scholarly journals Role of new drugs incorporated into consolidation and maintenance therapy in transplant-eligible multiple myeloma patients

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (10) ◽  
pp. 1315-1320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Massimo Gentile ◽  
Ernesto Vigna ◽  
Anna G Recchia ◽  
Lucio Morabito ◽  
Massimo Martino ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (10) ◽  
pp. 889-898 ◽  
Author(s):  
Almuth Maria Anni Merz ◽  
Maximilian Merz ◽  
Jens Hillengass ◽  
Sarah A. Holstein ◽  
Philip McCarthy

Author(s):  
Michel Attal ◽  
Murielle Roussel

Overview: Maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma has been under investigation for more than 3 decades and has been without evidence of clear advantage in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) until the mid-2000s. Neither conventional chemotherapy, prednisone, nor interferon-based maintenance regimens offered any benefit after conventional or high-dose therapy. Thalidomide was the first drug, mainly given as maintenance after high dose therapy, to demonstrate clinical benefits in terms of PFS and, in some studies, of overall survival (OS). The role of other novel agents such as lenalidomide and bortezomib as maintenance therapy is emerging. Lenalidomide has been shown to reduce the risk of relapse with longer follow-up needed to see if this will translate into a survival benefit. At present, a number of key questions remain unanswered. What are the optimal dose and duration of those treatments? Is the risk of toxicity and second primary malignancies acceptable? Will the disease be more aggressive at time of relapse? Is the clinical benefit predicted by initial prognostic factors and response to previous therapy? Does maintenance therapy work by further eradication of minimal residual disease or by immunological control of the malignant clone? Ongoing randomized trials are evaluating lenalidomide and bortezomib, both in the transplant and nontransplant settings, to better define the role of these drugs as maintenance in multiple myeloma.


Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (12) ◽  
pp. 3576
Author(s):  
Mario A. Legarda ◽  
María J. Cejalvo ◽  
Javier de la Rubia

In the past 20 years, few diseases have seen as great progress in their treatment as multiple myeloma. With the approval of many new drugs and the limited availability of clinical trials comparing head-to-head the different possible combinations, the choice of the best treatments at each stage of the disease becomes complex as well as crucial since multiple myeloma remains incurable. This article presents a general description of the novelties of the whole treatment of multiple myeloma, from induction in the newly diagnosed patient through the role of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and maintenance treatment until early and late relapses, including a section on recently approved drugs as well as novel drugs and immunotherapy in advanced stages of research, and that will surely play a relevant role in the treatment of this devastating disease in the coming years.


Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 2023-2023
Author(s):  
Michael T. Byrne ◽  
Donya Salmasinia ◽  
Helen Leather ◽  
Amy Davis ◽  
Jack W. Hsu ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 2023 Background: The role of tandem and salvage autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM) has been a subject of interest for many myeloma investigators. Further, the role of tandem ASCT in patients achieving very good partial remission (VGPR) or complete remission (CR) has not been studied prospectively. Methods: We conducted a prospective phase II clinical trial in which enrolled MM patients are assessed after the first ASCT. Patients achieving ≤ partial remission (PR) were offered 2nd tandem ASCT followed by maintenance therapy. Patients that were found to be ≥VGPR were offered maintenance therapy followed by salvage ASCT at the time of relapse. Busulfan 0.75 mg/kg PO q 6 hr days -8 through -5, Cyclophosphamide (Cy) 60 mg/kg IV days -3 and -2, and Etoposide 10 mg/kg IV days -4 to -2 were used as the conditioning regimen for the first ASCT. Patients receiving a second ASCT received 96-hour (days -6 to -3) continuous IV Cy 6 gr/m2 and low dose total body irradiation (loTBI) 600 cGy (days -2 and -1). Etoposide was omitted if patients were ≥65 years. Melphalan 140 mg/m2 was used in lieu of TBI if prior irradiation did not allow for TBI. Results: Between the years 2001–2009, 76 patients were enrolled into the study. 54 patients achieved ≥VGPR. 31 patients had ≤ PR and were offered ASCT. Of these patients, 21 patients ultimately received tandem ASCT and 1 patient had tandem autologous-allogeneic transplants. Reasons for not receiving the planned tandem ASCT were lack of socioeconomic resources, physical co-morbidities, and patient refusal. There were no treatment related mortalities in the ASCT patients. Progression-free (PFS) and overall (OS) were compared between the single ASCT (n=54) and tandem ASCT (n=21) groups. The median PFS for the single ASCT group was 27 months (range, 3–107) and 21 months (range, 7–101) in the tandem group (P=0.814). OS was 76 months (range, 5–144) vs. 38 months (range, 12–128), respectively (P=0.121). At the time of submission, a total of 26 (48%) patients in the single ASCT group and 6 (30%) patients in the tandem group are still alive. Among the tandem patients, 2 later underwent salvage ASCT and 3 went on to receive non-myeloablative allogeneic transplants. In the single ASCT group, 6 had salvage ASCT and 7 had allogeneic SCT. All salvage transplants were done at a median of 30 months (range, 8–90) from the last ASCT. Patients who declined tandem transplant had a median PFS of 20 months (range 4–38). Patients who did not quality for tandem ASCT had a median PFS of 28 months (range 3–107) (p–0.08). Median OS between the two groups was 53 months (range 5–95) and 57.5 months (12–144), respectively (p–0.67). Conclusions: Patients who achieve ≥VGPR after 1st ASCT have similar PFS and a trend toward better OS than patients who had tandem ASCT. Thus, the use of such response criteria may identify a group of lower risk patients that will do well without upfront tandem ASCT. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (16_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6731-6731 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Sengar ◽  
L. Kumar ◽  
K. Ganessan ◽  
N. Khattry ◽  
S. Mohanty ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip L McCarthy ◽  
Hermann Einsele ◽  
Michel Attal ◽  
Sergio Giralt

