Single daily dose of intravenous busulfan and melphalan as a conditioning regimen for patients with multiple myeloma undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation: a phase II trial

Adding bendamustine to melphalan before ASCT improves CR rate in myeloma vs. melphalan alone: A randomized phase-2 trial

Definite cure remains exceptional in myeloma patients even after high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) with melphalan (Mel) and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Thus, improving efficacy of HDCT in MM remains an unresolved issue. This randomized phase II trial compared standard 200 mg/m² Mel HDCT to experimental HDCT with 200 mg/m² bendamustine, given both at days −4 and −3, combined with 100 mg/m² melphalan at days −2 and −1 (BenMel) before ASCT as first-line consolidation in myeloma patients. The primary endpoint aimed to identify at least a 15% improvement in the complete remission rate (stringent CR + CR) after HDCT with BenMel compared with Mel alone. A total of 120 MM patients were 1:1 randomized. The rate of sCR/CR after ASCT was higher in BenMel than in Mel treated patients (70.0% vs. 51.7%; p = 0.039). Three patients in the BenMel group (5.0%) had reversible acute renal insufficiency compared with none in Mel patients. Minimal residual disease negativity (<10-5) by flow cytometry was observed in 26 (45.6%) BenMel patients and 22 (37.9%) in the Mel group (p = 0.375). Our data suggest that BenMel HDCT is safe and improves the sCR/CR rate compared with standard Mel alone.

Long-term outcomes of busulfan plus melphalan-based versus melphalan 200 mg/m2 conditioning regimens for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

High-dose melphalan (HDMEL, 200 mg/m²) is considered as the standard conditioning regimen for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) in multiple myeloma (MM). However, whether the combination of melphalan with busulfan (BUMEL) conditioning outperforms HDMEL remains controversy. Accordingly, a systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out to compare the outcomes of HDMEL and BUMEL-based conditioning regimens in newly diagnosed MM patients having undergone auto-HSCT.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library database until July 31, 2021, to identify all eligible studies comparing progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), optimal treatment response after auto-HSCT, duration of stem cell engraftment and incidence of toxic events between patients undergoing BUMEL-based and HDMEL conditioning regimens. Hazard ratio (HR), mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) corresponding to 95% confidence interval (CI) were determined to estimate outcomes applying RevMan 5.4 software. Publication biases were assessed by performing Egger’s test and Begg’s test by Stata 15 software.

Results

Ten studies with a total of 2855 MM patients were covered in the current meta-analysis. The results of this study demonstrated that patients having received BUMEL-based regimen was correlated with longer PFS (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.67~0.89, P = 0.0002) but similar OS (HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.92~1.26, P = 0.35) compared with those having received HDMEL. The differences of best treatment response after auto-HSCT and duration of neutrophil or platelet engraftment did not have statistical significance between the two groups of patients. With respect to adverse effects, the patients in BUMEL-based group were less frequently subject to gastrointestinal toxicity while the patients in HDMEL group less often experienced mucositis and infection. No significant difference was observed in hepatic toxicity between the two groups of patients.

Conclusions

In the present study, BUMEL-based conditioning was identified as a favorable regimen for a better PFS and equivalent OS as compared with HDMEL, which should be balanced against higher incidences of mucositis and infection. BUMEL-based conditioning is likely to act as an alternative strategy to more effectively improve auto-HSCT outcomes in MM.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12935-021-02313-z.

Pharmacokinetics-directed Intravenous Busulfan Combined With High-dose Melphalan and Bortezomib as a Conditioning Regimen for Patients With Multiple Myeloma

BACKGROUND

High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has a well-established role in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma. Melphalan 200 mg/m² (Mel200) is the most commonly used preparative regimen. Several studies have provided evidence for potential synergism and safety when combining bortezomib (Btz) or busulfan (Bu) with melphalan (Mel).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a prospective phase II study to investigate the safety and efficacy of conditioning with pharmacokinetics (PK)-directed intravenous (IV) Bu with Btz and Mel. Bu dosing was adjusted to target a total area under the curve (AUC) of 20,000 μM × min. Patients received Btz (1 mg/m² × 4 doses) and Mel (140 mg/m²).

RESULTS

A total of 19 subjects were enrolled. Their median age was 55 years, and the median follow-up period was 23.7 months. PK testing resulted in 86% of patients achieving an estimated total AUC of 20,000 ± 2500 μM × min. The overall response rate (ORR) at day +100 after ASCT was 100% in the evaluable patients, with 11% of patients achieving a complete response. The 2-year progression-free survival rate was 57.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 38%-89%), and the 2-year overall survival rate was 88.5% (95% CI, 76%-100%). The most common grade 3 and 4 toxicities were febrile neutropenia, dysphagia/odynophagia, and oral mucositis. No case of hepatic sinusoidal obstruction syndrome developed. One treatment-related mortality occurred before day +100.

