Roberto Ria, Franca Falzetti, Stelvio Ballanti, Olivia Minelli, Mauro Di Ianni, Michele Cimminiello, Angelo Vacca, Franco Dammacco, Massimo F Martelli, Antonio Tabilio
{"title":"Melphalan与Melphalan加busulphan对低风险多发性骨髓瘤自体干细胞移植的调节作用。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
自体干细胞移植的高剂量化疗调理方案通常在多发性骨髓瘤中给出类似的结果。我们比较了两种治疗方案:美伐兰与美伐兰加布苏芬。方法:对30例未经治疗的III期低危多发性骨髓瘤患者进行研究。经过3个VAD疗程的诱导和环磷酰胺7 g/m(2)和重组人粒细胞集落刺激因子(rHuG-CSF)(10微克/kg体重/死亡)动员后,给予美伐兰200 mg/m(2) (A组)或布硫芬16 mg/kg加美伐兰100 mg/m(2) (B组),以适应移植。所有患者均接受干扰素3mu x 3/周的维持治疗。结果:两组移植后植根时间相近。所有患者外周血干细胞回输后均接受rHuG-CSF治疗。移植相关的感染和非感染并发症没有差异。没有与移植相关的死亡。结论:这两种调节方案显示出相似的总缓解率和总生存期,尽管布苏芬加美伐兰的无进展生存期更好。
Melphalan versus melphalan plus busulphan in conditioning to autologous stem cell transplantation for low-risk multiple myeloma.
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.