Hungria V T M, Crusoé E Q, Maiolino A, Bittencourt R, Fantl D, Maciel J F R, Pessoa de Magalhaes R J, Almeida M S S, Cury P, Hisgashi F, Peres A L, Chiattone C S
Department of Hematology and Oncology, Santa Casa de São Paulo Medical School, Rua Marquês de Itu, 579-3° andar, CEP 01223-001, São Paulo, Brazil.
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Ann Hematol. 2016 Jan;95(2):271-8. doi: 10.1007/s00277-015-2537-2. Epub 2015 Oct 30.
The introduction of agents such as thalidomide, lenalidomide, and bortezomib has changed the management of patients with multiple myeloma who are not eligible for autologous transplantation, many of whom are elderly. We sought to compare three thalidomide-based oral regimens among such patients in Latin America. We randomized patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma with measurable disease to one of the following regimens: melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT); cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (CTD); and thalidomide and dexamethasone (TD). The TD arm was closed prematurely and was analyzed only descriptively. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR), whereas progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were secondary endpoints. The accrual rate was slower than expected, and the study was terminated after 82 patients had been randomized. The ORRs were 67.9 % with MPT, 89.7 % with CTD, and 68.7 % with TD (p = 0.056 for the comparison between MPT and CTD). The median PFS was 24.1 months for MPT, 25.9 months for CTD, and 21.5 months for TD. There were no statistically significant differences in PFS or OS between MPT and CTD. In an unplanned logistic regression analysis, ORR was significantly associated with treatment with CTD (p = 0.046) and with performance status of 0 or 1 (p = 0.035). Based on the current results, no definitive recommendations can be made regarding the comparative merit of the regimens tested. Nevertheless and until the results of further studies become available, we recommend either CTD or MPT as suitable frontline regimens for patients with multiple myeloma who are not candidates to transplantation in settings where lenalidomide and bortezomib are not available.
沙利度胺、来那度胺和硼替佐米等药物的引入改变了不适于自体移植的多发性骨髓瘤患者(其中许多为老年患者)的治疗方式。我们试图在拉丁美洲的此类患者中比较三种基于沙利度胺的口服方案。我们将新诊断的、有可测量疾病的多发性骨髓瘤患者随机分为以下方案之一:美法仑、泼尼松和沙利度胺(MPT);环磷酰胺、沙利度胺和地塞米松(CTD);以及沙利度胺和地塞米松(TD)。TD组提前结束,仅进行描述性分析。主要终点是总缓解率(ORR),而无进展生存期(PFS)和总生存期(OS)为次要终点。入组率低于预期,在82例患者随机分组后研究终止。MPT组的ORR为67.9%,CTD组为89.7%,TD组为68.7%(MPT与CTD比较,p = 0.056)。MPT组的中位PFS为24.1个月,CTD组为25.9个月,TD组为21.5个月。MPT和CTD之间在PFS或OS方面无统计学显著差异。在一项非计划的逻辑回归分析中,ORR与CTD治疗显著相关(p = 0.046),与体能状态为0或1显著相关(p = 0.035)。基于目前的结果,无法就所测试方案的相对优势给出明确建议。然而,在有进一步研究结果之前,我们推荐CTD或MPT作为不适于移植的多发性骨髓瘤患者在无法使用来那度胺和硼替佐米的情况下的合适一线方案。