INTRODUCTION
Survival for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) has markedly improved owing to recent progress in treatment strategies [ 1 ]. Nonetheless, MM remains incurable for most patients, and a significant proportion of patients with MM experience relapses that require further treatment. The introduction of next-generation immunomodulating agents (IMiDs), proteasome inhibitors (PIs), and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) has widened treatment options; however, management of patients with relapsed and refractory MM (RRMM) requires a systematic approach. This review summarizes the published results of major clinical trials, as well as patient and disease-related factors, to help guide appropriate drug combinations and sequencing of therapy using currently available drugs.
DEFINITIONS OF RELAPSE AND RELAPSED/REFRACTORY DISEASE
Patients with RRMM present with three different disease patterns: 1) relapsed but not refractory, 2) relapsed and refractory, and; 3) primary refractory RRMM.
In 2008, the American Society of Hematology and the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Workshop established a uniform consensus on the definition of RRMM [ 2 ], and in 2016, the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) published a revised definition of relapsed MM [ 3 ].
Relapsed disease
Relapsed disease is defined as progressive disease after acquisition of a response to prior therapy that requires salvage therapy, but which does not meet the criteria for “primary refractory” or “relapsed and refractory” disease categories, based on laboratory and radiologic evidence, as follows:
Biochemical relapse
≥25% increase from the lowest confirmed response of the monoclonal protein (M-protein) in the serum (absolute increase, ≥0.5 g/dL) or in the urine (absolute increase, ≥200 mg/d)
≥25% increase from the lowest confirmed response between involved and uninvolved serum-free light chains (absolute increase, >10 mg/dL)
≥10% increase of the absolute percentage of bone marrow (BM) plasma cells
New soft tissue plasmacytomas or bone lesions
≥50% (and ≥1 cm) increase in existing plasmacytomas or bone lesions, as measured serially according to the sum of the products of the maximal perpendicular diameters (SPD) of the measured lesions
Clinical relapse
Direct indicators of increasing disease and/or end organ dysfunction such as hypercalcemia, renal failure, anemia, and bone lesion (CRAB) features related to the underlying clonal plasma-cell proliferative disorder
Serum calcium concentration>11 mg/dL
Serum creatinine level≥2 mg/dL (from the start of the therapy and attributable to myeloma)
Decreased hemoglobin level by ≥2 g/dL (not related to therapy or other non-myeloma-related conditions)
Hyperviscosity related to serum paraprotein level
Relapsed and refractory
The term “relapse and refractory” designates disease in patients who achieve a minor response (MR) or better, and who then either become non-responsive while undergoing salvage therapy or who progress within 60 days of the last therapy.
Primary refractory
The term primary refractory designates refractory disease in patients who have never achieved an MR with any therapy. These include patients who never achieve an MR or better, for whom there is no significant change in the M-protein concentration and no evidence of clinical progression.
DIAGNOSTIC APPROACH IN RELAPSE AND REFRACTORY MULTIPLE MYELOMA
Several diagnostic procedures should be undertaken for patients with RRMM, including serum and urine protein electrophoresis and immunofixation, urine total protein, serum-free light chain, serum beta-2-microglobulin, and serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) tests. A peripheral blood smear test to detect circulating plasma cells is beneficial to discriminate high-risk patients. A bone marrow examination is mandatory, particularly for patients with non-secretory MM accompanied with fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) on monoclonal myeloma cells, and for patients who have not previously been identified with high-risk cytogenetics. Skeletal or extramedullary plasmacytoma evaluations using conventional x-ray, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, or positron emission tomography may be required for patients with suspected MM [ 4 , 5 ].
SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR TREATMENT OF PATIENTS WITH RRMM
Age and frailty
The introduction of new agents has been reported to have prolonged survival in elderly patients [ 6 ]. Although age itself is not an obstacle for treatment, very elderly and frail patients are prone to experiencing treatment-related adverse events, leading to shorter survival [ 7 ]. Various frailty assessment tools, including the IMWG geriatric assessment tool, have been developed to predict outcomes concerning frail patients [ 8 ]. In one Korean study, scores used to predict poor overall survival (OS) for frail patients involved those related to age (≥80 yr), the Eastern Cooperative Group performance status (ECOG PS) 3–4, the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (<60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ), and the presence of comorbidities (≥2 comorbidities involving the heart, lung, or liver, cerebrovascular disease, and/or diabetes mellitus) [ 9 ]. The treatment goal for elderly and frail patients may focus more on symptom relief and the prevention of new myeloma–associated symptoms. Drug dose reductions and the selection of less intense regimens (such as doublet instead of triplet combinations) could be options more applicable to this patient group.
Comorbidities
Cardiac diseases (myocardial infarction, heart failure, and arrhythmias), renal impairment, peripheral neuropathy, diabetes mellitus, and thrombosis may be present at the time of MM diagnosis or as a consequence of previous antimyeloma therapies. Drugs likely to aggravate underlying diseases or residual toxicities that require monitoring for organ-specific complications are as follows: anthracyclines and carfilzomib (cardiotoxicities); lenalidomide and ixazomib, which require dose reductions for patients with impaired renal function; thalidomide, bortezomib, and vincristine (peripheral neuropathy); corticosteroids (glucose intolerance), and; IMiDs (thrombosis).
Aggressiveness at relapse
Several parameters have been proposed as poor prognostic factors in RRMM. Extramedullary disease has been observed in approximately 14% of patients at relapse of MM and is usually associated with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities affecting poor OS [ 10 , 11 ]. An elevated LDH level [ 12 ], a peripheral blood plasma cell count that does not fulfill the criteria for plasma cell leukemia (a peripheral blood plasma cell count of >20% of the total white blood cell count, and an absolute count of ≥2,000/μL) [ 13 ], and a high plasma cell proliferative index at post-autologous stem-cell transplantation (post-auto-SCT) D+100 [ 14 ] are indicators for short survival. Several studies have recommended that the rapid onset of disease-related organ damage (hypercalcemia, renal failure, and bony complications), as well as the above listed factors predictive of rapid disease progression, be defined as “aggressive disease” that requires treatment intervention using the most effective regimens [ 4 , 5 , 15 ].
