Journals / Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine / 2021 / Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 2

Efficacy of reduced dose melphalan conditioning for multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation: in the era of combined induction with novel agents

Pages
203–208
Publication Date
2021-03-28
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

There is limited data on the impact of this dose reduction on progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Introduction / Aim: Melphalan 200 mg/m2 (MEL 200) is known as the standard conditioning regimen for Multiple Myeloma (MM) patients in autologous stem cell transplantation(ASCT).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Most of the studies showing the superiority of MEL 200 versus melphalan 140 mg/m2 (MEL 140) were performed in the era of conventional chemotherapies.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:There is limited data on the impact of this dose reduction on progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS).
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Melphalan · Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation · Multiple myeloma

Abstract

Introduction / Aim: Melphalan 200 mg/m2 (MEL 200) is known as the standard conditioning regimen for Multiple Myeloma (MM) patients in autologous stem cell transplantation(ASCT). Most of the studies showing the superiority of MEL 200 versus melphalan 140 mg/m2 (MEL 140) were performed in the era of conventional chemotherapies. However, today, several novel agents such as proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory agents have been introduced in MM treatment algorithms. There is limited data on the impact of this dose reduction on progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS). The present study compares MEL 140 and MEL 200 conditioning for ASCT in patients treated with combination therapy of bortezomib‑containing induction. Material and Method: Results of 84 MM patients who underwent ASCT at our center between 2010 and 2018 were analyzed retrospectively. Findings / Results: In the MEL 140 group, PFS was 9 months (%95 CI 2.2-15.8) and OS was 30 months ( %95CI 9.5-50.4), while PFS was 13 months ( %95CI 10.5-15.5) and OS was 34 months( %95CI 6.9-61) in the MEL 200 group. There was no statistically significant difference in PFS and OS between the two groups (p:0.6, p:0.7). Conclusion: Consequently, MEL 140 and MEL 200 were found similar in terms of engraftment duration, transplant-related mortality rate, and survival rates. The idea that similar outcomes in both MEL 140 and MEL 200 group in patients who received combined induction treatment with novel agent suggested that MEL 140 may be used more commonly than the standard approach of MEL 200. ÖZET Giriş: Multipl Myeloma (MM) tedavisinde 200 mg/m2 melfalan (MEL 200) otolog kök hücre nakli (OKHN) için standart hazırlama rejimi olarak kabul edilmiştir. MEL 200’ün 140 mg/m2 melfalan’a (MEL 140) üstünlüğünü gösteren çalışmaların çoğu konvansiyonel kemoterapiler döneminde yapılmıştır. Ancak günümüzde MM tedavisine immünmodulatuvar, proteozome inhibitörü gibi birçok yeni ajan katılmıştır. Bu çalışmada indüksiyon tedavisinde bortezomib içeren kombinasyon tedavisi almış hastaların otolog kök hücre nakli ile konsalidasyonunda MEL 140 ve MEL 200’un karşılaştırılması hedeflendi. Materyal Metot: 2010-2018 yılları arasında merkezimizde OKHN olmuş 84 MM hastasının sonuçları geriye dönük olarak analiz edildi. Bulgular: MEL 140 grubunda progresyonsuz sağkalım (PFS) 9 ay (%95 CI 2.2-15.8), genel sağkalım (OS) 30 ay (%95CI 9.5-50.4) saptanırken MEL 200 grubunda PFS 13 ay ( %95CI 10.5-15.5) , OS 34 ay ( %95CI 6.9-61) saptandı. Her 2 grup arasında PFS ve OS açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark saptanmadı (sırasıyla p:0.6; p:0.7). Sonuç: Sonuç olarak, engraftman süreleri, transplant ilişkili mortalite oranı ve sağkalım oranları açısından MEL 140 ve MEL 200 benzer bulundu. İndüksiyon tedavisinde yeni ajanlar ile kombine tedaviler almış olan hastalarda MEL 140 ve MEL 200 arasında OS ve PFS farkı olmaması, standart yaklaşım olan MEL 200 yerine MEL 140’ın daha yaygın kullanabileceği fikrini doğurmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

ULU, B. U., BAKIRTAŞ, M., YİĞENOĞLU, T. N., BAŞCI, S., YILDIZ, J., ŞAHİN, D., DARÇIN, T., MERDİN, A., BATGİ, H., İSKENDER, D., BAYSAL, N. A., DAL, S., ÇAKIR, M. K., ALTUNTAŞ, F. (2021). Efficacy of reduced dose melphalan conditioning for multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation: in the era of combined induction with novel agents. Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine, Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 2, 203–208. https://ajindex.com/articles/776989

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Attal M, Harousseau JL, Stoppa AM, et al. A prospective, randomized trial of autologous bone marrow transplantation and chemotherapy in multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 91–7.
  2. Child JA, Morgan GJ, Davies FE, et al. High-Dose Chemotherapy with Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Rescue for Multiple Myeloma. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 1875–83.
  3. Gay F, Oliva S, Petrucci MT, et al. chemotherapy plus lenalidomide versus autologous transplantation, followed by lenalidomide plus prednisone versus lenalidomide maintenance, in patients with multiple myeloma: A randomized, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16: 1617–29.
  4. Palumbo A, Cavallo F, Gay F, et al. Autologous transplantation and maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2014; 371: 895–905.
  5. Gay F, Oliva S, Petrucci MT, et al. Autologous transplant vs oral chemotherapy and lenalidomide in newly diagnosed young myeloma patients: a pooled analysis. Leukemia 2017; 31: 1727–34.
  6. Costa LJ, Zhang MJ, Zhong X, et al. Trends in utilization and outcomes of autologous transplantation as early therapy for multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2013; 19: 1615–24.
  7. Auner HW, Szydlo R, Hoek J, et al. Trends in autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation for multiple myeloma in Europe: Increased use and improved outcomes in elderly patients in recent years. Bone Marrow Transplant 2015; 50: 209–15.
  8. Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Petrucci MT, et al. Intermediate-dose melphalan improves survival of myeloma patients aged 50 to 70: results of a randomized controlled trial. Blood 2004; 104: 3052–7.
  9. Moreau P, Facon T, Attal M, et al. comparison of 200 mg/m2 melphalan and 8 Gy total body irradiation plus 140 mg/m2 melphalan as conditioning regimens for peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: final analysis of the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome 9502 randomized trial. Blood 2002; 99: 731–5.
  10. Lahuerta JJ, Mateos MV, Martínez-López J, et al. Busulfan 12 mg/kg plus melphalan 140 mg/m2 versus melphalan 200 mg/m2 as conditioning regimens for autologous transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients included in the PETHEMA/GEM2000 study. Haematologica 2010; 95: 1913–20.
  11. Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Bruno B, et al. Melphalan 200 mg/m2 versus melphalan 100 mg/m2 in newly diagnosed myeloma patients: A prospective, multicenter phase 3 study. Blood 2010; 115: 1873–9.
  12. Shah N, Callander N, Ganguly S, et al. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: