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.

BACKGROUND: Several clinical studies have compared single with tandem (also called double) autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) as first-line treatment in patients with symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM), one of the leading indications for ASCT worldwide. OBJECTIVES: The present Cochrane Review compares tandem autologous stem cell transplantation (TASCT) with single autologous stem cell transplantation (SASCT) as first-line treatment in patients with symptomatic MM with respect to overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), quality of life (QoL) and treatment- or transplantation-related mortality. SEARCH METHODS: We systematically identified controlled trials published between January 1995 and May 2011 in two bibliographic databases (MEDLINE and CENTRAL) and in clinical trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: One researcher screened references for controlled trials to determine eligibility for the systematic review (SR) according to pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria, reflecting characteristics of disease and the interventions. We required a minimal set of details to be reported for observational studies for the studies to be included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We critically evaluated eligible trials with respect to quality of design and actual performance. One researcher extracted individual trial results, which were checked by another researcher. We recapitulated the results of the individual trials in a standardised way for the SR in order to allow a systematic assessment of potential sources of bias. MAIN RESULTS: Overall, we identified 14 controlled studies. One registered randomised controlled trial (RCT) is still recruiting patients at the time of this review and no clinical results have been published. Two registered RCTs have remained unpublished despite their termination. Publications on one RCT had been retracted. We excluded five observational studies since neither patients nor treatment regimens were sufficiently characterised to allow an assessment of potential confounding by indication. We conducted a SR of study designs, definition of endpoints, treatment regimens and baseline characteristics of patients in the five included RCTs (two full-text publications, three conference presentations) enrolling1506 patients in total. Because we identified substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity, we refrained from conducting a formal meta-analysis.While we included only previously untreated, symptomatic patients with MM the treatment regimens differed notably with respect to acute toxicity, between trials and also between study arms. Compared to state of the art treatment standards, the treatment regimens applied in all trials have to be considered as below standard from a contemporary perspective in at least one component.Three trials were likely to have the potential of being highly biased while two RCTs had a moderate potential for bias. The observed treatment effects in the set of included trials may have been influenced by a steep decrease in compliance with the second ASCT and the concomitant selection of patients. In addition, OS data were confounded by the treatment subsequent to first-line therapy.OS was statistically significantly improved in one trial only. While EFS was prolonged in four of the five trials, the median prolongation ranged between three to 12 months, with an uncertain direction of bias in the individual trials. QoL was not reported in any study. Results concerning treatment- or transplantation-related mortality could not be adequately assessed due to substantial differences in definitions between trials and low reporting quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not consider any study to be sufficiently informative for contemporary treatment decisions concerning the question single versus tandem ASCT in view of inherent biases. In addition, none of the trials integrated the so-called "novel agents" which are now considered standard treatment for MM. To improve the quality of future studies, sample size calculations should consider the potentially steep decrease in compliance with the second ASCT. Reporting of results of treatment- or transplantation-related mortality should clearly specify the type and number of events (the numerator) in a well-defined population (the denominator).

Corticosteroids for preventing graft-versus-host disease after allogeneic myeloablative stem cell transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Despite ongoing progress, acute and chronic GvHD still represent major drawbacks in the context of allogeneic myeloablative haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) due to their high morbidity and mortality. Corticosteroids are used as first-line treatment of acute and chronic GvHD. However, their role for preventing GvHD is unclear as the published study results are controversial. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of corticosteroids used for the prophylaxis of GvHD in adults following allogeneic myeloablative HSCT. in improving overall survival, disease-free survival, relapse incidence, non-relapse mortality, acute GvHD grade I to IV, II to IV and III to IV, chronic GvHD, incidence of infectious complications, other adverse effects and cause of deaths. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Haematological Malignancies Group trials register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1999 to February 2006), EMBASE (January 1999 to 2004), LILACS covering publications until 2004, as well as handsearched conference proceedings, including citations until 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing the addition of corticosteroids to a GvHD prophylaxis regimen in adult patients having undergone allogeneic myeloablative HSCT were included into the review. All types and stages of the underlying disease as well as all types of possible HLA-matching were considered. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial eligibility and quality assessment, data extraction and analysis were done in duplicate. MAIN RESULTS: Five RCTs involving 604 people were included. The pooled results revealed that the addition of corticosteroids reduces statistically significant the risk for acute GvHD grade I to IV (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.76) and II to IV (HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.92). No evidence was found that it has any clinical relevance on overall survival (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.25) or disease-free survival (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.23). As well, no statistically significant influence was found for acute GvHD grade III to IV (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.15), chronic GvHD (HR 1.21;95% CI 0.89 to 1.65]), relapse incidence (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.18) or non-relapse mortality (HR 0.88;95% CI 0.61 to 1.26). No clear evidence was found that the rate of infectious complications (under the concomitant use of antiviral or antibacterial medication or both) increases with the addition of corticosteroids. With respect to the other outcomes no significant differences could be detected. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The addition of corticosteroids reduces the incidences of acute GvHD grade I to IV and II to IV. This reduction, however, did not show any effect on overall survival and disease-free survival. Further randomised controlled studies are needed to evaluate if the timing of steroid administration has a significant influence on the outcome; data on quality of life should be assessed systematically.

High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell support in first-line treatment of aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma - results of a comprehensive meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported conflicting results on the impact of high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) and autologous stem cell transplantation in the first-line treatment of patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). METHODS: We performed a systematic meta-analysis to assess the efficacy HDCT compared to conventional chemotherapy in aggressive NHL patients with regard to complete response (CR), overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), toxicity, and impact of the age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (aaIPI) risk factors. We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and other databases (1/1990 to 1/2005). Hazard ratio (HR), relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the fixed effect model. RESULTS: Fifteen RCTs including 2728 patients were identified. HDCT improved CR when compared to conventional chemotherapy (RR 1.11, CI 1.04-1.18). Overall, there was no evidence for HDCT to improve OS (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92-1.19) or EFS (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80-1.05) when compared with conventional chemotherapy. However, subgroup analysis indicated OS differences (p=0.032) between good (HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.02-2.09) and poor risk (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.81-1.11) patients. Conflicting results were reported for poor risk patients, where some studies reported improved and others reduced OS and EFS after HDCT. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence that HDCT improved OS and EFS in good risk NHL patients. The evidence for poor risk patients is inconclusive. HDCT should not be further investigated in good risk patients with aggressive NHL but high quality studies in poor risk patients are warranted.