Cytogenetics
The effect of high-risk cytogenetics defined using del(17p), t(4;14), and t(14;16) on the aggressive disease evolution is not straightforward. Different studies involving salvage lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) have reported controversial outcomes regarding del(17p) and t(4;14) [ 16 , 17 ]. Some of the currently available combination therapies, such as pomalidomide-dexamethasone (Pd, MM-003) [ 17 ], carfilzomib-dexamethasone (Kd, ENDEAVOR) [ 18 ], ixazomib-Rd (IRd, TOURMALINE MM-1) [ 19 ], and daratumumab-bortezomib-dexamethasone (Dara-Vd) (CASTOR) [ 20 ], have significantly improved the poor outcomes of high-risk disease. Further, studies on Rd with or without carfilzomib (ASPIRE) [ 21 ], elotuzumab (ELOQUENT-2) [ 22 ], and daratumumab (POLLUX) [ 23 ] have reported that these drugs improve progression-free survival (PFS) but not significantly. A summary of each trial concerning these high-risk cytogenetics affecting PFS is listed in Table. However, these results should not be compared directly due to the inconsistency of FISH methods and cut-offs in the different studies. Results of the major clinical trials in the experimental arm and in the high-risk cytogenetics group are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 .
OPTIONS FOR ANTIMYELOMA TREATMENT IN RRMM
Treatment indications and timing of therapy
The objective of treatment in the relapse setting is to alleviate symptoms, prevent progressive organ damage, and re-attain long-lasting disease remission. Indications to initiate therapy are clinical relapse, defined according to the CRAB criteria, or a significant increase of biochemical relapse in 2 consecutive measurements within 2 months apart that meets the IMWG criteria for the definition of progressive disease [ 5 ]. Relapses with acute onset and rapid progression of symptoms require a prompt initiation of treatment.
Asymptomatic biochemical relapses could be monitored every 1–2 months with careful observation of symptoms. However, for high-risk disease features indicative of a poor response and a short OS, such as “aggressive disease” at relapse, a treatment-free interval of <12 months with a suboptimal response to prior therapy and unfavorable risk cytogenetics [t(4;14), t(14;16), and del(17p)], treatment should be started immediately. A recent subgroup analysis of patients in the ENDEAVOR study, which compared the results of asymptomatic biochemical and symptomatic relapse in Kd and Vd groups, demonstrated a better median PFS and OS in patients who commenced treatment at the time of asymptomatic biochemical relapse rather than at clinical relapse in both groups [ 24 ]. This result indicates that therapeutic intervention at biochemical relapse before (re)appearance of clinical symptoms might be of benefit to patients in terms of PFS and OS.
Treatment options for RRMM
Retreatment: When patients with RRMM demonstrate indications for treatment, changing the class of available drug is preferable. However, retreatment involving previously prescribed drugs is an acceptable option if the previous therapy achieved at least a partial response (PR) and if that response was maintained for at least 6 months with an acceptable toxicity profile. Prospective registry data indicate that bortezomib retreatment is a feasible option, with a response rate of 46%, including 15% complete response (CR)/nearCR (nCR), with a median PFS and OS from the start of retreatment of 6.4 months and 17.6 months, respectively. Peripheral neuropathy during bortezomib retreatment occurred in 49% of patients, including 10% of those with grade 3/4 toxicity [ 25 ]. Repeated use of IMiDs is also a feasible option with an overall response rate (ORR) of 44%. The response rate of lenalidomide retreatment in previous lenalidomide responders has been reported to be 58% in one study [ 26 ]. Prior to retreatment, remaining toxicities due to previous therapy such as peripheral neuropathies should be considered. Reuse of previously prescribed drugs may require a less intense dosage and a change to administration schedules.
Proteasome inhibitors
Bortezomib: Bortezomib monotherapy is more effective in patients with RRMM than high-dose dexamethasone, with a better ORR (38% vs. 18%) reported in the phase III APEX trial [ 27 ], a better time-to-progression (TTP, 6.2 vs. 3.5 mo), and a 1-year OS (80% vs. 66%). Bortezomib is also active in patients with poor renal function with an acceptable toxicity profile. Peripheral neuropathy is a well-known adverse event of bortezomib treatment and its incidence can be reduced through subcutaneous administration [ 28 ]. For elderly patients, lower dose-intensity regimens (e.g., a weekly administration) have been reported to improve adherence to therapy in this vulnerable patient group [ 29 ]. Several combination regimens with Vd have shown improved efficacies with manageable toxicity profiles. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin with bortezomib significantly improved PFS (9.3 vs. 6.5 mo) and duration of response (10.2 vs. 7.0 mo) compared with bortezomib monotherapy in a phase III international trial [ 30 ]. In previous autologous stem cell transplantation (autoSCT) recipients, a triple combination of thalidomide and Vd compared with thalidomide and dexamethasone demonstrated a significantly better PFS (19.5 vs. 13.8 mo) and nCR/CR rate (45% vs. 21%), but also showed higher grade 3 and 4 neurotoxicity (MMVAR/IFM 2005-04) [ 31 ]. Vd has also been used as a backbone for combinations with new classes of drugs, such as daratumumab (Dara-Vd) and panobinostat (Pano-Vd).
