Dataset Information

A randomized study of melphalan 200?mg/m(2) vs 280?mg/m(2) as a preparative regimen for patients with multiple myeloma undergoing auto-SCT.

ABSTRACT: We aimed to examine whether doses of melphalan higher than 200?mg/m(2) improve response rates when used as conditioning before autologous transplant (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Patients with MM, n=131, were randomized to 200?mg/m(2) (mel200) vs 280?mg/m(2) (mel280) using amifostine pretreatment. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving near complete response (?nCR). No treatment-related deaths occurred in this study. Responses following ASCT were for mel200 vs mel280, respectively, ?nCR 22 vs 39%, P=0.03, ?PR 57 vs 74%, P=0.04. The hazard of mortality was not statistically significantly different between groups (mel200 vs mel280; hazard ratio (HR)=1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.62-2.13, P=0.66)) nor was the rate of progression/mortality (HR=0.81 (0.52-1.27, P=0.36)). The estimated PFS at 1 and 3 years were 83 and 46%, respectively, for mel200 and 78 and 54%, respectively, for mel280. Amifostine and mel280 were well tolerated, with no grade 4 regimen-related toxicities and only one grade 3 mucositis (none with mel200) and three grade 3 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities (two in mel200). Hospitalization rates were more frequent in the mel280 group (59 vs 43%, P=0.08). Mel280 resulted in a higher major response rate (CR+nCR) and should be evaluated in larger studies.

SUBMITTER: Bensinger WI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4894718 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A randomized study of melphalan 200 mg/m(2) vs 280 mg/m(2) as a preparative regimen for patients with multiple myeloma undergoing auto-SCT.

Bensinger W I WI Becker P S PS Gooley T A TA Chauncey T R TR Maloney D G DG Gopal A K AK Green D J DJ Press O W OW Lill M M Ifthikharuddin J J JJ Vescio R R Holmberg L A LA Phillips G L GL

Bone marrow transplantation 20150914 1

We aimed to examine whether doses of melphalan higher than 200 mg/m(2) improve response rates when used as conditioning before autologous transplant (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Patients with MM, n=131, were randomized to 200 mg/m(2) (mel200) vs 280 mg/m(2) (mel280) using amifostine pretreatment. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving near complete response (⩾nCR). No treatment-related deaths occurred in this study. Responses following ASCT were for mel200 vs ...[more]

PMID: 26367217

Similar Datasets

Project description:The aim of this study was to compare the long-term safety and efficacy of oral busulfan 12 mg/kg plus melphalan 140 mg/m(2) and melphalan 200 mg/m(2) as conditioning regimens for autologous stem cell transplantation in newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma in the GEM2000 study.The first 225 patients received oral busulfan 12 mg/kg plus melphalan 140 mg/m(2); because of a high frequency of veno-occlusive disease, the protocol was amended and a further 542 patients received melphalan 200 mg/m(2).Engraftment and hospitalization times were similar in both groups. Oral busulfan 12 mg/kg plus melphalan 140 mg/m(2) resulted in higher transplant-related mortality (8.4% versus 3.5%; P=0.002) due to the increased frequency of veno-occlusive disease in this group. Response rates were similar in both arms. With respective median follow-ups of 72 and 47 months, the median progression-free survival was significantly longer with busulfan plus melphalan (41 versus 31 months; P=0.009), although survival was similar to that in the melphalan 200 mg/m(2) group. However, access to novel agents as salvage therapy after relapse/progression was significantly lower for patients receiving busulfan plus melphalan (43%) than for those receiving melphalan 200 mg/m(2) (58%; P=0.01).Conditioning with oral busulfan 12 mg/kg plus melphalan 140 mg/m(2) was associated with longer progression-free survival but equivalent survival to that achieved with melphalan 200 mg/m(2) but this should be counterbalanced against the higher frequency of veno-occlusive disease-related deaths. This latter fact together with the limited access to novel salvage therapies in patients conditioned with oral busulfan 12 mg/kg plus melphalan 140 mg/m(2) may explain the absence of a survival difference. Oral busulfan was used in the present study; use of the intravenous formulation may reduce toxicity and result in greater efficacy, and warrants further investigation in myeloma patients. (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00560053).

Project description:BackgroundHigh-dose melphalan (HDMEL, 200 mg/m2) is considered as the standard conditioning regimen for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) in multiple myeloma (MM). However, whether the combination of melphalan with busulfan (BUMEL) conditioning outperforms HDMEL remains controversy. Accordingly, a systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out to compare the outcomes of HDMEL and BUMEL-based conditioning regimens in newly diagnosed MM patients having undergone auto-HSCT.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library database until July 31, 2021, to identify all eligible studies comparing progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), optimal treatment response after auto-HSCT, duration of stem cell engraftment and incidence of toxic events between patients undergoing BUMEL-based and HDMEL conditioning regimens. Hazard ratio (HR), mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) corresponding to 95% confidence interval (CI) were determined to estimate outcomes applying RevMan 5.4 software. Publication biases were assessed by performing Egger's test and Begg's test by Stata 15 software.ResultsTen studies with a total of 2855 MM patients were covered in the current meta-analysis. The results of this study demonstrated that patients having received BUMEL-based regimen was correlated with longer PFS (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.67~0.89, P = 0.0002) but similar OS (HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.92~1.26, P = 0.35) compared with those having received HDMEL. The differences of best treatment response after auto-HSCT and duration of neutrophil or platelet engraftment did not have statistical significance between the two groups of patients. With respect to adverse effects, the patients in BUMEL-based group were less frequently subject to gastrointestinal toxicity while the patients in HDMEL group less often experienced mucositis and infection. No significant difference was observed in hepatic toxicity between the two groups of patients.ConclusionsIn the present study, BUMEL-based conditioning was identified as a favorable regimen for a better PFS and equivalent OS as compared with HDMEL, which should be balanced against higher incidences of mucositis and infection. BUMEL-based conditioning is likely to act as an alternative strategy to more effectively improve auto-HSCT outcomes in MM.

Dataset Information

A randomized study of melphalan 200?mg/m(2) vs 280?mg/m(2) as a preparative regimen for patients with multiple myeloma undergoing auto-SCT.

Publications

A randomized study of melphalan 200 mg/m(2) vs 280 mg/m(2) as a preparative regimen for patients with multiple myeloma undergoing auto-SCT.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets