Roberto Ria, Franca Falzetti, Stelvio Ballanti, Olivia Minelli, Mauro Di Ianni, Michele Cimminiello, Angelo Vacca, Franco Dammacco, Massimo F Martelli, Antonio Tabilio
{"title":"Melphalan versus melphalan plus busulphan in conditioning to autologous stem cell transplantation for low-risk multiple myeloma.","authors":"Roberto Ria, Franca Falzetti, Stelvio Ballanti, Olivia Minelli, Mauro Di Ianni, Michele Cimminiello, Angelo Vacca, Franco Dammacco, Massimo F Martelli, Antonio Tabilio","doi":"10.1038/sj.thj.6200369","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>High-dose chemotherapy conditioning regimens for autologous stem cell transplantation generally give similar results in multiple myeloma. We compared two regimens: melphalan versus melphalan plus busulphan.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In all, 30 untreated patients with stage III low-risk multiple myeloma were studied. After induction with three VAD courses and mobilization with cyclophosphamide 7 g/m(2) and recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (rHuG-CSF) (10 microg/kg b.w./die), they received melphalan 200 mg/m(2) (arm A) or busulphan 16 mg/kg plus melphalan 100 mg/m(2) (arm B) for conditioning for transplantation. All patients received maintenance therapy with Interferon 3 MU x 3/week.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Time to engraftment after transplantation was similar in both groups. All patients received rHuG-CSF after reinfusion of peripheral stem cells. No differences emerged in transplant-related infective and noninfective complications. There were no transplant-related deaths. A better response was observed in the melphalan plus busulphan regimen (85 versus 75%, P<0.05). The 5-year overall survival with this regimen was 56 versus 49% with melphalan, and the median survival was 126 months versus 108 months for melphalan (P=0.7). The median progression-free survival was 121 months for melphalan plus busulphan versus 97 months for melphalan (P=0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These two conditioning regimens showed similar overall response rate and overall survival, though progression-free survival was better with busulphan plus melphalan.</p>","PeriodicalId":22486,"journal":{"name":"The hematology journal : the official journal of the European Haematology Association","volume":"5 2","pages":"118-22"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1038/sj.thj.6200369","citationCount":"29","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The hematology journal : the official journal of the European Haematology Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.thj.6200369","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 29
Abstract
Introduction: High-dose chemotherapy conditioning regimens for autologous stem cell transplantation generally give similar results in multiple myeloma. We compared two regimens: melphalan versus melphalan plus busulphan.
Methods: In all, 30 untreated patients with stage III low-risk multiple myeloma were studied. After induction with three VAD courses and mobilization with cyclophosphamide 7 g/m(2) and recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (rHuG-CSF) (10 microg/kg b.w./die), they received melphalan 200 mg/m(2) (arm A) or busulphan 16 mg/kg plus melphalan 100 mg/m(2) (arm B) for conditioning for transplantation. All patients received maintenance therapy with Interferon 3 MU x 3/week.
Results: Time to engraftment after transplantation was similar in both groups. All patients received rHuG-CSF after reinfusion of peripheral stem cells. No differences emerged in transplant-related infective and noninfective complications. There were no transplant-related deaths. A better response was observed in the melphalan plus busulphan regimen (85 versus 75%, P<0.05). The 5-year overall survival with this regimen was 56 versus 49% with melphalan, and the median survival was 126 months versus 108 months for melphalan (P=0.7). The median progression-free survival was 121 months for melphalan plus busulphan versus 97 months for melphalan (P=0.05).
Conclusion: These two conditioning regimens showed similar overall response rate and overall survival, though progression-free survival was better with busulphan plus melphalan.