Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T07:29:10.429Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Section 13 - Plasma Cell Dyscrasias: Hematopoietic Cell Transplants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2017

Edited by
Hillard M. Lazarus ,
Robert Peter Gale ,
Armand Keating ,
Andrea Bacigalupo ,
Reinhold Munker  and
Kerry Atkinson
Edited in association with
Syed Ali Abutalib
Hillard M. Lazarus
Affiliation:
Case Western Reserve University, Ohio
Robert Peter Gale
Affiliation:
Imperial College London
Armand Keating
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Andrea Bacigalupo
Affiliation:
Ospedale San Martino, Genoa
Reinhold Munker
Affiliation:
Louisiana State University, Shreveport
Kerry Atkinson
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Syed Ali Abutalib
Affiliation:
Midwestern Regional Medical Center, Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Chicago
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Hematopoietic Cell Transplants
Concepts, Controversies and Future Directions
 , pp. 445 - 484
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Blokhin, N, Larionov, L, Perevodchikova, N, Chebotareva, L, Merkulova, N. Clinical experiences with sarcolysin in neoplastic diseases. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1958;68:1128–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alexanian, R, Bergsagel, DE, Migliore, PJ, Vaughn, WK, Howe, CD. Melphalan therapy for plasma cell myeloma. Blood 1968;31:1–10.Google Scholar
Group, MTC. Combination Chemotherapy versus melphalan plus prednisone as treatment for multiple myeloma: An overwiev of 6.633 patients from 27 randomized studies. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:3832–42.Google Scholar
Larkin, M. Low-dose thalidomide seems to be effective in multiple myeloma. Lancet 1999;354:925.Google Scholar
Twombly, R. First proteasome inhibitor approved for multiple myeloma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:845.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gore, ME, Selby, PJ, Viner, C, et al. Intensive treatment of multiple myeloma and criteria for complete remission. Lancet 1989;2:879–82.Google Scholar
Alexanian, R, Dimopoulos, M. The treatment of multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 1994;330:484–9.Google Scholar
Myeloma Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Interferon as therapy for multiple myeloma: an individual patient data overview of 24 randomized trials and 4012 patients. Br J Haematol 2001;113:1020–34.Google Scholar
Siegel, DS, Desikan, KR, Mehta, J, et al. Age is not a prognostic variable with autotransplants for multiple myeloma. Blood 1999;93:51–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Attal, M, Harousseau, JL, Stoppa, AM, et al. A prospective, randomized trial of autologous bone marrow transplantation and chemotherapy in multiple myeloma. Intergroupe Francais du Myelome. N Engl J Med 1996;335:91–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barlogie, B, Kyle, RA, Anderson, KC, et al. Standard chemotherapy compared with high-dose chemoradiotherapy for multiple myeloma: final results of phase III US Intergroup Trial S9321. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:929–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blade, J, Rosinol, L, Sureda, A, et al. High-dose therapy intensification compared with continued standard chemotherapy in multiple myeloma patients responding to the initial chemotherapy: long-term results from a prospective randomized trial from the Spanish cooperative group PETHEMA. Blood 2005;106:3755–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Child, JA, Morgan, GJ, Davies, FE, et al. High-dose chemotherapy with hematopoietic stem-cell rescue for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2003;348:1875–83.Google Scholar
Fermand, JP, Katsahian, S, Divine, M, et al. High-dose therapy and autologous blood stem-cell transplantation compared with conventional treatment in myeloma patients aged 55 to 65 years: long-term results of a randomized control trial from the Group Myelome-Autogreffe. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:9227–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fermand, JP, Ravaud, P, Chevret, S, et al. High-dose therapy and autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma: up-front or rescue treatment? Results of a multicenter sequential randomized clinical trial. Blood 1998;92:3131–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palumbo, A, Bringhen, S, Petrucci, MT, et al. Intermediate-dose melphalan improves survival of myeloma patients aged 50 to 70: results of a randomized controlled trial. Blood 2004;104:3052–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Segeren, CM, Sonneveld, P, van der Holt, B, et al. Overall and event-free survival are not improved by the use of myeloablative therapy following intensified chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma: a prospective randomized phase 3 study. Blood 2003;101:2144–51.Google Scholar
Palumbo, A, Triolo, S, Argentino, C, et al. Dose-intensive melphalan with stem cell support (MEL100) is superior to standard treatment in elderly myeloma patients. Blood 1999;94:1248–53.Google Scholar
Koreth, J, Cutler, CS, Djulbegovic, B, et al. High-dose therapy with single autologous transplantation versus chemotherapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2007;13:183–96.Google Scholar
Ludwig, H, Bolejack, V, Crowley, J, et al. Survival and years of life lost in different age cohorts of patients with multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1599–605.Google Scholar
Turesson, I, Velez, R, Kristinsson, SY, Landgren, O. Patterns of improved survival in patients with multiple myeloma in the twenty-first century: a population-based study. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:830–4.Google Scholar
Lokhorst, HM, van der Holt, B, Zweegman, S, et al. A randomized phase 3 study on the effect of thalidomide combined with adriamycin, dexamethasone, and high-dose melphalan, followed by thalidomide maintenance in patients with multiple myeloma. Blood 2010;115:1113–20.Google Scholar
Morgan, GJ, Davies, FE, Gregory, WM, et al. Long-term follow-up of MRC Myeloma IX trial: Survival outcomes with bisphosphonate and thalidomide treatment. Clin Cancer Res 2013;19:6030–8.Google Scholar
Zervas, K, Mihou, D, Katodritou, E, et al. VAD-doxil versus VAD-doxil plus thalidomide as initial treatment for multiple myeloma: results of a multicenter randomized trial of the Greek Myeloma Study Group. Ann Oncol 2007;18:1369–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cavo, M, Tacchetti, P, Patriarca, F, et al. Bortezomib with thalidomide plus dexamethasone compared with thalidomide plus dexamethasone as induction therapy before, and consolidation therapy after, double autologous stem-cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a randomised phase 3 study. Lancet 2010;376:2075–85.Google Scholar
Rosinol, L, Oriol, A, Teruel, AI, et al. Superiority of bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTD) as induction pretransplantation therapy in multiple myeloma: a randomized phase 3 PETHEMA/GEM study. Blood 2012;120:1589–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moreau, P, Hulin, C, Macro, M, et al. VTD is superior to VCD prior to intensive therapy in multiple myeloma: results of the prospective IFM2013-04 trial. Blood 2016;127:2569–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rajkumar, SV, Jacobus, S, Callander, NS, et al. Lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone versus lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone as initial therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: an open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:29–37.Google Scholar
