Cindy.
Since you fully understand the debate and the issues, I think I can give you the short answer.
Since I'm 54, generally healthy with little to know bone or organ damage from multiple myeloma, that is good. I'm also del(17), so high risk multiple myeloma. Those I think are the main reasons allo was put on the table.
My main oncologist was not strongly favoring one treatment option over another. He suggested a consult with a transplant doctor. He was was clearly less enthusiastic about an allo. I think it's fair to say the risk of significant graft versus host disease (GVHD) was the reason.
I would say at one point I was leaning to do the allo. I was especially encouraged by stories like yours and posts from Mark11. In the end, though, I'm doing remarkably well with my current infusion therapy. I have little to no side effects. I'm really confident the future will offer many other treatment options when I relapse and if I'm resistant to this. There may even be a breakthrough treatment to keep me here and healthy. A more likely result that I just didn't want to risk was a long fight and drop in QOL brought by substantial GVHD. Add to that a very long, very hard recovery time on the front end was hard to balance since I'm doing well now, enjoying my family and life and still working full time. I hope to be able to leave full time work in a few years under normal circumstances so it just all balanced out to hold the course and hope for manageable "chronic" multiple myeloma.
Forums
-
Mark Pouley - Name: Mark
- Who do you know with myeloma?: Self
- When were you/they diagnosed?: April 2015
- Age at diagnosis: 53
Re: My mini-allo transplant journey
I was so pleased to see your update, Cindy. Thank you for letting us know how you are doing. I hope you maintain your remission for many, many years to come.
Return to Treatments & Side Effects