CONCLUSION

A preparative regimen of PK-directed IV Bu with Btz and Mel led to an ORR of 100% with acceptable toxicity and should be considered for direct comparison with the Mel200 regimen in future trials.

Treatment for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in 2015

Multiple myeloma is the second most frequent haematological disease. The introduction of high-dose melphalan followed by autologous haematopoietic cell transplant (HDT/ASCT) for young patients and the availability of novel agents for young and elderly patients with multiple myeloma have dramatically changed the perspective of treatment. However, further research is necessary if we want to definitively cure the disease. Treatment goals for transplant-eligible and non-transplant-eligible patients should be to prolong survival by achieving the best possible response, while ensuring quality of life. The treatment should be individualized on the basis of host and disease features and better monitoring of the response upon use of high-sensitivity techniques for evaluating residual disease. For young patients, HDT/ASCT is a standard of care for treatment and its efficacy has been enhanced and challenged by the new drugs. For elderly patients, treatment options were limited to alkylators, but new upfront treatment combinations based on novel agents (proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs) combined or not with alkylators have significantly improved outcomes.Extended treatment for young and elderly patients improves the quality and duration of clinical responses; however,the optimal scheme, appropriate doses and duration of long-term therapy have not yet been fully determined.This review summarises the progress in the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, addressing critical questions such as the optimal induction, early versus late ASCT, consolidation and/or maintenance for young patients, and how we can choose the best option for non-transplant-eligible patients.

Intravenous busulfan for autologous stem cell transplantation in adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia: a survey of 952 patients on behalf of the Acute Leukemia Working Party of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation

Oral busulfan is the historical backbone of the busulfan+cyclophosphamide regimen for autologous stem cell transplantation. However intravenous busulfan has more predictable pharmacokinetics and less toxicity than oral busulfan; we, therefore, retrospectively analyzed data from 952 patients with acute myeloid leukemia who received intravenous busulfan for autologous stem cell transplantation. Most patients were male (n=531, 56%), and the median age at transplantation was 50.5 years. Two-year overall survival, leukemia-free survival, and relapse incidence were 67±2%, 53±2%, and 40±2%, respectively. The non-relapse mortality rate at 2 years was 7±1%. Five patients died from veno-occlusive disease. Overall leukemia-free survival and relapse incidence at 2 years did not differ significantly between the 815 patients transplanted in first complete remission (52±2% and 40±2%, respectively) and the 137 patients transplanted in second complete remission (58±5% and 35±5%, respectively). Cytogenetic risk classification and age were significant prognostic factors: the 2-year leukemia-free survival was 63±4% in patients with good risk cytogenetics, 52±3% in those with intermediate risk cytogenetics, and 37 ± 10% in those with poor risk cytogenetics (P=0.01); patients ≤50 years old had better overall survival (77±2% versus 56±3%; P<0.001), leukemia-free survival (61±3% versus 45±3%; P<0.001), relapse incidence (35±2% versus 45±3%; P<0.005), and non-relapse mortality (4±1% versus 10±2%; P<0.001) than older patients. The combination of intravenous busulfan and high-dose melphalan was associated with the best overall survival (75±4%). Our results suggest that the use of intravenous busulfan simplifies the autograft procedure and confirm the usefulness of autologous stem cell transplantation in acute myeloid leukemia. As in allogeneic transplantation, veno-occlusive disease is an uncommon complication after an autograft using intravenous busulfan.

Efficacy and safety of busulfan-based conditioning regimens for multiple myeloma

Multiple myeloma is a malignancy of B cells characterized by accumulation of abnormal plasma cells in the bone marrow. In the past 20 years, the use of high-dose therapies and novel agents has resulted in significant and meaningful improvements in survival. Autologous stem cell transplantation (auto-SCT) following a high-dose melphalan-conditioning regimen represents the standard of care for younger patients as well as older patients with a good performance status. A number of strategies have been proposed to improve the outcome of auto-SCTs, including the incorporation of new agents such as thalidomide, lenalidomide, and bortezomib into the induction regimen administered before auto-SCT; the administration of maintenance therapy after auto-SCT; the incorporation of novel agents into chemotherapeutic regimens after transplantation as consolidation therapy; and the use of reduced-intensity allogeneic transplantation after an initial autograft. Although these approaches have demonstrated some success in improving responses after auto-SCT, none of these strategies are curative. An additional strategy to improve outcomes after auto-SCT is to enhance the immediate pretransplant conditioning regimens by either increasing the dose of melphalan or by incorporating novel agents, such as busulfan. This literature review focuses on the efficacy and safety of busulfan-based conditioning regimens for auto-SCT in patients with multiple myeloma.