Zonder, JA, Crowley, J, Hussein, MA, et al. Lenalidomide and high-dose dexamethasone compared with dexamethasone as initial therapy for multiple myeloma: a randomized Southwest Oncology Group trial (S0232). Blood 2010;116:5838–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonneveld, P, Goldschmidt, H, Rosinol, L, et al. Bortezomib-based versus nonbortezomib-based induction treatment before autologous stem-cell transplantation in patients with previously untreated multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis of phase III randomized, controlled trials. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:3279–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Popat, R, Oakervee, HE, Hallam, S, et al. Bortezomib, doxorubicin and dexamethasone (PAD) front-line treatment of multiple myeloma: updated results after long-term follow-up. Br J Haematol 2008;141:512–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cavo, M, Pantani, L, Petrucci, MT, et al. Bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone is superior to thalidomide-dexamethasone as consolidation therapy after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood 2013;120:9–19.Google Scholar
Jakubowiak, AJ, Dytfeld, D, Griffith, KA, et al. A phase 1/2 study of carfilzomib in combination with lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone as a frontline treatment for multiple myeloma. Blood 2012;120:1801–9.Google Scholar
Sonneveld, P, Asselberg-Hacker, E, Zweegman, S, et al. Dose escalation Phase 2 trial of Carfilzomib combined with thalidomide and low-dose dexamethason In newly diagnosed, transplant eligible patients with multiple myeloma. A trial of the European Myeloma Network. Blood 2013;122:688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, S, Flinn, I, Richardson, PG, et al. Randomized, multicenter, phase 2 study (EVOLUTION) of combinations of bortezomib, dexamethasone, cyclophosphamide, and lenalidomide in previously untreated multiple myeloma. Blood 2012;119:4375–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reeder, CB, Libby, EN, Costa, LJ, et al. A phase I/II trial of cyclophosphamide, carfilzomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone (CYCLONE) in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: final results of MTD expansion cohort. Blood 2013;122:3179.Google Scholar
Bhutani, D, Zonder, J, Valent, J, et al. Evaluating the effects of lenalidomide induction therapy on peripheral stem cells collection in patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplant for multiple myeloma. Support Care Cancer 2013;21:2437–42.Google Scholar
Cavo, M, Pantani, L, Pezzi, A. Bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) is superior to bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (VCD) as induction therapy prior to autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2015;29(12):2429–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cavo, M, Salwender, H, Rosiñol, L, et al. Double vs single autologous stem cell transplantation after bortezomib-based induction regimens for multiple myeloma: an integrated analysis of patient-level data from phase European III studies. Blood 2013;122:767.Google Scholar
Harousseau, JL, Attal, M, Avet-Loiseau, H, et al. Bortezomib plus dexamethasone is superior to vincristine plus doxorubicin plus dexamethasone as induction treatment prior to autologous stem-cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: results of the IFM 2005-01 phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:4621–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moreau, P, Facon, T, Attal, M, et al. Comparison of 200 mg/m2 melphalan and 8 Gy total body irradiation plus 140 mg/m2 melphalan as conditioning regimens for peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: final analysis of the Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome 9502 randomized trial. Blood 2002;99:731–5.Google Scholar
Lahuerta, JJ, Mateos, MV, Martinez-Lopez, J, et al. Busulfan 12 mg/kg plus melphalan 140 mg/m2 versus melphalan 200 mg/m2 as conditioning regimens for autologous transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients included in the PETHEMA/GEM2000 study. Haematologica 2010;95:1913–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lonial, S, Kaufman, J, Tighiouart, M, et al. A phase I/II trial combining high-dose melphalan and autologous transplant with bortezomib for multiple myeloma: a dose- and schedule-finding study. Clin Cancer Res 2010;16:5079–86.Google Scholar
Roussel, M, Moreau, P, Huynh, A, et al. Bortezomib and high-dose melphalan as conditioning regimen before autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with de novo multiple myeloma: a phase 2 study of the Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome (IFM). Blood 2010;115:32–7.Google Scholar
Lazarus, HM, Phillips, GL, Herzig, RH, Hurd, DD, Wolff, SN, Herzig, GP. High-dose melphalan and the development of hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation: 25 years later. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:2240–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bayraktar, UD, Bashir, Q, Qazilbash, M, Champlin, RE, Ciurea, SO. Fifty years of melphalan use in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2013;19:344–56.Google Scholar
Shaw, PJ, C.E. N, Lazarus, HM. Not too little, not too much – just right! (Better ways to give high dose melphalan). Bone Marrow Transplant (in press).Google Scholar
Barlogie, B, Attal, M, Crowley, J, et al. Long-term follow-up of autotransplantation trials for multiple myeloma: update of protocols conducted by the intergroupe francophone du myelome, southwest oncology group, and university of arkansas for medical sciences. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1209–14.Google Scholar
Ladetto, M, Pagliano, G, Ferrero, S, et al. Major tumor shrinking and persistent molecular remissions after consolidation with bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone in patients with autografted myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:2077–84.Google Scholar
Berenson, JR, Crowley, JJ, Grogan, TM, et al. Maintenance therapy with alternate-day prednisone improves survival in multiple myeloma patients. Blood 2002;99:3163–8.Google Scholar
Attal, M, Harousseau, JL, Leyvraz, S, et al. Maintenance therapy with thalidomide improves survival in patients with multiple myeloma. Blood 2006;108:3289–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barlogie, B, Pineda-Roman, M, van Rhee, F, et al. Thalidomide arm of Total Therapy 2 improves complete remission duration and survival in myeloma patients with metaphase cytogenetic abnormalities. Blood 2008;112:3115–21.Google Scholar
Maiolino, A, Hungria, VT, Garnica, M, et al. Thalidomide plus dexamethasone as a maintenance therapy after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation improves progression-free survival in multiple myeloma. Am J Hematol 2012;87:948–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spencer, A, Prince, HM, Roberts, AW, et al. Consolidation therapy with low-dose thalidomide and prednisolone prolongs the survival of multiple myeloma patients undergoing a single autologous stem-cell transplantation procedure. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:1788–93.Google Scholar
Stewart, AK, Trudel, S, Bahlis, NJ, et al. A randomized phase 3 trial of thalidomide and prednisone as maintenance therapy after ASCT in patients with MM with a quality-of-life assessment: the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinicals Trials Group Myeloma 10 Trial. Blood 2013;121:1517–23.Google Scholar
Kalff, A, Kennedy, N, Smiley, A, et al. Thalidomide consolidation post autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) for multiple myeloma (MM) is cost-effective with durable survival benefit at 5 years post randomisation: final analysis of the ALLG MM6 Study. Blood 2013;122:537.Google Scholar
Lokhorst, H, Holt, Bvd, Zweegman, S, et al. Thalidomide combined with high dose melphalan improves event free and overall survival in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: extended follow-up of the HOVON-50 Trial. Blood 2013;122:3332.Google Scholar
Hahn-Ast, C, von Lilienfeld-Toal, M, van Heteren, P, Mückter, S, Brossart, P, Glasmacher, A. Improved progression-free and overall survival with thalidomide maintenance therapy after autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma: a metaanalyis of five randomized trials. Haematologica 2011;96:368.Google Scholar
Hicks, LK, Haynes, AE, Reece, DE, et al. A meta-analysis and systematic review of thalidomide for patients with previously untreated multiple myeloma. Cancer Treat Rev 2008;34:442–52.Google Scholar
Kagoya, Y, Nannya, Y, Kurokawa, M. Thalidomide maintenance therapy for patients with multiple myeloma: meta-analysis. Leuk Res 2012;36:1016–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ludwig, H, Durie, BG, McCarthy, P, et al. IMWG consensus on maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma. Blood 2012;119:3003–15.Google Scholar
Nooka, AK, Behera, M, Boise, LH, Watson, M, Kaufman, JL, Lonial, S. Thalidomide as maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma (MM) improves progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS): a meta-analysis. ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts 2011;118:1855.Google Scholar
Attal, M, Lauwers-Cances, V, Marit, G, et al. Lenalidomide maintenance after stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1782–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarthy, PL, Owzar, K, Hofmeister, CC, et al. Lenalidomide after stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1770–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palumbo, A, Cavallo, F, Gay, F, et al. Autologous transplantation and maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2014;371:895–905.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palumbo, A, Bringhen, S, Kumar, SK, et al. Second primary malignancies with lenalidomide therapy for newly diagnosed myeloma: a meta-analysis of individual patient data. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:333–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sonneveld, P, Schmidt-Wolf, IG, van der Holt, B, et al. Bortezomib induction and maintenance treatment in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: results of the randomized phase III HOVON-65/ GMMG-HD4 trial. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:2946–55.Google Scholar
Sonneveld, P, Scheid, C, van der Holt, B, et al. Bortezomib induction and maintenance treatment improves survival in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma:extended follow-up of the HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 Trial. Blood 2013;122:404.Google Scholar
Rosinnol, L, Oriol, A, Teruel, AI, et al. Maintenance therapy after stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma with bortezomib/thalidomide versus thalidomide vs. alfa2b-interferon: final results of a phase III Pethema/GEM randomized trial. ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts 2012;120:334.Google Scholar
Barlogie, B, Jagannath, S, Desikan, KR, et al. Total therapy with tandem transplants for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood 1999;93:55–65.Google Scholar
Naumann-Winter, F, Greb, A, Borchmann, P, Bohlius, J, Engert, A, Schnell, R. First-line tandem high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation versus single high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma, a systematic review of controlled studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;10:CD004626.Google Scholar
Attal, M, Harousseau, J-L, Facon, T, et al. Single versus double autologous stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2003;349:2495–502.Google Scholar
Cavo, M, Tosi, P, Zamagni, E, et al. Prospective, randomized study of single compared with double autologous stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: Bologna 96 clinical study. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:2434–41.Google Scholar
Einsele, H, Liebisch, P, Bargou, R, Meisner, C, Metzner, B, Wandt, H. Single high-dose chemoradiotherapy versus tandem high-dose melphalan followed by autologous stem cell transplantation: preliminary analysis [Xth International Myeloma Foundation Workshop, Sydney]. Haematologica 2005;90:131.Google Scholar
Fermand, JP. High does therapy supported with autologous blood stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma: long term follow-up of the prospective studies of the MAG group [Xth International Myeloma Workshop, Sydney 2005]. Haematologica 2005;90:40.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, H. Single vs. double high-dose therapy in multiple myeloma: second analysis of the GMMG-HD2 trial [International Myeloma Workshop, Syndey 2005]. Haematologica 2005;90:38.Google Scholar
Kumar, A, Kharfan-Dabaja, MA, Glasmacher, A, Djulbegovic, B. Tandem versus single autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation for the treatment of multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:100–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giralt, S, Vesole, DH, Somlo, G, et al. Re: Tandem vs single autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation for the treatment of multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:964; author reply 6–7.Google Scholar
Mehta, J. Re: Tandem vs single autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation for the treatment of multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:1430–1; author reply 1–3.Google Scholar
Tricot, G, Kern, SE, Barlogie, B. Re: Tandem vs single autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation for the treatment of multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:964–6; author reply 6–7.Google Scholar
Sonneveld, P, van der Holt, B, Segeren, CM, et al. Intermediate-dose melphalan compared with myeloablative treatment in multiple myeloma: long-term follow-up of the Dutch Cooperative Group HOVON 24 trial. Haematologica 2007;92:928–35.Google Scholar
Abdelkefi, A, Ladeb, S, Torjman, L, et al. Single autologous stem cell transplantation followed by maintenance therapy with thalidomide is superior to double autologous transplantation in multiple myeloma: results of a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Blood 2008;111(4):1805–10.Google Scholar
Bruno, B, Rotta, M, Patriarca, F, et al. A comparison of allografting with autografting for newly diagnosed myeloma. N Engl J Med 2007;356:1110–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gahrton, G, Iacobelli, S, Bjorkstrand, B, et al. Autologous/reduced-intensity allogeneic stem cell transplantation vs autologous transplantation in multiple myeloma: long-term results of the EBMT-NMAM2000 study. Blood 2013;121:5055–63.Google Scholar
Garban, F, Attal, M, Michallet, M, et al. Prospective comparison of autologous stem cell transplantation followed by dose-reduced allograft (IFM99-03 trial) with tandem autologous stem cell transplantation (IFM99-04 trial) in high-risk de novo multiple myeloma. Blood 2006;107:3474–80.Google Scholar
Krishnan, A, Pasquini, MC, Logan, B, et al. Autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation followed by allogeneic or autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma (BMT CTN 0102): a phase 3 biological assignment trial. Lancet Oncol 2011;12:1195–203.Google Scholar
Lokhorst, HM, van der Holt, B, Cornelissen, JJ, et al. Donor versus no-donor comparison of newly diagnosed myeloma patients included in the HOVON-50 multiple myeloma study. Blood 2012;119:6219–25.Google Scholar
Rosinol, L, Perez-Simon, JA, Sureda, A, et al. A prospective PETHEMA study of tandem autologous transplantation versus autograft followed by reduced-intensity conditioning allogeneic transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood 2008;112:3591–3.Google Scholar
Costa, L, Armeson, K, Hill, E. Tandem autologous transplantation versus autologous plus reduced-intensity conditioning allogeneic transplantation in the management of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: meta-analysis of all prospective trials with biological randomisation. Bone Marrow Transplant 2013;47:S45.Google Scholar
Kharfan-Dabaja, M, M. H, Reljic, T, Bensinger, W, Djulbegovic, B, Kumar, A. Comparative efficacy of tandem autologous-autologous versus tandem autologous-reduced intensity allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplantation in multiple myeloma: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bone Marrow Transplant 2013;47:S44.Google Scholar
Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care: Executive Summaries. Stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: Executive summary of final report: N05-03C, Version 1.0. 2005–2011 Sep19. Epub Date 2014/05/01.Google Scholar
Lokhorst, H, van deHolt, B, Cornelissen, J, et al. No improvement of overall survival after extended follow-up of donor versus no donor analysis of newly diagnosed myeloma patients included in the HOVON 50/54 Study. Blood 2013;122(21):2132–2.Google Scholar
Crawley, C, Iacobelli, S, Bjorkstrand, B, Apperley, JF, Niederwieser, D, Gahrton, G. Reduced-intensity conditioning for myeloma: lower nonrelapse mortality but higher relapse rates compared with myeloablative conditioning. Blood 2007;109:3588–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Qazilbash, MH, Saliba, R, De Lima, M, et al. Second autologous or allogeneic transplantation after the failure of first autograft in patients with multiple myeloma. Cancer 2006;106:1084–9.Google Scholar
Nishihori, T, Alsina, M. Advances in the autologous and allogeneic transplantation strategies for multiple myeloma. Cancer Control 2011;18:258–67.Google Scholar
Rajkumar, SV, Gahrton, G, Bergsagel, PL. Approach to the treatment of multiple myeloma: a clash of philosophies. Blood 2011;118:3205–11.Google Scholar
Russell, SJ, Rajkumar, SV. Multiple myeloma and the road to personalised medicine. Lancet Oncol 2011;12:617–9.Google Scholar
Siegel, DSd, Jacobus, S, Rajkumar, SV, et al. Outcome with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone followed by early autologous stem cell transplantation in the ECOG E4A03 Randomized Clinical Trial. ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts 2010;116:38.Google Scholar
Cavallo, F, Spencer, A, Gay, F, et al. Early autologous stem cell transplantation improves survival in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. Haematologica 2014;99:520.Google Scholar
Palumbo, A, Gay, F, Spencer, A, et al. A Phase III study of ASCT vs cyclophosphamide-lenalidomide-dexamethasone and lenalidomide-prednisone maintenance vs lenalidomide alone in newly diagnosed myeloma patients. Blood 2013;122:763.Google Scholar

References

Palumbo, A, Gay, F, Falco, P et al. Bortezomib as induction before autologous transplantation, followed by lenalidomide as consolidation-maintenance in untreated multiple myeloma patients. J Clin Oncol 28(5), 800–807 (2010).Google Scholar
McCarthy, PL, Owzar, K, Hofmeister, CC et al. Lenalidomide after stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 366(19), 1770–1781 (2012).Google Scholar
Holstein, SA, Owzar, K, Richardson, PG, et al. Updated analysis of CALGB/ECOG/BMT CTN 100104: lenalidomide (Len) vs. placebo (PBO) maintenance therapy after single autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) for multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(suppl) abstract 8523.Google Scholar
Attal, M, Lauwers-Cances, V, Marit, G et al. Lenalidomide maintenance after stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 366(19), 1782–1791 (2012).Google Scholar
Attal, M, Lauwers-Cances, V, Marit, G et al. Lenalidomide maintenance after stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: follow-up analysis of the IFM 2005–02 Trial. Blood 122(21), 406 (2013).Google Scholar
Palumbo, A, Cavallo, F, Caravita, T et al. Autologous transplantation and maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 371(10), 895–905 (2014).Google Scholar
Attal, M, Palumbo, A, Holstein, SA, et al. Lenalidomide (LEN) maintenance (MNTC) after high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM): a meta-analysis (MA) of overall survival (OS). J Clin Oncol 34(suppl), abstract 8001 (2016).Google Scholar
McCarthy, PL, Einsele, H, Attal, M, Giralt, S. The emerging role of consolidation and maintenance therapy for transplant-eligible multiple myeloma patients. Expert Rev Hematol 7(1), 55–66 (2014).Google Scholar
McCarthy, PL, Owzar, K, Anderson, KC et al. Phase III intergroup study of lenalidomide versus placebo maintenance therapy following single autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) for multiple myeloma: CALGB 100104. ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts 116(21), 37 (2010).Google Scholar
Attal, M, Lauwers, VC, Marit, G et al. Maintenance treatment with lenalidomide after transplantation for myeloma: final analysis of the IFM 2005–02. ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts 116(21), 310 (2010).Google Scholar
Tzeng, HE, Lin, CL, Tsai, CH et al. Time trend of multiple myeloma and associated secondary primary malignancies in Asian patients: a Taiwan population-based study. PLoS One 8(7), e68041 (2013).Google Scholar
Razavi, P, Rand, KA, Cozen, W, Chanan-Khan, A, Usmani, S, Ailawadhi, S. Patterns of second primary malignancy risk in multiple myeloma patients before and after the introduction of novel therapeutics. Blood Cancer J 3, e121 (2013).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mailankody, S, Pfeiffer, RM, Kristinsson, SY et al. Risk of acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes after multiple myeloma and its precursor disease (MGUS). Blood 118(15), 4086–4092 (2011).Google Scholar
Krishnan, AY, Mei, M, Sun, CL et al. Second primary malignancies after autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 19(2), 260–265 (2013).Google Scholar
Usmani, SZ, Sexton, R, Hoering, A et al. Second malignancies in total therapy 2 and 3 for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: influence of thalidomide and lenalidomide during maintenance. Blood 120(8), 1597–1600 (2012).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rossi, A, Mark, T, Jayabalan, D et al. BiRd (clarithromycin, lenalidomide, dexamethasone): an update on long-term lenalidomide therapy in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma. Blood 121(11), 1982–1985 (2013).Google Scholar
Fouquet, G, Tardy, S, Demarquette, H et al. Efficacy and safety profile of long-term exposure to lenalidomide in patients with recurrent multiple myeloma. Cancer 119(20), 3680–3686 (2013).Google Scholar
Palumbo, A, Larocca, A, Zweegman, S et al. Second primary malignancies in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with lenalidomide: analysis of pooled data in 2459 patients. ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts 118(21), 996 (2011).Google Scholar
Palumbo, A, Bringhen, S, Kumar, SK et al. Second primary malignancies with lenalidomide therapy for newly diagnosed myeloma: a meta-analysis of individual patient data. Lancet Oncol 15(3), 333–342 (2014).Google Scholar
Sonneveld, P, Schmidt-Wolf, IG, Van Der Holt, B et al. Bortezomib induction and maintenance treatment in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: results of the randomized phase III HOVON-65/ GMMG-HD4 trial. J Clin Oncol 30(24), 2946–2955 (2012).Google Scholar
Mellqvist, U-H, Gimsing, P, Hjertner, O et al. Bortezomib consolidation after autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma: a Nordic Myeloma Study Group randomized phase 3 trial. Blood 121(23), 4647–4654 (2013).Google Scholar
Straka, C, Vogel, M, Muller, J, et al. Results from two phase III studies of bortezomib (BTZ) consolidation vs observation (OBS) post-transplant in patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). J Clin Oncol 33(suppl), abstract 8511 (2015).Google Scholar
Rosinol, L, Oriol, A, Teruel, AI et al. Superiority of bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTD) as induction pretransplantation therapy in multiple myeloma: a randomized phase 3 PETHEMA/GEM study. Blood 120(8), 1589–1596 (2012).Google Scholar
Cavo, M, Tacchetti, P, Patriarca, F et al. Bortezomib with thalidomide plus dexamethasone compared with thalidomide plus dexamethasone as induction therapy before, and consolidation therapy after, double autologous stem-cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a randomised phase 3 study. Lancet 376(9758), 2075–2085 (2010).Google Scholar
Barlogie, B, Anaissie, E, Van Rhee, F et al. Incorporating bortezomib into upfront treatment for multiple myeloma: early results of total therapy 3. Br J Haematol 138(2), 176–185 (2007).Google Scholar
