Research Article
No Aggressive Therapy in Multiple Myeloma-The Role of Thalidomide as Maintenance Therapy
1. Oncology Research Unit, Oncology Hospital, National Medical Center, Mexico City, Mexico.
2. Hematology Department, Oncology Hospital, National Medical Center, Mexico City, Mexico.
*Corresponding Author: Agustin Aviles, Oncology Research Unit, Oncology Hospital, National Medical Center, Mexico City, Mexico.
Citation: Aviles A, Cleto S. (2024). No Aggressive Therapy in Multiple Myeloma-the Role of Thalidomide as Maintenance Therapy. International Journal of Clinical and Molecular Oncology. BioRes Scientia Publishers. 3(1):1-3. DOI: 10.59657/2993-0197.brs.24.010
Copyright: © 2024 Agustin Aviles, this is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Received: February 01, 2024 | Accepted: February 22, 2024 | Published: March 13, 2024
Abstract
Multiple myeloma is a hematological malignancy that is more frequent after 60 years, greater advances has been achieved in biology and molecular findings, but the best treatment has not been established. We performed a clinical trial to evaluate in older patients (>65 years), that were no candidates to stem cell transplant, because excessive toxicities are a risk. Initially dexamethasone, all-retinoic acid and thalidomide were administered by 6 monthly cycles, if the patients achieved complete response or very good partial response the y were allocated to received maintenance treatment in a 1:1 proportion, thalidomide 100m standard dose, days 1 to 21- or 28-days cycles for 3 years. Two hundred and thirty-eight patients were included, and 189 were included to received maintenance. Progression-free survival and overall survival were statistically significant in patients that received low doses of thalidomide. Acute and late toxicities were minimal. We show, that a no-toxic induction regimen can achieve excellent response with minimal toxicity, and maintenance with low doses of thalidomide improve significantly outcome, without severe toxicities.
Keywords: no aggressive therapy; multiple myeloma; thalidomide; maintenance therapy
Introduction
Multiple myeloma (MM), is a B-cell malignancy characterized by a monoclonal expansion and accumulation of abnormal plasma cells in the bone marrow; account of about 10% of hematological malignancies. Greater advances have been achieved about the biology of this neoplasm, and multiple treatment schemes has been reported, the most effectives have been an intensive chemotherapy regimen, and if complete response (CR) or very good partial response (VGPR) is achieved, autologous transplant stem cells is performed, although responses rates has been improvement, relapse remain the mayor problem. But, introduction of new drugs or combinations, have controversial dates. In the other hand, some patients are not candidates for stem cell transplant, because MM is common in > 60 years, and some patients did not tolerate aggressive treatments. [1-6] Some years ago, we performed some studies with less acute and late toxicities, and excellent results [7-9] Thus, we designed a clinical trial, to employ less aggressive induction, followed by maintenance regimen, in patients >65 years, and performance status (PS) ≤ 2.
Materials and Methods
Patients with diagnosed of MM, stages II and III, no previous treated, > 65 years with no upper limit, PS ≤ 2, that were ineligibles for stem cell transplant: were candidates to entry in the clinical trial and were allocated to an induction phase with: dexamethasone 40 mg, iv, days 1,8,15 of each cycle, all-trans retinoic 45 mg/m2, days 5-14 of each cycle and thalidomide 200 mg standard dose days 1 to 21 of each cycle; for a total of 6 cycles. All patients received zoledronic acid, 4 mg iv, standard doses, every 28 days. Patients with bone lesions received involved field according to the anatomic site, range doses were 2.5 Gy to 5.5 Gy. At 1 month after the 6th cycle patient was evaluated response; if CR or VGPR was achieved, the patients were allocated in a proportion 1:1 to received maintenance therapy with thalidomide 100 mg standard dose, days 1 to 21 at monthly interval, during 3 years. The study was approved by the Ethical and Scientific Committee, and all patients signed an informed consent to participate in the study. No attempts were performed to evaluate prognostic factor, because population was homogenous.
Results
From June 2009 to December 2018, 245 patients were considered candidate, seven patients refuse the treatment and 238 were including in the study.
Table 1: Baselines
All patients | CR/VGPR | Maintenance | |||
Yes | Not | p No (%) | |||
238 | 189 (79.4) | 93 (49.2) | 50 (50.7) | 0.666 | |
Age: | |||||
Median | 75.5 | 74.3 | 77.5 | 76.1 | 0.876 |
Range | 65-99 | 65 – 85 | 67-86 | 69 – 87 | 0.621 |
Sex: | |||||
Male | 120(50.4) | 96 (52.6) | 49 (52.6) | 48 (50) | 0.845 |
Female | 118(49.5) | 93 (49.2) | 44(47.3) | 48(50) | 0.678 |
Stage: | |||||
II | 45(18.9) | 37(19.8) | 59 (20.4) | 18 (18.7) | 0.455 |
III | 193 (81.7) | 152 (80.4) | 79(79.5) | 78 (81.1) | 0.766 |
M-component: | |||||
G | 122 (51.3) | 121(63.4) | 53 (50) | 53(53.6) | 0.554 |
A | 47 (28.1) | 57(50.2) | 24 (25.8) | 29 (24.2) | 0.601 |
Light=chain: | 39 (16.3) | 26 (13.3) | 19 (21.4) | 21 (21.6) | 0.701 |
Bone lesions: | 198 (83.7) | 153(80.9) | 73(78.4) | 88(83.3) | 0.411 |
Table 1 show the baseline characteristics: as show advances stage (III), G monoclonal, and bone disease were the most frequent. CR and VGPR response were 70.4% of included patients, no statistical factors influence the response rate (data no shown). Acute toxicities were minimal and well controlled. The bone disease that received radiotherapy, response was well, and local toxicity were minimal. Only 23 patients show new presence of bone lesions, that was attributed to the use of zoledronic acid (12). The median follow-up was 7.2 (range 4.3 to 9.0) years. Actuarial curves at 5-years, show that progression-free survival was 75.4 % (95 % Confidence interval (CI): 65.3 %-78.1%) in patients that received maintenance with thalidomide and overall survival was 84.4% (95%CI: 76.4- 89.6%), that were statistical better that patient that did not received thalidomide: 61.5 % (95%CI: 54.2 % - 66.5%) and 70.2% (95%CI: 63.3- 76.3%), respectively. Acute toxicity was minimal, granulocytopenia > grade 2, were not found, infection related treatment was not observed. Durin thalidomide maintenance no toxicities were observed, 5 patients developed minimal neurological dates, the drug was reduced to 50 mg daily, and neurological problems were eliminated. Until now, late toxicities, including second neoplasms or acute leukemia, were not observed.
