No abstract

Treatment in medical oncology is gradually shifting from the use of non-specific chemotherapeutic agents towards an era of novel targeted therapy in which drugs and their combinations target specific aspects of the biology of tumor cells. Multiple myeloma (MM) has become one of the best examples in this regard, reflected in the identification of new pathogenic mechanisms, together with the development of novel drugs that are being explored from the preclinical setting to the early phases of clinical development. We review the biological rationale for the use of the most important new agents for treating MM and summarize their clinical activity in an increasingly busy field. First, we discuss data from already approved and active agents (including second- and third-generation- proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory agents (IMIDs) and alkylators). Then we focus on agents with novel mechanisms of action, such as monoclonal antibodies (MoAb), cell cycle specific drugs, deacetylase inhibitors, agents acting on the unfolded protein response, signaling transduction pathway inhibitors, and kinase inhibitors. Among this plethora of new agents or mechanisms some are specially promising: Anti-CD38 MoAb, such as daratumumab, are the first antibodies with clinical activity as single agents in MM. Also the kinesin spindle protein inhibitor Arry-520 is effective in monotherapy as well as in combination with dexamethasone in heavily pretreated patients. Immunotherapy against MM is also being explored, and probably the most attractive example of this approach is the combination of the anti-CS1 MoAb elotuzumab with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, that has produced exciting results in the relapsed/refractory setting.

Patients from groups BA and BB presented with a significantly higher number of adverse prognostic factors, reflecting that we were dealing with high tumor MM cases, as compared with patients from group AA. The number of mononuclear cells, CD34+ cells and CFU-GM cells collected in patients with non-reversible renal insufficiency was similar to those harvested in MM patients with normal renal function. Moreover, neutrophil and platelet engraftments were identical in patients with and without renal failure (days +11 and +12, respectively). By contrast, transplant-related mortality (TRM) was significantly higher in group BB patients (29%) than in groups BA (4.1%) and AA (3.3%). In multivariate analysis only three variables showed independent influence on TRM: poor performance status (ECOG 3), hemoglobin <9.5 g/dl and serum creatinine > or =5 mg/dl. The response to high dose therapy was independent of renal function. Interestingly, 43% of patients from group BB showed an improvement in renal function (creatinine < 2 mg/dl) after transplant. The three-year overall survival from transplantation was 56, 49 and 61% for the BB, BA and AA groups, respectively, with a statistically significant difference favoring group AA (P<0.01). PFS did not differ significantly between the three groups of patients. In multivariate analysis the only unfavorable independent prognostic factors for overall survival were poor performance status either at diagnosis or at transplant, high beta(2)-microglobulin levels, and no response to transplant. According to these results, ASCT is an attractive alternative for MM patients with renal insufficiency, and it should not constitute a criterion for exclusion from transplant unless patients display poor performance status and very high creatinine levels (>5 mg/dl).

No abstract