Induction Therapy
        Corticosteroids
        Thalidomide
        Lenalidomide
        Bortezomib
        Conventional-dose chemotherapy
        Combination therapy
Consolidation Chemotherapy
        High-dose chemotherapy: Autologous bone marrow or peripheral stem cell transplantation
        High-dose chemotherapy: Allogeneic bone marrow or peripheral stem cell transplantation
Maintenance Therapy
        Bisphosphonate therapy
Current Clinical Trials

Note: Some citations in the text of this section are followed by a level of evidence. The PDQ editorial boards use a formal ranking system to help the reader judge the strength of evidence linked to the reported results of a therapeutic strategy. (Refer to the PDQ summary on Levels of Evidence for more information.)

Idiotypic myeloma cells can be found in the blood of myeloma patients in all stages of the disease.[1,2] For this reason, when treatment is indicated, systemic treatment must be considered for all patients with symptomatic plasma cell neoplasms. Patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) or asymptomatic, smoldering myeloma do not require immediate treatment but must be followed carefully for signs of disease progression.

Patients with a monoclonal (or myeloma) protein (M protein) in the serum and/or urine are evaluated as follows:

1. Measure and follow the serum M protein by serum electrophoresis or by specific immunoglobulin assays; however, specific immunoglobulin quantification always overestimates the M protein because normal immunoglobulins are included in the result. For this reason, baseline and follow-up measurements of the M protein should be done by the same method.[3] Quantitative serum-free light chains may be helpful to follow response if an M protein is not apparent.
2. Measure and follow the amount of M protein light chains excreted in the urine per 24 hours. Measure the total amount of protein excreted per 24 hours and multiply this value by the percentage of urine protein that is M protein as determined by electrophoresis of concentrated urine protein. An easier, but less accurate, method uses a spot-urine protein electrophoresis.
3. Identify the heavy- and light-chain of the M protein by immunofixation electrophoresis.
4. Measure the hemoglobin, leukocyte, platelet, and differential counts.
5. Determine the percentage of marrow plasma cells. Be aware that marrow plasma cell distribution may vary in different sites.
6. Measure serum free kappa and lambda light chain. This is especially useful in cases of oligosecretory plasma cell dyscrasia or following cases of light chain amyloidosis.[4]
7. Take needle aspirates of a solitary lytic bone lesion, extramedullary tumor(s), or enlarged lymph node(s) to determine whether these are plasmacytomas.
8. Evaluate renal function with serum creatinine and a creatinine clearance. Electrophoresis of concentrated urine protein is very helpful in differentiating glomerular lesions from tubular lesions. Glomerular lesions, such as those resulting from glomerular deposits of amyloid or light chain deposition disease, result in the nonselective leakage of all serum proteins into the urine; the electrophoresis pattern of this urine resembles the serum pattern with a preponderance of albumin. In most myeloma patients, the glomeruli function normally allowing only the small molecular weight proteins, such as light chains, to filter into the urine. The concentration of protein in the tubules increases as water is reabsorbed. This leads to precipitation of proteins and the formation of tubular casts, which may injure the tubular cells. With tubular lesions, the typical electrophoresis pattern shows a small albumin peak and a larger light chain peak in the globulin region; this tubular pattern is the usual pattern found in myeloma patients.
9. Measure serum levels of calcium, alkaline phosphatase, lactic dehydrogenase, and, when indicated by clinical symptoms, cryoglobulins, and serum viscosity.
10. Obtain radiographs of the skull, ribs, vertebrae, pelvis, shoulder girdle, and long bones. Whole-body, low-dose, nonenhanced multidetector computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are being evaluated as measures for therapy response monitoring.[5,6] MRI of the spine or long bones is more sensitive in detecting lytic lesions, but any prognostic or therapeutic value for this information remains to be determined.[6]
11. Perform MRI if a paraspinal mass is detected or if symptoms suggest spinal cord or nerve root compression.
12. If amyloidosis is suspected, do a needle aspiration of subcutaneous abdominal fat and stain the bone marrow biopsy for amyloid as the easiest and safest way to confirm the diagnosis.[7]
13. Measure serum albumin and beta-2-microglobulin as independent prognostic factors.[8,9]
14. A high plasma cell labeling index (≥3%) and the presence of circulating myeloma cells are considered poor prognostic factors.[10]

These initial studies should be compared with subsequent values at a later time, when it is necessary to decide whether the disease is stable or progressive, responding to treatment, or getting worse. The major challenge is to separate the stable asymptomatic group of patients who do not require treatment from patients with progressive, symptomatic myeloma who should be treated immediately.[11,12]

Patients with MGUS have an M protein in the serum and/or urine and less than 10% plasma cells in the marrow but no other signs or symptoms of disease. The patients with smoldering myeloma have similar characteristics but may have greater than 10% of marrow plasma cells. Since 1% to 2% of MGUS patients per year will progress to develop myeloma (most commonly), amyloidosis, a lymphoma, or chronic lymphocytic leukemia, these types of patients must be followed carefully.[13] Treatment is delayed until the disease progresses to the stage that symptoms or signs appear. Patients with MGUS or smoldering myeloma do not respond more frequently, achieve longer remissions, or have improved survival if chemotherapy is started early while they are still asymptomatic as opposed to waiting for progression before treatment is initiated.[11,12,14,15]

Current therapy for patients with symptomatic myeloma can be divided into categories of induction therapies, consolidation therapies (which are less applicable for the very elderly), maintenance therapies, and supportive care (such as bisphosphonates). (For more information on supportive care therapies such as bisphosphonates, refer to the Pain summary.) The choice of induction therapy is unclear at the present time; however, the current basic categories include the use of steroids, thalidomide, and lenalidomide, as seen in the text below. Several questions are raised when therapy is being chosen for a patient with symptomatic myeloma at first presentation:

• Is the patient eligible for a clinical trial? The sequence and combinations of new and older therapies can only be determined by prospective clinical trials.
• Is autologous stem cell transplantation a possible consolidation option for this patient? If so, alkylating agents should be avoided during induction therapy to avoid compromise of stem cell collection and to lessen leukemogenic risk.
• Does the patient have comorbidities? Age, organ dysfunction, and risk of cardiovascular and thrombotic complications would influence the choice of induction therapies as well as the choice of whether to consider consolidation therapies.

Multiple therapeutic agents are available for induction therapy, either alone or in combinations [16] and include:

• Steroids (dexamethasone, prednisone).
• Thalidomide.
• Lenalidomide.
• Bortezomib.
• Alkylating agents (melphalan, cyclophosphamide).
• Other cytotoxic drugs (vincristine, doxorubicin, liposomal doxorubicin).

Clinical trials are needed to establish the regimens with the best efficacy and least long-term toxicity. Current trials are listed in the section on Combination therapy. Until results become available, outside the context of a clinical trial, clinicians may choose induction therapy based on the following considerations:

1. In patients younger than age 70, alkylators are avoided up front to avoid stem cell toxicity with subsequent risks for cytopenias, secondary malignancies, or poor stem cell harvesting if transplantation is considered for consolidation.[17]
2. Bortezomib or lenalidomide is combined with dexamethasone for at least 8 months or until best response if consolidation therapy is planned.[18,19] (See sections on Lenalidomide and Bortezomib.)
3. The choice of bortezomib or lenalidomide is based on side-effect profile and route of administration. Bortezomib is given in frequent intravenous doses and can have significant neuropathic toxicities.[19-21] Lenalidomide is given orally and has increased risk for deep venous thrombosis, requiring additional prophylactic medication.[14,18] Bortezomib is preferred for patients with renal impairment.[22]
4. Patients with a standard risk, as defined in the section on Stage Information, might receive induction therapy alone followed by careful observation after best response.[23] Patients with a high risk might receive induction therapy until best response, followed by consolidation therapy with allogeneic or autologous stem cell transplantations.[23]

These considerations require validation by ongoing clinical trials and participation in these studies is the preferred choice when possible.

Since the mid-1980s, dexamethasone has been administered at a dose of 40 mg orally for 4 consecutive days in the same schedule as administered with the vincristine plus doxorubicin plus dexamethasone (VAD) regimen.[24] Response rates of 60% to 70% in previously untreated patients appeared as high as those in patients treated with VAD.[24,25][Level of evidence: 3iiiDiv] A prospective trial randomly assigned 488 patients older than 65 years to receive dexamethasone alone, melphalan plus dexamethasone, dexamethasone plus interferon-alpha, and melphalan plus prednisone; with a median follow-up of 7.1 years, no difference was observed in overall survival (OS) (median survival times were 32 to 40 mo).[26][Level of evidence: 1iiA] The patients on the dexamethasone-based arms had significantly more infections, glucose intolerance, gastrointestinal symptoms, and psychiatric complaints. (For more information on gastrointestinal symptoms, refer to the Gastrointestinal Complications summary.)

There has never been a randomized trial comparing single-agent oral dexamethasone at a traditional high dose (40 mg a day for 4 days, repeated after 4 days off) versus a lower dose (40 mg or less weekly). This issue of dexamethasone dose has been evaluated in two prospective randomized trials, one in the context of melphalan from the National Cancer Institute of Canada (CAN-NCIC-MY7), and the other in the context of lenalidomide from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG-E4A03) and published only in abstract form.[18,27] High-dose dexamethasone was associated with an increased risk of infection in the melphalan trial, but with no difference in efficacy compared to standard dose steroids.[27] The lenalidomide study questioned the safety and efficacy of high-dose dexamethasone (refer to the Lenalidomide section of this summary for more information).[18] Almost all ongoing clinical trials in the United States and Europe have implemented the low-dose dexamethasone schedule with or without other therapeutic agents.

Nine randomized prospective studies (including E-E1A00 and HOVON 50) involving more than 3,500 patients have been published in final or preliminary abstract form examining the introduction of thalidomide as induction therapy for previously untreated symptomatic patients with multiple myeloma.[28-36] All of the trials reported improved response rates with the introduction of thalidomide and no hematopoietic damage, allowing adequate stem cell collection when applicable or allowing combinations with other myelosuppressive agents. Only three of the nine randomized studies reported a survival advantage using thalidomide. In both trials, the patients older than 65 years at the 2-year follow-ups showed 44-month to 56-month median overall survival (OS) for melphalan plus prednisone plus thalidomide (MPT) versus 28-month to 30-month median OS for melphalan plus prednisone (MP) (P < .03 in all three studies).[33,37][Level of evidence: 1iiA] A possible explanation is that these two trials used a lower dose of thalidomide than the other studies (100 mg vs. 200 mg or higher), a lower dose of steroids (60 mg of prednisone vs. high-dose dexamethasone), and involved the use of alkylating agents. As previously described in the section on corticosteroids, high-dose dexamethasone can complicate interpretation of clinical trials by worsening cardiopulmonary toxicity and deaths, especially in the context of thalidomide or lenalidomide, both of which are thrombogenic agents.

Factors that have been implicated to worsen the risk of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) include:

• High-dose dexamethasone.
• Concomitant erythropoietic growth factors.
• Concomitant use of doxorubicin, liposomal doxorubicin, or alkylating agents.[38]

Personal cardiovascular risk factors can also influence the rate of DVT. Various clinical trials have included different DVT prophylaxis measures, including aspirin (81 mg–100 mg a day), warfarin, or low-molecular-weight heparin, but the validity of these measures has not been studied prospectively in a randomized study.[33,34,39-43] Prospective electrophysiologic monitoring provides no clear benefit versus clinical evaluation for the development of clinically significant neuropathy while on thalidomide.

A prospective randomized study of 351 relapsed patients compared lenalidomide, an analogue of thalidomide, plus high-dose dexamethasone to high-dose dexamethasone plus placebo.[44] The lenalidomide combination showed a significantly higher time-to-tumor-progression (11.3 mo vs. 4.7 mo, P < .001) with a 16-month median follow-up, and median OS had not been reached, versus 20.6 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.66, 95% confidence interval, 0.45–0.96, P = .03).[Level of evidence: 1iiDiii][44][Level of evidence: 1iA] The lenalidomide-containing arm had more DVT (11.4% vs. 4.6%).[44] Similarly, another randomized prospective trial NCT00179647 of 353 previously treated patients favors the lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone arm versus dexamethasone plus placebo; at a median follow-up of 26 months, the median time-to-progression was 11.1 months versus 4.7 months (P < .001) and the median OS was 29.6 versus 20.2 months (P < .001).[45][Level of evidence: 1iA] A prospective randomized study (ECOG-E4A03) of 445 untreated symptomatic patients, published in abstract form only, compared lenalidomide and high-dose dexamethasone (40 mg D1–4, 9–12, 17–20 every 28 days) to lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (40 mg D1, 8, 15, 22 every 28 days).[18] With a median follow-up of 25 months, this trial showed improved OS for patients in the low-dose dexamethasone arm (87% vs. 75% at 2 years, P = .006), despite no difference in progression-free survival.[18][Level of evidence: 1iiA] The extra deaths on the high-dose dexamethasone arm were attributed to cardiopulmonary toxicity and faster progression with subsequent therapies. DVTs were also more frequent in the high-dose arm (25% vs. 9%). OS favored the low-dose arm with a 2-year survival of 87% (low-dose) versus 75% (high-dose) (P = .006.)[18][Level of evidence: 1iiA] The low-dose dexamethasone arm with lenalidomide had less than 5% DVT with aspirin alone. Lenalidomide has substantially greater myelosuppression but less neuropathy than seen with thalidomide, but both have the same tendency for DVT.[18,44,45] DVT prophylaxis with 81 mg of aspirin has been proposed, but randomized clinical trials have not confirmed any benefit for this recommendation.[43]

A prospective randomized trial (VISTA) of 682 previously untreated symptomatic patients who were not candidates for stem cell transplantation because of age (one third of patients >75 years) compared bortezomib combined with melphalan and prednisone versus melphalan and prednisone alone.[19] With a median follow-up of 26 months, the OS favored the bortezomib arm in the 3-year OS rates (72% vs. 59%, P = .03).[19][Level of evidence: 1iiA]

