Pomalidomide experience: an effective therapeutic approach with immunomodulatory drugs in a patient with relapsed-refractory multiple myeloma.

Here we discuss the case of a heavily pretreated male patient with relapsed-refractory multiple myeloma and previous monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance who initiated a fifth-line treatment with pomalidomide (4 mg orally, days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle) and low-dose dexamethasone (40 mg weekly orally). A total of 3 months later, very good partial response was achieved and complete response was maintained for 7 months. This case illustrates the field-practice experience on the benefits of pomalidomide in a relapsed-refractory multiple myeloma patient with a previous history of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. Indeed, the pomalidomide/dexamethasone regimen resulted in a longer progression-free survival compared with previous regimens and demonstrated a good long-term tolerability.

Immunological dysregulation in multiple myeloma microenvironment.

Multiple Myeloma (MM) is a systemic hematologic disease due to uncontrolled proliferation of monoclonal plasma cells (PC) in bone marrow (BM). Emerging in other solid and liquid cancers, the host immune system and the microenvironment have a pivotal role for PC growth, proliferation, survival, migration, and resistance to drugs and are responsible for some clinical manifestations of MM. In MM, microenvironment is represented by the cellular component of a normal bone marrow together with extracellular matrix proteins, adhesion molecules, cytokines, and growth factors produced by both stromal cells and PC themselves. All these components are able to protect PC from cytotoxic effect of chemo- and radiotherapy. This review is focused on the role of immunome to sustain MM progression, the emerging role of myeloid derived suppressor cells, and their potential clinical implications as novel therapeutic target.

Salvage therapy of multiple myeloma: the new generation drugs.

During the past decade, overall results of treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) have been improved and survival curves are now significantly better with respect to those obtained with historical treatment. These improvements are linked to a deeper knowledge of the biology of disease and to the introduction in clinical practice of drugs with different mechanism of action such as proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs). However, MM remains in most cases an incurable disease. For patients who relapse after treatment with novel agents, the prognosis is dismal and new drugs and therapeutic strategies are required for continued disease control. In this review, we summarize new insights in salvage therapy for relapsed/refractory MM as emerging from recent clinical trials exploring the activity of bendamustine, new generation proteasome inhibitors, novel IMiDs, monoclonal antibodies, and drugs interfering with growth pathways.

Early measurement of CD34+ cells in peripheral blood after cyclophosphamide and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor treatment predicts later CD34+ mobilisation failure and is a possible criterion for guiding "on demand" use of plerixafor.

BACKGROUND: Early identification of predictive factors of failure to mobilise CD34+ cells could enable rational use of plerixafor during first mobilisation, avoiding the need for a second mobilisation course. However, "on demand" administration of plerixafor needs to be driven by established parameters to avoid inappropriate use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To address this issue, we studied the value of the peripheral blood CD34+ count, measured early (on days +10, +11, +12 and +13), in predicting the mobilisation outcome in the ensuing days. We retrospectively collected data from three Italian centres on 233 patients affected by multiple myeloma or lymphoma who underwent a first or second attempt at mobilisation with cyclophosphamide 4 g/m(2) and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. To assess the diagnostic value of peripheral blood white blood cell and CD34+ cell counts with respect to "mobilisation failure", we considered failed mobilisation as "disease" and the CD34+ cell count in peripheral blood, on a specific day, as a "diagnostic test". For various thresholds, we measured sensitivity, false positive rate, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) as well as the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curves (AUC). RESULTS: A CD34+ cell count <10 × 10(6)/L on day 13 had high sensitivity (1.00) and high specificity (1.00) for predicting subsequent mobilisation failure, with an AUC of 1.0. However, good prediction was also obtained using a lower threshold (CD34+ cell count: <6 × 10(6)/L) at an earlier time (day 12). The PPV of the day 13 threshold was 1.00 while that of the day 12 one was 0.87. DISCUSSION: We propose that patients with <6 × 10(6)/L CD34+ cells in peripheral blood on day 12 and <10 × 10(6)/L on day 13 following mobilisation with cyclophosphamide 4 g/m(2) and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor are candidates for "on demand" use of plerixafor, making the administration of this expensive agent more efficient and avoiding its inappropriate use.