Advertisement

Annals of Hematology

, Volume 93, Issue 4, pp 627–634 | Cite as

Impact of failed response to novel agent induction in autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma

  • Sung-Eun Lee
  • Jae-Ho Yoon
  • Seung-Hwan Shin
  • Byung-Sik Cho
  • Ki-Seong Eom
  • Yoo-Jin Kim
  • Hee-Je Kim
  • Seok Lee
  • Seok-Goo Cho
  • Dong-Wook Kim
  • Jong-Wook Lee
  • Woo-Sung Min
  • Chong-Won Park
  • Chang-Ki MinEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the response to induction therapy on the long-term prognosis of multiple myeloma (MM) after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in the era of novel agents (NAs). A total of 171 patients who were newly diagnosed with MM and underwent early ASCT were analyzed. One hundred ten had a NA-based induction therapy, and 61 patients had a non-NA-based induction therapy. After a median follow-up of 45.4 months, the 4-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) from transplantation were 60.5 and 25.5 %, respectively, for the NA-based induction group and 54.6 and 15.6 %, respectively, for the non-NA-based induction group. Multivariate analyses revealed that the patients who had NA-based induction had a significantly shorter OS (P < 0.001) and PFS (P < 0.001) when at least a partial response (PR) was not achieved. In patients who did not receive NAs before ASCT, lack of at least a PR to induction therapy was not associated with a survival disadvantage. These findings suggest that, unlike pretransplantation induction before NAs, patients who do not respond to induction treatment using NAs may not derive a benefit from ASCT. The relevance of induction failure differs for corticosteroid- and NA-based induction.

Keywords

Multiple myeloma Autologous stem cell transplantation Novel agents Induction treatment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge all members of the Catholic Blood and Marrow Transplantation Center, particularly the house staff, for their excellent care of the patients. This study was supported by the Korea Healthcare Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant no. HIA130000).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

277_2013_1911_Fig3_ESM.jpg (174 kb)
Online resource Figure 1

Long-term outcomes according to detailed pretransplant responses. In the NA-based group, (A) overall survival and (B) progression-free survival. In the non-NA-based group, (C) overall survival and (D) progression-free survival (JPEG 174 kb)

