Search

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of alpha-IFN maintenance treatment after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) for multiple myeloma in a retrospective registry analysis. 473 patients with multiple myeloma who received IFN maintenance treatment ASCT were compared with 419 patients who did not receive IFN-treatment, Patients who were evaluable for response and in complete or partial remission at 6 months after ASCT were eligible, after excluding patients with graft failure. Cox proportional hazards assumptions were checked and handled by stratification. The prognostic variables unevenly distributed between the two groups were statistically corrected for in the Cox analysis. 391 patients reached complete remission (CR) after ASCT (203 in the IFN group and 188 in the no-IFN group) and 501 were in partial remission (PR, IFN 270, no-IFN 231), Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were significantly better in the IFN-group (OS, 78 vs 47 months, P=0.007, and PFS, 29 vs 20 months, P=0.006, respectively). The difference in OS and PFS was most strongly pronounced in the PR patients. 209 patients have died (IFN, 84; no-IFN, 125), Progressive myeloma was the cause of death in 94% of the IFN-treated patients and in 83% of the no-IFN group (P=NS), Thus, IFN maintenance treatment after ASCT was associated with better OS and PFS, Treatment seemed to be most beneficial in patients who did not achieve CR, The difference in median survival was as long as 2.5 years, and although part of this difference is attributable to differences in other prognostic factors, it might justify possible differences in quality-of-life due to adverse effects of interferon treatment.

A retrospective case-matched analysis was performed comparing 189 myeloma patients treated with allogeneic bone marrow transplantation (allo-BMT) with an equal number of patients who received autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Matching was performed with respect to gender and number of treatment lines before transplantation. The groups were comparable with the exception of median age (43 years for allo-BMT v 49 years for ASCT, P = .0001) and median posttransplant follow-up (46 months for allo-BMT v 30 months for ASCT, P = .0003). The overall survival was significantly better for ASCT than for allo-BMT, with a median survival of 34 months and 18 months, respectively (P = .001). However, this survival advantage was only observed in men, but not in women. The statistically significant survival advantage for ASCT was seen in most subgroups, ie, chemotherapy-responsive patients, patients who had received two or more treatment lines before transplantation, patients in partial remission, patients with an IgG-subtype, patients older than 46 years of age, patients with stage II disease, and patients with a low or high serum-beta-2-microglobulin at diagnosis. The main reason for the poorer survival in allo-BMT patients was higher transplant-related mortality (41% v 13% for ASCT, P = .0001), which was not compensated for by a lower rate of relapse and progression. However, in patients alive at 1 year posttransplant, there was a trend for better long-term survival (P = .09) and significantly better progression-free survival (P = .02) for allo-BMT as compared with ASCT. We conclude that the median survival is superior for ASCT. However, allo-BMT has a lower relapse rate, which results in a similar long-term outcome for both approaches, but a longer follow-up is needed to assess the final outcome. (C) 1996 by The American Society of Hematology.

Background A randomised trial comparing filgrastim-mobilised peripheral blood progenitor cell (PBPC) transplants with autologous bone marrow transplantation (ABMT) for haematopoietic stem cell support has not been done. We compared the effects of filgrastim-mobilised PBPC or autologous bone marrow reinfused to lymphoma patients after high-dose chemotherapy in a prospective randomised multicentre trial. Methods The trial was done at six centres in three European countries. After high-dose chemotherapy (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan [BEAM protocol]) 58 patients with advanced Hodgkin's disease or high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma received either filgrastim-mobilised PBPC (n=27) or bone marrow (n=31) for haemopoietic reconstitution. Findings The median number of days with platelet transfusions after grafting was 6 in the PBPC transplantation group and 10 in the ABMT group (estimate of treatment difference 5 days, 95% CI 3-7 days). Time to platelet recovery above 20x10(9)/L was 16 days in the PBPC transplantation group and 23 days in the ABMT group (p=0.02). Time to neutrophil recovery above 0.5x10(9)/L was also reduced in the PBPC transplantation group (11 vs 14 days, p=0.005). Patients randomised to PBPC transplantation needed fewer red blood cell transfusions (two vs three, p=0.002) and spent less time in hospital (17 vs 23 days, p=0.002). Early post-transplant morbidity and mortality as well as overall survival (median follow-up 311 days) were similar in both groups. There was no notable toxicity ascribed to filgrastim administration or the leucapheresis procedures. Interpretation In patients with lymphoma treated with high-dose chemotherapy, reinfusing filgrastim-mobilised PBPC instead of autologous bone marrow significantly reduced the number of platelet transfusions, the time to platelet and neutrophil recovery, and led to earlier discharge from hospital.

The efficacies of meropenem, a novel carbapenem, and ceftazidime, as empirical therapy of febrile neutropenic patients, were compared in a prospective, randomized clinical trial. One hundred and twelve adult patients were given meropenem 1 g tds iv for 153 episodes of fever, while 109 patients received ceftazidime 2 g tds iv for 151 episodes. All patients survived the first 3 days of therapy and, by the end of the treatment courses, 67 (44%) episodes had responded to meropenem, compared with 62 (41%) to ceftazidime. Eighty (53%) episodes initially treated with ceftazidime and 63 (41%) episodes treated with meropenem were considered to have failed treatment because it was thought necessary to administer additional antibacterial agents; however, modifications were made twice as often because of fever that persisted beyond 2-3 days than because of obvious causes of failure such as persistent infection. Three patients in the ceftazidime group and five in the meropenem group died. Meropenem was well tolerated, with no reports of nausea or toxicity to the central nervous system, Although ceftazidime was shown in the present study to be as effective as meropenem, the broader spectrum of activity of meropenem against Gram-positive cocci suggests that it might be more appropriate as empirical therapy of febrile neutropenic patients who are at high risk of acquiring infections caused by these bacteria.