Intravenous BU plus Mel: an effective, chemotherapy-only transplant conditioning regimen in patients with ALL

We investigated the administration of i.v. BU combined with melphalan (Mel) in patients with ALL undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic SCT. Forty-seven patients with a median age of 33 years (range 20-61) received a matched sibling (n=27) or matched unrelated donor transplant (n=20) for ALL in first CR (n=26), second CR (n=13), or with more advanced disease (n=8). BU was infused daily for 4 days, either at a fixed dose of 130 mg/m² (5 patients) or using pharmacokinetic (PK) dose adjustment (42 patients), to target an average daily area-under-the-curve (AUC) of 5000 μmol/min, determined by a test dose of i.v. BU at 32 mg/m². This was followed by a rest day, then two daily doses of Mel at 70 mg/m². Stem cells were infused on the following day. The 2-year OS, PFS and non-relapse mortality (NRM) rates were 35% (95% confidence interval (CI), 23-51%), 31% (95% CI, 21-48%) and 37% (95% CI, 23-50%), respectively. Acute NRM at 100 days was favorable at 12% (95% CI, 5-24%); however, the 2-year NRM was significantly higher for patients older than 40 years, 58% vs 20%, mainly due to GVHD.

Intravenous busulfan and melphalan as a conditioning regimen for autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a matched comparison to a melphalan-only approach

Melphalan 200 mg/m(2) (MEL200) is the standard conditioning regimen administered to newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma (MM) undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Few alternatives have been explored in order to improve the antimyeloma activity of this conditioning. We compare i.v. busulfan (BU) 9.6 mg/kg and MEL 140 mg/m(2) (MEL140) versus MEL200 mg/m(2) as a conditioning regimen before ASCT for newly diagnosed patients with MM. For this purpose, 51 patients receiving i.v. BU plus MEL were compared to 102 patients receiving MEL200 mg/m(2) in a 1:2 matched control analysis. Matching criteria included age, clinical stage at diagnosis, and response to induction therapy. No differences in the overall and complete response (CR) rates were observed after ASCT between both groups. After a median follow-up of 63 and 50 months in control and BU plus MEL groups, progression-free survival (PFS) was 24 and 33 months, respectively (P = .10). Most frequent toxicities included mucositis and febrile neutropenia in both groups. No case of sinusoidal obstruction syndrome was observed. Transplant-related mortality was 4% and 2% in BU plus MEL and control groups, respectively. ASCT conditioned with i.v. BU plus MEL may be considered an effective and well-tolerated alternative to a MEL-only approach as a conditioning regimen for patients with MM who are candidates for ASCT.

Multiple myeloma preparative regimens for high-dose therapy and autologous transplantation: what's new?

High-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation remains a standard procedure in relatively young and selected older patients with multiple myeloma. High-dose melphalan has remained the chemotherapeutic agent of choice based on earlier prospective randomized trials. Despite investigations involving different combinations of chemotherapeutics, radiation and novel agents with and without melphalan, none of these alternative preparative regimens have demonstrated superiority to high-dose melphalan used as a single agent in multiple published studies. In this article, we review the published literature regarding preparative regimens used in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation.

Shifts in the therapeutic paradigm for patients newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma: maintenance therapy and overall survival

High-dose therapy (HDT) with autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard of care for eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Several randomized studies showed a survival advantage for patients undergoing transplantation, compared with conventional chemotherapy. Introduction of new drugs in this setting has markedly increased survival rates within the last 10 years. Efforts to further improve response rates and survival in those patients are still needed, mainly by increasing the depth of tumor reduction and the duration of response through more effective induction, consolidation, and maintenance therapies. Nevertheless, this approach is currently challenged by the promising results of long-term treatment with novel agents. Recent data suggest that the upfront combination of a proteasome inhibitor plus 1 immunomodulatory compound (IMiD) is highly effective. The combination of bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTD) has proven to be highly effective as a frontline treatment and is significantly superior to vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (VAD) or thalidomide and dexamethasone (Thal-Dex) before and after ASCT with a very manageable toxicity pattern. The most promising 3-drug association might be bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRD). Adjunction of a 4th drug has not proven to be more efficient. In patients not eligible for ASCT, the introduction of novel agents has changed the management of multiple myeloma. The combinations of melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide and of bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone have shown improved progression-free survival and overall survival in comparison with melphalan and prednisone alone. Melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide and bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone are now the new standards of care for elderly patients. Preliminary results also support the role of the combination of melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide followed by maintenance therapy with lenalidomide in the treatment of elderly patients. Physicians now have a wider variety of treatment options to tailor the most appropriate and efficacious treatment according to their patients' characteristics.

