autologous and allogeneic transplantation in multiple myeloma
DESCRIPTION
Vienna, May, 2014 Montserrat Rovira, Laura Rosiñol, Enric Carreras. AUTOLOGOUS AND ALLOGENEIC TRANSPLANTATION IN MULTIPLE MYELOMA. Hospital Clinic, Barcelona. Chemotherapy in Multiple Myeloma. SCT in Multiple Myeloma. HDT/SCT in Primary Refractory Myeloma. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
AUTOLOGOUS AND ALLOGENEIC TRANSPLANTATION IN MULTIPLE
MYELOMA
Vienna, May, 2014
Montserrat Rovira,
Laura Rosiñol, Enric Carreras
Hospital Clinic, Barcelona
Chemotherapy in Multiple Myeloma
Clinical Settings HDT Approaches
- Primary resistance
- Responders
Single- Auto-SCT
- Allo-SCT Tandem - Double auto - Auto plus allo-RIC
SCT in Multiple Myeloma
HDT/SCT in Primary Refractory Myeloma
Author, yrNo. Pts
Age(yrs.)
B2M(mg/L)
CR(%)
EFS(yrs)
OS(yrs)
Alexanian et al,Blood, 1994
27 45 2.8 8 3.5 6
Vesole et al, Blood 1994 72 50 - 15 1.7 4
Singhal et al, BMT, 2002 43 54 3.3 40 2 -
Kumar et al, BMT, 2004 50 56 2.7 20 2.5 5
Alexanian et al,BMT 2004
89 52 3.7 16 7* 7*
* In patients achiving CR after HDT/SCT
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Years
0,0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1,0
Cum
ulative P
roportion S
urvivin
g
Overall Survival: Progressive vs Chemosensitive Disease vs No-change
Non-responsive, non-progressive
Chemosensitive
Progressive disease
Clinical Settings HDT Approaches
- Primary resistance
- Responders
Single- Auto-SCT
- Allo-SCT Tandem - Double auto - Auto plus allo-RIC
SCT in Multiple Myeloma
Randomized trials: Single auto-SCT vs. conventional chemotherapy
AuthorCR (%)
PFS (meses)
OS (meses)
Attal et al (IFM), 1996 22 vs 5 28 vs 18 57 vs 42
Morgan et al (MRC), 2003 44 vs 9 32 vs 20 55 vs 42
Bladé et al, (PETHEMA), 2005 30 vs 11 42 vs 34 67 vs 65
Fermand et al (GMA), 2005 8 vs 6 25 vs 19 48 vs 48
Barlogie et al, (US Intergroup), 2006 17 vs 15 25 vs 21 58 vs 53
Only chemosensitive patients
Higher intensity prior SCT
Auto-SCT“Gold-standard” for initial
treatment in patients younger than 65 y.
Nadal et al. BMT 2004
Probability of SRV according remission after HDT
OS
CRMedian not reached
Non-CRMedian: 60 months
CR after HDT According to Tumor Burden Pretransplant
M-protein size CR (%) P-value
Serum*
- < 10g/L 52 0.01
- 10 g/L 15
Serum and urine**
- < 10 g/L and < 0.5 g/24h 67
- 10 – 20 g/L and / or 0.5 to 1 g/24h 21 0.03
- > 20 g/L and / or > 1 g/24h 7
*Alexanian et al, BMT 2001; 27: 1037-1043** Nadal et al, BMT 2004; 33: 61-64
• Which is the best treatment before HSCT?
Treatment options for patients eligible for transplantation
Induction
‘Traditional’VAD
CyDex
Bortezomib-based:VelDex
VTDPAD
IMiD-based:Thal/Dex
TADCTDRd
VRD
Stem cell harvestHigh-dose melphalan
Stem cell infusion
Pre and Post-ASCT CR Rate with “Novel” Induction Regimens*
Regimen Pre-ASCT Post-ASCT
Thal/Dex 6% 23-34%
Vel/Dex 12% 33%
PAD-1 24% 43%
VRD 23% 42%
VTD 21-30% 43-52%
Total Therapy III** - 56% at 2 yrs
*Cavo et al, ASH 2009 (abstract 351); Rosiñol et al, ASH 2009 (abstract 130);Harousseau et al, Haematologica 2006; 91: 1498-05; Rosiñol et al, JCO 2007; 25:1498-05; Popat et al, BJH 2008; 141: 512-6; Barlogie et al, BJH 2007; 138:176-85, Roussel et al;Blood 2011; 118(abstract 1872).
