scholarly journals "ROLE OF ALLOGENEIC TRANSPLANTATION IN MULTIPLE MYELOMA IN THE ERA OF NEW DRUGS"

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 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aurore Perrot

High dose Melphalan supported by autologous transplantation is the standard of care for eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma for more than 25 years. Several randomized clinical trials have recently reaffirmed the strong position of transplant in the era of proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs combinations, demonstrating a significant reduction of progression or death in comparison with strategies without transplant. Immunotherapy is currently changing the paradigm of multiple myeloma management and daratumumab is the first-in-class human monoclonal antibody targeting CD38 approved in the setting of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Quadruplets become the new standard in the transplantation programs, but outcomes remain heterogeneous with various response depth and duration. Otherwise, the development of sensitive and specific tools for disease prognostication allows to consider adaptive strategy to a dynamic risk. I discuss in this review the different available options for the treatment of transplant-eligible multiple myeloma patients in frontline setting.


2010 ◽  
Vol 06 (01) ◽  
pp. 81
Author(s):  
Jesús San-Miguel ◽  

The outcome for myeloma patients has significantly improved over the last decade, mainly due to the introduction of new drugs with a singular mechanism of action such as thalidomide and lenalidomide (revlimid), both immunomodulatory drugs (IMIDs), and the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib (velcade). In newly diagnosed young patients, induction regimens such as bortezomib–thalidomide or lenalidomide plus dexamethasone will replace vincristine, doxorubicin and dexamethasone (VAD), followed by high-dose melphalan. Maintenance with IMIDs may represent the new standard of care for young multiple myeloma (MM) patients. This approach is being challenged by continuous treatment with novel agents and the postponement of a transplant until relapse. Allogeneic transplant should be conducted within the context of clinical trials. In elderly patients or non-transplant candidates, new regimens based on melphalan–prednisone plus thalidomide, velcade or lenalidomide have become new standards. The reduction of side effects while maintaining efficacy of treatment is most important in the elderly population.


Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 23-24
Author(s):  
Kevin Sing ◽  
Roy Sabo ◽  
James O'Bryan ◽  
Matthew Risendal ◽  
Catherine H Roberts ◽  
...  

The standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are transplant eligible is induction therapy followed by conditioning with high dose melphalan and autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT). While the value of a single HCT (S-HCT) is established in standard-risk myeloma (SRM), there is controversy about whether tandem transplantation would improve outcomes such as progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) in high-risk myeloma (HRM) patients. In this IRB approved retrospective study, the records of 343 multiple myeloma patients, who were referred by community oncologists and underwent HCT at Virginia Commonwealth University from 2008 to 2015, were reviewed. Patients were classified into different disease risk groups and OS and PFS determined. HRM was defined as including at least one of the following prognostic factors at diagnosis: t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), del17p13, or gain of 1q by FISH; del 13 or aneuploidy by karyotyping; and ISS stage 3; patients without these features and with standard risk attributes were classified as SRM, while any patients with missing attribute information were classified as having undetermined risk myeloma (URM). In the study population, there were 135 SRM, 100 HRM, and 104 URM patients. Median age of the entire cohort was 60 years (76-34). The patients underwent hematopoietic cell mobilization and collection with filgrastim ± plerixafor and were conditioned with high-dose Melphalan (140-200 mg/m2). When possible, patients with SRM underwent single HCT (S-HCT) and those with HRM, tandem HCT (T-HCT) based on risk classification, response to prior therapy, insurance mandate and patient/physician preference. In those undergoing T-HCT, the median time to second HCT was 141 days. Evaluating the entire study population, and comparing patients who underwent a T-HCT (median follow up 82 mo.) vs. a S-HCT (85 mo.), there was no significant difference in OS (adjusted HR 1.1, 95% CI: 0.7-1.8; Cox proportional hazard model, adjusted for age, gender and risk group) (Figure 1) and PFS (HR 0.9, 95% CI: 0.6-1.2) between these two treatment groups. Of the 135 SRM patients, 20 underwent T-HCT; there was no significant difference in OS (HR = 1.2, 95% CI 0.5-2.9) and PFS (HR = 0.9, 95% CI = 0.5-1.7) in these patients compared to those undergoing S-SCT. Of the 100 HRM patients, 46 underwent T-HCT (P <0.01 c/w SRM & URM for T-HCT assignment). Again, there was no significant difference observed in OS (HR = 1.3, 95% CI = 0.7 - 2.5) (Figure 2) and PFS (HR = 1.0, 95% CI = 0.6 - 1.8) in the T-HCT recipients as compared to S-SCT amongst the HRM patients. Similar outcomes were observed in the URM patients. There were no differences observed between S-HCT and T-HCT outcomes in patients with deletion of chromosome 17p or in those with ISS stage 3 disease in OS (HR = 1.7, 95% CI = 0.8 - 3.8) and PFS (HR = 1.0, 95% CI: 0.5, 1.9). Overall, HRM patients had a trend for worse, albeit not significantly different, OS (HR 1.4, 95% CI: 0.9-2.2), as well as PFS (HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.7-1.6) compared to SRM; URM demonstrated a similar trend vis a vis SRM. This retrospective review of survival in SRM and HRM transplanted at a single center demonstrates that in the era of induction and maintenance therapy with novel agents, tandem transplantation does not improve OS or PFS in either SRM or HRM patients compared to a single transplant. Standard of care for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who are transplant eligible should remain induction therapy with novel agents followed by single autologous HCT and maintenance therapy. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


