The Myeloma Beacon

Independent, up-to-date news and information for the multiple myeloma community.
Home page Deutsche Artikel Artículos Españoles

Forums

Discussion about multiple myeloma treatments, stem cell transplants, clinical trials, alternative medicines, supplements, and their benefits and side effects.

Re: When to treat with disease progression?

by JPC on Wed Sep 14, 2016 7:05 am

OK, one more article I came across. If you are high-risk multiple myeloma, then it's pretty clear that you need to aggressively consolidate and maintain, based on the results of the below article:

Scott, E., et al, "Post-Transplant Outcomes in High-Risk Compared with Non-High-Risk Multiple Myeloma: A CIBMTR Analysis," Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Aug 2016 (abstract)

Abstract:

Conventional cytogenetics and interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) identify high-risk multiple myeloma (HRM) populations characterized by poor outcomes. We analyzed these differences among HRM versus non-HRM populations after up­front autologous hemato­poietic cell transplantation (autoHCT). Between 2008 and 2012, 715 patients with multiple myeloma identified by FISH and/or cytogenetic data with upfront autoHCT were identified in the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database. HRM was defined as del17p, t(4;14), t(14;16), hypodiploidy (<45 chromosomes excluding -Y) or chromosome 1 p and 1q abnormalities; all others were non-HRM. Among 125 HRM patients (17.5%), induction with bortezomib and immuno­modu­latory agents (imids) was higher com­pared with non-HRM (56% versus 43%, P < .001) with similar pretransplant complete response (CR) rates (14% versus 16%, P .1). At day 100 post-transplant, at least a very good partial response was 59% in HRM and 61% in non-HRM (P = .6). More HRM patients received post-transplant therapy with bortezomib and imids (26% versus 12%, P = .004). Three-year post-transplant progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates in HRM versus non-HRM were 37% versus 49% (P < .001) and 72% versus 85% (P < .001), respectively. At 3 years, PFS for HRM patients with and without post-transplant therapy was 46% (95% confidence interval [CI], 33 to 59) versus 14% (95% CI, 4 to 29) and in non-HRM patients with and without post-transplant therapy 55% (95% CI, 49 to 62) versus 39% (95% CI, 32 to 47); rates of OS for HRM patients with and without post-transplant therapy were 81% (95% CI, 70 to 90) versus 48% (95% CI, 30 to 65) compared with 88% (95% CI, 84 to 92) and 79% (95% CI, 73 to 85) in non-HRM patients with and without post-transplant therapy, respectively. Among patients receiving post-transplant therapy, there was no difference in OS between HRM and non-HRM (P = .08). In addition to HRM, higher stage, less than a CR pre­transplant, lack of post-transplant therapy, and African American race were associated with worse OS. In conclusion, we show HRM patients achieve similar day 100 post-transplant responses compared with non-HRM patients, but these responses are not sustained. Post-transplant therapy appeared to improve the poor outcomes of HRM.

Good luck to all.

JPC
Name: JPC

Previous

Return to Treatments & Side Effects