects of age, gender, race, hepatic impairment, and renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics of bortezomib have not been evaluated.

Phase II Results
Two phase II multicenter studies (Table 1Go), with a total of 256 patients with multiple myeloma, comprised the efficacy population for the FDA analysis. All patients had received at least one prior treatment and were considered to have progressed on their most recent regimen. Each study used the same schedule of twice-weekly i.v. bolus dosing of bortezomib for 2 weeks (days 1, 4, 8, and 11) each 21 days for up to eight cycles, with an extension study for continuing responders. In the smaller study reported by Jagannath et al. [17], 54 patients were prospectively randomized to receive either 1.0-mg/m2 or 1.3-mg/m2 doses following relapse from front-line therapies. Responses occurred at both dose levels (23% versus 35%, p not significant) with overlapping confidence intervals; one CR occurred at each dose level.

The larger phase II study [18] enrolled 202 myeloma patients on a single-arm schedule of bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2. All had been heavily pretreated (median number of prior therapies was six, including high-dose/stem cell transplant therapy in almost two-thirds), and all were considered to have progressed on their most recent treatment (Table 2Go). The median age was 59 years, 35% had abnormal cytogenetics, and 15% had chromosome 13 deletions. The monoclonal protein class was IgG in 60%, light chain disease in 14%, and 9% were nonsecretory. In our independent review, we determined that 188 patients were eligible and evaluable for response per protocol criteria. Among those, CRs occurred in five patients (3%) and PRs occurred in 47 (25%), using the Blade criteria for an overall response rate (CR + PR) of 28%. Using the SWOG criteria independently, we confirmed clinical remissions in 17.6% (Table 3Go). The median time to response was 38 days (range, 30–127 days) and the median response duration (CR + PR) was 365 days (range, 41–509 days). The median survival time of all patients enrolled was 16 months. The response rate to bortezomib was independent of the number and type of prior therapies. There was a lower likelihood of response in patients with either greater than 50% plasma cells (20% versus 35%, p = 0.03 Fisher’s exact test) or abnormal marrow cytogenetics (19% versus 35%, p = 0.047). However, the response rate in patients with chromosome 13 abnormalities (24%) did not differ from the response rate in patients without chromosome 13 abnormalities (28%). Some responders became transfusion independent, and in some, there was preliminary evidence of recovery of normal immunoglobulin synthesis.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Summary of patient population and disease characteristics from the phase II study of 202 patients [17]
 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3. FDA response analysis for bortezomib monotherapy from the phase II study of 202 patients [17]
 
The median number of treatment cycles was six; 28% of patients received the planned dose throughout the study, while doses were reduced in 33% of patients and one or more doses were omitted in 63%. For all patients whose intended dose level was 1.3 mg/m2, the mean actual administered dose was 1.1 mg/m2.

Adverse Events
In the FDA safety review, all 228 patients in the two phase II studies who received the 1.3 mg/m2 dose were combined for analysis (Table 4Go). The most commonly reported adverse events (AEs) were: asthenic (malaise-fatigue) conditions (65%), nausea (64%), diarrhea (51%), anorexia (43%), constipation (43%), thrombocytopenia (43%), peripheral neuropathy (37%), pyrexia (36%), vomiting (36%), and anemia (32%). Severe AEs (>= grade 3 severity) included thrombocytopenia (29%), peripheral neuropathy (14%), neutropenia (15%), asthenia (11%), and anemia (9%); diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting each were 7%. The frequency and severity of diarrhea were dose dependent.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 4. Most commonly reported (>=20% overall) adverse events among the 228 patients receiving the 1.3 mg/m2 bortezomib dose (both phase II studies)
 
Nerve conduction studies were performed in a small number of patients and were consistent with axonal degeneration. While improvement in neuropathy occurred after stopping bortezomib, the time course and completeness of neurologic recovery are uncertain. There was no apparent difference in the reported incidence of serious events or study discontinuation due to AEs for those patients between the ages of 51 and 65 years and those aged > 65 years.

Physicians should be alert for progressive neuropathic signs and symptoms. Gastrointestinal reactions should be expected and may warrant premedication. Assuring adequate hydration also is important to reduce consequences of hypotension. Warnings, precautions, dosing, and dose adjustments for AEs are detailed in the label [19] (package insert) and should be reviewed before administration.


