Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation
Volume 13, Issue 8 , Pages 877-885, August 2007

Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma

  • Shubham Pant

      Affiliations

    • Division of Hematology and Oncology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
    • ,
  • Edward A. Copelan

      Affiliations

    • Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders, Taussig Cancer Center, Cleveland Clinic Foundation
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence and reprint requests: Edward A. Copelan, MD, Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders, Taussig Cancer Center, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue R35, Cleveland, Ohio 44195.

Received 27 February 2007; accepted 1 May 2007.

Article Outline

Abstract 

High-dose therapy and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation are standard early treatment of patients with multiple myeloma. Tandem transplantation appears to provide additional benefit, particularly in patients with limited response to initial transplantation. Myeloablative allogeneic transplantation provides the only potential for cure, but has been largely abandoned because of high mortality rates. Newer and better induction regimens, rigorous analysis of results with autologous and allogeneic transplantation, and the development of risk-adapted stratification provide the impetus for this critical evaluation of the role of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma.

Key Words: Multiple myeloma, Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

 

Back to Article Outline

Introduction 

The median survival of patients with multiple myeloma is approximately 4 years. This malignancy is virtually incurable, and accounts for 20% of all deaths because of hematologic malignancies. Further, it is a progressively debilitating disease characterized by bone pain, spontaneous fractures, frequent infections, renal failure, and anemia. Because of its potential to dramatically affect quality of life, the time spent in remission is important. Despite controversy about the effectiveness and precise role of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in multiple myeloma, this disorder is presently the most common for which HSCT is used. New transplant approaches including double transplants, safer regimens for allogeneic transplantation, and maintenance therapy may improve outcome. The integration of newer agents including thalidomide, lenalidomide, and bortezomib into conventional treatment promises to improve nontransplant approaches, causing some to question the need for transplantation. In this review, we summarize relevant background information and discuss the role of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma.

Back to Article Outline

Current Outcomes with Autologous Transplantation 

Single Autotransplantation 

Large prospective randomized trials [1, 2] and several nonrandomized comparisons [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] established for most clinicians that in patients aged 65 or less with no significant organ impairment, high-dose therapy and autologous transplantation following initial conventional therapy improve rates of response, complete remission (CR), overall survival (OS), and event-free survival (EFS) compared to continued conventional therapy. Also, the time without symptoms, treatment and treatment toxicity (TWIsTT) was longer for patients who underwent transplantation [9]. Results of autologous transplantation have improved largely through reduction of transplant-related morbidity and mortality (TRM) using modern supportive care, including the use of mobilized peripheral blood stem cells in place of marrow and preparation with melphalan rather than radiation-containing regimens [10]. The TRM rate following autotransplantation is now <2%. A recent evidence-based review recommended autotransplantation, using melphalan and peripheral blood stem cells, in preference to standard chemotherapy as de novo treatment [11].

Some randomized studies comparing autotransplantation to conventional therapy, however, have not demonstrated a significant survival benefit [9, 12, 13, 14]. The differences in outcome between trials (Table 1) may be related to variations in eligibility criteria, induction therapy, preparative regimens, duration of follow-up, and the use of transplantation at relapse. For example, the conditioning regimens vary and those used in some studies are probably suboptimal(13). Benefit from transplantation may not be demonstrable for several years, but some studies do not provide lengthy follow-up [13, 14]. The Spanish Programa para el Tratamiento de Hemopatias Malignas (PETHEMA) group randomized only those patients who achieved a response to induction chemotherapy [14]. Yet patients who fail to respond, benefit from autotransplantation [15]. Despite these limitations of the reports, it is important that a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials demonstrated a significant benefit in progression-free survival (PFS), but not OS with a single early autotransplant [16]. It is reasonable to conclude that autotransplantation provides a significant benefit in PFS and TWIsTT. A significant survival benefit for early transplantation has not been clearly demonstrated, but the frequent use of later transplantation complicates interpretation of this finding.

Table 1. Major Randomized Prospective Trials with Single Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma
TrialAuthorYearNo. of PatientsMedian AgeConditioning RegimenSurvival
Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome 90Attal, et al. (2)199620057Melphalan 140 and TBISuperior progression free survival (18 versus 27 mo., P = .01) and overall survival (37.4 mo. versus not reached) with transplant versus conventional chemotherapy
Medical Research Council Myeloma VIIChild, et al. (1)200340155Melphalan 200Superior progression free survival (31.6 mo. versus 19.6 mo., P < .001) and overall survival (54 mo. versus 42 mo., P = .04) with transplant vs. conventional chemotherapy
HOVON⁎Segeren et al. (13)200326155Cyclophosphamide 120 mg/kg and TBINo difference in progression free survival (22 mo. versus 21 mo., P = .28) and overall survival (47 mo. versus 50 mo., P = .41) with transplant versus conventional chemotherapy
PETHEMA†Blade, et al. (14)200521656Melphalan 200, Melphalan 140 and TBINo difference in progression free survival (42 mo. versus 33 mo., P = .57) and overall survival (61 mo. versus 66 mo., P = .89) with transplant versus conventional chemotherapy
Myelome Autogreffe 91Fermand et al. (9)200519061Melphalan 200, melphalan 140 and busulphanNo difference in progression free survival (25.3 mo. versus 18.7 mo., P = .07) and overall survival (47.8 mo. versus 47.6 mo., P = .91) with transplant versus conventional chemotherapy
Intergroup S 9321Barlogie et al. (12)200651654Melphalan 140 and TBINo difference in progression free survival (7 year estimate 17% and 16%.) and overall survival (7 year estimate 37% and 42 %mo.) with transplant vsersus conventional chemotherapy

TBI indicates total-body irridiation.