Discussion
Although multiple studies have been performed to define the best treatment in MM, until now the most common treatment of an aggressive chemotherapy, followed by stem cell transplant. But relapse continue to be present; thus. he use of maintenance therapy has been included in those regimens, the first agent was thalidomide, an immunomodulator that improve outcome; suddenly when another immunomodulator appear: lenalidomide, it was adding as maintenance therapy, even that severe toxicities: severe neutropenia and lymphopenia associated to, in some cases, lethal effect; and the need prophylactic antiviral agents, and second neoplasms with are lethal, moreover most of 5% of patients had to reduce or delay, thus the indicated dose-intensity is less [11] s. Some years ago, we continue with thalidomide as maintenance agent, and efficacy has been proven, without severe toxicities. In the present study, the low dose of thalidomide was maintained without excessive toxicity or reduction of dose [9]. In the other hand, a numerous group of patients are not eligible to aggressive chemotherapy and stem cell transplant, thus w explores the use of biological modifiers, and using thalidomide as maintenance, with excellent results. MM is considered as a single disease , it is really a collection of different cytogenetical distinct disease , thus , every year appear a new standard treatment, followed by another regimen , probably for these reasons the best treatment remain to be defined, Recently , Rajkumar , has been considered that MM will be considered as an incurable malignancy, thus, the treatment could be changed, employed less toxic regimen, because accumulative toxicities in this older patients group will be considered an risks , that, eventually limited the treatment options [13]. Although, in the present study we proposed a less aggressive, we show that in these group of patients is possible have excellent response rate, and the use of low doses of thalidomide showed that this drug is useful with limited toxicities, moreover is less expensive. Logically, we hope that treatment of MM, would be that some groups can performed more studies with less toxicity in patients with MM.
References
- Costello G, Michael OR. (2018). Therapy sequential strategies in multiple myeloma. Who, what and why. Fut Oncology. 95-98
Publisher | Google Scholor - Derudas D, Caprano F, Cerchione C. (2020). Old and new immunomodulators drugs in multiple myeloma. Pan min Med. 62:207-219.
Publisher | Google Scholor - Palumbo A, Faconi T, Sonnelved P, Blade J, et al. (2008). Thalidomide in the treatment of multiple myeloma 10 years later. Blood. 111:3965-3977.
Publisher | Google Scholor - Hoisten S, Mccarthy PI. (2017). Immunomodulators a drugs in multiple myeloma. Drugs. 3965-77.
Publisher | Google Scholor - Wang L, Li Y, Yan X. (2016). Effcacy and safety novel agents-based therapy in multiple myeloma. Biomed Res Int. 6848902.
Publisher | Google Scholor - Lagman G, Tremplay P, Barkely K, et al. (2017). The effect of novel therapies in high molecular risk multiple myeloma. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol. 15:870-874.
Publisher | Google Scholor - Aviles A, Nambo MJ, Neri N. (2005). Biological modificators as cytoreductive therapy before stem cell transplant. Ann Oncol.16:219-221.
Publisher | Google Scholor - Aviles A, Neri N, Nambo MJ, et al. (2005). Novel therapy in multiple myeloma. Invest New Drugs. 23:411-415.
Publisher | Google Scholor - Aviles A, Cleto S. (2023). Melphalan, dexamethasone and thalidomide, autologous stem cell transplant and maintenance with low doses of thalidomide. Clin Oncol. 6[26] 1-4.
Publisher | Google Scholor - Rakjumar S, Balzer L, Calander SA, et al. (2022). Gaps and opportunity in the treatment of relapse/refractory multiple myeloma. Blood Cancer. 12:98.
Publisher | Google Scholor - Yine L, Yin N, Huit T. et al. (2017). Lenalidomide and the risks of severe infections in patients with multiple myeloma. Onco Target. 4659-600.
Publisher | Google Scholor - Aviles A, Cleto S. (2023). Long-term analysis of efficacy and toxicity of zoledronic acid in patients with multiple myeloma. Clin Res Trials. 7[2]
Publisher | Google Scholor - Rajkumar SV. (2019). Multiple myeloma: Every year a new standard. Hematol Oncol. 37 [S1]:62-65.
Publisher | Google Scholor