San Miguel, JF, Schlag, R, Khuageva, NK et al. Persistent overall survival benefit and no increased risk of second malignancies with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone versus melphalan-prednisone in patients with previously untreated multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 31(4), 448–455 (2013).Google Scholar
Avet-Loiseau, H, Caillot, D, Marit, G et al. Long-term maintenance with lenalidomide improves progression free survival in myeloma patients with high-risk cytogenetics: an IFM study. ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts 116(21), 1944 (2010).Google Scholar
Avet-Loiseau, H, Leleu, X, Roussel, M et al. Bortezomib plus dexamethasone induction improves outcome of patients with t(4;14) myeloma but not outcome of patients with del(17p). J Clin Oncol 28(30), 4630–4634 (2010).Google Scholar
Jagannath, S, Richardson, PG, Sonneveld, P et al. Bortezomib appears to overcome the poor prognosis conferred by chromosome 13 deletion in phase 2 and 3 trials. Leukemia 21(1), 151–157 (2007).Google Scholar
Scheid, C, Sonneveld, P, Schmidt-Wolf, IG et al. Bortezomib before and after autologous stem cell transplantation overcomes the negative prognostic impact of renal impairment in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a subgroup analysis from the HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 trial. Haematologica 99(1), 148–154 (2014).Google Scholar
Neben, K, Lokhorst, HM, Jauch, A et al. Administration of bortezomib before and after autologous stem cell transplantation improves outcome in multiple myeloma patients with deletion 17p. Blood 119(4), 940–948 (2012).Google Scholar
Nooka, AK, Kaufman, JL, Muppidi, S et al. Consolidation and maintenance therapy with lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (RVD) in high-risk myeloma patients. Leukemia 28(3), 690–693 (2014).Google Scholar
Nair, B, Van Rhee, F, Shaughnessy, JD Jr. et al. Superior results of Total Therapy 3 (2003–33) in gene expression profiling-defined low-risk multiple myeloma confirmed in subsequent trial 2006–66 with VRD maintenance. Blood 115(21), 4168–4173 (2010).Google Scholar
Van De Velde, HJ, Liu, X, Chen, G, Cakana, A, Deraedt, W, Bayssas, M. Complete response correlates with long-term survival and progression-free survival in high-dose therapy in multiple myeloma. Haematologica 92(10), 1399–1406 (2007).Google Scholar
Paiva, B, Vidriales, MB, Cervero, J et al. Multiparameter flow cytometric remission is the most relevant prognostic factor for multiple myeloma patients who undergo autologous stem cell transplantation. Blood 112(10), 4017–4023 (2008).Google Scholar
Rawstron, AC, Child, JA, De Tute, RM et al. Minimal residual disease assessed by multiparameter flow cytometry in multiple myeloma: impact on outcome in the Medical Research Council Myeloma IX Study. J Clin Oncol 31(20), 2540–2547 (2013).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kvam, AK, Fayers, P, Hjermstad, M, Gulbrandsen, N, Wisloff, F. Health-related quality of life assessment in randomised controlled trials in multiple myeloma: a critical review of methodology and impact on treatment recommendations. Eur J Haematol 83(4), 279–289 (2009).Google Scholar
Stewart, AK, Trudel, S, Bahlis, NJ et al. A randomized phase 3 trial of thalidomide and prednisone as maintenance therapy after ASCT in patients with MM with a quality-of-life assessment: the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinicals Trials Group Myeloma 10 Trial. Blood 121(9), 1517–1523 (2013).Google Scholar
Burnette, BL, Dispenzieri, A, Kumar, S et al. Treatment trade-offs in myeloma: A survey of consecutive patients about contemporary maintenance strategies. Cancer 119(24), 4308–4315 (2013).Google Scholar
Rawstron, AC, Davies, FE, Dasgupta, R et al. Flow cytometric disease monitoring in multiple myeloma: the relationship between normal and neoplastic plasma cells predicts outcome after transplantation. Blood 100(9), 3095–3100 (2002).Google Scholar
Paiva, B, Martinez-Lopez, J, Vidriales, MB et al. Comparison of immunofixation, serum free light chain, and immunophenotyping for response evaluation and prognostication in multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 29(12), 1627–1633 (2011).Google Scholar
Van Der Velden, VH, Cazzaniga, G, Schrauder, A et al. Analysis of minimal residual disease by Ig/TCR gene rearrangements: guidelines for interpretation of real-time quantitative PCR data. Leukemia 21(4), 604–611 (2007).Google Scholar
Puig, N, Sarasquete, ME, Balanzategui, A et al. Critical evaluation of ASO RQ-PCR for minimal residual disease evaluation in multiple myeloma. A comparative analysis with flow cytometry. Leukemia 28(2), 391–397 (2014).Google Scholar
Sarasquete, ME, Garcia-Sanz, R, Gonzalez, D et al. Minimal residual disease monitoring in multiple myeloma: a comparison between allelic-specific oligonucleotide real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction and flow cytometry. Haematologica 90(10), 1365–1372 (2005).Google Scholar
Puig, N, Sarasquete, ME, Alcoceba, M et al. The use of CD138 positively selected marrow samples increases the applicability of minimal residual disease assessment by PCR in patients with multiple myeloma. Ann Hematol 92(1), 97–100 (2013).Google Scholar
Faham, M, Zheng, J, Moorhead, M et al. Deep-sequencing approach for minimal residual disease detection in acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 120(26), 5173–5180 (2012).Google Scholar
Martinez-Lopez, J, Lahuerta, JJ, Pepin, F et al. Prognostic value of deep sequencing method for minimal residual disease detection in multiple myeloma. Blood 123(20), 3073–3079 (2014).Google Scholar
Paiva, B, Gutierrez, NC, Rosinol, L et al. High-risk cytogenetics and persistent minimal residual disease by multiparameter flow cytometry predict unsustained complete response after autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma. Blood 119(3), 687–691 (2012).Google Scholar
Putkonen, M, Kairisto, V, Juvonen, V et al. Depth of response assessed by quantitative ASO-PCR predicts the outcome after stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma. Eur J Haematol 85(5), 416–423 (2010).Google Scholar
Kumar, S, Paiva, B, Anderson, KC, et al. International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol 17(8), e328–e346 (2016).Google Scholar
Paiva, B, Vidriales, MB, Cervero, J, et al. Multiparametric flow cytometric remission is the most relevant prognostic factor for multiple myeloma patients who undergo autologous stem cell transplantation. Blood 112(10), 4017–23 (2008).Google Scholar

References

Pasquini, MC Wang, Z. Current use and outcome of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: CIBMTR Summary Slides, 2012. Available at: http://www.cibmtr.org. (Accessed March 30, 2013).Google Scholar
Bensinger, WI, Buckner, CD, Anasetti, C, et al. Allogeneic marrow transplantation for multiple myeloma: an analysis of risk factors on outcome. Blood 1996;88:2787–93.Google Scholar
Gahrton, G, Tura, S, Flesch, M, et al. Allogeneic bone marrow transplantation in 24 patients with multiple myeloma reported to the EBMT registry. Hematol Oncol 1988;6:181–6.Google Scholar
Gahrton, G, Tura, S, Ljungman, P, et al. Allogeneic bone marrow transplantation in multiple myeloma. European Group for Bone Marrow Transplantation. N Engl J Med 1991;325:1267–73.Google Scholar
Gahrton, G, Tura, S, Ljungman, P, et al. Prognostic factors in allogeneic bone marrow transplantation for multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 1995;13:1312–22.Google Scholar
Barlogie, B, Kyle, RA, Anderson, KC, et al. Standard chemotherapy compared with high-dose chemoradiotherapy for multiple myeloma: final results of phase III US Intergroup Trial S9321. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:929–36.Google Scholar
Kroger, N, Schwerdtfeger, R, Kiehl, M, et al. Autologous stem cell transplantation followed by a dose-reduced allograft induces high complete remission rate in multiple myeloma. Blood 2002;100:755–60.Google Scholar
