Melphalan 140 mg/m2 is Safe and Effective for Frail and Older Multiple Myeloma Patients With Comparable Rates of Minimal Residual Disease Negativity.

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 HEMATOLOGY
Jeries Kort, Nikolas Naleid, Frank Oley, James Ignatz-Hoover, Seunghee Margevicius, Pingfu Fu, Ehsan Malek, Brenda Cooper
{"title":"Melphalan 140 mg/m<sup>2</sup> is Safe and Effective for Frail and Older Multiple Myeloma Patients With Comparable Rates of Minimal Residual Disease Negativity.","authors":"Jeries Kort, Nikolas Naleid, Frank Oley, James Ignatz-Hoover, Seunghee Margevicius, Pingfu Fu, Ehsan Malek, Brenda Cooper","doi":"10.1016/j.clml.2025.02.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite therapeutic advances, multiple myeloma (MM) remains challenging to treat effectively. High-dose melphalan (Mel200) with autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard treatment for transplant-eligible patients. Reduced-dose melphalan (Mel140) is an alternative for older or frail patients, yet its efficacy data remain unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively analyzed 233 MM patients undergoing first ASCT between 2014 and 2022, comparing outcomes between Mel140 (n = 82) and Mel200 (n = 151). We assessed patient demographics, disease characteristics, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). In an exploratory subset analysis achievement of MRD from bone marrow samples after ASCT was compared between the 2 groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>As expected, patients who received Mel 140 were significantly older with a higher KPS. Median follow-up was 47.7 months. Both groups had similar rates of readmissions and infections within the first 100 days after transplant despite Mel140 group being older with more comorbidities. No significant difference in PFS or OS was observed between Mel140 and Mel200 groups (P > .05). MRD negativity rates at sensitivity levels of 10<sup>-5</sup> and 10<sup>-6</sup> were comparable (64% vs. 60%, P = .7). Patients achieving sustained MRD negativity demonstrated improved PFS regardless of melphalan dose.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings suggest equivalent efficacy and safety profiles between Mel140 and Mel200, supporting Mel140 as a viable option for older or frail MM patients. In a subset analysis equivalent rates of MRD were achieved between the groups and remained a highly significant predictor of PFS, highlighting its relevance regardless of dosing strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":10348,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2025.02.004","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Despite therapeutic advances, multiple myeloma (MM) remains challenging to treat effectively. High-dose melphalan (Mel200) with autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard treatment for transplant-eligible patients. Reduced-dose melphalan (Mel140) is an alternative for older or frail patients, yet its efficacy data remain unclear.

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 233 MM patients undergoing first ASCT between 2014 and 2022, comparing outcomes between Mel140 (n = 82) and Mel200 (n = 151). We assessed patient demographics, disease characteristics, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). In an exploratory subset analysis achievement of MRD from bone marrow samples after ASCT was compared between the 2 groups.

Results: As expected, patients who received Mel 140 were significantly older with a higher KPS. Median follow-up was 47.7 months. Both groups had similar rates of readmissions and infections within the first 100 days after transplant despite Mel140 group being older with more comorbidities. No significant difference in PFS or OS was observed between Mel140 and Mel200 groups (P > .05). MRD negativity rates at sensitivity levels of 10-5 and 10-6 were comparable (64% vs. 60%, P = .7). Patients achieving sustained MRD negativity demonstrated improved PFS regardless of melphalan dose.

Conclusion: Our findings suggest equivalent efficacy and safety profiles between Mel140 and Mel200, supporting Mel140 as a viable option for older or frail MM patients. In a subset analysis equivalent rates of MRD were achieved between the groups and remained a highly significant predictor of PFS, highlighting its relevance regardless of dosing strategies.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
3.70%
发文量
1606
审稿时长
26 days
期刊介绍: Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia is a peer-reviewed monthly journal that publishes original articles describing various aspects of clinical and translational research of lymphoma, myeloma and leukemia. Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia is devoted to articles on detection, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of lymphoma, myeloma, leukemia and related disorders including macroglobulinemia, amyloidosis, and plasma-cell dyscrasias. The main emphasis is on recent scientific developments in all areas related to lymphoma, myeloma and leukemia. Specific areas of interest include clinical research and mechanistic approaches; drug sensitivity and resistance; gene and antisense therapy; pathology, markers, and prognostic indicators; chemoprevention strategies; multimodality therapy; and integration of various approaches.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信