All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit the International Myeloma Foundation or HealthTree for Multiple Myeloma.
Join our
Treating classical Hodgkin lymphoma: Spotlight on targeted therapies
with Gilles Salles, Paul Bröckelmann, and Ann S. LaCasce
Saturday, November 2, 2024
8:50-9:50 CET
This independent educational activity is sponsored by Takeda. All content is developed independently by the faculty. Funders are allowed no direct influence on the content of this activity.
The Multiple Myeloma Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the Multiple Myeloma Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The Multiple Myeloma Hub and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.
The Multiple Myeloma Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. Digital educational resources delivered on the Multiple Myeloma Hub are supported by an educational grant from Janssen Biotech, Inc. View funders.
In April, two review articles were published in peer-reviewed journals, reflecting on the role of stem cell transplantation (SCT) in multiple myeloma (MM). The first review, published in Cancer and authored by Roberto Mina and our co-chair Sagar Lonial, questioned the role of SCT in MM.1 The second review, in Blood Cancer Journal, by Rama Al Hamed, Adbul Hamid Bazarbachi and colleagues, including our Steering Committee member, Mohamad Mohty, reflected on the current status of autologous-SCT (ASCT) in MM.2
Here, the MM Hub present a series of three articles on the current status of SCT in MM and discuss its role in treatment both now, and in the future. This article focuses on allogeneic SCT (allo-SCT) and its role in the treatment of MM. The following articles will focus on ASCT in MM - the optimal regimens and the big questions.
Allo-SCT, whereby a patient receives stem cells from a healthy donor, is postulated as being potentially curative in MM based on the graft-versus-myeloma effect. A study by Michele L Donato and colleagues showed allo-SCT could provide sustained remissions in a small cohort of 57 patients who had received one prior ASCT. In this study, chronic graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) had a favorable impact on OS and PFS indicating a graft-versus-myeloma effect.3
Metaanalysis data has failed to show a benefit of allo-SCT + ASCT to tandem ASCT in patients with NDMM:4,5
To maximize the graft-versus-myeloma effect, trials comparing tandem ASCT/allo-SCT with RIC to tandem ASCT were designed. Only two of these showed a benefit in PFS and OS of tandem ASCT/allo-SCT with RIC, and these were limited by a lack of randomization and pre-dated the era of novel agent use. Subsequent trials have failed to replicate this benefit.
Table 1: Outcomes from trials comparing tandem ASCT to tandem ASCT/allo-SCT in patients with NDMM (tandem ASCT vs tandem ASCT/allo-SCT)6-10
|
Median follow-up (months) |
N (enrolled) |
Median PFS or event-free survival (EFS) |
Median OS |
TRM |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Moreau et al.6 |
56 |
284 |
22 vs 19 months P = 0.58 |
48 vs 34 months P = 0.07 |
Not available (NA) vs 11% |
Gharton et al.7 |
96 |
357 |
8 year: 12% vs 22% P = 0.027 |
8 year: 36% vs 49% P = 0.03 |
3 year: 3% vs 13% P = 0.0004 |
Rosinol et al.8 |
62 |
110 |
31 vs not reached (NR) P = 0.08 |
58 vs NR P = 0.9 |
5% vs 16% |
Krishnan et al.9 |
36 |
710 |
3 year PFS: 46% vs 43% P = 0.7 |
3 year: 80% vs 71% P = 0.2 |
4% vs 11% P < 0.001 |
Conclusion: allo-SCT is not recommended as a standard of care for patients with NDMM. Young, fit patients with NDMM however may be considered for allo-SCT in the clinical trial setting.1
Limited data exists for allo-SCT in RRMM
Table 2: Outcomes of patients with RRMM undergoing allo-SCT11-12
Study |
N |
Patient cohort |
Treatment |
PFS |
NRM |
OS |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Patriarca et al.11
|
169 |
Patients who relapsed after ASCT who were treated with salvage therapy containing a novel agent. |
Allo-SCT + RIC (available donor vs no donor) |
2 years: 42% vs 18% P < 0.0001 |
22% vs 1% P < 0.0001 |
54% vs 53% P = 0.33 |
Freytes et al.12
|
289 |
Patients who relapsed after prior ASCT |
Second ASCT or allo-SCT with RIC (Second ASCT vs allo-SCT + RIC) |
3 year: 12% vs 6% |
1 year: 2% vs 13% P < 0.001 |
3 year: 46% vs 20% |
Conclusion: The advantage of allo-SCT over ASCT has not been proven so far and allo-SCT for RRMM is currently limited to a trial setting.
Trials have been designed, retrospectively, to analyze the impact of allo-SCT on patient outcomes in the high-risk subgroup. However, these too have failed to show a benefit of allo-SCT over.
Table 3: Analyses of allo-SCT in high-risk MM13-14
Study |
N |
Patient cohort |
PFS |
TRM |
OS |
Safety |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Roos-Weil et al.13 |
143 |
High-risk patients undergoing allo-SCT as initial treatment or salvage |
3 year (high-risk, n=53 vs standard risk, n=32): 30% vs 17% P = 0.9 |
2 year: 25% |
45% vs 39% P = 0.8 (high-risk, n=53 vs standard risk, n=32) |
Acute GvHD: 47% (66/143) Chronic GvHD: 43% (53/123) |
Kroger et al.14 |
73 |
High-risk patients received tandem ASCT/allo-SCT |
5 year (high-risk, n=16 vs standard risk, n=57): 24% vs 30% P = 0.7 |
1-year all patients : 23% |
5-year all patients: 54% |
aGvHD all patients: 57% |
Conclusion: In a clinical trial setting, allo-SCT may be considered for young, fit patients with high risk NDMM, in-line with International Myeloma Working group recommendations, but is not routinely recommended.
The authors did not recommend allo-SCT as a standard of care in the NDMM setting, aside from in clinical trials, and it has no proven benefit over ASCT.
Your opinion matters
Subscribe to get the best content related to multiple myeloma delivered to your inbox