A prospective randomized study of 669 patients with relapsing myeloma, who had been treated previously with steroids, compared intravenous bortezomib with high-dose oral dexamethasone; with a median follow-up of 22 months, the median OS was 29.8 months for bortezomib versus 23.7 months for dexamethasone (HR = 0.77, P = .027), despite 62% of dexamethasone patients crossing over to receive bortezomib.[20][Level of evidence: 1iiA] Bortezomib-associated peripheral neuropathy is reversible in most patients after dose reduction or discontinuation.[21,46-48]

A prospective randomized trial (NCT00103506) of 646 previously treated patients compared bortezomib plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin with bortezomib alone.[49] With a median follow-up of 7 months, the combination was better in both median time to progression (9.3 mo vs. 6.5 mo, P < .001) and in OS (82% vs. 75%, P = .05).[49][Level of evidence: 1iiA]

Patients with unfavorable molecular cytogenetics did not show any difference in progression-free or OS compared with patients with more favorable risk factors when bortezomib was incorporated with induction therapy. The benefit from bortezomib appears to be maintained across risk groups.[50-53][Level of evidence: 3iiiD]

Because bortezomib is metabolized and cleared by the liver, it appears active and well tolerated in patients with renal impairment.[22]

The VAD regimen has shown activity in previously treated and in untreated patients with response rates ranging from 60% to 80%.[54-57][Level of evidence: 3iiiDiv] No randomized studies support the widespread use of this regimen in untreated patients. This regimen avoids early exposure to alkylating agents, thereby minimizing any problems with stem cell collection (if needed) and any future risks for myelodysplasia or secondary leukemia. Disadvantages include the logistics for a 96-hour infusion of doxorubicin and a low complete response rate. An alternative version of VAD substitutes pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for doxorubicin, eliminates the need for an infusion, and provides comparable response rates.[58,59]Level of evidence: 3iiiDiv]

Evidence is not strong that any alkylating agent is superior to any other. All standard doses and schedules produce equivalent results.[60] The two most common regimens historically have been oral MP and oral cyclophosphamide plus prednisone.[60-62]

Combinations such as those used in EST-2479, of alkylating agents and prednisone, administered simultaneously or alternately, have not proven to be superior to therapy with MP.[63-66][Level of evidence: 1iiA] A meta-analysis of studies comparing melphalan plus prednisone with drug combinations concluded that both forms of treatment were equally effective.[60][Level of evidence: 1iiA] Patients who relapsed after initial therapy with cyclophosphamide and prednisone had no difference in OS (median 17 mo) when randomly assigned to receive vincristine plus carmustine plus melphalan plus cyclophosphamide plus prednisone (VBMCP) or VAD.[67]

Several national and international trials have been implemented to define the optimal combination regimens. Participation in these trials should be the preferred approach, when feasible. The combination regimens in these trials represent the most successful from numerous phase II reports during the last several years:

• ECOG-E1A05: bortezomib + dexamethasone versus lenalidomide + bortezomib + dexamethasone.[68]
• SWOG-SO777: lenalidomide + dexamethasone versus lenalidomide + bortezomib + dexamethasone.
• EVOLUTION trial: bortezomib + lenalidomide + dexamethasone versus bortezomib + cyclophosphamide + dexamethasone versus bortezomib + lenalidomide + cyclophosphamide + dexamethasone.
• US Intergroup/IFM trial: lenalidomide + bortezomib + dexamethasone for three cycles, then responders randomized to five more cycles versus high-dose melphalan + stem cell transplantation.

Options for combination regimens:

1. Bortezomib + dexamethasone (as demonstrated in ECOG-E1A05).[50,68]
2. Lenalidomide + dexamethasone (as demonstrated in SWOG-SO777).[18,44,45]
3. Bortezomib + lenalidomide + dexamethasone (as demonstrated in ECOG-E1A05, SWOG-SO777, EVOLUTION trial, and US Intergroup/IFM trial).[50,68,69]
4. Bortezomib + cyclophosphamide + dexamethasone (as demonstrated in the EVOLUTION trial).[70,71]
5. Bortezomib + lenalidomide + cyclophosphamide + dexamethasone (as demonstrated in the EVOLUTION trial).[72]
6. Lenalidomide + cyclophosphamide + dexamethasone.[73]
7. Bortezomib + melphalan + prednisone.[19]
8. Bortezomib + liposomal doxorubicin.[49]
9. Melphalan + prednisone + thalidomide.[30,37]
10. Melphalan + prednisone.[30,37]

The failure of conventional therapy to cure the disease has led investigators to test the effectiveness of much higher doses of drugs such as melphalan. The development of techniques for harvesting hemopoietic stem cells, from marrow aspirates or the peripheral blood of the patient, and infusing these cells to promote hemopoietic recovery made it possible for investigators to test very large doses of chemotherapy. From the experience with thousands of patients treated in this way, it is possible to draw a few conclusions. The risk of early death caused by treatment-related toxic effects has been reduced to less than 3% in highly selected populations.[74] Chemotherapy patients can now be treated as outpatients. Extensive prior chemotherapy, especially with alkylating agents, compromises marrow hemopoiesis and may make the harvesting of adequate numbers of hemopoietic stem cells impossible.[17] Younger patients in good health tolerate high-dose therapy better than patients with poor performance status.[75-77]

While some prospective randomized trials such as the U.S. Intergroup trial SWOG-9321, have shown improved survival for patients who received autologous peripheral stem cell or bone marrow transplantation after induction chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone,[13,78,79][Level of evidence: 1iiA] other trials have not shown any survival advantage.[80-83][Level of evidence: 1iiA] Two meta-analyses of almost 3,000 patients showed no survival advantage.[84,85][Level of evidence: 1iiA] Even the trials suggesting improved survival showed no signs of a slowing in the relapse rate or a plateau to suggest that any of these patients had been cured.[13,78,79,86]

Another approach to high-dose therapy has been the use of two sequential episodes of high-dose therapy with stem cell support (tandem transplants).[87-91]

A meta-analysis of six randomized clinical trials enrolling 1,803 patients compared single versus tandem autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation; there was no difference in OS (HR = .94; 95% CI, 0.77–1.14) or in event-free survival (HR = .86; 95% CI, 0.70–1.05).[92][Level of evidence: 1A]

In a trial of 194 previously untreated patients aged 50 to 70 years, the patients were randomly assigned to conventional oral melphalan and prednisone versus VAD for two cycles followed by two sequential episodes of high-dose therapy (melphalan 100 mg/m²) with stem cell support.[79] With a median follow-up of greater than 3 years, the double transplant group had superior EFS (37% vs. 16% at 3 years, P < .001) and OS (77% vs. 62%, P < .001).[79][Level of evidence: 1iiA]

Three different groups have compared two tandem autologous transplants versus one autologous transplant followed by a reduced-intensity conditioning allograft from an HLA-identical sibling; the results have been discordant for survival in these nonrandomized trials. One study showed a survival advantage for the two tandem autologous transplants, one study showed a survival advantage for the autologous followed by allograft arm, and one study showed no difference in OS.[93-96][Level of evidence: 3iiiA] (assignment was based on the presence or absence of an HLA-identical sibling); with a median follow-up of 45 months, the median OS was 54 months for the tandem autologous grafts versus 80 months for the allogeneic arm (P = .01).[93][Level of evidence: 3iiA]

A trial of 195 patients younger than 60 years with newly diagnosed myeloma randomly compared two tandem transplants with a single autologous stem cell transplant followed by 6 months of maintenance therapy with thalidomide. With a median follow-up of 33 months, the thalidomide maintenance arm showed a benefit in PFS (85% vs. 57% at 3 years, P = .02) and OS (85% vs. 65% at 3 years, P = .04).[97][Level of evidence: 1iiA]

Maintenance therapy with interferon showed a benefit in progression-free survival (PFS) (46 vs. 27 mo, P < .025) and OS (75% vs. 50%, P < .01) in a randomized study of 84 patients following autologous bone marrow transplantation.[98][Level of evidence: 1iiA] A larger randomized trial of 805 patients showed no difference in PFS or OS with interferon applied after peripheral stem cell transplantation or conventional chemotherapy.[99][Level of evidence: 1iiA]

In a registry of 162 patients who underwent allogeneic matched sibling-donor transplants, the actuarial OS rate was 28% at 7 years.[100][Level of evidence: 3iiiA] Favorable prognostic features included low tumor burden, responsive disease before transplant, and application of transplantation after first-line therapy. Many patients are not young enough or healthy enough to undergo these intensive approaches. A definite graft-versus-myeloma effect has been demonstrated, including regression of myeloma relapses following the infusion of donor lymphocytes.[101-104] Allogeneic marrow transplants have significant toxic effects (15%–40% mortality), but the possibility of a potent and possibly curative graft-versus-myeloma reaction makes this procedure attractive.[104,105] Further research is required to make allogeneic transplants less dangerous and to find methods for initiating an autoimmune response to the myeloma cells. Nonmyeloablative allogeneic stem cell transplant is under development.[106-108] Such strategies aim to maintain efficacy (so called graft-versus-tumor-effective) while reducing transplant-related mortality.[109,110]

Myeloma patients who respond to treatment show a progressive fall in the M protein until a plateau is reached; subsequent treatment with conventional doses does not result in any further improvement. This has led investigators to question how long treatment should be continued. In a single study,[111] it was observed that maintenance therapy with MP prolonged the initial remission duration (31 mo) compared to no maintenance treatment (23 mo). No effect on OS was found because the majority of patients who relapsed in the no maintenance arm responded again to MP, while those on maintenance MP did not respond to further treatment. The Canadian group [111] suggests that induction chemotherapy be continued as long as the M protein continues to fall; therapy can be discontinued after the M protein reaches a plateau that remains stable for 4 months.

Maintenance interferon-alpha therapy has been reported in several studies to prolong initial remission duration.[112-115] While the impact of interferon maintenance on disease-free survival and OS has significantly varied among trials, a meta-analysis of 1,543 patients treated on 12 trials randomizing between interferon maintenance and observation indicated that interferon maintenance was associated with improved relapse-free survival (27% vs. 19% at 3 years, P < .001) and OS (12% odds reduction, P = .04).[116] Toxic effects in this population may be substantial and must be balanced against the potential benefits in response duration.[117]

A study of 125 responding patients with first-line VAD induction who were randomly assigned to maintenance corticosteroids at 10 mg or 50 mg on alternate days showed improved PFS (14 mo vs. 5 mo, P = .003) and OS (36 mo vs. 26 mo, P = .05) for the patients receiving the higher-dose corticosteroids.[118][Level of evidence: 1iiA] In a larger trial by the National Cancer Institute of Canada (CAN-NCIC-MY7) of 585 patients treated with first-line MP, 292 patients were randomly assigned to pulse dexamethasone (40 mg a day for 4 days monthly) versus no maintenance; PFS favored the dexamethasone maintenance (2.8 vs. 2.1 years, P = .002), but there was no difference in OS (4.1 years vs. 3.8 years, P = .4).[27][Level of evidence: 1iiDiii]

Two months after autologous transplantation, 597 patients younger than 65 years were randomly assigned to no maintenance, pamidronate, or pamidronate plus thalidomide; the thalidomide arm was favored by EFS (36% vs. 37% vs. 52%, P < .009) and OS at 4 years (77% vs. 74% vs. 87%, P < .04), while no differences were seen for skeletal events.[119][Level of evidence: 1iiA] After autologous transplantation, 129 patients were randomly assigned to indefinite prednisone versus indefinite prednisone with 12 months of thalidomide; with a median follow-up of 3 years, the thalidomide arm was favored by PFS (42% vs. 23%, P < .001) and by OS at 3 years (86% vs. 75%, P = .004).[120][Level of evidence: 1iiA]

A randomized, double-blind study of patients with stage III myeloma showed that monthly intravenous pamidronate significantly reduces pathologic fractures, bone pain, spinal cord compression, and the need for bone radiation therapy (38% skeletal-related events were reported in the treated group vs. 51% in the placebo group after 21 mo of therapy, P = .015).[121][Level of evidence: 1iDiii] (For more information on bisphosphonate therapy, refer to the Pain summary.)

A randomized comparison of pamidronate versus zoledronic acid in 518 patients with multiple myeloma showed equivalent efficacy in regard to skeletal-related complications.[122][Level of evidence: 1iDiii] However, bisphosphonates are associated with infrequent long-term complications (in 3%–5% of patients) including osteonecrosis of the jaw and avascular necrosis of the hip.[123,124] (For more information on osteonecrosis of the jaw, refer to the Oral Complications of Chemotherapy and Head/Neck Radiation summary.) These side effects must be balanced against the potential benefits of bisphosphonates when bone metastases are evident.[125]

Lytic lesions of the spine should be radiated if they are associated with an extramedullary (paraspinal) plasmacytoma, if a painful destruction of a vertebral body occurred, or if CT or MRI scans present evidence of spinal cord compression.[126]

Back pain caused by osteoporosis and small compression fractures of the vertebrae responds best to chemotherapy. (For more information on back pain, refer to the PDQ summary on Pain.) Extensive radiation of the spine or long bones for diffuse osteoporosis may lead to prolonged suppression of hemopoiesis and is rarely indicated.[127] Bisphosphonates are useful for slowing or reversing the osteopenia that is common in myeloma patients.[121]

Check for U.S. clinical trials from NCI's PDQ Cancer Clinical Trials Registry that are now accepting patients with multiple myeloma. The list of clinical trials can be further narrowed by location, drug, intervention, and other criteria.

General information about clinical trials is also available from the NCI Web site.

References

1. Zandecki M, Facon T, Preudhomme C, et al.: Significance of circulating plasma cells in multiple myeloma. Leuk Lymphoma 14 (5-6): 491-6, 1994.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
2. Billadeau D, Van Ness B, Kimlinger T, et al.: Clonal circulating cells are common in plasma cell proliferative disorders: a comparison of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance, smoldering multiple myeloma, and active myeloma. Blood 88 (1): 289-96, 1996.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
3. Riches PG, Sheldon J, Smith AM, et al.: Overestimation of monoclonal immunoglobulin by immunochemical methods. Ann Clin Biochem 28 ( Pt 3): 253-9, 1991.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
4. Dispenzieri A, Kyle R, Merlini G, et al.: International Myeloma Working Group guidelines for serum-free light chain analysis in multiple myeloma and related disorders. Leukemia 23 (2): 215-24, 2009.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
5. Horger M, Kanz L, Denecke B, et al.: The benefit of using whole-body, low-dose, nonenhanced, multidetector computed tomography for follow-up and therapy response monitoring in patients with multiple myeloma. Cancer 109 (8): 1617-26, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
6. Walker R, Barlogie B, Haessler J, et al.: Magnetic resonance imaging in multiple myeloma: diagnostic and clinical implications. J Clin Oncol 25 (9): 1121-8, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
7. Gertz MA, Li CY, Shirahama T, et al.: Utility of subcutaneous fat aspiration for the diagnosis of systemic amyloidosis (immunoglobulin light chain). Arch Intern Med 148 (4): 929-33, 1988.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
8. Greipp PR: Advances in the diagnosis and management of myeloma. Semin Hematol 29 (3 Suppl 2): 24-45, 1992.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
9. Durie BG, Stock-Novack D, Salmon SE, et al.: Prognostic value of pretreatment serum beta 2 microglobulin in myeloma: a Southwest Oncology Group Study. Blood 75 (4): 823-30, 1990.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
10. Greipp PR, Witzig T: Biology and treatment of myeloma. Curr Opin Oncol 8 (1): 20-7, 1996.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
11. He Y, Wheatley K, Clark O, et al.: Early versus deferred treatment for early stage multiple myeloma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1): CD004023, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
12. Kyle RA, Remstein ED, Therneau TM, et al.: Clinical course and prognosis of smoldering (asymptomatic) multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 356 (25): 2582-90, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
13. Attal M, Harousseau JL, Stoppa AM, et al.: A prospective, randomized trial of autologous bone marrow transplantation and chemotherapy in multiple myeloma. Intergroupe Français du Myélome. N Engl J Med 335 (2): 91-7, 1996.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
14. Hjorth M, Hellquist L, Holmberg E, et al.: Initial versus deferred melphalan-prednisone therapy for asymptomatic multiple myeloma stage I--a randomized study. Myeloma Group of Western Sweden. Eur J Haematol 50 (2): 95-102, 1993.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
15. Riccardi A, Mora O, Tinelli C, et al.: Long-term survival of stage I multiple myeloma given chemotherapy just after diagnosis or at progression of the disease: a multicentre randomized study. Cooperative Group of Study and Treatment of Multiple Myeloma. Br J Cancer 82 (7): 1254-60, 2000.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
16. Palumbo A, Rajkumar SV: Treatment of newly diagnosed myeloma. Leukemia 23 (3): 449-56, 2009.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
17. Goldschmidt H, Hegenbart U, Wallmeier M, et al.: Factors influencing collection of peripheral blood progenitor cells following high-dose cyclophosphamide and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in patients with multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 98 (3): 736-44, 1997.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
18. Rajkumar SV, Jacobus S, Callander N, et al.: A randomized trial of lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone (RD) versus lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (E4A03): a trial coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. [Abstract] Blood 110 (11): A-74, 2007. 
    
    
19. San Miguel JF, Schlag R, Khuageva NK, et al.: Bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone for initial treatment of multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 359 (9): 906-17, 2008.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
20. Richardson PG, Sonneveld P, Schuster M, et al.: Extended follow-up of a phase 3 trial in relapsed multiple myeloma: final time-to-event results of the APEX trial. Blood 110 (10): 3557-60, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
21. Richardson PG, Briemberg H, Jagannath S, et al.: Frequency, characteristics, and reversibility of peripheral neuropathy during treatment of advanced multiple myeloma with bortezomib. J Clin Oncol 24 (19): 3113-20, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
22. San-Miguel JF, Richardson PG, Sonneveld P, et al.: Efficacy and safety of bortezomib in patients with renal impairment: results from the APEX phase 3 study. Leukemia 22 (4): 842-9, 2008.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
23. Dispenzieri A, Rajkumar SV, Gertz MA, et al.: Treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma based on Mayo Stratification of Myeloma and Risk-adapted Therapy (mSMART): consensus statement. Mayo Clin Proc 82 (3): 323-41, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
24. Alexanian R, Dimopoulos MA, Delasalle K, et al.: Primary dexamethasone treatment of multiple myeloma. Blood 80 (4): 887-90, 1992.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
25. Kumar S, Lacy MQ, Dispenzieri A, et al.: Single agent dexamethasone for pre-stem cell transplant induction therapy for multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant 34 (6): 485-90, 2004.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
26. Facon T, Mary JY, Pégourie B, et al.: Dexamethasone-based regimens versus melphalan-prednisone for elderly multiple myeloma patients ineligible for high-dose therapy. Blood 107 (4): 1292-8, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
27. Shustik C, Belch A, Robinson S, et al.: A randomised comparison of melphalan with prednisone or dexamethasone as induction therapy and dexamethasone or observation as maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma: NCIC CTG MY.7. Br J Haematol 136 (2): 203-11, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
28. Rajkumar SV, Rosiñol L, Hussein M, et al.: Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of thalidomide plus dexamethasone compared with dexamethasone as initial therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 26 (13): 2171-7, 2008.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
29. Barlogie B, Tricot G, Anaissie E, et al.: Thalidomide and hematopoietic-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 354 (10): 1021-30, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
30. Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Liberati AM, et al.: Oral melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide in elderly patients with multiple myeloma: updated results of a randomized controlled trial. Blood 112 (8): 3107-14, 2008.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
31. Goldschmidt H, Sonneveld P, Breitkreuz I, et al.: HOVON 50/GMMG-HD3-trial: phase III study on the effect of thalidomide combined with high dose melphalan in myeloma patients up to 65 years. [Abstract] Blood 106 (11): A-424, 2005. 
    
    
32. Facon T, Mary J, Harousseau J, et al.: Superiority of melphalan-prednisone (MP) + thalidomide (THAL) over MP and autologous stem cell transplantation in the treatment of newly diagnosed elderly patients with multiple myeloma. [Abstract] J Clin Oncol 24 (Suppl 18): A-1, 2006. 
    
    
33. Hulin C, Facon T, Rodon P, et al.: Melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide (MP-T) demonstrates a significant survival advantage in elderly patients 75 years with multiple myeloma compared with melphalan-prednisone (MP) in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, IFM 01/01. [Abstract] Blood 110 (11): A-75, 2007. 
    
    
34. Waage A, Gimsing P, Juliusson G, et al.: Melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide to newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma: a placebo controlled randomised phase 3 trial. [Abstract] Blood 110 (11): A-78, 2007. 
    