Carfilzomib: The intravenous second-generation PI, carfilzomib, irreversibly binds to the chymotrypsin-like site of proteasome and its major toxicities involve cardiovascular complications such as heart failure, hypertension, and ischemic heart disease. In patients with RRMM who received a median of 5 prior regimens, carfilzomib as a single agent was not superior to low-dose corticosteroids with or without cyclophosphamide in terms of OS and PFS, indicating that carfilzomib should be administered in combination with other drugs, and in the earlier lines of chemotherapy (FOCUS trial) [ 32 ]. In 2015, carfilzomib plus Rd (KRd) showed markedly improved PFS (26.3 vs. 17.6 mo) and ORR (87% vs. 67%) (ASPIRE trial) [ 33 ]. The final survival analysis at a median follow-up of 67 months showed significantly better OS in the KRd group (48.3 vs. 40.4 mo) [ 34 ]. The KRd regimen showed favorable outcomes across age subgroups [ 35 ]. Kd also significantly improved PFS (18.7 vs. 9.4 mo), OS (47.6 vs. 40 mo), and ORR (77% vs. 62%) compared with Vd in the ENDEAVOR trial [ 36 ]. The published results of a recent interim analysis of the phase III A.R.R.O.W. trial compared once-weekly (20 mg/m 2 day 1 during cycle 1; and 70 mg/m 2 thereafter), twice-weekly [20 mg/m 2 days 1 and 2 (cycle 1); and 27 mg/m 2 thereafter] doses of carfilzomib [ 37 ]. Patients in the once-weekly group showed better outcomes for PFS (11.2 vs. 7.6 mo) and ORR (62.9% vs. 40.8%) with similar safety profiles in both dosage arms. Subgroup analysis of Asian patients participating in the ENDEAVOR and A.R.R.O.W trials showed a comparable efficacy but increased (grade 3 or higher) cardiovascular toxicities in the carfilzomib treated group [ 38 ].
Ixazomib: Ixazomib is an oral next-generation boron-based PI. In the TOURMALINE-MM1 phase III trial, the ixazomib plus Rd (IRd) group showed a significantly superior PFS (20.6 vs. 14.7 mo) and ORR (78% vs. 72%) than the Rd control group [ 19 ]. Notably, the efficacy of IRd was significant in high-risk cytogenetic risk groups (HR, 0.54; P =0.02). The toxicity profile was comparable in both study groups, although an ixazomib combination regimen showed a slightly higher rate of skin rash and peripheral neuropathy. A phase II/III study involving ixazomib-dexamethasone in combination with pomalidomide in patients with RRMM is currently ongoing ( NCT 03170882 ). Novel PIs (oprozomib and marizomib) as single or combination chemotherapies have also shown promising efficacies in phase I studies [ 39 - 41 ].
IMiDs
Thalidomide: Thalidomide, the first approved IMiD, showed a response rate of 25–55% in patients with RRMM as a monotherapy. Using a ≥2-drug combination with dexamethasone, bortezomib, lenalidomide, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, or alkylating agents, the ORR improved from 63% to 90%, with a CR rate of between 2% and 36%. Retreatment with thalidomide among previous thalidomide responders has been reported to be 40% [ 26 ]. A multicenter, real-world data study involving 367 patients with RRMM treated with either a thalidomide, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (CTD) regimen or a thalidomide, melphalan, and prednisolone (MTP) regimen reported an ORR of 72% versus 65%, respectively, which was not significantly different. A combination regimen such as thalidomide, alkylating agent, and corticosteroid (TAS) showed a median PFS and OS of 10.4 months and 28.0 months, respectively. However, 10% of patients experienced severe infectious complications that warranted intensive supportive care during the TAS treatment [ 42 ]. While the use of thalidomide in the RRMM setting is now less frequent due to the advent of more potent drugs and due to its considerable side effects, such as peripheral neuropathy, fatigue, and venous thromboembolism, thalidomide plus corticosteroid therapy with or without an alkylating agent could be an option in specific circumstances.
Lenalidomide: Lenalidomide is a second-generation IMiD with less peripheral neuropathy but greater BM toxicity than thalidomide. It has been proven to be active as a single agent in RRMM, with an ORR of 25–27% and a median OS of 23–27 months. From the pooled analysis of two phase III MM-009 and MM-010 trials after 48 months of follow-up, heavily pretreated patients with RRMM who received lenalidomide 25 mg in combination with dexamethasone (Rd) showed a significantly better ORR (60.6% vs. 21.9%), CR (15.0% vs. 2.0%), TTP (13.4 vs. 4.6 mo), and OS (38.0 vs. 31.6 mo) compared with a dexamethasone-only group [ 43 , 44 ]. Korean real-world experience of Rd showed an ORR of 43.6%, with 15.4% of patients showing a very good partial response or better, a median TTP, and an OS of 8 and 23 months [ 45 ]. A phase II trial involving a bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) regimen reported an ORR of 64% and a median PFS of 9.5 months in patients with RRMM [ 46 ]. Currently, triplet regimens using Rd in combination with carfilzomib (KRd), ixazomib (IRd), daratumumab (Dara-Rd), and elotuzumab (Elo-Rd) have shown better efficacy in phase III trials.
Pomalidomide: In a phase III MM-003 trial involving patients with RRMM who failed to respond to both bortezomib and lenalidomide, pomalidomide with low dose dexamethasone (Pd) proved to have superior efficacy compared with dexamethasone alone in terms of ORR (31% vs. 10%), PFS (4.0 vs. 1.9 mo), and OS (12.7 vs. 8.1 mo) [ 47 ]. The major side effect of Pd was myelosuppression and neutropenic fever. Among the high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, del(17p) appeared to benefit from pomalidomide treatment (IFM 2010-02 trial) [ 48 ]. Cyclophosphamide plus Pd (PCd) is an option for lenalidomide-refractory heavily pretreated patients with MM, with a better ORR (64.7% vs. 38.9%) and PFS (9.5 vs. 4.4 mo) than Pd [ 49 ]. A real-world study conducted by the Korean Multiple Myeloma Working Group involving a Kd, Pd, and PCd regimen showed a better PFS in a PCd treated group compared with doublet combination chemotherapies in patients who had relapsed or who were refractory to 2 or more lines of therapies [ 50 ]. In the recent phase III OPTIMISSM trial, pomalidomide in combination with Vd (PVd) also demonstrated a better ORR (82.2% vs. 50%) and PFS (11.2 vs. 7.1 mo) than Vd, even in the lenalidomide-refractory subgroup [ 51 ].
