This forum thread can be used to discuss the proceedings of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) meeting that take place on Day 2 (Sunday, December 5) of the conference. Feel free to use this space to highlight interesting abstracts, summarize the presentations as they happen, ask questions, and discuss any relevant topics. Everyone is encouraged to participate.
Feel free to also check out the discussions for Day 1, Day 3, and Day 4.
Forums
Re: ASH 2010 Multiple Myeloma Discussion - Day 2
Hallo, thank you to you first for your coverage of ASH. It is a formidable service to us patients and our caregivers. I wanted to point out our interest in immontherapy (vaccination, t-cell-mobilization) which seems to be one of the most hopeful approaches to us besides the agents 2.0, that has been presented at the poster sessions. We are looking out for real news. So it would be great, if you could reach out and have a look for this topic, if it is possible. Thank you so much . Peter
-
Peter M. Parker
Re: ASH 2010 Multiple Myeloma Discussion - Day 2
It’s previously been shown that two autologous transplants (with own stem cells)—one transplant a few months after the other—may extend survival compared to only one transplant.
Allogeneic transplants (with donor stem cells) are currently the only treatment that has the potential to completely remove all cancer cells. Additionally, the donor cells may recognize any remaining cancer cells as foreign and launch an immune attack against them.
However, allotransplants are associated with more frequent and more serious side effects. Therefore, it’s important for studies to compare auto and allo transplants.
At a press briefing, Dr. Amrita Krishnan from the City of Hope Cancer Center in Duarte, CA just announced that a Phase 3 trial showed treatment with tandem (double) autotransplants +/- maintenance therapy is more effective than autotransplant followed by allotransplant (from a sibling in this study) in standard-risk multiple myeloma patients.
After three years, progression-free survival was 46 percent for patients receiving auto-auto transplants, compared to 43 percent for the patients receiving auto-allo transplants. Similarly, overall survival was 80 percent and 77 percent for the two groups, respectively.
Slightly more auto-auto patients relapsed (50 percent vs 46 percent for the auto-auto and auto-allo groups, respectively). However, treatment-related mortality was higher for the auto-allo group (4 percent and 11 percent for auto-auto and auto-allo, respectively).
The thalidomide/dexamethasone maintenance therapy was not well tolerated; 84 percent of patients did not complete their maintenance regimen.
In this study, even though the allotransplant delayed relapse and launched an immune response against the myeloma cells in some patients, the auto-auto regimen had similar results due to the higher treatment-related mortality associated with the auto-allo regimen. Therefore, this study suggests that allo transplants should not be used in standard-risk myeloma patients.
Dr. Krishnan said that auto-allo transplants are not necessarily out. These study results are 3 year follow-up results, and further observation is necessary. Additionally, risk stratification is changing, and studies in high-risk patients certainly need to be done. The goal and challenge remain to make allo transplants safer in order to take advantage of the immune response of allo transplants.
Dr. Krishnan will be presenting this study in more detail later this afternoon in an oral session on autotransplants for the treatment of multiple myeloma.
Allogeneic transplants (with donor stem cells) are currently the only treatment that has the potential to completely remove all cancer cells. Additionally, the donor cells may recognize any remaining cancer cells as foreign and launch an immune attack against them.
However, allotransplants are associated with more frequent and more serious side effects. Therefore, it’s important for studies to compare auto and allo transplants.
At a press briefing, Dr. Amrita Krishnan from the City of Hope Cancer Center in Duarte, CA just announced that a Phase 3 trial showed treatment with tandem (double) autotransplants +/- maintenance therapy is more effective than autotransplant followed by allotransplant (from a sibling in this study) in standard-risk multiple myeloma patients.
After three years, progression-free survival was 46 percent for patients receiving auto-auto transplants, compared to 43 percent for the patients receiving auto-allo transplants. Similarly, overall survival was 80 percent and 77 percent for the two groups, respectively.
Slightly more auto-auto patients relapsed (50 percent vs 46 percent for the auto-auto and auto-allo groups, respectively). However, treatment-related mortality was higher for the auto-allo group (4 percent and 11 percent for auto-auto and auto-allo, respectively).
The thalidomide/dexamethasone maintenance therapy was not well tolerated; 84 percent of patients did not complete their maintenance regimen.