    
35. Ludwig H, Hajek R, Tóthová E, et al.: Thalidomide-dexamethasone compared with melphalan-prednisolone in elderly patients with multiple myeloma. Blood 113 (15): 3435-42, 2009.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
36. Hulin C, Facon T, Rodon P, et al.: Efficacy of melphalan and prednisone plus thalidomide in patients older than 75 years with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: IFM 01/01 trial. J Clin Oncol 27 (22): 3664-70, 2009.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
37. Facon T, Mary JY, Hulin C, et al.: Melphalan and prednisone plus thalidomide versus melphalan and prednisone alone or reduced-intensity autologous stem cell transplantation in elderly patients with multiple myeloma (IFM 99-06): a randomised trial. Lancet 370 (9594): 1209-18, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
38. Palumbo A, Facon T, Sonneveld P, et al.: Thalidomide for treatment of multiple myeloma: 10 years later. Blood 111 (8): 3968-77, 2008.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
39. Weber D, Rankin K, Gavino M, et al.: Thalidomide alone or with dexamethasone for previously untreated multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 21 (1): 16-9, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
40. Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Caravita T, et al.: Oral melphalan and prednisone chemotherapy plus thalidomide compared with melphalan and prednisone alone in elderly patients with multiple myeloma: randomised controlled trial. Lancet 367 (9513): 825-31, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
41. Zangari M, Barlogie B, Thertulien R, et al.: Thalidomide and deep vein thrombosis in multiple myeloma: risk factors and effect on survival. Clin Lymphoma 4 (1): 32-5, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
42. Baz R, Li L, Kottke-Marchant K, et al.: The role of aspirin in the prevention of thrombotic complications of thalidomide and anthracycline-based chemotherapy for multiple myeloma. Mayo Clin Proc 80 (12): 1568-74, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
43. Niesvizky R, Martínez-Baños D, Jalbrzikowski J, et al.: Prophylactic low-dose aspirin is effective antithrombotic therapy for combination treatments of thalidomide or lenalidomide in myeloma. Leuk Lymphoma 48 (12): 2330-7, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
44. Dimopoulos M, Spencer A, Attal M, et al.: Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 357 (21): 2123-32, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
45. Weber DM, Chen C, Niesvizky R, et al.: Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma in North America. N Engl J Med 357 (21): 2133-42, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
46. Mitchell BS: The proteasome--an emerging therapeutic target in cancer. N Engl J Med 348 (26): 2597-8, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
47. Argyriou AA, Iconomou G, Kalofonos HP: Bortezomib-induced peripheral neuropathy in multiple myeloma: a comprehensive review of the literature. Blood 112 (5): 1593-9, 2008.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
48. Richardson PG, Xie W, Mitsiades C, et al.: Single-agent bortezomib in previously untreated multiple myeloma: efficacy, characterization of peripheral neuropathy, and molecular correlations with response and neuropathy. J Clin Oncol 27 (21): 3518-25, 2009.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
49. Orlowski RZ, Nagler A, Sonneveld P, et al.: Randomized phase III study of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin plus bortezomib compared with bortezomib alone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: combination therapy improves time to progression. J Clin Oncol 25 (25): 3892-901, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
50. Richardson PG, Sonneveld P, Schuster MW, et al.: Bortezomib or high-dose dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 352 (24): 2487-98, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
51. Jagannath S, Richardson PG, Sonneveld P, et al.: Bortezomib appears to overcome the poor prognosis conferred by chromosome 13 deletion in phase 2 and 3 trials. Leukemia 21 (1): 151-7, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
52. Sagaster V, Ludwig H, Kaufmann H, et al.: Bortezomib in relapsed multiple myeloma: response rates and duration of response are independent of a chromosome 13q-deletion. Leukemia 21 (1): 164-8, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
53. Chang H, Trieu Y, Qi X, et al.: Bortezomib therapy response is independent of cytogenetic abnormalities in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Leuk Res 31 (6): 779-82, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
54. Alexanian R, Barlogie B, Tucker S: VAD-based regimens as primary treatment for multiple myeloma. Am J Hematol 33 (2): 86-9, 1990.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
55. Segeren CM, Sonneveld P, van der Holt B, et al.: Vincristine, doxorubicin and dexamethasone (VAD) administered as rapid intravenous infusion for first-line treatment in untreated multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 105 (1): 127-30, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
56. Anderson H, Scarffe JH, Ranson M, et al.: VAD chemotherapy as remission induction for multiple myeloma. Br J Cancer 71 (2): 326-30, 1995.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
57. Browman GP, Belch A, Skillings J, et al.: Modified adriamycin-vincristine-dexamethasone (m-VAD) in primary refractory and relapsed plasma cell myeloma: an NCI (Canada) pilot study. The National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. Br J Haematol 82 (3): 555-9, 1992.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
58. Dimopoulos MA, Pouli A, Zervas K, et al.: Prospective randomized comparison of vincristine, doxorubicin and dexamethasone (VAD) administered as intravenous bolus injection and VAD with liposomal doxorubicin as first-line treatment in multiple myeloma. Ann Oncol 14 (7): 1039-44, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
59. Rifkin RM, Gregory SA, Mohrbacher A, et al.: Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, vincristine, and dexamethasone provide significant reduction in toxicity compared with doxorubicin, vincristine, and dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a Phase III multicenter randomized trial. Cancer 106 (4): 848-58, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
60. Combination chemotherapy versus melphalan plus prednisone as treatment for multiple myeloma: an overview of 6,633 patients from 27 randomized trials. Myeloma Trialists' Collaborative Group. J Clin Oncol 16 (12): 3832-42, 1998.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
61. Gregory WM, Richards MA, Malpas JS: Combination chemotherapy versus melphalan and prednisolone in the treatment of multiple myeloma: an overview of published trials. J Clin Oncol 10 (2): 334-42, 1992.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
62. Bergsagel DE, Stewart AK: Conventional-dose chemotherapy of myeloma. In: Malpas JS, Bergsagel DE, Kyle RA, et al.: Myeloma: Biology and Management. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders Co, 2004, pp 203-17. 
    
    
63. Pavlovsky S, Corrado C, Santarelli MT, et al.: An update of two randomized trials in previously untreated multiple myeloma comparing melphalan and prednisone versus three- and five-drug combinations: an Argentine Group for the Treatment of Acute Leukemia Study. J Clin Oncol 6 (5): 769-75, 1988.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
64. Bladé J, San Miguel JF, Alcalá A, et al.: Alternating combination VCMP/VBAP chemotherapy versus melphalan/prednisone in the treatment of multiple myeloma: a randomized multicentric study of 487 patients. J Clin Oncol 11 (6): 1165-71, 1993.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
65. Oken MM, Harrington DP, Abramson N, et al.: Comparison of melphalan and prednisone with vincristine, carmustine, melphalan, cyclophosphamide, and prednisone in the treatment of multiple myeloma: results of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study E2479. Cancer 79 (8): 1561-7, 1997.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
66. Gertz MA, Lacy MQ, Lust JA, et al.: Prospective randomized trial of melphalan and prednisone versus vincristine, carmustine, melphalan, cyclophosphamide, and prednisone in the treatment of primary systemic amyloidosis. J Clin Oncol 17 (1): 262-7, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
67. Mineur P, Ménard JF, Le Loët X, et al.: VAD or VMBCP in multiple myeloma refractory to or relapsing after cyclophosphamide-prednisone therapy (protocol MY 85). Br J Haematol 103 (2): 512-7, 1998.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
68. Fonseca R, Rajkumar SV: Consolidation therapy with bortezomib/lenalidomide/ dexamethasone versus bortezomib/dexamethasone after a dexamethasone-based induction regimen in patients with multiple myeloma: a randomized phase III trial. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma 8 (5): 315-7, 2008.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
69. Richardson P, Lonial S, Jakubowiak A, et al.: Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: encouraging efficacy in high risk groups with updated results of a phaseI/II study. [Abstract] Blood 112 (11): A-92, 2008. 
    