Monoclonal antibodies
Daratumumab: Daratumumab (Dara) is an mAb-targeting CD38 surface antigen on MM cells. Its clinical efficacy as a monotherapy for patients with RRMM has been studied in the phase I/II GEN501 study [ 52 ] and the results have been confirmed in the phase II SIRIUS study [ 53 ]. A report on the combination of part 2 of the GEN501 and SIRIUS studies that included patients who had received a median of 5 prior lines of therapies showed an ORR of 31.1%, a median duration response of 7.6 months, a PFS of 4.0 months, and an OS of 20.1 months [ 54 ]. In the final results of the GEN501 and SIRIUS studies, the 3-year PFS was 19.6%, showing maintenance of a deep and durable response [ 55 ]. Approximately 50% of the patients were found to have experienced infusion-related reactions (IRR) during Dara administration, most of which occurred in the first infusion and were categorized as either grades 1 or 2. In a real-world study involving patients from Korean medical centers, the ORR and PFS in relation to Dara monotherapy was reported to be from 42.1% to 56.3% and from 2.7 to 6 months, respectively, with any grade IRR from 42.9% to 87.5%, which were mostly manageable [ 56 , 57 ].
Phase III clinical trials evaluating Dara in combination with a fixed duration of Vd (CASTOR) [ 20 ] and with continuous Rd (POLLUX) [ 23 ] have proven their synergistic efficacy compared with a comparator arm. The POLLUX trial reported prolonged PFS (median not reached vs. 17.5 mo) and a better ORR (92.9% vs. 76.4%) in the Dara-Rd arm compared with Rd at 25.4 months follow-up. A PFS benefit in the Dara-Rd arm was observed across age subgroups and ISS stage [ 58 ]. In the 19.4 months of updated analysis from the CASTOR trial, 8 cycles of Dara-Vd followed by Dara maintenance improved PFS (16.7 vs. 7.1 mo) and ORR (83.8% vs. 63.2%) compared with Vd only. Dara-Vd was effective regardless of age, ISS stage, renal failure, and cytogenetic risk [ 59 ]. In the POLLUX and CASTOR trials, a significant rate of MRD negativity was achieved across both high and standard cytogenetic risk patients [ 60 ]. Phase III studies comparing Dara (intravenous or subcutaneous)-Pd with Pd (APOLLO, NCT 03180736 ), Dara-Kd with Kd (CANDOR, NCT 03158688 ), and Dara intravenous versus subcutaneous administrations (COLUMBA, NCT 03277105 ) are currently ongoing.
Elotuzumab: Elotuzumab is a mAb that targets signaling lymphocytic activation molecule F7 (SLAMF-7) on multiple myeloma cells. In a phase 1 trial, elotuzumab as a single agent showed little clinical efficacy [ 61 ]. However, elotuzumab combined with Rd showed significantly better efficacy, which was confirmed in the phase III ELOQUENT-2 trial. Elotuzumab plus Rd showed significantly better efficacy in terms of ORR (79% vs. 66%) and PFS (19.4 vs. 14.9 mo). Moreover, a better PFS was observed regardless of age group and renal failure [ 22 ]. Response was maintained even at 5-year follow-up [ 62 ]. Common adverse events were hematologic toxicity and fatigue, which were similar in both treatment groups, and IRR occurred in 10% of patients in the elotuzumab arm who were mostly categorized as either grade 1 or 2. Phase II studies on the efficacy of elotuzumab with Pd or Kd are currently ongoing.
Conventional agents: Dexamethasone is used as a backbone for almost all the combination therapies at a weekly dose of 40 mg or 20 mg, or even less for elderly, fragile patients. Corticosteroid use (dexamethasone weekly or prednisone 20 mg daily) can be considered for patients who have exhausted all available options, with a caution to infections. Cyclophosphamide is often incorporated into combination therapy with bortezomib [ 63 ] or pomalidomide [ 49 ] and has recently shown efficacy with ixazomib [ 64 ]. Cyclophosphamide as a monotherapy or with dexamethasone can be administered via an oral or intravenous route, according to various doses and schedules. High-dose cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m 2 for 4 days) was found to have an ORR of 43% in advanced refractory MM in the period when no novel agents were available [ 65 ]. Melphalan is an historical remedy for MM, and is still used as a drug for conditioning therapy during autoSCT and in combination with bortezomib or thalidomide. It could be an alternative for non-affordable new agents or for those who have no other therapeutic options. In certain circumstances such as the aggressive progression of MM, multidrug combination chemotherapy may be needed such as dexamethasone, cyclophosphamide, etoposide, and cisplatin (DCEP) [ 66 ]; thalidomide, dexamethasone, cisplatin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide (TD-PACE) [ 67 ]; or bortezomib, thalidomide, dexamethasone, cisplatin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide (VTD-PACE) [ 68 ] for rapid and effective control of the disease.
Bendamustine: Bendamustine, a nitrogen mustard derivative bifunctional alkylating agent, has been approved for use in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed patients with MM who are not able to tolerate thalidomide or bortezomib due to severe peripheral neuropathy at presentation. Nowadays, its use has been reported to be more frequent in relapsed and refractory cases [ 69 ]. A dose-escalation trial involving refractory patients with MM after autoSCT reported an ORR of 55% and a median PFS of 8.5 months. From a real-world analysis in Korea, heavily pretreated patients with MM (median prior treatment, 5) who had been treated with bendamustine (120 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 2) plus prednisone showed an ORR of 35% and a median OS of 5.5 months [ 70 ]. Bendamustine in combination with lenalidomide [ 71 ] and bortezomib [ 72 ] has also shown activity in patients with RRMM.
Other food and drug administration (FDA)-approved drugs
Panobinostat: Panobinostat, a pan-histone deacetylase inhibitor, in combination with Vd showed an improved PFS (11.99 vs. 8.08 mo) and an nCR or better rate of 27.6% versus 15.7% but not in terms of the ORR (60.7% vs. 54.6%) and OS (33.64 vs. 30.39 mo) compared with the control Vd arm in the phase III PANORAMA-1 study [ 73 ]. The major adverse events from the addition of panobinostat were cytopenia, diarrhea, and asthenia. Panobinostat has been approved by the US FDA for the treatment of patients with RRMM who failed to respond to bortezomib and lenalidomide; however, it has not been approved for use in Korea.
