Minireviews
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Transplant. Jun 24, 2016; 6(2): 321-330
Published online Jun 24, 2016. doi: 10.5500/wjt.v6.i2.321
Table 2 Improved outcomes with the introduction of novel agents in the upfront treatment of multiple myeloma
Ref.Publication’s yearTherapyPatients nVGPR (%) preASCTVGPR (%) postASCTPR %CR/nCR %PFS/EFS OS
Thalidomide
Rajkumar et al[32]2006TD vs D20063 vs 41 (≥ PR)NRNR
Cavo et al[10]2009TD vs VAD27030 vs 1568 vs 49PFS 51% vs 31% at 4 yr
OS 69% vs 53% at 5 yr
Barlogie et al[17]2006TT2 + Thal vs TT2668NR62 vs 43EFS 56% vs 44% at 3 yr
OS 65% vs 65% at 5 yr
Lokhorst et al[33]2010TAD vs VAD40232 vs 1549 vs 32EFS 34 mo vs 22 mo
OS 73 mo vs 60 mo
Lenalidomide
Richardson et al[38]2010VRD3510057NR
Palumbo et al[56]2014402
MPR202NRNRPFS 22.4 mo vs 43 mo
vs
HDM200NRNROS 65.3% vs 81.6%
Maintenance R1987823PFS 41.9 mo vs 21.6 mo
vs
No maintenance2047719OS 79% vs 88%
McCarthy et al[66]2012Lenalidomide vs placebo460PFS at 3 yr
66% vs 39%
OS at 3 yr
88% vs 80%
Attal et al[67]2012Lenalidomide vs placebo614PFS at 4 yr
43% vs 22%
OS at 4 y
73% vs 75%
Bortezomib
Harousseau et al[16]2010®VD vs VAD48238 vs 1554 vs 3736 m vs 27 m
Sonneveld et al[34]2012®Induction PAD + maint VEL vs induction VAD + maint Thal626NR75 vs 6146% vs 42% at 3 yr
Cavo et al[13]2010®VTD vs TD induction and consolid48062 vs 2882 vs 6468% vs 56% at 3 yr
Rosiñol et al[37]2012®VTD vs TD20229 vs 14 (CR)59 vs 40 (CR)82% at 2 yr (OS)
Moreau et al[35]2011®VD vs vtD19949 vs 3974 vs 5830 mo vs 26 mo
Leleu et al[36]2013VTd-ASCT + consolid VTd vs VTd-ASCT217After treatment: 83 vs 64TTP: 62% vs 29% at 4 yr