    
70. Reece DE, Rodriguez GP, Chen C, et al.: Phase I-II trial of bortezomib plus oral cyclophosphamide and prednisone in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 26 (29): 4777-83, 2008.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
71. Knop S, Liebisch H, Wandt H, et al.: Bortezomib, IV cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (VelCD) as induction therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: results of an interim analysis of the German DSMM Xia trial. [Abstract] J Clin Oncol 27 (Suppl 15): A-8516, 2009. 
    
    
72. Kumar S, Flinn IW, Noga SJ, et al.: Safety and efficacy of novel combination therapy with bortezomib, dexamethasone, cyclophosphamide, and lenalidomide in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: initial results from the phase I/II multi-center EVOLUTION study. [Abstract] Blood 112 (11): A-93, 2008. 
    
    
73. Kumar S, Hayman S, Buadi F, et al.: Phase II trial of lenalidomide (Revlimid™) with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (RCd) for newly diagnosed myeloma. [Abstract] Blood 112 (11): A-91, 2008. 
    
    
74. Bladé J, Vesole DH, Gertz Morie: High-dose therapy in multiple myeloma. Blood 102 (10): 3469-70, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
75. Siegel DS, Desikan KR, Mehta J, et al.: Age is not a prognostic variable with autotransplants for multiple myeloma. Blood 93 (1): 51-4, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
76. Badros A, Barlogie B, Siegel E, et al.: Autologous stem cell transplantation in elderly multiple myeloma patients over the age of 70 years. Br J Haematol 114 (3): 600-7, 2001.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
77. Lenhoff S, Hjorth M, Westin J, et al.: Impact of age on survival after intensive therapy for multiple myeloma: a population-based study by the Nordic Myeloma Study Group. Br J Haematol 133 (4): 389-96, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
78. Child JA, Morgan GJ, Davies FE, et al.: High-dose chemotherapy with hematopoietic stem-cell rescue for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 348 (19): 1875-83, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
79. Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Petrucci MT, et al.: Intermediate-dose melphalan improves survival of myeloma patients aged 50 to 70: results of a randomized controlled trial. Blood 104 (10): 3052-7, 2004.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
80. Segeren CM, Sonneveld P, van der Holt B, et al.: Overall and event-free survival are not improved by the use of myeloablative therapy following intensified chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma: a prospective randomized phase 3 study. Blood 101 (6): 2144-51, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
81. Fermand JP, Katsahian S, Divine M, et al.: High-dose therapy and autologous blood stem-cell transplantation compared with conventional treatment in myeloma patients aged 55 to 65 years: long-term results of a randomized control trial from the Group Myelome-Autogreffe. J Clin Oncol 23 (36): 9227-33, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
82. Bladé J, Rosiñol L, Sureda A, et al.: High-dose therapy intensification compared with continued standard chemotherapy in multiple myeloma patients responding to the initial chemotherapy: long-term results from a prospective randomized trial from the Spanish cooperative group PETHEMA. Blood 106 (12): 3755-9, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
83. Barlogie B, Kyle RA, Anderson KC, et al.: Standard chemotherapy compared with high-dose chemoradiotherapy for multiple myeloma: final results of phase III US Intergroup Trial S9321. J Clin Oncol 24 (6): 929-36, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
84. Lévy V, Katsahian S, Fermand JP, et al.: A meta-analysis on data from 575 patients with multiple myeloma randomly assigned to either high-dose therapy or conventional therapy. Medicine (Baltimore) 84 (4): 250-60, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
85. Koreth J, Cutler CS, Djulbegovic B, et al.: High-dose therapy with single autologous transplantation versus chemotherapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 13 (2): 183-96, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
86. Pineda-Roman M, Barlogie B, Anaissie E, et al.: High-dose melphalan-based autotransplants for multiple myeloma: the Arkansas experience since 1989 in 3077 patients. Cancer 112 (8): 1754-64, 2008.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
87. Barlogie B, Tricot GJ, van Rhee F, et al.: Long-term outcome results of the first tandem autotransplant trial for multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 135 (2): 158-64, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
88. Barlogie B, Tricot G, Rasmussen E, et al.: Total therapy 2 without thalidomide in comparison with total therapy 1: role of intensified induction and posttransplantation consolidation therapies. Blood 107 (7): 2633-8, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
89. Barlogie B, Zangari M, Bolejack V, et al.: Superior 12-year survival after at least 4-year continuous remission with tandem transplantations for multiple myeloma. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma 6 (6): 469-74, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
90. Bruno B, Rotta M, Patriarca F, et al.: Nonmyeloablative allografting for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: the experience of the Gruppo Italiano Trapianti di Midollo. Blood 113 (14): 3375-82, 2009.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
91. Rotta M, Storer BE, Sahebi F, et al.: Long-term outcome of patients with multiple myeloma after autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation and nonmyeloablative allografting. Blood 113 (14): 3383-91, 2009.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
92. Kumar A, Kharfan-Dabaja MA, Glasmacher A, et al.: Tandem versus single autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation for the treatment of multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 101 (2): 100-6, 2009.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
93. Bruno B, Rotta M, Patriarca F, et al.: A comparison of allografting with autografting for newly diagnosed myeloma. N Engl J Med 356 (11): 1110-20, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
94. Garban F, Attal M, Michallet M, et al.: Prospective comparison of autologous stem cell transplantation followed by dose-reduced allograft (IFM99-03 trial) with tandem autologous stem cell transplantation (IFM99-04 trial) in high-risk de novo multiple myeloma. Blood 107 (9): 3474-80, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
95. Moreau P, Garban F, Attal M, et al.: Long-term follow-up results of IFM99-03 and IFM99-04 trials comparing nonmyeloablative allotransplantation with autologous transplantation in high-risk de novo multiple myeloma. Blood 112 (9): 3914-5, 2008.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
96. Rosiñol L, Pérez-Simón JA, Sureda A, et al.: A prospective PETHEMA study of tandem autologous transplantation versus autograft followed by reduced-intensity conditioning allogeneic transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood 112 (9): 3591-3, 2008.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
97. Abdelkefi A, Ladeb S, Torjman L, et al.: Single autologous stem-cell transplantation followed by maintenance therapy with thalidomide is superior to double autologous transplantation in multiple myeloma: results of a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Blood 111 (4): 1805-10, 2008.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
98. Cunningham D, Powles R, Malpas J, et al.: A randomized trial of maintenance interferon following high-dose chemotherapy in multiple myeloma: long-term follow-up results. Br J Haematol 102 (2): 495-502, 1998.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
99. Barlogie B, Kyle R, Anderson K, et al.: Comparable survival in multiple myeloma (MM) with high dose therapy (HDT) employing MEL 140 mg/m2 + TBI 12 Gy autotransplants versus standard dose therapy with VBMCP and no benefit from interferon (IFN) maintenance: results of Intergroup Trial S9321. [Abstract] Blood 102 (11): A-135, 2003. 
    