Giralt, S, Estey, E, Albitar, M, et al. Engraftment of allogeneic hematopoietic progenitor cells with purine analog-containing chemotherapy: harnessing graft-versus-leukemia without myeloablative therapy. Blood 1997;89:4531–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bacigalupo, A, Ballen, K, Rizzo, D, et al. Defining the intensity of conditioning regimens: working definitions. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2009;15:1628–33.Google Scholar
Maloney, DG, Molina, AJ, Sahebi, F, et al. Allografting with nonmyeloablative conditioning following cytoreductive autografts for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma. Blood 2003;102:3447–54.Google Scholar
Kroger, N, Sayer, HG, Schwerdtfeger, R, et al. Unrelated stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma after a reduced-intensity conditioning with pretransplantation antithymocyte globulin is highly effective with low transplantation-related mortality. Blood 2002;100:3919–24.Google Scholar
Rotta, M, Storer, BE, Sahebi, F, et al. Long-term outcome of patients with multiple myeloma after autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation and nonmyeloablative allografting. Blood 2009;113:3383–91.Google Scholar
Bruno, B, Rotta, M, Patriarca, F, et al. Nonmyeloablative allografting for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: the experience of the Gruppo Italiano Trapianti di Midollo. Blood 2009;113:3375–82.Google Scholar
Kumar, S, Zhang, MJ, Li, P, et al. Trends in allogeneic stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: a CIBMTR analysis. Blood 2011;118:1979–88.Google Scholar
Bruno, B, Rotta, M, Patriarca, F, et al. A comparison of allografting with autografting for newly diagnosed myeloma. N Engl J Med 2007;356:1110–20.Google Scholar
Giaccone, L, Storer, B, Patriarca, F, et al. Long-term follow-up of a comparison of nonmyeloablative allografting with autografting for newly diagnosed myeloma. Blood 2011;117:6721–7.Google Scholar
Krishnan, A, Pasquini, MC, Logan, B, et al. Autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation followed by allogeneic or autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma (BMT CTN 0102): a phase 3 biological assignment trial. Lancet Oncol 2011;12:1195–203.Google Scholar
Gahrton, G, Iacobelli, S, Bjorkstrand, B, et al. Autologous/reduced-intensity allogeneic stem cell transplantation versus autologous transplantation in multiple myeloma: long-term results of the EBMT-NMAM2000 study. Blood 2013;121:5055–63.Google Scholar
Bjorkstrand, B, Iacobelli, S, Hegenbart, U, et al. Tandem autologous/reduced-intensity conditioning allogeneic stem-cell transplantation versus autologous transplantation in myeloma: long-term follow-up. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:3016–22.Google Scholar
Armeson, KE, Hill, EG, Costa, LJ. Tandem autologous vs autologous plus reduced intensity allogeneic transplantation in the upfront management of multiple myeloma: meta-analysis of trials with biological assignment. Bone Marrow Transplant 2013;48:562–7.Google Scholar
Moreau, P, Garban, F, Attal, M, et al. Long-term follow-up results of IFM99-03 and IFM99-04 trials comparing nonmyeloablative allo-HCTation with autologous transplantation in high-risk de novo multiple myeloma. Blood 2008;112:3914–5.Google Scholar
Stewart, AK. Reduced-intensity allogeneic transplantation for myeloma: reality bites. Blood 2009;113:3135–6.Google Scholar
Weiden, PL, Sullivan, KM, Flournoy, N, Storb, R, Thomas, ED. Antileukemic effect of chronic graft-versus-host disease: contribution to improved survival after allogeneic marrow transplantation. N Engl J Med 1981;304:1529–33.Google Scholar
Sullivan, KM, Fefer, A, Witherspoon, R, et al. Graft-versus-leukemia in man: relationship of acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease to relapse of acute leukemia following allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. Prog Clin Biol Res 1987;244:391–9.Google Scholar
Horowitz, MM, Gale, RP, Sondel, PM, et al. Graft-versus-leukemia reactions after bone marrow transplantation. Blood 1990;75:555–62.Google Scholar
Kwak, LW, Taub, DD, Duffey, PL, et al. Transfer of myeloma idiotype-specific immunity from an actively immunised marrow donor. Lancet 1995;345:1016–20.Google Scholar
Salama, M, Nevill, T, Marcellus, D, et al. Donor leukocyte infusions for multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant 2000;26:1179–84.Google Scholar
Verdonck, LF, Lokhorst, HM, Dekker, AW, Nieuwenhuis, HK, Petersen, EJ. Graft-versus-myeloma effect in two cases. Lancet 1996;347:800–1.Google Scholar
Lokhorst, HM, Schattenberg, A, Cornelissen, JJ, et al. Donor lymphocyte infusions for relapsed multiple myeloma after allogeneic stem-cell transplantation: predictive factors for response and long-term outcome. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:3031–7.Google Scholar
van de Donk, NW, Kroger, N, Hegenbart, U, et al. Prognostic factors for donor lymphocyte infusions following non-myeloablative allogeneic stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant 2006;37:1135–41.Google Scholar
Ringden, O, Shrestha, S, da Silva, GT, et al. Effect of acute and chronic GVHD on relapse and survival after reduced-intensity conditioning allogeneic transplantation for myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant 2012;47:831–7.Google Scholar
Garban, F, Attal, M, Michallet, M, et al. Prospective comparison of autologous stem cell transplantation followed by dose-reduced allograft (IFM99-03 trial) with tandem autologous stem cell transplantation (IFM99-04 trial) in high-risk de novo multiple myeloma. Blood 2006;107:3474–80.Google Scholar
Alyea, E, Weller, E, Schlossman, R, et al. T-cell–depleted allogeneic bone marrow transplantation followed by donor lymphocyte infusion in patients with multiple myeloma: induction of graft-versus-myeloma effect. Blood 2001;98:934–9.Google Scholar
Neben, K, Lokhorst, HM, Jauch, A, et al. Administration of bortezomib before and after autologous stem cell transplantation improves outcome in multiple myeloma patients with deletion 17p. Blood 2012;119:940–8.Google Scholar
Avet-Loiseau, H, Daviet, A, Brigaudeau, C, et al. Cytogenetic, interphase, and multicolor fluorescence in situ hybridization analyses in primary plasma cell leukemia: a study of 40 patients at diagnosis, on behalf of the Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome and the Groupe Francais de Cytogenetique Hematologique. Blood 2001;97:822–5.Google Scholar
Mikhael, JR, Dingli, D, Roy, V, et al. Management of newly diagnosed symptomatic multiple myeloma: updated Mayo Stratification of Myeloma and Risk-Adapted Therapy (mSMART) Consensus Guidelines 2013. Mayo Clin Proc 2013;88:360–76.Google Scholar
Mateos, M, Oriol, A, Martínez-López, J, et al. Bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone versus bortezomib, thalidomide, and prednisone as induction therapy followed by maintenance treatment with bortezomib and thalidomide versus bortezomib and prednisone in elderly patients with untreated multiple myeloma: a randomised trial. The Lancet Oncology 2010;11:934–41.Google Scholar
Sonneveld, P, Schmidt-Wolf, IG, van der Holt, B, et al. Bortezomib induction and maintenance treatment in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: results of the randomized phase III HOVON-65/ GMMG-HD4 trial. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:2946–55.Google Scholar
Chang, H, Qi, X, Yeung, J, Reece, D, Xu, W, Patterson, B. Genetic aberrations including chromosome 1 abnormalities and clinical features of plasma cell leukemia. Leuk Res 2009;33:259–62.Google Scholar
Tiedemann, RE, Gonzalez-Paz, N, Kyle, RA, et al. Genetic aberrations and survival in plasma cell leukemia. Leukemia 2008;22:1044–52.Google Scholar
Bahlis, NJ. Darwinian evolution and tiding clones in multiple myeloma. Blood 2012;120:927–8.Google Scholar
Egan, JB, Shi, CX, Tembe, W, et al. Whole-genome sequencing of multiple myeloma from diagnosis to plasma cell leukemia reveals genomic initiating events, evolution, and clonal tides. Blood 2012;120:1060–6.Google Scholar
Michallet, M, Sobh, M, El-Cheikh, J, et al. Evolving strategies with immunomodulating drugs and tandem autologous/allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in first line high risk multiple myeloma patients. Exp Hematol 2013;41:1008–15.Google Scholar
