scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of tandem versus single autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for the treatment of multiple myeloma: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xuewei Yin ◽  
◽  
Liming Yu ◽  
Lingling Yin ◽  
Yan Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Stem Cell ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation ◽  
Stem Cell Transplantation ◽  
Cell Transplantation ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem Cell ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem

scholarly journals Long-term outcomes of busulfan plus melphalan-based versus melphalan 200 mg/m2 conditioning regimens for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fei Gao ◽  
Mei-Si Lin ◽  
Jie-Shu You ◽  
Min-Yue Zhang ◽  
Long Cheng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Stem Cell ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation ◽  
Stem Cell Transplantation ◽  
Treatment Response ◽  
Cell Transplantation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem ◽  
Conditioning Regimens

Abstract Background High-dose melphalan (HDMEL, 200 mg/m2) is considered as the standard conditioning regimen for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) in multiple myeloma (MM). However, whether the combination of melphalan with busulfan (BUMEL) conditioning outperforms HDMEL remains controversy. Accordingly, a systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out to compare the outcomes of HDMEL and BUMEL-based conditioning regimens in newly diagnosed MM patients having undergone auto-HSCT. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library database until July 31, 2021, to identify all eligible studies comparing progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), optimal treatment response after auto-HSCT, duration of stem cell engraftment and incidence of toxic events between patients undergoing BUMEL-based and HDMEL conditioning regimens. Hazard ratio (HR), mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) corresponding to 95% confidence interval (CI) were determined to estimate outcomes applying RevMan 5.4 software. Publication biases were assessed by performing Egger’s test and Begg’s test by Stata 15 software. Results Ten studies with a total of 2855 MM patients were covered in the current meta-analysis. The results of this study demonstrated that patients having received BUMEL-based regimen was correlated with longer PFS (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.67~0.89, P = 0.0002) but similar OS (HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.92~1.26, P = 0.35) compared with those having received HDMEL. The differences of best treatment response after auto-HSCT and duration of neutrophil or platelet engraftment did not have statistical significance between the two groups of patients. With respect to adverse effects, the patients in BUMEL-based group were less frequently subject to gastrointestinal toxicity while the patients in HDMEL group less often experienced mucositis and infection. No significant difference was observed in hepatic toxicity between the two groups of patients. Conclusions In the present study, BUMEL-based conditioning was identified as a favorable regimen for a better PFS and equivalent OS as compared with HDMEL, which should be balanced against higher incidences of mucositis and infection. BUMEL-based conditioning is likely to act as an alternative strategy to more effectively improve auto-HSCT outcomes in MM.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document