Bortezomib Once Weekly Is Well Tolerated as Maintenance Therapy after Less Than a Complete Response to High-Dose Melphalan in Patients with Multiple Myeloma.

Blood ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 108 (11) ◽  
pp. 5099-5099 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Knop ◽  
Holger Hebart ◽  
Volker Kunzmann ◽  
Ralf Angermund ◽  
Hermann Einsele

Abstract Background: Despite intensive treatment strategies in multiple myeloma (MM) consisting of one or two cycles of high-dose melphalan (HD-Mel) with autologous stem cell support only a minority of patients (pts) achieves molecular complete remission leading to an event free survival (EFS) of eight to ten years. The median EFS for all patients following HD-Mel, however, is no more than 30 to 35 months. Several agents have been evaluated as a part of maintenance strategies in order to eradicate minimal residual disease and thus extending the period until salvage treatment is required. Interferon alpha, that has been most widely used in this setting showed a significant prolongation of EFS and a trend to better overall survival in a large meta-analysis. Bortezomib (VELCADE® [Vel]), a proteasome inhibitor, has substantial anti-myeloma activity in relapsed and refractory disease and was shown to induce exceptional response rates, including consistently high CR rates in up-front treatment. Patients and methods: We decided to set up a phase II trial in patients up to 70 years with less than CR (SD, PR, or VGPR) after one or two cycles of HD-Mel using a less dose-intense schedule than the standard protocol for monotherapy. The first eleven pts were to receive four cycles of Vel 1.0 mg/m2 once weekly for four weeks followed by a two-week rest period. Since no dose limiting toxicity occurred, the dose was increased as per protocol to 1.3 mg/m2 for the subsequent pts. Results: Up to now, 20 subjects were included with a median age of 60.5 (range, 46 – 69) years, 3 of whom had previously received single, and 17 tandem HD-Mel. Two cases of moderately severe herpes zoster prompted us to generally administer acyclovir prophylaxis throughout the treatment. Five pts experienced symptoms of peripheral neuropathy all of which were of grade I. WBC nadir occurred during cycles 2 and 3 with a median of 3.7 × 109/l while median PLT and HB values did not decline below normal values. Three patients progressed while on the study and received salvage treatment while all other patients enrolled completed all four scheduled cycles of treatment. To date, two patients showed improvement of response by conversion of VGPR into CR with confirmed negative immunofixation. Conclusion: We are currently continuing patient accrual on the once-weekly 1.3 mg/m2 schedule since treatment is considered to be safe. Data on the efficacy (i.e. median EFS, OS as compared to historic controls on interferon alpha), however, will require significantly longer follow up.

Hemato ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 680-691
Author(s):  
Monique C. Minnema ◽  
Rimke Oostvogels ◽  
Reinier Raymakers ◽  
Margot Jak

Although there are similarities in the treatment paradigms between AL amyloidosis and multiple myeloma, there are also fundamental differences. A similarity is of course the use of anti-plasma cell drugs in both diseases; however, the most serious mistake a hemato-oncologist can make is to use the same treatment schedule in dosing and frequency in AL amyloidosis patients as in multiple myeloma patients. AL amyloidosis patients with >10% bone marrow plasma cell infiltration in particular are at risk of receiving a more intensive treatment than they can tolerate. This difference in dosing and frequency is true for many anti-clonal drugs, but it is most apparent in the use of high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation. While in multiple myeloma in the age group of ≤70 years, more than 80% of patients are fit enough to receive this intensive treatment, this is the case in less than 20% of AL amyloidosis patients. A similarity is the alignment in the goal of treatment. Although in AL amyloidosis has long been recognized that the goal should be complete hematological remission, this has become more apparent in multiple myeloma in recent years. A common goal in the coming years will be to evaluate the role of minimal residual disease to improve survival in both diseases.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Branagan ◽  
Matthew Lei ◽  
Uvette Lou ◽  
Noopur Raje

The treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) continues to evolve with the approval of numerous agents over the past decade. Advances in treatment have led to the incorporation of these newer therapies into the treatment paradigm, with improvements in overall survival and the possibility of deep responses including a minimal residual disease–negative state. The strategy of triplet therapies for patients with newly diagnosed MM, followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation for eligible patients, and subsequently consolidation and maintenance therapy, is the current treatment roadmap for patients. However, patients with MM will ultimately develop refractoriness to antimyeloma therapies. In this article, we summarize our current practice of managing patients with MM. We highlight our approach to patients with newly diagnosed MM who are transplantation eligible and ineligible and highlight risk-adapted strategies for these patients. In addition, we discuss our approach to the management of patients with relapsed or refractory MM. Last, we review standard therapies and emerging strategies such as targeted approaches, immune-based therapies, and drugs with novel mechanisms of action. Trials evaluating chimeric antigen receptor T cells targeting B-cell maturation antigen are ongoing and are only one of several novel approaches targeting cell maturation antigen, which include the use of bispecific T-cell engager antibodies and antibody drug conjugates. Emerging therapies offer the promise of more individualized approaches in the management of patients with MM and ultimately may result in the possibility of being one step closer to curing patients with MM.


Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 1221
Author(s):  
Raquel Lopes ◽  
Bruna Velosa Ferreira ◽  
Joana Caetano ◽  
Filipa Barahona ◽  
Emilie Arnault Carneiro ◽  
...  

Despite the improvement of patient’s outcome obtained by the current use of immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors or anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease. More recently, the testing in clinical trials of novel drugs such as anti-BCMA CAR-T cells, antibody–drug conjugates or bispecific antibodies broadened the possibility of improving patients’ survival. However, thus far, these treatment strategies have not been able to steadily eliminate all malignant cells, and the aim has been to induce a long-term complete response with minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative status. In this sense, approaches that target not only myeloma cells but also the surrounding microenvironment are promising strategies to achieve a sustained MRD negativity with prolonged survival. This review provides an overview of current and future strategies used for immunomodulation of MM focusing on the impact on bone marrow (BM) immunome.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 204062072110129
Author(s):  
Songyi Park ◽  
Dong-Yeop Shin ◽  
Junshik Hong ◽  
Inho Kim ◽  
Youngil Koh ◽  
...  

Background: High dose melphalan (HDMEL) is considered the standard conditioning regimen for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Recent studies showed superiority of busulfan plus melphalan (BUMEL) compared to HDMEL as a conditioning regimen. We compared the efficacy of HDMEL and BUMEL in newly diagnosed Asian MM patients, who are often underrepresented. Methods: This is a single-center, retrospective study including MM patients who underwent ASCT after bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) triplet induction chemotherapy between January 2015 and August 2019. Result: In the end, 79 patients in the HDMEL group were compared to 31 patients in the BUMEL group. There were no differences between the two groups with regards to sex, age at ASCT, risk group, and stage. The HDMEL group showed better response to pre-transplant VTD compared to BUMEL, but after ASCT the BUMEL group showed better overall response. In terms of progression-free survival (PFS), although BUMEL showed trends towards better PFS regardless of pre-transplant status and age, the difference did not reach statistical significance. The BUMEL group more often experienced mucositis related to chemotherapy, but there was no difference between the two groups with regards to hospitalization days, cell engraftment, and infection rates. Conclusion: BUMEL conditioning deserves attention as the alternative option to HDMEL for newly diagnosed MM patients, even in the era of triplet induction chemotherapy. Specifically, patients achieving very good partial response (VGPR) or better response with triplet induction chemotherapy might benefit the most from BUMEL conditioning. Tailored conditioning regimen, based on patient’s response to induction chemotherapy and co-morbidities, can lead to better treatment outcomes.


Cancer ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 100 (12) ◽  
pp. 2607-2612 ◽  
Author(s):  
Athanasios Anagnostopoulos ◽  
Ana Aleman ◽  
Gregory Ayers ◽  
Michele Donato ◽  
Richard Champlin ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document