throbber
11/20/2017
`
`[Results of treatment of patients with advanced multiple myeloma with the vincristine­adriamycin­dexamethasone protocol]. ­ PubMed ­ NCBI
`
`PubMed
`
`Format: Abstract
`
`Srp Arh Celok Lek. 1996 Nov­Dec;124(11­12):292­6.
`[Results of treatment of patients with advanced multiple myeloma
`with the vincristine­adriamycin­dexamethasone protocol].
`[Article in Serbian]
`Marisavljević D, Bosković D, Radosević N, Elezović I, Tomin D, Gotić M, Antunović P.
`
`Abstract
`A very few treatment regimens have shown a benefit in patients with multiple myeloma resistant to
`conventional melphalan/prednosone therapy or similar combinations. The first "biologically designed"
`protocol for the treatment of advanced, refractory myeloma was a combination of vincristine,
`doxorubicin and intermittent high­dose dexamethasone, so called VAD regimen. This report
`summarizes our experience in VAD regimen in the treatment of advanced, refractory myeloma
`patients, initially treated with melphalan­based chemotherapy.
`METHODS:
`Between July 1989 and July 1995, 27 patients with high­tumour­mass stage (Durie
`Salmon staging system) of the disease were treated with VAD combination. Clinical characteristics of
`patients are shown in Table 1. There were 17 pts who never responded (9 pts) of who progressed
`during induction therapy (8 pts). The second group of 10 pts responded to induction therapy and
`relapsed. Five pts (four with progressive and one with resistant myeloma) were treated with VAD
`therapy particularly due to significant extramedullary infiltrates. All pts in this study were initially
`treated with VMCP induction therapy. Seven of them were additionally treated with ABP combination,
`and this subgroup of pts was characterized as "resistant to melphalan and doxorubicin". The VAD
`regimen consisted of four­day continuous infusions of vincristine (0.4 mg per day) and doxorubicin (9
`mg/m2 per day) in addition to dexamethasone in a dose of 40 mg for four days, beginning od days
`1.9 and 17 of each cycle. The response was defined as a reduction of serum myeloma­protein
`concentration exceeding 75 per cent, with disappearance of Bence­Jones protein excretion.
`RESULTS:
`"Good" response to VAD regimen was achieved in 12 of 27 pts (44 per cent), mainly after
`three cycles of chemotherapy (Table 2). The tumour reduction occurred rapidly (Table 3), without
`significant myelosuppression. Response­rate was significantly higher in relapsing myeloma pts than
`in pts with progressive or resistant disease (chi 2 = 4.2; p < 0.05). Neither previous treatment (Table
`2) nor the type or paraprotein concentration, degree of marrow infiltration and cytologic type of
`plasma cells affected the response to VAD. Among 15 pts with "bad" response to VAD, seven died
`during first four months of treatment. All pts with significant extramedullary infiltrates failed to
`respond to VAD (chi 2 = 4.91; p < 0.05). Median survival of all pts was 16 months. In responsive pts
`remissions were of good quality and survival was significantly longer that that in whom treatment
`failed (Figure 1, left). In responsive pts the median duration of "plateau­phase" was 11 months
`(Figure 1, right). In three pts who relapsed after the treatment, reinstitution of VAD regimen restored
`
`https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9132962
`
`1/2
`
`ALVOGEN, Exh. 1033, p. 0001
`
`

`

`11/20/2017
`[Results of treatment of patients with advanced multiple myeloma with the vincristine­adriamycin­dexamethasone protocol]. ­ PubMed ­ NCBI
`the "plateau­phase". The most important complications of treatment with VAD combination were
`infections (8 pts) but, fortunately, serious forms (i.e. pneumonia) were observed only in two pts.
`DISCUSSION:
`The antitumour effect of VAD regimen originates from a combined effect of doxorubicin
`and vincristine continuous infusions and intermittent pulses of high­dose corticosteroids. The
`rationale for protracted administration of vincristine and doxorubicin was based on long generation
`time and low growth fraction of plasma cells in most patients, while the use of high­dose
`dexamethasone was based on well­known dose­depend antimyeloma effect of corticosteroids. Using
`this chemotherapy schedule, significant prolongation of survival was achieved in our responding
`patients comparing to patients with VAD­resistant myeloma. The major toxic effect of treatment was
`infection, which was attributed in part to intensive steroid program. Relapse of the disease could be
`expected about one year after completion of VAD therapy. Nevertheless, the second "plateau­phase"
`can be obtained upon reinitiation of VAD (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED).
`
`PMID: 9132962
`[Indexed for MEDLINE]
`
`Publication type, MeSH terms, Substances, Supplementary concept
`
`LinkOut ­ more resources
`
`PubMed Commons
`
`0 comments
`
`PubMed Commons home
`
`How to join PubMed Commons
`
`https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9132962
`
`2/2
`
`ALVOGEN, Exh. 1033, p. 0002
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket