Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma Treatment with and without the Use of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor in Post-Transplantation Period

SV Gritsaev, II Kostroma, AA Zhernyakova, IM Zapreeva, VN Chebotkevich, SS Bessmeltsev, AV Chechetkin

Russian Research Institute of Hematology and Transfusiology, 16 2-ya Sovetskaya str., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 191024

For correspondence: Ivan Ivanovich Kostroma, MD, PhD, 16 2-ya Sovetskaya str., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 191024; Tel.: 8(812)717-54-68; e-mail: obex@rambler.ru

For citation: Gritsaev SV, Kostroma II, Zhernyakova AA, et al. Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma Treatment with and without the Use of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor in Post-Transplantation Period. Clinical oncohematology. 2020;13(3):289–94 (In Russ).

DOI: 10.21320/2500-2139-2020-13-3-289-294


ABSTRACT

Background. There exist different data on how the administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) affects the duration of post-transplantation agranulocytosis in multiple myeloma (MM) patients.

Aim. To study the effect of G-CSF, administered after auto-HSCT to MM patients, on the duration of neutrophil engraftment, febrile neutropenia rate, and hospitalization duration.

Materials & Methods. The trial included 36 MM patients aged 42–69 years (median 59 years), 16 of which were not treated with G-CSF (1st group), and 20 patients received a single injection of 6 mg pegylated G-CSF on Day +4 or Day +5 (2nd group).

Results. Patients of the 1st group were significantly younger than patients of the 2nd group: median 55.5 and 61 years, respectively (= 0.006). There were no differences with respect to the number of patients who previously received lenalidomide, the overall and very good partial response rate, the number of the first and repeated auto-HSCTs, and the number of melphalan conditioning regimens. The patients who received G-CSF engrafted neutrophils on day 11 (median) after auto-HSCT, i.e. earlier than patients without G-CSF administration who engrafted neutrophils on day 13 (= 0.006). In the 1st group intravenous antibiotics were administered for a longer time than in the group with G-CSF: median 13 and 11 days, respectively (= 0.04). In 2 patients from the group without G-CSF sepsis was diagnosed. G-CSF administration led to a shorter hospital stay: median 16 and 18 days in the 1st and 2nd groups, respectively (= 0.08). There were no differences in the number of patients with febrile neutropenia.

Conclusion. G-CSF administration improves the course of the post-transplantation period in MM patients. The final decision on the feasibility of G-CSF administration after auto-HSCT can be made after more clinical observations are available.

Keywords: multiple myeloma, autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor.

Received: January 14, 2020

Accepted: April 30, 2020

Read in PDF


REFERENCES

  1. Бессмельцев С.С., Абдулкадыров К.М. Множественная миелома: руководство для врачей. М.: СИМК, 2016. 512 с.[Bessmeltsev SS, Abdulkadyrov KM. Mnozhestvennaya mieloma: rukovodstvo dlya vrachei. (Multiple myeloma: manual for physicians.) Moscow: SIMK Publ.; 2016. 512 p. (In Russ)]

  2. Менделеева Л.П., Вотякова О.М., Покровская О.С. и др. Национальные клинические рекомендации по диагностике и лечению множественной миеломы. Гематология и трансфузиология. 2016;61(1, прил. 2):1–24. doi: 10.18821/0234-5730-2016-61-1-S2-1-24.[Mendeleeva LP, Votyakova OM, Pokrovskaya OS, et al. National clinical guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of multiple myeloma. Gematologiya i transfuziologiya. 2016;61(1, Suppl 2):1–24. doi: 10.18821/0234-5730-2016-61-1-S2-1-24. (In Russ)]

  3. Attal M, Lauwers-Cances V, Hulin C, et al. Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone with transplantation for myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(14):1311–20. doi: 1056/NEJMoa1611750.

  4. Грицаев С.В., Кузяева А.А., Бессмельцев С.С. Отдельные аспекты аутологичной трансплантации гемопоэтических стволовых клеток при множественной миеломе. Клиническая онкогематология. 2017;10(1):7–12. doi: 10.21320/2500-2139-2017-10-1-7-12.[Gritsaev SV, Kuzyaeva AA, Bessmel’tsev SS. Certain Aspects of Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Patients with Multiple Myeloma. Clinical oncohematology. 2017;10(1):7–12. doi: 10.21320/2500-2139-2017-10-1-7-12. (In Russ)]

  5. Trivedi M, Martinez S, Corringham S, et al. Optimal use of G-CSF administration after hematopoietic SCT. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2009;43(12):895–908. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2009.75.

  6. Cox JE, Campos S, Wu J, et al. Efficacy of deferred dosing of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in autologous hematopoietic transplantation for multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2014;49(2):219–22. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2013.149.

  7. Sborov DW, Cho YK, Cottini F, et al. G-CSF improves safety when you start the day after autologous transplant in multiple myeloma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2017;58(12):2947–51. doi: 10.1080/10428194.2017.1318436.

  8. Samaras P, Blickenstorfer M, Siciliano RD, et al. Pegfilgrastim reduces the length of hospitalization and the time to engraftment in multiple myeloma patients treated with melphalan 200 and auto-SCT compared with filgrastim. Ann Hematol. 2011;90(1):89– doi: 10.1007/s00277-010-1036-8.

  9. Gertz MA, Gastineau DA, Lacy MQ, et al. SCT without growth factor in multiple myeloma: engraftment kinetics, bacteremia and hospitalization. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2011;46(7):956–61. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2010.233.

  10. Martinez-Cibrian N, Magnano L, Gutierrez-Garcia G, et al. At-home autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma with and without G-CSF administration: a comparative study. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2016;51(4):593–5. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2015.287.

  11. Spitzer TR. Engraftment syndrome following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2001;27(9):893–8. doi: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1703015.

  12. Usmani SZ, Hoering A, Cavo M, et al. Clinical predictors of long-term survival in newly diagnosed transplant eligible multiple myeloma – an IMWG Research Project. Blood Cancer J. 2018;8(12):123. doi: 10.1038/s41408-018-0155-7.

  13. Hari P, Reece DE, Randhawa J, et al. Final outcomes of escalated melphalan 280 mg/m2 with amifostine cytoprotection followed autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: high CR and VGPR rates do not translate into improved survival. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2019;54(2):293–9. doi: 10.1038/s41409-018-0261-y.

  14. Грицаев С.В., Кострома И.И., Жернякова А.А. и др. Опыт применения режима кондиционирования Thio/Mel перед трансплантацией аутологичных гемопоэтических стволовых клеток при множественной миеломе. Клиническая онкогематология. 2019;12(3):282–8. doi: 10.21320/2500-2139-2019-12-3-282-288.[Gritsaev SV, Kostroma II, Zhernyakova AA, et al. Experience with the Use of Thio/Mel Conditioning Regimen Prior to Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma. Clinical oncohematology. 2019;12(3):282–8. doi: 10.21320/2500-2139-2019-12-3-282-288. (In Russ)]

  15. Sato S, Tamai Y, Okada S, et al. Atraumatic splenic rupture due to ectopic extramedullary hematopoiesis after autologous stem cell transplantation in a patient with AL amyloidosis. Intern Med. 2018;57(3):399–402. doi: 10.2169/internalmedicine.9018-17.

  16. Chen J, Pan J, Zhan T, et al. Autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: growth factor matters. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019;25(9):e293–e297. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2019.05.035.

  17. Gutierrez-Garcia G, Rovira M, Magnano L, et al. Innovative strategies minimize engraftment syndrome in multiple myeloma patients with novel induction therapy following autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2018;53(12):1541–7. doi: 10.1038/s41409-018-0189-2.

  18. Cho YK, Irby DJ, Li J, et al. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model of neutropenia in patients with myeloma receiving high-dose melphalan for autologous stem cell transplant. CPT: Pharmacometr Syst Pharmacol. 2018;7(11):748–58. doi: 10.1002/psp4.12345.

  19. Кострома И.И., Жернякова А.А., Чубукина Ж.В. и др. Заготовка гемопоэтических стволовых клеток у больных множественной миеломой: влияние предшествующей аутоТГСК терапии леналидомидом и режима мобилизации. Клиническая онкогематология. 2018;11(2):192–7. doi: 10.21320/2500-2139-2018-11-2-192-197.[Kostroma II, Zhernyakova AA, Chubukina ZhV, et al. Hematopoietic Stem Cell Collection in Multiple Myeloma Patients: Influence of the Lenalidomide-Based Therapy and Mobilization Regimen Prior to Auto-HSCT. Clinical oncohematology. 2018;11(2):192–7. doi: 10.21320/2500-2139-2018-11-2-192-197. (In Russ)]

  20. Кострома И.И., Жернякова А.А., Грицаев С.В. Отдельные аспекты заготовки аутотрансплантата у больных множественной миеломой. Вопросы онкологии. 2019;65(4):504–9.[Kostroma II, Zhernyakova AA, Gritsaev SV. Some aspects of autotransplant collection in patients with multiple myeloma. Voprosy onkologii. 2019;65(4):504–9. (In Russ)]

  21. Рыбакова Л.П., Алексанян Л.Р., Грицаев С.В. и др. Состояние окислительно-антиокислительной системы у больных множественной миеломой при аутологичной трансплантации гемопоэтических стволовых клеток. Сибирский медицинский журнал. 2017;32(2):41–4.[Rybakova LP, Aleksanyan LR, Gritsaev SV, et al. The state of oxidant-antioxidant system in patients with multiple myeloma during autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Sibirskii meditsinskii zhurnal. 2017;32(2):41–4. (In Russ)]

Safety and Efficacy of BeEAC as a Conditioning Regimen Prior to Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Relapsed/Refractory Lymphomas

VO Sarzhevskii, AA Samoilova, VYa Melnichenko, YuN Dubinina, NE Mochkin, DS Kolesnikova, DA Fedorenko, EG Smirnova, AE Bannikova, VS Bogatyrev

NI Pirogov Russian National Medical Center of Surgery, 70 Nizhnyaya Pervomaiskaya str., Moscow, Russian Federation, 105203

For correspondence: Anastasiya Aleksandrovna Samoilova, 70 Nizhnyaya Pervomaiskaya str., Moscow, Russian Federation, 105203; Tel.: +7(495)603-72-17; e-mail: samoylove03@gmail.com

For citation: Sarzhevskii VO, Samoilova AA, Melnichenko VYa, et al. Safety and Efficacy of BeEAC as a Conditioning Regimen Prior to Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Relapsed/Refractory Lymphomas. Clinical oncohematology. 2020;13(2):185–92 (In Russ).

DOI: 10.21320/2500-2139-2020-13-2-185-192


ABSTRACT

Aim. To assess the safety and efficacy of BeEAC as a conditioning regimen prior to autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) in relapsed and primary resistant lymphomas (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03315520).

Materials & Methods. The trial included 113 patients with Hodgkin’s (HL) and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas (NHL). The patients were included into the protocol during the period from February 2016 to June 2018. Median follow-up was 26 months. Among the patients there were 58 men and 55 women. Median age was 33 years (range 18–65 years). In 72 patients HL and in 41 patients NHL (in 15 diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, in 8 primary mediastinal (thymic) large B-cell lymphoma, in 10 mantle cell lymphoma, in 4 peripheral T-cell lymphoma unspecified, and in 4 patients follicular lymphoma) were diagnosed. BeEAC conditioning regimen consisted of administering 160–200 mg/m2 bendamustine in increasing doses on Day –6 and Day –5 combined with fixed doses of 200 mg/m2 cytarabine every 12 hours, 200 mg/m2 etoposide, and 140 mg/kg cyclophosphamide from Day –4 to Day –1.

Results. In phase 1, when bendamustine dose was increased from 160 mg/m2 to 200 mg/m2, no dose-limiting toxicity was observed. Afterwards patients received 200 mg/m2 of bendamustine. The assessment of tumor status in 2–3 months after auto-HSCT showed that complete remission was achieved in 62.9 % (n = 71) of patients, partial remission in 16.8 % (n = 19) of patients, stabilization in 0.9 % (n = 1) of patients and progression in 15 % (n = 17) of patients. In 5 patients the treatment effect was not assessed. Early post-transplant mortality (up to Day +30) was 3.6 % (n = 4) and overall mortality within the follow-up period (median 26 months) was 23 % (n = 26). Overall survival in the whole cohort of patients for 12, 18, 24, and 36 months was 88 %, 82 %, 78 %, and 64 %, respectively, and progression-free survival was 61 %, 57 %, 54 %, and 40 %, respectively.

