scholarly journals A Phase I Study Of Clofarabine Plus High Dose Melphalan As A Conditioning Regimen For Allogeneic Transplantation

2010 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. S278
Author(s):  
M.H. Kirschbaum ◽  
A.S. Stein ◽  
R. Nakamura ◽  
N. Auayporn ◽  
L. Popplewell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Phase I Study ◽  
Conditioning Regimen ◽  
Allogeneic Transplantation ◽  
High Dose ◽  
High Dose Melphalan

Long-term follow-up of a phase I study of high-dose decitabine, busulfan, and cyclophosphamide plus allogeneic transplantation for the treatment of patients with leukemias

Cancer ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 97 (5) ◽  
pp. 1242-1247 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcos de Lima ◽  
Farhad Ravandi ◽  
Munir Shahjahan ◽  
Borje Andersson ◽  
Daniel Couriel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Phase I Study ◽  
Allogeneic Transplantation ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Long Term Follow Up

scholarly journals Phase I/II Study of Escalating Doses of Thalidomide in Conjunction with Bortezomib and High Dose Melphalan As a Conditioning Regimen for Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Patients with Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2154-2154
Author(s):  
Noa Biran ◽  
Shijia Zhang ◽  
Scott D. Rowley ◽  
David H. Vesole ◽  
Michele L. Donato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Conditioning Regimen ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
High Dose Melphalan

Abstract Background: A regimen of escalating doses of thalidomide, in combination with bortezomib and high dose melphalan (Mel/Vel/Thal) was evaluated as a conditioning regimen for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM) in a phase I/II study. Methods: Patients received Mel/Vel/Thal as a second of tandem ASCT if they achieved <CR to their first ASCT (tandem), or as conditioning for a salvage ASCT (salvage). Exclusion criteria were dose-intense therapy within 56 days, uncontrolled infections, severe organ dysfunction, Karnofsky score <70%, or painful grade 2 or greater peripheral neuropathy. Conditioning consisted of Vel 1.6 mg/m2 intravenously on days -4 and -1 with Mel 200 mg/m2 on day -2. Thal was given on days -5 through -1 and was administered in a planned step-wise dose escalation of 600, 800 and 1000 mg (in cohorts of 3 pts). Dexamethasone (Dex) 10-20 mg was given prior to Vel and Mel. All pts received G-CSF every other day starting day +3 until engraftment. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were graded according to CTCAE version 3. Results: Twenty-nine pts were enrolled: 9 in the phase 1 dose-escalation phase and an additional 20 pts in phase 2. In the phase I portion, all pts experienced somnolence, with grade 3 occurring in 1 pt at the 800 mg/day dose. Subsequently, Dex 40 mg was given with first dose of Thal at the 1000 mg level with decreased severity of somnolence. No dose limiting toxicities defined as ≥ grade 4 non-hematological SAEs occurred in the phase I portion, allowing full dose escalation with 9 pts enrolled. The maximum tolerated dose for Thal was not reached and the 1000 mg dose was chosen for the phase 2 dose expansion. No regimen related mortality occurred in either phase I or phase II portion of the study. All SAEs except lethargy and dizziness occurred after ASCT and were not attributed to Thal. The most common grade 1 and 2 non-hematologic toxicities included nausea (65.5%), mucositis (51.7%), diarrhea (48.3%), somnolence (48.3%), lethargy (27.6%), and vomiting (17.2%). The most common grade 3 non-hematologic adverse events (AEs) were neutropenic fever (58.6%), mucositis (6.9%), and somnolence (13.8%), which increased risk of falls. SAEs included somnolence (13.8%), tumor lysis syndrome (3.4%), and engraftment syndrome (3.4%). All transplant-related SAEs resolved by day +28 after ASCT. All pts achieved prompt hematological recovery with the median time to ANC >500/uL 10 days (range, 8-14 days), and platelet >20,000 12 days (range 9-26 days). All pts received at least one ASCT prior to enrolling on the study. Seventeen pts (59%) had interim salvage chemotherapy between their upfront and Mel/Vel/Thal ASCT (i.e. received a salvage ASCT), with median time from first to salvage ASCT 29 months. The remaining 12 (41%) went directly from an upfront ASCT Mel-based ASCT to the Mel/Vel/Thal ASCT (tandem ASCT) within 6 months of the first ASCT. Twenty-seven (93%) were Durie-Salmon stage III, and 13 (44%) had >2 prior lines of therapy. Of those who had Mel/Vel/Thal as a salvage ASCT, 70% had ≥3 prior lines of therapy. The overall response rate (ORR) was 69% with 38% complete remission. ORR for Mel/Vel/Thal compared to upfront Mel ASCT was 69% versus 62% with 11 patients achieving CR with Mel/Vel/Thal compared to 5 patients with Mel alone (Figure 1). Ten of 27 evaluable patients (37%) had an upgrade in response in the Mel/Vel/Thal salvage ASCT compared to their upfront ASCT: 2 pts (7%) went from PD to PR, 1 (4%) from SD to CR, 1 (4%) from PR to VGPR; 3 (11%) from PR to CR and 2 (7%) from VGPR to CR. Median PFS and OS were 9.3 and 65.4 months, respectively, with a median follow-up of 17.8 months. Of those who underwent tandem Mel followed by Mel/Vel/Thal ASCT the median PFS was 14.9 months with a median OS not yet reached at time of analysis. For the 17 patients who received a salvage Mel/Vel/Thal ASCT, median PFS from their upfront ASCT was 11.9 months, compared to 9.1 months with the salvage Mel/Vel/Thal ASCT. Conclusions: High-dose Thal up to 1000 mg daily for 5 days can be safely combined with Vel and dose-intense Mel as an ASCT conditioning regimen with acceptable toxicities. Confirmation of potential synergistic effects of this combination regimen will require an appropriately designed phase III study. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Biran: BMS: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Skarbnik:Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Siegel:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

