This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sonneveld, P. Articles by Lokhorst, H. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sonneveld, P. Articles by Lokhorst, H. M.

Intermediate-dose melphalan compared with myeloablative treatment in multiple myeloma: long-term follow-up of the Dutch Cooperative Group HOVON 24 trial

From Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam (Erasmus MC) and University Medical Center Utrecht (UMCU) for the Dutch-Belgian Hemato-Oncology Cooperative Group (HOVON), The Netherlands

Correspondence: Pieter Sonneveld, MD, Erasmus MC, Dept. of Hematology, Rm L 407, Dr Molewaterplein 40, PO box 2040 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail: p.sonneveld{at}erasmusmc.nl

Background and Objectives: The Dutch-Belgian HOVON group performed a randomized phase 3 trial to compare single non-myeloablative intensive treatment with double, intensive treatment in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma (MM).

Design and Methods: Three hundred and three patients with stage II/III MM were randomized after VAD induction chemotherapy to receive two cycles of non-myeloablative intermediate-dose melphalan (70 mg/m²) (single treatment) or the same regimen followed by cyclophosphamide 120 mg/kg iv plus total body irradiation (TBI) 9 Gy and autologous stem cell transplantation (double, intensive treatment). In both treatment arms interferon IIa was given as maintenance until relapse/progression.

Results: A significantly higher proportion of patients achieved a complete remission (CR) on protocol treatment with double, intensive therapy (32% vs 13%, p<0.001). Double treatment produced better outcome in terms of event-free survival (median 22 vs 21 months, 28% vs 14% at 4 years and 15% vs 7% at 6 years after randomization; logrank p=0.013; univariate HR 0.74, 95% CI, 0.58–0.94), progression-free survival (median 27 vs 24 months, 33% vs 16% at 4 years, and 17% vs 9% at 6 years after randomization; logrank p=0.006; HR=0.71, 95% CI 0.56–0.91), but not overall survival (median 50 vs 55 months, 52% vs 56% at 4 years and 39% vs 36% at 6 years after randomization; logrank p=0.51; HR=1.10, 95% CI 0.83–1.46). The achievement of a CR had a favorable prognostic impact on event-free survival (HR=0.60, 95% CI=0.44–0.82, p=0.001) and progression-free survival (HR=0.62, 95% CI=0.45–0.84, p=0.002).

Interpretation and Conclusions: Double, intensive treatment resulted in a better CR rate, event-free survival and progression-free survival but not overall survival compared to single non-myeloablative treatment in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma.

Key words: intermediate dose, melphalan, myeloablative treatment, HOVON 24 trial.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J.-L. Harousseau, H. Avet-Loiseau, M. Attal, C. Charbonnel, F. Garban, C. Hulin, M. Michallet, T. Facon, L. Garderet, G. Marit, et al. Achievement of at Least Very Good Partial Response Is a Simple and Robust Prognostic Factor in Patients With Multiple Myeloma Treated With High-Dose Therapy: Long-Term Analysis of the IFM 99-02 and 99-04 Trials J. Clin. Oncol., December 1, 2009; 27(34): 5720 - 5726. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Mehta Re: Tandem vs Single Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation for the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis J Natl Cancer Inst, October 21, 2009; 101(20): 1430 - 1431. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Kumar, M. Kharfan-Dabaja, and B. Djulbegovic Response: Re: Tandem vs Single Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation for the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis J Natl Cancer Inst, October 21, 2009; 101(20): 1431 - 1433. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J.-L. Harousseau, M. Attal, and H. Avet-Loiseau The role of complete response in multiple myeloma Blood, October 8, 2009; 114(15): 3139 - 3146. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Giralt, D. H. Vesole, G. Somlo, A. Krishnan, E. Stadtmauer, P. Mccarthy, M. C. Pasquini;, and on behalf of the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clini Re: Tandem vs Single Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation for the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis J Natl Cancer Inst, July 1, 2009; 101(13): 964 - 964. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Kumar and B. Djulbegovic Response: Re: Tandem vs Single Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation for the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis J Natl Cancer Inst, July 1, 2009; 101(13): 966 - 967. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J.-L. Harousseau and P. Moreau Autologous Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation for Multiple Myeloma N. Engl. J. Med., June 18, 2009; 360(25): 2645 - 2654. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Kumar, M. A. Kharfan-Dabaja, A. Glasmacher, and B. Djulbegovic Tandem Versus Single Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation for the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis J Natl Cancer Inst, January 21, 2009; 101(2): 100 - 106. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Rosinol, J. A. Perez-Simon, A. Sureda, J. de la Rubia, F. de Arriba, J. J. Lahuerta, J. D. Gonzalez, J. Diaz-Mediavilla, B. Hernandez, J. Garcia-Frade, et al. A prospective PETHEMA study of tandem autologous transplantation versus autograft followed by reduced-intensity conditioning allogeneic transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma Blood, November 1, 2008; 112(9): 3591 - 3593. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J.-L. Harousseau Induction Therapy in Multiple Myeloma Hematology, January 1, 2008; 2008(1): 306 - 312. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]