   ACCELERATED APPROVAL
Top
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Background
 Clinical Development
 Accelerated Approval
References
 
Bortezomib has been granted accelerated approval on the basis of evidence of an adequate rate and duration of response in a heavily pretreated patient group, albeit in a small number of patients. The FDA may grant accelerated approval [20] on the basis of a surrogate end point reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, whereas regular or full approval requires direct confirmation of clinical benefit. Accelerated approval also requires demonstration of a meaningful therapeutic benefit to patients over existing treatments for serious or life-threatening illnesses. Where no other therapy has demonstrated efficacy in a particular disease setting, some single-arm studies have been judged sufficiently credible to allow accelerated approval. Judging the results of single-arm studies in advanced disease settings can be problematic if treatment results are modest; the FDA review process may also include presenting such findings to qualified independent consultants for outside expert opinion as to the credibility and relevance of the assertions.

A recent report details the relationships among various study end points, trial designs, and FDA approval actions since 1990 [21]. Response rate and time to tumor progression are frequently utilized as surrogates for clinical benefit, but they are not synonymous with clinical benefit.

Accelerated approval is a mechanism to accelerate patients’ access to drugs; it also carries the requirement that the applicant study the drug further, to verify and describe its clinical benefit with the expectation that the accelerated approval can be converted to full approval. These requirements may be addressed in the form of "phase IV commitments" agreed to by the company at the time of the accelerated approval. Thus, concurrent with accelerated approval, a clear development plan for the product should be under way. For bortezomib, the sponsor will characterize the pharmacokinetics as a single agent in patients with myeloma and in patients with hepatic and renal impairments. Drug-drug cytochrome interactions will be examined further, and follow-up to characterize the frequency, severity, and reversibility of the peripheral neuropathy will be undertaken. Also, new studies will compare bortezomib with dexamethasone in relapsed and in previously untreated myeloma patients. The approval letter issued by the FDA, which includes these phase IV commitments, the final product label, and the actual FDA review are available online [19].


   FOOTNOTES
Top
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Background
 Clinical Development
 Accelerated Approval
 References
 
The views expressed are independent work and do not necessarily represent the views and findings of the U.S. FDA.


   REFERENCES
Top
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Background
 Clinical Development
 Accelerated Approval
 References
 