In this study, even though the allotransplant delayed relapse and launched an immune response against the myeloma cells in some patients, the auto-auto regimen had similar results due to the higher treatment-related mortality associated with the auto-allo regimen. Therefore, this study suggests that allo transplants should not be used in standard-risk myeloma patients.
Dr. Krishnan said that auto-allo transplants are not necessarily out. These study results are 3 year follow-up results, and further observation is necessary. Additionally, risk stratification is changing, and studies in high-risk patients certainly need to be done. The goal and challenge remain to make allo transplants safer in order to take advantage of the immune response of allo transplants.
Dr. Krishnan will be presenting this study in more detail later this afternoon in an oral session on autotransplants for the treatment of multiple myeloma.
- Attachments
-
- Dr. Amrita Krishnan
- AmritaKrishnan.jpg (18.99 KiB) Viewed 1475 times
-
Julie Shilane - Name: Julie Shilane, Beacon Staff
Re: ASH 2010 Multiple Myeloma Discussion - Day 2
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your interest in myeloma vaccines. There was one relevant poster at last night's poster session. I just posted about it in the Day 1 discussion. The results look promising, but the experts definitely seem more interested in the the novel agents that are being developed, certainly for the near-term treatment of myeloma anyway.
Thanks for your interest in myeloma vaccines. There was one relevant poster at last night's poster session. I just posted about it in the Day 1 discussion. The results look promising, but the experts definitely seem more interested in the the novel agents that are being developed, certainly for the near-term treatment of myeloma anyway.
-
Julie Shilane - Name: Julie Shilane, Beacon Staff
Re: ASH 2010 Multiple Myeloma Discussion - Day 2
I think I found the press release related to the study comparing tandem autologous transplants (with or without maintenance therapy) versus autologous + allogeneic transplants in multiple myeloma. I've pasted the text of the press release below. Is it the right press release?
One thing I wanted to clarify, Julie. You said in your summary that Dr. Krishnan's study compared tandem auto transplants (+/- maintenance therapey) vs. tandem auto transplants + an allo transplant.
The way I read the press release, though, the comparison was between tandem auto transplants versus an auto transplant plus an allo transplant. That is, in all arms of the study, patients received two transplants, but in one arm, the two transplants were auto transplants, while, in the other, one transplant was an auto, the other an allo.
Is that right?
Thanks again for all the coverage you're providing!
R
Tandem Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplants (AuHCT) With or Without Maintenance Therapy (auto-auto) Versus Single AuHCT Followed by HLA Matched Sibling Non-Myeloablative Allogeneic HCT (auto-allo) for Patients With Standard Risk (SR) Multiple Myeloma (multiple myeloma): Results From the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) 0102 Trial [Abstract 41]
Multiple myeloma is a form of blood cancer characterized by the overproduction of plasma cells in the bone marrow. Research has demonstrated that autologous stem cell transplantation, a procedure in which a patient is treated with high-dose chemotherapy followed by an infusion of his or her own stem cells, is associated with improved overall survival. However, relapse and progression of the disease still occur following this procedure.
Tandem autologous stem cell transplantation, a procedure in which a patient receives two sequential autologous stem cell transplants, may improve survival beyond that seen after a single transplant. Additionally, donor (allogeneic) stem cell transplantation has potential for replacement of the malignant bone marrow with healthy donor cells as well as a potentially beneficial immune-mediated graft-versus-myeloma-effect. Past studies of allogeneic transplantation for multiple myeloma with full-intensity conditioning demonstrated long-term remission in a group of patients; however, side effects and mortality were high. Non-myeloablative conditioning allogeneic stem cell transplantation (also known as a reduced-intensity transplant), in which a patient receives lower doses of chemotherapy or irradiation followed by an infusion of stem cells from a HLA-matched sibling, has been shown to reduce toxicity, while maintaining the beneficial immunologic effects of allogeneic transplantation. The use of autologous followed by reduced-intensity allogeneic transplant has been shown to be feasible, and preliminary results suggest this approach may potentially be superior to tandem autologous transplant.
