Impact of Pre-transplant and Post-transplant Remission Status of Patients on Survival in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma

  • Rafiye CiftcilerEmail author
  • Hakan Goker
  • Yahya Buyukasık
  • Elifcan Aladag
  • Haluk Demiroglu
Original Article


The overall survival (OS) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) has increased in the last decade due to the introduction of proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs and monoclonal antibodies as well as an extensive combination of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) for suitable patients. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of pre-transplant and post-transplant remission status of patients on survival in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Two hundred and four patients with newly diagnosed MM who received an ASCT in our HSC transplant center at Hacettepe University Hospital between the years of 2001 and 2018 were evaluated in a retrospective manner. The median follow-up period was 35.9 months (range 4.2–206.4) for the entire group. The 5-year OS for pre-transplant remission status CR/VGPR patients and pre-transplant remission status PR or less patients were 79% and 68%, respectively (p = 0.09). The 5-year PFS for pre-transplant remission status CR/VGPR patients and pre-transplant remission status PR or less patients were 62% and 45%, respectively (p = 0.23). The 5-year OS for post-transplant remission status CR/VGPR group was 72% and for post-transplant remission status PR or less group was 60% (p = 0.02). The 5-year PFS in post-transplant remission status CR/VGPR patients was 48% and post-transplant remission status PR or less patients was 36% (p = 0.03). This study focuses on determination of survival outcome based on the best response obtained before and after ASCT and particularly highlights the significance of reaching CR and VGPR.


Multiple myeloma Complete remission Very good partial response Remission status 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors of this paper have no conflict of interests, including specific financial interests, relationships, and/or affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials included. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All of the ethical considerations had been strictly followed in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration. As a standard care/action of the hospitals of the our tertiary care center, it has been recognized from the patient records that all of the studied patients had given informed consents at the time of hospitalization and before the administration of chemotherapy and other relevant diagnostic/therapeutic standard of care.


  1. 1.
    Schaapveld M, Visser O, Siesling S, Schaar CG, Zweegman S, Vellenga E (2010) Improved survival among younger but not among older patients with Multiple Myeloma in the Netherlands, a population-based study since 1989. Eur J Cancer 46(1):160–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kumar SK, Dispenzieri A, Lacy MQ, Gertz MA, Buadi FK, Pandey S et al (2014) Continued improvement in survival in multiple myeloma: changes in early mortality and outcomes in older patients. Leukemia 28(5):1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moreau P, Attal M, Facon T (2015) Frontline therapy of multiple myeloma. Blood 125(20):3076–3084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nooka AK, Kastritis E, Dimopoulos MA, Lonial S (2015) Treatment options for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Blood 125(20):3085–3099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Attal M, Lauwers-Cances V, Hulin C, Facon T, Caillot D, Escoffre M et al (2015) Autologous transplantation for multiple myeloma in the era of new drugs: a phase III study of the Intergroupe Francophone Du Myelome (IFM/DFCI 2009 Trial). Am Soc HematolGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moreau P, Attal M, Pégourié B, Planche L, Hulin C, Facon T et al (2010) Achievement of VGPR to induction therapy is an important prognostic factor for longer PFS in the IFM 2005–01 trial. Blood 117(11):3041–3044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kapoor P, Kumar SK, Dispenzieri A, Lacy MQ, Buadi F, Dingli D et al (2013) Importance of achieving stringent complete response after autologous stem-cell transplantation in multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 31(36):4529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kumar S, Paiva B, Anderson KC, Durie B, Landgren O, Moreau P et al (2016) International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol 17(8):e328–e346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Blanes M, Lahuerta JJ, González JD, Ribas P, Solano C, Alegre A et al (2013) Intravenous busulfan and melphalan as a conditioning regimen for autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a matched comparison to a melphalan-only approach. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 19(1):69–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krejci M, Buchler T, Hajek R, Svobodnik A, Krivanova A, Pour L et al (2005) Prognostic factors for survival after autologous transplantation: a single centre experience in 133 multiple yeloma patients. Bone Marrow Transplant 35(2):159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hari P, Pasquini M, Vesole D (2006) Cure of multiple myeloma—more hype, less reality. Bone Marrow Transplant 37(1):1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mehta J, Singhal S (2007) High-dose chemotherapy and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in myeloma patients under the age of 65 years. Bone Marrow Transplant 40(12):1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Alexanian R, Weber D, Delasalle K, Handy B, Champlin R, Giralt S (2004) Clinical outcomes with intensive therapy for patients with primary resistant multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant 34(3):229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barlogie B, Van Rhee F, Shaughnessy J Jr, Anaissie E, Crowley J (2008) Making progress in treating multiple myeloma with total therapies: issue of complete remission and more. Leukemia 22(8):1633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    O'shea D, Giles C, Terpos E, Perz J, Politou M, Sana V et al (2006) Predictive factors for survival in myeloma patients who undergo autologous stem cell transplantation: a single-centre experience in 211 patients. Bone Marrow Transplant 37(8):731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Majolino I, Vignetti M, Meloni G, Vegna ML, Scimè R, Tringali S et al (1999) Autologous transplantation in multiple myeloma: a GITMO retrospective analysis on 290 patients Gruppo Italiano Trapianti di Midollo Osseo. Haematologica 84(9):844–852PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Morris C, Iacobelli S, Brand R, Bjorkstrand B, Drake M, Niederwieser D et al (2004) Benefit and timing of second transplantations in multiple myeloma: clinical findings and methodological limitations in a European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation registry study. J Clin Oncol 22(9):1674–1681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim JS, Kim K, Cheong J-W, Min YH, Suh C, Kim H et al (2009) Complete remission status before autologous stem cell transplantation is an important prognostic factor in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing upfront single autologous transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 15(4):463–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nadal E, Gine E, Bladé J, Esteve J, Rosiñol L, Fernandez-Aviles F et al (2004) High-dose therapy/autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with chemosensitive multiple myeloma: predictors of complete remission. Bone Marrow Transplant 33(1):61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kumar S, Lacy M, Dispenzieri A, Rajkumar S, Fonseca R, Geyer S et al (2004) High-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma poorly responsive to initial therapy. Bone Marrow Transplant 34(2):161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Singhal S, Powles R, Sirohi B, Treleaven J, Kulkarni S, Mehta J (2002) Response to induction chemotherapy is not essential to obtain survival benefit from high-dose melphalan and autotransplantation in myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant 30(10):673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vij R, Kumar S, Zhang M-J, Zhong X, Huang J, Dispenzieri A et al (2015) Impact of pretransplant therapy and depth of disease response before autologous transplantation for multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 21(2):335–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tricot G, Spencer T, Sawyer J, Spoon D, Desikan R, Fassas A et al (2002) Predicting long-term (≥ 5 years) event-free survival in multiple myeloma patients following planned tandem autotransplants. Br J Haematol 116(1):211–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Society of Hematology and Blood Transfusion 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departments of Hematology, Faculty of MedicineHacettepe UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations