Novel agents-based regimens as induction treatment prior to autologous stem-cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 57-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lida Wang ◽  
Xuehong Ran ◽  
Baohong Wang ◽  
Zhixin Sheng ◽  
Liping Liu
Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 1090-1090
Author(s):  
Marc Carrier ◽  
Gregoire Le Gal ◽  
Jason Tay ◽  
Cynthia M. Wu ◽  
Agnes Y. Lee

Abstract Abstract 1090 Background: The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) is high in patients treated with thalidomide (T)- and lenalidomide (L)-based regimens containing dexamethasone (D) and/or cytotoxic chemotherapy (C). Consensus guidelines recommend routine thromboprophylaxis but reliable data from randomized controlled trials are lacking. Recent observational studies have suggested that thromboprophylaxis might be efficacious in decreasing the risk of VTE in this population. Purpose: To determine the absolute rates of VTE with and without different thromboprophylactic agents (ASA, warfarin, low-molecular-weight-heparin [LMWH]) in patients with newly diagnosed or previously treated MM receiving T- or L-based regimens. Data Source: A systematic literature search strategy was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials and all EBM Reviews of published studies up to Jan 2010. Results: A total of 66 studies were included in the analyses. Of these, 61 (4264 patients) and 5 (1119 patients) assessed T- and L-based regimens, respectively. Thalidomide-based regimens The rates of VTE (per 100 patient-cycles) in patients with newly diagnosed MM treated with T-based regimens: The rates of VTE (per 100 patient-months) in patients with previously treated MM managed with T-based regimens: Lenalidomide-based regimens The rates of VTE (per 100 patient-cycles) in patients with newly diagnosed MM treated with L-based regimens: The rate VTE (per 100 patient-months) in patients with previously treated MM managed with L-based regimens: None of the studies reported major bleeding events. Limitations: The definition for VTE varied across studies. Most studies did not outline the diagnostic criteria for VTE. Data are not available (NA) for all prophylaxis regimens. Conclusion: Patients with newly diagnosed or previously treated MM receiving T- or L-based regimens are at high risk of VTE. It is uncertain whether thromboprophylaxis provides a clear benefit, especially in those receiving L-based therapy or have previously treated disease. Randomized controlled trials are needed to address this important clinical need. Disclosures: Lee: Eisai: Research Funding; Sanofi Aventis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Leo Pharma: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.


Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 2044-2044
Author(s):  
Jin Seok Kim ◽  
Cheolwon Suh ◽  
June-Won Cheong ◽  
Kihyun Kim ◽  
Yang Soo Kim ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 2044 Background: Induction treatment followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard therapy for the newly diagnosed younger patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Although new drugs such as lenalidomide or bortezomib have been shown the promising results as induction treatment, many different type of induction treatment regimens still have been used. We evaluate the efficacy and safety of the short course of high dose dexamethasone (HD dexa) and the response adapted PAD (Bortezomib, Adriamycin, Dexamethasone) or VAD (Vincristine, Adriamycin, Dexamethasone) induction chemotherapy in the newly diagnosed younger patients with MM. Methods: 107 newly diagnosed patients with MM from 21 institutions received 2nd cycles of HD dexa followed by PAD or VAD chemotherapy according to the response to the initial high dose dexamethasone. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) + near CR rate after ASCT. Among 107 patents enrolled this study from November 2009, 25 patients (23%) have been dropped out. This trial will be continued until total 210 patients will be enrolled. The trial is registered on National Cancer Institute website, number NCT01255514. Results: One hundred seven patients (58 male, 49 female) were enrolled (median age; 56). 26 (24%) light chain disease were included. 31 (29%) patients were D-S stage II and 67 (63%) were stage III. According to the ISS, 23 (22%) patients had stage I, 51 (48%) had stage II and 33 (31%) had stage III. 26 (24%) patients had abnormal cytogenetics. There were 31% del13, 7% del17, 19% t(4;14), 15% t(14;16) and 28% t(11;14) in FISH analysis. Among the 82 evaluable patients, CR + PR rate was 48% (39/82) after 2nd cycles of HD dexa therapy. 39 patients (48%) received subsequent VAD chemotherapy and 43 patients (52%) received PAD chemotherapy. Among the 64 patients finished VAD or PAD chemotherapy, CR + PR rate was 83% (79%, 26/33 in VAD group vs. 87%, 27/31 in PAD group). 56 patients were finished ASCT until now. CR + near CR rate after ASCT were 61% (58% in VAD group vs 63% in PAD group). Mortality rate of this trial was 13% (11/82). The cause of death was disease progression (n=3), bleeding (n=1) and infections (n=7). Among 82 patients in whom VAD or PAD chemotherapy was actually performed, 1 year overall survival (OS) rate was 84.7%. 1 year survival rate was 93.8% versus 77.2% (P=0.049) with VAD versus PAD (median follow-up; 9.1 months). Conclusion: Risk adapted approach using initial steroid response showed good response results after ASCT compared with previous trial (CR + near CR rate of IFM 2005-01trial-Bortezomib+dexa induction & ASCT was 35%, J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:4621–9) The MM patients who had poor response to HD dexa also showed similar good response rate after ASCT compared with the patients who had good response to HD dexa treatment in this trial. PAD re-induction therapy after failure of initial steroid induction treatment might overcome the inferior results in the high risk MM patients. Therefore, initial steroid response adapted strategy might be the more cost-effective approach in the newly diagnosed ASCT eligible MM patients. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document