Selinexor: Selinexor, a selective inhibitor of exportin 1 (XPO1), has demonstrated its efficacy in triple-class refractory (at least one PI, one IMiD, and Dara) patients with MM [ 74 ] and has recently been approved by the US FDA. In highly refractory patients who were treated with a median of 7 regimens, the ORR was 26% with a median PFS and OS of 3.7 months and 8.6 months, respectively. Due to the promising results from the phase II clinical trial that evaluated selinexor plus Vd, a phase III trial comparing Vd with or without selinexor is currently underway (BOSTON trial, NCT03110562 ).
Novel therapies under investigation: There are several anti-CD38 mAbs, such as isatuximab and MOR202, that are undergoing clinical trials. One next-generation alkylating agent, melflufen, is expected to have a positive result in the phase III confirmatory trial. Novel drugs with different targets, such as anti-CD138 mAb-drug conjugate (indatuximab ravtansine), anti-PD-1 mAb (pembrolizumab), and oral bcl-2 inhibitor (venetoclax) are being actively examined. Novel treatment strategies such as bispecific T-cell engager antibodies, cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors, kinesin spindle protein inhibitors, oral HDAC6 inhibitors, and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy are currently undergoing clinical investigation.
Salvage transplantation
A second autoSCT with high-dose therapy may be an option in transplant-eligible patients if sufficient stem cells have been collected [ 75 ]. Previous retrospective analyses have shown patients who relapsed >18-24 months after the first autoSCT may benefit from autoSCT after re-induction therapy [ 76 , 77 ]. Matched-pair analysis from the Korean myeloma registry has reported significantly longer OS (55.5 vs. 25.4 mo) for salvage autoSCT compared with systemic chemotherapy alone in patients who relapsed after upfront autoSCT [ 78 ]. A poor outcome could be predicted for patients who relapsed <18 months after their first autoSCT and ISS III. The only phase III German trial comparing re-induction Rd followed by salvage autoSCT and maintenance Rd with continuous Rd did not prove the efficacy of autoSCT as a salvage treatment in terms of ORR, PFS, and OS; however, patients with high-risk cytogenetics experienced improved survival after salvage autoSCT (HR, 2.71 for PFS and 4.22 for OS; P <0.001 for both) [ 79 ]. The role of salvage autoSCT is not clear in the era of frontline maintenance therapy and new drug triplet combinations in the RRMM setting. AlloSCT with reduced induced conditioning chemotherapy can be considered in young and fit patients who have high-risk cytogenetics. The largest outcome series, from European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation data, has reported a 3-year PFS of 41% and OS of 21% in the heterogeneous population of RRMM [ 80 ]. Recent registry-based analysis comparing salvage autoSCT and alloSCT in patients with RRMM showed no significant advantage in terms of alloSCT in this setting; however, long-term survivors were only observed among alloSCT recipients [ 81 ].
TREATMENT STRATEGY FOR RRMM
Although no established guideline exists for the most optimal treatment of RRMM, practical treatment algorithms based on currently available study results and from Korean settings can be suggested ( Fig. 1 ). Biochemical relapse not fulfilling the IMWG criteria for progressive disease may be followed up every 2 months, with close monitoring for the appearance of myeloma-related symptoms. Biochemical relapse that has met the IMWG criteria and clinical relapses should proceed to treatment. Aggressive biology (rapid onset of hypercalcemia, renal insufficiency and skeletal events, newly appearing extramedullary plasmacytoma, doubling of M-protein concentration, elevated LDH levels, elevated peripheral blood plasma cell counts, and a high plasma cell proliferation index) may be better treated with at least triplet combinations of novel agents, which are able to elicit a rapid and deep response. Patients in deep and durable responses, such as those with a response duration of >24 months to frontline therapy, from 18 to 24 months after autoSCT without maintenance, and from 36 to 48 months after autoSCT with maintenance, can be retreated with previously prescribed drugs or undergo salvage HDT with autologous stem cell support [ 4 ]. Drugs that were previously refractory should be avoided. Patients refractory to bortezomib should receive lenalidomide-backbone triplets or doublets (KRd, IRd, DRd, Elo-Rd, and Rd) or Kd, while lenalidomide-refractory patients should be treated with Kd or Vd with or without daratumumab. Double-refractory patients to IMiDs and PIs can benefit from pomalidomide-based doublet or triplet therapies (Pd or PCd) and daratumumab monotherapy.
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES
Owing to the recent approval of new agents by the Health Insurance Review & Assessment (HIRA) Service in the Republic of Korea, the outcome concerning MM has markedly improved. Real-world clinical experience using the approved drugs and their combinations in Korea have shown similar efficacy and toxicity profiles compared with results from the clinical trials. Well-organized long-term observational studies are needed to confirm the beneficial effect of novel agents, and efforts to develop newer treatment modalities are required to prolong survival for patients with MM.
Authors’ Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest
No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.
