Outcomes of Modified Mayo Stage IIIa and IIIb Cardiac Light-Chain Amyloidosis: Real-World Experience in Clinical Characteristics and Treatment-67 Patients Multicenter Analysis.

Light-chain amyloidosis (AL) is a rare multisystem disorder characterized by the deposition of misfolded amyloid fibrils derived from monoclonal immunoglobulin light chains in various organs. One of the most common organs involved in AL is the heart, with 50-70% of patients clinically symptomatic at diagnosis. We conducted a multi-center, retrospective analysis of 67 patients diagnosed between July 2012 and August 2022 with the European 2012 modification of Mayo 2004 stage III cardiac AL. The most important factors identified in the univariate Cox analysis contributing to a longer OS included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) ≤ 1, New York Heart Association functional classification (NYHA FC) ≤ 2, the use of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) after induction treatment, achieving a hematological response (≥very good partial response) and cardiac (≥partial response) response after first-line treatment. The most important prognostic factors with the most significant impact on OS improvement in patients with modified Mayo stage III cardiac AL identified by multivariate Cox analysis are ECOG PS ≤ 1, NYHA FC ≤ 2, and achieving hematological response ≥ VGPR and cardiac response ≥ PR after first-line treatment.

Addition of elotuzumab to lenalidomide and dexamethasone for patients with newly diagnosed, transplantation ineligible multiple myeloma (ELOQUENT-1): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone has shown improved progression-free and overall survival versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. We aimed to assess these regimens in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are ineligible for haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT). METHODS: ELOQUENT-1 is an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial conducted at 185 hospitals, oncology practices, and research centres in 19 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed, untreated, symptomatic myeloma and not candidates for high-dose therapy plus HSCT, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or lower. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone or lenalidomide and dexamethasone using an interactive voice response system, stratified by the International Staging System (ISS; stage I-II vs III), age (<75 years vs ≥75 years), and ECOG performance status (0 vs 1-2). Patients in the elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone group received elotuzumab administered intravenously at 10 mg/kg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 during cycles 1 and 2, days 1 and 15 during cycles 3-18, and then at 20 mg/kg on day 1 for subsequent cycles. In both treatment groups, patients received 25 mg lenalidomide orally on days 1-21 of each cycle and 40 mg dexamethasone on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, as per the primary definition from European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation criteria in all randomly assigned patients (intention-to-treat population). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01335399 (completed). FINDINGS: Between Aug 4, 2011, and June 19, 2014, 748 patients were randomly assigned (374 in each treatment group) and 742 patients received treatment (333 (90%) of 371 in the elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone group vs 339 (91%) of 371 in the lenalidomide and dexamethasone group discontinued treatment). The median age of patients was 73·0 years (IQR 69·0-78·0), 294 (39%) patients were 75 years or older. Most patients were White (711 [95%]) and male (412 [55%]). At a minimum follow-up of 65·3 months, the median progression-free survival was not significantly different between the groups: 31·4 months (95% CI 26·2-36·8) in the elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 29·5 months (23·5-34·3) in the lenalidomide and dexamethasone group (HR 0·93, 95·71% CI 0·77-1·12; stratified log-rank p=0·44). The median follow-up was 70·6 months (IQR 35·1-79·2). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse event was neutropenia (64 [17%] of 371 vs 79 [21%] of 371). Study drug toxicity was the reported cause of death in five (1%) versus four (1%) patients. INTERPRETATION: Elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone did not significantly improve progression-free survival versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are ineligible for HSCT. Although these data contribute to the treatment landscape, further research is needed to find ways to improve treatments in the front-line setting. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

Monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance (MGRS): Real-world data on outcomes and prognostic factors.

Monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance (MGRS) is a recognized clinical entity. Literature regarding treatment and its outcomes in MGRS is sparse due to the rarity and misdiagnosis of MGRS. We retrospectively analyzed 280 adults with an MGRS diagnosis from 2003 to 2020 across 19 clinical centers from 12 countries. All cases required renal biopsy for the pathological diagnosis of MGRS. Amyloidosis-related to MGRS (MGRS-A) was present in 180 patients; nonamyloidosis MGRS (MGRS-NA), including a broad spectrum of renal pathologies, was diagnosed in 100 patients. The median overall survival in the studied cohort was 121.0 months (95% CI: 105.0-121.0). Patients with MGRS-A had a shorter overall survival than patients with MGRS-NA (HR = 0.41, 95%CI: 0.25-0.69; p = 0.0007). Both hematologic and renal responses were associated with longer survival. Achievement of ≥VGPR was generally predictive of a renal response (OR = 8.03 95%CI: 4.04-115.96; p < 0.0001), one-fourth of patients with ≥VGPR were renal nonresponders. In MGRS-A, factors associated with poor prognosis included elevated levels of creatinine, beta-2-microglobulin, and hemodialysis at diagnosis. In MGRS-NA, only age >65 years was associated with increased risk of death. Treatments provided similar hematologic response rates in both types of MGRS. Autologous stem cell transplantation led to better response than other treatments. This multicenter and international effort is currently the largest report on MGRS.

Final analysis of the phase III non-inferiority COLUMBA study of subcutaneous versus intravenous daratumumab in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

In the primary analysis of the phase III COLUMBA study, daratumumab by subcutaneous administration (DARA SC) demonstrated non-inferiority to intravenous administration (DARA IV) for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Here, we report the final analysis of efficacy and safety from COLUMBA after a median of 29.3 months follow-up (additional 21.8 months after the primary analysis). In total, 522 patients were randomized (DARA SC, n=263; DARA IV, n=259). With longer follow-up, DARA SC and DARA IV continued to show consistent efficacy and maximum trough daratumumab concentration as compared with the primary analysis. The overall response rate was 43.7% for DARA SC and 39.8% for DARA IV. The maximum mean (standard deviation [SD]) trough concentration (cycle 3, day 1 pre-dose) of serum DARA was 581 (SD, 315) µg/mL for DARA SC and 496 (SD, 231) µg/mL for DARA IV. Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months for DARA SC and 6.1 months for DARA IV; median overall survival was 28.2 months and 25.6 months, respectively. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 50.8% of patients in the DARA SC group and 52.7% in the DARA IV group; the most common (≥10%) were thrombocytopenia (DARA SC, 14.2%; DARA IV, 13.6%), anemia (13.8%; 15.1%), and neutropenia (13.1%; 7.8%). The safety profile remained consistent with the primary analysis after longer follow-up. In summary, DARA SC and DARA IV continue to demonstrate similar efficacy and safety, with a low rate of infusion-related reactions (12.7% vs. 34.5%, respectively) and shorter administration time (3-5 minutes vs. 3-7 hours) supporting DARA SC as a preferable therapeutic choice. (Clinicaltrials gov. Identifier: NCT03277105.