Researchers from the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) sought to determine if a tandem autologous stem cell transplant (auto-auto) with or without maintenance therapy improves overall survival in patients with standard risk multiple myeloma as compared with a regimen of an autologous stem cell transplant followed by non-myeloablative allogeneic stem cell transplant (auto-allo). The BMT CTN is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health and has the objective of conducting phase II and III clinical trials in transplantation in the United States. This large, multicenter phase III clinical trial (BMT CTM 0102) assigned 710 patients from 43 institutions to one of two treatment arms. Patients without a matched sibling stem cell donor were enrolled in the auto-auto arm, in which a tandem autologous stem cell transplant was performed using a chemotherapy conditioning regimen of melphalan 200 mg/m2. Patients in this arm were further randomized to receive maintenance therapy of thalidomide and dexamethasone, which are active anti-myeloma drugs, or observation for one year. Patients with a matched sibling stem cell donor were enrolled in the experimental arm, referred to as the auto-allo arm, in which patients underwent an autologous stem cell transplant using a chemotherapy conditioning regimen of melphalan 200 mg/m2 followed by an allogeneic stem cell transplant using a total body irradiation (2 Gy) conditioning regimen. All patients in the study received cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil for prevention of graft-versus-host disease. This is a common complication of bone marrow transplantation in which the transplanted donor cells attack the cells in the recipient's body. The primary endpoint of the study was three-year progression-free survival.
The study demonstrated that after three years of follow-up, progression-free survival was 46 percent for the standard auto-auto arm compared with 43 percent for the experimental auto-allo arm, demonstrating that the experimental auto-allo approach was not significantly better than the standard auto-auto approach. Overall survival was 80 percent and 77 percent for the auto-auto and auto-allo arms, respectively. The progression/relapse rates were 50 percent and 46 percent, and treatment-related mortality was 4 percent and 11 percent for the auto-auto arm and auto-allo arm, respectively. In those patients who received the assigned second transplant (82 percent in each arm), the three-year progression-free survival rate was 47 percent for the auto-auto arm and 44 percent for the auto-allo arm. Results of this study show that, in patients with standard risk multiple myeloma, an autologous stem cell transplant followed by reduced intensity allogeneic transplant did not differ from a tandem autologous stem cell transplant in terms of progression-free or overall survival.
The investigators reported that there was poor overall compliance with the maintenance therapy of thalidomide and dexamethasone in the auto-auto arm, with 84 percent of patients not completing the therapy due to overall poor tolerability of this regimen. Progression-free survival and overall survival between the maintenance and observation groups were not significantly different, perhaps due to the high rate of discontinuation of maintenance therapy.
"Research has shown that allogeneic stem cell transplantation can be a curative procedure for certain groups of patients with multiple myeloma; however, it can be associated with increased morbidity and mortality over autologous transplant. Therefore, it is still unknown if this procedure is better in some patients than in others or if it should be the standard of care for all myeloma patients," said lead study author Amrita Krishnan, MD, Director of the Multiple Myeloma Program at the City of Hope Cancer Center in Duarte, CA. "Our study addresses this unanswered question and shows that the toxicity of allogeneic transplantation outweighed the benefits of the reduced relapse risk in patients with standard-risk myeloma."
One thing I wanted to clarify, Julie. You said in your summary that Dr. Krishnan's study compared tandem auto transplants (+/- maintenance therapey) vs. tandem auto transplants + an allo transplant.
The way I read the press release, though, the comparison was between tandem auto transplants versus an auto transplant plus an allo transplant. That is, in all arms of the study, patients received two transplants, but in one arm, the two transplants were auto transplants, while, in the other, one transplant was an auto, the other an allo.
Is that right?
Thanks again for all the coverage you're providing!
R
Tandem Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplants (AuHCT) With or Without Maintenance Therapy (auto-auto) Versus Single AuHCT Followed by HLA Matched Sibling Non-Myeloablative Allogeneic HCT (auto-allo) for Patients With Standard Risk (SR) Multiple Myeloma (multiple myeloma): Results From the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) 0102 Trial [Abstract 41]
Multiple myeloma is a form of blood cancer characterized by the overproduction of plasma cells in the bone marrow. Research has demonstrated that autologous stem cell transplantation, a procedure in which a patient is treated with high-dose chemotherapy followed by an infusion of his or her own stem cells, is associated with improved overall survival. However, relapse and progression of the disease still occur following this procedure.