Conclusion. BeEAC proved to be relatively safe when applied as a conditioning regimen prior to auto-HSCT in HL and NHL patients. Further data need to be collected to finally assess the efficacy of this regimen and to conduct a retrospective comparative analysis of it and other conditioning regimens in lymphomas.

Keywords: high-dose chemotherapy, autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, conditioning regimens, bendamustine, toxicity.

Received: September 6, 2019

Accepted: March 3, 2020

Read in PDF


REFERENCES

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2019. CA: A Cancer J Clin. 2019;69(1):7–34. doi: 10.3322/caac.21551.

  2. Philip T, Guglielmi C, Hagenbeek A, et al. Autologous bone marrow transplantation as compared with salvage chemotherapy in relapses of chemotherapy-sensitive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 1995;333(23):1540–5. doi: 10.1056/nejm199512073332305.

  3. Damon LE, Johnson JL, Niedzwiecki D, et al. Immunochemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation for untreated patients with mantle-cell lymphoma: CALGB 59909. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(36):6101–8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.22.2554.

  4. Schouten HC, Qian W, Kvaloy S, et al. High-dose therapy improves progression-free survival and survival in relapsed follicular non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: results from the randomized European CUP trial. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(21):3918–27. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.10.023.

  5. Российские клинические рекомендации по диагностике и лечению лимфопролиферативных заболеваний. Под ред. И.В. Поддубной, В.Г. Савченко. М.: Буки Веди, 2018. 155 с.

    [Poddubnaya IV, Savchenko VG, eds. Rossiiskie klinicheskie rekomendatsii po diagnostike i lecheniyu limfoproliferativnykh zabolevanii. (Russian clinical guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of lymphoproliferative disorders.) Moscow: Buki Vedi Publ.; 155 p. (In Russ)]

  6. Geisler CH, Kolstad A, Laurell A, et al. Nordic MCL2 trial update: six-year follow-up after intensive immunochemotherapy for untreated mantle cell lymphoma followed by BEAM or BEAC + autologous stem cell support: still very long survival but late relapses do occur. Br J Haemotol. 2012;158(3):355–62. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2012.09174.x.

  7. Carreras E, Dufour C, Mohty M, Kroger N. (eds.) The EBMT Handbook. Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapies. Springer International Publishing; 2019. 702 р. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-02278-5.

  8. Visani G, Malerba L, Stefani PM, et al. BeEAM (bendamustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) before autologous stem cell transplantation is safe and effective for resistant/relapsed lymphoma patients. Blood. 2011;118(12):3419–25. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-04-351924.

  9. Chantepie SP, Garciaz S, Tchernonog E, et al. Bendamustine-based conditioning prior to autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT): Results of a French multicenter study of 474 patients from LYmphoma Study Association (LYSA) centers. Am J Hematol. 2018;93(6):729–35. doi: 10.1002/ajh.25077.

  10. Carella AM, Santini G, Giordano D, et al. High-Dose Chemotherapy and Non-Frozen Autologous Bone Marrow transplantation in Relapsed Advanced Lymphomas or Those Resistant to Convential Chemotherapy. Cancer. 1984;54(12):2836–9. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19841215)54:12<2836::aid-cncr2820541203>3.0.co;2-r.

  11. Caballero MD, Rubio V, Rifon J, et al. BEAM chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell support in lymphoma patients: analysis of efficacy, toxicity and prognostic factors. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1997;20(6):451–8. doi: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1700913.

  12. Jo JC, Kang BW, Jang G, et al. BEAC or BEAM high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma patients: comparative analysis of efficacy and toxicity. Ann Hematol. 2008;87(1):43–8. doi: 10.1007/s00277-007-0360-0.

  13. Shi Y, Liu P, Zhou S, et al. Comparison of CBV, BEAM and BEAC high‐dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in non‐Hodgkin lymphoma: Efficacy and toxicity. Asia-Pacific J Clin Oncol. 2017;13(5):e423–e429. doi: 10.1111/ajco.12610.

  14. Sureda A, Constans M, Iriondo A, et al. Prognostic factors affecting long- term outcome after stem cell transplantation in Hodgkin’s lymphoma autografted after a first relapse. Ann Oncol. 2005;16(4):625–33. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdi119.

  15. Rauf MS, Maghfoor I, Elhassan TAM, Akhtar S. High-dose chemotherapy and auto-SCT for relapsed and refractory Hodgkin’s lymphoma patients refractory to first-line salvage chemotherapy but responsive to second-line salvage chemotherapy. Med Oncol. 2015;32(1):388. doi: 10.1007/s12032-014-0388-7.

  16. Vose JM, Rizzo DJ, Tao-Wu J, et al. Autologus transplantation for diffuse aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma in first relapse or second remission. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2004;10(2):116–27. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2003.09.015.

  17. Vose JM, Zhang MJ, Rowlings PA, et al. Autologous Transplantation for Diffuse Aggressive Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma in Patients Never Achieving Remission: A Report from the Autologous Blood and Marrow Transplant Registry. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(2):406–13. doi: 10.1200/jco.2001.19.2.406.

Experience with the Use of Thio/Mel Conditioning Regimen Prior to Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma

SV Gritsaev1, II Kostroma1, AA Zhernyakova1, IM Zapreeva1, EV Karyagina2, ZhV Chubukina1, SA Tiranova1, IS Martynkevich1, SS Bessmeltsev1, AV Chechetkin1

1 Russian Research Institute of Hematology and Transfusiology, 16 2-ya Sovetskaya str., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 191024

2 Municipal Hospital No. 15, 4 Avangardnaya str., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 198205

For correspondence: Ivan Ivanovich Kostroma, MD, PhD, 16 2-ya Sovetskaya str., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 191024; Tel.: +7(921)784-82-82; e-mail: obex@rambler.ru

For citation: Gritsaev SV, Kostroma II, Zhernyakova AA, et al. Experience with the Use of Thio/Mel Conditioning Regimen Prior to Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma. Clinical oncohematology. 2019;12(3):282–8 (In Russ).

doi: 10.21320/2500-2139-2019-12-3-282-288


ABSTRACT

Background. In multiple myeloma (MM) treatment a single autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) is preceded by conditioning regimens aimed at intensifying cytoreductive effect. In the course of ongoing search for combined conditioning regimens an attractive option proved to be thiotepa/melphalan combination.

Aim. Data analysis of a pilot study of the efficacy of conditioning regimens including administration of two alkylating agents (thiotepa and melphalan) with subsequent auto-HSCT.

Materials & Methods. 9 patients received 10 auto-HSCTs with conditioning regimen including administration of 250 mg/m2 of thiotepa on Day –5 and 140 mg/m2 of melphalan on Day –2. After auto-HSCT pegylated filgrastim was administered in 8 patients. Engraftment period was calculated on the basis of absolute neutrophil count ≥ 0,5 × 109/L and thrombocyte level ≥ 20 × 109/L. Regimen toxicity was assessed according to CTCAE v5.0. Survival rates were estimated by Kaplan-Meier curves.

Results. The use of thiotepa did not require administration of any additional drugs. The incidence of mucositis and enteropathy of grade 1–2 was 100 % and 70 %, respectively. Pyrexia was reported in 7 auto-HSCTs. Pneumonia occurred in 1 patient. The infusion of 1–3 doses of platelet concentrate (median of 2 doses) was required in all patients except for one. Donor erythrocytes were transfused to 3 patients. Engraftment was reported in all patients within the period of 10–14 days. Median hospitalization duration from Day 0 to hospital discharge was 16 patient-days. After auto-HSCT the quality of response improved in 6 out of 9 patients. MM progression was reported in one patient with complex karyotype. Further follow-up showed progression in 2 patients. By December 2018 median follow-up of 9 patients from the date of auto-HSCT was 9 months (range 3–20 months), median progression-free survival was 17 months, median overall survival was not reached.

Conclusion. Acceptable toxicity, improvement of response quality, and maintenance of it for up to 20 months allow to consider combined conditioning regimen Thio/Mel to be a possible alternative to the standard Mel200 regimen.

Keywords: multiple myeloma, autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, conditioning regimen, thiotepa, melphalan.

Received: December 26, 2018

Accepted: May 25, 2019

Read in PDF 


REFERENCES

  1. Бессмельцев С.С., Абдулкадыров К.М. Множественная миелома: руководство для врачей. М.: СИМК, 2016. 512 с.

    [Bessmeltsev SS, Abdulkadyrov KM. Mnozhestvennaya mieloma: rukovodstvo dlya vrachei. (Multiple myeloma: manual for physicians.) Moscow: SIMK Publ.; 2016. 512 p. (In Russ)]

  2. Менделеева Л.П., Вотякова О.М., Покровская О.С. и др. Национальные клинические рекомендации по диагностике и лечению множественной миеломы. Гематология и трансфузиология. 2016;61(1, прил. 2):1–24. doi: 10.18821/0234-5730-2016-61-1-S2-1-24.

    [Mendeleeva LP, Votyakova OM, Pokrovskaya OS, et al. National clinical guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of multiple myeloma. Gematologiya i transfuziologiya. 2016;61(1, Suppl 2):1–24. doi: 10.18821/0234-5730-2016-61-1-S2-1-24. (In Russ)]

  3. Palumbo A, Anderson K. Multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(11):1046–60. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1011442.

  4. Cavo M, Rajkumar SV, Palumbo A, et al. International Myeloma Working Group consensus approach to the treatment of multiple myeloma patients who are candidates for autologous stem cell transplantation. 2011;117(23):6063–73. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-02-297325.

  5. Engelhardt M, Terpos E, Kleber M, et al. European Myeloma Network recommendations on the evaluation and treatment of newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma. Haematologica. 2014;99(2):232–42. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2013.099358.

  6. Sidiqi MH, Aljama MA, Bin Riaz I, et al. Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) followed by autologous stem cell transplant for multiple myeloma. Blood Cancer J. 2018;8(8):106. doi: 10.1038/s41408-018-0147-7.

  7. Attal M, Lauwers-Cances V, Hulin C, et al. Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone with transplantation for myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(14):1311–20. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1611750.

  8. 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(2):91–7.

  9. Palumbo A, Cavallo F, Gay F, et al. Autologous transplantation and maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(10):895–905. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1402888.

  10. Thoennissen GB, Gorlich D, Bacher U, et al. Autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma in the era of novel drug induction: a retrospective single-center analysis. Acta Haematol. 2017;137(3):163–72. doi: 10.1159/000463534.

  11. Ozaki S, Harada T, Saitoh T, et al. Survival of multiple myeloma patients aged 65–70 years in the era of novel agents and autologous stem cell transplantation. A multicenter retrospective collaborative study of the Japanese Society of Myeloma and the European Myeloma Network. Acta Haematol. 2014;132(2):211–9. doi: 10.1159/000357394.

  12. Cavo M, Salwender H, Rosinol L, et al. Double vs single autologous stem cell transplantation after bortezomib-based induction regimens for multiple myeloma: an integrated analysis of patient-level data from phase III European studies. Blood. 2013;122(21):767.

  13. Cavo M, Beksac M, Dimopoulos M, et al. Intensification therapy with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone versus autologous stem cell transplantation for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: an intergroup, multicenter, phase III study of the European Myeloma Network (EMN02/HO95 MM trial). 2016;128(22):673.

  14. Sonneveld P, Beksac M, van der Holt B, et al. Consolidation followed by maintenance therapy versus maintenance alone in newly diagnosed, transplant eligible patients with multiple myeloma (MM): a randomized phase 3 study of the European Myeloma Network (EMN02/HO95 MM Trial). 2016;128(22):242.

  15. Stadtmauer EA, Pasquini MC, Blackwell B, et al. Comparison of autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (autoHCT), bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (RVD) consolidation with lenalidomide maintenance (ACM), tandem autoHCT with lenalidomide maintenance (TAM), and autoHCT with lenalidomide maintenance (AM) for upfront treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM): primary results from the randomized phase III trial of the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN 0702 – StaMINA Trial). 2016;128(22):LBA-1.

