| 1. |
- Giralt, Sergio, et al.
(author)
-
American Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, European Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network, and International Myeloma Working Group Consensus Conference on Salvage Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation in Patients with Relapsed Multiple Myeloma.
- 2015
-
In: Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation. - : Elsevier BV. - 1083-8791. ; 21:12, s. 2039-2051
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In contrast to the upfront setting in which the role of high-dose therapy with autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) as consolidation of a first remission in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) is well established, the role of high-dose therapy with autologous or allogeneic HCT has not been extensively studied in MM patients relapsing after primary therapy. The International Myeloma Working Group together with the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network, the American Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, and the European Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation convened a meeting of MM experts to: (1) summarize current knowledge regarding the role of autologous or allogeneic HCT in MM patients progressing after primary therapy, (2) propose guidelines for the use of salvage HCT in MM, (3) identify knowledge gaps, (4) propose a research agenda, and (5) develop a collaborative initiative to move the research agenda forward. After reviewing the available data, the expert committee came to the following consensus statement for salvage autologous HCT: (1) In transplantation-eligible patients relapsing after primary therapy that did NOT include an autologous HCT, high-dose therapy with HCT as part of salvage therapy should be considered standard; (2) High-dose therapy and autologous HCT should be considered appropriate therapy for any patients relapsing after primary therapy that includes an autologous HCT with initial remission duration of more than 18 months; (3) High-dose therapy and autologous HCT can be used as a bridging strategy to allogeneic HCT; (4) The role of postsalvage HCT maintenance needs to be explored in the context of well-designed prospective trials that should include new agents, such as monoclonal antibodies, immune-modulating agents, and oral proteasome inhibitors; (5) Autologous HCT consolidation should be explored as a strategy to develop novel conditioning regimens or post-HCT strategies in patients with short (less than 18 months remissions) after primary therapy; and (6) Prospective randomized trials need to be performed to define the role of salvage autologous HCT in patients with MM relapsing after primary therapy comparing it to "best non-HCT" therapy. The expert committee also underscored the importance of collecting enough hematopoietic stem cells to perform 2 transplantations early in the course of the disease. Regarding allogeneic HCT, the expert committee agreed on the following consensus statements: (1) Allogeneic HCT should be considered appropriate therapy for any eligible patient with early relapse (less than 24 months) after primary therapy that included an autologous HCT and/or high-risk features (ie, cytogenetics, extramedullary disease, plasma cell leukemia, or high lactate dehydrogenase); (2) Allogeneic HCT should be performed in the context of a clinical trial if possible; (3) The role of postallogeneic HCT maintenance therapy needs to be explored in the context of well-designed prospective trials; and (4) Prospective randomized trials need to be performed to define the role salvage allogeneic HCT in patients with MM relapsing after primary therapy.
|
|
| 2. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(author)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy
- 2012
-
In: Autophagy. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1554-8635 .- 1554-8627. ; 8:4, s. 445-544
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Mahindra, Anuj, et al.
(author)
-
New Cancers after Autotransplantations for Multiple Myeloma
- 2015
-
In: Biology of blood and marrow transplantation. - : Elsevier BV. - 1083-8791 .- 1523-6536. ; 21:4, s. 738-745
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- We describe baseline incidence and risk factors for new cancers in 4161 persons receiving autotransplants for multiple myeloma in the United States from 1990 to 2010. Observed incidence of invasive new cancers was compared with expected incidence relative to the US population. The cohort represented 13,387 person-years at-risk. In total, 163 new cancers were observed, for a crude incidence rate of 1.2 new cancers per 100 person-years and cumulative incidences of 2.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.09 to 3.17), 4.2% (95% CI, 3.49 to 5.00), and 6.1% (95% CI, 5.08 to 7.24) at 3, 5, and 7 years, respectively. The incidence of new cancers in the autotransplantation cohort was similar to age-, race-, and gender-adjusted comparison subjects with an observed/expected (O/E) ratio of 1.00 (99% CI, .81 to 1.22). However, acute myeloid leukemia and melanoma were observed at higher than expected rates with O/E ratios of 5.19 (99% CI, 1.67 to 12.04; P = .0004), and 3.58 (99% CI, 1.82 to 6.29; P < .0001), respectively. Obesity, older age, and male gender were associated with increased risks of new cancers in multivariate analyses. This large data set provides a baseline for comparison and defines the histologic type specific risk for new cancers in patients with MM receiving postautotransplantation therapies, such as maintenance.
|
|
| 5. |
- Moreau, Philippe, et al.
