Vol. 16 No. 1 (2023), BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION
Vol. 16 No. 1 (2023)
BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION

Efficacy of Combined Drug Pre-transplant Conditioning Regimens in Multiple Myeloma Patients with Single Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Published 20.02.2024
Ivan Ivanovich Kostroma
Russian Research Institute of Hematology and Transfusiology, 16 2-ya Sovetskaya ul., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 191024
A.S. Zhuk
ITMO National Research University, 49 lit. A Kronverkskii pr-t, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 197101
Zh.Yu. Sidorova
Russian Research Institute of Hematology and Transfusiology, 16 2-ya Sovetskaya ul., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 191024; BP Konstantinov Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute of National Research Center “Kurchatov Institute”, 1 Orlova roshcha microdistrict, Gatchina, Leningrad Region, Russian Federation, 188300
R.R. Sabitova
Russian Research Institute of Hematology and Transfusiology, 16 2-ya Sovetskaya ul., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 191024
A.Yu. Aksenova
Saint Petersburg State University, 7/9 Universitetskaya nab., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 199034
O.B. Belopolskaya
Saint Petersburg State University, 7/9 Universitetskaya nab., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 199034
S.S. Bessmeltsev
Russian Research Institute of Hematology and Transfusiology, 16 2-ya Sovetskaya ul., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 191024
S.V. Sidorkevich
Russian Research Institute of Hematology and Transfusiology, 16 2-ya Sovetskaya ul., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 191024
S.V. Gritsaev
Russian Research Institute of Hematology and Transfusiology, 16 2-ya Sovetskaya ul., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 191024
2023-1
PDF_2023-16-1_88-95 (Russian)

Keywords

multiple myeloma
autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation
conditioning regimen
melphalan
carfilzomib
thiotepa

How to Cite

1.
Kostroma I.I., Zhuk A.S., Sidorova Z.Y., et al. Efficacy of Combined Drug Pre-transplant Conditioning Regimens in Multiple Myeloma Patients with Single Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation. Клиническая онкогематология. 2024;16(1):88-95. doi:10.21320/2500-2139-2023-16-1-88-95
ACM ACS APA ABNT Chicago Harvard IEEE MLA Turabian Vancouver AMA ГОСТ

Download Citation

Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX

Keywords

Abstract

Aim. To conduct an interim outcome analysis of conditioning regimens with carfilzomib or thiotepa compared to standard melphalan 200 mg/m2 regimen in multiple myeloma (MM) patients with single autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT).

Materials & Methods. The retrospective analysis focused on outcomes of 67 single auto-HSCTs performed from 2017 to 2021. Responses as well as progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were compared in MM patients per IWMG criteria in pre- and post-transplant periods. Three conditioning regimens were assigned: melphalan 200 mg/m2 (Mel200), melphalan/carfilzomib combination (Mel/Karfil), and melphalan/thiotepa combination (Mel/Thio). In an additional cohort of 12 MM patients, next-generation sequencing assay was used to detect inherited and somatic mutations associated with proteasome inhibitor efficacy. For this purpose, DNA of peripheral blood lymphocytes and bone marrow plasma cells were examined.

Results. PFS medians were comparable in MM patients treated with Mel200 (n = 40) and Mel/Karfil (n = 10) conditioning regimens, they were 32 and 23 months, respectively (p = 0.241). In these cohorts, OS median was not reached, and the curves showed no significant differences (p = 0.050). Out of 10 MM patients treated with Mel/Karfil, six received melphalan 140 mg/m2, the remaining 4 patients received 200 mg/m2. Complete response (CR) rate in the Mel200 and Mel/Karfil groups increased two-fold after auto-HSCT: from 35.5 % to 74.2 % and from 25.0 % to 50.0 %, respectively. The worst PFS and OS medians were in the Mel/Thio group, i.e., 12 and 17 months, respectively, and CR rate after auto-HSCT remained unchanged. The best PFS was associated with CR rather than very good partial or partial response after auto-HSCT, they were 48, 21, and 23 months, respectively (p = 0.001). Exome sequencing of DNA of peripheral blood lymphocytes and bone marrow plasma cells revealed polymorphic variants in the genes associated with chemotherapy response.

Conclusion. The outcomes of Mel/Karfil, the regimen containing the reduced dose of melphalan 140 mg/m2, and the statistical comparability with the Mel200 regimen suggest that this combination can be effective in the treatment of MM patients with impaired renal function, which still needs to be further confirmed. No advantage of the combined conditioning regimen over the standard one can be accounted for by the loss of plasma cell sensitivity to proteasome inhibitors. The obtained data provide ground for modifying the study protocol with a particular focus on evaluating the efficacy and safety of conditioning regimen Mel/Karfil with melphalan 200 mg/m2 depending on biologic phenotype of plasma cell.

