Busulfan, melphalan, and bortezomib compared to melphalan as a high dose regimen for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma: long term follow up of a novel high dose regimen

Busulfan, melphalan and carfilzomib high-dose chemotherapy and autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma

The standard of care for fit, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients includes induction therapy followed by consolidative high-dose chemotherapy with melphalan and autologous stem cell transplant (AHSCT). Intensified preparative regimens, such as busulfan and melphalan (BuMel), have shown promise to lengthen progression-free survival (PFS). We previously reported that the addition of bortezomib to BuMel improved PFS compared to melphalan alone in CIBMTR-matched controls. We now integrate the second-generation protease inhibitor, carfilzomib, before and after BuMel (BuMelCar) in a phase I/II trial with carfilzomib. Patients with NDMM, relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) and those failing prior AHSCT were eligible. Primary end-points were safety and tolerability. Secondary end-points included minimal residual disease negativity rates, PFS and OS. The study enrolled 19 patients. 73% were high risk either due to R-ISS III status, adverse genetics or relapsed after prior AHSCT. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of carfilzomib was determined to be 36 mg/m2. Noted grade 3 toxicities were febrile neutropenia (79%), mucositis (21%) and diarrhoea (16%). The 2-year PFS for the whole cohort and MTD was 89% and 100% respectively. 80% of all patients and 82% of patients in the MTD cohort achieved MRD negativity. Further studies regarding this regimen are planned.

Autologous stem cell transplant for multiple myeloma: Impact of melphalan dose on the transplant outcome

We evaluated impact of melphalan dose on transplant outcomes for multiple myeloma. Between 1995 and 2019 459 consecutive patients received a transplant; 69(15%) received melphalan ≤150 mg/m2 (Mel 150 cohort) and 390 (85%) melphalan 200 mg/m2 (MEL 200 cohort). The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) from the date of transplant. Progression-free survival (PFS), engraftment, transplant response, and cumulative relapse at 2 years were secondary outcome measures. Patients in Mel 150 cohort had adverse clinical and laboratory parameters at base line. Transplant response was better for Mel 200 cohort (p < 0.024). Median OS at a median follow-up of 88 months was similar in the two cohorts; 100 Vs 102 months (Mel 200), p = 0.817. Median PFS (60.0 Vs 53 months, p = 0.746), relapse at two years (32.4% Vs 30.9%, p = 0.745) and grade 3-4 mucositis (p = 0.823) were similar. Initial treatment prepares patients better for subsequent similar transplant outcomes despite differences in baseline characteristics.

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.