Bortezomib, melphalan, prednisone (VMP) versus melphalan, prednisone, thalidomide (MPT) in elderly newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients: A retrospective case-matched study.

Novel agents in combination with melphalan and prednisone (MP) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in multiple myeloma (MM). Randomized trials comparing MP plus bortezomib (VMP) versus MP plus thalidomide (MPT) are lacking. Nine hundred and fifty-six elderly (>65 years) newly diagnosed MM patients from six European randomized trials were retrospectively analyzed and matched for age, albumin, and beta2-microglobulin at diagnosis, 296 patients were selected from the VMP groups, and 294 from MPT. Complete response rate was 21% in the VMP patients and 13% in the MPT patients (P = 0.007). After a median follow-up of 34 months (range, 1-92), VMP significantly prolonged both PFS (median 32.5 vs. 22.9 months, HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.52-0.82; P < 0.001) and OS (median 79.7 vs. 45.1 months, HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.32-0.59; P < 0.001) in comparison with MPT. The benefit in terms of OS of the VMP group was quite similar among patients with different risk factors defined by sex, ISS, ECOG performance status, or serum creatinine but not among patients ≥ 75 years. Multivariate analysis confirmed that VMP was an independent predictor of longer PFS and OS. In a control-case matched analysis, PFS and OS were prolonged in patients who received VMP in comparison with those treated with MPT.

Autologous stem cell transplantation may be curative for patients with follicular lymphoma with early therapy failure without the need for immunotherapy.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: Patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) with early therapy failure (ETF) within 2 years of frontline therapy have poor overall survival (OS). We recently reported the results of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in patients from the Grupo Español de Linfomas y Trasplantes de Médula Ósea (GELTAMO) registry treated with rituximab prior to ASCT and with ETF after first-line immunochemotherapy, leading to 81% 5-year OS since ASCT. We explored whether ASCT is also an effective option in the pre-rituximab era-that is, in patients treated in induction and rescued only with chemotherapy. METHODS: ETF was defined as relapse/progression within 2 years of starting first-line therapy. We identified two groups: the ETF cohort (n = 87) and the non-ETF cohort (n = 47 patients receiving ASCT but not experiencing ETF following first-line therapy). RESULTS: There was a significant difference in 5-year progression-free survival between the ETF and non-ETF cohorts (43% vs. 57%, respectively; p = .048). Nevertheless, in patients with ETF with an interval from first relapse after primary treatment to ASCT of <1 year, no differences were observed in 5-year progression-free survival (48% vs. 66%, respectively; p = .44) or in 5-year OS (69% vs. 77%, p = .4). Patients in the ETF cohort transplanted in complete remission showed a plateau in the OS curves, at 56%, beyond 13.7 years of follow-up. CONCLUSION: ASCT may be a curative option for ETF in patients who respond to rescue chemotherapy, without the need for immunotherapy or other therapies, and should be considered as an early consolidation, especially in patients with difficult access to rituximab.