Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byKristian Bridges Modified over 9 years ago
1
Frailty, salvage ASCT and AlloSCT: The 5 slide challenge! Prof Gordon Cook Section of Experimental Haematology University of Leeds
2
Frailty & Myeloma therapy Which Bond would you treat?
3
Age, frailty and survivorship http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/ 1 http://myeloma.dk/download.php?f=e2007a29d8ceb162b50f632cbc369127
4
What patient factors effect treatment eligibility and outcome ? Patient-related: − Age - Sensitivity to toxicity - Physical reserve - Efficacy declines with age − Co-morbidities - Multiple scoring systems Charlson Co-morbidity Index - Cardiac, respiratory, liver - Renal impairment ( eGFR <30 ml/min) − Performance Status - Karnovsky ≤ 70% Disease-related: − Disease stage − Molecular risk stratification Kleber et al. Blood Cancer J (2011); 1 e35 Rosiñol L et al. Haematologica 2012;97:616-621 Bergsagel P L et al. Blood 2013;121:884-892 2
5
Frailty Assessment Performance Scores PS does not differentiate between those who may be fit for intensive chemotherapy and those not Needs to be refined to identify vulnerable patients Inter-observer variability in PS Standardised measurements of functional status may help inform us re treatment Comorbidity Assessments Trials don’t consistently capture co- morbidity information 2 most commonly used scores are the Charleston Comorbidity Index (CCI) and the Haemopoietic Cell Transplantation Comorbidity Index (HCT-CI) The higher the scores the shorter the survival Screening for co-morbidity should be routine in older patients 3 Geriatric Assessment Registry data used to retrospectively form a GA based on QOL questionnaire and co-morbidity assessment (HCT-CI) Higher co-morbidity, reported difficulty with strenuous activity and pain were associated with mortality Suggests simple targeted questions re physical functioning and specific symptoms can help id the vulnerable
6
Frailty scores and outcomes (EMN) Palumbo et al. 2015 Blood: 125 (3) 2068 - 2074. 4
7
Frailty Index-adjusted Therapy Non-adjusted 1:1 1:2 CRDaIRDa FIT C – 500mg D1 & D8 R – 25mg D1-21 D – 20mg I – 4mg weekly UNFIT FRAIL 1:2 CRDa IRD a 1:2 CRDaIRDa 1:2 CRDa IRDa TREAT TO MAXIMUM RESPONSE (6-8 cycles) FIT: C – 500mg D1 & D8, R – 25mg D1-21, D – 20mg/wk, I – 4mg/wk UNFIT: C – 350mg D1 & D8, R – 15mg D1-21, D – 10mg/wk, I – 3mg/wk FRAIL: C – 250mg D1 & D8, R – 10mg D1-21, D – 10mg/wk, I – 3mg/wk 1:1 RevlimidIxazomib/Revlimid MAINTENANCE INDUCTION Myeloma XIV – FITNESSTrial Design Transplant ineligible NDMM 5
8
Questions??
9
Salvage ASCT Is it worth it?
10
Background Results to date all retrospective or single-centre with no RCT to assess the outcome of a second ASCT. 19 studies of salvage ASCT published form 1996-2013 Median TRM 4.1% (range 0-22%) with median ORR 64.3% (range 27.3%, 97.4%). Median PFS of 12.3 mns with a median OS of 32.4 mns (range 8, 79.1) 1
11
Vol. 15, No. 8, p874–885. 2
12
Response Rate to Re-induction & randomized Treatment (Day+100) 39.3% 22.4% 16.5% 39.3% 22.4% sCR/CR P=0·012 (Fisher’s Exact test) Post-randomisation: ≥VGPR rate: 59·5% after salvage ASCT vs 47·1% after cyclophosphamide (OR 0·38, 95%CI 0·2,0·7; ordinal logistic regression P=0·0036) N=297 ORR – 79.2% N=85N=89 Cook et al, Lancet Oncology, 2014, Vol. 15, No. 8, p874–885 3
13
Time-to-progression (ITT) PD detected in 64% of ASCT patients & 80% in C-weekly. Median TTP (ITT) for ASCT is 19 mns (95% ci 16, 25) vs 11mns (95% ci 9, 12) for C-weekly (HR 0.36 (95% ci 0.25, 0.53); p<0.0001) TTP PFS Cook et al, Lancet Oncology, 2014, Vol. 15, No. 8, p874–885 NTC ASCT2 NTC ASCT2 4
14
RE-INDUCTION Ixazomib, Thalidomide & Dexamethasone RE-INDUCTION Ixazomib, Thalidomide & Dexamethasone ITD x2 cycles Time-to-Progression No Consolidation Ixazomib Maintenance No Maintenance 5 UK Myeloma Research Alliance Myeloma XII (ACCoRD study): Augmented Conditioning & Consolidation in Relapsed Disease
15
Questions??
16
Allogeneic SCT Is there still a role for consideration?
17
Why consider AlloSCT? The lure of GvM raises the prospect of cure − Response to DLI − Link with GVHD (esp chronic GVHD) − Increased relapse with T-cell depletion TRM rates decreased significantly in last 10 years Deeper responses predict for durable responses, and with novel agents more patients will achieve deeper responses with limited impact on physiology So why is use not more widespread? − Data so varied − Age at diagnosis − Comorbidities/PS − Cultural resistance in myeloma docs So who should we consider? 1 Standard OS Current PFS (includes responses to salvage therapies) Standard EFS 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 012345678 Survival Years from transplant Bruno B, et al. Blood. 2009;113:3375-82.
18
J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:3016-22 2 PFS0S
19
Standard RiskHigh Risk 3 AlloSCT in High Risk disease Krishnan et al, Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(13) 1195-203 Roos-Weil et al Haematologica 2011
20
The way forward……? As TRM falls over time, relapse becomes the biggest reason for treatment failure Options: − Use a prior debulking ASCT vs intensity-modulated MAC to optimize pre-AlloSCT disease status − Use of anti-myeloma therapy post allograft − Use of optimized immunotherapy (novel agents + DLI, pre- emptive DLI) − limit the procedure to patients with sensitive disease − use the best conditioning with fludarabine/melphalan or low-dose TBI with or without fludarabine and with no T-cell depletion 4
21
The way forward……LenaRIC Trial overview ASCT pDLI 5 CI: Dr Mark Cook
22
Questions??
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.