REFERENCES
1 Kumar SK Dimopoulos MA Kastritis E 2017 Natural history of relapsed myeloma, refractory to immunomodulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors: a multicenter IMWG study Leukemia 31 2443 8 10.1038/leu.2017.138 28620163
2 Anderson KC Kyle RA Rajkumar SV 2008 Clinically relevant end points and new drug approvals for myeloma Leukemia 22 231 9 10.1038/sj.leu.2405016 17972944
3 Kumar S Paiva B Anderson KC 2016 International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma Lancet Oncol 17 e328 46 27511158 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30206-6
4 Laubach J Garderet L Mahindra A 2016 Management of relapsed multiple myeloma: recommendations of the International Myeloma Working Group Leukemia 30 1005 17 10.1038/leu.2015.356 26710887
5 Sonneveld P 2017 Management of multiple myeloma in the relapsed/refractory patient Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program 2017 508 17 10.1182/asheducation-2017.1.508 29222299 PMC6142583
6 Kumar SK Dispenzieri A Lacy MQ 2014 Continued improvement in survival in multiple myeloma: changes in early mortality and outcomes in older patients Leukemia 28 1122 8 10.1038/leu.2013.313 24157580 PMC4000285
7 Salazar AS Recinos LM Mian HS 2019 Geriatric assessment and frailty scores predict mortality in myeloma: systematic review and meta-analysis Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 19 488 96.e6 10.1016/j.clml.2019.04.014 31133527
8 Palumbo A Bringhen S Mateos MV 2015 Geriatric assessment predicts survival and toxicities in elderly myeloma patients: an International Myeloma Working Group report Blood 125 2068 74 10.1182/blood-2014-12-615187 25628469 PMC4375104
9 Lee JH Kim SH Huh SJ 2018 The survival of transplant ineligible multiple myeloma patients treated with bortezomib-based chemotherapy is affected by the patient fitness Blood (ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts) 132 Suppl 3307 10.1182/blood-2018-99-119473
10 Lenhoff S Hjorth M Turesson I 2006 Intensive therapy for multiple myeloma in patients younger than 60 years. Long-term results focusing on the effect of the degree of response on survival and relapse pattern after transplantation Haematologica 91 1228 33 16956822
11 Rasche L Bernard C Topp MS 2012 Features of extramedullary myeloma relapse: high proliferation, minimal marrow involvement, adverse cytogenetics: a retrospective single-center study of 24 cases Ann Hematol 91 1031 7 10.1007/s00277-012-1414-5 22286070
12 Lee H Duggan P Chaudhry A 2018 Early relapse for multiple myeloma patients undergoing single autologous stem cell therapy: a single-center experience Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 18 e69 75 10.1016/j.clml.2017.10.009 29158114
13 Gonsalves WI Morice WG Rajkumar V 2014 Quantification of clonal circulating plasma cells in relapsed multiple myeloma Br J Haematol 167 500 5 10.1111/bjh.13067 25113422 PMC4211997
14 Sidiqi MH Aljama MA Jevremovic D 2019 Plasma cell proliferative index post-transplant is a powerful predictor of prognosis in myeloma patients failing to achieve a complete response Bone Marrow Transplant 54 442 7 10.1038/s41409-018-0280-8 30087461
15 Offidani M Boccadoro M Di Raimondo F Petrucci MT Tosi P Cavo M 2019 Expert panel consensus statement for proper evaluation of first relapse in multiple myeloma Curr Hematol Malig Rep 14 187 96 10.1007/s11899-019-00507-x 31077067
16 Avet-Loiseau H Soulier J Fermand JP 2010 Impact of high-risk cytogenetics and prior therapy on outcomes in patients with advanced relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma treated with lenalidomide plus dexaméthasone Leukemia 24 623 8 10.1038/leu.2009.273 20072152
17 Reece D Song KW Fu T 2009 Influence of cytogenetics in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma treated with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone: adverse effect of deletion 17p13 Blood 114 522 5 10.1182/blood-2008-12-193458 19332768
18 Chng WJ Goldschmidt H Dimopoulos MA 2017 Carfilzomib-dexamethasone vs bortezomib-dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma by cytogenetic risk in the phase 3 study ENDEAVOR Leukemia 31 1368 74 10.1038/leu.2016.390 28025582 PMC5467042
19 Moreau P Masszi T Grzasko N 2016 Oral ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma N Engl J Med 374 1621 34 10.1056/NEJMoa1516282 27119237
20 Palumbo A Chanan-Khan A Weisel K 2016 Daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma N Engl J Med 375 754 66 10.1056/NEJMoa1606038 27557302
21 Avet-Loiseau H Fonseca R Siegel D 2016 Carfilzomib significantly improves the progression-free survival of high-risk patients in multiple myeloma Blood 128 1174 80 10.1182/blood-2016-03-707596 27439911 PMC5009511
22 Lonial S Dimopoulos M Palumbo A 2015 Elotuzumab therapy for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma N Engl J Med 373 621 31 10.1056/NEJMoa1505654 26035255
23 Dimopoulos MA Oriol A Nahi H 2016 Daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma N Engl J Med 375 1319 31 10.1056/NEJMoa1607751 27705267
24 Moreau P Siegel DS Goldschmidt H 2018 Subgroup analysis of patients with biochemical or symptomatic relapse at the time of enrollment in the endeavor study Blood (ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts) 132 Suppl 3243 10.1182/blood-2018-99-112571
25 Hulin C de la Rubia J Dimopoulos MA 2018 Bortezomib retreatment for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma in real-world clinical practice Health Sci Rep 2 e104 10.1002/hsr2.104 30697597 PMC6346989
26 Madan S Lacy MQ Dispenzieri A 2011 Efficacy of retreatment with immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) in patients receiving IMiDs for initial therapy of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma Blood 118 1763 5 10.1182/blood-2011-04-350009 21673347 PMC3158710
27 Richardson PG Sonneveld P Schuster MW 2005 Bortezomib or high-dose dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma N Engl J Med 352 2487 98 10.1056/NEJMoa043445 15958804
28 Koh Y Lee SY Kim I 2014 Bortezomib-associated peripheral neuropathy requiring medical treatment is decreased by administering the medication by subcutaneous injection in Korean multiple myeloma patients Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 74 653 7 10.1007/s00280-014-2555-0 25096796
29 Palumbo A Bringhen S Ludwig H 2011 Personalized therapy in multiple myeloma according to patient age and vulnerability: a report of the European Myeloma Network (EMN) Blood 118 4519 29 10.1182/blood-2011-06-358812 21841166
30 Orlowski RZ Nagler A Sonneveld P 2007 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 3892 901 10.1200/JCO.2006.10.5460 17679727
31 Garderet L Iacobelli S Moreau P 2012 Superiority of the triple combination of bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone over the dual combination of thalidomide-dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma progressing or relapsing after autologous transplantation: the MMVAR/IFM 2005-04 randomized phase III trial from the Chronic Leukemia Working Party of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation J Clin Oncol 30 2475 82 10.1200/JCO.2011.37.4918 22585692
32 Hájek R Masszi T Petrucci MT 2017 A randomized phase III study of carfilzomib vs low-dose corticosteroids with optional cyclophosphamide in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (FOCUS) Leukemia 31 107 14 10.1038/leu.2016.176 27416912 PMC5220126
33 Stewart AK Rajkumar SV Dimopoulos MA 2015 Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma N Engl J Med 372 142 52 10.1056/NEJMoa1411321 25482145
34 Siegel DS Dimopoulos MA Ludwig H 2018 Improvement in overall survival with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma J Clin Oncol 36 728 34 10.1200/JCO.2017.76.5032 29341834
35 Dimopoulos MA Stewart AK Masszi T 2017 Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma categorised by age: secondary analysis from the phase 3 ASPIRE study Br J Haematol 177 404 13 10.1111/bjh.14549 28211560 PMC5412871
36 Dimopoulos MA Moreau P Palumbo A 2016 Carfilzomib and dexamethasone versus bortezomib and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (ENDEAVOR): a randomised, phase 3, open-label, multicentre study Lancet Oncol 17 27 38 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00464-7 26671818
37 Moreau P Mateos MV Berenson JR 2018 Once weekly versus twice weekly carfilzomib dosing in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (A.R.R.O.W.): interim analysis results of a randomised, phase 3. study Lancet Oncol 19 953 64 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30354-1 29866475
38 Dimopoulos MA Moreau P Iida S 2019 Outcomes for Asian patients with multiple myeloma receiving once- or twice-weekly carfilzomib-based therapy: a subgroup analysis of the randomized phase 3 ENDEAVOR and A.R.R.O.W. Trials Int J Hematol 110 466 73 10.1007/s12185-019-02704-z 31388932
39 Ghobrial IM Vij R Siegel D 2019 A phase Ib/II study of oprozomib in patients with advanced multiple myeloma and Waldenström macroglobulinemia Clin Cancer Res 25 4907 16 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-3728 31142508
40 Shah J Usmani S Stadtmauer EA 2019 Oprozomib, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 19 570 8.e1 10.1016/j.clml.2019.05.017 31326409
41 Harrison SJ Mainwaring P Price T 2016 Phase I clinical trial of marizomib (NPI-0052) in patients with advanced malignancies including multiple myeloma: study NPI-0052-102 final results Clin Cancer Res 22 4559 66 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-2616 27117181
42 Kwon J Min CK Kim K 2017 Efficacy and toxicity of the combination chemotherapy of thalidomide, alkylating agent, and steroid for relapsed/refractory myeloma patients: a report from the Korean Multiple Myeloma Working Party (KMMWP) retrospective study Cancer Med 6 100 8 10.1002/cam4.970 27905203 PMC5269709
43 Dimopoulos MA Chen C Spencer A 2009 Long-term follow-up on overall survival from the MM-009 and MM-010 phase III trials of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma Leukemia 23 2147 52 10.1038/leu.2009.147 19626046
44 Dimopoulos MA Palumbo A Attal M 2011 Optimizing the use of lenalidomide in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: consensus statement Leukemia 25 749 60 10.1038/leu.2011.3 21293488
45 Kim K Kim SJ Voelter V 2014 Lenalidomide with dexamethasone treatment for relapsed/refractory myeloma patients in Korea-experience from 110 patients Ann Hematol 93 113 21 10.1007/s00277-013-1893-z 24026427
46 Richardson PG Xie W Jagannath S 2014 A phase 2 trial of lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and relapsed/refractory myeloma Blood 123 1461 9 10.1182/blood-2013-07-517276 24429336 PMC4123434
47 Miguel JS Weisel K Moreau P 2013 Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone versus high-dose dexamethasone alone for patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM-003): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol 14 1055 66 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70380-2 24007748
48 Leleu X Karlin L Macro M 2015 Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in multiple myeloma with deletion 17p and/or translocation (4;14): IFM 2010-02 trial results Blood 125 1411 7 10.1182/blood-2014-11-612069 25575538
49 Baz RC Martin TG 3rd Lin HY 2016 Randomized multicenter phase 2 study of pomalidomide, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone in relapsed refractory myeloma Blood 127 2561 8 10.1182/blood-2015-11-682518 26932802
50 Lee JH Kim SH Lee YJ 2019 The comparison of carfilzomib, and dexamethasone versus pomalidomide-based combination chemotherapy after a 2nd-line therapy in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk (International Myeloma Workshop Abstracts) 19 Suppl e264 5 10.1016/j.clml.2019.09.437
51 Richardson PG Oriol A Beksac M 2019 Pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma previously treated with lenalidomide (OPTIMISMM): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol 20 781 94 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30152-4 31097405
52 Lokhorst HM Plesner T Laubach JP 2015 Targeting CD38 with daratumumab monotherapy in multiple myeloma N Engl J Med 373 1207 19 10.1056/NEJMoa1506348 26308596
53 Lonial S Weiss BM Usmani SZ 2016 Daratumumab monotherapy in patients with treatment-refractory multiple myeloma (SIRIUS): an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial Lancet 387 1551 60 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01120-4 26778538
54 Usmani SZ Weiss BM Plesner T 2016 Clinical efficacy of daratumumab monotherapy in patients with heavily pretreated relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma Blood 128 37 44 10.1182/blood-2016-03-705210 27216216 PMC4937359
55 Usmani SZ Nahi H Weiss BM 2017 Safety and efficacy of daratumumab monotherapy in patients with heavily pretreated relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: final results from GEN501 and SIRIUS Blood (ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts) 130 Suppl 3107