  1. Salmon SE, Haut A, Bonnet JD et al. Alternating combination chemotherapy and levamisole improves survival in multiple myeloma: a Southwest Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol 1983;1:453–461.[Abstract]
  2. Blade J, Samson D, Reece D et al. Criteria for evaluating disease response and progression in patients with multiple myeloma treated by high-dose therapy and haemopoietic stem cell transplantation. Myeloma Subcommittee of the EBMT. European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplant. Br J Haematol 1998;102:1115–1123.[CrossRef][Medline]
  3. Durie BG. Is magnitude of initial response predictive for survival in multiple myeloma? Ann Oncol 1991;2:166–169.[Free Full Text]
  4. Samson D, Gaminara E, Newland A et al. Infusion of vincristine and doxorubicin with oral dexamethasone as first-line therapy for multiple myeloma. Lancet 1989;2:882–885.[Medline]
  5. Palmer M, Belch A, Hanson J et al. Reassessment of the relationship between M-protein decrement and survival in multiple myeloma. Br J Cancer 1989;59:110–112.[Medline]
  6. Durie BG, Russell DH, Salmon SE. Reappraisal of plateau phase in multiple myeloma. Lancet 1980;2:65–68.[CrossRef][Medline]
  7. Lahuerta JJ, Martinez-Lopez J, Serna JD et al. Remission status defined by immunofixation vs. electrophoresis after autologous transplantation has a major impact on the outcome of multiple myeloma patients. Br J Haematol 2000;109:438–446.[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Gerard CJ, Olsson K, Ramanathan R et al. Improved quantitation of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma using real-time polymerase chain reaction and plasmid-DNA complementarity determining region III standards. Cancer Res 1998;58:3957–3964.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Alexanian R, Bonnet J, Gehan E et al. Combination chemotherapy for multiple myeloma. Cancer 1972;30:382–389.[CrossRef][Medline]
  10. Anderson JR, Cain KC, Gelber RD. Analysis of survival by tumor response. J Clin Oncol 1983;1:710–719.[Abstract]
  11. Simon R, Makuch RW. A non-parametric graphical representation of the relationship between survival and the occurrence of an event: application to responder versus non-responder bias. Stat Med 1984;3:35–44.[Medline]
  12. Attal M, Harousseau JL, Stoppa AM et al. A prospective, randomized trial of autologous bone marrow transplantation and chemotherapy in multiple myeloma. Intergroupe Francaise du Myelome. N Engl J Med 1996;335:91–97.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Levy V, Katsahian S, Fermand JP et al. High dose therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation or conventional chemotherapy as a first line treatment in multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis on individual patient data of randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up [abstract]. Blood 2002;100:1556a.
  14. Papandreou C, Pagliaro C, Millikan R et al. Phase I study of PS-431, a novel proteasome inhibitor, in patients with advanced malignancies [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2000;19:738a.
  15. Aghajanian C, Soignet S, Dizon DS et al. A phase I trial of the novel proteasome inhibitor PS341 in advanced solid tumor malignancies. Clin Cancer Res 2002;8:2505–2511.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Orlowski RZ, Stinchcombe TE, Mitchell BS et al. Phase I trial of the proteasome inhibitor PS-341 in patients with refractory hematologic malignancies. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:4420–4427.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Jagannath S, Barlogie B, Berenson J et al. A phase II multicenter randomized study of the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib (VELCADETM, formerly PS-341) in multiple myeloma patients relapsed after front-line therapy [abstract]. Blood 2002;100:3027a.
  18. Richardson PG, Barlogie B, Berenson J et al. A phase 2 study of bortezomib in relapsed, refractory myeloma. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2609–2617.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Velcade® label [U.S. package insert]. Available online at http://www.fda.gov/cder/approval/index.htm
  20. 21CFR314.510. Available online at http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/append4.pdf
  21. Johnson JR, Williams G, Pazdur R. End points and United States Food and Drug Administration approval of oncology drugs. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:1404–1411.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Received September 18, 2003; accepted for publication October 14, 2003.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 BloodHome page
D. Chauhan, A. V. Singh, B. Ciccarelli, P. G. Richardson, M. A. Palladino, and K. C. Anderson
Combination of novel proteasome inhibitor NPI-0052 and lenalidomide trigger in vitro and in vivo synergistic cytotoxicity in multiple myeloma
Blood, January 28, 2010; 115(4): 834 - 845.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Immunol.Home page
Y. Jia, T. Song, C. Wei, C. Ni, Z. Zheng, Q. Xu, H. Ma, L. Li, Y. Zhang, X. He, et al.