Tandem autologous stem cell transplantation, a procedure in which a patient receives two sequential autologous stem cell transplants, may improve survival beyond that seen after a single transplant. Additionally, donor (allogeneic) stem cell transplantation has potential for replacement of the malignant bone marrow with healthy donor cells as well as a potentially beneficial immune-mediated graft-versus-myeloma-effect. Past studies of allogeneic transplantation for multiple myeloma with full-intensity conditioning demonstrated long-term remission in a group of patients; however, side effects and mortality were high. Non-myeloablative conditioning allogeneic stem cell transplantation (also known as a reduced-intensity transplant), in which a patient receives lower doses of chemotherapy or irradiation followed by an infusion of stem cells from a HLA-matched sibling, has been shown to reduce toxicity, while maintaining the beneficial immunologic effects of allogeneic transplantation. The use of autologous followed by reduced-intensity allogeneic transplant has been shown to be feasible, and preliminary results suggest this approach may potentially be superior to tandem autologous transplant.
Researchers from the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) sought to determine if a tandem autologous stem cell transplant (auto-auto) with or without maintenance therapy improves overall survival in patients with standard risk multiple myeloma as compared with a regimen of an autologous stem cell transplant followed by non-myeloablative allogeneic stem cell transplant (auto-allo). The BMT CTN is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health and has the objective of conducting phase II and III clinical trials in transplantation in the United States. This large, multicenter phase III clinical trial (BMT CTM 0102) assigned 710 patients from 43 institutions to one of two treatment arms. Patients without a matched sibling stem cell donor were enrolled in the auto-auto arm, in which a tandem autologous stem cell transplant was performed using a chemotherapy conditioning regimen of melphalan 200 mg/m2. Patients in this arm were further randomized to receive maintenance therapy of thalidomide and dexamethasone, which are active anti-myeloma drugs, or observation for one year. Patients with a matched sibling stem cell donor were enrolled in the experimental arm, referred to as the auto-allo arm, in which patients underwent an autologous stem cell transplant using a chemotherapy conditioning regimen of melphalan 200 mg/m2 followed by an allogeneic stem cell transplant using a total body irradiation (2 Gy) conditioning regimen. All patients in the study received cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil for prevention of graft-versus-host disease. This is a common complication of bone marrow transplantation in which the transplanted donor cells attack the cells in the recipient's body. The primary endpoint of the study was three-year progression-free survival.
The study demonstrated that after three years of follow-up, progression-free survival was 46 percent for the standard auto-auto arm compared with 43 percent for the experimental auto-allo arm, demonstrating that the experimental auto-allo approach was not significantly better than the standard auto-auto approach. Overall survival was 80 percent and 77 percent for the auto-auto and auto-allo arms, respectively. The progression/relapse rates were 50 percent and 46 percent, and treatment-related mortality was 4 percent and 11 percent for the auto-auto arm and auto-allo arm, respectively. In those patients who received the assigned second transplant (82 percent in each arm), the three-year progression-free survival rate was 47 percent for the auto-auto arm and 44 percent for the auto-allo arm. Results of this study show that, in patients with standard risk multiple myeloma, an autologous stem cell transplant followed by reduced intensity allogeneic transplant did not differ from a tandem autologous stem cell transplant in terms of progression-free or overall survival.
The investigators reported that there was poor overall compliance with the maintenance therapy of thalidomide and dexamethasone in the auto-auto arm, with 84 percent of patients not completing the therapy due to overall poor tolerability of this regimen. Progression-free survival and overall survival between the maintenance and observation groups were not significantly different, perhaps due to the high rate of discontinuation of maintenance therapy.
"Research has shown that allogeneic stem cell transplantation can be a curative procedure for certain groups of patients with multiple myeloma; however, it can be associated with increased morbidity and mortality over autologous transplant. Therefore, it is still unknown if this procedure is better in some patients than in others or if it should be the standard of care for all myeloma patients," said lead study author Amrita Krishnan, MD, Director of the Multiple Myeloma Program at the City of Hope Cancer Center in Duarte, CA. "Our study addresses this unanswered question and shows that the toxicity of allogeneic transplantation outweighed the benefits of the reduced relapse risk in patients with standard-risk myeloma."
Re: ASH 2010 Multiple Myeloma Discussion - Day 2
Hi Ricardo,
You found the right press release, and you also interpreted it correctly that it's one auto followed by one allo (tandem auto-allo). Both arms received a total of two transplants. I edited my summary so that hopefully it is clearer.
You found the right press release, and you also interpreted it correctly that it's one auto followed by one allo (tandem auto-allo). Both arms received a total of two transplants. I edited my summary so that hopefully it is clearer.
