In their 1980s classic “Should I stay or should I go,” the Clash rock band ponders whether to continue an imperfect relationship or to move on. Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) for multiple myeloma (MM), another product largely of the 1980s [ 1 ], sometimes poses the same dilemma decades later for patients with potentially insufficient responses to pre-ASCT induction therapy. The historical rationale for moving to ASCT after 4–6 cycles of induction is rooted in concerns about the toxicities of induction (dating back to the days of anthracycline-based therapy) or of impaired stem cell yield after prolonged lenalidomide exposure. For patients in the modern era who have achieved no better than a partial response (PR) with induction therapy, should we stay in this induction phase or should we go directly to ASCT?
While retrospective studies (Fig. 1 ) have generally shown that deeper pre-ASCT responses are associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) after transplantation [ 2 – 16 ], substantial variation in induction regimens and definitions of ‘sufficient’ responses preclude any formal meta-analysis. Two older studies (Table 1 ) have reached opposite conclusions regarding second-line treatment intensification in patients with pre-ASCT responses to induction therapy deemed to be insufficient. In a registry-based study of patients with a minimal response (MR) or less treated between 1995 and 2010, Vij and colleagues found that second-line therapy deepened responses but did not improve PFS [ 17 ]. Conversely, in a randomized study of second-line CyBorD (cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, dexamethasone) versus proceeding to ASCT in patients with ≤PR treated between 2010 and 2016, Jackson and colleagues found that salvage induction therapy improved PFS [ 18 ]. Given that neither study routinely incorporated modern triplet regimens containing both proteasome inhibitors (PIs) and immunomodulatory imide drugs (IMIDs), how should we approach this situation in 2023? Fig. 1 Responses to induction therapy in MM. For each study, the PFS and OS columns state whether achievement of the response deemed to be ‘sufficient’ was associated with any benefit by any statistical method; question marks mean that the specific endpoint was not investigated. ASCT autologous stem cell transplantation, CR complete response, MM multiple myeloma, MR minimal response, MRD-neg measurable residual disease negativity, OS overall survival, PCs plasma cells on bone marrow biopsy, PD progressive disease, PFS progression-free survival, SD stable disease, VGPR very good partial response. Table 1 Studies of pre-ASCT treatment intensification in MM. Study Methods Initial response Intensified cohort Other cohort Outcome Vij 2015 [ 17 ] Retrospective CIBMTR registry ≤MR to a PI- or IMID-containing regimen Second-line therapy leading into ASCT Direct transition to ASCT No difference in PFS or OS with addition of second-line therapy Jackson 2019 [ 18 ] Prospective randomized trial ≤PR to CTd or CRd Second-line CyBorD leading into ASCT Direct transition to ASCT Increased PFS, but no increased OS, with additional CyBorD ASCT autologous stem cell transplantation, CIBMTR Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research, CRd cyclophosphamide/lenalidomide/dexamethasone, CTd cyclophosphamide/thalidomide/dexamethasone, CyBorD cyclophosphamide/bortezomib/dexamethasone, MM multiple myeloma, MR minimal response, OS overall survival, PD progressive disease, PR partial response, PFS progression-free survival, SD stable disease.
Table 1
Studies of pre-ASCT treatment intensification in MM.
ASCT autologous stem cell transplantation, CIBMTR Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research, CRd cyclophosphamide/lenalidomide/dexamethasone, CTd cyclophosphamide/thalidomide/dexamethasone, CyBorD cyclophosphamide/bortezomib/dexamethasone, MM multiple myeloma, MR minimal response, OS overall survival, PD progressive disease, PR partial response, PFS progression-free survival, SD stable disease.
| Study | Methods | Initial response | Intensified cohort | Other cohort | Outcome |
| Vij 2015 [ 17 ] | Retrospective CIBMTR registry | ≤MR to a PI- or IMID-containing regimen | Second-line therapy leading into ASCT | Direct transition to ASCT | No difference in PFS or OS with addition of second-line therapy |
| Jackson 2019 [ 18 ] | Prospective randomized trial | ≤PR to CTd or CRd | Second-line CyBorD leading into ASCT | Direct transition to ASCT | Increased PFS, but no increased OS, with additional CyBorD |
For patients who achieve ≤PR after 4–6 cycles of first-line induction, three biological rationales might prompt the initiation of second-line therapy with drugs like carfilzomib or pomalidomide. Firstly, although data are lacking in the modern era of measurable residual disease (MRD) testing, high-dose melphalan likely induces no higher than a 4–5 log reduction in tumor cells in patients who remain MRD positive after induction (extrapolating from Myeloma IX trial data using an MRD sensitivity of 10 −4 cells) [ 19 ]. Given that patients with ≤PR have higher tumor burden and that deeper MRD negativity is associated with more durable responses, it follows that reducing tumor burden by all means may help maximize the ‘mileage’ of transplantation thereafter [ 19 , 20 ]. As a second rationale, high-dose melphalan is mutagenic toward surviving tumor cells [ 21 , 22 ]. This, in turn, may favor lowering the denominator of susceptible tumor cells beforehand. Finally, circulating PCs during collection and autograft contamination—both of which are less common with deeper responses to induction—may be associated with inadequate stem cell collection or worsened outcomes [ 23 , 24 ]. If one assumes these principles to be true for every patient, then a response-based approach to induction rather than a cycle-based approach may logically lead to longer PFS and less aggressive relapses.
It is also important to note that prolonging the induction phase of therapy to ensure at least a very good partial response (VGPR) may improve the safety and feasibility of ASCT in select cases. For patients with high tumor burden and a steady response to each cycle of induction—e.g., a patient with biopsy-proven cast nephropathy and involved serum-free light chains which remain elevated even after a 50% reduction—continuing the same regimen for a few additional cycles may be reasonable to maximize pre-ASCT renal function. For patients with concurrent AL amyloidosis, changing induction therapies to induce a cardiac response may allow a previously ineligible patient to be considered for ASCT. This same principle may also apply to disease-related comorbidities such as pain and frailty, where better disease control may improve functional status to the point where transplantation becomes feasible.
However, proceeding directly to transplantation after a fixed number of cycles of induction may be the most evidence-based approach to frontline therapy in MM. In both the IFM-2009 and DETERMINATION Phase 3 randomized trials, the upfront ASCT arm moved directly to transplantation after a fixed number of cycles of induction regardless of response achieved (with the caveat that some patients with refractory disease may have withdrawn from the study) [ 25 , 26 ]. Similarly, in the Phase 3 BMT-CTN 0702 trial of different ASCT approaches, half of the patients had ≤PR at study registration [ 27 ]. Many of these trials employed post-ASCT consolidation therapy, which may be a valuable tool if neither induction nor ASCT yields sufficiently deep responses. If anything, strategies like post-ASCT consolidation or multi-drug maintenance are more established strategies to manage risk in myeloma compared to a second-line pre-ASCT therapy. And although salvage CyBorD was shown to prolong PFS in a sub-randomization of the Myeloma XI trial [ 18 ], many patients diagnosed today will have access to more modern therapies in both the first and second lines.
Possibly the biggest argument in favor of moving directly to ASCT after a time-limited length of induction is the role of transplantation as the ‘equalizer’ of treatments [ 28 ]. High-dose melphalan works regardless of country, insurance type, or availability of frontline CD38-directed monoclonal antibodies. Several of the studies described in Fig. 1 have shown an association between PFS and deeper responses to induction [ 2 , 5 , 9 , 14 ]. However, this may represent the confounding effects of underlying disease biology rather than a causal relationship. Prolonged induction therapy, even if with the same regimen, may also increase the risks of complications such as PI-related neuropathy, IMID-related financial toxicity, and the ‘time toxicity’ of additional time in clinic.
So what should clinicians do in this scenario? On the one hand, moving directly to ASCT after 4–6 cycles of induction runs the risk of undertreating some patients who might benefit from deeper responses upfront. On the other hand, delaying ASCT to pursue second-line induction runs the risk of overtreating some patients in the absence of a modern-era survival benefit. Given that MM therapies continue to improve in the relapsed setting, we conclude that the risks of overtreatment to ‘force’ a ≥VGPR with induction outweigh the risks of potential undertreatment. As such, we suggest proceeding directly to ASCT in patients who have achieved ≥PR with induction. In cases of MR as best response, proceeding directly to ASCT is reasonable for patients with low disease burden at baseline.
