Cargando…

Comparison of efficacy, safety, patients’ quality of life, and doctors’ occupational stress between lenalidomide‐based and bortezomib‐based induction in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

BACKGROUND: In the new therapeutic era, comparisons between regimens containing lenalidomide and bortezomib are needed. METHODS: In this single‐center, prospective study, patients received four to six cycles of lenalidomide+liposomal doxorubicin+dexamethasone (RAD) or bortezomib+liposomal doxorubici...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xu, Limei, Liu, Junru, Huang, Beihui, Kuang, Lifen, Gu, Jingli, Chen, Meilan, Zou, Waiyi, Li, Juan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7940229/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33527753
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.3762
_version_ 1783661908142850048
author Xu, Limei
Liu, Junru
Huang, Beihui
Kuang, Lifen
Gu, Jingli
Chen, Meilan
Zou, Waiyi
Li, Juan
author_facet Xu, Limei
Liu, Junru
Huang, Beihui
Kuang, Lifen
Gu, Jingli
Chen, Meilan
Zou, Waiyi
Li, Juan
author_sort Xu, Limei
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In the new therapeutic era, comparisons between regimens containing lenalidomide and bortezomib are needed. METHODS: In this single‐center, prospective study, patients received four to six cycles of lenalidomide+liposomal doxorubicin+dexamethasone (RAD) or bortezomib+liposomal doxorubicin+dexamethasone (PAD) every 4 weeks, with subsequent autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and maintenance therapy. We compared the efficacy, safety, patients’ quality of life, and doctors’ occupational stress between RAD and PAD induction in newly diagnosed MM patients. RESULTS: The complete response (CR) rate was comparable between the RAD and PAD groups after induction (30.8% vs. 32.0%, p = 0.92). Common adverse events, including infections, peripheral neuropathy, and gastrointestinal disturbances, were more frequent in the PAD group, while leukopenia and rashes were more common in the RAD group. Compared with PAD, RAD improved patients’ quality of life more quickly and caused less occupational stress for doctors. However, only 31.6% of patients collected adequate CD34+ cells (≥2 × 10(6)/kg) in the RAD group, which was significantly lower than that in the PAD group (95.5%, p < 0.001). The number of CD34+ cells collected was significantly higher in patients within three courses of RAD than in patients with four or five to six courses (14.18 ± 13.57 vs. 2.07 ± 2.42 vs. 1.51 ± 1.81 × 10(6)/kg, p = 0.028). The median progression‐free survival and overall survival of the two groups were not reached by the end of follow‐up. CONCLUSION: Compared to PAD, RAD induction had comparable efficacy and a significantly better safety profile, improved quality of life for patients, and reduced occupational stress for doctors. However, RAD induction may need to be limited to four cycles to avoid irreversible damage to hematopoietic stem cells. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered at www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR1900021558).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7940229
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79402292021-03-16 Comparison of efficacy, safety, patients’ quality of life, and doctors’ occupational stress between lenalidomide‐based and bortezomib‐based induction in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma Xu, Limei Liu, Junru Huang, Beihui Kuang, Lifen Gu, Jingli Chen, Meilan Zou, Waiyi Li, Juan Cancer Med Clinical Cancer Research BACKGROUND: In the new therapeutic era, comparisons between regimens containing lenalidomide and bortezomib are needed. METHODS: In this single‐center, prospective study, patients received four to six cycles of lenalidomide+liposomal doxorubicin+dexamethasone (RAD) or bortezomib+liposomal doxorubicin+dexamethasone (PAD) every 4 weeks, with subsequent autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and maintenance therapy. We compared the efficacy, safety, patients’ quality of life, and doctors’ occupational stress between RAD and PAD induction in newly diagnosed MM patients. RESULTS: The complete response (CR) rate was comparable between the RAD and PAD groups after induction (30.8% vs. 32.0%, p = 0.92). Common adverse events, including infections, peripheral neuropathy, and gastrointestinal disturbances, were more frequent in the PAD group, while leukopenia and rashes were more common in the RAD group. Compared with PAD, RAD improved