⁎HOVON: Dutch-Belgian Hemato-Oncology Cooperative Study Group.

†PETHEMA: Programa para el Tratamiento de Hemopatias Malignas.

Double Autotransplantation 

Barlogie and colleagues [17, 18] introduced the concept of tandem transplants, which have subsequently been investigated in several randomized trials [19, 20, 21, 22, 23]. Attal and colleagues [21] compared single to double autologous transplantation in patients under 60 years of age following 3 or 4 courses of chemotherapy. At 6 years, OS and EFS were doubled in the tandem transplant group. The survival benefit was magnified in those with less than a very good partial response (PR) following the first transplant. These results were supported by a randomized prospective study (Bologna 96) that demonstrated that tandem HSCT benefits patients who are not in at least a near CR after the first transplant [22]. Data from the Arkansas group shows a survival advantage in patients who underwent tandem transplantation compared to historic controls who underwent a single procedure. A recent update of patients undergoing tandem transplantation at Arkansas demonstrated a 10-year EFS of 18% and OS of 23% [24].

Tandem transplants do require increased time in the hospital and may not benefit patients who achieve CR or very near CR after the first transplantation [21, 22]. The quality of life at 1 year appears worse after tandem transplantation [20]. Last, patients with specific cytogenetic abnormalities may not benefit substantially from tandem transplantation [25, 26].

Nevertheless, these studies established the benefit of double transplantation in most patients aged under 60 who have a limited response to a single transplant. The second transplant should be performed within 3 to 6 months after the first. Patients who do not complete 2 transplants within 12 months have a worse prognosis [24].

Maintenance Therapy following Autologous Transplantation 

Interferon maintenance following autotransplantation initially seemed beneficial [27, 28], but many patients experienced toxicity. Subsequent randomized trials incorporating interferon failed to demonstrate a significant survival benefit [12, 29].

Thalidomide was used by the Arkansas group during induction, between the 2 transplants, and following transplantation until disease progression or significant adverse affects [30]. Thalidomide increased the rates of response and EFS, but not OS, because of a poorer outcome after relapse. Also, 30% of patients taking thalidomide experienced a thrombotic event and 27% experienced grade 3 or 4 peripheral neuropathy.

The Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome (IFM) 99-02 study, which did not use thalidomide earlier in treatment, demonstrated a benefit in EFS and OS in patients randomized to thalidomide and pamidronate after tandem transplant. Adverse events necessitated discontinuation of thalidomide in 39% of patients [31]. Thalidomide appeared to benefit patients with residual disease following transplantation, raising doubt about the appropriateness of the term “maintenance.” Lower doses of thalidomide are being evaluated after tandem transplantation [32]. The present common use of thalidomide in induction may compromise its effectiveness in maintenance. Bortezomib is also under investigation as maintenance therapy [33].

Elderly Patients 

Most studies of autotransplantation in myeloma have been carried out in the nonelderly, thus excluding a large proportion of myeloma patients [34]. The feasibility and efficacy of transplantation in patients over 70 years of age was demonstrated in a nonrandomized study by the Arkansas group, utilizing a lower dose of melphalan than is used in younger patients [35]. A multicenter prospective study demonstrated a higher response rate and significantly better EFS and OS in patients undergoing tandem transplants using intermediate dose melphalan [36].

In a trial of patients over 65 years of age, however, thalidomide in combination with melphalan and prednisone resulted in superior PFS and OS compared to transplantation following induction with melphalan and prednisone [37]. This study did not address whether autotransplantation following the more effective induction regimen would provide additional benefit. Thus, whereas transplantation can be safely performed and is effective in selected patients over the age of 65, its superiority to present nontransplant approaches is uncertain.

Timing of Transplantation 

A prospective randomized study demonstrated similar survival in patients irrespective of whether transplantation was performed early or at the time of relapse [38]. The TWiSTT, however, was better in the group undergoing early transplantation. A nonrandomized study demonstrated that patients transplanted within 1 year of primary therapy fared better than those who underwent late transplant [39]. Based on these data, autotransplantation should generally be performed early in the course of disease.

Purging 

CD34+ selection reduced the tumor burden in the graft by more than 3 logs, but PFS and OS were not improved [40]. A study of genetically marked grafts demonstrated no contribution of infused myeloma cells to relapse [41], emphasizing that the main cause of relapse is the failure to eradicate myeloma in the patient.

Quality of Life 

Myeloma is a debilitating disease with frequent relapses. It can devastate quality of life. The Nordic Myeloma Group demonstrated lower quality of life scores at 1 and 6 months in patients who underwent transplantation, but better scores in this group at 36 months [42]. The TWiSTT score was better in the transplantation group compared to that receiving only conventional chemotherapy in the Myelome-Autogreffe (MAG) trial [9]. Quality of life is also better when patients undergo transplant early compared to after relapse [38]. It is vital that parameters assessing the quality of life be included in the design of trials studying transplantation in multiple myeloma.

Cost versus Benefit of Autotransplant 

Early studies comparing the cost effectiveness of transplant to conventional chemotherapy were retrospective and involved small numbers of patients [43, 44]. Gulbrandsen and colleagues [45] prospectively compared melphalan-prednisone to autologous transplant. They used quality-adjusted life-years, a product of 2 factors: the change in quality of life that follows from an intervention and the number of years gained as a result of treatment. The cost of high-dose therapy and stem cell transplantation was justified by the considerable gain in patient’s quality-adjusted life-years.

Back to Article Outline

Current Outcomes with Allogeneic Transplantation 

Myeloablative Transplantation 

In contrast to autologous transplantation, allogeneic transplantation can cure patients with myeloma [46]. This approach assures the absence of myeloma cells in the graft and provides the potential for a graft-versus-myeloma effect [47]. The targets of graft-versus-myeloma (and graft-versus-host disease [GVHD]) are minor histocompatibility antigens recognized by donor T cells. T cell responses to antigens restricted to hematopoietic cells can mediate an effective antitumor reaction without GVHD. More widely expressed minor histocompatibility antigens may be targets for GVHD and a graft-versus-myeloma effect. Following a donor lymphocyte infusion-induced sustained complete remission in a patient with multiple myeloma, van Bergen and colleagues [48] isolated a cytotoxic T lymphocyte-clone capable of recognizing the minor antigen encoded by the ATP-dependent interferon responsive gene, which was highly expressed on the myeloma cells. Expression of the relevant minor histocompatibility antigens on malignant stem cells, those rare cells with the ability to perpetuate themselves through self-renewal and to generate differentiated malignant plasma cells, are probably required for cure of malignancy by the allogeneic effect [49].

Allogeneic transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma has generally resulted in a high incidence of TRM [12, 46, 50, 51, 52, 53]. Mortality following unrelated transplantation has been particularly frequent [53]. Allotransplantation does, however, significantly lower relapse rates [50], and a modest proportion of patients appear to be cured. Despite providing the only potential for cure, the substantial mortality rates, exceeding 40% in many studies, have been considered prohibitive by most clinicians.

Generally, the high mortality rates have been associated with transplantation of patients with advanced disease who had received multiple chemotherapy regimens. The Seattle group reported a mortality rate in excess of 50%, but noted that for patients who underwent transplantation within a year from diagnosis, mortality was <20% [50]. Early transplantation and careful selection of patients is crucial to achieve favorable outcomes using allogeneic transplantation in most hematologic malignancies [49]. These factors may be particularly critical in patients with myeloma who tolerate allotransplantation poorly, perhaps related to their underlying immunodeficiency and the debilitating nature of their disease. The recently published U.S. intergroup trial originally included an allogeneic transplant arm that was closed after 36 patients were treated, because of a mortality rate of 53% [12]. These allogeneic patients were treated, following completion of induction chemotherapy with high-dose cyclophosphamide to mirror the autologous transplantation arm of the trial. They subsequently received preparation for transplantation with melphalan plus total body irridiation (TBI). The high-dose cyclophosphamide coupled with the intensive preparative regimen may have contributed to the high mortality in this vulnerable population. Despite the early deaths, 7-year survival is identical for autologous and allogeneic recipients, and PFS is 22% for allogeneic recipients with a plateau extending up to 10 years. Substantially higher rates of sustained PFS following allogeneic transplantation have been reported [51, 52].

The European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation compared results in patients with myeloma who underwent allogeneic transplantation from fully matched siblings from 1994 through 1998 to those who underwent transplantation prior to 1994 [54]. Survival was significantly improved in patients who underwent the procedure after 1994 because of a significant reduction in deaths from interstitial pneumonia and infections. Transplant-related mortality was reduced to 21% at 6 months and 30% at 2 years, with no difference between those receiving bone marrow or peripheral blood. The patients transplanted after 1994 benefited from less previous treatment and better supportive care.

Although numerous myeloablative preparative regimens have been used, their influence on outcome has been inadequately studied. Prospective comparisons have not been performed. The suspicion that TBI may not be well tolerated by patients with myeloma and older individuals has led to extensive use of radiation-free regimens, including bulsulfan and cyclophosphamide [50] and busulfan and melphalan [55].

The use of less toxic regimens is particularly critical in multiple myeloma. Dose adjustment [56] and/or intravenous administration of busulfan [57] appear to lower TRM rates and improve effectiveness in other disorders. A large study of targeted busulfan preceding autotransplantation in myeloma reported no venooclusive disease [58].

Considering recent results with lower mortality rates, the absence of other curative treatments, and the debilitating nature of this disease, allotransplantation seems understudied and underutilized. As with autotransplantation, the potential benefit of allotransplantation must be balanced against its risk. Patients must be fully informed of both.

Reduced-Intensity Regimens 

The significant risk of dying from complications of fully ablative transplantation stimulated exploration of reduced-intensity preparative regimens for allotransplantation. The Seattle group utilized a nonablative regimen of 200 cGy TBI and fludarabine with posttransplant immunosuppression with mycophenolate and cyclosporine in a small series of patients, many with advanced myeloma [59, 60]. Safety was demonstrated, but no durable complete responses were obtained. Other groups have used various reduced-intensity regimens to achieve lower TRM, however, relapse rates are much higher than for standard preparative regimens and PFS appears similar or inferior to that with myeloablative transplants [60, 61]. Patients with aggressive disease and plasmacytomas fare particularly poorly. As with ablative transplantation, poor functional status, advanced disease, and chemoresistant disease are adverse risk factors for TRM, PFS, and OS [62].

Sequential Autologous and Nonablative Allogeneic Transplantation 

Temporal separation of the high-dose preparation and the immune effects of the allograft (Figure 1) may be a safer way to provide potentially curative therapy [63, 64, 65, 66]. TRM of 10% to 20% has been reported, but late TRM and relapse require further study. A prospective trial by Bruno and colleagues [65] reported superior OS and EFS in those undergoing allograft following autograft compared to tandem autografts, whereas a similar study in high-risk individual failed to demonstrate such a difference [66].

  • View full-size image.
  • Figure 1. 

    Theory of autologous followed by nonablative allogeneic transplantation. A recipient with multiple myeloma has normal (RN) and multiple myeloma (RM) and myeloma stem cells (RMSC) in the marrow prior to autologous transplantation. Following high-dose therapy and autotransplantation, the number of malignant cells is reduced. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation following nonablative preparation permits engraftment of normal donor hematopoietic cells (DN). Immunologic eradication of recipient normal and malignant cells results in complete donor hematopoietic chimerism.

Back to Article Outline

Current Outcomes with Nontransplant Therapies 

Melphalan and prednisone (MP) produce responses in more than 50% of patients [67, 68]. Subsequently developed regimens, including VBMCP (vincristine, carmustine, melphalan, cyclophosphamide, and prednisone), high-dose steroids, and VAD (vincristine-adriamycin-dexamethasone) produce similar response rates [69, 70, 71, 72]. CRs occur rarely with these regimens.

New agents are improving treatment. Oral thalidomide-dexamethasone (thal-dex) resulted in significantly higher rates of response than treatment with dexamethasone alone [73] or intravenous VAD [74], although CR was achieved in <5% of patients. The addition of thalidomide to MP (MPT) improves response rate, CR rate, EFS, and OS [37, 75].

The proteasome inhibitor bortezomib was more effective than high-dose dexamethasone in patients with advanced disease [76]. In a phase 1/2 trial, the combination of bortezomib, melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide achieved CR in a striking 36% of a subgroup treated for first relapse [77]. These encouraging results, particularly the high rate of CR, provide a basis for study in early stage disease, where a randomized phase 3 trial is underway. At present, there is insufficient long-term follow-up on patients receiving newer regimens to determine their effect on the benefit provided by transplantation.

Back to Article Outline

Relevance of Complete Remissions 

Although clinical response is desirable and is commonly considered an accurate predictor of survival, neither the rapidity nor degree of response reliably predicts survival [78, 79]. Time to progression was a better predictor of survival than response to frontline therapy for more than 1500 patients enrolled on 4 Southwest Oncology Group myeloma studies [79]. A large study from M.D. Anderson did show significant survival benefit when a PR was converted to CR or no response to PR by autotransplantation [80].

The degree of response reflects the short-term effect of treatment on differentiated malignant plasma cells, which constitute nearly the entire malignancy. Cure, however, depends on elimination of the exceedingly rare self-renewing malignant stem cells from which the terminally differentiated malignant plasma cells are derived [81, 82]. Myeloma stem cells are biologically distinct from their differentiated counterparts [83, 84].

The malignant stem cells are quiescent and resistant to most chemotherapy, which acts predominantly on proliferating cells. Additionally, they excrete toxic drugs and resist apoptosis [85]. Chemotherapy may destroy nearly all of a patient’s myeloma cells (achieving remission) without affecting malignant stem cells. Bortezomib and lenalidomide also inhibit differentiated malignant plasma cells but have little effect in vitro on myeloma stem cells [82, 86]. These stem cells result in recurrence, the timing of which depends largely on the biologic aggressiveness of a particular patient’s myeloma. Thus, CR may be a valid surrogate of survival in patients with biologically indolent disease, but not in those with aggressive disease.

Back to Article Outline

Current Status of Prognostic Factors 

Several laboratory parameters have prognostic value in multiple myeloma and different combinations of factors have been used to categorize patients and predict prognosis. Most poor-risk factors, including beta-2 microglobulin, reflect a high tumor burden. Genetic constitution is the primary determinant of biologic behavior and, therefore, influences prognosis by a different mechanism than do measures of disease burden. Many staging systems, including the international staging system [87], use beta-2 microglobulin, but do not incorporate genetics.

Chromosome 13 deletion [del(13)] identified patients whose disease relapsed quickly following autotransplantation, including those who achieved remission [25]. Although the limited numbers and low proliferative rates of malignant plasma cells in marrow permit identification, by banding techniques, of abnormalities in less than 1/3 of patients, flouorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) identifies genomic abnormalities in approximately 90%. In combination with low beta-2 microglobulin, FISH identifies a group of patients lacking t(4;14) and del (17p), who have prolonged survival following tandem autotransplantation [88]. In contrast, patients with either genetic abnormality and a high beta-2 microglobulin fare poorly with this approach. In the largest series of myeloma patients analyzed for genomic abnormalities, the IFM was unable to demonstrate independent prognostic power of del(13). Its prognostic significance was related to its frequent association with abnormalities such as t(4;14) and del(17p) [88]. Further, this large study did not find an influence of t(11;14) on survival, in contrast to earlier less comprehensive studies [89, 90].

Because allogeneic transplantation has been proven to be advantageous in high-risk patients with other hematologic malignancies, the IFM group prospectively compared autologous followed by dose-reduced allogeneic transplantation to tandem autologous transplantation in individuals with elevated B-2 microglobulin plus chromosome 13 abnormalities [66]. No advantage for allografting was detected. In Bruno’s comparison in which treatments were assigned only according to the presence or absence of an HLA-identical sibling donor, neither chromosome 13 abnormalities nor B2-microglobulin levels influenced outcome after allografting [65], which yielded significantly better survival than tandem autografts. The suppression of graft-versus-myeloma by antithymocyte globulin, which was included in the preparative regimen of the former study, might contribute to these different results. Response to Bortezomib does not seem to correlate with specific unfavorable genetic abnormalities [91, 92]. These data emphasize the need for further study of genetic alterations, their careful incorporation into risk assessment, and well-conceived study of their impact on specific therapeutic strategies.

Back to Article Outline

Conclusion 

Although this review summarizes available data on HSCT in multiple myeloma, it also identifies areas where critical information is unavailable. Data strongly support a benefit in PFS and TWiSTT for early autologous transplantation compared to conventional chemotherapy. Tandem transplantation appears to chiefly benefit patients with a limited response to first autotransplant. Allogeneic transplantation has become safer, and should be considered more frequently, particularly for younger patients early in the course of disease.

The influence of more effective induction regimens on the benefits of HSCT is uncertain. The question of whether patients who enter CR with modern induction therapy benefit from early autotransplantation is unanswered. Current prognostic staging systems do not adequately incorporate known genomic aberrations and the basic mechanism and clinical relevance of many genetic alterations are uncertain. It is reasonable at present to use autotransplantation in those patients lacking high-risk genetic abnormalities where survival is prolonged following autotransplantation, and to perform tandem transplants in those who fail to achieve at least a very good PR. Bortezomib-based combination regimens should be used early in patients with adverse prognostic features, including genetics. All of these issues require prospective study and emphasize the need for sound, large prospective multinstitutional trials. Substantial additional work is needed to develop better prognostic classification systems to rationally study risk-adapted therapies.

The aim of these trials is not to develop simplistic treatment algorithms. Individually tailored treatment is the goal: no single feature, its quantation, or some arithmetic sum of measured features should finalize decisions on treatment. The constellation of individual features that distinguish a patient must be considered in light of clinical experience and judgment. Basic work can and will provide information needed to make better decisions.

