Treatment of multiple myeloma according to the extension of the disease: a prospective, randomised study comparing a less with a more aggressive cystostatic policy. Cooperative Group of Study and Treatment of Multiple Myeloma. 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. Initial versus deferred melphalan-prednisone therapy for asymptomatic multiple myeloma stage I--a randomized study. Myeloma Group of Western Sweden.
The purpose of the study was to ascertain whether the prognostic significance of staging in multiple myeloma (MM) is influenced by the aggressiveness of effective induction treatment and/or by continuing or discontinuing maintenance chemotherapy. Patients with untreated stage I MM (defined according to Durie and Salmon) were randomised between being followed without cytostatics until the disease progressed and receiving six courses of melphalan and prednisone (MP-P) just after diagnosis; stage II patients were uniformly treated with MPH-P and stage III patients were randomised between MPH-P and four courses of combination chemotherapy with Peptichemio, vincristine and prednisone (PTC-VCR-P). Within each stage, responsive patients were randomised between receiving additional therapy only until maximal tumour reduction was reached (plateau phase) and continuing induction therapy indefinitely until relapse. With resistant, progressive or relapsing disease, patients originally treated with MPH-P for induction received combination chemotherapy and vice versa. The overall first response rate was 43.8% (42.2% in 206 stage I, II and III patients treated with MPH-P and 48.0% in 75 stage III patients treated with combination chemotherapy, P = NS). Combination chemotherapy was more myelotoxic than MPH-P and, in particular, caused more non-haematological side-effects. Both the less and the more aggressive induction policies gave the same disease control. Progression of disease was statistically similar in stage I patients who were initially left untreated and in t hose who received MPH-P just after diagnosis; median duration of first response was similar in stage III patients receiving MPH-P and in those on combination chemotherapy. In all stages, discontinuing or continuing maintenance did not alter the median duration of first response. The overall second response rate was 28.5% (34.0% to MPH-P and 25.3% to combination chemotherapy, P = NS). Median survival was greater than 78 months in stage I, was 46.3 months in stage II and was 24.3 months in stage III patients, still independent of both induction and post-induction policies. In MM, the significance of staging for survival is independent of both the aggressiveness of induction and of continuing or discontinuing maintenance chemotherapy after the maximal tumor reduction has been achieved. Both MPH-P and and the association of PTC, VCR and P are effective in inducing first response and also second response in patients failing on the alternative regimen, but PTC-VCR-P causes more side effects. Thus, the overwhelming majority of patients with MM can safely be given MPH-P as first therapy, and this treatment may be delayed in early diseases. We conducted a randomized trial to evaluate whether melphalan-prednisone (MPH-P) treatment administered just after diagnosis improves survival of stage I multiple myeloma (MM). Between January 1987 and March 1993, 145 consecutive previously untreated patients with stage I MM were randomized between treatment with MPH-P (administered for 4 days every 6 weeks) just after diagnosis and treatment only at disease progression. Survival was not influenced by MPH-P treatment either administered just after diagnosis or at disease progression (64 vs 71 months respectively). Comparing the first with the second group the odds ratio of death is 1.17 (95% confidence interval 0.57-2.42; P = 0.64). Disease progression occurred within a year in about 50% of patients who were initially untreated. Response rate was similar in both groups, but duration of response was shorter in patients who were treated at disease progression (48 vs 79 months, P = 0.044). Patients actually treated at disease progression (34/70) survived shorter than those who had neither disease progression nor treatment (56 vs > 92 months; P = 0.005). Starting MPH-P just after diagnosis does not improve survival and response rate in stage I MM, with respect to deferring therapy until disease progression. However, patients with stage I MM randomized to have treatment delayed and who actually progressed and were treated had shorter survival than those with stable disease and no treatment. Biologic or other disease features could identify these subgroups of patients. From October 1983 until December 1988, 50 patients with asymptomatic multiple myeloma stage I were included in a prospective randomized multi-centre study comparing melphalan-prednisone (MP) therapy started at the time of diagnosis with deferred therapy where MP was started at the time of disease progression. Twenty-five patients were randomized to each group. The median time from diagnosis to start of therapy in the group with deferred therapy was 12 months. The reasons for starting therapy were increasing M-protein in 8 cases, symptomatic bone disease in 9 and anaemia in 5. In 2 cases, disease progression was complicated by vertebral fractures necessitating radiotherapy. Two patients in the group in which MP was started at the time of diagnosis developed acute leukaemia. No differences in response rate, response duration or survival were observed between the treatment groups. We conclude that in asymptomatic myeloma deferral of chemotherapy is feasible in well-informed and well-controlled patients but conveys no advantage in survival. In clinical practice the benefits of treatment deferral are to some extent outweighed by disease progression before start of treatment.
Early treatment of early stage multiple myeloma inhibits disease progression, and may reduce vertebral compression. However, early treatment may increase the risk of acute leukemia. However, the data on vertebral compression and leukemic transformation may not be interpretable due to very small numbers. Based on the current evidence, mortality and response rate are not significantly affected by introducing early treatment in the progression of myeloma. However, it is quite possible that the lack of beneficial effects of early intervention in myeloma is a false negative result due to the paucity of the existing evidence. In addition, data on quality of life and toxicity were sparsely reported adding to additional difficulties about management decisions in early stage myeloma.