PDF_2023-16-1_88-95 (Russian)

References

  1. Бессмельцев С.С., Абдулкадыров К.М. Множественная миелома: руководство для врачей. М.: СИМК, 2016. 512 с.
  2. [Bessmeltsev SS, Abdulkadyrov KM. Mnozhestvennaya mieloma: rukovodstvo dlya vrachei. (Multiple myeloma: manual for physicians.) Moscow: SIMK Publ.; 2016. 512 p. (In Russ)]
  3. 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.
  4. [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)]
  5. Goicoechea E, Puig N, Cedenae MT, et al. Deep MRD profiling defines outcome and unveils different modes of treatment resistance in standard- and high-risk myeloma. Blood. 2021;137(1):49–60. doi: 1182/blood.2020006731
  6. Goel U, Usmani S, Kumar S. Current approaches to management of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Am J Haematol. 2022;97(Suppl 1):S3–S25. doi: 1002/ajh.26512.
  7. Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Bruno B, et al. Melphalan 200 mg/m2 versus melphalan 100 mg/m2 in newly diagnosed myeloma patients: a prospective, multicenter phase 3 study. Blood. 2010;115(10):1873–9. doi: 1182/blood-2009-09-241737.
  8. Saini N, Bashir O, Milton D, et al. Busulfan and melphalan conditioning is superior to melphalan alone in autologous stem cell transplantation for high-risk MM. Blood Adv. 2020;4(19):4834–7. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002590.
  9. Farag S, Bacher U, Jeker B, et al. Adding bendamustine to melphalan before ASCT improves CR rate in myeloma vs. melphalan alone: A randomized phase-2 trial. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2022;57(6):990–7. doi: 10.1038/s41409-022-01681-y.
  10. Roussel M, Lauwers-Cances V, Macro M, et al. Bortezomib and high-dose melphalan conditioning regimen in frontline multiple myeloma: an IFM randomized phase 3 study. 2022;139(18):2747–57. doi: 10.1182/blood.2021014635.
  11. Costa L, Landau H, 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.
  12. 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.
  13. [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)]
  14. Karam D, Gertz M, Lacy M, et al. Impact of maintenance therapy post autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma in early and delayed transplant. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2022;57(5):803–9. doi:1038/s41409-022-01631-8.
  15. Roussel M, Lauwers-Cances V, Wuilleme S, et al. Up-front carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone with transplant for patients with multiple myeloma: the IFM KRd final results. Blood. 2021;138(2):113–21. doi: 1182/blood.2021010744.
  16. Bazarbachi A, Hamed R, Malard F, et al. Induction therapy prior to autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: an update. Blood Cancer J. 2022;12(3):47. doi: 1038/s41408-022-00645-1.
  17. Lahuerta J, Mateos M, Martinez-Lopez J, et al. Influence of pre- and post-transplantation responses on outcome of patients with multiple myeloma: sequential improvement of response and achievement of complete response are associated with longer survival. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(35):5775–82. doi: 1200/JCO.2008.17.9721.
  18. Harousseau JL, Attal M, Avet-Loiseau H. The role of complete response in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2009;114(15):3139–46. doi: 1182/blood-2009-03-201053.
  19. Kumar S, Fu A, Niesvizky R, et al. Renal response in real-world carfilzomib- vs bortezomib-treated patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Blood Adv. 2021;5(2):367–76. doi: 1182/bloodadvances.2019001059.
  20. Hodges L, Markova S, Chinn L, et al. Very important pharmacogene summary: ABCB1 (MDR1, P-glycoprotein). Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2011;21(3):152–61. doi: 1097/FPC.0b013e3283385a1c.
  21. Hassen W, Kassambara A, Reme T, et al. Drug metabolism and clearance system in tumor cells of patients with multiple myeloma. 2015;6(8):6431–47. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.3237.
  22. Soriano G, Besse L, Li N, et al. Proteasome inhibitor-adapted myeloma cells are largely independent from proteasome activity and show complex proteomic changes, in particular in redox and energy metabolism. 2016;30(11):2198–207. doi: 10.1038/LEU.2016.102.
  23. Sissung T, Peer C, Korde N, et al. Carfilzomib and lenalidomide response related to VEGF and VEGFR2 germline polymorphisms. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2017;80(1):217–21. doi: 10.1007/s00280-017-3323-8.
  24. Kuhn D, Berkova Z, Jones R, et al. Targeting the insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor to overcome bortezomib resistance in preclinical models of multiple myeloma. 2012;120(16):3260–70. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-10-386789.
  25. Shirazi F, Jones R, Singh R, et al. Activating KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF mutants enhance proteasome capacity and reduce endoplasmic reticulum stress in multiple myeloma. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2020;117(33):20004–14. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2005052117.
  26. Mulligan G, Lichter D, Di Bacco A, et al. Mutation of NRAS but not KRAS significantly reduces myeloma sensitivity to single-agent bortezomib therapy. 2014;123(5):632–9. doi: 10.1182/blood-2013-05-504340.
  27. Narita T, Ri M, Masaki A, et al. Lower expression of activating transcription factors 3 and 4 correlates with shorter progression-free survival in multiple myeloma patients receiving bortezomib plus dexamethasone therapy. Blood Cancer J. 2015;5(12):e373. doi: 10.1038/bcj.2015.98.
  28. Pinto V, Bergantim R, Caires H, et al. Multiple myeloma: Available therapies and causes of drug resistance. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12(2):407. doi: 10.3390/cancers12020407.
  29. Aksenova AY, Zhuk AS, Lada AG, et al. Genome instability in multiple myeloma: facts and factors. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(23):5949. doi: 10.3390/cancers13235949.
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2023 Clinical Oncohematology