56 Park SS Eom HS Kim JS 2019 Brief report: clinical experiences after emergency use of daratumumab monotherapy for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in real practice Jpn J Clin Oncol 49 92 5 10.1093/jjco/hyy177 30476124
57 Byun JM Yoon SS Koh Y 2019 Daratumumab monotherapy in heavily pretreated Asian patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: a real-world experience Anticancer Res 39 5165 70 10.21873/anticanres.13712 31519629
58 Dimopoulos MA San-Miguel J Belch A 2018 Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: updated analysis of POLLUX Haematologica 103 2088 96 10.3324/haematol.2018.194282 30237262 PMC6269302
59 Spencer A Lentzsch S Weisel K 2018 Daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone versus bortezomib and dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: updated analysis of CASTOR Haematologica 103 2079 87 10.3324/haematol.2018.194118 30237264 PMC6269293
60 San-Miguel J Weisel K Cook G 2017 Efficacy by cytogenetic risk status for daratumumab in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone or bortezomib and dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma Haematologica 102 1 2
61 Zonder JA Mohrbacher AF Singhal S 2012 A phase 1, multicenter, open-label, dose escalation study of elotuzumab in patients with advanced multiple myeloma Blood 120 552 9 10.1182/blood-2011-06-360552 22184404 PMC4467882
62 Lonial S Dimopoulos MA Weisel K 2018 Extended 5-y follow-up (FU) of phase 3 ELOQUENT-2 study of elotuzumab+ lenalidomide/dexamethasone (ELd) vs Ld in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) J Clin Oncol (ASCO Annual Meeting Abstracts) 36 Suppl 8040
63 Davies FE Wu P Jenner M Srikanth M Saso R Morgan GJ 2007 The combination of cyclophosphamide, velcade and dexamethasone induces high response rates with comparable toxicity to velcade alone and velcade plus dexamethasone Haematologica 92 1149 50 10.3324/haematol.11228 17650451
64 Kumar SK Grzasko N Delimpasi S 2019 Phase 2 study of all-oral ixazomib, cyclophosphamide and low-dose dexamethasone for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma Br J Haematol 184 536 46 10.1111/bjh.15679 30460684
65 Case DC Jr Young CW Lee BJ 3rd 1977 Combination chemotherapy of MOPP-resistant Hodgkin's disease with adriamycin, bleomycin, dacarbazine and vinblastine (ABDV) Cancer 39 1382 6 10.1002/1097-0142(197704)39:4<1382::AID-CNCR2820390405>3.0.CO;2-F 66972
66 Park S Lee SJ Jung CW 2014 DCEP for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma after therapy with novel agents Ann Hematol 93 99 105 10.1007/s00277-013-1952-5 24240976
67 Lee CK Barlogie B Munshi N 2003 DTPACE: an effective, novel combination chemotherapy with thalidomide for previously treated patients with myeloma J Clin Oncol 21 2732 9 10.1200/JCO.2003.01.055 12860952
68 Lakshman A Singh PP Rajkumar SV 2018 Efficacy of VDT PACE-like regimens in treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma Am J Hematol 93 179 86 10.1002/ajh.24954 29067723
69 Knop S Straka C Haen M Schwedes R Hebart H Einsele H 2005 The efficacy and toxicity of bendamustine in recurrent multiple myeloma after high-dose chemotherapy Haematologica 90 1287 8 16154860
70 Kim SJ Bang SM Choi YS 2016 Bendamustine in heavily pre-treated multiple myeloma patients: results of a retrospective analysis from the Korean Multiple Myeloma Working Party Blood Res 51 193 9 10.5045/br.2016.51.3.193 27722131 PMC5054252
71 Lentzsch S O'Sullivan A Kennedy RC 2012 Combination of bendamustine, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (BLD) in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma is feasible and highly effective: results of phase 1/2 open-label, dose escalation study Blood 119 4608 13 10.1182/blood-2011-12-395715 22451423 PMC3392072
72 Offidani M Corvatta L Maracci L 2013 Efficacy and tolerability of bendamustine, bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed-refractory multiple myeloma: a phase II study Blood Cancer J 3 e162 10.1038/bcj.2013.58 24270324 PMC3880441
73 San-Miguel JF Hungria VT Yoon SS 2014 Panobinostat plus bortezomib and dexamethasone versus placebo plus bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol 15 1195 206 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70440-1 25242045
74 Chari A Vogl DT Gavriatopoulou M 2019 Oral selinexor-dexamethasone for triple-class refractory multiple myeloma N Engl J Med 381 727 38 10.1056/NEJMoa1903455 31433920
75 Giralt S Garderet L Durie B 2015 American Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, European Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network, and International Myeloma Working Group Consensus Conference on Salvage Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation in Patients with Relapsed Multiple Myeloma Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 21 2039 51 10.1016/j.bbmt.2015.09.016 26428082 PMC4757494
76 Sellner L Heiss C Benner A 2013 Autologous retransplantation for patients with recurrent multiple myeloma: a single-center experience with 200 patients Cancer 119 2438 46 10.1002/cncr.28104 23576287
77 Cook G Ashcroft AJ Cairns DA 2016 The effect of salvage autologous stem-cell transplantation on overall survival in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (final results from BSBMT/UKMF Myeloma X Relapse [Intensive]): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial Lancet Haematol 3 e340 51 10.1016/S2352-3026(16)30049-7 27374467
78 Yhim HY Kim K Kim JS 2013 Matched-pair analysis to compare the outcomes of a second salvage auto-SCT to systemic chemotherapy alone in patients with multiple myeloma who relapsed after front-line auto-SCT Bone Marrow Transplant 48 425 32 10.1038/bmt.2012.164 22941384
79 Goldschmidt H Baertsch MA Schlenzka J 2018 Salvage autologous transplant and lenalidomide maintenance versus continuous lenalidomide/dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma: results of the randomized GMMG phase III multicenter trial relapse Blood (ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts) 132 Suppl 253 10.1182/blood-2018-99-111203
80 Crawley C Lalancette M Szydlo R 2005 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 4532 9 10.1182/blood-2004-06-2387 15731182
81 Ikeda T Mori K Kawamura K 2019 Comparison between autologous and allogeneic stem cell transplantation as salvage therapy for multiple myeloma relapsing/progressing after autologous stem cell transplantation Hematol Oncol 37 586 94 10.1002/hon.2688 31674032