277_2013_1911_MOESM1_ESM.tif (785 kb)
High resolution image (TIFF 784 kb)
277_2013_1911_MOESM2_ESM.docx (17 kb)
Table 1 (DOCX 16 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Kumar S, Lacy MQ, Dispenzieri A, Rajkumar SV, Fonseca R, Geyer S, Allmer C, Witzig TE, Lust JA, Greipp PR, Kyle RA, Litzow MR, Gertz MA (2004) High-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma poorly responsive to initial therapy. Bone Marrow Transplant 34:161–167PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Singhal S, Powles R, Sirohi B, Treleaven J, Kulkarni S, Mehta J (2002) Response to induction chemotherapy is not essential to obtain survival benefit from high-dose melphalan and autotransplantation in myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant 30:673–679PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gertz MA, Kumar S, Lacy MQ, Dispenzieri A, Dingli D, Hayman SR, Buadi FK, Hogan WJ (2010) Stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma: impact of response failure with thalidomide or lenalidomide induction. Blood 115:2348–2353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Awan FT, Osman S, Kochuparambil ST, Gibson L, Remick SC, Abraham J, Craig M, Jillella A, Hamadani M (2012) Impact of response to thalidomide-, lenalidomide- or bortezomib-containing induction therapy on the outcomes of multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 47:146–148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee SE, Yahng SA, Cho BS, Eom KS, Kim YJ, Kim HJ, Lee S, Cho SG, Kim DW, Lee JW, Min WS, Park CW, Min CK (2012) Lymphocyte subset analysis for the assessment of treatment-related complications after autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma. Cytotherapy 14:505–512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kyle RA, Rajkumar SV (2009) Criteria for diagnosis, staging, risk stratification and response assessment of multiple myeloma. Leukemia 23:3–9PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alexanian R, Dimopoulos MA, Delasalle KB, Hester J, Champlin R (1995) Myeloablative therapy for primary resistant multiple myeloma. Stem Cells 13(Suppl 2):118–121PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barlogie B, Alexanian R, Dicke KA, Zagars G, Spitzer G, Jagannath S, Horwitz L (1987) High-dose chemoradiotherapy and autologous bone marrow transplantation for resistant multiple myeloma. Blood 70:869–872PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kumar SK, Dingli D, Dispenzieri A, Lacy MQ, Hayman SR, Buadi FK, Rajkumar SV, Litzow MR, Gertz MA (2008) Impact of pretransplant therapy in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma undergoing autologous SCT. Bone Marrow Transplant 41:1013–1019PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rajkumar SV, Blood E, Vesole D, Fonseca R, Greipp PR, Eastern Cooperative Oncology G (2006) Phase III clinical trial of thalidomide plus dexamethasone compared with dexamethasone alone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a clinical trial coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 24:431–436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jagannath S, Durie BG, Wolf J, Camacho E, Irwin D, Lutzky J, McKinley M, Gabayan E, Mazumder A, Schenkein D, Crowley J (2005) Bortezomib therapy alone and in combination with dexamethasone for previously untreated symptomatic multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 129:776–783PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lacy MQ, Gertz MA, Dispenzieri A, Hayman SR, Geyer S, Kabat B, Zeldenrust SR, Kumar S, Greipp PR, Fonseca R, Lust JA, Russell SJ, Kyle RA, Witzig TE, Bergsagel PL, Stewart AK, Rajkumar SV (2007) Long-term results of response to therapy, time to progression, and survival with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone in newly diagnosed myeloma. Mayo Clinic Proc 82:1179–1184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cavo M, Zamagni E, Tosi P, Tacchetti P, Cellini C, Cangini D, de Vivo A, Testoni N, Nicci C, Terragna C, Grafone T, Perrone G, Ceccolini M, Tura S, Baccarani M, Bologna 2002 Study et al (2005) Superiority of thalidomide and dexamethasone over vincristine-doxorubicindexamethasone (VAD) as primary therapy in preparation for autologous transplantation for multiple myeloma. Blood 106:35–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harousseau JL, Attal M, Avet-Loiseau H, Marit G, Caillot D, Mohty M, Lenain P, Hulin C, Facon T, Casassus P, Michallet M, Maisonneuve H, Benboubker L, Maloisel F, Petillon MO, Webb I, Mathiot C, Moreau P (2010) Bortezomib plus dexamethasone is superior to vincristine plus doxorubicin plus dexamethasone as induction treatment prior to autologous stem-cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: results of the IFM 2005–01 phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 28:4621–4629PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cavo M, Tacchetti P, Patriarca F, Petrucci MT, Pantani L, Galli M, Di Raimondo F, Crippa C, Zamagni E, Palumbo A, Offidani M, Corradini P, Narni F, Spadano A, Pescosta N, Deliliers GL, Ledda A, Cellini C, Caravita T, Tosi P, Baccarani M, Network GIM (2010) Bortezomib with thalidomide plus dexamethasone compared with thalidomide plus dexamethasone as induction therapy before, and consolidation therapy after, double autologous stem-cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a randomised phase 3 study. Lancet 376:2075–2085PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang L, Ran X, Wang B, Sheng Z, Liu L (2012) Novel agents-based regimens as induction treatment prior to autologous stem-cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Hematol Oncol 30:57–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Giralt S (2011) Stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: current and future status. ASH Educ Program Book 1:191–196Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sung-Eun Lee
    • 1
  • Jae-Ho Yoon
    • 1
  • Seung-Hwan Shin
    • 1
  • Byung-Sik Cho
    • 1
  • Ki-Seong Eom
    • 1
  • Yoo-Jin Kim
    • 1
  • Hee-Je Kim
    • 1
  • Seok Lee
    • 1
  • Seok-Goo Cho
    • 1
  • Dong-Wook Kim
    • 1
  • Jong-Wook Lee
    • 1
  • Woo-Sung Min
    • 1
  • Chong-Won Park
    • 1
  • Chang-Ki Min
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of MedicineThe Catholic University of KoreaSeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations