Cargando…

Comparison of two melphalan protocols and evaluation of outcome and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma in dogs

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma (MM) in dogs typically is treated with melphalan. A daily melphalan dosing schedule reportedly is well tolerated and associated with favorable outcome. Although anecdotally a pulse dose regimen has resulted in successful responses, little long‐term outcome and safety dat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fernández, Ricardo, Chon, Esther
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5980396/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29566439
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jvim.15084
_version_ 1783327877530386432
author Fernández, Ricardo
Chon, Esther
author_facet Fernández, Ricardo
Chon, Esther
author_sort Fernández, Ricardo
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma (MM) in dogs typically is treated with melphalan. A daily melphalan dosing schedule reportedly is well tolerated and associated with favorable outcome. Although anecdotally a pulse dose regimen has resulted in successful responses, little long‐term outcome and safety data is available regarding this dosing regimen for dogs with MM. HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES: (1) To compare outcome and adverse event profiles between pulse dose and daily dose melphalan schedules and (2) to report prognostic factors in dogs with MM treated with melphalan. We hypothesized that both protocols would have similar outcomes and tolerability. ANIMALS: Thirty‐eight client‐owned dogs diagnosed with MM receiving pulse dose (n = 17) or daily dose (n = 21) melphalan. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study assessing outcome and adverse events in dogs receiving either protocol. Risk factors were evaluated for their prognostic relevance. RESULTS: Both regimens were well tolerated and similarly effective, with an overall median survival time of 930 days. Renal disease and neutrophil‐to‐lymphocyte ratio (NLR) were negative prognostic factors, whereas hypercalcemia and osteolytic lesions were not prognostic factors in this study population. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Positive results support the use of either dosing regimen for the treatment of dogs with MM, and renal disease and NLR were negative prognostic factors. Prospective, controlled, and randomized studies are warranted to confirm these findings.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5980396
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59803962018-06-06 Comparison of two melphalan protocols and evaluation of outcome and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma in dogs Fernández, Ricardo Chon, Esther J Vet Intern Med SMALL ANIMAL BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma (MM) in dogs typically is treated with melphalan. A daily melphalan dosing schedule reportedly is well tolerated and associated with favorable outcome. Although anecdotally a pulse dose regimen has resulted in successful responses, little long‐term outcome and safety data is available regarding this dosing regimen for dogs with MM. HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES: (1) To compare outcome and adverse event profiles between pulse dose and daily dose melphalan schedules and (2) to report prognostic factors in dogs with MM treated with melphalan. We hypothesized that both protocols would have similar outcomes and tolerability. ANIMALS: Thirty‐eight client‐owned dogs diagnosed with MM receiving pulse dose (n = 17) or daily dose (n = 21) melphalan. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study assessing outcome and adverse events in dogs receiving either protocol. Risk factors were evaluated for their prognostic relevance. RESULTS: Both regimens were well tolerated and similarly effective, with an overall median survival time of 930 days. Renal disease and neutrophil‐to‐lymphocyte ratio (NLR) were negative prognostic factors, whereas hypercalcemia and osteolytic lesions were not prognostic factors in this study population. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Positive results support the use of either dosing regimen for the treatment of dogs with MM, and renal disease and NLR were negative prognostic factors. Prospective, controlled, and randomized studies are warranted to confirm these findings. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-03-22 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC5980396/ /pubmed/29566439 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jvim.15084 Text en Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle SMALL ANIMAL
Fernández, Ricardo
Chon, Esther
Comparison of two melphalan protocols and evaluation of outcome and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma in dogs
title Comparison of two melphalan protocols and evaluation of outcome and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma in dogs
title_full Comparison of two melphalan protocols and evaluation of outcome and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma in dogs
title_fullStr Comparison of two melphalan protocols and evaluation of outcome and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma in dogs
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of two melphalan protocols and evaluation of outcome and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma in dogs
title_short Comparison of two melphalan protocols and evaluation of outcome and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma in dogs
title_sort comparison of two melphalan protocols and evaluation of outcome and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma in dogs
topic SMALL ANIMAL
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5980396/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29566439
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jvim.15084
work_keys_str_mv AT fernandezricardo comparisonoftwomelphalanprotocolsandevaluationofoutcomeandprognosticfactorsinmultiplemyelomaindogs
AT chonesther comparisonoftwomelphalanprotocolsandevaluationofoutcomeandprognosticfactorsinmultiplemyelomaindogs