All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit the International Myeloma Foundation or HealthTree for Multiple Myeloma.
Introducing
Now you can personalise
your Multiple Myeloma Hub experience!
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View content recommended for you
Find out moreThe Multiple Myeloma 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 Multiple Myeloma Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The Multiple Myeloma Hub 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, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. Digital educational resources delivered on the Multiple Myeloma Hub are supported by an educational grant from Janssen Biotech, Inc. View funders.
Bookmark this article
In patients with multiple myeloma (MM) it is generally very difficult to treat disease relapse following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HSCT), with most chemotherapy being palliative. Treatment options include the use of donor lymphocyte infusions (DLIs) or second allo-HSCTs, though few data are available on patient outcomes in these scenarios.
On Wednesday 27 March 2019, during the 45th Annual Meeting of the European Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT), Frankfurt, DE, Patrick Hayden, St James’s Hospital, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, IR, presented the results from an EBMT chronic malignancies working party (CMWP) study which analyzed the outcomes of patients with MM who received a second allo-HSCT for graft failure or relapse.1
In a prior study, by Tapani Ruutu et al., overall survival (OS) rates of 40% at one year and 20% at five years were observed in 2,632 patients with malignant disease who underwent second allo-HSCT. In patients with MM (n = 80), the one year survival was 49% and was 24% at five years.
A multivariate analysis identified several factors associated with an improved OS after second allo-HSCT which included; a lower disease burden and age at transplant, a longer remission period after first allo-HSCT, an extended time between transplants, a more recent transplant, receiving a transplant from a sibling donor, and a lack of acute graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) grade II–IV after first allo-HSCT. Notably, there was no difference in OS when considering the source of the second transplant (i.e. from the same or a new donor as the first). Although this study investigated patient outcomes after a second allo-HSCT, only a small sample of patients with MM were recruited. The study by the EBMT CMWP therefore aimed to build upon this by investigating the outcomes of patients with MM who received a second allo-HSCT by indication, including a subgroup analysis of those transplanted within 4-months for primary graft failure.
In 273 patients with MM who had a second allo-HSCT between 1994 and 2017, data regarding the indication of the second allo-HSCT was missing in 58. In the remaining 215 patients, the indication for second transplant was:
Table 1: Key patient characteristics based on indication for second transplant
HLA, human leukocyte antigen | ||
|
Transplanted for relapsed disease (n = 159) |
Transplanted for primary graft failure within 4 months (n = 32) |
---|---|---|
Median age at second transplant |
51 (29–69) |
51.3 (25.3–68) |
Median interval between transplants |
40.5 months (1.5–170.4) |
1.9 months (0.7–3.9) |
HLA-identical sibling donor (first vs second transplant) |
68.8% vs 60.9% |
38.7% vs 40.6% |
Same donor for both transplants |
43.1% |
71.4% |
Advanced disease status (first vs second transplant) |
22.1% vs 58.6% |
15.6% vs 32% |
Karnofsky status 80–100 (first vs second transplant): |
94.1% vs 80.2% |
96% vs 48%
|
Table 2 below shows 2-year and 5-year OS and progression-free survival (PFS) rates for both groups.
Table 2: Patient outcomes based on indication for transplant
NR, not reported; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression free survival | ||
|
Relapsed disease (n = 159) |
Graft failure within 4 months (n = 32) |
---|---|---|
OS at 2 years |
38% |
31% |
OS at 5 years |
25% |
NR |
PFS at 2 years |
17% |
NR |
PFS at 5 years |
6% |
NR |
Neutrophil engraftment at day +28 |
94% |
75% |
Death prior to engraftment |
5% |
4% |
The authors then conducted an analysis of factors associated with OS, PFS and relapse rates in the group who received their transplant for relapsed disease (n = 159). This analysis found:
Table 3: GvHD rates based on indication for transplant
aGvHD, acute graft-versus-host disease; c, chronic | ||
|
Relapsed disease (n = 159) |
Graft failure within 4 months (n = 32) |
---|---|---|
Rates of aGvHD grade II–IV at day + 100 |
14% |
25% |
Death without aGvHD |
12% |
18% |
cGvHD |
40% |
43% |
Death without cGvHD |
45% |
43% |
In patients experiencing aGvHD after their first transplant who then had a second allo-HSCT from the same donor, there was a significantly higher incidence of aGvHD.
The authors analyzed the causes of death between the groups transplanted for relapse or graft failure. The most common cause of death was disease relapse/progression (55.1%) in the relapse group and infection in the graft failure group (40.9%). The full breakdown is shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Causes of death by indication for second allo-HSCT
HSCT, hematopoietic stem cell transplant; GvHD, graft-versus-host disease | ||
Cause of death |
Relapse group; n = 110 (n, %) |
Graft failure group; n = 22 (n, %) |
---|---|---|
Relapse/progression |
59 (55.1) |
5 (22.7) |
Secondary malignancy |
2 (1.9) |
0 |
GvHD |
12 (11.2) |
2 (9.1) |
Infection |
21 (19.6) |
9 (40.9) |
Organ damage |
2 (1.9) |
2 (9.7) |
Toxicity |
1 (0.9) |
2 (9.7) |
HSCT-related death |
5 (4.7) |
0 |
Other |
5 (4.7) |
2 (9.7) |
Missing |
3 |
0 |
In patients who received a second allo-HSCT due to relapse, factors that conferred a superior OS were receiving donor cells from a HLA-identical sibling and using the same donor as the first transplant. A poorer OS was seen in patients who received their second transplant within two years.
In the 32 patients in this retrospective study who were transplanted for primary graft failure, the OS was 31% at 2-years, but then this plateaued.
The authors concluded that second allo-HSCT may have a role for specific patients in late relapse with myeloma and those with graft failure.
Your opinion matters
Subscribe to get the best content related to multiple myeloma delivered to your inbox