(author)
-
Oral Ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma
- 2016
-
In: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 374:17, s. 1621-1634
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND Ixazomib is an oral proteasome inhibitor that is currently being studied for the treatment of multiple myeloma. METHODS In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 722 patients who had relapsed, refractory, or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma to receive ixazomib plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (ixazomib group) or placebo plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (placebo group). The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the ixazomib group than in the placebo group at a median follow-up of 14.7 months (median progression-free survival, 20.6 months vs. 14.7 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death in the ixazomib group, 0.74; P = 0.01); a benefit with respect to progression-free survival was observed with the ixazomib regimen, as compared with the placebo regimen, in all prespecified patient subgroups, including in patients with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. The overall rates of response were 78% in the ixazomib group and 72% in the placebo group, and the corresponding rates of complete response plus very good partial response were 48% and 39%. The median time to response was 1.1 months in the ixazomib group and 1.9 months in the placebo group, and the corresponding median duration of response was 20.5 months and 15.0 months. At a median follow-up of approximately 23 months, the median overall survival has not been reached in either study group, and follow-up is ongoing. The rates of serious adverse events were similar in the two study groups (47% in the ixazomib group and 49% in the placebo group), as were the rates of death during the study period (4% and 6%, respectively); adverse events of at least grade 3 severity occurred in 74% and 69% of the patients, respectively. Thrombocytopenia of grade 3 and grade 4 severity occurred more frequently in the ixazomib group (12% and 7% of the patients, respectively) than in the placebo group (5% and 4% of the patients, respectively). Rash occurred more frequently in the ixazomib group than in the placebo group (36% vs. 23% of the patients), as did gastrointestinal adverse events, which were predominantly low grade. The incidence of peripheral neuropathy was 27% in the ixazomib group and 22% in the placebo group (grade 3 events occurred in 2% of the patients in each study group). Patient-reported quality of life was similar in the two study groups. CONCLUSIONS The addition of ixazomib to a regimen of lenalidomide and dexamethasone was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival; the additional toxic effects with this all-oral regimen were limited.
|
|
| 6. |
- Sharma, Manish, et al.
(author)
-
Older Patients with Myeloma Derive Similar Benefit from Autologous Transplantation
- 2014
-
In: Biology of blood and marrow transplantation. - : Elsevier BV. - 1083-8791 .- 1523-6536. ; 20:11, s. 1796-1803
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) for plasma cell myeloma is performed less often in people >70 years old than in people <= 70 years old. We analyzed 11,430 AHCT recipients for plasma cell myeloma prospectively reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research between 2008 and 2011, representing the majority of US AHCT activity during this period. Survival (OS) was compared in 3 cohorts: ages 18 to 59 years (n = 5818), 60 to 69 years (n = 4666), and >70 years (n = 946). Median OS was not reached for any cohort. In multivariate analysis, increasing age was associated with mortality (P = .0006). Myeloma-specific mortality was similar among cohorts at 12%, indicating an age-related effect on nonmyeloma mortality. Analyses were performed in a representative subgroup comparing relapse rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and nonrelapse mortality (NRM). One-year NRM was 0% for age >70 years and 2% for other ages (P = not significant). The three-year relapse rate was 56% in age 18 to 59 years, 61% in age 60 to 69 years, and 63% age >70 (P = not significant). Three-year PFS was similar at 42% in age 18 to 59 years, 38% in age 60 to 69 years, and 33% in age >70 years (P = not significant). Postrelapse survival was significantly worse for the older cohort (P = .03). Older subjects selected for AHCT derived similar antimyeloma benefit without worse NRM, relapse rate, or PFS.
|
|
