The mm Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the mm Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The mm and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.
The Multiple Myeloma Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. View funders.
Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients
Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.
Find out moreCreate an account and access these new features:
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View mm content recommended for you
As the treatment landscape for multiple myeloma (MM) evolves, regular reviews are required to monitor the long-term effects on patient outcomes. Concomitant with improved treatment options and patient outcomes, the therapeutic aim has changed, with a greater emphasis on maximizing the depth of response to delay relapse and control the disease in the long term. Additionally, achieving MRD-negativity and sustained long-term disease control, referred to as “functional” or “operational” cures, may be more likely with the combination of novel agents and autologous stem cell transplant (auto-SCT). This is in contrast with the previous goal of “eradication” cure.
Auto-SCT is considered a crucial component of MM therapy and postulated to have a curative potential based on the graft-versus-myeloma effect.2 To assess the improvements in long-term survival and rates of functional cures attained after a total therapy (TT) approach using induction therapy, auto-SCT, consolidation, and maintenance, in combination with novel agents, Katherine K. Nishimura, Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, US, and colleagues conducted a retrospective study.1
Table 1. Patient characteristics with significant differences by year of first ASCT1
|
Year of first auto-SCT |
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
All patients |
< 1997 |
1998–2003 |
2004–2008 |
2009–2013 |
≥ 2014 |
p* |
Auto-SCT, autologous stem cell transplant; GEP, Gene Expressing Profiling; ISS, International Staging System; TC6, translocation cyclin D; TT, total therapy; *p value connotates statistical significance |
|||||||
Sample size |
4,329 |
661 |
1,002 |
1,294 |
837 |
535 |
|
Median follow-up time, y |
10.5 |
21.5 |
15.3 |
11.0 |
6.5 |
2.5 |
— |
Age, y |
|
|
|
|
|
|
< 0.0001
|
Median (range) |
58.9 (17.4–84.8) |
53.0 (27.1–77.0) |
57.4 (25.1–84.8) |
59.7 (30.3–84.5) |
61.7 (17.4–82.5) |
63.0 (32.9–79.3) |
|
< 65, % |
72.1 |
90.6 |
77.2 |
70.3 |
63.7 |
57.6 |
|
≥ 65, % |
27.9 |
9.4 |
22.9 |
29.7 |
36.3 |
42.4 |
|
On a TT clinical trial, % |
|
|
|
|
|
|
< 0.0001
|
Yes |
43.0 |
30.9 |
51.6 |
43.1 |
55.3 |
22.2 |
|
No |
57.0 |
69.1 |
48.4 |
56.9 |
44.7 |
77.8 |
|
GEP70, % |
|
|
|
|
|
|
< 0.0001
|
Low risk |
42.5 |
0 |
23.0 |
54.6 |
70.6 |
58.1 |
|
High risk |
9.2 |
0 |
3.3 |
13.1 |
14.8 |
13.3 |
|
No data |
48.3 |
100 |
73.8 |
32.3 |
14.6 |
28.6 |
|
Any chromosomal abnormality, % |
|
|
|
|
|
|
< 0.0001
|
Yes |
37.9 |
68.2 |
62.9 |
64.5 |
52.6 |
53.8 |
|
No |
61.1 |
28.6 |
36.0 |
34.9 |
47.1 |
46.0 |
|
No data |
1.0 |
3.2 |
1.1 |
0.7 |
0.4 |
0.2 |
|
Tandem transplant, % |
|
|
|
|
|
|
< 0.0001
|
No |
38.1 |
37.4 |
39.1 |
25.9 |
46.1 |
53.8 |
|
Yes |
61.9 |
62.6 |
60.9 |
74.1 |
53.9 |
46.2 |
|
Race/ethnicity, % |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
White |
86.0 |
92.3 |
98.2 |
85.6 |
81.2 |
80.6 |
< 0.0001
|
African American |
10.2 |
6.1 |
8.1 |
9.9 |
13.8 |
13.8 |
|
Other |
3.8 |
1.7 |
2.7 |
4.5 |
4.8 |
5.6 |
|
TC6 classification |
|
|
|
|
|
|
< 0.0001
|
CCND1 |
10.0 |
0.0 |
3.3 |
13.4 |
17.9 |
14.2 |
|
CCND3 |
1.0 |
0.0 |
0.5 |
0.9 |
2.3 |
1.3 |
|
D1 |
15.0 |
0.0 |
5.6 |
19.7 |
26.4 |
22.1 |
|
D2 |
14.0 |
0.0 |
4.8 |
19.0 |
22.2 |
22.2 |
|
MAF/MAFB |
3.6 |
0.0 |
0.6 |
5.3 |
5.3 |
7.1 |
|
MMSET |
6.3 |
0.0 |
2.9 |
8.7 |
11.0 |
7.7 |
|
No data |
50.0 |
100 |
82.3 |
32.8 |
14.2 |
25.4 |
|
ISS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
< 0.0001
|
I |
42.6 |
43.9 |
54.1 |
40.4 |
32.3 |
39.0 |
|
II |
33.6 |
28.3 |
26.1 |
37.6 |
40.6 |
34.1 |
|
III |
18.3 |
11.0 |
18.6 |
20.3 |
24.4 |
12.2 |
|
No data |
5.5 |
16.8 |
1.3 |
1.6 |
1.6 |
14.7 |
With each successive time period and the integration of novel therapies, patients with MM that were treated with auto-SCT had an improved long-term survival. However, the elderly population (≥ 65 years old) and patients with high-risk disease still had a poor prognosis and survival.
Table 2. Cox proportional hazard model with covariates of statistical significance1
CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; TT, total therapy |
|||
Covariate |
HR |
95% CI |
p value |
Year of transplant < 1997 1998–2003 2004–2008 2009–2013 ≥ 2014 |
Reference 0.08 0.69 0.68 0.35 |
— 0.72–0.89 0.62–0.77 0.59–0.78 0.27–0.45 |
— < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 |
Age, years < 65 ≥ 65 |
(reference) 1.65 |
— 1.51–1.81 |
— < 0.001 |
Clinical trial Non-TT TT participant |
(reference) 0.59 |
— 0.54–0.64 |
— < 0.001 |
In summary, this study was able to cumulate substantial patient data and enabled comparisons of different treatment eras to assess the efficacy of auto-SCT in combination with novel agents used during induction, consolidation, and maintenance. The results demonstrate the combination of auto-SCT and novel agents were able to prolong OS and PFS whilst decreasing early mortality. It also highlights that high-risk patients did not significantly benefit in survival outcome. However, further periodic follow-up is warranted to be able to adequately test for improvements in longer-term survival, particularly in the > 2014 group that were assessed.
The introduction of thalidomide and bortezomib into standard clinical treatment significantly improved the outcomes of patients who receive auto-SCT. However, following an institute-wide shift from lenalidomide to thalidomide as standard therapy in the subsequent years, the authors were not able to replicate these findings and deduce a significant improvement. In more recent time periods, OS and PFS were superior for low-risk and older patients.
Although younger patients have better outcomes compared to older patients, both the Kaplan-Meier and Cox models show a promising improvement in outcomes of older patients in each consecutive year, with an increase in the 5-year survival rate from 35% to 63% and a reduction in mortality. This may be attributed to an earlier initiation of treatment based on improved detection or a more aggressive disease management approach.
The authors reported a high rate of early mortality and worse statistical cure fraction in patients with high-risk GEP70. Therefore, future research that focuses on both the short-term and long-term survival in patients with high-risk disease is warranted.
References
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:
The content was clear and easy to understand
The content addressed the learning objectives
The content was relevant to my practice
I will change my clinical practice as a result of this content