patients’ quality of life more quickly and caused less occupational stress for doctors. However, only 31.6% of patients collected adequate CD34+ cells (≥2 × 10(6)/kg) in the RAD group, which was significantly lower than that in the PAD group (95.5%, p < 0.001). The number of CD34+ cells collected was significantly higher in patients within three courses of RAD than in patients with four or five to six courses (14.18 ± 13.57 vs. 2.07 ± 2.42 vs. 1.51 ± 1.81 × 10(6)/kg, p = 0.028). The median progression‐free survival and overall survival of the two groups were not reached by the end of follow‐up. CONCLUSION: Compared to PAD, RAD induction had comparable efficacy and a significantly better safety profile, improved quality of life for patients, and reduced occupational stress for doctors. However, RAD induction may need to be limited to four cycles to avoid irreversible damage to hematopoietic stem cells. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered at www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR1900021558). John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-02-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7940229/ /pubmed/33527753 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.3762 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Cancer Research
Xu, Limei
Liu, Junru
Huang, Beihui
Kuang, Lifen
Gu, Jingli
Chen, Meilan
Zou, Waiyi
Li, Juan
Comparison of efficacy, safety, patients’ quality of life, and doctors’ occupational stress between lenalidomide‐based and bortezomib‐based induction in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma
title Comparison of efficacy, safety, patients’ quality of life, and doctors’ occupational stress between lenalidomide‐based and bortezomib‐based induction in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma
title_full Comparison of efficacy, safety, patients’ quality of life, and doctors’ occupational stress between lenalidomide‐based and bortezomib‐based induction in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma
title_fullStr Comparison of efficacy, safety, patients’ quality of life, and doctors’ occupational stress between lenalidomide‐based and bortezomib‐based induction in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of efficacy, safety, patients’ quality of life, and doctors’ occupational stress between lenalidomide‐based and bortezomib‐based induction in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma
title_short Comparison of efficacy, safety, patients’ quality of life, and doctors’ occupational stress between lenalidomide‐based and bortezomib‐based induction in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma
title_sort comparison of efficacy, safety, patients’ quality of life, and doctors’ occupational stress between lenalidomide‐based and bortezomib‐based induction in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma
topic Clinical Cancer Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7940229/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33527753
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.3762
work_keys_str_mv AT xulimei comparisonofefficacysafetypatientsqualityoflifeanddoctorsoccupationalstressbetweenlenalidomidebasedandbortezomibbasedinductioninpatientswithnewlydiagnosedmultiplemyeloma
AT liujunru comparisonofefficacysafetypatientsqualityoflifeanddoctorsoccupationalstressbetweenlenalidomidebasedandbortezomibbasedinductioninpatientswithnewlydiagnosedmultiplemyeloma
AT huangbeihui comparisonofefficacysafetypatientsqualityoflifeanddoctorsoccupationalstressbetweenlenalidomidebasedandbortezomibbasedinductioninpatientswithnewlydiagnosedmultiplemyeloma
AT kuanglifen comparisonofefficacysafetypatientsqualityoflifeanddoctorsoccupationalstressbetweenlenalidomidebasedandbortezomibbasedinductioninpatientswithnewlydiagnosedmultiplemyeloma
AT gujingli comparisonofefficacysafetypatientsqualityoflifeanddoctorsoccupationalstressbetweenlenalidomidebasedandbortezomibbasedinductioninpatientswithnewlydiagnosedmultiplemyeloma
AT chenmeilan comparisonofefficacysafetypatientsqualityoflifeanddoctorsoccupationalstressbetweenlenalidomidebasedandbortezomibbasedinductioninpatientswithnewlydiagnosedmultiplemyeloma
AT zouwaiyi comparisonofefficacysafetypatientsqualityoflifeanddoctorsoccupationalstressbetweenlenalidomidebasedandbortezomibbasedinductioninpatientswithnewlydiagnosedmultiplemyeloma
AT lijuan comparisonofefficacysafetypatientsqualityoflifeanddoctorsoccupationalstressbetweenlenalidomidebasedandbortezomibbasedinductioninpatientswithnewlydiagnosedmultiplemyeloma