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. Child JA, Morgan GJ, Davies FE, et al. High-dose chemotherapy with hematopoietic stem-cell rescue for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:1875–1883
  2. Attal M, Harousseau JL, Stoppa AM, et al. A prospective, randomized trial of autologous bone marrow transplantation and chemotherapy in multiple myeloma (Intergroupe Francais du Myelome). N Engl J Med. 1996;335:91–97
  3. Barlogie B, Alexanian R. Therapy of primary resistant and relapsed multiple myeloma. Onkologie. 1986;9:210–214
  4. Barlogie B, Alexanian R, Dicke KA, et al. High-dose chemoradiotherapy and autologous bone marrow transplantation for resistant multiple myeloma. Blood. 1987;70:869–872
  5. Fermand JP, Chevret S, Ravaud P, et al. High-dose chemoradiotherapy and autologous blood stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma: results of a phase II trial involving 63 patients. Blood. 1993;82:2005–2009
  6. Gianni AM, Tarella C, Bregni M, et al. High-dose sequential chemoradiotherapy, a widely applicable regimen, confers survival benefit to patients with high-risk multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 1994;12:503–509
  7. Cunningham D, Paz-Ares L, Gore ME, et al. High-dose melphalan for multiple myeloma: long-term follow-up data. J Clin Oncol. 1994;12:764–768
  8. Bjorkstrand B, Ljungman P, Bird JM, et al. Autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma: results of the European Group for Bone Marrow Transplantation. Stem Cells. 1995;13(Suppl 2):140–146
  9. Fermand JP, Katsahian S, Divine M, et al. High-dose therapy and autologous blood stem-cell transplantation compared with conventional treatment in myeloma patients aged 55 to 65 years: long-term results of a randomized control trial from the Group Myelome-Autogreffe. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:9227–9233
  10. Moreau P, Facon T, Attal M, et al. Comparison of 200 mg/m(2) melphalan and 8 Gy total body irradiation plus 140 mg/m(2) melphalan as conditioning regimens for peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: final analysis of the Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome 9502 randomized trial. Blood. 2002;99:731–735
  11. Hahn T, Wingard JR, Anderson KC, et al. The role of cytotoxic therapy with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in the therapy of multiple myeloma: an evidence-based review. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2003;9:4–37
  12. Barlogie B, Kyle RA, Anderson KC, et al. Standard chemotherapy compared with high-dose chemoradiotherapy for multiple myeloma: final results of phase III US Intergroup Trial S9321. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:929–936
  13. Segeren CM, Sonneveld P, van der Holt B, et al. Overall and event-free survival are not improved by the use of myeloablative therapy following intensified chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma: a prospective randomized phase 3 study. Blood. 2003;101:2144–2151
  14. Blade J, Rosinol L, Sureda A, et al. High-dose therapy intensification compared with continued standard chemotherapy in multiple myeloma patients responding to the initial chemotherapy: long-term results from a prospective randomized trial from the Spanish cooperative group PETHEMA. Blood. 2005;106:3755–3759
  15. Kumar S, Lacy MQ, Dispenzieri A, et al. High-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma poorly responsive to initial therapy. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2004;34:161–167
  16. Koreth J, Cutler CS, Djulbegovic B, et al. High-dose therapy with single autologous transplantation versus chemotherapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2007;13:183–196
  17. Barlogie B, Jagannath S, Desikan KR, et al. Total therapy with tandem transplants for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood. 1999;93:55–65
  18. Barlogie B, Jagannath S, Vesole DH, et al. Superiority of tandem autologous transplantation over standard therapy for previously untreated multiple myeloma. Blood. 1997;89:789–793
  19. Fermand J. High dose therapy supported with autologous blood stem cell transplantation multiple myeloma: long term follow up of the prospective studies of the MAG group. Haematologica. 2005;90:PL8.05
  20. Goldschmidt H. Single vs double high-dose therapy in multiple myeloma: second analysis of the GMMG-HD2 Trial. Haematologica. 2005;90:PL8.02
  21. Attal M, Harousseau JL, Facon T, et al. Single versus double autologous stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:2495–2502
  22. Cavo MCC, Zamagni E, Tosi P, et al. Superiority of double over single autologous stem cell transplantation as first-line therapy for multiple myeloma. Blood. 2004;104:536
  23. Sonneveld , Segeren CM, Vellenga E, et al. Intensive versus double intensive therapy in untreated multiple myeloma: update analysis of the randomized phase III HOVON 24 study. PHvdB Haematologica. 2005;90:PL 8.01
  24. Barlogie B, Tricot GJ, van Rhee F, et al. Long-term outcome results of the first tandem autotransplant trial for multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol. 2006;135:158–164
  25. Desikan R, Barlogie B, Sawyer J, et al. Results of high-dose therapy for 1000 patients with multiple myeloma: durable complete remissions and superior survival in the absence of chromosome 13 abnormalities. Blood. 2000;95:4008–4010
  26. Tricot G, Sawyer JR, Jagannath S, et al. Unique role of cytogenetics in the prognosis of patients with myeloma receiving high-dose therapy and autotransplants. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:2659–2666
  27. Group MTC. Interferon as therapy for multiple myeloma: an individual patient data overview of 24 randomized trials and 4012 patients. Br J Haematol. 2001;113:1020–1034
  28. Bjorkstrand B, Svensson H, Goldschmidt H, et al. Alpha-interferon maintenance treatment is associated with improved survival after high-dose treatment and autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma: a retrospective registry study from the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT). Bone Marrow Transplant. 2001;27:511–515
  29. Cunningham D, Powles R, Malpas J, et al. A randomized trial of maintenance interferon following high-dose chemotherapy in multiple myeloma: long-term follow-up results. Br J Haematol. 1998;102:495–502
  30. Barlogie B, Tricot G, Anaissie E, et al. Thalidomide and hematopoietic-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:1021–1030