Negative Regulation of MAVS-Mediated Innate Immune Response by PSMA7
J. Immunol., October 1, 2009; 183(7): 4241 - 4248.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
J. W. Zmijewski, S. Banerjee, and E. Abraham
S-Glutathionylation of the Rpn2 Regulatory Subunit Inhibits 26 S Proteasomal Function
J. Biol. Chem., August 14, 2009; 284(33): 22213 - 22221.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
E. Vlashi, K. Kim, C. Lagadec, L. D. Donna, J. T. McDonald, M. Eghbali, J. W. Sayre, E. Stefani, W. McBride, and F. Pajonk
In Vivo Imaging, Tracking, and Targeting of Cancer Stem Cells
J Natl Cancer Inst, March 4, 2009; 101(5): 350 - 359.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 The OncologistHome page
M. Hazarika, E. Rock, G. Williams, R. Dagher, R. Sridhara, B. Booth, A. Farrell, R. Justice, and R. Pazdur
Lenalidomide in Combination with Dexamethasone for the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma After One Prior Therapy
Oncologist, October 1, 2008; 13(10): 1120 - 1127.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
A. Kardosh, E. B. Golden, P. Pyrko, J. Uddin, F. M. Hofman, T. C. Chen, S. G. Louie, N. A. Petasis, and A. H. Schonthal
Aggravated Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress as a Basis for Enhanced Glioblastoma Cell Killing by Bortezomib in Combination with Celecoxib or Its Non-Coxib Analogue, 2,5-Dimethyl-Celecoxib
Cancer Res., February 1, 2008; 68(3): 843 - 851.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BloodHome page
D. Chauhan, A. Singh, M. Brahmandam, K. Podar, T. Hideshima, P. Richardson, N. Munshi, M. A. Palladino, and K. C. Anderson
Combination of proteasome inhibitors bortezomib and NPI-0052 trigger in vivo synergistic cytotoxicity in multiple myeloma
Blood, February 1, 2008; 111(3): 1654 - 1664.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.Home page
C. Conticello, L. Adamo, R. Giuffrida, L. Vicari, A. Zeuner, A. Eramo, G. Anastasi, L. Memeo, D. Giuffrida, G. Iannolo, et al.
Proteasome Inhibitors Synergize with Tumor Necrosis Factor-Related Apoptosis-Induced Ligand to Induce Anaplastic Thyroid Carcinoma Cell Death
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., May 1, 2007; 92(5): 1938 - 1942.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
S. Meister, U. Schubert, K. Neubert, K. Herrmann, R. Burger, M. Gramatzki, S. Hahn, S. Schreiber, S. Wilhelm, M. Herrmann, et al.
Extensive Immunoglobulin Production Sensitizes Myeloma Cells for Proteasome Inhibition
Cancer Res., February 15, 2007; 67(4): 1783 - 1792.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Physiol. Rev.Home page
S. J. Marciniak and D. Ron
Endoplasmic reticulum stress signaling in disease.
Physiol Rev, October 1, 2006; 86(4): 1133 - 1149.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Molecular Cancer TherapeuticsHome page
H.-S. Shiah, W. Gao, D. C. Baker, and Y.-C. Cheng
Inhibition of cell growth and nuclear factor-{kappa}B activity in pancreatic cancer cell lines by a tylophorine analogue, DCB-3503.
Mol. Cancer Ther., October 1, 2006; 5(10): 2484 - 2493.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Molecular Cancer TherapeuticsHome page
S. E. Canfield, K. Zhu, S. A. Williams, and D. J. McConkey
Bortezomib inhibits docetaxel-induced apoptosis via a p21-dependent mechanism in human prostate cancer cells.
Mol. Cancer Ther., August 1, 2006; 5(8): 2043 - 2050.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
N. Vij, S. Fang, and P. L. Zeitlin
Selective Inhibition of Endoplasmic Reticulum-associated Degradation Rescues {Delta}F508-Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Regulator and Suppresses Interleukin-8 Levels: THERAPEUTIC IMPLICATIONS
J. Biol. Chem., June 23, 2006; 281(25): 17369 - 17378.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BloodHome page
E. A. Obeng, L. M. Carlson, D. M. Gutman, W. J. Harrington Jr, K. P. Lee, and L. H. Boise
Proteasome inhibitors induce a terminal unfolded protein response in multiple myeloma cells
Blood, June 15, 2006; 107(12): 4907 - 4916.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Immunol.Home page
T. Khan, J. K. Stauffer, R. Williams, J. A. Hixon, R. Salcedo, E. Lincoln, T. C. Back, D. Powell, S. Lockett, A. C. Arnold, et al.
Proteasome Inhibition to Maximize the Apoptotic Potential of Cytokine Therapy for Murine Neuroblastoma Tumors
J. Immunol., May 15, 2006; 176(10): 6302 - 6312.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
R. C. Kane, A. T. Farrell, R. Sridhara, and R. Pazdur
United States food and drug administration approval summary: bortezomib for the treatment of progressive multiple myeloma after one prior therapy.
Clin. Cancer Res., May 15, 2006; 12(10): 2955 - 2960.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JCOHome page
J. R. Berenson, H. H. Yang, K. Sadler, S. G. Jarutirasarn, R. A. Vescio, R. Mapes, M. Purner, S.-p. Lee, J. Wilson, B. Morrison, et al.
Phase I/II Trial Assessing Bortezomib and Melphalan Combination Therapy for the Treatment of Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma
