Use of Maintenance Therapy Post Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation Outside of Clinical Trial Setting for Multiple Myeloma: Single Institution Experience

Background: Based on results from the phase 3 trials, maintenance therapy after autologous stem cell transplantation has become the standard of care. While lenalidomide is typically used as the maintenance agent, patients with high risk MM are often maintained on proteasome inhibitor-based maintenance treatment. We examined the trends in maintenance use and outcomes in a large group of patients transplanted at a single institution over two decades spanning the years when maintenance gradually became standard of care.

Methods: We included patients who underwent their first autologous stem cell transplantation between 2000 and 2016 in the current study. Patients who received an allogeneic SCT or a planned tandem SCT were excluded. Clinical data was extracted from the medical records or from a prospectively maintained database. Early transplant was defined as SCT within 12 months of diagnosis. High risk (HR) myeloma was defined as per IMWG criteria, based on presence of high-risk FISH abnormalities. Progression free survival and overall survival were estimated from either diagnosis as well as from the date of SCT.

Results: We included 1961 patients with MM who were transplanted between January 2000 and August 2016 in the current analysis. Majority (n=1496; 76%) had an early SCT while the remaining patients were transplanted beyond 12 mos from diagnosis. Maintenance was employed in 31% of the patients, 33% of the early SCT and 23% of the delayed SCT. Proportion of patients receiving maintenance increased over the years: <1% in 2000 to 85% in 2016. The most common maintenance approach was an IMiD (56%), followed by a PI (33%) and a PI+IMiD (8%). FISH risk was available in 875 patients, all assessed within 6 months of diagnosis, and 22% were HR. Overall, maintenance was more commonly used in HR patients (64% vs. 36%), and a PI containing maintenance was more commonly used in HR (42% vs. 12%). The PFS was superior for those receiving a maintenance therapy (70 vs. 23 mos, P<0.001); NR vs. 27 mos for early SCT and 25 vs. 16 mos for delayed SCT. The impact of maintenance therapy was more evident in the HR group HR vs SR risk ratio was 2.3 without maintenance, and 1.5 with maintenance. Among the HR patients, PI based maintenance had a trend towards better outcome, while the PFS was better with non-PI maintenance among the SR patients. OS from diagnosis was also better among the early SCT group who received maintenance (99 vs. 88 mos; p=0.01); however, the OS advantage appeared most evident among the HR patients.

Conclusions: The experience with maintenance therapy post autologous SCT for myeloma in a non-clinical trial setting appear to confirm the findings from the phase 3 trials. Maintenance provided benefit in patients who had a delayed SCT in our experience. The benefit appear to be particularly relevant for high risk patients, who appear to benefit from PI based regimens. In contrast, SR patients appear to benefit primarily from IMiD based regimen.