There are several nuances to these recommendations outside the scope of this Editorial. While we define an ‘insufficient’ response as ≤PR for the purposes of discussion, there is no clear consensus on what threshold defines such a response. In some cases, risk stratification based on bone marrow plasma cell burden or cytogenetic abnormalities may help with decision-making [ 9 , 10 ]. Certain ASCT-related steps such as chemomobilization during stem cell collection or investigational conditioning (e.g., adding busulfan to melphalan) may potentially improve disease control, although their clinical benefit is not clearly established. Finally, every patient must be evaluated individually: unique factors like symptom burden, logistical considerations, and adherence to the original induction regimen may influence decision-making here.
In conclusion, there is no perfect approach for patients with insufficient responses to induction therapy. At the end of their hit song, the Clash states that “If I go, there will be trouble / And if I stay, it will be double.” While this twofold relative risk perhaps does not extrapolate perfectly, we agree that the benefits of going directly to ASCT generally outweigh the benefits of prolonging induction. In general, we suggest proceeding to ASCT rather than pursuing second-line therapy for patients who achieve a PR or better. Ultimately, the correct answer to this question is the one that works the best for the patient and their physician.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Author contributions
R.B. wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors provided critical feedback and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Competing interests
R.B.: Consulting: BMS, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech, Janssen, Sanofi, SparkCures; research support, Pack Health. L.W.: Consulting: BMS, Janssen, Abbvie. J.R.M.: Consulting: Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Karyopharm, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda.
References
1. Kyle RA Rajkumar SV ASH 50th anniversary review: multiple myeloma Blood 2008 111 2962 72 10.1182/blood-2007-10-078022 18332230 PMC2265446
2. Rosinol L Garcia-Sanz R Lahuerta JJ Hernandez-Garcia M Granell M de la Rubia J Benefit from autologous stem cell transplantation in primary refractory myeloma? Different outcomes in progressive versus stable disease Haematologica 2012 97 616 21 10.3324/haematol.2011.051441 22058223 PMC3347671
3. Singhal S Powles R Sirohi B Treleaven J Kulkarni S Mehta J Response to induction chemotherapy is not essential to obtain survival benefit from high-dose melphalan and autotransplantation in myeloma Bone Marrow Transplant 2002 30 673 9 10.1038/sj.bmt.1703717 12420206
4. Kumar S Lacy MQ Dispenzieri A Rajkumar SV Fonseca R Geyer S High-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma poorly responsive to initial therapy Bone Marrow Transplant 2004 34 161 7 10.1038/sj.bmt.1704545 15133489
5. Gertz MA Kumar S Lacy MQ Dispenzieri A Dingli D Hayman SR Stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma: impact of response failure with thalidomide or lenalidomide induction Blood 2010 115 2348 53 10.1182/blood-2009-07-235531 20089967
6. Kapoor P Kumar SK Dispenzieri A Lacy MQ Buadi F Dingli D Importance of achieving stringent complete response after autologous stem-cell transplantation in multiple myeloma J Clin Oncol 2013 31 4529 35 10.1200/JCO.2013.49.0086 24248686 PMC3871514
7. Lee SE Yoon JH Shin SH Cho BS Eom KS Kim YJ Impact of failed response to novel agent induction in autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma Ann Hematol 2014 93 627 34 10.1007/s00277-013-1911-1 24085241
8. Moreau P Attal M Pegourie B Planche L Hulin C Facon T Achievement of VGPR to induction therapy is an important prognostic factor for longer PFS in the IFM 2005-01 trial Blood 2011 117 3041 4 10.1182/blood-2010-08-300863 21098740
9. Shah N Bashir Q Parmar S Dinh YT Qureshi S Rondon G Increased bone marrow plasma cell infiltration pre-transplant is associated with worse outcomes in patients undergoing high dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma Blood 2011 118 4135 10.1182/blood.V118.21.4135.4135
10. Chakraborty R Muchtar E Kumar SK Buadi FK Dingli D Dispenzieri A Impact of pre-transplant bone marrow plasma cell percentage on post-transplant response and survival in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma Leuk lymphoma 2017 58 308 15 10.1080/10428194.2016.1201572 27390076
11. Dingli D Pacheco JM Nowakowski GS Kumar SK Dispenzieri A Hayman SR Relationship between depth of response and outcome in multiple myeloma J Clin Oncol 2007 25 4933 7 10.1200/JCO.2007.11.7879 17971591
