News >

ASCT Retains Key Role in Myeloma Care

Laura Panjwani
Published: Wednesday, Aug 03, 2016

Andrzej Jakubowiak, MD, PhD

Andrzej Jakubowiak, MD, PhD

Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) further improves outcomes when added to the triplet regimen of carfilzomib (Kyprolis), lenalidomide (Revlimid), and dexamethasone (KRd) compared with KRd alone for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, according to results of a recent cross-study comparison analysis.

The analysis compared a phase I/II trial of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who received extended treatment with KRd with similar patients who received KRd plus ASCT in a subsequent ongoing phase II trial. At the end of 8 cycles, the stringent complete response (sCR) rate was 72% for patients who received KRd plus ASCT (n = 50) compared with 30% for patients who received KRd without ASCT (n = 44). sCR was 88% (n = 26) for those who received KRd plus ASCT (n = 26) compared with 51% for those received KRd alone (n = 41) at the end of cycle 18.1

At a median follow-up of 17.8 months, the 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 99% for KRd plus ASCT group compared with 92% for the KRd-alone group at median follow-up of 47.5 months.

The types and rates of adverse events (AEs) pre- and post-ASCT in the 2 groups were comparable.

To better understand the impact of this analysis and the continued role of ASCT in treatment of patients with multiple myeloma, OncLive spoke with Andrzej Jakubowiak, MD, PhD, lead author on the analysis and professor of Medicine and director of the Myeloma Program of the University of Chicago School of Medicine.

OncLive: What were the most significant findings from this analysis?

Jakubowiak: The direct conclusion of this analysis was that even in the context of an effective and powerful regimen like KRd, transplant adds additional value and improves efficacy, which we measured by surrogate endpoints. For example, at the end of the total 8 cycles in both studies, sCR rate was 30% without transplant and with transplant it was 72%. That even improves further down the road. The transplant is still valid, even in the context of most effective regimens.

Our results are also very mature and updated now from the original phase I/II study and what we see is close to amazing. What we conclude with this cross-study comparison is probably the best results we’ve seen with multiple myeloma. After a 4-year follow-up, PFS was 69% in the original study for patients treated with KRd for extended treatment without transplant. That 4-year progression in the current study was too early to measure but at 2-year follow-up, the curve with transplant clearly tracks up. We predict it will be even better than without transplant. It will not only be a high rate of stringent responses, but potentially a high rate of PFS.

There are a couple other important points from these studies. In both studies, there were high minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative rates. In the earlier study, we did not have as robust of an evaluation of MRD among residual disease.

However, in the current study, we do it more systemically at landmark time points. I specifically show results at the end of cycles 8 and 18, and those MRD results are close to amazing because we see rates of MRD by current IMWG criteria, which means that MRD is counted only in patients with complete or stringent complete response—exceeding 70% at those respective time points. We believe these are truly good numbers, which will be validated as soon as the study is completed.

What impact will these findings have?

What this means in regards to where the field is going is, number one, the results are likely as good as they are because we are achieving such a high rate of MRD-negative disease. I would like to dare to say that we are even eliminating this disease for good for some of these patients.

Secondly, this is something we could potentially think about using as a predictor of outcome at the earlier time point. With those 2 studies, as well as other previous studies, there is some comparative predictability of people achieving some level of response.


View Conference Coverage
Online CME Activities
TitleExpiration DateCME Credits
Cancer Summaries and Commentaries™: Update from Chicago: Advances in the Treatment of Breast CancerJul 31, 20181.0
Community Practice Connections™: The Next Generation in Renal Cell Carcinoma Treatment: An Oncology Nursing Essentials WorkshopJul 31, 20181.5
Publication Bottom Border
Border Publication
x