**VTD-PACE + Tandem ASCT + VTD/TD
Clinical Settings HDT Approaches
- Primary resistance
- Responders
Single- Auto-SCT
- Allo-SCT Tandem - Double auto - Auto plus allo-RIC
SCT in Multiple Myeloma
Single versus Tandem Auto-SCT
Author No. Pts RR (%) EFS mos. OS mos.
Attal et al, NEJM 2003 399 42 vs 50*
(p=NS) 25 vs 30 (p=0.03)48 vs 58(p=0.01)
Cavo et al, JCO 2007 321 33 vs 47**
(p=0.008)23 vs 35 (p=0.001)
65 vs 71 (p=NS)
Sonneveld et al, Haematol 2007 303 13 vs 32***
(p<0.001)24 vs 27 (p=0.006)
50 vs 55 (p=NS)
Fermand et al,IMW 2005
22737 vs 39***
(p=NS)31 vs 34(p=0.75)
57 vs 73(p=0.09)
Abdelkefi et al,Blood 2007
20267 vs 51*
(p=0.024)#85% vs 57%†
(p=0.038)#88% vs 63%†
(p=0.052)#
* CR/VGPR, ** CR/nCR, *** CR, †at 3 years, #In favour of single transplant
IFM 94 : Overall survival
P < 0.01
Tandem
Single
IFM 94 : OS if response to 1stgraft < 90%
P < 0.001
Tandem
Single
IFM 94 : OS if response to 1st graft > 90 %
P = 0.7
Tandem
Single
Single versus Tandem Auto-SCT
Author No. Pts RR (%) EFS mos. OS mos.
Attal et al, NEJM 2003 399 42 vs 50*
(p=NS) 25 vs 30 (p=0.03)48 vs 58(p=0.01)
Cavo et al, JCO 2007 321 33 vs 47**
(p=0.008)23 vs 35 (p=0.001)
65 vs 71 (p=NS)
Sonneveld et al, Haematol 2007 303 13 vs 32***
(p<0.001)24 vs 27 (p=0.006)
50 vs 55 (p=NS)
Fermand et al,IMW 2005
22737 vs 39***
(p=NS)31 vs 34(p=0.75)
57 vs 73(p=0.09)
Abdelkefi et al,Blood 2007
20267 vs 51*
(p=0.024)#85% vs 57%†
(p=0.038)#88% vs 63%†
(p=0.052)#
* CR/VGPR, ** CR/nCR, *** CR, †at 3 years, #In favour of single transplant
ProblemMany of patient
relapsing after single SCT recived a
second auto-SCT
Clinical Settings HDT Approaches
- Primary resistance
- Responders
Single- Auto-SCT
- Allo-SCT Tandem - Double auto - Auto plus allo-RIC
SCT in Multiple Myeloma
MM. SYNGENEIC TRANSPLANT“Treatment of Choice”
Bensinger et al, BMT 1996
Gahrton et al, BMT 1999
Allogeneic Transplant in MM
Period Nº. ofpatients TRM CR
rate4-yearssurvival
1983-93 334 46% 53% 32%
1994-98 356 30% 54% 50%
1998-02 196 37% 53% 51%
Gahrton G et al. Br J Haematol 2001; 113:209-216.Crawly et al, Blood 2007; 109: 3588-3594
EBMT 1983 2002
Cy-TBIMel-TBIBu-Mel
Myeloablative versus Allo-RIC transplantation
High TRM: 30-50%
High relapse rate: 45% at 3 yrs
Cure rate: 10-20%
Allo-RIC
Allo-RIC
Conditioning:
-- MEL/FLUDA ± ATG or Campath-1H (RIC)
-- FLUDA/low dose TBI (non-MAC)
TRM: ≈ 20% (11- 40%)
CR rate: 22-73%
aGVHD: ≈ 40%
cGVHD: 20-45%
UsuallyDLI
Included in protocols
UsuallyDLI
Included in protocols
Myeloablative versus Allo-RIC transplantation
Crawley et al, Blood 2007; 109:3588-3594.
