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.
Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-SCT) is considered part of the backbone therapy for patients with multiple myeloma (MM), but this therapy is often not offered to patients aged 65 or older, despite the median age of diagnosis being 70 years old. Patients may be considered ineligible for auto-SCT due to frailty or due to the risk of complications. There have been single-center studies showing auto-SCT is a safe and effective treatment option for patients > 70 years old, though these were before the era of novel agents.1
At the 61st American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting & Exposition, Pashna Munshi, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, US, presented data that evaluated the impact of older age at transplant and its effect on post-transplant outcomes.1
Patients were included if they:
Patient baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics
HCT-CI, hematopoietic cell transplant comorbidity index; ISS, international staging system |
||||||
Age range, years |
Total |
20–39 |
40–49 |
50–59 |
60–69 |
≥ 70 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n |
15,999 |
308 |
1,615 |
4,952 |
7,032 |
2,092 |
Median age, years (range) |
62 (20–83) |
37 (20–39) |
47 (40–49) |
56 (50–59) |
65 (60–69) |
72 (70–83) |
Gender, male (%) |
9,160 (57) |
186 (60) |
908 (56) |
2,841 (57) |
3,960 (56) |
1,265 (60) |
Karnofsky score < 90, n (%) |
7,263 (45) |
108 (35) |
618 (38) |
2,066 (42) |
3,322 (47) |
1,149 (55) |
Comorbidity (HCT-CI) score > 3, n (%) |
3,784 (24) |
43 (14) |
273 (17) |
1,017 (21) |
1,792 (25) |
659 (32) |
Durie-Salmon /ISS Stage III disease, n (%) |
8,713 (54) |
188 (61) |
949 (59) |
2,697 (54) |
3,811 (54) |
1,068 (51) |
Cytogenetics, high-risk, n (%) |
4,398 (27) |
63 (20) |
380 (24) |
1,307 (26) |
2,019 (29) |
629 (30) |
Melphalan dose, 200 mg/m2, n (%) |
13,047 (82) |
276 (90) |
1,468 (91) |
4,473 (90) |
5,962 (85) |
868 (41) |
Median (range) follow-up for survivors, months |
25 (< 1–72) |
34 (1–64) |
33 (1–71) |
27 (< 1–71) |
25 (1–72) |
24 (1–66) |
The data in Table 2 shows:
This analysis shows that the number of transplants in patients aged ≥ 70 increased between 2013 and 2017.
Table 2. Multivariate analysis of outcomes looking at the mean effect of age
CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; NRM, non-relapse mortality; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; REL, relapse/progression *statically significant |
||
Outcome |
HR (95% CI) |
p value |
---|---|---|
Day 100 NRM |
|
|
Main effect-age |
— |
< 0.0001* |
60–69 |
1 |
— |
40–49 |
0.6 (0.4–0.9) |
0.007* |
50–59 |
0.7 (0.5– 0.9) |
0.003* |
≥ 70 |
1.3 (1–1.7) |
0.06 |
REL |
|
|
Main effect-age |
— |
0.9 |
60–69 |
1 |
— |
40–49 |
1 (0.9–1.1) |
0.9 |
50–59 |
1 (1–1.1) |
0.4 |
≥70 |
1 (0.9–1.0) |
0.6 |
PFS |
|
|
Main effect-age |
— |
0.5 |
60–69 |
1 |
— |
40–49 |
1 (0.9–1.1) |
0.5 |
50–59 |
1 (0.9–1.1) |
0.9 |
≥70 |
1.1 (1–1.2) |
0.2 |
OS |
|
|
Main effect-age |
— |
0.0003* |
60–69 |
1 |
— |
40–49 |
0.8 (0.6–0.9) |
0.01* |
50–59 |
0.9 (0.8–1.0) |
0.05 |
≥70 |
1.2 (1–1.4) |
0.03 |
Covariate factors that affected Day 100 NRM in the multivariate analysis:
Covariate factors that affected REL in the multivariate analysis:
Covariate factors that affected PFS in the multivariate analysis:
Covariate factors that affected OS in the multivariate analysis:
A second multivariate analysis was conducted to assess the outcomes for patients ≥ 70 years of age (n = 2,092), comparing melphalan doses. This analysis demonstrated a lower melphalan dose (140 mg/m2 vs 200 mg/m2) was associated with:
This study showed patients ≥ 70 years old receiving auto-SCT were able to achieve similar anti-myeloma benefits in comparison to younger patients. Patients with MM that are ≥ 70 years old and receiving 140 mg/m2 melphalan had worse outcomes, which included a higher NRM. The authors infer this is likely due to factors such as frailty or organ dysfunction that could be present in this patient population. To read more about the management of elderly patients with MM, click here.
Your opinion matters
Subscribe to get the best content related to multiple myeloma delivered to your inbox