Modified CVAD and modified CBAD compared to high-dose cyclophosphamide for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma

Long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor pegfilgrastim (lipegfilgrastim) for stem cell mobilization in multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation

Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is a standard of care in newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Several studies before the introduction of novel therapies in MM, demonstrated a pegylated G-CSF to be successful in mobilizing peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs). Lipegfilgrastim is a novel long-acting G-CSF that is produced by the conjugation of a single 20-kDa polyethelene glycol to the natural O-glycosylation site of G-CSF. Twenty-four MM patients were included for PBSCs mobilization with a single SC injection of 6 mg lipegfilgrastim. PBSC collection was started when the CD34⁺ count was > 10 × 10⁶ cells/L. The target progenitor cells were 6 × 10⁶ cells/kg. The median day of apheresis was + 3 (range 2-5) following lipegfilgrastim. Median peripheral blood CD34⁺ count pre-mobilization was of 22.65 (range 3.36-105) × 10⁶ cells/L. The median number of leukaphaeresis procedures was 2 (range 1-4). The median mobilized CD34⁺ cells/kg were 8.26 (range 0.77-12.42). One patient failed to mobilize and two patients mobilized < 6 × 10⁶ cells/kg. Toxicity was mild and transient. Twenty-three patients underwent ASCT following high dose melphalan. All patients engrafted. As lipegfilgrastim is administered only once, it is conceivable that it improves both compliance and quality-of-life (NCT02488382).

Granisetron transdermal system and dexamethasone for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in multiple myeloma patients receiving chemo-mobilization: An observational real-world study of effectiveness and safety

PURPOSE

Cyclophosphamide (CY) in a dose of 2-4 g/m² is widely used for hemopoietic progenitor stem cells mobilization. CY administration is associated with several adverse effects, including chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of granisetron transdermal system (GTDS) plus dexamethasone in the management of CINV in MM patients undergoing chemo-mobilization with CY.

METHODS

In this single-center, prospective, observational, real world study, GTDS plus dexamethasone was administered to MM patients receiving chemo-mobilization based on CY 2 g/m2 plus G-CSF in an outpatient setting. The rate of complete response was evaluated as the main outcome. Other outcomes were rate of complete control of CINV, incidence of nausea/vomiting of any grade and safety.

RESULTS

A total of 88 patients were enrolled. A complete response was achieved in 45.5 % of patients; among them, 39.77 % attained complete control of CINV. Nausea and vomiting never occurred in 34.1 % and 45.5 % of patients, respectively. No episodes of grade 3-4 nausea and/or vomiting were documented. GTDS was safe and well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

In real world, GTDS provided an innovative, effective, and well-tolerated control of CINV in MM patients after chemo-mobilization with CY. The study found out effectiveness of a non-invasive delivery system of antiemetic.

KRD-PACE Mobilization for Multiple Myeloma Patients With Significant Residual Disease Before Autologous Stem-Cell Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Bortezomib has been incorporated into thalidomide and dexamethasone provided with cisplatin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide (PACE) as an intensive regimen before autologous stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma (MM). We examined MM patients at our center who received chemomobilization with a regimen that substituted carfilzomib and lenalidomide for bortezomib and thalidomide (KRD-PACE).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study of 27 MM patients who received KRD-PACE for chemomobilization. Our analysis included patients who had circulating plasma cells (CPCs) by flow cytometry, ≥ 10% bone marrow plasma cells (BMPC), a monoclonal protein ≥ 1 g/dL, or an involved serum free light chain ≥ 10 mg/dL.

RESULTS

The most common indication for KRD-PACE was BMPC ≥ 10% in 16 patients (60%), followed by CPCs in 11 (41%). The median (range) age was 61 (35-69) years, and the median (range) BMPC before treatment was 10% (5%-47%). The overall response rate was 43%, and a median (range) of 20.24 (8.08-69.88) × 10⁶ CD34⁺ cells/kg were collected. CPC clearance rate was 50%, and the median reduction in BMPC was 75%. Two patients had sinus bradycardia and 5 (19%) had neutropenic fever.

CONCLUSION

KRD-PACE is an effective therapy to mobilize peripheral blood stem cells in MM patients with residual disease burden. This regimen was successful at clearing CPCs and reducing BMPC burden, with an overall response rate of 43%. Despite theoretical concern regarding the combination of 3 cardiotoxic agents, we observed a low frequency of cardiac issues.

High-dose cyclophosphamide for hard-to-treat patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a phase II result

BACKGROUND

High-dose cyclophosphamide to treat solid refractory tumors demonstrated meaningful activity, while data to treat lymphoma remain scarce. This study aims to assess high-dose cyclophosphamide to treat relapsed or refractory lymphoma.

METHODS

A phase II study included adult patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, previously treated by ≥2 prior lines with no other available option of therapy. High-dose cyclophosphamide was given intravenously 3 g/m² over two consecutive days and repeated once at 28 days in responding patients. Rituximab 375 mg/m² intravenously was added in patients not refractory to anti-CD20 antibody.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients with median age 65 [56-70] years were included. Patients had previously received a median of four lines of therapies. Tumor types were diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (n = 26; 62%), indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 10; 24%), or mantle lymphoma (n = 6; 14%). Hematologic and non-hematologic grade 3-5 toxicities occurred in 42 (100%) and 18 (43%) of patients, respectively. The overall response rate was 45%.

CONCLUSION

One to two cycles of high-dose cyclophosphamide in hard-to-treat patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma demonstrated a favorable safety and efficacy profile. This regimen could serve as a bridge to modern cellular therapy with CAR-T cell.

Retrospective Review of the Use of High-Dose Cyclophosphamide, Bortezomib, Doxorubicin, and Dexamethasone for the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma and Plasma Cell Leukemia

BACKGROUND

Multiple myeloma (MM) usually follows a clinical course leading to refractoriness and limited treatment options in advanced stages, which might need bridge therapies to either autologous stem cell transplantation or novel therapies. We report our experience with the high-dose chemotherapy mCBAD (modified cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone) regimen in newly diagnosed MM (NDMM), relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM), and plasma cell leukemia (PCL) patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We searched our electronic records database for MM patients who received mCBAD from 2010 to 2016 for 28-day cycles of cyclophosphamide 350 mg/m² intravenously (I.V.) twice daily with mesna 400 mg/m² I.V. daily (days 1-4), bortezomib 1.3 mg/m² subcutaneously/I.V. (days 1, 4, 8, 11), doxorubicin 9 mg/m² daily continuous infusion (days 1-4), dexamethasone 40 mg orally daily (on days 1-4, 9-12, 17-20). International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria were used for response assessment and diagnosis. Descriptive statistics, Fisher exact test, χ², Wilcoxon rank sum, and Kaplan-Meier were used for statistical purposes.

RESULTS

One hundred forty patients met the inclusion criteria. A median of 2 cycles of therapy was administered. The overall response rate was 85% in patients with RRMM (n = 116) and 100% in NDMM (n = 13) and PCL (n = 11) patients. Respective median progression-free survival (mPFS) for NDMM, PCL, and RRMM were 19.61 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.26 to not applicable [NA]), 7.56 months (95% CI, 4.7 to NA), and 4.64 months (95% CI, 3.75-6.73). Patients with RRMM who used mCBAD as a bridge to autologous transplant (36.2%) had mPFS (11.48 months; 95% CI, 7.52-15.9 months) compared with those who did not (mPFS: 3.19 months; 95% CI, 2.4-3.75 months). Cytopenias occurred in more than 90% of patients, and febrile neutropenia was noted in 26%. All cases of treatment-related mortality (8%) occurred in patients with RRMM, except for 1 patient with PCL.

CONCLUSION

mCBAD results in high response rates in myeloma and PCL, however, with high treatment-related mortality. Its use in RRMM should be limited to patients who have immediate need for therapy without other treatment options and who have good performance status (score of 0-1) or NDMM if novel agents are not available depending on practice setting. mCBAD can be a treatment option for patients with PCL.