EBMT Experience (1998-2002)
Allogeneic Transplant with Dose-Reduced Intensity Conditioning (RIC)
Better results
Chemosensitive disease
Development of GVHD
No ATG or Campath-1H
Previous auto-transplantation
Clinical Settings HDT Approaches
- Primary resistance
- Responders
Single- Auto-SCT
- Allo-SCT Tandem - Double auto - Auto plus allo-RIC
SCT in Multiple Myeloma
Nº pts
Median follow-up (yrs)
aGVHD (II-IV)/cGVHD (%)
CR (%)
EFS (mos)
OS at 5 yrs
Rotta et al*,Blood 2009
102 6.6 42/74 57 36 64%
Bruno et al&,Blood 2009
100 5 38/50 53 37 NR
Tandem HSCT: ASCT followed by Allo-RIC
*TBI 2 Gy +/- Fluda&TBI 2 Gy
Double ASCT versus tandem ASCT/Allo-RIC
Author No. PtsCR rate
(%)EFS mos.
OS mos.
Garban et al, Blood 2006 166 vs 46 51 vs 62
(p=NS)35 vs 32 (p=NS)
47 vs 35(p=0.07)
Bruno et al, NEJM 2007&2009 82 vs 80 26 vs 55
(p=0.004) 29 vs 35 (p=0.02)54 vs 80 (p=0.01)
Rosiñol et al,Blood 2008
85 vs 2611 vs 40(p=0.01)
26 vs 19.6(p=NS)
58 vs NR(p=NS)
Knop et al,Blood 2009
73 vs 12632 vs 59(p=0.003)
-72% vs 60%
(at 36 mos, p=NS)
Bjorkstrand et al, JCO 2011 249 vs 108
41 vs 51(p=0.02)
18% vs 35% (at 60 mos, p=0.001)
58% vs 65% (at 60 mos, p=0.006)
Krishnan et alLancet Onc 2011
185 vs 39735 vs 48(p=0.009)
46% vs 43%( at 3 yrs p=NS)
80% vs 77%(at 3 yrs, p=NS)
High RiskUse ATG
Allo onlyif no CR/nCR w
auto13qATG in UNR
ShortFollow-up
Patients who completed protocols (58 vs 46 pts) Median follow up: 6 yearsAuto-Allo Vs Auto-Auto
64 mo.33 mo.
37 mo.
Bruno B et al. EBMT Goteborg 2009
Median Overall Survival Median Event Free Survival
Auto/RIC-allo versus Auto in MyelomaProgression Free Survival since 1st transplant
Auto+Allo
Auto only
Reduction of risk in time: p=0.0012 (Cox)
Auto (N=249) 194 123 96 58 27 8 2
Auto+allo (N=109) 80 57 46 34 19 11 3
At 60 mns: 35% (CI: 27% - 45%)
At 60 mns: 18% (CI: 13% - 24%)
Bjorkstrand et al, JCO 2011
Progression-free Survival Overall Survival
Prob
abilit
y, %
100
0
20
40
60
80
90
10
30
50
70
Mp10_5.ppt
Auto/Allo, 43% @ 3yr
Auto/Auto, 46% @ 3yr
p-value = 0.67 p-value = 0.19
Auto/Allo, 77% @ 3yr
Auto/Auto, 80% @ 3yr 100
0
20
40
60
80
90
10
30
50
70
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
436 424 406 395 370 348 305 107 79189 183 167 160 156 143 124 43 27
Survival Outcomes after the First Transplant: Auto-Auto vs. Auto-Allo: Intent-to-treat analysis
Months 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 4248# at risk:Auto/Auto 436 395 348 292 242 213 178 5442Auto/Allo 189 165 138 117 105 89 71 23
16
Krishnan et al Lancet Onc 2011
• Allo-RIC limitation as first line approach: high TRM
• Indications:
• High risk patients (cytogenetics, < VGPR?)
• First sensible relapse
HSCT in MM: Take-home messages
CytogeneticsCR
Post-ASCTAllo-RIC
*Age, ISS 3 stage, extramedular afectation, IgD, PCL, MRD (+)
High risk NO YES
High risk YES?
To individualize (+)*
Standard risk NO?
To individualize (-)*
Standard risk YES NO
- Allo-RIC after auto: individualize
- Auto-HSCT: Standard of care
Thanks for your attentionThanks for your attention