Conditioning-based outcomes after allogeneic transplantation for myeloma following a prior autologous transplant (1991-2012) on behalf of EBMT CMWP.
Adult
Aged
Female
Graft vs Host Disease
/ diagnosis
Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
/ adverse effects
History, 20th Century
History, 21st Century
Humans
Kaplan-Meier Estimate
Male
Middle Aged
Multiple Myeloma
/ epidemiology
Prognosis
Proportional Hazards Models
Retreatment
Retrospective Studies
Transplantation Conditioning
/ adverse effects
Transplantation, Autologous
Transplantation, Homologous
Treatment Outcome
CMWP
EBMT
allogeneic transplantation
conditioning
myeloma
Journal
European journal of haematology
ISSN: 1600-0609
Titre abrégé: Eur J Haematol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8703985
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2020
Mar 2020
Historique:
received:
21
10
2019
revised:
10
11
2019
accepted:
12
11
2019
pubmed:
19
11
2019
medline:
3
10
2020
entrez:
19
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to compare the effect of the intensity of conditioning approaches used in allogeneic transplantation in myeloma-reduced intensity conditioning (RIC), non-myeloablative (NMA), myeloablative conditioning (MAC) or Auto-AlloHCT-on outcomes in patients who had had a prior autologous transplant. A retrospective analysis of the EBMT database (1991-2012) was performed. A total of 344 patients aged between 40 and 60 years at the time of alloHCT were identified: 169 RIC, 69 NMA, 65 MAC and 41 Auto-Allo transplants. At a median follow-up of 54 months, the probabilities of overall survival (OS) at 5 years were 39% (95% CI 31%-47%), 45% (95% CI 32%-57%), 19% (95% CI 6%-32%) and 34% (95% CI 17%-51%), respectively. Status at allogeneic HCT other than CR or PR conferred a 70% higher risk of death and a 40% higher risk of relapse. OS was markedly lower in the MAC group (P = .004). MAC alloHCT was associated with a higher risk of death than RIC alloHCT until 2002 (HR = 4.1, P < .001) but not after 2002 (HR = 1.2, P = .276). From 1991 to 2002, MAC was associated with poorer OS. Between 2003 and 2012, there were no significant differences in outcomes based on these different approaches.
Types de publication
Historical Article
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
181-189Informations de copyright
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Dhakal B, Vesole DH, Hari PN. Allogeneic stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: is there a future? Bone Marrow Transplant. 2016;51(4):492-500.
Gahrton G, Svensson H, Cavo M, et al. Progress in allogenic bone marrow and peripheral blood stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: a comparison between transplants performed 1983-93 and 1994-8 at European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation centres. Br J Haematol. 2001;113(1):209-216.
Barlogie B, Kyle RA, Anderson KC, et al. Standard chemotherapy compared with high-dose chemoradiotherapy for multiple myeloma: final results of phase III US Intergroup Trial S9321. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(6):929-936.
Bacigalupo A, Ballen K, Rizzo D, et al. Defining the intensity of conditioning regimens: working definitions. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2009;15(12):1628-1633.
Kumar S, Zhang MJ, Li P, et al. Trends in allogeneic stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: a CIBMTR analysis. Blood. 2011;118(7):1979-1988.
Moreau P, Garban F, Attal M, et al. Long-term follow-up results of IFM99-03 and IFM99-04 trials comparing nonmyeloablative allotransplantation with autologous transplantation in high-risk de novo multiple myeloma. Blood. 2008;112(9):3914-3915.
Rosinol L, Perez-Simon JA, Sureda A, et al. A prospective PETHEMA study of tandem autologous transplantation versus autograft followed by reduced-intensity conditioning allogeneic transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood. 2008;112(9):3591-3593.
Bruno B, Rotta M, Patriarca F, et al. A comparison of allografting with autografting for newly diagnosed myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(11):1110-1120.
Gahrton G, Iacobelli S, Bjorkstrand B, et al. Autologous/reduced-intensity allogeneic stem cell transplantation vs autologous transplantation in multiple myeloma: long-term results of the EBMT-NMAM2000 study. Blood. 2013;121(25):5055-5063.
Krishnan A, Pasquini MC, Logan B, et al. Autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation followed by allogeneic or autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma (BMT CTN 0102): a phase 3 biological assignment trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(13):1195-1203.
