Post-Autologous (ASCT) Stem Cell Transplant Therapy in Multiple Myeloma

Risk of febrile neutropenia among patients with multiple myeloma or lymphoma who undergo inpatient versus outpatient autologous stem cell transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Outpatient autologous stem cell transplantations (ASCTs) in multiple myeloma and lymphoma patients have been shown to reduce the overall costs and improve the quality of life relative to inpatient ASCTs. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed with the aim of comprehensively comparing the risk of febrile neutropenia developing in ASCT outpatients and inpatients who have multiple myeloma or lymphoma.

Methods

To be eligible for the meta-analysis, studies needed to be either randomized, controlled studies or cohort studies. They also need to have two groups of patients with multiple myeloma or lymphoma who underwent ASCT, with the treatment being provided to one group in an outpatient setting and to the other on an inpatient basis. The studies had to report our primary outcome of interest, the rate of febrile neutropenia after stem cell infusion, for both groups. The Mantel–Haenszel method was used to pool the effect estimates and 95% confidence intervals of each study.

Results

From 9 eligible studies, a total of 1940 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Contrary to conventional concerns, the patients who underwent the outpatient ASCT had a significantly lower risk of developing febrile neutropenia than those admitted for ASCT, with a pooled odds ratio (OR) of 0.44 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29–0.65; p < 0.0001; I² = 52%). The risk of septicemia was also significantly lower for the outpatients than the inpatients, with a pooled OR of 0.40 (95% CI: 0.16–0.97; p = 0.04; I² = 23%). Additional analyses found that the odds of having grade 2–3 mucositis and transplant-related mortality were numerically lower for the outpatient group, although the pooled result was not statistically significant. The odds of surviving at 2–3 years was also numerically higher for the ASCT outpatients, but the difference did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusions

This study found a significantly lower odds of developing febrile neutropenia and septicemia among patients with multiple myeloma and lymphoma who received an outpatient ASCT than among those who had an inpatient ASCT.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-5054-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

FDA Approval Summary: Lenalidomide as Maintenance Therapy After Autologous Stem Cell Transplant in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma

This article provides a summary of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review of the marketing application for lenalidomide as maintenance therapy for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

On February 22, 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted approval for the use of lenalidomide as maintenance therapy after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto‐HSCT) for patients with multiple myeloma. The approval was based on evidence from two randomized, blinded trials of maintenance lenalidomide versus placebo in patients with myeloma who had undergone auto‐HSCT along with a third trial of lenalidomide versus no therapy. Each of the trials demonstrated superior progression‐free survival for the patients treated with lenalidomide. The effect on overall survival was mixed, with one trial showing longer overall survival and another showing no effect. Subgroup analysis suggested better results for patients with International Staging System stage I or II disease compared with stage III disease. Safety evaluation did not reveal any new safety concerns. More second primary malignancies were observed in the lenalidomide arm compared with the placebo arm. The FDA concluded that lenalidomide maintenance showed a favorable benefit‐to‐risk ratio when used as maintenance therapy after auto‐HSCT.

Implications for Practice.

Prior to this approval, there were no U.S. Food and Drug Administration‐approved maintenance therapies for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who have undergone autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto‐HSCT). Maintenance therapy with lenalidomide after auto‐HSCT in patients with MM demonstrated an approximately 15‐ to 18‐month advantage in progression‐free survival compared with placebo at the time of the primary analysis. Patients treated with lenalidomide also appeared to have a survival advantage compared with patients treated with placebo. Because of the high rate of relapse of MM in patients following auto‐HSCT and because MM is a serious and often fatal disease, these results appear to be clinically meaningful.

Post-transplant consolidation plus lenalidomide maintenance vs lenalidomide maintenance alone in multiple myeloma: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

In newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) remains the standard approach for transplant-eligible patients. To control the inevitable relapse, post-transplant consolidation/maintenance strategies are commonly used. However, the benefit of post-transplant consolidation is still uncertain METHOD: We conducted a systematic review of phase II/III studies to compare the efficacy of post-ASCT consolidation plus lenalidomide maintenance (CON+LEN) vs lenalidomide maintenance alone (LEN alone) in NDMM. A meta-analysis using fixed and random effects models was performed.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included with 2275 participants with NDMM treated with ASCT and lenalidomide maintenance. Two groups were identified: CON+LEN group (n = 1102) and LEN alone group (n = 1173). There was no statistically significant difference in the complete response rate between the two groups [RR = 1.1; 95% CI: 0.83-1.44; P = .490]. Interestingly, we found that very good partial response or better rate is around 1.5-fold significantly higher in the CON+LEN group compared to LEN alone group [RR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.25-1.70; P < .0001]. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding PFS [RR: 1.0; 95% CI: 0.92-1.08, P = .929] and OS [RR: 0.9; 95% CI: 0.92-1.01; P = .148] at 3-4 years follow-up. The risk of secondary primary malignancy (SPM) was also similar between the two groups (RR: 1.2; 95% CI: 0.84-1.92; P = .2). Data on adverse events were limited.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that, in NDMM patients treated with upfront ASCT, post-transplant consolidation may improve depth of response, but does not add to OS or PFS, compared to lenalidomide maintenance alone. However, data in this context are still immature.

