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

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

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.
   

	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. 1) 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

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 1). 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].

Phase II Results
Two phase II multicenter studies (Table 1), 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 2). 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 3). 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.

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 4). 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)

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 (VELCADE^TM, 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]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				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]

				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]

				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]

				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]

				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]

				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]

				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]

				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]

				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]

				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]

				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]

				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]

				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]

				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]

				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]

				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]

				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]

				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]

				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]

				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]

				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]

				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]

				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]

				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]

				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]

				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]

				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]

				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]

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

				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]

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