Avet-Loiseau, H. Ultra high-risk myeloma. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program 2010;2010:489–93.Google Scholar
Kroger, N, Badbaran, A, Zabelina, T, et al. Impact of high-risk cytogenetics and achievement of molecular remission on long-term freedom from disease after autologous-allogeneic tandem transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2013;19:398–404.Google Scholar
Knop, S, Liebisch, P, Hebart, H, et al. Autologous followed by allogeneic versus tandem-autologous stem cell transplant in newly diagnosed FISH-del13q myeloma. ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts 2014;124:43.Google Scholar
Kroger, N, Shimoni, A, Schilling, G, et al. Unrelated stem cell transplantation after reduced intensity conditioning for patients with multiple myeloma relapsing after autologous transplantation. Br J Haematol 2010;148:323–31.Google Scholar
Freytes, CO, Vesole, DH, Zhong, X, et al. Second transplants in relapsed multiple myeloma (MM): autologous (AUTO-HCT) versus non-myeloablative/reduced intensity (NST/RIC) allogeneic transplantation (AlloHCT). ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts 2011;118:824.Google Scholar
Mehta, J, Tricot, G, Jagannath, S, et al. Salvage autologous or allogeneic transplantation for multiple myeloma refractory to or relapsing after a first-line autograft? Bone Marrow Transplant 1998;21:887–92.Google Scholar
Bashir, Q, Khan, H, Orlowski, RZ, et al. Predictors of prolonged survival after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. Am J Hematol 2012;87:272–6.Google Scholar
Lee, CK, Barlogie, B, Zangari, M, et al. Transplantation as salvage therapy for high-risk patients with myeloma in relapse. Bone Marrow Transplant 2002;30:873–8.Google Scholar
Jimenez-Zepeda, VH, Dominguez, VJ. Plasma cell leukemia: a rare condition. Ann Hematol 2006;85:263–7.Google Scholar
Garcia-Sanz, R, Orfao, A, Gonzalez, M, et al. Primary plasma cell leukemia: clinical, immunophenotypic, DNA ploidy, and cytogenetic characteristics. Blood 1999;93:1032–7.Google Scholar
Chaoui, D, Leleu, X, Roussel, M, Royer, B, Rubio, MT, Ducastelle, S, et al. Has the prognostic of primary plasma cell leukemia improved with new drugs? ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts 2009;114:3869.Google Scholar
Drake, MB, Iacobelli, S, van Biezen, A, et al. Primary plasma cell leukemia and autologous stem cell transplantation. Haematologica 2010;95:804–9.Google Scholar
Mahindra, A, Kalaycio, ME, Vela-Ojeda, J, et al. Hematopoietic cell transplantation for primary plasma cell leukemia: results from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. Leukemia 2012;26:1091–7.Google Scholar
Gonsalves, WI, Rajkumar, SV, Go, RS, et al. Trends in survival of patients with primary plasma cell leukemia: a population-based analysis. Blood 2014;124:907–12.Google Scholar
Nishihori, T, Abu Kar, SM, Baz, R, et al. Therapeutic advances in the treatment of primary plasma cell leukemia: a focus on hematopoietic cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2013;19:1144–51.Google Scholar
McCarthy, PL, Owzar, K, Hofmeister, CC, et al. Lenalidomide after stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1770–81.Google Scholar
Wolschke, C, Stubig, T, Hegenbart, U, et al. Postallograft lenalidomide induces strong NK cell-mediated antimyeloma activity and risk for T cell-mediated GvHD: Results from a phase I/II dose-finding study. Exp Hematol 2013;41:134–142 e3.Google Scholar
Luptakova, K, Rosenblatt, J, Glotzbecker, B, et al. Lenalidomide enhances anti-myeloma cellular immunity. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2013;62:39–49.Google Scholar
Rosenblatt, J, Vasir, B, Uhl, L, et al. Vaccination with dendritic cell/tumor fusion cells results in cellular and humoral antitumor immune responses in patients with multiple myeloma. Blood 2011;117:393–402.Google Scholar
Coman, T, Bachy, E, Michallet, M, et al. Lenalidomide as salvage treatment for multiple myeloma relapsing after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a report from the SFGM-TC. Haematologica 2013;98:776–83.Google Scholar
Kneppers, E, van der Holt, B, Kersten, MJ, et al. Lenalidomide maintenance after nonmyeloablative allogeneic stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma is not feasible: results of the HOVON 76 Trial. Blood 2011;118:2413–9.Google Scholar
Alsina, M, Becker, P, Zhong, X, et al. Lenalidomide maintenance for high-risk multiple myeloma after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2014;20:1183–9.Google Scholar
Vodanovic-Jankovic, S, Hari, P, Jacobs, P, Komorowski, R, Drobyski, WR. NF-kappaB as a target for the prevention of graft-versus-host disease: comparative efficacy of bortezomib and PS-1145. Blood 2006;107:827–34.Google Scholar
Koreth, J, Stevenson, KE, Kim, HT, et al. Bortezomib-based graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis in HLA-mismatched unrelated donor transplantation. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:3202–8.Google Scholar
Kroger, N, Zabelina, T, Ayuk, F, et al. Bortezomib after dose-reduced allogeneic stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma to enhance or maintain remission status. Exp Hematol 2006;34:770–5.Google Scholar
Martinelli, G, Terragna, C, Zamagni, E, et al. Molecular remission after allogeneic or autologous transplantation of hematopoietic stem cells for multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:2273–81.Google Scholar
Cavo, M, Terragna, C, Martinelli, G, et al. Molecular monitoring of minimal residual disease in patients in long-term complete remission after allogeneic stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. Blood 2000;96:355–7.Google Scholar
Corradini, P, Cavo, M, Lokhorst, H, et al. Molecular remission after myeloablative allogeneic stem cell transplantation predicts a better relapse-free survival in patients with multiple myeloma. Blood 2003;102:1927–9.Google Scholar
Rawstron, AC, Davies, FE, DasGupta, R, et al. Flow cytometric disease monitoring in multiple myeloma: the relationship between normal and neoplastic plasma cells predicts outcome after transplantation. Blood 2002;100:3095–100.Google Scholar
Martinez-Lopez, J, Lahuerta, JJ, Pepin, F, et al. Prognostic value of deep sequencing method for minimal residual disease detection in multiple myeloma. Blood 2014;123:2073–9.Google Scholar
Paiva, B, Martinez-Lopez, J, Vidriales, MB, et al. Comparison of immunofixation, serum free light chain, and immunophenotyping for response evaluation and prognostication in multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:1627–33.Google Scholar
El-Cheikh, J, Crocchiolo, R, Boher, JM, et al. Comparable outcomes between unrelated and related donors after reduced-intensity conditioning allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with high-risk multiple myeloma. Eur J Haematol 2012;88:497–503.Google Scholar
Kroger, N, Kruger, W, Renges, H, et al. Donor lymphocyte infusion enhances remission status in patients with persistent disease after allografting for multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 2001;112:421–3.Google Scholar
Lokhorst, HM, Wu, K, Verdonck, LF, et al. The occurrence of graft-versus-host disease is the major predictive factor for response to donor lymphocyte infusions in multiple myeloma. Blood 2004;103:4362–4.Google Scholar
Bellucci, R, Alyea, EP, Weller, E, et al. Immunologic effects of prophylactic donor lymphocyte infusion after allogeneic marrow transplantation for multiple myeloma. Blood 2002;99:4610–7.Google Scholar
de Carvalho, F, Alves, VL, Braga, WM, Xavier, CV Jr, Colleoni, GW. MAGE-C1/CT7 and MAGE-C2/CT10 are frequently expressed in multiple myeloma and can be explored in combined immunotherapy for this malignancy. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2013;62:191–5.Google Scholar
Tyler, EM, Jungbluth, AA, O’Reilly, RJ, Koehne, G. WT1-specific T-cell responses in high-risk multiple myeloma patients undergoing allogeneic T cell-depleted hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and donor lymphocyte infusions. Blood 2013;121:308–17.Google Scholar