scholarly journals Busulfan plus melphalan versus melphalan alone conditioning regimen after bortezomib based triplet induction chemotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 204062072110129
Author(s):  
Songyi Park ◽  
Dong-Yeop Shin ◽  
Junshik Hong ◽  
Inho Kim ◽  
Youngil Koh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Induction Chemotherapy ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Conditioning Regimen ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Cell Engraftment ◽  
The Difference ◽  
High Dose Melphalan

Background: High dose melphalan (HDMEL) is considered the standard conditioning regimen for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Recent studies showed superiority of busulfan plus melphalan (BUMEL) compared to HDMEL as a conditioning regimen. We compared the efficacy of HDMEL and BUMEL in newly diagnosed Asian MM patients, who are often underrepresented. Methods: This is a single-center, retrospective study including MM patients who underwent ASCT after bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) triplet induction chemotherapy between January 2015 and August 2019. Result: In the end, 79 patients in the HDMEL group were compared to 31 patients in the BUMEL group. There were no differences between the two groups with regards to sex, age at ASCT, risk group, and stage. The HDMEL group showed better response to pre-transplant VTD compared to BUMEL, but after ASCT the BUMEL group showed better overall response. In terms of progression-free survival (PFS), although BUMEL showed trends towards better PFS regardless of pre-transplant status and age, the difference did not reach statistical significance. The BUMEL group more often experienced mucositis related to chemotherapy, but there was no difference between the two groups with regards to hospitalization days, cell engraftment, and infection rates. Conclusion: BUMEL conditioning deserves attention as the alternative option to HDMEL for newly diagnosed MM patients, even in the era of triplet induction chemotherapy. Specifically, patients achieving very good partial response (VGPR) or better response with triplet induction chemotherapy might benefit the most from BUMEL conditioning. Tailored conditioning regimen, based on patient’s response to induction chemotherapy and co-morbidities, can lead to better treatment outcomes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document