| Literature DB >> 24719860 |
Shuji Ozaki1, Kazuyuki Shimizu2.
Abstract
High-dose melphalan (200 mg/m(2)) as conditioning regimen followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) rescue has been established as a standard treatment for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) younger than 65 years of age. However, the role of ASCT in elderly patients older than 65 years remains controversial in the era of novel agents such as thalidomide, bortezomib, and lenalidomide. The efficacy and feasibility of ASCT have been shown in elderly patients by reducing the dose of melphalan to 100-140 mg/m(2). Although the clinical benefit of reduced-intensity ASCT in elderly patients has not been clearly established in comparison with that of novel agent-based induction therapy, recent studies have demonstrated that sequential strategies of novel agent-based induction therapy and reduced-intensity ASCT followed by consolidation/maintenance with novel agents translate into better outcome in the management of elderly patients. Thus, ASCT could also be a mainstay in the initial treatment of elderly MM patients, and its indication should be evaluated based on performance status and the presence of complications and/or comorbidities of each elderly patient with MM.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24719860 PMCID: PMC3956410 DOI: 10.1155/2014/394792
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Five-year estimates of relative survival in patients with multiple myeloma according to different age groups.
| Authors (year) | Age group | Periods |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Brenner et al., (2008) [ | 1990–1992 | 2002–2004 | ||
| 50–59 | 38.8% | 48.2% | 0.001 | |
| 60–69 | 30.6% | 36.3% | 0.09 | |
| 70–79 | 27.1% | 28.7% | 0.21 | |
|
| ||||
|
Pulte et al., (2011) [ | 1998–2002 | 2003–2007 | ||
| 50–54 | 49.3% | 58.3% | <0.05 | |
| 55–59 | 41.7% | 52.5% | <0.05 | |
| 60–64 | 35.7% | 44.4% | 0.01 | |
| 65–74 | 32.1% | 37.4% | <0.01 | |
| ≥75 | 19.4% | 22.7% | 0.06 | |
|
| ||||
|
Pozzi et al., (2013) [ | 1988–1996 | 2006–2009 | ||
| <65 | 58.1% | 74.2% | <0.001 | |
| 65–74 | 49.9% | 72.9% | 0.008 | |
| ≥75 | 29.2% | 31.4% | 0.567 | |
Comparison of clinical outcomes of ASCT according to different age groups.
| Authors (year) | Median age | Number of | Conditioning | TRM | CR | Median | Median |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Siegel et al., (1999) [ | 52 (37–64) | 49 | MEL 200 | 2% | 43% | 34 mo | 58 mo |
| 67 (65–76) | 49 | 8% | 20%* | 18 mo | 40 mo | ||
|
| |||||||
|
Sirohi et al., (2000) [ | 55 (31–64) | 17 | MEL 200 | 12% | 47% | 23 mo | 36 mo |
| 67 (65–74) | 17 | 18% | 35% | 24 mo | 43 mo | ||
|
| |||||||
|
Reece et al., (2003) [ | 52 (30–59) | 382 | MEL ± TBI and others | 6% | 34% | 27 mo | 39 mo |
| 63 (60–73) | 110 | 5% | 33% | 24 mo | 39 mo | ||
|
| |||||||
|
Jantunen et al., (2006) [ | 57 (39–64) | 79 | MEL 200 | 1% | 36% | 21 mo | 66 mo |
| 68 (65–73) | 22 | 0% | 44% | 23 mo | 57 mo | ||
|
| |||||||
|
Gertz et al., (2007) [ | ≤65 | 541 | MEL 200 | 3% | 30% | 17 mo | 44 mo |
| >65 | 137 | MEL 140–200 | 3% | 40% | 17 mo | 44 mo | |
|
| |||||||
| Kumar et al., (2008) [ | 56 (37–65) | 60 | MEL 200 | 0% | 28% | 18 mo | 53 mo |
| 72 (70–76) | 33 | MEL 140–200 | 3% | 42% | 29 mo | NR | |
|
| |||||||
|
El Cheikh et al., (2011) [ | 62 (60–65) | 104 | MEL 140–200 | 4% | 48% | 45 mo | 57% at 5 yr |
| 69 (65–77) | 82 | MEL 100–200 | 4% | 41% | 27 mo** | 54% at 5 yr | |
|
| |||||||
|
Muta et al., (2013) [ | 60 (51–64) | 63 | MEL 180–200 | 3% | 24% | 21 mo | 73 mo |
| 67 (65–76) | 25 | MEL 100–200 | 4% | 12% | 17 mo | 41 mo | |
TRM: treatment-related mortality; CR: complete response; PFS: progression-free survival; OS: overall survival; MEL: melphalan; TBI: total body irradiation; mo: months; yr: years; NR: not reached.
*P = 0.02, **P < 0.0001.
Results of the clinical trials of ASCT in elderly patients aged 65 years or older.
| Authors (year) | Regimen | Number of | CR/nCR | ≥PR | Median | Median | TRM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Palumbo et al., (2004) [ | MP | 36 | 8% | 50% | 16.4 mo | 37.2 mo | 3% |
| DAV + MEL 100 | 44 | 25%∗1 | 68% | 28.0 mo∗2 | 58.0 mo∗3 | 7% | |
|
| |||||||
|
Facon et al., (2007) [ | MP | 196 | 2% | 35% | 17.8 mo | 33.2 mo | 2% |
| MPT | 125 | 13%∗∗1 | 76%∗∗2 | 27.5 mo∗∗2 | 51.6 mo∗∗3 | 0% | |
| VAD + MEL 100 | 126 | 18%∗∗2 | 65%∗∗2 | 19.4 mo | 38.3 mo | 5% | |
|
| |||||||
| Gay et al., (2013) [ | PAD + MEL 100 + LP-L | 102 | 53% | 95% | 48 mo | 63% at 5 yr | 8% |
CR: complete response; nCR: near complete response; PR: partial response; PFS: progression-free survival; EFS: event-free survival; OS: overall survival; TRM: treatment-related mortality; MP: melphalan + prednisone; DAV: dexamethasone + doxorubicin + vincristine; MEL: melphalan; MPT: melphalan + prednisone + thalidomide; VAD: vincristine + adriamycin + dexamethasone; PAD: bortezomib + pegylated liposomal doxorubicin + dexamethasone; LP: lenalidomide + prednisone; L: lenalidomide; mo: months, yr: years.
∗1 P = 0.05, ∗2 P = 0.023, ∗3 P = 0.04, ∗∗1 P = 0.0008, ∗∗2 P < 0.0001, ∗∗3 P = 0.0006 (in comparison with MP).
Figure 1Retrospective analysis of outcome of newly diagnosed patients aged 65–70 years. Progression-free and overall survival according to the treatment groups such as conventional chemotherapy, conventional chemotherapy + novel drugs, conventional chemotherapy + ASCT, and novel drugs + ASCT is shown. Reproduced from [40] with permission from Karger.