Intravenous busulfan plus melphalan is a highly effective, well-tolerated preparative regimen for autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with advanced lymphoid malignancies

We investigated the administration of intravenous (i.v.) busulfan (Bu) combined with melphalan (Mel) in patients with advanced lymphoid malignancies undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation. Bu 130 mg/m(2) was infused daily for 4 days, either as a fixed dose per body surface area (BSA), or to target an average daily area under the curve of 5000 μmol-min, determined by a test dose of i.v. Bu at 32 mg/m(2) given 48 hours prior to the high-dose regimen, followed by a rest day, followed by 2 daily doses of Mel at 70 mg/m(2). Stem cells were infused the following day. Eighty patients had i.v. Bu delivered per test dose guidance. The median daily systemic Bu exposure was 4867 μmol-min. One hundred two patients (Hodgkin lymphoma n = 49, non-Hodgkin lymphoma n = 12, multiple myeloma = 41) with a median age of 44 years (range: 19-65 years) were treated. The 2-year overall survival and progression-free survival rates were 85% and 57%, respectively, for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma, 67% and 64%, respectively, for patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and 82% and 42%, respectively, for patients with multiple myeloma. The regimen was very well tolerated with treatment-related mortality at 100 days, 1 year, and 2 years of 1%, 3%, and 3%, respectively. Intravenous Bu-Mel was well tolerated. Disease control wa encouraging, and should be explored in larger phase II studies.

Busulfan 12 mg/kg plus melphalan 140 mg/m2 versus melphalan 200 mg/m2 as conditioning regimens for autologous transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients included in the PETHEMA/GEM2000 study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the long-term safety and efficacy of oral busulfan 12 mg/kg plus melphalan 140 mg/m(2) and melphalan 200 mg/m(2) as conditioning regimens for autologous stem cell transplantation in newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma in the GEM2000 study.

DESIGN AND METHODS

The first 225 patients received oral busulfan 12 mg/kg plus melphalan 140 mg/m(2); because of a high frequency of veno-occlusive disease, the protocol was amended and a further 542 patients received melphalan 200 mg/m(2).

RESULTS

Engraftment and hospitalization times were similar in both groups. Oral busulfan 12 mg/kg plus melphalan 140 mg/m(2) resulted in higher transplant-related mortality (8.4% versus 3.5%; P=0.002) due to the increased frequency of veno-occlusive disease in this group. Response rates were similar in both arms. With respective median follow-ups of 72 and 47 months, the median progression-free survival was significantly longer with busulfan plus melphalan (41 versus 31 months; P=0.009), although survival was similar to that in the melphalan 200 mg/m(2) group. However, access to novel agents as salvage therapy after relapse/progression was significantly lower for patients receiving busulfan plus melphalan (43%) than for those receiving melphalan 200 mg/m(2) (58%; P=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Conditioning with oral busulfan 12 mg/kg plus melphalan 140 mg/m(2) was associated with longer progression-free survival but equivalent survival to that achieved with melphalan 200 mg/m(2) but this should be counterbalanced against the higher frequency of veno-occlusive disease-related deaths. This latter fact together with the limited access to novel salvage therapies in patients conditioned with oral busulfan 12 mg/kg plus melphalan 140 mg/m(2) may explain the absence of a survival difference. Oral busulfan was used in the present study; use of the intravenous formulation may reduce toxicity and result in greater efficacy, and warrants further investigation in myeloma patients. (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00560053).

Bortezomib and high-dose melphalan as conditioning regimen before autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with de novo multiple myeloma: a phase 2 study of the Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome (IFM)

Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is recommended for younger patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Achieving complete response (CR) or at least very good partial response (VGPR) is a major prognostic factor for survival with 20% to 30% of patients achieving CR after ASCT. Bortezomib has shown synergistic effects with melphalan and no prolonged hematologic toxicity. In this Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome (IFM) phase 2 study, 54 untreated patients were enrolled between July and December 2007 to receive bortezomib (1 mg/m(2) x 4) and melphalan (200 mg/m(2)) as conditioning regimen (Bor-HDM). Overall, 70% of patients achieved at least VGPR, including 17 patients with CR (32%) after ASCT. No toxic deaths were observed. Bortezomib did not increase hematologic toxicity. Only 1 grade 3 to 4 peripheral neuropathy was reported. A matched control analysis was conducted comparing our cohort with patients from the IFM 2005-01 trial (HDM alone). Patients were matched for response to induction therapy and type of induction: CR was higher in the Bor-HDM group (35% vs 11%; P = .001), regardless of induction therapy. These results suggest that Bor-HDM is a safe and promising conditioning regimen. Randomized studies are needed to assess whether this conditioning regimen is superior to HDM alone. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00642395.