scholarly journals PB2125 THE IMPACT OF RVD OR VCD INDUCTION ON RESPONSE 3 MONTH AFTER FIRST LINE AUTOLOGOUS STEM CELL TRANSPLANT IN MULTIPLE MYELOMA. A SINGLE_CENTER RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS

HemaSphere ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (S1) ◽  
pp. 957
Author(s):  
J. N. Nørgaard ◽  
F. Schjesvold ◽  
M. Moksnes
Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 4127-4127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wendi A. Bacon ◽  
Gwynn D. Long ◽  
David A. Rizzieri ◽  
Mitchell E. Horwitz ◽  
John P. Chute ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 4127 In the age of novel targeted agents, autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) remains the standard of care for younger patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM), offering similar treatment responses and overall survivals as standard chemotherapeutic agents but with the added benefit of a prolonged treatment-free period. Nevertheless, a standard of care for stem cell mobilization for ASCT has yet to be determined. Even in the era of new mobilization agents such as Plerixafor, Cyclophosphamide (Cy) and G-CSF combination remains the preferred mobilizing approach for patients with MM. Several studies have shown that Cy improves the stem cell yield at the expense of increased toxicity, but whether the administration of this chemotherapeutic agent pre-transplant has any impact on the long-term event-free and/or overall survival of myeloma patients remains controversial. In this study, we present a retrospective analysis of 186 patients with newly diagnosed MM who underwent ASCT with high-dose melphalan 200 mg/m2 (HDM) between December of 2000 and 2008 at our Institution. Eighty-three patients were mobilized with single agent G-CSF and 103 patients received high dose Cy (4 gm/m2) and G-CSF combination. Patient characteristics were similar between the treatment groups, including: age, gender, disease stage, and disease status prior to transplant. However, toxicity post-mobilization with Cy/G-CSF was significantly higher compared with G-SCF alone, including: febrile neutropenia (23%), hemorrhagic cystitis (8%), GI toxicity (57%), re-hospitalization due to complications and transplant delay (14%). The overall post-transplant toxicity was similar in the 2 groups, though the treatment related mortality was slightly higher in the Cy/G-CSF arm (4% versus 2%). Post transplant responses were not significantly different in the 2 groups, with 60% of patients achieving a VGPR or better after ASCT in the G-CSF group and 49% in the Cy/G-CSF group (p = 0.33). The median event-free survivals (EFS) for the Cy/G-CSF and G-CSF cohorts were 21.6 and 22.6 months, respectively, (p = 0.62) yielding no significant difference (Figure 1). Similarly, with a median follow up for surviving patients of 34.3 and 32.7 months, the median overall survivals were 68.2 and 62.3 months (p = 0.23) for the Cy/G-CSF and G-CSF cohorts, respectively (Figure 2). This retrospective analysis confirms that the addition of high dose Cy as part of the mobilizing regimen offers no improvement on the transplant outcome for patients with newly diagnosed myeloma and should therefore only be used in cases of difficult stem cell mobilization. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 3439-3439
Author(s):  
Brandon B. Wang ◽  
Mark A. Fiala ◽  
Mark A. Schroeder ◽  
Tanya Wildes ◽  
Armin Ghobadi ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: In the current era, autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) remains an effective form of treatment for patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma (MM), but it is not curative and a relapse is inevitable. A second, or salvage, ASCT provides better outcomes than conventional chemotherapy but it is infrequently used. Maintenance therapy after initial ASCT has been adopted as the standard in the US; however, there is limited data on the effects of maintenance therapy following salvage ASCT and the benefits are still unclear. Methods: We performed retrospective chart review of all patients with MM who received a second, salvage ASCT at time of first relapse at Washington University in St. Louis from 2008 to 2016. We identified two cohorts of patients, those who received maintenance therapy following salvage ASCT and those who did not. Patients who received maintenance therapy post-initial ASCT were excluded as the objective of this study was to determine the impact of maintenance post-salvage ASCT and maintenance post-initial ASCT may confound the results. Results: Sixty-five patients (who underwent second/salvage ASCT) were identified. Three were excluded from the analysis-two had treatment-related mortality following salvage ASCT and one received maintenance other than a proteasome inhibitor (PI) or an immunomodulatory drug (IMID). The maintenance cohort consisted of 31 patients, with 68% (n = 21) males and 32% (n = 10) females; the median age at salvage ASCT was 61 years (range 38-73). The no-maintenance cohort consisted of 31 patients as well with 45% (n = 14) males and 55% (n = 17) females. Their median age at salvage ASCT was 62 years (range 44-74). The characteristics of the two cohorts are summarized in Table 1. Most patients received PIs and/or IMIDs as part of their induction regimens prior to initial ASCT. All received melphalan conditioning. The response to treatment was similar between the two cohorts, with respective CR rates of 68% (n = 21) and 77% (n = 24) and median progression-free survival (PFS) of 46 months compared to 33 months. Following relapse, 16% (n = 5) of patients in the no-maintenance cohort proceeded directly to salvage ASCT without re-induction. All other patients received re-induction, mostly with PIs and/or IMIDs, with a median of 4 cycles for the maintenance cohort and 2 cycles for the no-maintenance cohort. For conditioning prior to salvage ASCT, 4 patients received Velcade-BEAM conditioning as part of a prospective trial at our site (NCT01653418); 3 from the maintenance cohort and 1 from the no-maintenance cohort. The rest received melphalan conditioning. Both cohorts had a CR rate of 52% (n = 16) post-salvage ASCT. Maintenance therapy after salvage ASCT consisted of lenalidomide (74%, n = 23), bortezomib (23%, n = 7), or pomalidomide (3%, n = 1). Three of the patients on bortezomib were originally started on lenalidomide but were switched due to intolerance. At time of data collection, the median follow-up was 49 months (range 9-105) for the maintenance cohort and 61 months (range 19-113) for the no-maintenance cohort. 45% (n = 14) of patients in the maintenance cohort and 90% (n = 28) of the no-maintenance cohort had relapsed. In the maintenance cohort, PFS following salvage ASCT was similar to what was observed following initial ASCT. The median estimated PFS post-salvage ASCT was 53 months (95% CI 42-64) compared to 46 months post initial ASCT (p = 0.144). Conversely, in the no-maintenance cohort PFS following salvage was only about 60% that of initial ASCT (21 months [95% CI 18-24]; compared to 33 months; p = 0.002). Conclusion: These results suggest that maintenance following salvage ASCT is associated with improved outcomes. Although patients who received maintenance post-initial ASCT were excluded, the benefits of maintenance post-salvage ASCT may extend to them as well. Ongoing prospective clinical trials will further clarify these benefits. Disclosures Schroeder: Amgen Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wildes:Janssen: Research Funding. Vij:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jansson: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.


2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. S409-S410
Author(s):  
Asya Varshavsky-Yanovsky ◽  
Yuliya Shestovska ◽  
Shalina Joshi ◽  
Michael J Styler ◽  
Rashmi Khanal ◽  
...  

eJHaem ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noa Biran ◽  
Wanting Zhai ◽  
Roxanne E. Jensen ◽  
Jeanne Mandelblatt ◽  
Susan Kumka ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. S254
Author(s):  
Felipe Peña-Muñoz ◽  
Luz Román-Molano ◽  
Danylo Palomino-Mendoza ◽  
Alberto Hernández-Sánchez ◽  
Borja Puertas-Martínez ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document