Melflufen or pomalidomide plus dexamethasone for patients with multiple myeloma refractory to lenalidomide (OCEAN): a randomised, head-to-head, open-label, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), an alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, plus dexamethasone showed clinical activity and manageable safety in the phase 2 HORIZON study. We aimed to determine whether melflufen plus dexamethasone would provide a progression-free survival benefit compared with pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, head-to-head, phase 3 study (OCEAN), adult patients (aged ≥18 years) were recruited from 108 university hospitals, specialist hospitals, and community-based centres in 21 countries across Europe, North America, and Asia. Eligible patients had an ECOG performance status of 0-2; must have had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, refractory to lenalidomide (within 18 months of randomisation) and to the last line of therapy; and have received two to four previous lines of therapy (including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), stratified by age, number of previous lines of therapy, and International Staging System score, to either 28-day cycles of melflufen and dexamethasone (melflufen group) or pomalidomide and dexamethasone (pomalidomide group). All patients received dexamethasone 40 mg orally on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. In the melflufen group, patients received melflufen 40 mg intravenously over 30 min on day 1 of each cycle and in the pomalidomide group, patients received pomalidomide 4 mg orally daily on days 1 to 21 of each cycle. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by an independent review committee in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03151811, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between June 12, 2017, and Sept 3, 2020, 246 patients were randomly assigned to the melflufen group (median age 68 years [IQR 60-72]; 107 [43%] were female) and 249 to the pomalidomide group (median age 68 years [IQR 61-72]; 109 [44%] were female). 474 patients received at least one dose of study drug (melflufen group n=228; pomalidomide group n=246; safety population). Data cutoff was Feb 3, 2021. Median progression-free survival was 6·8 months (95% CI 5·0-8·5; 165 [67%] of 246 patients had an event) in the melflufen group and 4·9 months (4·2-5·7; 190 [76%] of 249 patients had an event) in the pomalidomide group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, [95% CI 0·64-0·98]; p=0·032), at a median follow-up of 15·5 months (IQR 9·4-22·8) in the melflufen group and 16·3 months (10·1-23·2) in the pomalidomide group. Median overall survival was 19·8 months (95% CI 15·1-25·6) at a median follow-up of 19·8 months (IQR 12·0-25·0) in the melflufen group and 25·0 months (95% CI 18·1-31·9) in the pomalidomide group at a median follow-up of 18·6 months (IQR 11·8-23·7; HR 1·10 [95% CI 0·85-1·44]; p=0·47). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were thrombocytopenia (143 [63%] of 228 in the melflufen group vs 26 [11%] of 246 in the pomalidomide group), neutropenia (123 [54%] vs 102 [41%]), and anaemia (97 [43%] vs 44 [18%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 95 (42%) patients in the melflufen group and 113 (46%) in the pomalidomide group, the most common of which were pneumonia (13 [6%] vs 21 [9%]), COVID-19 pneumonia (11 [5%] vs nine [4%]), and thrombocytopenia (nine [4%] vs three [1%]). 27 [12%] patients in the melflufen group and 32 [13%] in the pomalidomide group had fatal treatment-emergent adverse events. Fatal treatment-emergent adverse events were considered possibly treatment related in two patients in the melflufen group (one with acute myeloid leukaemia, one with pancytopenia and acute cardiac failure) and four patients in the pomalidomide group (two patients with pneumonia, one with myelodysplastic syndromes, one with COVID-19 pneumonia). INTERPRETATION: Melflufen plus dexamethasone showed superior progression-free survival than pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. FUNDING: Oncopeptides AB.

Subcutaneous versus intravenous daratumumab in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (COLUMBA): a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous daratumumab for treatment of patients with multiple myeloma involves a lengthy infusion that affects quality of life, and infusion-related reactions are common. Subcutaneous daratumumab is thought to be easier to administer and to cause fewer administration-related reactions. In this study (COLUMBA), we tested the non-inferiority of subcutaneous daratumumab to intravenous daratumumab. METHODS: In this ongoing, multicentre (147 sites in 18 countries), open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial, we recruited adult patients (age ≥18 years) if they had confirmed relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma according to International Myeloma Working Group criteria; received at least three previous lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulatory drug, or were double refractory to both a proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulatory drug; and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 2 or lower. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated randomisation schedule and balanced using randomly permuted blocks to receive daratumumab subcutaneously (subcutaneous group) or intravenously (intravenous group). Randomisation was stratified on the basis of baseline bodyweight (≤65 kg, 66-85 kg, >85 kg), previous therapy lines (≤four vs >four), and myeloma type (IgG vs non-IgG). Patients received 1800 mg of subcutaneous daratumumab co-formulated with 2000 U/mL recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 or 16 mg/kg of intravenous daratumumab once weekly (cycles 1-2), every 2 weeks (cycles 3-6), and every 4 weeks thereafter (28-day cycles) until progressive disease or toxicity. The co-primary endpoints were overall response and maximum trough concentration (Ctrough; cycle 3, day 1 pre-dose). The non-inferiority margin for overall response was defined using a 60% retention of the lower bound (20·8%) of the 95% CI of the SIRIUS trial. Efficacy analyses were done by intention-to-treat population. The pharmacokinetic-evaluable population included all patients who received all eight weekly daratumumab doses in cycles 1 and 2 and provided a pre-dose pharmacokinetics blood sample on day 1 of cycle 3. The safety population included all patients who received at least one daratumumab dose. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03277105. FINDINGS: Between Oct 31, 2017, and Dec 27, 2018, 655 patients were screened, of whom 522 were recruited and randomly assigned (subcutaneous group n=263; intravenous group n=259). Three patients in the subcutaneous group and one in the intravenous group did not receive treatment and were not evaluable for safety. At a median follow-up of 7·5 months (IQR 6·5-9·3), overall response and Ctrough met the predefined non-inferiority criteria. An overall response was seen in 108 (41%) of 263 patients in the subcutaneous group and 96 (37%) of 259 in the intravenous group (relative risk 1·11, 95% CI 0·89-1·37). The geometric means ratio for Ctrough was 107·93% (90% CI 95·74-121·67), and the maximum Ctrough was 593 µg/mL (SD 306) in the subcutaneous group and 522 µg/mL (226) in the intravenous group. The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were anaemia (34 [13%] of 260 patients evaluable for safety in the subcutaneous group and 36 [14%] of 258 patients in the intravenous group), neutropenia (34 [13%] and 20 [8%]), and thrombocytopenia (36 [14%] and 35 [14%]). Pneumonia was the only serious adverse event in more than 2% of patients (seven [3%] in the subcutaneous group and 11 [4%] in the intravenous group). There was one death resulting from a treatment-related adverse event in the subcutaneous daratumumab group (febrile neutropenia) and four in the intravenous group (sepsis [n=2], hepatitis B reactivation [n=1], and Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia [n=1]). INTERPRETATION: Subcutaneous daratumumab was non-inferior to intravenous daratumumab in terms of efficacy and pharmacokinetics and had an improved safety profile in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. These data could contribute to the approval of the subcutaneous daratumumab formulation by regulatory bodies. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development.