12. Lahuerta JJ Mateos MV Martinez-Lopez J Rosinol L Sureda A de la Rubia J Influence of pre- and post-transplantation responses on outcome of patients with multiple myeloma: sequential improvement of response and achievement of complete response are associated with longer survival J Clin Oncol 2008 26 5775 82 10.1200/JCO.2008.17.9721 19001321
13. Kim JS Kim K Cheong JW Min YH Suh C Kim H Complete remission status before autologous stem cell transplantation is an important prognostic factor in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing upfront single autologous transplantation Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2009 15 463 70 10.1016/j.bbmt.2008.12.512 19285634
14. Farhan S Lin H Baladandayuthapani V Shah N Bashir Q Hosing CM Response before autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation is an important predictor of outcome in multiple myeloma Blood 2011 118 4119 10.1182/blood.V118.21.4119.4119
15. Jiménez-Ubieto A Paiva B Puig N Cedena M Martínez-López J Oriol A Validation of the International Myeloma Working Group standard response criteria in the PETHEMA/GEM2012MENOS65 study: are these times of change? Blood 2021 138 1901 5 10.1182/blood.2021012319 34329372 PMC9642785
16. Shah GL Seier K Devlin SM Chung DJ Scordo M Hultcrantz M Depth of response and outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation Blood 2018 132 4619 10.1182/blood-2018-99-116014
17. Vij R Kumar S Zhang MJ Zhong X Huang J Dispenzieri A Impact of pretransplant therapy and depth of disease response before autologous transplantation for multiple myeloma Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2015 21 335 41 10.1016/j.bbmt.2014.10.023 25445028 PMC4297511
18. Jackson GH Davies FE Pawlyn C Cairns DA Striha A Collett C Response-adapted intensification with cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus no intensification in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (Myeloma XI): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial Lancet Haematol 2019 6 e616 e29 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30167-X 31624047 PMC7043012
19. Rawstron AC Gregory WM de Tute RM Davies FE Bell SE Drayson MT Minimal residual disease in myeloma by flow cytometry: independent prediction of survival benefit per log reduction Blood 2015 125 1932 5 10.1182/blood-2014-07-590166 25645353 PMC4375716
20. Munshi NC Avet-Loiseau H Anderson KC Neri P Paiva B Samur M A large meta-analysis establishes the role of MRD negativity in long-term survival outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma Blood Adv 2020 4 5988 99 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002827 33284948 PMC7724898
21. Maura F Weinhold N Diamond B Kazandjian D Rasche L Morgan G The mutagenic impact of melphalan in multiple myeloma Leukemia 2021 35 2145 50 10.1038/s41375-021-01293-3 34012133
22. Samur MK Roncador M Samur AA Fulciniti M Bazarbachi AH Szalat RE High-dose melphalan treatment significantly increases mutational burden at relapse in multiple myeloma Blood 2023 141 1724 36 10.1182/blood.2022017094 36603186 PMC10273091
23. Cowan AJ Stevenson PA Libby EN Becker PS Coffey DG Green DJ Circulating plasma cells at the time of collection of autologous PBSC for transplant in multiple myeloma patients is a negative prognostic factor even in the age of post-transplant maintenance therapy Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2018 24 1386 91 10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.02.017 29481870
24. Pasvolsky O Milton D Rauf M Ghanem S Masood A Mohamedi A MM-403 impact of clonal plasma cells in autografts on the outcome of high-risk multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2022 22 S421 S2 10.1016/S2152-2650(22)01621-4
25. Attal M Lauwers-Cances V Hulin C Leleu X Caillot D Escoffre M Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone with transplantation for myeloma N. Engl J Med 2017 376 1311 20 10.1056/NEJMoa1611750 28379796 PMC6201242
26. Richardson PG Jacobus SJ Weller EA Hassoun H Lonial S Raje NS Triplet therapy, transplantation, and maintenance until progression in myeloma N. Engl J Med 2022 387 132 47 10.1056/NEJMoa2204925 35660812 PMC10040899
27. Stadtmauer EA Pasquini MC Blackwell B Hari P Bashey A Devine S Autologous transplantation, consolidation, and maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma: results of the BMT CTN 0702 trial J Clin Oncol 2019 37 589 97 10.1200/JCO.18.00685 30653422 PMC6553842
28. Chamoun K De Lima M Fu P Caimi PF Cao S Gerson S Impact of regional income and insurance status on survival of multiple myeloma patients: autologous stem cell transplant as an equalizer Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2019 19 e211 e2 10.1016/j.clml.2019.09.352