Literature DB >> 7981078

Treatment of multiple myeloma according to the extension of the disease: a prospective, randomised study comparing a less with a more aggressive cystostatic policy. Cooperative Group of Study and Treatment of Multiple Myeloma.

A Riccardi1, G Ucci, R Luoni, S Brugnatelli, O Mora, R Spanedda, A De Paoli, L Barbarano, M Di Stasi, F Alberio.   

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to ascertain whether the prognostic significance of staging in multiple myeloma (MM) is influenced by the aggressiveness of effective induction treatment and/or by continuing or discontinuing maintenance chemotherapy. Patients with untreated stage I MM (defined according to Durie and Salmon) were randomised between being followed without cytostatics until the disease progressed and receiving six courses of melphalan and prednisone (MP-P) just after diagnosis; stage II patients were uniformly treated with MPH-P and stage III patients were randomised between MPH-P and four courses of combination chemotherapy with Peptichemio, vincristine and prednisone (PTC-VCR-P). Within each stage, responsive patients were randomised between receiving additional therapy only until maximal tumour reduction was reached (plateau phase) and continuing induction therapy indefinitely until relapse. With resistant, progressive or relapsing disease, patients originally treated with MPH-P for induction received combination chemotherapy and vice versa. The overall first response rate was 43.8% (42.2% in 206 stage I, II and III patients treated with MPH-P and 48.0% in 75 stage III patients treated with combination chemotherapy, P = NS). Combination chemotherapy was more myelotoxic than MPH-P and, in particular, caused more non-haematological side-effects. Both the less and the more aggressive induction policies gave the same disease control. Progression of disease was statistically similar in stage I patients who were initially left untreated and in t hose who received MPH-P just after diagnosis; median duration of first response was similar in stage III patients receiving MPH-P and in those on combination chemotherapy. In all stages, discontinuing or continuing maintenance did not alter the median duration of first response. The overall second response rate was 28.5% (34.0% to MPH-P and 25.3% to combination chemotherapy, P = NS). Median survival was greater than 78 months in stage I, was 46.3 months in stage II and was 24.3 months in stage III patients, still independent of both induction and post-induction policies. In MM, the significance of staging for survival is independent of both the aggressiveness of induction and of continuing or discontinuing maintenance chemotherapy after the maximal tumor reduction has been achieved. Both MPH-P and and the association of PTC, VCR and P are effective in inducing first response and also second response in patients failing on the alternative regimen, but PTC-VCR-P causes more side effects. Thus, the overwhelming majority of patients with MM can safely be given MPH-P as first therapy, and this treatment may be delayed in early diseases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7981078      PMCID: PMC2033710          DOI: 10.1038/bjc.1994.474

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Cancer        ISSN: 0007-0920            Impact factor:   7.640


  36 in total

1.  Peptichemio in multiple myeloma. (Preliminary results).

Authors:  M Cavo; M Gobbi; S Tura
Journal:  Haematologica       Date:  1981-04       Impact factor: 9.941

2.  Cytokinetic changes in two cases of plasma leukemia treated with a multipeptide derivative of m-[di(2-chloroethyl)amino]-L-phenylalanine (Peptichemio).

Authors:  A Riccardi; A Martinotti; S Perugini
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  1978-10       Impact factor: 9.162

3.  Comparison of two combination chemotherapy regimens for multiple myeloma: methyl-CCNU, cyclophosphamide, and prednisone versus melphalan and prednisone.

Authors:  F Cavagnaro; J M Lein; S Pavlovsky; J O Becherini; J E Pileggi; E Q Micheo; C Jait; A Musso; A Suárez; M Pizzolato
Journal:  Cancer Treat Rep       Date:  1980-01

4.  Phase III study of intermittent carmustine (BCNU), cyclophosphamide, and prednisone versus intermittent melphalan and prednisone in myeloma.

Authors:  N Abramson; P Lurie; W L Mietlowski; A Schilling; J M Bennett; J Horton
Journal:  Cancer Treat Rep       Date:  1982-06

5.  The chemotherapy on plasma-cell myeloma and the incidence of acute leukemia.

Authors:  D E Bergsagel; A J Bailey; G R Langley; R N MacDonald; D F White; A B Miller
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1979-10-04       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Peptichemio induction therapy in myelomatosis.

Authors:  G Merlini; P G Gobbi; A Riccardi; G Riva; C Sardi; S Perugini
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  1982       Impact factor: 3.333

7.  Improved survival of increased-risk myeloma patients on combined triple-alkylating-agent therapy: a study of the CALGB.