  16. Yhim HY, Kim K, Kim JS, et al. Matched-pair analysis to compare the outcomes of a second salvage auto-SCT to systemic chemotherapy alone in patients with multiple myeloma who relapsed after front-line auto-SCT. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013;48(3):425–32. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2012.164.

  17. Olin RL, Vogl DT, Porter DL, et al. Second auto-SCT is safe and effective salvage therapy for relapsed multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2009;43(5): 417–22. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2008.334.

  18. Abbi KKS, Zheng J, Devlin SM, et al. Second autologous stem cell transplant: an effective therapy for relapsed multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2015;21(3):468–72. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2014.11.677.

  19. Cook G, Williams C, Brown JM, et al. High-dose chemotherapy plus autologous stem-cell transplantation as consolidation therapy in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma after previous autologous stem-cell transplantation (NCRI Myeloma X Relapse [Intensive trial]): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(8):874–85. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70245-1.

  20. Benson DM, Panzner K, Hamadani M, et al. Effects of induction with novel agents versus conventional chemotherapy on mobilization and autologous stem cell transplant outcomes in multiple myeloma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2010;51(2):243–51. doi: 10.3109/10428190903480728.

  21. Kumar SK, Lacy MQ, Dispenzieri A, et al. Early versus delayed autologous transplantation following IMiD-based induction therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Cancer. 2012;118(6):1585–92. doi: 10.1002/cncr.26422.

  22. Ashcroft J, Judge D, Dhanasiri S, et al. Chart review across EU5 in MM post-ASCT patients. Int J Hematol Oncol. 2018;7(1):IJH05. doi: 10.2217/ijh-2018-0004.

  23. McCarthy PL, Holstein SA, Petrucci MT, et al. Lenalidomide maintenance after autologous stem-cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(29):3279–89. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.72.6679.

  24. 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(2):161–7. doi: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1704545.

  25. Kim JS, Kim K, Cheong JW, et al. Complete remission status before autologous stem cell transplantation is an important prognostic factor in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing upfront single autologous transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2009;15(4):463–70. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2008.12.512.

  26. Gertz MA, Kumar S, Lacy MQ, et al. Stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma: impact of response failure with thalidomide or lenalidomide induction. Blood. 2010;115(12):2348–53. doi: 10.1182/blood-2009-07-235531.

  27. Грицаев С.В., Кузяева А.А., Бессмельцев С.С. Отдельные аспекты аутологичной трансплантации гемопоэтических стволовых клеток при множественной миеломе. Клиническая онкогематология. 2017;10(1):7–12. doi: 21320/2500-2139-2017-10-1-7-12.

    [Gritsaev SV, Kuzyaeva AA, Bessmeltsev SS. Certain Aspects of Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Patients with Multiple Myeloma. Clinical oncohematology. 2017;10(1):7–12. doi: 10.21320/2500-2139-2017-10-1-7-12. (In Russ)]

  28. Musso M, Messina G, Marcacci G, et al. High-dose melphalan plus thiotepa as conditioning regimen before second autologous stem cell transplantation for “de novo” multiple myeloma patients: a phase II study. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2015;21(11):1932–8. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2015.06.011.

  29. Kumar S, Paiva B, Anderson KC, et al. International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(8):e328–46. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30206-6.

  30. Schiffman KS, Bensinger WI, Appelbaum FR, et al. Phase II study of high-dose busulfan, melphalan and thiotepa with autologous peripheral blood stem cell support in patients with malignant disease. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1996;17(6):943–50.

  31. Zaid AB, Abdul-Hai A, Grotto I, et al. Autologous transplant in multiple myeloma with an augmented conditioning protocol. Leuk Lymphoma. 2013;54(11):2480–4. doi: 10.3109/10428194.2013.782608.

  32. Anagnostopoulos A, Aleman A, Ayers G, et al. Comparison of high-dose melphalan with a more intensive regimen of thiotepa, busulfan, and cyclophosphamide for patients with multiple myeloma. Cancer. 2004;100(12):2607–12. doi: 10.1002/cncr.20294.

  33. Hari P, Reece DE, Randhawa J, et al. Final outcomes of escalated melphalan 280 mg/m2 with amifostine cytoprotection followed autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: high CR and VGPR rates do not translate into improved survival. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2019;54(2):293–9. doi: 10.1038/s41409-018-0261-y.

  34. Auner HW, Iacobelli S, Sbianchi G, et al. Melphalan 140 mg/m2 or 200 mg/m2 for autologous transplantation in myeloma: results from the collaboration to collect autologous transplant outcomes in lymphoma and myeloma (CALM) study. A report by the EBMT Chronic Malignancies Working Party. Haematologica. 2018;103(3):514–21. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2017.181339.

  35. Dimopoulos M, Wang M, Maisnar V, et al. Response and progression-free survival according to planned treatment duration in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma treated with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in the phase III ASPIRE study. J Hematol Oncol. 2018;11(1):49. doi: 10.1186/s13045-018-0583-7.

  36. Costa LJ, Landau HJ, Chhabra S, et al. Phase 1/2 trial of carfilzomib plus high-dose melphalan preparative regimen for salvage autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation followed by maintenance carfilzomib in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2018;24(7):1379–85. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.01.036.

Factors Associated with Efficient Harvesting and Engraftment of Auto-Transplants in Multiple Myeloma Patients

II Kostroma, AA Zhernyakova, ZhV Chubukina, NYu Semenova, IM Zapreeva, SA Tiranova, SS Bessmeltsev, AV Chechetkin, SV Gritsaev

Russian Research Institute of Hematology and Transfusiology, 16 2-ya Sovetskaya str., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 191024

For correspondence: Ivan Ivanovich Kostroma, MD, PhD, 16 2-ya Sovetskaya str., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 191024; Tel.: +7(921)784-82-82; e-mail: obex@rambler.ru

For citation: Kostroma II, Zhernyakova AA, Chubukina ZhV, et al. Factors Associated with Efficient Harvesting and Engraftment of Auto-Transplants in Multiple Myeloma Patients. Clinical oncohematology. 2019;12(1):32–6.

DOI: 10.21320/2500-2139-2019-12-1-32-36


ABSTRACT

Background. The success of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) depends on the speed of transplant engraftment which in turn is affected by the count of harvested and infused hematopoietic stem cells (HSC).

Aim. To identify predictors of auto-HSCT efficacy in multiple myeloma (MM) patients under introduction of new drugs at the phase of HSC induction and mobilization.

Materials & Methods. The results of auto-transplant harvesting and engraftment were retrospectively analyzed in 75 MM patients during 112 auto-HSCTs. Auto-transplants were harvested using cyclophosphamide and vinorelbine combined with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) without plerixafor. Conditioning regimen included melphalan 200 mg/m2 or 140 mg/m2, and combination of tiothepa with melphalan. All patients received subcutaneous injections of G-CSF in post-transplantation period. Transplant engraftment was assessed according to absolute neutrophil count of ≥ 0.5 × 109/L, and thrombocyte count of ≥ 20 × 109/L.

Results. It is established that the predictors of a high CD34+ cell count in auto-transplant are a single previous induction regimen (p = 0.0315) and administration of cyclophosphamide in mobilization regimen (р = 0.0001). Transplant engraftment period is determined by auto-HSCT serial number and amount of infused CD34+ cells. Hematopoiesis regeneration after the second auto-HSCT was accelerated by more frequent use of Mel140 (р = 0.001).

Conclusion. Auto-transplant quality and engraftment period in MM patients primarily depend on the efficacy of induction therapy and the intensity of HSC mobilization regimen. Therefore, induction therapy and mobilization regimen need to be tailored to an individual patient, MM prognostic variant, probability of response to standard induction regimens, and the number of planned auto-HSCTs.

Keywords: multiple myeloma, autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, auto-HSCT efficacy predictors, transplant, engraftment.

Received: May 14, 2018

Accepted: December 2, 2018

Read in PDF 


REFERENCES

  1. Бессмельцев С.С., Абдулкадыров К.М. Множественная миелома: руководство для врачей. М.: СИМК, 2016. 512 с.

    [Bessmeltsev SS, Abdulkadyrov KM. Mnozhestvennaya mieloma: rukovodstvo dlya vrachei. (Multiple myeloma: manual for physicians.) Moscow: SIMK Publ.; 2016. 512 p. (In Russ)]

  2. Менделеева Л.П., Вотякова О.М., Покровская О.С. и др. Национальные клинические рекомендации по диагностике и лечению множественной миеломы. Гематология и трансфузиология. 2016;61(1, прил. 2):1–24. doi: 10.18821/0234-5730-2016-61-1(Прил.2).

    [Mendeleeva LP, Votyakova OM, Pokrovskaya OS, et al. National clinical guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of multiple myeloma. Gematologiya i transfuziologiya. 2016;61(1, Suppl 2):1–24. doi: 10.18821/0234-5730-2016-61-1(Прил.2). (In Russ)

  3. 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(19):1875–83. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa022340.

  4. Palumbo A, Gay F, Spencer A, et al. A phase III study of ASCT vs cyclophosphamide lenalidomide dexamethasone and lenalidomide prednisone maintenance vs lenalidomide alone in newly diagnosed myeloma patients. Blood. 2013;122(21):763, abstract.

  5. Dhakal B, Szabo A, Chhabra S, et al. Autologous transplantation for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in the era of novel agent induction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(3):343–50. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.4600.

  6. Sola C, Maroto P, Salazar R, et al. Bone Marrow Transplantation: prognostic factors of peripheral blood stem cell mobilization with cyclophosphamide and filgrastim (r-metHuG-CSF): the CD34+ cell dose positively affects the time to hematopoietic recovery and supportive requirements after high-dose chemotherapy. Hematology. 1999;4(3):195–209. doi: 10.1080/10245332.1999.11746443.

  7. Duggan PR, Guo D, Luider J, et al. Predictive factors for long term engraftment of autologous blood stem cells. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2000;26(12):1299–304. doi: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1702708.

  8. Wallington-Beddoe CT, Gottlieb DJ, Garvin F, et al. Failure to achieve a threshold dose of CD34+CD110+ progenitor cells in the graft predicts delayed platelet engraftment after autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2009;15(11):1386–93. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2009.06.018.

  9. Stiff PJ, Micallef I, Nademanee AP, et al. Transplanted CD34+ cell dose is associated with long-term platelet count recovery following autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplant in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma or multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2011;17(8):1146–53. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2010.11.021.

  10. Asfour I, Afify H, Elkourashy S, et al. CXCR4 (CD184) expression on stem cell harvest and CD34+ cells post-transplant. Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Ther. 2017;10(2):63–9. doi: 10.1016/j.hemonc.2017.01.002.

  11. Кострома И.И., Жернякова А.А., Чубукина Ж.В. и др. Заготовка гемопоэтических стволовых клеток у больных множественной миеломой: влияние предшествующей аутоТГСК терапии леналидомидом и режима мобилизации. Клиническая онкогематология. 2018;11(2):192–7. doi: 10.21320/2500-2139-2018-11-2-192-197.

    [Kostroma II, Zhernyakova AA, Chubukina ZhV, et al. Hematopoietic Stem Cell Collection in Multiple Myeloma Patients: Influence of the Lenalidomide-Based Therapy and Mobilization Regimen Prior to Auto-HSCT. Clinical oncohematology. 2018;11(2);192–7. doi: 10.21320/2500-2139-2018-11-2-192-197. (In Russ)]

  12. Stewart DA, Guo D, Morris D, et al. Superior autologous blood stem cell mobilization from dose-intensive cyclophosphamide, etoposide, cisplatin plus G-CSF than from less intensive chemotherapy regimens. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1999;23(2):111–7. doi: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1701536.

  13. Corso A, Caberlon S, Pagnucco G, et al. Blood stem cell collections in multiple myeloma: definition of a scoring system. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2000;26(3):283–6. doi: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1702514.

  14. Morris CL, Siegel E, Barlogie B, et al. Mobilization of CD34+ cells in elderly patients (≥70 years) with multiple myeloma: influence of age, prior therapy, platelet count and mobilization regimen. Br J Haematol. 2003;120(3):413–23. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2141.2003.04107.x.

  15. Pusic I, Jiang SY, Landua S, et al. Impact of mobilization and remobilization strategies on achieving sufficient stem cell yields for autologous transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2008;14(9):1045–56. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2008.07.004.

  16. Lee JL, Kim SB, Lee GW, et al. Collection of peripheral blood progenitor cells: analysis of factors predicting the yields. Transfus Apher Sci. 2003;29(1):29–37. doi: 10.1016/S1473-0502(03)00097-1.

  17. Kumar S, Dispenzieri A, Lacy MQ, et al. Impact of lenalidomide therapy on stem cell mobilization and engraftment post-peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. Leukemia. 2007;21(9):2035–42. doi: 10.1038/sj.leu.2404801.

  18. Mark T, Stern J, Furst JR, et al. Stem cell mobilization with cyclophosphamide overcomes the suppressive effect of lenalidomide therapy on stem cell collection in multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2008;14(7):795–8. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2008.04.008.

  19. DiPersio JF, Stadtmauer EA, Nademanee A, et al. Plerixafor and G-CSF versus placebo and G-CSF to mobilize hematopoietic stem cells for autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma. Blood. 2009;113(23):5720–6. doi: 10.1182/blood-2008-08-174946.

  20. Popat U, Saliba R, Thandi R, et al. Impairment of filgrastim-induced stem cell mobilization after prior lenalidomide in patients with multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2009;15(6):718–23. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2009.02.011.

  21. Ruiz-Delgado GJ, Lopez-Otero A, Hernandez-Arizpe A, et al. Poor hematopoietic stem cell mobilizers in multiple myeloma: a single institution experience. Medit J Hemat Infect Dis. 2010;2(2):e2010016. doi: 10.4084/MJHID.2010.016.

  22. Mohty M, Hubel K, Kroger N, et al. Autologous haematopoietic stem cell mobilization in multiple myeloma and lymphoma patients: a position statement from the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2014;49(7):865–72. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2014.39.

  23. Silvennoinen R, Anttila P, Saily M, et al. A randomized phase II study of stem cell mobilization with cyclophosphamide + G-CSF or G-CSF alone after lenalidomide-based induction in multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2016:51(3):372–6. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2015.236.

  24. Sarmiento M, Ramirez P, Parody R, et al. Advantages of non-cryopreserved autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation against a cryopreserved strategy. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2018;53(8):960–6. doi: 10.1038/s41409-018-0117-5.

  25. Кучер M.A., Моталкина М.С., Климова О.У. и др. Плериксафор у пациентов со сниженной мобилизационной способностью аутологичных гемопоэтических стволовых клеток. Клиническая онкогематология. 2016;9(2):155–61. doi: 10.21320/2500-2139-2016-9-2-155-161.

    [Kucher MA, Motalkina MS, Klimova OU, et al. Plerixafor in Patients with Decreased Mobilizing Ability of Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cells. Clinical oncohematology. 2016;9(2):155–61. doi: 10.21320/2500-2139-2016-9-2-155-161. (In Russ)]

  26. Грицаев C.В., Кострома И.И., Чубукина Ж.В. и др. Сравнительная эффективность винорелбина и циклофосфана в режиме мобилизации для заготовки аутотрансплантата. Medline.ru. 2017;18:409–24.

    [Gritsaev SV, Kostroma II, Chubukina ZhV, et al. Comparative efficacy of vinorelbine and cyclophosphamide in mobilization regimen for auto-transplant harvesting. Medline.ru. 2017;18:409–24. (In Russ)]

  27. Грицаев С.В., Кузяева А.А., Кострома И.И. и др. Первый опыт мобилизации гемопоэтических стволовых клеток в периферическую кровь винорелбином у больных лимфопролиферативными заболеваниями. Медицина экстремальных ситуаций. 2017;62(4):30–5.

    [Gritsaev SV, Kuzyaeva AA, Kostroma II, et al. The first attempt to use vinorelbine for mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells into the peripheral blood in patients with lymphoproliferative disoders. Meditsina ekstremal’nykh situatsii. 2017;62(4):30–5. (In Russ)]

Outcome of Classical Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Treatment Based on High-Dose Chemotherapy and Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: The Experience in the NI Pirogov Russian National Medical Center of Surgery

NE Mochkin, VO Sarzhevskii, YuN Dubinina, EG Smirnova, DA Fedorenko, AE Bannikova, DS Kolesnikova, VS Bogatyrev, NM Faddeev, VYa Mel’nichenko

NI Pirogov Russian National Medical Center of Surgery, 70 Nizhnyaya Pervomaiskaya str., Moscow, Russian Federation, 105203

For correspondence: Nikita Evgen’evich Mochkin, MD, PhD, 70 Nizhnyaya Pervomaiskaya str., Moscow, Russian Federation, 105203; Tel.: 8(495)603-72-17; e-mail: nickmed@yandex.ru

For citation: Mochkin NE, Sarzhevskii VO, Dubinina YuN, et. al. Outcome of Classical Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Treatment Based on High-Dose Chemotherapy and Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: The Experience in the NI Pirogov Russian National Medical Center of Surgery. Clinical oncohematology. 2018;11(3):234–40.

DOI: 10.21320/2500-2139-2018-11-3-234-240


ABSTRACT

Aim. To estimate the long-term outcome of the programmed treatment of classical Hodgkin’s lymphoma (cHL) including high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) as well as the effect of various factors on the achieved results in a single-center study.

Materials & Methods. In the A.A. Maksimov Clinical Center of Hematology and Cellular Therapy of the NI Pirogov Russian National Medical Center of Surgery 260 cHL patients received HDCT combined with auto-HSCT within the period from December 2006 to March 2017. The median age was 29 years (range 17–62). The study included 40 % men (n = 104), and 60 % women (n = 156). The median pretransplantation chemotherapy line was 3 (range 2–9). At this stage, prior to auto-HSCT, complete remission (CR) rate was 26.5 %, partial remission (PR) rate was 52.3 %, disease stabilisation rate was 13.5 %. HDCT with auto-HSCT was applied beyond progression as a salvage therapy in 7.7 % of patients. In 79.6 % of patients the standard BEAM and CBV conditioning regimens were used.

Results. After HDCT combined with auto-HSCT overall 5-year survival (OS) of 260 cHL patients was 74 %, and 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 48 %, which corresponds to the results of some international studies. 5-year OS rates were significantly higher after HDCT and auto-HSCT performed during the first CR or PR (85 %) vs the second and subsequent CR and PR (71 %). Neither gender (= 0.4) nor ECOG status (= 0.2) effects on OS and PFS were revealed. 5-year OS rates were significantly higher after HDCT and auto-HSCT performed during CR or PR (82 %) vs disease stabilisation and progression (54 %) as well as upon achieving CR (93 %) vs PR (77 %).

Conclusion. In cHL tumor sensitivity to chemotherapy is the essential indication for HDCT combined with auto-HSCT. The optimal time for HDCT and auto-HSCT in cHL is the first CR/PR, and the best treatment outcome is achieved in patients with complete response prior to HDCT and auto-HSCT.

Keywords: classical Hodgkin’s lymphoma, high-dose chemotherapy, autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Received: February 9, 2018

Accepted: May 3, 2018

Read in PDF 

REFERENCES

  1. Российские клинические рекомендации по диагностике и лечению лимфопролиферативных заболеваний. Под ред. И.В. Поддубной, В.Г. Савченко. М.: Буки Веди, 2016.[Poddubnaya IV, Savchenko VG, eds. Rossiiskie klinicheskie rekomendatsii po diagnostike i lecheniyu limfoproliferativnykh zabolevanii. (Russian clinical guidelines in diagnosis and treatment of lymphoproliferative disorders). Moscow: Buki Vedi Publ.; 2016. (In Russ)]
  2. Skoetz N, Trelle S, Rancea M, et al. Effect of initial treatment strategy on survival of patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(10):943–52. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70341-3.
  3. Kuruvilla J, Keating A, Crump M. How I treat relapsed and refractory Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood. 2011;117(16):4208–17. doi: 10.1182/blood-2010-09-288373.
  4. Thomas RK, Re D, Zander T, et al. Epidemiology and etiology of Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2002;13(Suppl. 4):147–52. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdf652.
  5. Linch D, Winfield D, Goldstone A, et al. Dose intensification with autologous bone marrow transplantation in relapsed and resistant Hodgkin disease: results of a BNLI randomized trial. Lancet. 1993;341(8852):1051–4. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(93)92411-L.
  6. Schmitz N, Pfistner B, Sextro M, et al. Aggressive conventional chemotherapy compared with high-dose chemotherapy with autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation for relapsed chemosensitive Hodgkin disease: a randomized trial. Lancet. 2002;359(9323):2065–71. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08938-9.
  7. Josting A, Franklin J, May M, et al. New prognostic score based on treatment outcome of patients with relapsed Hodgkin’s lymphoma registered in the database of the German Hodgkin’s lymphoma study group. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(1):221–30. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2002.20.1.221
  8. Ljungman P, Bregni M, Brune M, et al. Allogenic and autologous transplantation for haematological disease, solid tumors and immune disorders: current practice in Europe 2009. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2010;45(2):219–34. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2009.141.
  9. Perales M-A, Ceberio I, Armand Ph, et al. Role of cytotoxic therapy with hematopoietic cell transplantation in the treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma: guidelines from the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2015;21(6):971–983. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2015.02.022.
  10. Hoppe RT, Advani RH, Ai WZ, et al. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Hodgkin Lymphoma. Version 1.2018. Available from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/hodgkins.pdf (accessed 05.03.2018).
  11. Moscowitz CH, Kewalramani T, Nimer SD, et al. Effectiveness of high-dose chemoradiotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation for patients with biopsy-proven primary refractory Hodgkin’s disease. Br J Haematol. 2004;124(5):645–52. doi: 1111/j.1365-2141.2003.04828.x.
  12. Sirohi B, Cunningham D, Powles R, et al. Long-term outcome of autologous stem-cell transplantation in relapsed or refractory Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2008;19(7):1312–9. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdn052.
  13. Moskowitz CH, Nimer SD, Zelenets AD, et al. A 2-step comprehensive high-dose chemoradiotherapy second-line program for relapsed and refractory Hodgkin disease: analysis by intent to treat and development of a prognostic model. Blood. 2001;97(3):616–23. doi: 10.1182/blood.V97.3.616.
  14. Phillips JK, Spearing RL, Davies JM, et al. VIM-D salvage chemotherapy in Hodgkin’s disease. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1990;27(2):161–3. doi: 10.1007/bf00689103.
  15. The International ChlVPP Treatment Group. ChlVPP therapy for Hodgkin’s disease: experience of 960 patients. Ann Oncol 1995;6(2):167–72.
  16. Colwill R, Crump M, Couture F, et al. Mini-BEAM as salvage therapy for relapsed or refractory Hodgkin’s disease before intensive therapy and autologous bone marrow transplantation. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13(2):396–402. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1995.13.2.396.
  17. Rodriguez MA, Cabanillas FC, Hagemeister FB, et al. A phase II trial of mesna/ifosfamide, mitoxantrone and etoposide for refractory lymphomas. Ann Oncol. 1995;6(6):609–12. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.annonc.a059252.
  18. Aparicio J, Segura A, Garcera S, et al. ESHAP is an active regimen for relapsing Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Oncol. 1999;10(5):593–5. doi: 10.1023/a:1026454831340.
  19. Martin A, Femandez-Jimenez MC, Caballero MD, et al. Long-term follow-up in patients treated with Mini-BEAM as salvage therapy for relapsed or refractory Hodgkin’s disease. Br J Haematol. 2001;113(1):161–71. doi:1046/j.1365-2141.2001.02714.x.
  20. Josting A, Rudolph C, Reiser M, et al. Time-intensified dexamethasone/cisplatin/cytarabine: an effective salvage therapy with low toxicity in patients with relapsed and refractory Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Oncol. 2002;13(10):1628–35. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdf221.
  21. Abali H, Urun Y, Oksuzoglu B, et al. Comparison of ICE (ifosfamide-carboplatin-etoposide) versus DHAP (cytosine arabinoside-cisplatin-dexamethasone) as salvage chemotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory lymphoma. Cancer Invest. 2008;26(4):401–6. doi: 10.1080/07357900701788098.
  22. European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation Annual Report 2016. Available from: http://www.ebmt.org/sites/default/files/migration_legacy_files/document/Annual%20Report%202016_EBMT.pdf. (accessed 28.03.2018).
  23. Passweg JR, Baldomero H, Bregni M, et al. Hematopoietic SCT in Europe: data and trends in 2011. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013;48(9):1161–7. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2013.51.
  24. Жуков Н.В., Усс А.Л., Миланович Н.Ф. и др. Оптимальные сроки проведения аутологичной трансплантации клеток предшественников гемопоэза при неблагоприятном течении лимфомы Ходжкина. Зарубежные рекомендации и отечественная практика. Онкогематология. 2014;2:37–44.[Zhukov NV, Uss AL, Milanovich NF, et al. The optimal time for autologous hematopoietic progenitor cell transplantation during treatment of Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Foreign recommendations and Russian experience. Onkogematologiya. 2014;2:37–44. (In Russ)]
  25. Мочкин Н.Е., Саржевский В.О., Дубинина Ю.Н. и др. Высокодозная химиотерапия с трансплантацией аутологичных кроветворных стволовых клеток при лимфоме Ходжкина. Десятилетний опыт ФГБУ «НМХЦ им. Н.И. Пирогова» Минздрава России. Российский журнал детской гематологии и онкологии. 2017;4(2):85–90. doi: 10.17650/2311-1267-2017-4-2-85-90.[Mochkin NE, Sarzhevskii VO, Dubinina YuN, et al. High-dose chemotherapy with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. 10-year experience of the NI Pirogov Russian National Medical Center of Surgery. Rossiiskii zhurnal detskoi gematologii i onkologii. 2017;4(2):85–90. doi: 17650/2311-1267-2017-4-2-85-90. (In Russ)]
  26. Sasse S, Alram M, Muller H, et al. Prognostic relevance of DHAP dose-density in relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma: an analysis of the German Hodgkin-Study Group.Leuk Lymphoma.2016;57(5):1067–73. doi: 10.3109/10428194.2015.1083561.
  27. Moskowitz AJ, Hamlin PA, Perales M-A, et al. Phase II study of bendamustine in relapsed and refractory Hodgkin lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(4):456–60. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.45.3308.
  28. Visani G, Malerba L, Stefani PM, et al. BeEAM (bendamustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) before autologous stem cell transplantation is safe and effective for resistant/relapsed lymphoma patients. Blood. 2011;118(12):3419–25. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-04-351924.
  29. Caballero MD, Rubio V, Rifon J, et al. BEAM chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell support in lymphoma patient: analysis of efficacy, toxicity and prognostic factors. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1997;20(6):451–8. doi: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1700913.
  30. Jagannath S, Armitage JO, Dicke KA, et al. Prognostic factors for response and survival after high-dose cyclophosphamide, carmustine, and etoposide with autologous bone marrow transplantation for relapsed Hodgkin’s disease. J Clin Oncol. 1989;7(2):179–85. doi: 10.1200/jco.1989.7.2.179.
  31. Provencio M, Sanchez A, Sanchez-Beato M. New drugs and targeted treatments in Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Cancer Treat Rev. 2014;40(3):457–64. doi. 10.1016/j.ctrv.2013.09.005.

Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma in the Era of New Drugs

OV Pirogova, EI Darskaya, VV Porunova, OV Kudyasheva, AG Smirnova, IS Moiseev, EV Babenko, BV Afanas’ev

RM Gorbacheva Scientific Research Institute of Pediatric Oncology, Hematology and Transplantation; IP Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University, 6/8 L’va Tolstogo str., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 197022

For correspondence: Ol’ga Vladislavovna Pirogova, MD, PhD, 6/8 L’va Tolstogo str., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 197022; e-mail: dr.pirogova@gmail.com.

For citation: Pirogova OV, Darskaya EI, Porunova VV, et al. Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma in the Era of New Drugs. Clinical oncohematology. 2018;11(2):187–91.

DOI: 10.21320/2500-2139-2018-11-2-187-191


ABSTRACT

Background & Aims. The present retrospective single-center study analysed the impact of high-dose chemotherapy with melphalan with subsequent autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) on survival in multiple myeloma (MM) in the era of new induction regimens.

Materials & Methods. The clinical trial included 133 MM patients aged from 31.2 to 78.2 years (the median age was 55.3 years). There were 66 female and 67 male patients. Bortezomib-based regimens as first-line treatment were administered in 133 MM patients, 74 of them received high-dose chemotherapy with melphalan and either single (n = 25), or double (n = 49) auto-HSCT as consolidation therapy in the period from 2006 to 2016.

Results. The overall 5-year survival (OS) rates were 86.5 % for the auto-HSCT treated group vs. 72.9 % for the non-auto-HSCT treated group (= 0.03); 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 64.9 vs. 39 % for the auto-HSCT and non-auto-HSCT treated groups, respectively (= 0.0016). MM relapse/progression occurred more frequently in the non-auto-HSCT treated patients (52.5 vs. 28.4 %; = 0.0016). In multivariate analysis the age above 60 was determined as prognostic factor of lower PFS and increase in relapse/progression rate (= 0.004 and = 0.04, respectively). The variant of monoclonal protein (Bence-Jones myeloma) was determined as prognostic factor of higher OS and decrease in relapse/progression rate (= 0.02 and = 0.04, respectively). Complete nonresponsiveness to induction therapy has proved to be an independent predictor of both poor OS and PFS (= 0.04 and = 0.041, respectively). 2-year bortezomib-based maintenance therapy following the auto-HSCT treatment resulted in a statistically significant improvement in 5-year PFS (67.4 vs. 60.7 %; = 0.03) and a decrease in relapse/progression frequency (26.1 vs. 32.1 %; = 0.05).

Conclusion. High-dose chemotherapy with melphalan with subsequent auto-HSCT is an effective MM treatment strategy, and a subsequent long-term maintenance therapy results in a PFS improvement and a decrease in relapse/progression frequency.

Keywords: multiple myeloma, autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, maintenance therapy.

Received: November 20, 2017

Accepted: February 9, 2018

Read in PDF 

REFERENCES

  1. Дарская Е.И., Марами-Зонузи Н.Э., Осипов Ю.С. и др. Эффективность терапии пациентов с множественной миеломой, получавших в качестве первой линии трансплантацию аутологичных гемопоэтических стволовых клеток.Онкогематология. 2014;9(1):6–10.[Darskaya EI, Marami-Zonuzi NE, Osipov YuS, et al. Therapy efficacy in multiple myeloma patients received autologous stem cells transplantation as first line therapy. Onkogematologiya. 2014;9(1):6–10. (In Russ)]
  2. Barlogie B, Gahrton G. Bone marrow transplantation in multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1991;7(2):71–9.
  3. 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(19):1875–83. doi: 10.1056/nejmoa022340.
  4. Attal M, Harousseau JL, Stoppa AM, et al. A prospective, randomized trial of autologous bone marrow transplantation and chemotherapy in multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 1996;335(2):91–7. doi: 1056/nejm199607113350204.
  5. Lenhoff S, Hjorth M, Holmberg E, et al. Impact on survival of high-dose therapy with autologous stem cell support in patients younger than 60 years with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a population-based study. Blood. 2000;95(1):7–11.
  6. Attal M, Harousseau JL, Facon T, et al. Single versus double autologous stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(26):2495–502. doi: 10.1056/nejmoa032290.
  7. Singhal S, Mekta J, Desikan R, et al. Antitumor activity of thalidomide in refractory multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(21):1565–71. doi: 10.1056/nejm199911183412102.
  8. Richardson PG, Barlogie B, Berenson J, et al. A phase 2 study of bortezomib in relapsed, refractory myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(26):2609–17. doi: 10.1056/nejmoa030288.
  9. Kropff MH, Bisping G, Wenning D, et al. Bortezomib in combination with dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma. Leuk Res. 2005;29(5):587–90. doi: 10.1016/j.leukres.2004.11.004.
  10. Richardson PG, Blood E, Mitsiades CS, et al. A randomized phase 2 study of lenalidomide therapy for patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Blood. 2006;108(10):3458–64. doi: 10.1182/blood-2006-04-015909.
  11. Brenner H, Gondos A, Pulte D. Recent major improvements in long-term survival of younger patients with multiple myeloma. Blood. 2008;111(5):2521–6. doi: 10.1182/blood-2007-08-104984.
  12. Schaapveld M, Visser O, Siesling S, et al. Improved survival among younger but not among older patients with multiple myeloma in the Netherlands, a population- based study since 1989. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(1):160–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2009.07.006.
  13. Kumar SK, Rajkumar SV, Dispenzieri A, et al. Improved survival in multiple myeloma and the impact of novel therapies. Blood. 2008;111(5):2516–20. doi: 10.1182/blood-2007-10-116129.
  14. Moreau P, Avet-Loiseau H, Harrousseau JL, Attal M. Current trends in autologous stem cell transplantation for myeloma in the era of novel therapies. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(14):1898–906. doi: 10.1200/jco.2010.32.5878.
  15. Durie BG, Harousseau JL, Miguel JS, et al. International uniform response criteria for multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2006;20(9):1467–73. doi: 10.1038/sj.leu.2404284.
  16. Cavo M, Tacchetti P, Patriarca F, et al. Bortezomib with thalidomide plus dexamethasone compared with thalidomide plus dexamethasone as induction therapy before, and consolidation therapy after, double autologous stem-cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a randomised phase 3 study. Lancet. 2010;376(9758):2075–85. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(10)61424-9.
  17. 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(2):183–96. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2006.09.010.
  18. Sonneveld P, Schmidt-Wolf IG, van der Holt B, et al. Bortezomib induction and maintenance treatment in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: results of the randomized phase III HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(24):2946–55. doi: 10.1200/jco.2011.39.6820.
  19. Rosinnol L, Oriol A, Teruel AI, et al. Maintenance Therapy After Stem-Cell Transplantation for Multiple Myeloma with Bortezomib/Thalidomide Vs. Thalidomide Vs. alfa2b-Interferon: Final Results of a Phase III Pethema/GEM Randomized Trial. ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts. 2012;120(21):334.

Certain Aspects of Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Patients with Multiple Myeloma

SV Gritsaev, AA Kuzyaeva, SS Bessmel’tsev

Russian Scientific Research Institute of Hematology and Transfusiology under the Federal Medico-Biological Agency, 16 2-ya Sovetskaya str., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 191024

For correspondence: Sergei Vasil’evich Gritsaev, DSci, 16 2-ya Sovetskaya str., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 191024; Tel: +7(812)717-58-57; e-mail: gritsaevsv@mail.ru

For citation: Gritsaev SV, Kuzyaeva AA, Bessmel’tsev SS. Certain Aspects of Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Patients with Multiple Myeloma. Clinical oncohematology. 2017;10(1):7–12 (In Russ).

DOI: 10.21320/2500-2139-2017-10-1-7-12


ABSTRACT

The review dwells on certain problems of mobilization and conditioning regimens, as well as autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) in patients with multiple myeloma. The aim of the review is to determine new approaches to improve the effectiveness of the auto-HSCT.

Keywords: multiple myeloma, autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, mobilization regimen, conditioning regimen.

Received: July 13, 2016

Accepted: November 12, 2016

Read in PDF (RUS)pdficon


REFERENCES

  1. Бессмельцев С.С., Абдулкадыров К.М. Множественная миелома: руководство для врачей. М.: МК, 2016. 504 с. [Bessmel’tsev SS, Abdulkadyrov KM. Mnozhestvennaya mieloma: rukovodstvo dlya vrachei. (Multiple myeloma: manual for physicians.) Moscow: MK Publ.; 2016. 504 p. (In Russ)]
  2. Менделеева Л.П., Вотякова О.М., Покровская О.С. и др. Национальные рекомендации по диагностике и лечению множественной миеломы. Гематология и трансфузиология. 2014;1(Приложение № 3):1–24. [Mendeleeva LP, Votyakova OM, Pokrovskaya OS, et al. National guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of multiple myeloma. Gematologiya i transfuziologiya. 2014;1(Suppl 3):1–24. (In Russ)]
  3. Reece DE. Management of multiple myeloma: The changing landscape. Blood Rev. 2007;21(6):301–14. doi: 10.1016/j.blre.2007.07.001.
  4. Cavo M, Tosi P, Zamagni E, et al. Prospective, randomized study of single compared with double autologous stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: Bologna 96 clinical study. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(17):2434–41. doi: 10.1200/jco.2006.10.2509.
  5. Attal M, Harousseau JL, Facon T, et al. Single versus double autologous stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(26):2495–502. doi: 10.1056/nejmoa032290.
  6. Allan DS, Keeney M, Howson-Jan K, et al. Number of viable CD34(+) cells reinfused predicts engraftment in autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2002;29(12):967–72. doi: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1703575.
  7. Michaelis LC, Saad A, Zhong X, et al. Salvage second hematopoietic cell transplantation in myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2013;19(5):760–6. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2013.01.004.
  8. Cook G, Williams C, Brown JM, et al. High dose chemotherapy plus autologous stem-cell transplantation as consolidation therapy in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma after previous autologous stem-cell transplantation (NCRI Myeloma X Relapse [Intensive trial]): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(14):874–85. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70245-1.
  9. Musto P, Simeon V, Grossi A, et al. Predicting poor peripheral blood stem cell collection in patients with multiple myeloma receiving pre-transplant induction therapy with novel agents and mobilized with cyclophosphamide plus granulocyte-colony stimulating factor: results from a Gruppo Italiano Malattie Ematologiche dell’Adulto Multiple Myeloma Working Party study. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2015;6:64. doi: 10.1186/s13287-015-0033-1.
  10. Olivieri A, Marchetti M, Lemoli R, et al. Proposed definition of “poor mobilizer” in lymphoma and multiple myeloma: an analytic hierarchy process by ad hoc working group Gruppo ItalianoTrapianto di Midollo Osseo. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2012;47(3):342–51. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2011.82.
  11. To LB, Levesque JP, Herbert KE. How I treat patients who mobilize hematopoietic stem cells poorly. Blood. 2011;118(17):4530–40. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-06-318220.
  12. Gertz MA. Current status of stem cell mobilization. Br J Haematol. 2010;150(6):647–62. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2010.08313.x.
  13. Popat U, Saliba R, Thandi R, et al. Impairment of filgrastim induced stem cell mobilization after prior lenalidomide in patients with multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2009;15(6):718–23. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2009.02.011.
  14. Mazumder A, Kaufman J., Niesvizky R, et al. Effect of lenalidomide therapy on mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells in previously untreated multiple myeloma patients (letter). Leukemia. 2008;22(60):1280–1. doi: 10.1038/sj.leu.2405035.
  15. Giralt S, Costa L, Schriber J, et al. Optimizing autologous stem cell mobilization strategies to improve patient outcomes: consensus guidelines and recommendations. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2014;20(3):295–308. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2013.10.013.
  16. Duong HK, Savani BN, Copelan E, et al. Peripheral blood progenitor cell mobilization for autologous and allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation: guidelines from the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2014;20(9):1262–73. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2014.05.003.
  17. Sung AD, Grima DT, Bernard LM, et al. Outcomes and costs of autologous stem cell mobilization with chemotherapy plus G-CSF vs G-CSF alone. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013;48(11):1444–9. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2013.80.
  18. Gertz MA, Kumar SK, Lacy MQ, et al. Comparison of high-dose CY and growth factor with growth factor alone for mobilization of stem cells for transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2009;43(8):619–25. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2008.369.
  19. Arora M, Burns LJ, Barker JN, et al. Randomized comparison of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor versus granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor plus intensive chemotherapy for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization and autologous transplantation in multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2004;10(6):395–404. doi: 10.1016/s1083-8791(04)00068-0.
  20. Nakasone H, Kanda Y, Ueda T, et al. Retrospective comparison of mobilization methods for autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma. Am J Hematol. 2009;84(12):809–14. doi: 10.1002/ajh.21552.
  21. Mark T, Stern J, Furst JR, et al. Stem cell mobilization with cyclophosphamide overcomes the suppressive effect of lenalidomide therapy on stem cell collection in multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2008;14(7):795–8. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2008.04.008.
  22. Costa LJ, Miller AN, Alexander ET, et al. Growth factor and patient-adapted use of plerixafor is superior to CY and growth factor for autologous hematopoietic stem cells mobilization. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2011;46(4):523–8. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2010.170.
  23. DiPersio J., Stadtmauer EA, Nademanee A, et al. Plerixafor and G-CSF versus placebo and G-CSF to mobilize hematopoietic stem cells for autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma. Blood. 2009;113(23):5720–6. doi: 10.1182/blood-2008-08-174946.
  24. Покровская О.С. Механизм действия и клиническая эффективность антагониста хемокинового рецептора CXCR4 плериксафора при мобилизации гемопоэтических стволовых клеток. Клиническая онкогематология. 2012;5(4):371–9. [Pokrovskaya OS. Mechanism of action and clinical activity of CXCR4 antagonist Plerixafor in stem cell mobilization. Klinicheskaya onkogematologiya. 2012;5(4):371–9. (In Russ)]
  25. Кучер М.А., Моталкина М.С., Климова О.У. и др. Плериксафор у пациентов со сниженной мобилизационной способностью аутологичных гемопоэтических стволовых клеток. Клиническая онкогематология. 2016;9(2):155–61. doi: 10.21320/2500-2139-2016-9-2-155-61. [Kucher MA, Motalkina MS, Klimova OU, et al. Plerixafor in Patients with Decreased Mobilizing Ability of Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cells. Clinical oncohematology. 2016;9(2):155–61. doi: 10.21320/2500-2139-2016-9-2-155-61. (In Russ)]
  26. Levesque JP, Takamatsu Y, Nilsson SK, et al. Vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (CD106) is cleaved by neutrophil proteases in the bone marrow following hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. Blood. 2001;98(5):1289–97. doi: 10.1182/blood.V98.5.1289.
  27. Levesque JP, Hendy J, Takamatsu Y, et al. Disruption of the CXCR4/CXCL12 chemotactic interaction during hematopoietic stem cell mobilization induced by GCSF or cyclophosphamide. J Clin Invest. 2003;111(2):187–96. doi: 10.1172/jci15994.
  28. Petit I, Szyper-Kravitz M, Nagler A, et al. G-CSF induces stem cell mobilization by decreasing bone marrow SDF-1 and upregulating CXCR4. Nat Immunol. 2002;3(7):687–94. doi: 10.1038/ni813.
  29. Cesana C, Carlo-Stella C, Regazzi E, et al. CD34+ cells mobilized by cyclophosphamide and granulocyte colonystimulating factor (G-CSF) are functionally different from CD34+ cells mobilized by G-CSF. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1998;21(6):561–8. doi: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1701133.
  30. Bruns I, Steidl U, Fischer JC, et al. Pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor mobilizes CD34+ cells with different stem and progenitor subsets and distinct functional properties in comparison with unconjugated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. Haematologica. 2008;93(3):347–55. doi: 10.3324/haematol.12081.
  31. Kim MG, Han N, Lee EK, Kim T. Pegfilgrastim vs filgrastim in PBSC mobilization for autologous hematopoietic SCT: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2015;50(4):523–30. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2014.297.
  32. Tuchman SA, Bacon WA, Huang LW, et al. Cyclophosphamide-based hematopoietic stem cell mobilization before autologous stem cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. J Clin Apher. 2015;30(3):176–82. doi: 10.1002/jca.21360.
  33. Dingli D, Nowakowski GS, Dispenzieri A, et al. Cyclophosphamide mobilization does not improve outcome in patients receiving stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma. 2006;6(5):384–8. doi: 10.3816/clm.2006.n.014.
  34. Hamadani M, Kochuparambil ST, Osman S, et al. Intermediate-dose versus low-dose cyclophosphamide and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma treated with novel induction therapies. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2012;18(7):1128–35. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2012.01.005.
  35. Hiwase DK, Bollard G, Hiwase S. Intermediate-dose CY and G-CSF more efficiently mobilize adequate numbers of PBSC for tandem autologous PBSC transplantation compared with low-dose CY in patients with multiple myeloma. Cytotherapy. 2007;9(6):539–47. doi: 10.1080/14653240701452800.
  36. Jantunen E, Putkonen M, Nousiainen T, Low-dose or intermediate-dose cyclophosphamide plus granulocyte colonystimulating factor for progenitor cell mobilisation in patients with multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2003; 31(5):347–51. doi: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1703840.
  37. Nazha A, Cook R, Vogl DT, et al. Stem cell collection in patients with multiple myeloma: impact of induction therapy and mobilization regimen. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2011;46(1):59–63. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2010.63.
  38. Brioli A, Perrone G, Patriarca F, et al. Successful mobilization of PBSCs predicts favorable outcomes in multiple myeloma patients treated with novel agents and autologous transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2015;50(5):673–8. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2014.322.
  39. Samaras P, Pfrommer S, Seifert B, et al. Efficacy of vinorelbine plus granulocyte colonye-stimulation factor for CD34+ hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2015;21(1):74–80. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2014.09.020.
  40. Heizmann M, O’Meara AC, Moosmann PR, et al. Efficient mobilization of PBSC with vinorelbine/G-CSF in patients with malignant lymphoma. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2009;44(2):75–9. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2008.434.
  41. Annunziata M, Celentano M, Pocali B, et al. Vinorelbine plus intermediate dose cyclophosphamide is an effective and safe regimen for the mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells in patients with multiple myeloma. Ann Hematol. 2006;85(6):394–9. doi: 10.1007/s00277-005-0058-0.
  42. Bargetzi MJ, Passweg J, Baertschi E, et al. Mobilization of peripheral blood progenitor cells with vinorelbine and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in multiple myeloma patients is reliable and cost effective. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2003;31(2):99–103. doi: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1703787.
  43. Schmid A, Friess D, Taleghani BM, et al. Role of plerixafor in autologous stem cell mobilization with vinorelbine chemotherapy and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor in patients with myeloma: a phase II study (PAV-trial). Leuk Lymphoma. 2015;56(3):608–14. doi: 10.3109/10428194.2014.927454.
  44. Moreau P, Facon T, Attal M, et al. Comparison of 200 mg/m2 melphalan and 8 Gy total body irradiation plus 140 mg/m2 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(3):731–5. doi: 10.1182/blood.v99.3.731.
  45. Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Bruno B, et al. Melphalan 200 mg/m(2) versus melphalan 100 mg/m(2) in newly diagnosed myeloma patients: a prospective, multicenter phase 3 study. Blood. 2010;115(10):1873–9. doi: 10.1182/blood-2010-08-301085.
  46. Giralt S. 200mg/m2 melphalan – the gold standard for multiple myeloma. Nat Rev. 2010;7(9):490–1. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2010.104.
  47. Philips GL, Meisenberg BR, Reece DE, et al. Activity of single-agent melphalan 220 to 300 mg/m2 with amifostine cytoprotection and autologous hematopoietic stem cell support in non-Hodgkin and Hodgkin lymphoma. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2004;33(8):781–7. doi: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1704424.
  48. Moreau P, Milpied N, Mahe B. Melphalan 220 mg/m2 followed by peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in 27 patients with advanced multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1999;23(10):1003–6. doi: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1701763.
  49. Reece D., Song K., Leblanc R., et al. Efficacy and safety of busulfan-based conditioning regimens for multiple myeloma. Oncologist. 2013;18:611–8. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0384.
  50. Roussel M, Moreau P, Huynh A, et al. Bortezomib ad high-dose melphalan as conditioning regimen before autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with de novo multiple myeloma: a phase 2 study of the Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome (IFM). Blood. 2010;115(1):32–7. doi: 10.1182/blood-2009-06-229658.
  51. Nishihori T, Alekshun TJ, Shain K, et al. Bortezomib salvage followed by a phase I/II study of bortezomib plus high-dose melphalan and tandem autologous transplantation for patients with primary resistant myeloma. Br J Haematol. 2012;157(5):553–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2012.09099.x.
  52. Huang W, Li J, Li H, et al. High-dose melphalan with bortezomib as conditioning regimen for autologous stem cell transplant in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who exhibited at least very good partial response to bortezomib-based induction therapy. Leuk Lymphoma. 2012;53(12):2507–10. doi: 10.3109/10428194.2012.685735.
  53. Mark TM, Reid W, Niesvizky R, et al. A phase 1 study of bendamustine and melphalan conditioning for autologous stem cell transplant in multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2013;19(5):831–7. doi: 10.3109/10428194.2012.685735.
  54. Martino M, Tripepi G, Messina G, et al. A phase II, single-arm, prospective study of bendamustine plus melphalan conditioning for second autologous stem cell transplantation in de novo multiple myeloma patients through a tandem transplant strategy. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2016;51(9):1197–203. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2016.94.
  55. Visani G, Malerba L, Stefani PM, et al. BeEAM (bendamustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) before autologous stem cell transplantation is safe and effective for resistant/relapsed lymphoma patients. Blood. 2011;118(12):3419–25. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-04-351924.
  56. Veeraputhiran M, Jain T, Deol A, et al. BEAM conditioning regimen has higher toxicity compared with high-dose melphalan for salvage autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma. Clin Lymph Myeloma Leuk. 2015;15(9):531–5. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2015.05.008.
  57. Abu Zaid B, Abdul-Hai A, Grotto I, et al. Autologous transplant in multiple myeloma with an augmented conditioning protocol. Leuk Lymphoma. 2013;54(11):2480–4. doi: 10.3109/10428194.2013.782608.
  58. Musso M, Messina G, Marcacci G, et al. High-dose melphalan plus thiotepa as conditioning regimen before second autologous stem cell transplantation for “de novo” multiple myeloma patients: a phase II study. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2015;21(11):1932–8. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2015.06.011.
 

Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Primary Refractory Hodgkin’s Lymphoma: Supposed Zugzwang or Zwischenzug?

GD Petrova1, KN Melkova1, TZ Chernyavskaya1, NV Gorbunova1, BV Afanasev2, EA Demina1, VN Kostrykina1, VA Doronin1

1 N.N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center, 24 Kashirskoye sh., Moscow, Russian Federation, 115478

2 R.M. Gorbacheva Scientific Research Institute of Pediatric Hematology and Transplantation; Academician I.P. Pavlov First St. Petersburg State Medical University, 12 Rentgena str., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 197022

For correspondence: Galina Dmitrievna Petrova, graduate student, 24 Kashirskoye sh., Moscow, Russian Federation, 115478; Tel.: +7(499)324-13-59; e-mail: galina_petrova@bk.ru

For citation: Petrova GD, Melkova KN, Chernyavskaya TZ, et al. Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Primary Refractory Hodgkin’s Lymphoma: Supposed Zugzwang or Zwischenzug? Clinical oncohematology. 2015;8(3):321–30 (In Russ).


ABSTRACT

Background & Aims. The role of single and double autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantations (autoSCT) in patients with primary refractory Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL) has not been determined yet. The aim of the study is to present the results of a one-center prospective study evaluating the role of single and double autoSCT in patients with HL who have not achieved the complete remission (CR) after first line induction polychemotherapy (PCT).

Methods. 62 HL patients were enrolled in the study over the period from 2007 till 2014. High-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) with autoSCT was performed once in 53 patients, and twice in 10 patients.

Results. The study demonstrated an unfavorable prognostic impact of the large volume of previous chemotherapy on the overall survival (OS) rate after the autoSCT (= 0.03). Results of the 1st autoSCT had an independent prognostic value for the OS rate (= 0.004). The study identified the main indication for the 2nd autoSCT, namely, partial remission (PR) or stable disease (SD) achieved after the 1st autoSCT (when the 2nd HDCT with autoSCT should be preferred to the alternative treatment; = 0.004). Progressive disease (PD) after the first autoSCT is a contraindication for the second one. Due to low efficacy and high toxicity, the 2nd autoSCT does not improve outcomes when compared to alternative approaches (= 0.6). The importance of achieving CR at any stage of treatment which is associated with a long life span with no signs of disease and good quality of life has been demonstrated.

Conclusion. AutoSCT is an effective treatment option for patients without complete remission after the first line antitumor treatment. Carrying out 2nd autoSCT is advisable for patients who have reached the PR/SD after the first one. Patients with PD after the 1st autoSCT require an alternative treatment option.


Keywords: Hodgkin’s lymphoma, high-dose chemotherapy, autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, primary resistance, double autoSCT.

Received: May 5, 2015

Accepted: June 2, 2015

Read in PDF (RUS)pdficon


REFERENCES

  1. Kantarjian H, Pasquini R, Hamerschlak N, et al. Dasatinib or high-dose imatinib for chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia after failure of first-line imatinib: a randomized phase 2 trial. Blood. 2007;109(12):5143–50. doi: 10.1182/blood-2006-11-056028.
  2. Kantarjian H, Giles F, Bhalla K, et al. Nilotinib is effective in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase after imatinib resistance or intolerance: 24-month follow-up results. Blood. 2011;117(4):1141–5. doi: 10.1182/blood-2010-03-277152.
  3. Лазорко Н.С., Ломаиа Е.Г., Сбитякова Е.И., Зарицкий А.Ю. Нилотиниб и дазатиниб в первой линии терапии больных хроническим миелолейкозом в хронической фазе. Современная онкология. 2011;13(1):38–40. [Lazorko NS, Lomaia EG, Sbityakova EI, Zaritskii AYu. Nilotinib and dazatinib as first line therapy of patients in chronic phase of chronic myeloid leukemia. Sovremennaya onkologiya. 2011;13(1):38–40. (In Russ)]
  4. Ломаиа Е.Г., Романова Е.Г., Сбитякова Е.И., Зарицкий А.Ю. Эффективность и безопасность ингибиторов тирозинкиназ 2-го поколения (дазатиниб, нилотиниб) в терапии хронической фазы хронического миелолейкоза. Онкогематология. 2013;2:22–33. [Lomaia EG, Romanova EG, Sbityakova EI, Zaritskii AYu. Efficacy and safety of 2nd generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (dasatinib, nilotinib) in teatment of chronic phase of chronic myeloid leukemia. Onkogematologiya. 2013;2:22–33. (In Russ)]
  5. Туркина А.Г., Хорошко Н.Д., Гусарова Г.А. и др. Российский опыт применения нилотиниба во второй линии терапии больных хроническим миелолейкозом с резистентностью или непереносимостью иматиниба: оценка безопасности и эффективности в исследовании ENACT (расширенный доступ к нилотинибу в клинических исследованиях). Вестник гематологии. 2010;1(2):92–3. [Turkina AG, Khoroshko ND, Gusarova GA, et al. Russian experience in use of nilotinib in second line therapy of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia and imatinib resistance or intolerance: evaluation of safety and efficacy in ENACT trial (Expanding Nilotinib Access in Clinical Trials). Vestnik gematologii. 2010;1(2):92–3. (In Russ)]
  6. http://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/electronic_applications/ctc.htm.
  7. Kantarjian H, Giles F, Gattermann N, et al. Nilotinib (formerly AMN107), a highly selective BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is effective in patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myelogenous leukemia in chronic phase following imatinib resistance and intolerance. Blood. 2007;110(10):3540–6. doi: 10.1182/blood-2007-03-080689.
  8. Saglio G, Kim D, Issaragrisil S, et al. Nilotinib versus imatinib in newly diagnosed chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(24):2251–9. doi: 10.1517/14656566.2011.534780.
  9. Hochhaus A, Kantarjian H, Baccarani M, et al. Dasatinib induces notable hematologic and cytogenetic responses in chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia after failure of imatinib therapy. Blood. 2007;109(6):2303–9. doi: 10.1182/blood-2006-09-047266.
  10. Kantarjian H, Shah N, Hochhaus A, et al. Dasatinib versus imatinib in newly diagnosed chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:2260–70. doi: 10.1056/nejmoa1002315.
  11. Shah R. Drug-induced hepatotoxicity: pharmacokinetic perspectives and strategies for risk reduction. Adv Drug React Toxicol Rev. 1999;18:181–233.
  12. Russmann S, Kullak-Ublick G, Grattagliano I. Current concepts of mechanisms in drug-induced hepatotoxicity. Curr Med Chem. 2009;16(23):3041–53.
  13. Teo YL, Ho HK, Chan A. Risk of tyrosine kinase inhibitors-induced hepatotoxicity in cancer patients: A meta-analysis. Cancer Treat Rev. 2013;39(2):199–206. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2012.09.004.
  14. Saglio G, Pinilla-Ibarz J, Cortes J, et al. Intolerance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors in chronic myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2011;117(4):688−697. doi: 10.1002/cncr.25648.
  15. Rosti G, Castagnetti F, Gugliotta G, et al. Dasatinib and nilotinib in imatinib resistant Philadelphia-positive chronic myelogenous leukemia: a ‘head-to-head’ comparison. Leuk Lymphoma 2010;51(4):583–91. doi: 10.3109/10428191003637282.
  16. Shah R, Morganroth J, Shah D. Hepatotoxicity of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors: Clinical and Regulatory Perspectives. Drug Saf. 2013;36(7):491–503. doi: 10.1007/s40264-013-0048-4.
  17. Lammie A, Drobnjak M, Gerald W, et al. Expression of c-kit and kit ligand proteins in normal human tissues. J Histochem Cytochem. 1994;42(11):1417–25. doi: 10.1177/42.11.7523489.
  18. Grichnik J, Burch J, Burchette J, Shea C. The SCF/KIT pathway plays a critical role in the control of normal human melanocyte homeostasis. J Invest Dermatol. 1998;111(2):233–8.
  19. Kantarjian H, Pasquini R, Levy V, et al. Dasatinib or high-dose imatinib for chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia resistant to imatinib at a dose of 400 to 600 milligrams daily: two-year follow-up of a randomized phase 2 study (START-R). Cancer. 2009;115(18):4136–47. doi: 10.1002/cncr.24504.
  20. Irvine E, Williams C. Treatment-, Patient-, and Disease-Related Factors and the Emergence of Adverse Events with Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors for the Treatment of Chronic Myeloid Leukemia. Pharmacotherapy. 2013;33(8):868–81. doi: 10.1002/phar.1266.
  21. Van Etten RA. Cycling, stressed-out and nervous: cellular functions of cAbl. Trends Cell Biol. 1999;9(5):179–86. doi: 10.1016/s0962-8924(99)01549-4.
  22. Wasle B, Edwardson J. The regulation of exocytosis in the pancreatic acinar cell. Cell Signal. 2002;14(3):191–7. doi: 10.1016/s0898-6568(01)00257-1.
  23. Mooren F, Hlouschek V, Finkes T, et al. Early changes in pancreatic acinar cell calcium signalling after pancreatic duct obstruction. J Biol Chem. 2003;278(11):9361–9. doi: 10.1074/jbc.m207454200.
  24. Fitter S, Vandyke K, Gronthos S, Zannettino AC. Suppression of PDGF-induced PI3 kinase activity by imatinib promotes adipogsis and adiponectin secretion. J Mol Endocrinol. 2012;48(3):229–40. doi: 10.1530/jme-12-0003.
  25. Racil Z, Razga F, Drapalova J, et al. Mechanism of impaired glucose metabolism during nilotinib therapy in patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia. Haematologica. 2013;98(10):e124–6. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2013.086355.
  26. le Coutre P, Giles F, Hochhaus A, et al. Analysis of glucose profiles in imatinib resistant or intolerant chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) patients treated with nilotinib: lack of correlation between glucose levels and nilotinib efficacy. Blood. 2007;110: Abstract 4588.
  27. Breccia M, Alimena G. Pleural/pericardic effusions during dasatinib treatment: incidence, management and risk factors associated to their development. Exp Opin Drug Saf. 2010;9(5):713–21. doi: 10.1517/14740331003742935.
  28. de Lavallade H, Punnialingam S, Milojkovic D, et al. Pleural effusions in patients with chronic myeloid leukaemia treated with dasatinib may have an immune-mediated pathogenesis. Br J Haematol. 2008;141(5):745–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2008.07108.x.
  29. Porkka K, Khoury H, Paquette R, et al. Dasatinib 100 mg once daily minimizes the occurrence of pleural effusion in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase and efficacy is unaffected in patients who develop pleural effusion. Cancer. 2010;116(2):377–86. doi: 10.1002/cncr.24734.
  30. Shah N, Kantarjian H, Kim D, et al. Six-year (yr) follow-up of patients (pts) with imatinib-resistant or -intolerant chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CML-CP) receiving dasatinib. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:6506.
  31. Hasinoff BB. The cardiotoxicity and myocyte damage caused by small molecule anticancer tyrosine kinase inhibitors is correlated with lack of target specificity. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2010;244(2):190–5. doi: 10.1016/j.taap.2009.12.032.
  32. Albini A, Pennesi G, Donatelli F, et al. Cardiotoxicity of anticancer drugs: the need for cardio-oncology and cardio-oncological prevention. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(1):14–25. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp440.
  33. Strevel E, Ing D, Siu L. Molecularly targeted oncology therapeutics and prolongation of the QT interval. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(22):3362–71. doi: 10.1200/jco.2006.09.6925.
  34. Haverkamp W, Breithardt G, Camm A, et al. The potential for QT prolongation and proarrhythmia by non-antiarrhythmic drugs: clinical and regulatory implications. Report on a policy conference of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2000;21(15):1216–31. doi: 10.1053/euhj.2000.2249.
  35. Priori S, Schwartz P, Napolitano C, et al. Risk stratification in the long-QT syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(19):1866–74. doi: 10.1056/nejmoa022147.
  36. Sauer A, Moss A, McNitt S, et al. Long QT syndrome in adults. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49(3):329–37. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2006.08.057.
  37. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research: Nilotinib Pharmacology/Toxicology Review and Evaluation; 2007.
  38. Le Coutre P, Ottmann O, Giles F, et al. Nilotinib (formerly AMN107), a highly selective BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is active in patients with imatinib-resistant or -intolerant accelerated-phase chronic myelogenous leukemia. Blood. 2008;111(4):1834–9. doi: 10.1182/blood-2007-04-083196.
  39. Kantarjian H, Giles F, Wunderle L, et al. Nilotinib in imatinib-resistant CML and Philadelphia chromosome-positive ALL. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(24):2542–51. doi: 10.1056/nejmoa055104.
  40. Kim T, Rea D, Schwarz M, et al. Peripheral artery occlusive disease in chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia patients treated with nilotinib or imatinib. Leukemia. 2013;27(6):1316–21. doi: 10.1038/leu.2013.70.
  41. Larson R, Hochhaus A, Hughes T, et al. Nilotinib vs imatinib in patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase: ENESTnd 3-year follow-up. Leukemia. 2012;26(10):2197–203. doi: 10.1038/leu.2012.134.
  42. Aichberger K, Herndlhofer S, Schernthaner G, et al. Progressive peripheral arterial occlusive disease and other vascular events during nilotinib therapy in CML. Am J Hematol. 2011;86(7):533–9. doi: 10.1002/ajh.22037.
  43. Verma D, Verstovsek S, Kantarjian H, et al. Malignancies occurring during therapy with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) and other hematologic malignancies. Blood. 2011;118(16):4353–8. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-06-362889.
  44. Hoffmann V, Baccarani M, Hasford J. The EUTOS population-based registry: incidence and clinical characteristics of 2904 CML patients in 20 European Countries. Leukemia. 2015;29(6):1336–43. doi: 10.1038/leu.2015.73 [Epub 2015 Mar 18]

