No abstract

Summary Supportive care plays an increasingly important role in the modern management of multiple myeloma. While modern treatments have significantly prolonged overall and progression free survival through improved disease control, the vast majority of patients remain incurable, and live with the burden of the disease itself and the cumulative side effects of treatments. Maintenance of quality of life presents challenges at all stages of the disease from diagnosis through the multiple phases of active treatment to the end of life. Written on behalf of the British Committee for Standards in Haematology (BCSH) and the UK Myeloma Forum (UKMF), these evidence based guidelines summarize the current national consensus for supportive and symptomatic care in multiple myeloma in the following areas; pain management, peripheral neuropathy, skeletal complications, infection, anaemia, haemostasis and thrombosis, sedation, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, anorexia, constipation, diarrhoea, mucositis, bisphosphonate‐induced osteonecrosis of the jaw, complementary therapies, holistic needs assessment and end of life care. Although most aspects of supportive care can be supervised by haematology teams primarily responsible for patients with multiple myeloma, multidisciplinary collaboration involving specialists in palliative medicine, pain management, radiotherapy and surgical specialities is essential, and guidance is provided for appropriate interdisciplinary referral. These guidelines should be read in conjunction with the BCSH/UKMF Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Multiple Myeloma 2011.

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation was used for treatment of 384 patients with multiple myeloma in 37 centers during the years 1986-1994. An analysis of prognostic factors was performed in 207 of these patients. One hundred forty one were males and 66 females, and median age was 49 years (range, 24-68). Actuarial survival at 78 months is 45%. Factors associated with a good prognosis were: response on chemotherapy immediately pretransplant, administration of only one treatment regimen, a low serum-beta 2-Microglobulin value at diagnosis and the use of a conditioning regimen including melphalan. In a multivariate analysis, response status pretransplant, age < 45 years, melphalan conditioning and non-TBI conditioning were independently predictive for longer survival, while transplantation after only one line of primary treatment and isotype other than light-chain were of borderline significance. Post-transplant alpha-interferon treatment was associated with improved survival in responsive patients. Eighteen patients treated in one center (Huddinge) passed a double autograft program, and 14 are in continuous complete remission ([CR]; n = 10) or good partial remission (n = 4) at a median time of 17 months after the first transplant (range, 2-38). In five CR patients, polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-analysis of the clone-specific immunoglobulin-rearrangement was performed, and four are PCR-negative up to 33+ months after the first transplantation. We conclude that autografting in myeloma is most effective when applied early in the course of disease in younger, chemotherapy-reponsive patients. Alpha-interferon maintaince treatment seems to be beneficial with respect to improved survival.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Summary. In this study, we retrospectively analysed the clinical features, risk factors and outcome of 22 patients with thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) occurring after allogeneic stem cell transplantation. All but two of these patients received stem cells from unrelated donors (UDs), two-thirds were female, three-quarters were adults and leukaemia was the major reason for transplant. The incidence of TTP was 20 out of 332 patients (6%) with UD transplants and two out of 104 recipients (2%) of matched sibling allografts (P 0´16). In order to ascertain basic demographic risk factors for the development of TTP, we compared the 22 patients with 434 patients who did not develop TTP. Compared with patients who did not develop TTP, patients with TTP were nearly three times older (P , 0´001) and were more than twice as likely to be female (P 0´001). Because . 90% of patients were recipients of UD marrow, we then compared the 20 UDbone marrow transplantation (BMT) patients with 60 randomly selected UD-BMT patients who did not develop TTP. On univariate analysis, age and female gender were again significant risk factors, as was grade II±IV acute graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) (P 0´002), and there was a trend towards an association with chronic GvHD (P 0´083). However, after logistic regression analysis, only age and sex remained significant (P , 0´001 and 0´009 respectively). We report an 86% mortality with only three survivors out of 22 patients, and one of these remains thrombocytopenic and red cell transfusion dependent, possibly in part because of graft hypoplasia. Six out of 17 patients responded to plasmapheresis, but the majority of them ultimately succumbed because of TTP, often in association with GvHD or fungal infection.

The association of ethnicity with the incidence of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and other clinical outcomes after transplantation is controversial. We compared the results of HLA-identical sibling bone marrow transplantations for leukemia, performed between 1990 and 1999, among different ethnic populations, including 562 Japanese, 829 white Americans, 71 African Americans, 195 Scandinavians, and 95 Irish. Results for adults and children were analyzed separately. Multivariate analyses of adult patients showed that white Americans, African Americans, and Irish cohorts were at significantly higher risk for acute GVHD than Japanese or Scandinavian cohorts (relative risk [RR] ‫؍‬ 1.77, P < .001; RR ‫؍‬ 1.84, P < .006; RR ‫؍‬ 2.22, P < .001, respectively). White Americans, African Americans, and Irish, but not Scandinavians, were at significantly higher risk for early (within 3 months of transplantation) transplant-related mortality (TRM) compared with Japanese (RR ‫؍‬ 2.99, P < .001; RR ‫؍‬ 5.88, P < .001; RR ‫؍‬ 2.66, P < .009, respectively). No differences in the risk for chronic GVHD, relapse, and overall survival were noted. In the pediatric cohort (limited to Japanese and white Americans), white Americans were at significantly higher risk for acute (RR ‫؍‬ 1.93; P ‫؍‬ .04) and chronic (RR ‫؍‬ 3.16; P ‫؍‬ .002) GVHD. No differences in other clinical outcomes were noted. Our findings suggest that ethnicity may influence the risk for GVHD, though overall survival rates after transplantation remain similar.