  31. Attal M, Harousseau JL, Leyvraz S, et al. Maintenance therapy with thalidomide improves survival in patients with multiple myeloma. Blood. 2006;108:3289–3294
  32. Goldschmidt H, Sonneveld P, Cremer FW, et al. Joint HOVON-50/GMMG-HD3 randomized trial on the effect of thalidomide as part of a high-dose therapy regimen and as maintenance treatment for newly diagnosed myeloma patients. Ann Hematol. 2003;82:654–659
  33. Barlogie BTG, Rasmussen E, Anaissie E, et al. Total therapy 3 (TT3) incorporating velcade (V) intro upfront management of multiple myeloma (MM): comparison with TT2 + thalidomide (T). Blood. 2005;106:1154
  34. Ries LAG EM, Kosary CL. SEER Cancer Statistics Review 1975-2000. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Instuitute.
  35. Badros A, Barlogie B, Siegel E, et al. Autologous stem cell transplantation in elderly multiple myeloma patients over the age of 70 years. Br J Haematol. 2001;114:600–607
  36. Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Petrucci MT, et al. Intermediate-dose melphalan improves survival of myeloma patients aged 50 to 70: results of a randomized controlled trial. Blood. 2004;104:3052–3057
  37. Facon TMJ, Hulin C, Benboubker L, et al. Major superiority of melphalan-prednisone (MP) + thalidomide (THAL) over MP and autologous stem cell transplantation in the treatment of newly diagnosed elderly patients with multiple myeloma. Blood. 2005;106:780
  38. Fermand JP, Ravaud P, Chevret S, et al. High-dose therapy and autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma: up-front or rescue treatment? (Results of a multicenter sequential randomized clinical trial). Blood. 1998;92:3131–3136
  39. Alexanian R, Weber D, Delasalle K, et al. Clinical outcomes with intensive therapy for patients with primary resistant multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2004;34(3):229–234
  40. Vescio R, Schiller G, Stewart AK, et al. Multicenter phase III trial to evaluate CD34(+) selected versus unselected autologous peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation in multiple myeloma. Blood. 1999;93:1858–1868
  41. Alici E, Bjorkstrand B, Treschow A, et al. Long-term follow-up of gene-marked CD34(+) cells after autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. Cancer Gene Ther. 2007;14:227–232
  42. Gulbrandsen N, Wisloff F, Brinch L, et al. Health-related quality of life in multiple myeloma patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy with autologous blood stem-cell support. Med Oncol. 2001;18:65–77
  43. Henon P, Donatini B, Eisenmann JC, et al. Comparative survival, quality of life and cost-effectiveness of intensive therapy with autologous blood cell transplantation or conventional chemotherapy in multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1995;16:19–25
  44. Uyl-de Groot CA, Ossenkoppele GJ, van Riet AA, Rutten FF. The costs of peripheral blood progenitor cell reinfusion mobilised by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor following high dose melphalan as compared with conventional therapy in multiple myeloma. Eur J Cancer. 1994;30A:457–459
  45. Gulbrandsen N, Wisloff F, Nord E, et al. Cost-utility analysis of high-dose melphalan with autologous blood stem cell support vs. melphalan plus prednisone in patients younger than 60 years with multiple myeloma. Eur J Haematol. 2001;66:328–336
  46. Gahrton G, Tura S, Ljungman P, et al. Allogeneic bone marrow transplantation in multiple myeloma (European Group for Bone Marrow Transplantation). N Engl J Med. 1991;325:1267–1273
  47. Alyea E, Weller E, Schlossman R, et al. T-cell-depleted allogeneic bone marrow transplantation followed by donor lymphocyte infusion in patients with multiple myeloma: induction of graft-versus-myeloma effect. Blood. 2001;98:934–939
  48. van Bergen C, Kester M, Jedema I, et al. Multiple myeloma reactive T cells recognize an activation induced minor histocompatibility antigen encoded by the ATP dependent interferon responsive (ADIR) gene. Blood. 2007;(Jan 18, Published ahead of print)
  49. Copelan EA. Hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:1813–1826
  50. Bensinger WI, Buckner CD, Anasetti C, et al. Allogeneic marrow transplantation for multiple myeloma: an analysis of risk factors on outcome. Blood. 1996;88:2787–2793
  51. Hunter HM, Peggs K, Powles R, et al. Analysis of outcome following allogeneic haemopoietic stem cell transplantation for myeloma using myeloablative conditioning—evidence for a superior outcome using melphalan combined with total body irradiation. Br J Haematol. 2005;128:496–502
  52. Arora M, McGlave PB, Burns LJ, et al. Results of autologous and allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant therapy for multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2005;35:1133–1140
  53. Ballen KK, King R, Carston M, et al. Outcome of unrelated transplants in patients with multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2005;35:675–681
  54. Gahrton G, Svensson H, Cavo M, et al. Progress in allogenic bone marrow and peripheral blood stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: a comparison between transplants performed 1983-93 and 1994-8 at European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation centres. Br J Haematol. 2001;113:209–216
  55. Majolino I, Corradini P, Scime R, et al. Allogeneic transplantation of unmanipulated peripheral blood stem cells in patients with multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1998;22:449–455
  56. Radich JP, Gooley T, Bensinger W, et al. HLA-matched related hematopoietic cell transplantation for chronic-phase CML using a targeted busulfan and cyclophosphamide preparative regimen. Blood. 2003;102:31–35
  57. Kashyap A, Wingard J, Cagnoni P, et al. Intravenous versus oral busulfan as part of a busulfan/cyclophosphamide preparative regimen for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: decreased incidence of hepatic venoocclusive disease (HVOD), HVOD-related mortality, and overall 100-day mortality. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2002;8:493–500
  58. Clopes A, Sureda A, Sierra J, et al. Absence of veno-occlussive disease in a cohort of multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation with targeted busulfan dosage. Eur J Haematol. 2006;77:1–6