Lokhorst HM, van der Holt B, Cornelissen JJ, et al. Donor versus no-donor comparison of newly diagnosed myeloma patients included in the HOVON-50 multiple myeloma study. Blood. 2012;119(26):6219-6225.
Giaccone L, Storer B, Patriarca F, et al. Long-term follow-up of a comparison of nonmyeloablative allografting with autografting for newly diagnosed myeloma. Blood. 2011;117(24):6721-6727.
Armeson KE, Hill EG, Costa LJ. Tandem autologous vs autologous plus reduced intensity allogeneic transplantation in the upfront management of multiple myeloma: meta-analysis of trials with biological assignment. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013;48(4):562-567.
Sobh M, Michallet M, Gahrton G, et al. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for multiple myeloma in Europe: trends and outcomes over 25 years. A study by the EBMT Chronic Malignancies Working Party. Leukemia. 2016;30(10):2047-2054.
Shah N, Callander N, Ganguly S, et al. Hematopoietic Stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: guidelines from the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2015;21(7):1155-1166.
Crawley C, Iacobelli S, Bjorkstrand B, Apperley JF, Niederwieser D, Gahrton G. Reduced-intensity conditioning for myeloma: lower nonrelapse mortality but higher relapse rates compared with myeloablative conditioning. Blood. 2007;109(8):3588-3594.
Blade J, Samson D, Reece D, et al. Criteria for evaluating disease response and progression in patients with multiple myeloma treated by high-dose therapy and haemopoietic stem cell transplantation. Myeloma Subcommittee of the EBMT. European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplant. Br J Haematol. 1998;102(5):1115-1123.
Giralt S, Garderet L, Durie B, et al. Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, European Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network, and International Myeloma Working Group Consensus Conference on Salvage Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation in Patients with Relapsed Multiple Myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2015;21(12):2039-2051.
Beaussant Y, Daguindau E, Pugin A, et al. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma: a retrospective study of the Societe Francaise de Greffe de Moelle et de Therapie Cellulaire (SFGM-TC). Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2015;21(8):1452-1459.
Iacobelli S, de Wreede LC, Schonland S, et al. Impact of CR before and after allogeneic and autologous transplantation in multiple myeloma: results from the EBMT NMAM2000 prospective trial. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2015;50(4):505-510.
Kroger N, Badbaran A, Zabelina T, et al. Impact of high-risk cytogenetics and achievement of molecular remission on long-term freedom from disease after autologous-allogeneic tandem transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2013;19(3):398-404.
Crawley C, Lalancette M, Szydlo R, et al. Outcomes for reduced-intensity allogeneic transplantation for multiple myeloma: an analysis of prognostic factors from the Chronic Leukaemia Working Party of the EBMT. Blood. 2005;105(11):4532-4539.
Dhakal B, D'Souza A, Martens M, et al. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in multiple myeloma: impact of disease risk and post allograft minimal residual disease on survival. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2016;16(7):379-386.
Freytes CO, Vesole DH, LeRademacher J, et al. Second transplants for multiple myeloma relapsing after a previous autotransplant-reduced-intensity allogeneic vs autologous transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2014;49(3):416-421.
Sahebi F, Iacobelli S, Biezen AV, et al. Comparison of upfront tandem autologous-allogeneic transplantation versus reduced intensity allogeneic transplantation for multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2015;50(6):802-807.
Htut M, D'Souza A, Krishnan A, et al. Autologous/Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation versus tandem autologous transplantation for multiple myeloma: comparison of long-term postrelapse survival. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2017;24(3):478-485.
Giaccone L, Evangelista A, Patriarca F, et al. Impact of new drugs on the long-term follow-up of upfront tandem autograft-allograft in multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2018;24(1):189-193.
Montefusco V, Mussetti A, Rezzonico F, et al. Allogeneic stem cell transplantation and subsequent treatments as a comprehensive strategy for long-term survival of multiple myeloma patients. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2017;52(12):1602-1608.
Oostvogels R, Uniken Venema SM, de Witte M, et al. In search of the optimal platform for Post-Allogeneic SCT immunotherapy in relapsed multiple myeloma: a systematic review. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2017;52(9):1233-1240.
Malek E, El-Jurdi N, Kroger N, de Lima M. . Allograft for myeloma: examining pieces of the Jigsaw Puzzle. Front Oncol. 2017;7:287.
Patriarca F, Bruno B, Einsele H, et al. Long-term follow-up of a donor versus no-donor comparison in patients with multiple myeloma in first relapse after failing autologous transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2018;24(2):406-409.