There is limited data on hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in primary plasma cell leukemia (pPCL), an aggressive plasma cell disorder. We report outcomes of 147 patients with pPCL receiving autologous (n=97) or allogeneic (n=50) HCT within 18 months after diagnosis between 1995 and 2006. Median age was 56 years and 48 years for autologous HCT and allogeneic HCT respectively. Progression-free survival (PFS) at 3 years was 34% (95% CI, 23%-46%) in the autologous group and 20% (95% CI, 10%-34%) in the allogeneic group. Cumulative incidence of relapse at 3 years was 61% (95% CI, 48%-72%) in the autologous group and 38% (95% CI, 25%-53%) in the allogeneic group. Overall survival (OS) at 3 years was 64% (95% CI, 52%-75%) in the autologous group and 39% (95% CI, 26%-54%) in the allogeneic group. Non-relapse mortality (NRM) at 3 years was 5% (95% CI, 1-11%) in the autologous group and 41% (95% CI, 28%-56%) in the allogeneic group. The encouraging OS after autologous HCT, establishes the safety and feasibility of this consolidative treatment option after initial induction therapy for pPCL. Allogeneic HCT, although associated with a significantly lower relapse rate, carries a much higher risk of NRM and no overall survival benefit.

Autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) as initial therapy of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) improves survival. However, data to support this approach for relapsed/progressive disease after initial AHCT (AHCT1) are limited. Using Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research data, we report the outcomes of 187 patients who underwent a second AHCT (AHCT2) for the treatment of relapsed/progressive MM. Planned tandem AHCT was excluded. Median age at AHCT2 was 59 years (range, 28 to 72), and median patient follow-up was 47 months (range, 3 to 97). Nonrelapse mortality after AHCT2 was 2% at 1 year and 4% at 3 years. Median interval from AHCT1 to relapse/progression was 18 months, and median interval between transplantations was 32 months. After AHCT2, the incidence of relapse/progression at 1 and 3 years was 51% and 82%, respectively. At 3 years after AHCT2, progression-free survival was 13%, and overall survival was 46%. In multivariate analyses, those relapsing ≥36 months after AHCT1 had superior progression-free (P = .045) and overall survival (P = .019). Patients who underwent AHCT2 after 2004 had superior survival (P = .026). AHCT2 is safe and feasible for disease progression after AHCT1. In this retrospective study, individuals relapsing ≥36 months from AHCT1 derived greater benefit from AHCT2 compared with those with a shorter disease-free interval. Storage of an adequate graft before AHCT1 will ensure that the option of a second autologous transplantation is retained for patients with relapsed/progressive MM.

SummaryA growing population of long-term survivors of myeloma is now accumulating the 'late effects' not only of myeloma itself, but also of several lines of treatment given throughout the course of the disease. It is thus important to recognise the cumulative burden of the disease and treatment-related toxicity in both the stable and active phases of myeloma, some of which is unlikely to be detected by routine monitoring. We summarise here the evidence for the key late effects in long-term survivors of myeloma, including physical and psychosocial consequences (in Parts 1 and 2 respectively), and recommend the use of late-effects screening protocols in detection and intervention. The early recognition of late effects and effective management strategies should lead to an improvement in the management of myeloma patients, although evidence in this area is currently limited and further research is warranted.Keywords: myeloma, late effects, quality of life, haematopoietic stem cell transplantation, chemotherapy. MethodologyThese guidelines were developed using the following stages:• Review of key literature from 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2016 using the Cochrane database (search term: myeloma) and Medline: search terms used were [myeloma] + late effects, long term effects, frailty, geriatric assessment, infection, infection prophylaxis, vaccination, nutrition, exercise, rehabilitation, employment, endocrine, disability, late treatment consequences, cancer survivorship (for all papers); and psychological, fatigue, second primary malignancy, quality of life, infection (reviews). As organ-specific areas, such as renal and bone, have been covered in previous guidelines, searches were not re-performed.• Development of key recommendations based on randomised, controlled trial evidence. In the absence of randomised data, recommendations were developed on the basis of literature review and a consensus of expert opinion.• Updating of the levels of evidence and grades of recommendation using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) nomenclature for assessing the quality of evidence and providing strength of recommendations (Appendix; http:// www.gradeworkinggroup.org/index.htm).• Review of the manuscript was performed by the British Society for Haematology (BSH) Guidelines Committee and Haemato-Oncology Task Force, and the BSH sounding board, comprised of 50 or more members of the BSH who have reviewed this Guidance and commented on its content and applicability in the UK setting, consistent with the primary target audience of UK-based multidisciplinary clinical teams treating myeloma and its complications. Involvement of patient perspectives was through Myeloma UK.• In preparing these guidelines, the authors have considered overall cost-effectiveness and budget impact of recommended interventions as well as clinical efficacy data and the burden/impact on patients. Formal health economic assessments have not been carried out.