Current status of autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma

More than 30 years after its introduction, autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) remains the standard of care for young patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Not only did the arrival of novel agents such as immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), proteasome inhibitors (PI) and monoclonal antibodies not replace ASCT, instead they solidified its central role as standard of care. Novel agent use is now inarguably essential in induction, maintenance, and possibly consolidation. In light of these new advancements, new challenges arise in deciding on optimal practice. Who is most suited to undergo ASCT? Is there an age threshold that should not be surpassed? Should transplantation be embarked on early or is it reasonable to delay it? What are the optimal induction, consolidation, and maintenance therapies? What is the role of tandem transplantation in the era of novel agents and where do patient-specific cytogenetics come into the equation when deciding on treatment? These are some of the questions addressed in this review which we will attempt to answer with the latest currently available data.

Adult Stem Cells for Regenerative Therapy

Cell therapy has been identified as an effective method to regenerate damaged tissue. Adult stem cells, also known as somatic stem cells or resident stem cells, are a rare population of undifferentiated cells, located within a differentiated organ, in a specialized structure, called a niche, which maintains the microenvironments that regulate the growth and development of adult stem cells. The adult stem cells are self-renewing, clonogenic, and multipotent in nature, and their main role is to maintain the tissue homeostasis. They can be activated to proliferate and differentiate into the required type of cells, upon the loss of cells or injury to the tissue. Adult stem cells have been identified in many tissues including blood, intestine, skin, muscle, brain, and heart. Extensive preclinical and clinical studies have demonstrated the structural and functional regeneration capabilities of these adult stem cells, such as bone marrow-derived mononuclear cells, hematopoietic stem cells, mesenchymal stromal/stem cells, resident adult stem cells, induced pluripotent stem cells, and umbilical cord stem cells. In this review, we focus on the human therapies, utilizing adult stem cells for their regenerative capabilities in the treatment of cardiac, brain, pancreatic, and eye disorders.

Efficacy and safety of autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation for Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A study protocol for a multicenter exploratory prospective study (Auto-Ph17 study)

INTRODUCTION

The prognosis of Philadelphia chromosome positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph + ALL) has been dramatically improved since the introduction of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Although allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) is a major treatment option, the role of autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (auto-PBSCT) has been reconsidered, especially in patients who achieved early molecular remission.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a multicenter exploratory study for Ph + ALL patients aged between 55 and 70 years who achieved complete molecular remission within 3 cycles of chemotherapy. The target sample size is 5, and the registration period is 2 years. The primary endpoint is Day100- mortality after transplantation, and the secondary endpoints are survival, relapse rate, nonrelapse mortality, and adverse events.This study is divided into 3 phases: peripheral blood stem cell harvest, transplantation, and maintenance. Chemomobilization is performed using a combination of cyclophosphamide (CPM), doxorubicin, vincristine (VCR), and prednisolone (PSL). As a preparative regimen, the LEED regimen is used, which consists of melphalan, CPM, etoposide, and dexamethasone. Twelve cycles of maintenance therapy using a combination of VCR, PSL, and dasatinib are performed.In association with relapse, the minimal residual disease (MRD) of BCR-ABL chimeric gene and T-cell subsets are analyzed both before and after auto-PBSCT.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol was approved by the institutional review board of Nagoya University Hospital and all the participating hospitals. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients before registration, in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Results of the study will be disseminated via publications in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial registration number UMIN000026445.

Peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in multiple myeloma: Growth factors or chemotherapy?

High-dose therapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) transplant is considered standard of care for eligible patients with multiple myeloma. The optimal collection strategy should be effective in procuring sufficient HSC while maintaining a low toxicity profile. Currently available mobilization strategies include growth factors alone, growth factors in combination with chemotherapy, or growth factors in combination with chemokine receptor antagonists; however, the optimal strategy has yet to be elucidated. Herein, we review the risks and benefits of each approach.