2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. e2010013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benedetto Bruno ◽  
Luisa Giaccone ◽  
Moreno Festuccia ◽  
Mario Boccadoro

High-dose melphalan with autologous stem cell rescue has been regarded as the standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed myeloma up to the age of 65-70 years. The recent development of agents with potent anti-tumor activity such as thalidomide, lenalidomide and bortezomib has further improved overall survival and response rates. However, relapse is a continuous risk.            Allografting is a potentially curative treatment for a subset of multiple myeloma patients for its well documented graft-vs-myeloma effects. However, its role has been hotly debated. Even though molecular remissions have been reported up to 50% after high-dose myeloablative conditionings, their applications, given the high toxicity, have been for long limited to younger relapsed/refractory patients. These limitations have greatly been reduced through the introduction of non-myeloablative/reduced-intensity conditionings.             The introduction of new drugs, characterised by low risks of early mortality, indeed requires to define role and timing of an allograft to capture the subset of patients who may most benefit from graft-vs-myeloma effects.   Ultimately, new drugs should not be viewed as mutually exclusive with an allograft. They may be employed to achieve profound cytoreduction before and enhance graft-versus-myeloma effects as consolidation/maintenance therapy after an allograft. However, this combination should be explored only in well-designed clinical trials.


Blood ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 99 (9) ◽  
pp. 3163-3168 ◽  
Author(s):  
James R. Berenson ◽  
John J. Crowley ◽  
Thomas M. Grogan ◽  
Jeffrey Zangmeister ◽  
Adrienne D. Briggs ◽  
...  

Abstract The role of maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma is controversial. Recent studies have shown an improvement in both progression-free and overall survival for patients receiving maintenance treatment with a combination of interferon and glucocorticoids, compared with interferon alone. The role of glucocorticoids alone as maintenance therapy has not been previously addressed. We compared alternate-day, oral prednisone at 2 different dose levels (10 mg versus 50 mg) for remission maintenance among previously untreated myeloma patients following a response to induction with standard-dose vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone with prednisone (VAD-P) or VAD-P plus quinine (VAD-P/Q). There were 250 eligible patients registered on Southwest Oncology Group study 9210 and randomized to receive VAD-P or VAD-P/Q. There were 125 patients achieving at least a 25% tumor reduction following induction therapy who were randomized to either physiologic (10 mg) or pharmacologic (50 mg) doses of alternate-day, oral prednisone until disease progression. At the time of study entry, patient characteristics were similar in VAD-P and VAD-P/Q patients and in the 2 arms randomized to maintenance therapy. After a median follow-up of 53 months, there was no difference in either progression-free or overall survival between the 2 induction regimens. However, from the time of maintenance randomization, both progression-free (14 versus 5 months; P = .003) and overall survival (37 versus 26 months; P = .05) were significantly improved in patients receiving 50 mg as compared with 10 mg alternate-day prednisone. There was no difference in treatment-related adverse events between the groups. Thus, 50 mg, oral, alternate-day prednisone is effective maintenance treatment for multiple myeloma patients who achieve a response to induction chemotherapy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document