Multiple Myeloma Treatment in Real-world Clinical Practice: Results of a Prospective, Multinational, Noninterventional Study.

BACKGROUND: The present prospective, multinational, noninterventional study aimed to document and describe real-world treatment regimens and disease progression in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients initiating any new MM therapy from October 2010 to October 2012 were eligible. A multistage patient/site recruitment model was applied to minimize the selection bias; enrollment was stratified by country, region, and practice type. The patient medical and disease features, treatment history, and remission status were recorded at baseline, and prospective data on treatment, efficacy, and safety were collected electronically every 3 months. RESULTS: A total of 2358 patients were enrolled. Of these patients, 775 and 1583 did and did not undergo stem cell transplantation (SCT) at any time during treatment, respectively. Of the patients in the SCT and non-SCT groups, 49%, 21%, 14%, and 15% and 57%, 20%, 12% and 10% were enrolled at treatment line 1, 2, 3, and ≥ 4, respectively. In the SCT and non-SCT groups, 45% and 54% of the patients had received bortezomib-based therapy without thalidomide/lenalidomide, 12% and 18% had received thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy without bortezomib, and 30% and 4% had received bortezomib plus thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy as frontline treatment, respectively. The corresponding proportions of SCT and non-SCT patients in lines 2, 3, and ≥ 4 were 45% and 37%, 30% and 37%, and 12% and 3%, 33% and 27%, 35% and 32%, and 8% and 2%, and 27% and 27%, 27% and 23%, and 6% and 4%, respectively. In the SCT and non-SCT patients, the overall response rate was 86% to 97% and 64% to 85% in line 1, 74% to 78% and 59% to 68% in line 2, 55% to 83% and 48% to 60% in line 3, and 49% to 65% and 36% and 45% in line 4, respectively, for regimens that included bortezomib and/or thalidomide/lenalidomide. CONCLUSION: The results of our prospective study have revealed great diversity in the treatment regimens used to manage MM in real-life practice. This diversity was linked to factors such as novel agent accessibility and evolving treatment recommendations. Our results provide insight into associated clinical benefits.

