Here's an article about a study into whether newly diagnosed should have continued therapy or just fixed length therapy. The article implies that continued therapy is much better than fixed length therapy. I am currently about 120 days post auto transplant and trying to figure out whether to have maintenance therapy or not. My transplant doctor suggested no maintenance therapy and just take a wait and see approach since I'm in complete remission. But reading an article like this one really makes me think twice about that approach.
Any opinions on this?
http://www.cancernetwork.com/asco-2014-hematology/continuous-therapy-best-newly-diagnosed-multiple-myeloma
Forums
4 posts
• Page 1 of 1
-
DallasGG - Name: Kent
- Who do you know with myeloma?: myself
- When were you/they diagnosed?: 6/20/2013
- Age at diagnosis: 56
Re: Continuous therapy in newly diagnosed patients?
My personal experience: I adopted wait and see post auto, over my docs suggestions. It came to bite me. I relapsed in a oligosecretory pattern (something entirely new to me at the time). I had very low M-spike post transplant but flaring lesions that needed radiation. After that mishap I started 15mg rev maintenance. Been in CR for close to 2 years. So for me, personally, maintenance has proven to be indispensable thus far. Good luck.
-
ivanm - Name: Ivan Mitev
- Who do you know with myeloma?: self
- When were you/they diagnosed?: August, 2011
- Age at diagnosis: 37
Re: Continuous therapy in newly diagnosed patients?
Post transplant I opted for something of a middle ground. My doctor recommended full VRD as maintenance. I chose to go with just Revlimid since there have been no studies showing a clear advantage to the VRD regime post transplant and quality of life for me is much better with just the Revlimid.
-
goldmine848 - Name: Andrew
- When were you/they diagnosed?: June 2013
- Age at diagnosis: 60
Re: Continuous therapy in newly diagnosed patients?
Dr. Palumbo's presentation at ASCO, which is the subject of the article in the original posting above, is also discussed in the Beacon's ASCO update regarding the oral presentation session at the meeting. Here's a link to the article:
https://myelomabeacon.org/news/2014/06/04/asco-2014-multiple-myeloma-update-day-four-oral-presentations/
Page down to the section titled "Continuous Therapy Versus Fixed Duration Of Therapy".
Bear in mind that, in the studies that Dr. Palumbo included in his analysis, the continuous therapy he is discussing is what usually has been described as maintenance therapy.
Maintenance therapy is a form of continuous therapy, but not all continuous therapy is maintenance therapy. (The continuous therapy arm in the FIRST trial, which got a lot of attention at the recent ASH meeting, was not maintenance therapy -- it was continuous therapy given as the first and only initial therapy given to the group of patients selected to receive it.)
Note, as well, that the studies included in the analysis by Dr. Palumbo and his colleagues include a variety of different maintenance regimens -- some involve Revlimid maintenance, others involve Velcade-based maintenance regimens.
You can find some discussion of Dr. Palumbo's presentation in the review presentation that was made during the ASCO session, given by Dr. Luciano Costa. Here's a link to that presentation:
https://myelomabeacon.org/docs/asco2014/CostaDiscussion20140602.pdf
(We admit that the presentation is a bit cryptic, but thought it worth mentioning nonetheless.)
You can find all Beacon news and opinion articles related to maintenance therapy at the following link:
https://myelomabeacon.org/tag/maintenance-therapy/
Probably the most comprehensive review of studies looking at Revlimid maintenance therapy, in particular, was a meta analysis done by Mayo Clinic researchers presented at last year's ASCO meeting. The abstract for that presentation can be reviewed here:
https://myelomabeacon.org/resources/mtgs/ash2013/abs/407/
and an article about that study in the "ASCO Post" can be viewed at this link.
https://myelomabeacon.org/news/2014/06/04/asco-2014-multiple-myeloma-update-day-four-oral-presentations/
Page down to the section titled "Continuous Therapy Versus Fixed Duration Of Therapy".
Bear in mind that, in the studies that Dr. Palumbo included in his analysis, the continuous therapy he is discussing is what usually has been described as maintenance therapy.
Maintenance therapy is a form of continuous therapy, but not all continuous therapy is maintenance therapy. (The continuous therapy arm in the FIRST trial, which got a lot of attention at the recent ASH meeting, was not maintenance therapy -- it was continuous therapy given as the first and only initial therapy given to the group of patients selected to receive it.)
Note, as well, that the studies included in the analysis by Dr. Palumbo and his colleagues include a variety of different maintenance regimens -- some involve Revlimid maintenance, others involve Velcade-based maintenance regimens.
You can find some discussion of Dr. Palumbo's presentation in the review presentation that was made during the ASCO session, given by Dr. Luciano Costa. Here's a link to that presentation:
https://myelomabeacon.org/docs/asco2014/CostaDiscussion20140602.pdf
(We admit that the presentation is a bit cryptic, but thought it worth mentioning nonetheless.)
You can find all Beacon news and opinion articles related to maintenance therapy at the following link:
https://myelomabeacon.org/tag/maintenance-therapy/
Probably the most comprehensive review of studies looking at Revlimid maintenance therapy, in particular, was a meta analysis done by Mayo Clinic researchers presented at last year's ASCO meeting. The abstract for that presentation can be reviewed here:
https://myelomabeacon.org/resources/mtgs/ash2013/abs/407/
and an article about that study in the "ASCO Post" can be viewed at this link.
4 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Return to Treatments & Side Effects