Outcomes of Maintenance Therapy with Bortezomib after Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation for Patients with Multiple Myeloma

Comprehensive recommendations for maintenance therapy after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) have yet to be defined. Bortezomib has been utilized as maintenance therapy after ASCT, but data attesting to the safety and efficacy of this agent compared with lenalidomide in the post-ASCT setting are limited. Therefore, we retrospectively analyzed the outcomes of 102 patients with MM who received maintenance therapy with bortezomib after ASCT at Duke University's adult bone marrow transplant clinic between 2005 and 2015. Maintenance with bortezomib was initiated between 60 and 90 days after ASCT as a single agent 1.3 mg/m2 once every 2 weeks (n = 92) or in combination with lenalidomide (10 mg/day) (n = 10). The median age at ASCT was 64 (range, 31 to 78). Of the 99 patients with molecular data available, 42% had high-risk cytogenetics (including d17p, t(4;14), +1q, and t(14;16) by fluorescein in situ hybridization). Overall, 46% of patients experienced side effects from maintenance therapy, with 31% of all patients experiencing peripheral neuropathy. In total, 2% of patients required discontinuation of bortezomib maintenance because of adverse events. No secondary malignancies were reported from the therapy. The median progression-free survival (PFS) for patients receiving maintenance therapy with bortezomib after ASCT was 36.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.3 to not available) and median overall survival was 72.7 months (95% CI, 63.9 to not available). The PFS of patients with high-risk cytogenetics was not statistically significantly different from those with standard-risk cytogenetics, suggesting that maintenance with bortezomib may help overcome the impact of high-risk cytogenetics on early progression. These results indicate that maintenance therapy with bortezomib represents a safe, well-tolerated, and efficacious option for patients with high-risk cytogenetics, renal insufficiency, an inability to tolerate lenalidomide, or a previous history of another cancer.

Maintenance Therapy With Immunomodulatory Drugs in Multiple Myeloma: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) and proteasome inhibitors have dramatically changed management of multiple myeloma (MM). While MM remains incurable, consolidation and maintenance therapy aimed at improving duration of response can potentially improve survival outcomes. A majority of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated benefit of IMiD-based maintenance therapy in delaying disease progression; however, whether this therapy can lead to improved survival remains controversial.

METHODS

PubMed and abstract databases of major hematology and/or oncology meetings were searched for RCTs that studied maintenance therapy with IMiDs in MM. A meta-analysis was conducted to systematically evaluate the impact of IMiD-based maintenance therapy on survival outcomes and serious adverse events associated with the therapy. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Eighteen phase 3 RCTs enrolling 7730 patients were included. IMiD-based maintenance therapy statistically significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.57 to 0.67, P < .001) but failed to improve overall survival (OS; HR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.85 to 1.01, P = .082). Stratified analyses demonstrated that both thalidomide and lenalidomide provided PFS but not OS benefit in transplantation as well as nontransplantation settings. IMiD-based maintenance therapy in MM led to a higher risk of grade 3-4 thromboembolism (risk ratio = 2.52, 95% CI = 1.41 to 4.52, P = .002). Thalidomide maintenance therapy increased the risk of peripheral neuropathy; lenalidomide maintenance therapy increased the risks of myelosuppression and second primary hematological malignancies.

CONCLUSIONS

Thalidomide- or lenalidomide-based maintenance therapy improves PFS but not OS in MM and increases risks of grade 3-4 adverse events, including thromboembolism, peripheral neuropathy, neutropenia, and infection.

Efficacy of a referral center for patient-centered care in multiple myeloma: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Within the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS), Referral Centers (RCs) are care facilities that provide specialized services. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of care provided to patients with multiple myeloma (MM) at a specialized RC (Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre Referral Center for Multiple Myeloma, CRMM-HCPA) and to compare quality of life between patients with MM treated at CRMM-HCPA and those treated at non-RC facilities.

METHODS

A 6-month cohort study was conducted in patients with MM receiving thalidomide from the Rio Grande do Sul State Health Department and treated at CRMM-HCPA and patients receiving treatment at other, non-RC care facilities. Thirty-two patients were included in the study, 19 from CRMM-HCPA and 13 from other institutions. To analyze the efficacy of care provided at CRMM-HCPA, the main outcome measure was the time from diagnosis to referral for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). This outcome measure was assessed using questionnaires specifically designed for this study. Quality of life was also assessed, using the SF-36 questionnaire.

RESULTS

Time from MM diagnosis to referral for autologous HSCT in each group was measured only in patients aged ≤ 65 years (n = 25); of these, 15 were recruited from CRMM-HCPA and 10 from other institutions. In this analysis, there was a significant difference (p = 0.036) in time elapsed between diagnosis and referral for autologous HSCT, which was significantly shorter for patients treated at CRMM-HCPA (median, 9 months; IQR, 8.5-14.5) than for those treated elsewhere (median, 24 months; IQR, 16-24). On quality of life analysis, there was a significant difference in the Social Functioning domain of the SF-36 questionnaire, which relates to performance of social activities (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The Referral Center model provided seems to be a more efficient treatment strategy as compared with other health care facilities, as it enabled a reduction in time to transplantation. Patients treated at CRMM-HCPA demonstrated greater ease in performing social activities, with less interference from physical or emotional problems.