  59. McSweeney PA, Niederwieser D, Shizuru JA, et al. Hematopoietic cell transplantation in older patients with hematologic malignancies: replacing high-dose cytotoxic therapy with graft-versus-tumor effects. Blood. 2001;97:3390–3400
  60. Bensinger WI. The current status of reduced-intensity allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2006;20:1683–1689
  61. Crawley C, Iacobelli S, Bjorkstrand B, et al. Reduced-intensity conditioning for myeloma: lower nonrelapse mortality but higher relapse rates compared with myeloablative conditioning. Blood. 2007;109:3588–3594
  62. Lee CK, Badros A, Barlogie B, et al. Prognostic factors in allogeneic transplantation for patients with high-risk multiple myeloma after reduced intensity conditioning. Exp Hematol. 2003;31:73–80
  63. Kroger N, Schwerdtfeger R, Kiehl M, et al. Autologous stem cell transplantation followed by a dose-reduced allograft induces high complete remission rate in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2002;100:755–760
  64. Maloney DG, Molina AJ, Sahebi F, et al. Allografting with nonmyeloablative conditioning following cytoreductive autografts for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma. Blood. 2003;102:3447–3454
  65. Bruno B, Rotta M, Patriarca F, et al. A comparison of allografting with autografting for newly diagnosed myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1110–1120
  66. Garban F, Attal M, Michallet M, et al. Prospective comparison of autologous stem cell transplantation followed by dose-reduced allograft (IFM99-03 trial) with tandem autologous stem cell transplantation (IFM99-04 trial) in high-risk de novo multiple myeloma. Blood. 2006;107:3474–3480
  67. Kyle RA. Five decades of therapy for multiple myeloma: a paradigm for therapeutic models. Leukemia. 2005;19:910–912
  68. Myeloma Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Combination chemotherapy versus melphalan plus prednisone as treatment for multiple myeloma: an overview of 6,633 patients from 27 randomized trials. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:3832–3842
  69. Cavo M, Galieni P, Tassi C, et al. M-2 protocol for melphalan-resistant and relapsing multiple myeloma. Eur J Haematol. 1988;40:168–173
  70. Alexanian R, Barlogie B, Dixon D. High-dose glucocorticoid treatment of resistant myeloma. Ann Intern Med. 1986;105:8–11
  71. Alexanian R, Barlogie B, Ventura G. Chemotherapy for resistant and relapsing multiple myeloma. Eur J Haematol. 1989;51(Suppl):140–144
  72. Alexanian R, Dimopoulos MA, Delasalle K, Barlogie B. Primary dexamethasone treatment of multiple myeloma. Blood. 1992;80:887–890
  73. Rajkumar SV, Blood E, Vesole D, et al. Phase III clinical trial of thalidomide plus dexamethasone compared with dexamethasone alone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a clinical trial coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:431–436
  74. Cavo M, Zamagni E, Tosi P, et al. Superiority of thalidomide and dexamethasone over vincristine-doxorubicindexamethasone (VAD) as primary therapy in preparation for autologous transplantation for multiple myeloma. Blood. 2005;106:35–39
  75. Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Caravita T, et al. Oral melphalan and prednisone chemotherapy plus thalidomide compared with melphalan and prednisone alone in elderly patients with multiple myeloma: randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2006;367:825–831
  76. Richardson PG, Sonneveld P, Schuster MW, et al. Bortezomib or high-dose dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:2487–2498
  77. Palumbo A, Ambrosini MT, Benevolo G, et al. Bortezomib, melphalan, prednisone and thalidomide for relapsed multiple myeloma. Blood. 2007;109:2767–2772
  78. Blade J, Lopez-Guillermo A, Bosch F, et al. Impact of response to treatment on survival in multiple myeloma: results in a series of 243 patients. Br J Haematol. 1994;88:117–121
  79. Durie BG, Jacobson J, Barlogie B, Crowley J. Magnitude of response with myeloma frontline therapy does not predict outcome: importance of time to progression in southwest oncology group chemotherapy trials. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:1857–1863
  80. Wang MDK, Thomas S, Giralt S, et al. Complete remission represents the major surrogate marker of long survival in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2006;108:
  81. Huff CA, Matsui W, Smith BD, Jones RJ. The paradox of response and survival in cancer therapeutics. Blood. 2006;107:431–434
  82. Jones RJ, Matsui W. Cancer stem cells: from bench to bedside. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2007;13(Suppl 1):47–52
  83. Matsui W, Huff CA, Wang Q, et al. Characterization of clonogenic multiple myeloma cells. Blood. 2004;103:2332–2336
  84. Peacock CD, Wang Q, Gesell GS, et al. Hedgehog signaling maintains a tumor stem cell compartment in multiple myeloma. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2007;104:4048–4053
  85. Dean M, Fojo T, Bates S. Tumour stem cells and drug resistance. Nat Rev Cancer. 2005;5:275–284
  86. Matsui W, Huff CA, Wang Q, Barber JP, Smith BD, Jones RJ. Multiple myeloma stem cells and plasma cells display distinct drug sensitivities. Blood. 2004;204:679a
  87. Greipp PR, San Miguel J, Durie BG, et al. International staging system for multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:3412–3420
  88. Avet-Loiseau H, Attal M, Moreau P, et al. Genetic abnormalities and survival in multiple myeloma: the experience of the Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome. Blood. 2007;109:3489–3495
  89. Fonseca R, Blood EA, Oken MM, et al. Myeloma and the t(11;14)(q13;q32); evidence for a biologically defined unique subset of patients. Blood. 2002;99:3735–3741
  90. Stewart AK, Fonseca R. Prognostic and therapeutic significance of myeloma genetics and gene expression profiling. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:6339–6344
  91. Chang H, Trieu Y, Qi X, et al. Bortezomib therapy response is independent of cytogenetic abnormalities in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Leuk Res. 2006;
  92. Jagannath S, Richardson PG, Sonneveld P, et al. Bortezomib appears to overcome the poor prognosis conferred by chromosome 13 deletion in phase 2 and 3 trials. Leukemia. 2007;21:151–157

PII: S1083-8791(07)00273-X

doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2007.05.002

Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation
Volume 13, Issue 8 , Pages 877-885, August 2007

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution