Background: Complete response (CR) and very good partial response (VGPR) are targeted with pre-ASCT induction regimens in patients by diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM), who are candidates for ASCT. In this study, it was aimed to compare the response and survival evaluations of cases who underwent induction treatment by vincristine-doxorubicin-dexamethasone (VAD) protocol versus bortezomib containing regimens. Materials and Methods: The data of 96 ASCT eligible patients, retrospectively analyzed. P value> 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: While 66 cases had received bortezomib containing regimens as induction regimen, 30 cases had received VAD protocol. The total survival was 91.3 (st.s 6) months and 43 (st.s 7.9) months, respectively, when we compared the cases without ASCT and with ASCT (p = 0.001). The OS of patients who underwent ASCT after reaching at least VGPR was longer than the underwent ASCT without reaching VGPR (p=0.019). Post-ASCT PFS (p=0.717) and OS (p = 0.126) analyzes were performed in 74 cases undergoing ASCT treatment, there was no significant statistical difference when patients with treated by VAD protochol and treated by bortezomib containing regimens as pre-ASCT induction regimens was compared to each other. Conclusion: Whatever the type of induction regimen is, the level of response achieved before ASCT is important. The survival of the myeloma patients are much more influenced with HDT-ASCT as well as post-transplantation strategies to keep the patients in remission. Even though it is outdated, we think that the VAD protocol may be an option in patients who are not responding with the new generation of agents in the following days.
Background: Complete response (CR) and very good partial response (VGPR) are targeted with pre-ASCT induction regimens in patients by diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM), who are candidates for ASCT. In this study, it was aimed to compare the response and survival evaluations of cases who underwent induction treatment by vincristine-doxorubicin-dexamethasone (VAD) protocol versus bortezomib containing regimens. Materials and Methods: The data of 96 ASCT eligible patients, retrospectively analyzed. P value> 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: While 66 cases had received bortezomib containing regimens as induction regimen, 30 cases had received VAD protocol. The total survival was 91.3 (st.s 6) months and 43 (st.s 7.9) months, respectively, when we compared the cases without ASCT and with ASCT (p = 0.001). The OS of patients who underwent ASCT after reaching at least VGPR was longer than the underwent ASCT without reaching VGPR (p=0.019). Post-ASCT PFS (p=0.717) and OS (p = 0.126) analyzes were performed in 74 cases undergoing ASCT treatment, there was no significant statistical difference when patients with treated by VAD protochol and treated by bortezomib containing regimens as pre-ASCT induction regimens was compared to each other. Conclusion: Whatever the type of induction regimen is, the level of response achieved before ASCT is important. The survival of the myelomapatients are much more influenced with HDT-ASCTas well as post-transplantation strategies to keep the patients in remission. Even though it is outdated, we think that the VAD protocol may be an option in patients who are not responding with the new generation of agents in the following days.
Authors: N Raje; R Powles; S Kulkarni; S Milan; G Middleton; S Singhal; J Mehta; B Millar; C Viner; J Raymond; J Treleaven; D Cunningham; M Gore Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 1997-04 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Pieter Sonneveld; Ingo G H Schmidt-Wolf; Bronno van der Holt; Laila El Jarari; Uta Bertsch; Hans Salwender; Sonja Zweegman; Edo Vellenga; Annemiek Broyl; Igor W Blau; Katja C Weisel; Shulamiet Wittebol; Gerard M J Bos; Marian Stevens-Kroef; Christof Scheid; Michael Pfreundschuh; Dirk Hose; Anna Jauch; Helgi van der Velde; Reinier Raymakers; Martijn R Schaafsma; Marie-Jose Kersten; Marinus van Marwijk-Kooy; Ulrich Duehrsen; Walter Lindemann; Pierre W Wijermans; Henk M Lokhorst; Hartmut M Goldschmidt Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-07-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Antonio Palumbo; Federica Cavallo; Francesca Gay; Francesco Di Raimondo; Dina Ben Yehuda; Maria Teresa Petrucci; Sara Pezzatti; Tommaso Caravita; Chiara Cerrato; Elena Ribakovsky; Mariella Genuardi; Anna Cafro; Magda Marcatti; Lucio Catalano; Massimo Offidani; Angelo Michele Carella; Elena Zamagni; Francesca Patriarca; Pellegrino Musto; Andrea Evangelista; Giovannino Ciccone; Paola Omedé; Claudia Crippa; Paolo Corradini; Arnon Nagler; Mario Boccadoro; Michele Cavo Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-09-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: María-Victoria Mateos; Meletios A Dimopoulos; Michele Cavo; Kenshi Suzuki; Andrzej Jakubowiak; Stefan Knop; Chantal Doyen; Paulo Lucio; Zsolt Nagy; Polina Kaplan; Ludek Pour; Mark Cook; Sebastian Grosicki; Andre Crepaldi; Anna M Liberati; Philip Campbell; Tatiana Shelekhova; Sung-Soo Yoon; Genadi Iosava; Tomoaki Fujisaki; Mamta Garg; Christopher Chiu; Jianping Wang; Robin Carson; Wendy Crist; William Deraedt; Huong Nguyen; Ming Qi; Jesus San-Miguel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-12-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Henk M Lokhorst; Ingo Schmidt-Wolf; Pieter Sonneveld; Bronno van der Holt; Hans Martin; Rene Barge; Uta Bertsch; Jana Schlenzka; Gerard M J Bos; Sandra Croockewit; Sonja Zweegman; Iris Breitkreutz; Iris Breitkreuz; Peter Joosten; Christof Scheid; Marinus van Marwijk-Kooy; Hans-Juergen Salwender; Marinus H J van Oers; Ron Schaafsma; Ralph Naumann; Harm Sinnige; Igor Blau; Michel Delforge; Gregor Verhoef; Okke de Weerdt; Pierre Wijermans; Shulamiet Wittebol; Ulrich Duersen; Edo Vellenga; Hartmut Goldschmidt Journal: Haematologica Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: H Anderson; J H Scarffe; M Ranson; R Young; G S Wieringa; G R Morgenstern; L Fitzsimmons; D Ryder Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 1995-02 Impact factor: 7.640