Authors:  J B Harley; T F Pajak; O R McIntyre; S Kochwa; M R Cooper; M Coleman; J Cuttner
Journal:  Blood       Date:  1979-07       Impact factor: 22.113

8.  Initial versus deferred melphalan-prednisone therapy for asymptomatic multiple myeloma stage I--a randomized study. Myeloma Group of Western Sweden.

Authors:  M Hjorth; L Hellquist; E Holmberg; B Magnusson; S Rödjer; J Westin
Journal:  Eur J Haematol       Date:  1993-02       Impact factor: 2.997

9.  A clinical staging system for multiple myeloma. Correlation of measured myeloma cell mass with presenting clinical features, response to treatment, and survival.

Authors:  B G Durie; S E Salmon
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1975-09       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Combination chemotherapy with intermittent 1-3-bis(2-chloroethyl)1-nitrosourea (BCNU), cyclophosphamide, and prednisone for multiple myeloma.

Authors:  H J Cohen; H R Silberman; W E Larsen; L Johnson; A A Bartolucci; J R Durant
Journal:  Blood       Date:  1979-10       Impact factor: 22.113

View more
  13 in total

1.  How I treat smoldering multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Irene M Ghobrial; Ola Landgren
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2014-10-08       Impact factor: 22.113

Review 2.  Early versus deferred treatment for early stage multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Y He; K Wheatley; O Clark; A Glasmacher; H Ross; B Djulbegovic
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2003

Review 3.  Smoldering multiple myeloma requiring treatment: time for a new definition?

Authors:  Angela Dispenzieri; A Keith Stewart; Asher Chanan-Khan; S Vincent Rajkumar; Robert A Kyle; Rafael Fonseca; Prashant Kapoor; P Leif Bergsagel; Arleigh McCurdy; Morie A Gertz; Martha Q Lacy; John A Lust; Stephen J Russell; Steven R Zeldenrust; Craig Reeder; Vivek Roy; Francis Buadi; David Dingli; Suzanne R Hayman; Nelson Leung; Yi Lin; Joseph Mikhael; Shaji K Kumar
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2013-10-21       Impact factor: 22.113

4.  The road to cure in multiple myeloma starts with smoldering disease.

Authors:  Karma Z Salem; Irene M Ghobrial
Journal:  Expert Opin Orphan Drugs       Date:  2015-04-12       Impact factor: 0.694

Review 5.  The effect of intervention versus watchful waiting on disease progression and overall survival in smoldering multiple myeloma: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Ademola S Ojo; Somtochukwu G Ojukwu; Joseph Asemota; Oluwasegun Akinyemi; Mojisola O Araoye; Mohammed Saleh; Ahmed Ali; Ravi Sarma
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2022-01-20       Impact factor: 4.553

6.  Relevance of age on survival of 341 patients with multiple myeloma treated with conventional chemotherapy: updated results of the MM87 prospective randomized protocol. Cooperative Group of Study and Treatment of Multiple Myeloma.

Authors:  A Riccardi; O Mora; S Brugnatelli; C Tinelli; R Spanedda; A De Paoli; L Barbarano; M Di Stasi; C Bergonzi; M Giordano; C Delfini; G Nicoletti; E Rinaldi; L Piccinini; D Valentini; E Ascari
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 7.640

7.  Long-term survival of stage I multiple myeloma given chemotherapy just after diagnosis or at progression of the disease: a multicentre randomized study. Cooperative Group of Study and Treatment of Multiple Myeloma.

Authors:  A Riccardi; O Mora; C Tinelli; D Valentini; S Brugnatelli; R Spanedda; A De Paoli; L Barbarano; M Di Stasi; M Giordano; C Delfini; G Nicoletti; C Bergonzi; E Rinaldi; L Piccinini; E Ascari
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 8.  Smoldering multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Minjie Gao; Guang Yang; Yuanyuan Kong; Xiaosong Wu; Jumei Shi
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-04-27       Impact factor: 3.411

9.  Early versus deferred treatment for smoldering multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials.

Authors:  Minjie Gao; Guang Yang; Van S Tompkins; Lu Gao; Xiaosong Wu; Yi Tao; Xiaojing Hu; Jun Hou; Ying Han; Hongwei Xu; Fenghuang Zhan; Jumei Shi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-10-03       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Experience with poorly myelosuppressive chemotherapy schedules for advanced myeloma. The Cooperative Group of Study and Treatment of Multiple Myeloma.

Authors:  S Brugnatelli; A Riccardi; G Ucci; O Mora; L Barbarano; N Piva; L Piccinini; C Bergonzi; A De Paoli; M Di Stasi; E Rinaldi; G Trotti; M Petrini; E Ascari
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.