From the publishers of The New England Journal of Medicine

Save time and stay informed. Our physician-editors offer you clinical perspectives on key research and news.

  1. Home>
  2. Specialties>
  3. Oncology and Hematology>
  4. Summary and Comment

Allogeneic vs. Second Autologous Stem-Cell Transplantation for Newly Diagnosed Myeloma

These results build on previous reports of better outcomes with sequential allogeneic or autologous SCT than with single transplants.

Autologous stem-cell transplantation (SCT) is the standard therapeutic approach for younger patients with multiple myeloma (MM), because it often lengthens duration of response and survival (N Engl J Med 2003; 348:1875). However, virtually all patients ultimately relapse following this procedure, so a variety of therapeutic strategies are being evaluated to lengthen survival further and to achieve a cure. One promising alternative is second SCTs (autologous or allogeneic) during remission (N Engl J Med 2003; 349:2495 and J Clin Oncol 2004; 22:1674).

Investigators in Italy and Washington treated 162 consecutive patients (age, ≤65) with newly diagnosed MM. All patients received VAD (vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone) induction chemotherapy followed by stem-cell mobilization, melphalan conditioning therapy, and autologous SCT. Sixty patients with HLA-matched siblings then were scheduled for allogeneic SCTs (auto->allo group), whereas 82 without matched siblings (as well as 20 who refused allogeneic transplant or whose donors were ineligible) were scheduled for second autologous SCTs (auto->auto group). The conditioning regimens differed between the arms: Auto->allo patients received melphalan (200 mg/m2) before their autologous SCTs and then nonmyeloablative doses of total-body irradiation prior to their allogeneic SCTs, whereas auto->auto patients received melphalan before each transplant.

Complete remission rates were higher in the auto->allo group than in the auto->auto group (55% vs. 26%; P=0.004). Median event-free and overall survival were significantly longer in patients with matched siblings (even though this analysis included all patients with matched siblings, regardless of whether they actually received allogeneic transplants). Treatment-related mortality rates did not differ between the study arms, but significantly more patients died of MM in the auto->auto group than in the auto->allo group (43% vs. 7%). About two thirds of the auto->allo group developed graft-versus-host disease (GVHD); a 32% cumulative 2-year incidence of extensive chronic GVHD was reported.

Comment: The clinical management of MM has evolved rapidly in recent years with the advent of new therapeutic approaches, including thalidomide or lenalidomide with pulsed corticosteroids, bortezomib, and dose-intensive therapy followed by SCT. Bisphosphonates have lowered the previously considerable morbidity related to skeletal complications, albeit with recently recognized osteonecrosis complications in some patients. Results from the current study build on previous reports of better outcomes with sequential allogeneic or autologous SCT than with single transplants, and the data suggest that a graft-versus-myeloma effect occurs with allogeneic SCT. The differences in conditioning regimens between the two arms of this study limit the conclusions that can be drawn, however. Furthermore, better outcomes might be achieved with either transplant approach — or even with delayed or deferred transplant — if more-effective initial therapy that incorporates immunomodulatory agents or proteosome inhibitors is used. Algorithms for MM management continue to evolve, and discussions with newly diagnosed patients should include the role and timing of SCT, as well as participation in one of several ongoing clinical trials.

— Michael E. Williams, MD

Published in Journal Watch Oncology and Hematology March 14, 2007

Citation(s):

Bruno B et al. A comparison of allografting with autografting for newly diagnosed myeloma. N Engl J Med 2007 Mar 15; 356:1110-20.

Your Remark:

Reader Remarks are intended to encourage lively discussion of clinical topics with your peers in the medical community. Please consider this when composing your remark.

Fields marked with an * are required.

Name as you'd like it to appear:

Submitting a comment indicates you have read and agreed to the remark guidelines and declare:*

PRIVACY: We will not use your email address, submitted for a comment, for any other purpose nor sell, rent, or share your e-mail address with any third parties. Please see our Privacy Policy.

 

CLEAR erases anything you've added in any part of the form. CONTINUE allows you to check your entire post (and edit it if necessary) before submitting.

To ensure that your Reader Remark is not formatted as one long paragraph, precede new paragraphs with either a blank line or an indentation.

Search

Advanced

Article Tools

Reader Remarks

Sign-In

Forgot your password?

New to Journal Watch?

E-mail Alerts

Delivered to your inbox.
Tailored to your interests. Free.

Sign Up Now!

Journal Watch Newsletters

Available in 13 specialties with convenient delivery and 10 free online CME exams.

Subscribe Now!

Copyright © 2007. Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.