Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
2.
Bone Marrow Transplant ; 53(6): 701-707, 2018 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29703965

RESUMO

Maintenance therapy post-autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) with either lenalidomide or bortezomib for multiple myeloma (MM) have separately been shown to improve progression-free survival (PFS), but have never been directly compared. We performed a retrospective study to investigate progression-free and overall survival outcomes and toxicities of lenalidomide maintenance therapy compared with bortezomib maintenance in MM patients post-AHCT. This study included 156 patients who received post-AHCT lenalidomide or bortezomib maintenance therapy for MM. The primary outcome was PFS. Ninety-two patients received lenalidomide maintenance and 64 received bortezomib maintenance post-AHCT. By multivariable analysis, maintenance therapy choice and cytogenetics risk did not impact PFS or OS. Staging by International Staging System and pre-maintenance disease response were the greatest predictors for PFS. Treatment-related toxicities were as anticipated with 5.4% of patients receiving maintenance lenalidomide experiencing secondary primary malignancies (SPMs) compared with 3% for bortezomib. These findings suggest there were no differences in PFS or OS between lenalidomide and bortezomib maintenance therapy options for post-transplantation MM patients. These data should be validated in a larger, prospective cohort to determine if maintenance choice should be guided by side effect profile and patient anticipated tolerance rather than by disease biology alone.


Assuntos
Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Bortezomib/uso terapêutico , Transplante de Células-Tronco Hematopoéticas/métodos , Lenalidomida/uso terapêutico , Mieloma Múltiplo/tratamento farmacológico , Mieloma Múltiplo/terapia , Condicionamento Pré-Transplante/métodos , Transplante Autólogo/métodos , Idoso , Antineoplásicos/farmacologia , Bortezomib/farmacologia , Feminino , Humanos , Lenalidomida/farmacologia , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Mieloma Múltiplo/patologia
3.
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant ; 23(9): 1473-1477, 2017 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28546074

RESUMO

Light chain amyloidosis (AL) results in tissue deposition of misfolded proteins, causing organ dysfunction. In an era of modern therapies, such as bortezomib, reassessment of the benefit of autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) should be considered. In this study, we compared outcomes between patients with AL receiving chemotherapy alone (CT) and those undergoing AHCT. Seventy-four patients with AL were analyzed retrospectively. Two cohorts of patients were studied, those receiving CT (n = 31) and those undergoing AHCT (n = 43). Of the 43 patients in the AHCT cohort, 29 received induction chemotherapy before AHCT, whereas 14 proceeded straight to AHCT without induction therapy. Compared with the CT cohort, patients in the AHCT cohort were younger and had higher ejection fractions, lower brain natriuretic peptide levels, and more severe proteinuria. The majority (87%) of patients in the CT cohort received bortezomib-based treatment. Transplantation-related mortality (TRM) was 7%. Patients receiving AHCT were more likely to achieve complete or very good partial response (P = .048). The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were superior in the AHCT cohort (not reached versus 9 months; P < .01 and 74 months versus 8 months; P = .03, respectively). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that improved PFS (hazard ratio, 3.86; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3 to 11.5; P = .02) and OS (hazard ratio, 5.6; 95% CI, 1.9 to 16; P < .001) were associated with use of AHCT compared with CT. Patients in the AHCT cohort had deeper and longer durations of response, with superior PFS and OS, compared with those in the CT cohort. Despite the limitations of this study, AHCT should be considered for eligible patients with AL at experienced transplantation centers that can offer this therapy with a low risk of TRM.


Assuntos
Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Bortezomib/uso terapêutico , Transplante de Células-Tronco Hematopoéticas/métodos , Amiloidose de Cadeia Leve de Imunoglobulina/terapia , Proteinúria/terapia , Adulto , Idoso , Feminino , Humanos , Amiloidose de Cadeia Leve de Imunoglobulina/imunologia , Amiloidose de Cadeia Leve de Imunoglobulina/mortalidade , Amiloidose de Cadeia Leve de Imunoglobulina/patologia , Quimioterapia de Indução/métodos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Análise Multivariada , Peptídeo Natriurético Encefálico/sangue , Modelos de Riscos Proporcionais , Proteinúria/imunologia , Proteinúria/mortalidade , Proteinúria/patologia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Volume Sistólico/fisiologia , Transplante Autólogo , Resultado do Tratamento
4.
Cardiooncology ; 3: 4, 2017.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32154000

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Proteasome inhibitors (PI) bortezomib and carfilzomib are cornerstone therapies for multiple myeloma. Higher incidence of cardiac adverse events (CAEs) has been reported in patients receiving carfilzomib. However, risk factors for cardiac toxicity remain unclear. Our objective was to evaluate the incidence of CAEs associated with PI and recognize risk factors for developing events. METHODS: This was a descriptive analysis of 96 patients with multiple myeloma who received bortezomib (n = 44) or carfilzomib (n = 52). We compared the cumulative incidence of CAEs using a log rank test. Patient-related characteristics were assessed and multivariate analysis was used to identify risk factors for developing CAEs. RESULTS: PI-related CAEs occurred in 21 (22%) patients. Bortezomib-associated CAEs occurred in 7 (16%) patients while carfilzomib-associated cardiac events occurred in 14 (27%) patients. The cumulative incidence of CAEs was not significantly different between agents. Events occurred after a median of 67.5 days on PI therapy. Heart failure was the most prevalent event type. More patients receiving carfilzomib were monitored by a cardiologist. By multivariate analysis, a history of prior cardiac events and longer duration of PI therapy were identified as independent risk factors for developing CAEs. CONCLUSIONS: AEs were common in patients receiving PIs. Choice of PI did not impact the cumulative incidence of CAEs. Early involvement by a cardiologist in patients at high risk for CAEs may help to mitigate the frequency and severity of CAEs.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...