Pulmonary complications of high-dose chemotherapy and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with hematological malignancies

V.O. Sarzhevskiy, V.Ya. Melnichenko, V.P. Tyurin

N.I. Pirogov National Medico-surgical Center, RF MH, Moscow, Russian Federation


ABSTRACT

This review presents the recent data on the pulmonary complications after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with hematological malignancies. The detailed information on the diagnostic approaches, pathogenetic and clinical features, prevention and treatment of the early and late pulmonary toxicity is provided.


Keywords: high-dose chemotherapy, autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, pulmonary complications.

Read in PDF (RUS)pdficon


REFERENCES

  1. Prince D.S., Wingard J.R., Saral R. et al. Longitudinal changes in pulmonary function following bone marrow transplantation. Chest 1989; 96(2): 301–6.
  2. Arvidson J., Bratteby L.E., Carlson K. et al. Pulmonary function after autologous bone marrow transplantation in children. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1994; 14(1): 117–23.
  3. Ghalie R., Szidon J.P., Thompson L. et al. Evaluation of pulmonary complications after bone marrow transplantation: the role of pretransplant pulmonary function tests. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1992; 10(4): 359–65.
  4. Nenadov Beck M., Meresse V., Hartmann O. et al. Long-term pulmonary sequelae after autologous bone marrow transplantation in children without total body irradiation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1995; 16(6): 771–5.
  5. Badier M., Guillot C., Delpierre S. et al. Pulmonary function changes 100 days and one year after bone marrow transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1993; 12(5): 457–61.
  6. Ho V.T., Weller E., Lee S.J. et al. Prognostic factors for early severe pulmonary complications after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2001; 7(4): 223–9.
  7. Shannon V.R., Andersson B.S., Lei X. et al. Utility of early versus late fiberoptic bronchoscopy in the evaluation of new pulmonary infiltrates following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2010; 45(4): 647–55.
  8. Hofmeister C.C., Czerlanis C., Forsythe S. et al. Retrospective utility of bronchoscopy after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2006; 38(10): 693–8.
  9. Azoulay E., Mokart D., Rabbat A. et al. Diagnostic bronchoscopy in hematology and oncology patients with acute respiratory failure: prospective multicenter data. Crit. Care Med. 2008; 36(1): 100–7.
  10. NCCN Guidelines Version 1.2012. Prevention and Treatment of CancerRelated Infection. 2012: 15.
  11. Sharma S., Nadrous H.F., Peters S.G. et al. Pulmonary complications in adult blood and marrow transplant recipients: autopsy findings. Chest. 2005; 128(3): 1385–92.
  12. Roychowdhury M., Pambuccian S.E., Aslan D.L. et al. Pulmonary complications after bone marrow transplantation: an autopsy study from a large transplantation center. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2005; 129(3): 366–71.
  13. Munker R., Lazarus H.M., Atkinson K. The BMT Data Book, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, 2009: 237.
  14. Frankovich J., Donaldson S.S., Lee Y. et al. High-dose therapy and autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation in children with primary refractory and relapsed Hodgkin’s disease: atopy predicts idiopathic diffuse lung injury syndromes. Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2001; 7(1): 49–57.
  15. Avivi I., Hardak E., Shaham B. et al. Low incidence of long-term respiratory impairment in Hodgkin lymphoma survivors. Ann. Hematol. 2012; 91(2): 215–21.
  16. Arimura K., Inoue H., Kukita T. et al. Acute lung Injury in a healthy donor during mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells using granulocyte-colony stimulating factor alone. Haematologica 2005; 90(3): ECR10.
  17. Krishnan G.S., Chaudhary V., Al-Janadi A. et al. BCNU toxicity presenting with a large pericardial and pleural effusion. Ann. Transplant. 2008; 13(1): 44–7.
  18. Jones R.B., Matthes S., Shpall E.J. et al. Acute lung injury following treatment with high-dose cyclophosphamide, cisplatin, and carmustine: pharmacodynamic evaluation of carmustine. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1993; 85(8): 640–7.
  19. Puig N., de la Rubia J., Remigia M.J. et al. Morbidity and transplantrelated mortality of CBV and BEAM preparative regimens for patients with lymphoid malignancies undergoing autologous stem-cell transplantation. Leuk. Lymphoma 2006; 47(8): 1488–94.
  20. Stuart M.J., Chao N.S., Horning S.J. et al. Efficacy and toxicity of a CCNU-containing high-dose chemotherapy regimen followed by autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation in relapsed or refractory Hodgkin’s disease. Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2001; 7(10): 552–60.
  21. Munker R., Hilderbrandt G.C., Lazarus H.M., Atkinson K. The BMT Data Book: including cellular therapy, 3nd edn. Cambridge University Press, 2013: 282.
  22. Malik S.W., Myers J.L., DeRemee R.A. et al. Lung toxicity associated with cyclophosphamide use. Two distinct patterns. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 1996; 154(6 Pt. 1): 1851–6.
  23. Chen C.I., Abraham R., Tsang R. et al. Radiation-associated pneumonitis following autologous stem cell transplantation: predictive factors, disease characteristics and treatment outcomes. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2001; 27(2): 177–82.
  24. Afessa B., Abdulai R.M., Kremers W.K. et al. Risk factors and outcome of pulmonary complications after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Chest 2012; 141(2): 442–50.
  25. Halaburda K., Nasilowska-Adamska B., Grabarczyk P. et al. Limited predictive value of real-time quantitative PCR cytomegalovirus monitoring in the blood. Fatal CMV pneumonia in an autologous stem cell transplant recipient previously treated with alemtuzumab. Ann. Transplant. 2007; 12(2): 37–40.
  26. Mariotte E., Schnell D., Scieux C. et al. Significance of herpes-virus 6 in BAL fluid of hematology patients with acute respiratory failure. Infection 2011; 39(3): 225–30.
  27. Robbins R.A., Linder J., Stahl M.G. et al. Diffuse alveolar hemorrhage in autologous bone marrow transplant recipients. Am. J. Med. 1989; 87(5): 511–8.
  28. Afessa B., Tefferi A., Litzow M.R. et al. Diffuse alveolar hemorrhage in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2002; 166(5): 641–5.
  29. Metcalf J.P., Rennard S.I., Reed E.C. et al. Corticosteroids as adjunctive therapy for diffuse alveolar hemorrhage associated with bone marrow transplantation. University of Nebraska Medical Center Bone Marrow Transplant Group. Am. J. Med. 1994; 96(4): 327–34.
  30. Lee C.K., Gingrich R.D., Hohl R.J. et al. Engraftment syndrome in autologous bone marrow and peripheral stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1995; 16(1): 175–82.
  31. Spitzer T.R. Engraftment syndrome following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2001; 27(9): 893–8.
  32. Edenfield W.J., Moores L.K., Goodwin G. et al. An engraftment syndrome in autologous stem cell transplantation related to mononuclear cell dose. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2000; 25(4): 405–9.
  33. Nurnberger W., Willers R., Burdach S. et al. Risk factors for capillary leakage syndrome after bone marrow transplantation. Ann. Hematol. 1997; 74(5): 221–4.
  34. Kantrow S.P., Hackman R.C., Boeckh M. et al. Idiopathic pneumonia syndrome: changing spectrum of lung injury after marrow transplantation. Transplantation 1997; 63(8): 1079–86.
  35. Clark J.G., Hansen J.A., Hertz M.I. et al. NHLBI workshop summary. Idiopathic pneumonia syndrome after bone marrow transplantation. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 1993; 147(6 Pt. 1): 1601–6.
  36. Kato H., Yamamoto K., Taji H. et al. Interstitial pneumonia after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Clin. Lymph. Myel. Leuk. 2011; 11(6): 483–9.
  37. Metzner B., Gruneisl R., Gebauer W. et al. Late infectious complications after high-dose therapy and autologous blood stem cell transplantation. Med. Klin. (Munich) 2002; 97(11): 650–8.
  38. Roy V., Weisdorf D. Mycobacterial infections following bone marrow transplantation: a 20 year retrospective review. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1997; 19(5): 467–70.
  39. Akan H., Arslan O., Akan O.A. et al. Tuberculosis in stem cell transplant patients. J. Hosp. Infect. 2006; 62(4): 421–6.
  40. Marras T.K., Chan C.K. Obliterative bronchiolitis complicating bone marrow transplantation. Semin. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2003; 24(5): 531–42.
  41. Paz H.L., Crilley P., Patchefsky A., Schiffman R.L., Brodsky I. Bronchiolitis obliterans after autologous bone marrow transplantation. Chest 1992; 101(3): 775–8.
  42. Gulbahce H.E., Pambuccian S.E., Jessurun J. et al. Pulmonary nodular lesions in bone marrow transplant recipients: impact of histologic diagnosis on patient management and prognosis. Am J. Clin. Pathol. 2004; 121(2): 205–10.
  43. Witherspoon R.P., Fisher L.D., Schoch G. et al. Secondary cancers after bone marrow transplantation for leukemia or aplastic anemia. N. Engl. J. Med. 1989; 321(12): 784–9.
  44. Danner-Koptik K.E., Majhail N.S., Brazauskas R. et al. Second malignancies after autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation in children. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013; 48(3): 363–8.