-
Julie Shilane - Name: Julie Shilane, Beacon Staff
ASH-news
Julie, thank you for your excellent features her on the beacon site. Great job! Although you're doing fine, we are disappointed about the "news" from ASH this year. Research is not speeding up so much.
There are the study results from the new renowed agents (Velcade, Revlimid, Zometa), the very new agents (pomalidomide, Carfilzomib, Elotuzumab) and about SCT's. But all this data had been expected - because of the ASCO news form June. This date is not so far away. Unfortunately there's no real news - for example a really better understanding of the relapse mechanism or the cancer stem cell, that gives a foresight on a new therapeutic approach, or something else, e.g. a cross-border drug. We know, that in January there will be publised a mass screening of the myeloma genome in nature. Perhaps we have to wait till then, this will be something brand new. But - wait (!) - the glass is still half full. We have two more days to go. Best, Tom
There are the study results from the new renowed agents (Velcade, Revlimid, Zometa), the very new agents (pomalidomide, Carfilzomib, Elotuzumab) and about SCT's. But all this data had been expected - because of the ASCO news form June. This date is not so far away. Unfortunately there's no real news - for example a really better understanding of the relapse mechanism or the cancer stem cell, that gives a foresight on a new therapeutic approach, or something else, e.g. a cross-border drug. We know, that in January there will be publised a mass screening of the myeloma genome in nature. Perhaps we have to wait till then, this will be something brand new. But - wait (!) - the glass is still half full. We have two more days to go. Best, Tom
-
Tom L.
Re: ASH 2010 Multiple Myeloma Discussion - Day 2
Hi Tom,
Thanks for your feedback and thoughts about the ASH presentations. You're right that many of the presentations are updates of the studies that were presented at ASH. Of course brand new results are more exciting, but sufficient follow-up times are necessary, and the physicians who are treating myeloma patients need to know how these trials are progressing. Unfortunately, research is a slow process. But it's the nature of the beast. We need to know how long before patients progress and how long they will survive on each regimen being studied; therefore, the studies have to last several years. Maybe it's a double edged sword, but longer follow-ups are going to become even more important as progress is being made because remission and survival are lasting longer. As for better understanding the disease, it's a slow process as well, but I think many people would agree that more advances are being made in myeloma than in many other cancers. But I'm sure that is hardly reassuring to a myeloma patient. As you said, let's see what else is presented at the meeting in the next two days.
Thanks for your feedback and thoughts about the ASH presentations. You're right that many of the presentations are updates of the studies that were presented at ASH. Of course brand new results are more exciting, but sufficient follow-up times are necessary, and the physicians who are treating myeloma patients need to know how these trials are progressing. Unfortunately, research is a slow process. But it's the nature of the beast. We need to know how long before patients progress and how long they will survive on each regimen being studied; therefore, the studies have to last several years. Maybe it's a double edged sword, but longer follow-ups are going to become even more important as progress is being made because remission and survival are lasting longer. As for better understanding the disease, it's a slow process as well, but I think many people would agree that more advances are being made in myeloma than in many other cancers. But I'm sure that is hardly reassuring to a myeloma patient. As you said, let's see what else is presented at the meeting in the next two days.
-
Julie Shilane - Name: Julie Shilane, Beacon Staff
Re: ASH 2010 Multiple Myeloma Discussion - Day 2
This afternoon was crammed full of myeloma presentations.
In the late afternoon, there was a session that included 6 talks about autologous transplantation in myeloma. The room was overflowing with people interested in hearing the latest results.
The first talk was given by Dr. Philip McCarthy. He presented updated results from his Phase 3 study of Revlimid vs placebo maintenance therapy after an autologous stem cell transplant. 568 patients were treated with melphalan, underwent a transplant, and then half received Revlimid maintenance therapy and the other half received a placebo.
In late 2009, a preliminary analysis showed such a significant improvement in time-to-progression in the Revlimid maintenance arm that the study was unblinded and patients in the placebo arm were allowed to switch to receiving Revlimid. 12 month results were presented at ASCO, and 18 month results were presented today.
The latest analysis showed that time-to-progression was significantly better in the Revlimid maintenance group (42.3 months) compared to the placebo group (21.8 months). Overall survival is similar for the two groups, but this may be due to the significant percentage of placebo patients who started Revlimid maintenance when the trial was unblinded. If the patients had not been allowed to cross over, there may have been a significant difference in overall survival of the two groups.
