Outcome of allogeneic transplantation in newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: long-term follow-up in a single institution

2016 ◽  
Vol 97 (5) ◽  
pp. 479-488 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurens E. Franssen ◽  
Reinier A. P. Raymakers ◽  
Arjan Buijs ◽  
Marian F. Schmitz ◽  
Suzanne van Dorp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Allogeneic Transplantation ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Single Institution ◽  
Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Long Term Follow Up

Thalidomide Based Regimens (TBR) for Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma Patients: Long Term Follow Up, Unmaintained Remissions and Disease Control after Subsequent Treatments.

Blood ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 110 (11) ◽  
pp. 4812-4812
Author(s):  
Maria Roussou ◽  
Efstathios Kastritis ◽  
Athanasios Anagnostopoulos ◽  
Evangelos Eleftherakis-Papaiakovou ◽  
Charis Matsouka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Long Term Follow Up ◽  
Group A ◽  
Pulse Dexamethasone ◽  
Group B

Abstract Introduction: The effectiveness of thalidomide based regimens (TBR) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma is well established. However, there are still limited data regarding the long term follow up after such regimens and the outcome of patients when they progress and they receive further treatment. In order to answer these questions we evaluated a series of 114 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who were treated with TBR. None of these patients had previously received thalidomide, bortezomib or lenalidomide. Patients and Methods: All patients were treated with thalidomide and dexamethasone with or without other oral agents. More specifically 41 patients had received continuous thalidomide and pulse dexamethasone, 25 patients clarithromycin, continuous thalidomide and pulse dexamethasone, 43 patients intermittent thalidomide, pulse dexamethasone and cyclophosphamide and 5 patients continuous thalidomide, pulse dexamethasone and cyclophosphamide. Type of treatment at the time of progression after TBR, response to this treatment and progression free survival were recorded for each patient. Moreover, patients who received novel agents after progression to TBR, were divided into 2 subgroups, according to their resistance to thalidomide. In group A, patients had refractory or progressive myeloma while on TBR or within 2 months after discontinuation of TBR. In group B, myeloma progressed more than 2 months after discontinuation of TBR. Results: Among the 114 patients, 41 had not responded to TBR and 73 (64%) had achieved at least a partial response. The median PFS for all patients was 8 months. As of June 2007, 10 patients remain without progression from 28 to 81 months (median 54 months). Eight patients remain off treatment and without progression for a median of 56 months (range 28–81). Patients who did not respond to or progressed after TBR were analyzed for further treatment and outcome. Thirty eight patients (37%) died before receiving further treatment, 23 patients (23%) received conventional chemotherapy and 41 patients (40%) received continuous thalidomide and dexamethasone +/− clarithromycin or cyclophosphamide (17 patients), bortezomib and dexamethasone (7 patients), melphalan-bortezomib-dexamethasone and intermittent thalidomide (12 patients) or lenalidomide with dexamethasone (5 patients). Among these 41 patients, 24 were classified in group A (thalidomide resistant) and 17 in group B. Overall 17 (41%) achieved at least partial response after retreatment with novel agent-based regimens. A response was observed in 46% of patients in group A and in 35% of patients in group B. The median progression free survival of the 41 patients who received retreatment with novel agents was 9.2 months and the median survival was 17 months. Among the 23 patients who received conventional chemotherapy only five (21%) patients responded and the progression free survival and the median survival were 5.3 and 10.2 months, respectively. Conclusions: After an oral TBR regimen 6 (5%) patients remain without treatment and free of progression for more than 4 years. A significant number of patients who progressed after TBR and who received further treatment which included a novel agent achieved a response, including several patients who were resistant to TBR.

scholarly journals Allogeneic Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma—Does It Still Have a Place?

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 2180
Author(s):  
Gösta Gahrton ◽  
Simona Iacobelli ◽  
Laurent Garderet ◽  
Ibrahim Yakoub-Agha ◽  
Stefan Schönland
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Proteasome Inhibitors ◽  
Allogeneic Transplantation ◽  
Reduced Intensity Conditioning ◽  
Cell Therapies ◽  
Novel Drugs ◽  
Car T ◽  
Long Term Follow Up

Novel drugs have improved survival for patients with multiple myeloma in recent years. However, the disease is still fatal. Allogeneic stem cell transplantation (Allo) has proven to cure some patients with the disease, but its role is controversial due to relatively high transplant-related toxicity and mortality (nonrelapse mortality, NRM). Using nonmyeloablative reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC), both toxicity and NRM can be reduced, and RICAllo is, therefore, an option for subgroups of patients. Upfront tandem autologous/RICAllo (Auto/RICAllo) was shown to be superior to single Auto or tandem Auto/Auto in both progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in two prospective studies with long-term follow-up, while three similarly designed studies did not detect a difference. A recent update of pooled patient data from four of these studies showed significantly superior PFS and OS with Auto/RICAllo. Importantly, none of these studies showed inferior results with Auto/RICAllo in patients less than 70 years of age. Auto/RICAllo appears to overcome some poor risk cytogenetic markers. Encouraging results have also been seen in treatment of relapsed patients. Combining Allo with new proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs may further improve results. Other encouraging new cell therapies such as with CAR T-cells, NK- and CAR NK-cells may well have a place in combination with RICAllo. Such studies are warranted.

Intravenous Busulfan-Melphalan vs Melphalan as Preparative Regimen for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: Long-Term Follow-Up of a Case-Control Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (10) ◽  
pp. e287-e288
Author(s):  
Margarita Blanes ◽  
Jose Ignacio Lorenzo ◽  
Paz Ribas ◽  
Ana Jiménez ◽  
José David González ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Case Control Study ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Long Term Follow Up ◽  
Preparative Regimen ◽  
Control Study

Pomalidomide–dexamethasone in refractory multiple myeloma: long-term follow-up of a multi-cohort phase II clinical trial

Leukemia ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 719-728 ◽  
Author(s):  
S Ailawadhi ◽  
J R Mikhael ◽  
B R LaPlant ◽  
K M Laumann ◽  
S Kumar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Ii Clinical Trial ◽  
Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Long Term Follow Up

scholarly journals Ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: long-term follow-up including ixazomib maintenance

Leukemia ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (7) ◽  
pp. 1736-1746 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shaji K. Kumar ◽  
Jesus G. Berdeja ◽  
Ruben Niesvizky ◽  
Sagar Lonial ◽  
Jacob P. Laubach ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Long Term Follow Up

Allogeneic transplantation in multiple myeloma: long-term follow-up and cytogenetic subgroup analysis

Leukemia ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (11) ◽  
pp. 2710-2719 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Knop ◽  
◽  
Monika Engelhardt ◽  
Peter Liebisch ◽  
Christoph Meisner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Allogeneic Transplantation ◽  
Long Term Follow Up
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document