Comparing Tandem and Single Stem Cell Transplants for High-Risk Multiple Myeloma
Author Information
Author(s): Dou Xuelin, Ren Juan, Li Jiangtao, Liu Xiaodan, Bao Li, Chen Yuan, Zhao Peng, Zhong Yuping, Peng Nan, Wen Lei, Cao Leqing, Liu Yang, Deng Daoxing, Wang Fengrong, Wang Liru, Liu Hui, Huang Xiaojun, Mo Xiaodong, Lu Jin
Primary Institution: Peking University People's Hospital
Hypothesis
This study compares the efficacy and safety of single autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) versus tandem ASCT for multiple myeloma (MM) patients in the era of novel agents.
Conclusion
Tandem ASCT demonstrated improved outcomes compared to single ASCT in high-risk MM patients receiving triplet or quadruplet induction and maintenance therapy.
Supporting Evidence
- The tandem ASCT cohort showed a trend of better 3-year probability of progression-free survival (PFS) compared to the single ASCT cohort.
- The 3-year cumulative incidence of non-relapse mortality was 0% for single ASCT and 7.3% for tandem ASCT.
- Patients with ultra high-risk cytogenetics may require innovative therapeutic approaches as tandem ASCT does not overcome their adverse prognosis.
Takeaway
This study looked at two types of stem cell transplants for patients with a serious blood cancer called multiple myeloma. It found that doing two transplants in a row might help patients do better than just one.
Methodology
This is a multicenter, retrospective cohort study that included 112 high-risk MM patients who received either single or tandem ASCT.
Potential Biases
The study may have biases due to its retrospective design and variations in treatment regimens across different centers.
Limitations
The study is limited by its retrospective nature, relatively small population, and the heterogeneity of induction and maintenance regimens.
Participant Demographics
The median age of patients was 55 years, with a majority categorized as high-risk based on specific clinical criteria.
Statistical Information
P-Value
p=0.039
Confidence Interval
95% CI: 0.29, 0.62
Statistical Significance
p=0.039
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website