J. Clin. Oncol., February 20, 2006; 24(6): 937 - 944.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
N. Yanamandra, N. M. Colaco, N. A. Parquet, R. W. Buzzeo, D. Boulware, G. Wright, L. E. Perez, W. S. Dalton, and D. M. Beaupre
Tipifarnib and Bortezomib Are Synergistic and Overcome Cell Adhesion-Mediated Drug Resistance in Multiple Myeloma and Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Clin. Cancer Res., January 15, 2006; 12(2): 591 - 599.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BloodHome page
P. Perez-Galan, G. Roue, N. Villamor, E. Montserrat, E. Campo, and D. Colomer
The proteasome inhibitor bortezomib induces apoptosis in mantle-cell lymphoma through generation of ROS and Noxa activation independent of p53 status
Blood, January 1, 2006; 107(1): 257 - 264.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
G. J. Kelloff, K. A. Krohn, S. M. Larson, R. Weissleder, D. A. Mankoff, J. M. Hoffman, J. M. Link, K. Z. Guyton, W. C. Eckelman, H. I. Scher, et al.
The Progress and Promise of Molecular Imaging Probes in Oncologic Drug Development
Clin. Cancer Res., November 15, 2005; 11(22): 7967 - 7985.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Phil Trans R Soc BHome page
B. R Blazar and W. J Murphy
Bone marrow transplantation and approaches to avoid graft-versus-host disease (GVHD)
Phil Trans R Soc B, September 29, 2005; 360(1461): 1747 - 1767.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
J.-Z. Qin, J. Ziffra, L. Stennett, B. Bodner, B. K. Bonish, V. Chaturvedi, F. Bennett, P. M. Pollock, J. M. Trent, M. J.C. Hendrix, et al.
Proteasome Inhibitors Trigger NOXA-Mediated Apoptosis in Melanoma and Myeloma Cells
Cancer Res., July 15, 2005; 65(14): 6282 - 6293.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 IBMS BoneKEyHome page
B. O. Oyajobi, C. M. Shipman, and G. R. Mundy
Recent Insights into Myeloma Bone Disease
IBMS BoneKEy, May 1, 2005; 2(5): 17 - 25.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
A. H. Gordon, R. J. O'Keefe, E. M. Schwarz, R. N. Rosier, and J. E. Puzas
Nuclear Factor-{kappa}B-Dependent Mechanisms in Breast Cancer Cells Regulate Tumor Burden and Osteolysis in Bone
Cancer Res., April 15, 2005; 65(8): 3209 - 3217.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 The OncologistHome page
S. Dubey and J. H. Schiller
Three Emerging New Drugs for NSCLC: Pemetrexed, Bortezomib, and Cetuximab
Oncologist, April 1, 2005; 10(4): 282 - 291.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BloodHome page
K. Podar and K. C. Anderson
The pathophysiologic role of VEGF in hematologic malignancies: therapeutic implications
Blood, February 15, 2005; 105(4): 1383 - 1395.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JCOHome page
A. Goy, A. Younes, P. McLaughlin, B. Pro, J. E. Romaguera, F. Hagemeister, L. Fayad, N. H. Dang, F. Samaniego, M. Wang, et al.
Phase II Study of Proteasome Inhibitor Bortezomib in Relapsed or Refractory B-Cell Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
J. Clin. Oncol., February 1, 2005; 23(4): 667 - 675.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
R. Dagher, J. Johnson, G. Williams, P. Keegan, and R. Pazdur
Accelerated Approval of Oncology Products: A Decade of Experience
J Natl Cancer Inst, October 20, 2004; 96(20): 1500 - 1509.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
K. Podar, R. Shringarpure, Y.-T. Tai, M. Simoncini, M. Sattler, K. Ishitsuka, P. G. Richardson, T. Hideshima, D. Chauhan, and K. C. Anderson
Caveolin-1 Is Required for Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor-Triggered Multiple Myeloma Cell Migration and Is Targeted by Bortezomib
Cancer Res., October 15, 2004; 64(20): 7500 - 7506.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 NEJMHome page
W. P. Tansey
Death, Destruction, and the Proteasome
N. Engl. J. Med., July 22, 2004; 351(4): 393 - 394.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
K. I. Amiri, L. W. Horton, B. J. LaFleur, J. A. Sosman, and A. Richmond
Augmenting Chemosensitivity of Malignant Melanoma Tumors via Proteasome Inhibition: Implication for Bortezomib (VELCADE, PS-341) as a Therapeutic Agent for Malignant Melanoma
Cancer Res., July 15, 2004; 64(14): 4912 - 4918.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
O. P. Veiby and M. A. Read
Chemoresistance: Impact of Nuclear Factor (NF)-{kappa}B Inhibition by Small Interfering RNA: Commentary re J. Guo et al., Enhanced Chemosensitivity to Irinotecan by RNA Interference-Mediated Down-Regulation of the NF-{kappa}B p65 Subunit. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10:3333-3341
Clin. Cancer Res., May 15, 2004; 10(10): 3262 - 3264.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow eLetters: Submit a response to this article
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Reprints/Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kane, R. C.
Right arrow Articles by Pazdur, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kane, R. C.
Right arrow Articles by Pazdur, R.

HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE ONCOLOGIST STEM CELLS CME ALPHAMED PRESS JOURNALS