Haessler, J, Shaughnessy, JD Jr, Zhan, F, et al. Benefit of complete response in multiple myeloma limited to high-risk subgroup identified by gene expression profiling. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:7073–9.Google Scholar
Hoering, A, Crowley, J, Shaughnessy, JD Jr, et al. Complete remission in multiple myeloma examined as time-dependent variable in terms of both onset and duration in Total Therapy protocols. Blood 2009;114:1299–305.Google Scholar
Rosinol, L, Perez-Simon, JA, Sureda, A, et al. A prospective PETHEMA study of tandem autologous transplantation versus autograft followed by reduced-intensity conditioning allogeneic transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood 2008;112:3591–3.Google Scholar
Lokhorst, HM, van der Holt, B, Cornelissen, JJ, et al. Donor versus no-donor comparison of newly diagnosed myeloma patients included in the HOVON-50 multiple myeloma study. Blood 2012;119:6219,25; quiz 6399.Google Scholar

References

Kyle, RA, Gertz, MA. Primary systemic amyloidosis: clinical and laboratory features in 474 cases. Semin Hematol, 32(1), 45–59 (1995).Google Scholar
Palladini, G, Perfetti, V, Obici, L et al. Association of melphalan and high-dose dexamethasone is effective and well tolerated in patients with AL (primary) amyloidosis who are ineligible for stem cell transplantation. Blood, 103(8), 2936–2938 (2004).Google Scholar
Gertz, MA, Kyle, RA. Acute leukemia and cytogenetic abnormalities complicating melphalan treatment of primary systemic amyloidosis. Archiv Intern Med, 150(3), 629–633 (1990).Google Scholar
Comenzo, RL, Vosburgh, E, Simms, RW et al. Dose-intensive melphalan with blood stem cell support for the treatment of AL amyloidosis: one-year follow-up in five patients. Blood, 88(7), 2801–2806 (1996).Google Scholar
Comenzo, RL, Vosburgh, E, Falk, RH et al. Dose-intensive melphalan with blood stem-cell support for the treatment of AL (amyloid light-chain) amyloidosis: survival and responses in 25 patients. Blood, 91(10), 3662–3670 (1998).Google Scholar
Gertz, MA, Lacy, MQ, Dispenzieri, A et al. Stem cell transplantation for the management of primary systemic amyloidosis. Am J Med, 113(7), 549–555 (2002).Google Scholar
Moreau, P, Leblond, V, Bourquelot, P et al. Prognostic factors for survival and response after high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation in systemic AL amyloidosis: a report on 21 patients. Br J Haematol, 101(4), 766–769 (1998).Google Scholar
Jaccard, A, Moreau, P, Leblond, V et al. High-dose melphalan versus melphalan plus dexamethasone for AL amyloidosis. New Engl J Med, 357(11), 1083–1093 (2007).Google Scholar
Migrino, RQ, Mareedu, RK, Eastwood, D, Bowers, M, Harmann, L, Hari, P. Left ventricular ejection time on echocardiography predicts long-term mortality in light chain amyloidosis. J Am Soc Echocardiogr, 22(12), 1396–1402 (2009).Google Scholar
Comenzo, RL, Gertz, MA. Autologous stem cell transplantation for primary systemic amyloidosis. Blood, 99(12), 4276–4282 (2002).Google Scholar
Gertz, MA, Lacy, MQ, Dispenzieri, A et al. Trends in day 100 and 2-year survival after auto-SCT for AL amyloidosis: outcomes before and after 2006. Bone Marrow Transplant, 46(7), 970–975 (2011).Google Scholar
Tsai, SB, Seldin, DC, Quillen, K et al. High-dose melphalan and stem cell transplantation for patients with AL amyloidosis: trends in treatment-related mortality over the past 17 years at a single referral center. Blood, 120(22), 4445–4446 (2012).Google Scholar
Dispenzieri, A, Gertz, MA, Kyle, RA et al. Serum cardiac troponins and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide: a staging system for primary systemic amyloidosis. J Clin Oncol, 22(18), 3751–3757 (2004).Google Scholar
Gertz, MA, Lacy, MQ, Dispenzieri, A et al. Autologous stem cell transplant for immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis: a status report. Leuk Lymphoma, 51(12), 2181–2187 (2010).Google Scholar
Gertz, MA, Lacy, MQ, Dispenzieri, A et al. Effect of hematologic response on outcome of patients undergoing transplantation for primary amyloidosis: importance of achieving a complete response. Haematologica, 92(10), 1415–1418 (2007).Google Scholar
Girnius, S, Seldin, DC, Skinner, M et al. Short and long-term outcome of treatment with high-dose melphalan and stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma-associated AL amyloidosis. Ann Hematol, 89(6), 579–584 (2010).Google Scholar
Dispenzieri, A, Lacy, MQ, Katzmann, JA et al. Absolute values of immunoglobulin free light chains are prognostic in patients with primary systemic amyloidosis undergoing peripheral blood stem cell transplantation. Blood, 107(8), 3378–3383 (2006).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kumar, S, Dispenzieri, A, Lacy, MQ et al. Revised prognostic staging system for light chain amyloidosis incorporating cardiac biomarkers and serum free light chain measurements. J Clin Oncol, 30(9), 989–995 (2012).Google Scholar
Johnston, PB, Lacy, MQ, Dispenzieri, A, et al. Toxicities associated with stem cell mobilization utilizing cyclophosphamide and grown factor versus G-CSF alone in primary systemic amyloidosis [abstract]. Blood, 96, 182a (2000).Google Scholar
Leung, N, Leung, TR, Cha, SS, Dispenzieri, A, Lacy, MQ, Gertz, MA. Excessive fluid accumulation during stem cell mobilization: a novel prognostic factor of first-year survival after stem cell transplantation in AL amyloidosis patients. Blood, 106(10), 3353–3357 (2005).Google Scholar
Kumar, S, Dispenzieri, A, Lacy, MQ, Litzow, MR, Gertz, MA. High incidence of gastrointestinal tract bleeding after autologous stem cell transplant for primary systemic amyloidosis. Bone Marrow Transplant, 28(4), 381–385 (2001).Google Scholar
Hoshino, Y, Hatake, K, Muroi, K et al. Bleeding tendency caused by the deposit of amyloid substance in the perivascular region. Intern Med, 32(11), 879–881 (1993).Google Scholar
Choufani, EB, Sanchorawala, V, Ernst, T et al. Acquired factor X deficiency in patients with amyloid light-chain amyloidosis: incidence, bleeding manifestations, and response to high-dose chemotherapy. Blood, 97(6), 1885–1887 (2001).Google Scholar
Falk, RH, Rubinow, A, Cohen, AS. Cardiac arrhythmias in systemic amyloidosis: correlation with echocardiographic abnormalities. J Am College Cardiol, 3(1), 107–113 (1984).Google Scholar
Dispenzieri, A, Kyle, RA, Lacy, MQ et al. Superior survival in primary systemic amyloidosis patients undergoing peripheral blood stem cell transplantation: a case-control study. Blood, 103(10), 3960–3963 (2004).Google Scholar
Kumar, S, Gertz, M, Lacy, M et al. Recent improvements in survival in light chain amyloidosis and the importance of an early mortality risk score. Blood, 19, 116–121 (2010).Google Scholar
Dubrey, SW, Burke, MM, Hawkins, PN, Banner, NR. Cardiac transplantation for amyloid heart disease: the United Kingdom experience. J Heart Lung Transplant, 23(10), 1142–1153 (2004).Google Scholar
Gillmore, JD, Goodman, HJ, Lachmann, HJ et al. Sequential heart and autologous stem cell transplantation for systemic AL amyloidosis. Blood, 107(3), 1227–1229 (2006).Google Scholar
Mikhael, JR, Schuster, SR, Jimenez-Zepeda, VH et al. Cyclophosphamide-bortezomib-dexamethasone (CyBorD) produces rapid and complete hematologic response in patients with AL amyloidosis. Blood, 119(19), 4391–4394 (2012).Google Scholar
Sanchorawala, V, Quillen, K, Sloan, JM, Andrea, NT, Seldin, DC. Bortezomib and high-dose melphalan conditioning for stem cell transplantation for AL amyloidosis: a pilot study. Haematologica, 96(12), 1890–1892 (2011).Google Scholar
Landau, H, Hassoun, H, Bello, C et al. Consolidation with bortezomib and dexamethasone following risk-adapted melphalan and stem cell transplant in systemic AL amyloidosis. Amyloid, 18 Suppl 1, 130–131 (2011).Google Scholar
Warsame, R, Bang, SM, Kumar, SK et al. Outcomes and treatments of patients with immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis who progress or relapse postautologous stem cell transplant. Eur J Haematol, 92(6), 485–490 (2014).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×