4.7 Article

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

期刊

BLOOD
卷 107, 期 9, 页码 3474-3480

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2005-09-3869

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome (IFM) initiated 2 trials in 1999 to study patients with high-risk (beta 2-microglobulin level greater than 3 mg/L and chromosome 13 deletion at diagnosis) de novo multiple myeloma. In both protocols, the induction regimen consisted of vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (VAD) followed by first autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) prepared by melphalan 200 mg/m(2). Patients with an HILA-identical sibling donor were subsequently treated with dose-reduced allogeneic stem cell transplantation (IFM99-03 trial), and patients without an HLA-identical sibling donor were randomly assigned to undergo second ASCT prepared by melphalan 220 mg/m(2) and 160 mg dexamethasone with or without anti-IL-6 monoclonal antibody (IFM99-04 protocol). Two hundred eighty-four patients-65 in the IFM99-03 trial and 219 in the IFM99-04 trial-were prospectively treated and received at least one course of VAD. On an intent-to-treat basis, overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) did not differ significantly in the studies (medians 35 and 25 months in the IFM99-03 trial vs 41 and 30 months in the IFM99-04 trial, respectively). With a median follow-up time of 24 months, the EFS of the 166 patients randomly assigned in the tandem ASCT protocol was similar to the EFS of the 46 patients who underwent the entire IFM99-03 program (median, 35 vs 31.7 months), with a trend for a better OS in patients treated with tandem ASCT (median, 47.2 vs 35 months; P =.07). In patients with high-risk de novo MM, the combination of ASCT followed by dose-reduced allogeneic transplantation was not superior to tandem dose-intensified, melphalan-based ASCT.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据