4.6 Article

Phase II clinical trial for the evaluation of bortezomib within the reduced intensity conditioning regimen (RIC) and post-allogeneic transplantation for high-risk myeloma patients

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
Volume 162, Issue 4, Pages 474-482

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjh.12410

Keywords

multiple myeloma; transplantation; bortezomib; conditioning regimen; graft-versus-host disease

Categories

Funding

  1. Ministery of Health [EC10-289]
  2. Instituto de Salud Carlos III [CM10/00161]
  3. Jassen-Cilaj

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The current study was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of bortezomib in combination with fludarabine and melphalan as reduced intensity conditioning before allogeneic stem cell transplantation in patients with high risk multiple myeloma. Sixteen patients were evaluable. The median number of previous line of treatment was 3; all patients had relapsed following a prior autograft and 13 had previously received bortezomib. Fifteen of them either remained stable or improved disease status at day +100 post-transplant, including 11 patients with active disease. More specifically, nine patients (56%) and five patients (31%) reached complete remission and partial response, respectively. 25% developed grade III acute graft-versus-host disease. The cumulative incidence of non-relapse mortality, relapse and overall survival were 25%, 54% and 41%, respectively, at 3years. Regarding the non-haematological toxicity (grade>2), two patients developed peripheral neuropathy, two patients liver toxicity and 1 pulmonary toxicity early post-transplant. The haematological toxicity was only observed during the first three cycles mostly related to low haemoglobin and platelet levels. The current trial is the first one evaluating the safety and efficacy of bortezomib as part of a reduced intensity conditioning regimen among patients with high risk multiple myeloma.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available