Denosumab versus zoledronic acid in bone disease treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: an international, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma is characterised by monoclonal paraprotein production and osteolytic lesions, commonly leading to skeletal-related events (spinal cord compression, pathological fracture, or surgery or radiotherapy to affected bone). Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting RANKL, reduces skeletal-related events associated with bone lesions or metastases in patients with advanced solid tumours. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of denosumab compared with zoledronic acid for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this international, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, patients in 259 centres and 29 countries aged 18 years or older with symptomatic newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who had at least one documented lytic bone lesion were randomly assigned (1:1; centrally, by interactive voice response system using a fixed stratified permuted block randomisation list with a block size of four) to subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg plus intravenous placebo every 4 weeks or intravenous zoledronic acid 4 mg plus subcutaneous placebo every 4 weeks (both groups also received investigators' choice of first-line antimyeloma therapy). Stratification was by intent to undergo autologous transplantation, antimyeloma therapy, International Staging System stage, previous skeletal-related events, and region. The clinical study team and patients were masked to treatment assignments. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of denosumab to zoledronic acid with respect to time to first skeletal-related event in the full analysis set (all randomly assigned patients). All safety endpoints were analysed in the safety analysis set, which includes all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of active study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01345019. FINDINGS: From May 17, 2012, to March 29, 2016, we enrolled 1718 patients and randomly assigned 859 to each treatment group. The study met the primary endpoint; denosumab was non-inferior to zoledronic acid for time to first skeletal-related event (hazard ratio 0·98, 95% CI 0·85-1·14; pnon-inferiority=0·010). 1702 patients received at least one dose of the investigational drug and were included in the safety analysis (850 patients receiving denosumab and 852 receiving zoledronic acid). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events for denosumab and zoledronic acid were neutropenia (126 [15%] vs 125 [15%]), thrombocytopenia (120 [14%] vs 103 [12%]), anaemia (100 [12%] vs 85 [10%]), febrile neutropenia (96 [11%] vs 87 [10%]), and pneumonia (65 [8%] vs 70 [8%]). Renal toxicity was reported in 85 (10%) patients in the denosumab group versus 146 (17%) in the zoledronic acid group; hypocalcaemia adverse events were reported in 144 (17%) versus 106 (12%). Incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw was not significantly different between the denosumab and zoledronic acid groups (35 [4%] vs 24 [3%]; p=0·147). The most common serious adverse event for both treatment groups was pneumonia (71 [8%] vs 69 [8%]). One patient in the zoledronic acid group died of cardiac arrest that was deemed treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: In patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, denosumab was non-inferior to zoledronic acid for time to skeletal-related events. The results from this study suggest denosumab could be an additional option for the standard of care for patients with multiple myeloma with bone disease. FUNDING: Amgen.

New drugs in multiple myeloma - role of carfilzomib and pomalidomide.

Carfilzomib (CFZ), an epoxyketone with specific chymotrypsin-like activity, is a second-generation proteasome inhibitor with significant activity in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. On July 20, 2012, the US Food and Drug Administration approved CFZ to treat patients with multiple myeloma who have received at least two prior therapies including bortezomib (BORT) and an immunomodulatory agent and have demonstrated disease progression on or within 60 days of completion of the last therapy. Cytogenetic abnormalities did not appear to have a significant impact on the CFZ activity. Carfilzomib was well tolerated and demonstrated promising efficacy in patients with renal insufficiency. Pomalidomide (POM) (CC-4047) is a novel immunomodulatory derivative (IMID) with a stronger in vitro anti-myeloma effect compared with "older" IMIDs - thalidomide and lenalidomide (LEN). On February 8, 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration approved POM (Pomalyst, Celgene) for the treatment of MM patients who have received at least two prior therapies including LEN and BORT and have demonstrated progression on or within 60 days of completion of the last therapy. Pomalidomide is a novel IMID with significant anti-myeloma activity and manageable toxicity. This compound has shown high efficacy in MM patients who were resistant to prior use of LEN/BORT as well as in patients with a high-risk cytogenetic profile. Carfilzomib and POM have very high efficacy and will be used also in first line therapy in future.

Treatment of multiple myeloma patients with autologous stem cell transplantation - a fresh analysis.

Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) treated with conventional chemotherapy have an average survival of approximately three years. High dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), first introduced in the mid-1980s, is now considered the standard therapy for almost all patients with multiple myeloma, because it prolongs overall survival and disease free survival. Between November 1997 and October 2006, 122 patients with MM (58 females, 64 males, median age 51.0 years [± 7.98] range: 30-66 years) were transplanted in the Department of Hematooncology and Bone Marrow Transplantation at the Medical University of Lublin: 47 patients were in complete remission or in unconfirmed complete remission, 66 patients were in partial remission, and nine had stable disease. Of these, there were 95 patients with IgG myeloma, 16 with IgA myeloma, one with IgG/IgA, one with IgM myeloma, five with non secretory type, two with solitary tumor and two with LCD myeloma. According to Durie-Salmon, 62 patients had stage III of the disease, 46 had stage II and four had stage I. Most patients (69/122) were transplanted after two or more cycles of chemotherapy, 48 patients were transplanted after one cycle of chemotherapy, one patient after surgery and rtg- -therapy and four patients had not been treated. In mobilisation procedure, the patients received a single infusion of cyclophosphamide (4-6 g/m(2)) or etoposide 1.6 g/m(2) followed by daily administration of G-CSF until the peripheral stem cells harvest. The number of median harvest sessions was 2.0 (± 0.89) (range: 1-5). An average of 7.09 (± 33.28) × 106 CD34(+) cells/kg were collected from each patient (range: 1.8-111.0 × 106/kg). Conditioning regimen consisted of high dose melphalan 60-210 mg/m(2) without TBI. An average of 3.04 (± 11.59) × 106 CD34+ cells/kg were transplanted to each patient. Fatal complications occured in four patients (treatment- -related mortality = 3.2%). In all patients there was regeneration of hematopoiesis. The median number of days for recovery to ANC > 0.5 × 109/l was 13 (± 4.69) (range: 10-38) and platelets recovery to > 50 × 109/l was 25 days (± 11.65) (range: 12-45). Median time of hospitalization was 22 days (± 7.14) (range: 14-50). Patients were evaluated on day 100 after transplantation: 74.9% achieved CR and nCR, 14.3% were in PR, 5.4% had SD and 5.4% had progressed. Median of OS was 45 months (± 30.67). OS at 3-years was 84% and at 7-years 59%. Median PFS was 25 months (± 26.13). PFS at 3-years was 68%, and at 7-years was 43%. At present (November 2009) 52 patients (42%) are still alive. High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation is a valuable, well tolerated method of treatment for patients with MM that allows the achievement of long- -lasting survival.

Thalidomide, dexamethasone and lovastatin with autologous stem cell transplantation as a salvage immunomodulatory therapy in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma.

The treatment of patients with multiple myeloma usually includes many drugs including thalidomide, lenalidomide and bortezomib. Lovastatin and other inhibitors of HMG-CoA reductase demonstrated to exhibit antineoplasmatic and proapoptotic properties in numerous in vitro studies involving myeloma cell lines. We treated 91 patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma with thalidomide, dexamethasone and lovastatin (TDL group, 49 patients) or thalidomide and dexamethasone (TD group, 42 patients). A clinical response defined of at least 50% reduction of monoclonal band has been observed in 32% of TD patients and 44% of TDL patients. Prolongation of overall survival and progression-free survival in the TDL group as compared with the TD group has been documented. The TDL regimen was safe and well tolerated. The incidence of side effects was comparable in both groups. Plasma cells have been cultured in vitro with thalidomide and lovastatin to assess the impact of both drugs on the apoptosis rate of plasma cells. In vitro experiments revealed that the combination of thalidomide and lovastatin induced higher apoptosis rate than apoptosis induced by each drug alone. Our results suggest that the addition of lovastatin to the TD regimen may improve the response rate in patients with relapsed or refractory myeloma.

[Massive bleeding episodes in patients with acquired haemophilia--case report]. / Masywne wylewy krwawe u chorych z hemofilia nabyta--opis dwóch przypadków.

We present two cases with a history of acquired haemophilia with massive haemorrhage in the course of the disease. A 74-year-old man presented to the emergency room with an extensive, progressive swelling and haemorrhage in the region of left knee joint, both upper legs and forearms. Laboratory studies revealed the presence of the factor VIII inhibitor in the titer of 115 Bethesda U/mL, low level of factor VIII activity (19.2%) and severe anemia (Hb - 7.0 g%). The patient was treated with FFP transfusions and prednisone with cyclophosphamide to eradicate factor VIII inhibitor. The remission was achieved and lasts for a two years. A 52-year-old woman presented to the emergency room with an extensive subcutaneous haemorrhage in the region of right knee joint and right lower leg. Laboratory studies revealed the presence of the factor VIII inhibitor in the titer of 30 Bethesda U/mL. The factor VIII activity level was only 4%. The patient did not receive the FFP because the severity of the haemorrhage was low. She was treated with steroids. The factor VIII inhibitor disappeared after 2.5 months of therapy.