Cargando…

Busulfan plus melphalan versus melphalan alone conditioning regimen after bortezomib based triplet induction chemotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

BACKGROUND: High dose melphalan (HDMEL) is considered the standard conditioning regimen for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Recent studies showed superiority of busulfan plus melphalan (BUMEL) compared to HDMEL as a conditioning regimen. We compared the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Park, Songyi, Shin, Dong-Yeop, Hong, Junshik, Kim, Inho, Koh, Youngil, Byun, Ja Min, Yoon, Sung-Soo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8111524/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33995990
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/20406207211012985
_version_ 1783690519076929536
author Park, Songyi
Shin, Dong-Yeop
Hong, Junshik
Kim, Inho
Koh, Youngil
Byun, Ja Min
Yoon, Sung-Soo
author_facet Park, Songyi
Shin, Dong-Yeop
Hong, Junshik
Kim, Inho
Koh, Youngil
Byun, Ja Min
Yoon, Sung-Soo
author_sort Park, Songyi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: High dose melphalan (HDMEL) is considered the standard conditioning regimen for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Recent studies showed superiority of busulfan plus melphalan (BUMEL) compared to HDMEL as a conditioning regimen. We compared the efficacy of HDMEL and BUMEL in newly diagnosed Asian MM patients, who are often underrepresented. METHODS: This is a single-center, retrospective study including MM patients who underwent ASCT after bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) triplet induction chemotherapy between January 2015 and August 2019. RESULT: In the end, 79 patients in the HDMEL group were compared to 31 patients in the BUMEL group. There were no differences between the two groups with regards to sex, age at ASCT, risk group, and stage. The HDMEL group showed better response to pre-transplant VTD compared to BUMEL, but after ASCT the BUMEL group showed better overall response. In terms of progression-free survival (PFS), although BUMEL showed trends towards better PFS regardless of pre-transplant status and age, the difference did not reach statistical significance. The BUMEL group more often experienced mucositis related to chemotherapy, but there was no difference between the two groups with regards to hospitalization days, cell engraftment, and infection rates. CONCLUSION: BUMEL conditioning deserves attention as the alternative option to HDMEL for newly diagnosed MM patients, even in the era of triplet induction chemotherapy. Specifically, patients achieving very good partial response (VGPR) or better response with triplet induction chemotherapy might benefit the most from BUMEL conditioning. Tailored conditioning regimen, based on patient’s response to induction chemotherapy and co-morbidities, can lead to better treatment outcomes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8111524
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81115242021-05-13 Busulfan plus melphalan versus melphalan alone conditioning regimen after bortezomib based triplet induction chemotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma Park, Songyi Shin, Dong-Yeop Hong, Junshik Kim, Inho Koh, Youngil Byun, Ja Min Yoon, Sung-Soo Ther Adv Hematol Advances in Multiple Myeloma (MM) BACKGROUND: High dose melphalan (HDMEL) is considered the standard conditioning regimen for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Recent studies showed superiority of busulfan plus melphalan (BUMEL) compared to HDMEL as a conditioning regimen. We compared the efficacy of HDMEL and BUMEL in newly diagnosed Asian MM patients, who are often underrepresented. METHODS: This is a single-center, retrospective study including MM patients who underwent ASCT after bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) triplet induction chemotherapy between January 2015 and August 2019. RESULT: In the end, 79 patients in the HDMEL group were compared to 31 patients in the BUMEL group. There were no differences between the two groups with regards to sex, age at ASCT, risk group, and stage. The HDMEL group showed better response to pre-transplant VTD compared to BUMEL, but after ASCT the BUMEL group showed better overall response. In terms of progression-free survival (PFS), although BUMEL showed trends towards better PFS regardless of pre-transplant status and age, the difference did not reach statistical significance. The BUMEL group more often experienced mucositis related to chemotherapy, but there was no difference between the two groups with regards to hospitalization days, cell engraftment, and infection rates. CONCLUSION: BUMEL conditioning deserves attention as the alternative option to HDMEL for newly diagnosed MM patients, even in the era of triplet induction chemotherapy. Specifically, patients achieving very good partial response (VGPR) or better response with triplet induction chemotherapy might benefit the most from BUMEL conditioning. Tailored conditioning regimen, based on patient’s response to induction chemotherapy and co-morbidities, can lead to better treatment outcomes. SAGE Publications 2021-05-07 /pmc/articles/PMC8111524/ /pubmed/33995990 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/20406207211012985 Text en © The Author(s), 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Advances in Multiple Myeloma (MM)
Park, Songyi
Shin, Dong-Yeop
Hong, Junshik
Kim, Inho
Koh, Youngil
Byun, Ja Min
Yoon, Sung-Soo
Busulfan plus melphalan versus melphalan alone conditioning regimen after bortezomib based triplet induction chemotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma
title Busulfan plus melphalan versus melphalan alone conditioning regimen after bortezomib based triplet induction chemotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma
title_full Busulfan plus melphalan versus melphalan alone conditioning regimen after bortezomib based triplet induction chemotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma
title_fullStr Busulfan plus melphalan versus melphalan alone conditioning regimen after bortezomib based triplet induction chemotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma
title_full_unstemmed Busulfan plus melphalan versus melphalan alone conditioning regimen after bortezomib based triplet induction chemotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma
title_short Busulfan plus melphalan versus melphalan alone conditioning regimen after bortezomib based triplet induction chemotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma
title_sort busulfan plus melphalan versus melphalan alone conditioning regimen after bortezomib based triplet induction chemotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma
topic Advances in Multiple Myeloma (MM)
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8111524/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33995990
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/20406207211012985
work_keys_str_mv AT parksongyi busulfanplusmelphalanversusmelphalanaloneconditioningregimenafterbortezomibbasedtripletinductionchemotherapyforpatientswithnewlydiagnosedmultiplemyeloma
AT shindongyeop busulfanplusmelphalanversusmelphalanaloneconditioningregimenafterbortezomibbasedtripletinductionchemotherapyforpatientswithnewlydiagnosedmultiplemyeloma
AT hongjunshik busulfanplusmelphalanversusmelphalanaloneconditioningregimenafterbortezomibbasedtripletinductionchemotherapyforpatientswithnewlydiagnosedmultiplemyeloma
AT kiminho busulfanplusmelphalanversusmelphalanaloneconditioningregimenafterbortezomibbasedtripletinductionchemotherapyforpatientswithnewlydiagnosedmultiplemyeloma
AT kohyoungil busulfanplusmelphalanversusmelphalanaloneconditioningregimenafterbortezomibbasedtripletinductionchemotherapyforpatientswithnewlydiagnosedmultiplemyeloma
AT byunjamin busulfanplusmelphalanversusmelphalanaloneconditioningregimenafterbortezomibbasedtripletinductionchemotherapyforpatientswithnewlydiagnosedmultiplemyeloma
AT yoonsungsoo busulfanplusmelphalanversusmelphalanaloneconditioningregimenafterbortezomibbasedtripletinductionchemotherapyforpatientswithnewlydiagnosedmultiplemyeloma