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.


2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 281-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eda Aypar ◽  
Fikret Vehbi İzzettin ◽  
Şahika Zeynep Akı ◽  
Mesut Sancar ◽  
Zeynep Arzu Yeğin ◽  
...  

Background Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) remains the standard of care for younger patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Currently, high-dose melphalan (HDM) is recommended as conditioning regimen before AHSCT. Preclinical data suggest that combining bortezomib and melphalan has synergistic effect against multiple myeloma cells. Bortezomib and HDM (Bor-HDM) combination as conditioning regimen has been investigated by many other investigators. Objective In this retrospective study, we aimed to compare transplant-related toxicities and hematologic recovery of HDM and Bor-HDM conditioning regimens. Method We retrospectively evaluated hematologic recovery and toxicity profile in patients with MM who received AHSCT with either HDM ( n = 114) or Bor-HDM ( n = 53) conditioning regimen. Results Nonhematologic toxicities were comparable between HDM and Bor-HDM conditioning regimen, except mucositis and diarrhea being more frequent in the Bor-HDM group. Neutrophil and platelet engraftment time and duration of hospital stay were significantly shorter for HDM regimen. Conclusions In this retrospective analysis, we observed engraftment kinetics and duration of hospitalization were significantly worse in Bor-HDM conditioning regimen with manageable toxicities. Randomized studies are needed to further compare Bor- HDM regimen to HDM in terms of response rates, toxicities, and transplant-related mortality.


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.


Blood ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 110 (11) ◽  
pp. 5098-5098
Author(s):  
Albrecht Reichle ◽  
Nina Burgmayer ◽  
Ernst Holler ◽  
Anna Berand ◽  
Reinhard Andreesen

Abstract High-dose treosulfan followed by autologous transplantation is a tolerable and efficacious regimen in quite different tumor types. Aim of the present study was to proof safety and efficacy of high-dose treosulfan in an intraindividual comparison with melphalan. Between August 2003 and July 2006, 20 patients with multiple myeloma, age< 60 years were enrolled onto an unicentric phase II trial. The median age was 55 years. All patients received pretreatment with 3 to 4 cycles idarubicin and dexamethasone (90%) or CAD (10%). After induction the peripheral blood stem cells were mobilized with a combination of ifosfamide, epirubicin, etoposide (IEV) followed by G-CSF. Stem cell harvest was successful in all patients. Thereafter, the patients received tandem transplantation in an interval of 2 months, first after conditioning with high-dose treosulfan on day −4 to −2, 14g/m2 daily, then after high-dose melphalan 140 mg/m2. Maintenance therapy with interferon-alpha was administered in 30% of the cases. For all patients the completion rate of the first transplantation was 100%, for the second 85%. Three patients did not proceed to the second autologous transplantation due to a severe ischemic colitis (n= 1) or a high-risk profile (allogeneic transplantation in 2 cases). Two patients received an allogeneic transplantation during the further course of the disease. Overall the conditioning regimens were well tolerable. Hematotoxicity grade 4 was observed after each high-dose cycle. Grade 3/4 infections and stomatitis were present in 5%/5% after treosulfan and in 18%/6% after melphalan. An acute coronary heart syndrome occurred after Mel140. The duration of severe leukopenia (< 1.0 leukocytes) was significantly shorter after treosulfan (6.4 days vs. 7.9 days, p= 0.009), whereas time to leukocyte recovery did not significantly differ between the regimens. No treatment related deaths occurred. Best response after transplantation was CR 30%, PR 60%, NC 5%, and PD 5%. In comparison to the preceding chemotherapy a further >50% decline of the paraprotein was achieved by treosulfan in 3 cases, by melphalan in 2 cases. In the intraindividual comparison treosulfan and melphalan, respectively, have shown two times superior response. The median event-free survival was 28 months, and the overall survival at 4 years was 81%. In conclusion, high-dose treosulfan may be more favorable for patients at risk for infections than melphalan, and seems to be as efficacious as melphalan for the treatment of multiple myeloma. Treosulfan should be further investigated in multiple myeloma patients.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document