A Figueiredo1, H Atkins1, R Mallick2, N Kekre1, A Kew1, A McCurdy1. 1. Division of Hematology, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON. 2. School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON.
Abstract
Introduction: Cyclophosphamide-bortezomib-dexamethasone (CyBorD) is considered a standard induction regimen for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (mm). It has not been prospectively compared with bortezomib-dexamethasone (Bor-Dex). We aimed to compare the efficacy of CyBorD and Bor-Dex induction in transplant-eligible patients. Methods: In a retrospective observational study at a single tertiary centre, all patients with transplant-eligible mm who received induction with CyBorD or Bor-Dex between March 2008 and April 2016 were enrolled. Progression-free survival (pfs), response, and stem-cell collection for a first autologous stem-cell transplantation (ahsct) were compared. Results: Of 155 patients enrolled, 78 (50.3%) had received CyBorD, and 77 (49.7%), Bor-Dex. The patients in the Bor-Dex cohort were younger than those in the CyBorD cohort (median: 57 years vs. 62 years; p = 0.0002) and more likely to have had treatment held, reduced, or discontinued (26% vs. 14.5%, p = 0.11). The stem-cell mobilization regimen for both cohorts was predominantly cyclophosphamide and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (gcsf). Plerixafor was used more often for the CyBorD cohort (p = 0.009), and more collection failures occurred in the CyBorD cohort (p = 0.08). In patients receiving Bor-Dex, more cells were collected (9.9×106 cells/kg vs. 7.7×106cells/kg, p = 0.007). At day +100, a very good partial response or better was achieved in 75% of the CyBorD cohort and in 73% of the Bor-Dex cohort (p = 0.77). Median pfs was 3.2 years in the Bor-Dex cohort and 3.7 years in the CyBorD cohort (p = 0.56). Conclusions: Overall efficacy was similar in our patients receiving CyBorD and Bor-Dex. After ahsct, no difference in depth of response or pfs was observed. Cyclophosphamide-gcsf seems to increase collection failures and hospitalizations in patients receiving CyBorD. Prospective studies are required to examine that relationship. 2020 Multimed Inc.
Introduction: Cyclophosphamide-bortezomib-dexamethasone (CyBorD) is considered a standard induction regimen for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (mm). It has not been prospectively compared with bortezomib-dexamethasone (Bor-Dex). We aimed to compare the efficacy of CyBorD and Bor-Dex induction in transplant-eligible patients. Methods: In a retrospective observational study at a single tertiary centre, all patients with transplant-eligible mm who received induction with CyBorD or Bor-Dex between March 2008 and April 2016 were enrolled. Progression-free survival (pfs), response, and stem-cell collection for a first autologous stem-cell transplantation (ahsct) were compared. Results: Of 155 patients enrolled, 78 (50.3%) had received CyBorD, and 77 (49.7%), Bor-Dex. The patients in the Bor-Dex cohort were younger than those in the CyBorD cohort (median: 57 years vs. 62 years; p = 0.0002) and more likely to have had treatment held, reduced, or discontinued (26% vs. 14.5%, p = 0.11). The stem-cell mobilization regimen for both cohorts was predominantly cyclophosphamide and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (gcsf). Plerixafor was used more often for the CyBorD cohort (p = 0.009), and more collection failures occurred in the CyBorD cohort (p = 0.08). In patients receiving Bor-Dex, more cells were collected (9.9×106 cells/kg vs. 7.7×106cells/kg, p = 0.007). At day +100, a very good partial response or better was achieved in 75% of the CyBorD cohort and in 73% of the Bor-Dex cohort (p = 0.77). Median pfs was 3.2 years in the Bor-Dex cohort and 3.7 years in the CyBorD cohort (p = 0.56). Conclusions: Overall efficacy was similar in our patients receiving CyBorD and Bor-Dex. After ahsct, no difference in depth of response or pfs was observed. Cyclophosphamide-gcsf seems to increase collection failures and hospitalizations in patients receiving CyBorD. Prospective studies are required to examine that relationship. 2020 Multimed Inc.
Authors: Michele Cavo; S Vincent Rajkumar; Antonio Palumbo; Philippe Moreau; Robert Orlowski; Joan Bladé; Orhan Sezer; Heinz Ludwig; Meletios A Dimopoulos; Michel Attal; Pieter Sonneveld; Mario Boccadoro; Kenneth C Anderson; Paul G Richardson; William Bensinger; Hans E Johnsen; Nicolaus Kroeger; Gösta Gahrton; P Leif Bergsagel; David H Vesole; Hermann Einsele; Sundar Jagannath; Ruben Niesvizky; Brian G M Durie; Jesus San Miguel; Sagar Lonial Journal: Blood Date: 2011-03-29 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Sundar Jagannath; Brian G M Durie; Jeffrey Wolf; Elber Camacho; David Irwin; Jose Lutzky; Marti McKinley; Eli Gabayan; Amitabha Mazumder; David Schenkein; John Crowley Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Martin Kropff; Guido Bisping; Elke Schuck; Peter Liebisch; Nicola Lang; Markus Hentrich; Tobias Dechow; Nicolaus Kröger; Hans Salwender; Bernd Metzner; Orhan Sezer; Monika Engelhardt; Hans-Heinrich Wolf; Hermann Einsele; Sarah Volpert; Achim Heinecke; Wolfgang E Berdel; Joachim Kienast Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Donna E Reece; Giovanni Piza Rodriguez; Christine Chen; Suzanne Trudel; Vishal Kukreti; Joseph Mikhael; Mariela Pantoja; Wei Xu; A Keith Stewart Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-07-21 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: C B Reeder; D E Reece; V Kukreti; C Chen; S Trudel; J Hentz; B Noble; N A Pirooz; J E Spong; J G Piza; V H J Zepeda; J R Mikhael; J F Leis; P L Bergsagel; R Fonseca; A K Stewart Journal: Leukemia Date: 2009-02-19 Impact factor: 11.528