This is one of several studies strongly supporting the use of Revlimid maintenance therapy after stem cell transplantation.
One caution is that 25 patients developed a second during the trial: 15 on maintenance therapy, and 10 on placebo. Dr. McCarthy said he wanted to get that information out, but very little is known yet about the causes.
In the late afternoon, there was a session that included 6 talks about autologous transplantation in myeloma. The room was overflowing with people interested in hearing the latest results.
The first talk was given by Dr. Philip McCarthy. He presented updated results from his Phase 3 study of Revlimid vs placebo maintenance therapy after an autologous stem cell transplant. 568 patients were treated with melphalan, underwent a transplant, and then half received Revlimid maintenance therapy and the other half received a placebo.
In late 2009, a preliminary analysis showed such a significant improvement in time-to-progression in the Revlimid maintenance arm that the study was unblinded and patients in the placebo arm were allowed to switch to receiving Revlimid. 12 month results were presented at ASCO, and 18 month results were presented today.
The latest analysis showed that time-to-progression was significantly better in the Revlimid maintenance group (42.3 months) compared to the placebo group (21.8 months). Overall survival is similar for the two groups, but this may be due to the significant percentage of placebo patients who started Revlimid maintenance when the trial was unblinded. If the patients had not been allowed to cross over, there may have been a significant difference in overall survival of the two groups.
This is one of several studies strongly supporting the use of Revlimid maintenance therapy after stem cell transplantation.
One caution is that 25 patients developed a second during the trial: 15 on maintenance therapy, and 10 on placebo. Dr. McCarthy said he wanted to get that information out, but very little is known yet about the causes.
-
Julie Shilane - Name: Julie Shilane, Beacon Staff
Re: ASH 2010 Multiple Myeloma Discussion - Day 2
Dr. David Siegel spoke about his trial in which half of the patients received Revlimid/high-dose dexamethasone (RD) and the other half received Revlimid/low-dose dexamethasone (Rd); after 4 cycles, the patients could decide whether to continue Revlimid/dexamethasone treatment, discontinue treatment, or undergo a stem cell transplant.
After one year, overall survival was 96% for Rd and 87% for RD. However, at 3 years, overall survival was 75% for both groups. Looking only at patients who did not discontinue treatment, 3 year overall survival was 79% for both groups, but survival for the stem cell transplant group was 92%.
Then Dr. Siegel compared patients who underwent a stem cell transplant as soon as possible to those who did not (they either never received a transplant or received one much later). Response to therapy was 75.4% in patients who did not get an early transplant, and 70.8% in patients who underwent a transplant right away.
In patients younger than 65 years, there was a significant difference between progression-free survival and overall survival in the patients who received an early transplant compared to those who didn’t get a transplant right away. In patients 65-70 years old, PFS and overall survival were different for the first year, and then they became similar. For patients older than 70 years, an early transplant did not impact PFS or overall survival.
A significant number of the patients who did not receive an early transplant went on to receive a transplant later. However, PFS and overall survival were lower in patients who did not receive a transplant right away. This highlights that an early transplant may be more beneficial than a transplant later on.
After one year, overall survival was 96% for Rd and 87% for RD. However, at 3 years, overall survival was 75% for both groups. Looking only at patients who did not discontinue treatment, 3 year overall survival was 79% for both groups, but survival for the stem cell transplant group was 92%.
Then Dr. Siegel compared patients who underwent a stem cell transplant as soon as possible to those who did not (they either never received a transplant or received one much later). Response to therapy was 75.4% in patients who did not get an early transplant, and 70.8% in patients who underwent a transplant right away.
In patients younger than 65 years, there was a significant difference between progression-free survival and overall survival in the patients who received an early transplant compared to those who didn’t get a transplant right away. In patients 65-70 years old, PFS and overall survival were different for the first year, and then they became similar. For patients older than 70 years, an early transplant did not impact PFS or overall survival.
A significant number of the patients who did not receive an early transplant went on to receive a transplant later. However, PFS and overall survival were lower in patients who did not receive a transplant right away. This highlights that an early transplant may be more beneficial than a transplant later on.
-
Julie Shilane - Name: Julie Shilane, Beacon Staff
19 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2