    
100. Gahrton G, Tura S, Ljungman P, et al.: Prognostic factors in allogeneic bone marrow transplantation for multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 13 (6): 1312-22, 1995.  [PUBMED Abstract]
     
     
101. Tricot G, Vesole DH, Jagannath S, et al.: Graft-versus-myeloma effect: proof of principle. Blood 87 (3): 1196-8, 1996.  [PUBMED Abstract]
     
     
102. Verdonck LF, Lokhorst HM, Dekker AW, et al.: Graft-versus-myeloma effect in two cases. Lancet 347 (9004): 800-1, 1996.  [PUBMED Abstract]
     
     
103. Lokhorst HM, Schattenberg A, Cornelissen JJ, et al.: Donor lymphocyte infusions for relapsed multiple myeloma after allogeneic stem-cell transplantation: predictive factors for response and long-term outcome. J Clin Oncol 18 (16): 3031-7, 2000.  [PUBMED Abstract]
     
     
104. Reynolds C, Ratanatharathorn V, Adams P, et al.: Allogeneic stem cell transplantation reduces disease progression compared to autologous transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant 27 (8): 801-7, 2001.  [PUBMED Abstract]
     
     
105. Arora M, McGlave PB, Burns LJ, et al.: Results of autologous and allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant therapy for multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant 35 (12): 1133-40, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]
     
     
106. Einsele H, Schäfer HJ, Hebart H, et al.: Follow-up of patients with progressive multiple myeloma undergoing allografts after reduced-intensity conditioning. Br J Haematol 121 (3): 411-8, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]
     
     
107. Maloney DG, Molina AJ, Sahebi F, et al.: Allografting with nonmyeloablative conditioning following cytoreductive autografts for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma. Blood 102 (9): 3447-54, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]
     
     
108. Badros A, Barlogie B, Morris C, et al.: High response rate in refractory and poor-risk multiple myeloma after allotransplantation using a nonmyeloablative conditioning regimen and donor lymphocyte infusions. Blood 97 (9): 2574-9, 2001.  [PUBMED Abstract]
     
     
109. Crawley C, Lalancette M, Szydlo R, et al.: Outcomes for reduced-intensity allogeneic transplantation for multiple myeloma: an analysis of prognostic factors from the Chronic Leukaemia Working Party of the EBMT. Blood 105 (11): 4532-9, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]
     
     
110. Badros A, Barlogie B, Siegel E, et al.: Improved outcome of allogeneic transplantation in high-risk multiple myeloma patients after nonmyeloablative conditioning. J Clin Oncol 20 (5): 1295-303, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]
     
     
111. Belch A, Shelley W, Bergsagel D, et al.: A randomized trial of maintenance versus no maintenance melphalan and prednisone in responding multiple myeloma patients. Br J Cancer 57 (1): 94-9, 1988.  [PUBMED Abstract]
     
     
112. Mandelli F, Avvisati G, Amadori S, et al.: Maintenance treatment with recombinant interferon alfa-2b in patients with multiple myeloma responding to conventional induction chemotherapy. N Engl J Med 322 (20): 1430-4, 1990.  [PUBMED Abstract]
     
     
113. Westin J, Rödjer S, Turesson I, et al.: Interferon alfa-2b versus no maintenance therapy during the plateau phase in multiple myeloma: a randomized study. Cooperative Study Group. Br J Haematol 89 (3): 561-8, 1995.  [PUBMED Abstract]
     
     
114. Osterborg A, Björkholm M, Björeman M, et al.: Natural interferon-alpha in combination with melphalan/prednisone versus melphalan/prednisone in the treatment of multiple myeloma stages II and III: a randomized study from the Myeloma Group of Central Sweden. Blood 81 (6): 1428-34, 1993.  [PUBMED Abstract]
     
     
115. Browman GP, Bergsagel D, Sicheri D, et al.: Randomized trial of interferon maintenance in multiple myeloma: a study of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. J Clin Oncol 13 (9): 2354-60, 1995.  [PUBMED Abstract]
     
     
116. The Myeloma Trialists' Collaborative Group.: Interferon as therapy for multiple myeloma: an individual patient data overview of 24 randomized trials and 4012 patients. Br J Haematol 113 (4): 1020-34, 2001.  [PUBMED Abstract]
     
     
117. Zee B, Cole B, Li T, et al.: Quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity analysis of interferon maintenance in multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 16 (8): 2834-9, 1998.  [PUBMED Abstract]
     
     
118. Berenson JR, Crowley JJ, Grogan TM, et al.: Maintenance therapy with alternate-day prednisone improves survival in multiple myeloma patients. Blood 99 (9): 3163-8, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]
     
     
119. Attal M, Harousseau JL, Leyvraz S, et al.: Maintenance therapy with thalidomide improves survival in patients with multiple myeloma. Blood 108 (10): 3289-94, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]
     
     
120. Spencer A, Prince HM, Roberts AW, et al.: Consolidation therapy with low-dose thalidomide and prednisolone prolongs the survival of multiple myeloma patients undergoing a single autologous stem-cell transplantation procedure. J Clin Oncol 27 (11): 1788-93, 2009.  [PUBMED Abstract]
     
     
121. Berenson JR, Lichtenstein A, Porter L, et al.: Long-term pamidronate treatment of advanced multiple myeloma patients reduces skeletal events. Myeloma Aredia Study Group. J Clin Oncol 16 (2): 593-602, 1998.  [PUBMED Abstract]
     
     
122. Rosen LS, Gordon D, Kaminski M, et al.: Long-term efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid compared with pamidronate disodium in the treatment of skeletal complications in patients with advanced multiple myeloma or breast carcinoma: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, comparative trial. Cancer 98 (8): 1735-44, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]
     
     
123. Badros A, Weikel D, Salama A, et al.: Osteonecrosis of the jaw in multiple myeloma patients: clinical features and risk factors. J Clin Oncol 24 (6): 945-52, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]
     
     
124. Kademani D, Koka S, Lacy MQ, et al.: Primary surgical therapy for osteonecrosis of the jaw secondary to bisphosphonate therapy. Mayo Clin Proc 81 (8): 1100-3, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]
     
     
125. Lacy MQ, Dispenzieri A, Gertz MA, et al.: Mayo clinic consensus statement for the use of bisphosphonates in multiple myeloma. Mayo Clin Proc 81 (8): 1047-53, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]
     
     
126. Rades D, Hoskin PJ, Stalpers LJ, et al.: Short-course radiotherapy is not optimal for spinal cord compression due to myeloma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 64 (5): 1452-7, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]
     
     
127. Catell D, Kogen Z, Donahue B, et al.: Multiple myeloma of an extremity: must the entire bone be treated? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 40 (1): 117-9, 1998.  [PUBMED Abstract]
     
     

Back to Top

< Previous Section  |  Next Section >