Long-Term Outcomes of Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant (HSCT) for Multiple Myeloma: While New Horizons Emerge, It Is Still Only a Silver Lining for Resource-Constrained Settings.

Introduction

Blood and marrow stem cell transplantation (BMSCT) has seen a revolution, especially in the last decade, with an ever-increasing number of patients being transplanted the world over [ 1 ]. Not only has the pool of matched related/unrelated donors expanded but alternative sources of graft including haploidentical donors, unmatched related donors, and umbilical cord blood hematopoietic stem cells are also being increasingly utilized. Also, significant pharmacological advances, improvements in laboratory techniques, expansion of health care services, and a better understanding of genetic/immunological processes (associated with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation [HSCT]) have resulted in a superior and more optimal application of BMSCT in routine clinical practice [ 2 ]. Despite these advancements, data from Worldwide Network for Blood and Marrow Transplantation has highlighted the significant differences in transplant rates across the globe (lowest in resource-limited settings) [ 1 ]. Besides, the density of HSCT performing centers/teams is significantly lesser in developing nations compared to the developed world [ 3 ]. As highlighted in this study, even undertaking an autologous BMSCT (as for multiple myeloma [MM]) remains a big challenge in such settings (such as Africa and parts of Asia).

MM, a clonal plasma cell dyscrasia, is the third most common hematological malignancy [ 4 ] accounting for ~10% of all hematological cases [ 5 ]. In 2020, ~0.18 million patients were newly diagnosed to have MM [ 6 ]. In transplant-eligible patients with MM, autologous HSCT (AHSCT) is now an established treatment modality across all risk subtypes. AHSCT results in a deeper response including minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, better progression-free survival (PFS), and improves overall survival (OS) in high-risk cases [ 7 ]. In addition to routine AHSCT, salvage autologous/allogenic transplant in relapsed settings have been incorporated into the transplant programs for MM in developed countries [ 8 ]. Besides, analysis of cancer cell cytogenetics, utilization of CXCR4 inhibitors for mobilization of stem cells, and cryopreservation of the stem cells are routinely undertaken in these centers. As shown by the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research data, age cutoffs or impaired renal function are no longer absolute contraindications for AHSCT in MM [ 9 , 10 ]. Additionally, performing an AHSCT on an outpatient basis is emerging as a safe, feasible, and cost-effective option with the potential of having better clinical outcomes than an inpatient AHSCT [ 11 ]. Unfortunately, significant hurdles impede the optimal implementation of AHSCT for MM in low-middle-income countries (LMICs, defined according to the World Bank classification) including India (most of the previously mentioned measures [e.g. cryopreservation, tumor cytogenetics, etc.] are sparingly employed) [ 12 ]. In the year 2018, ~9000 and ~15,000 AHSCTs were performed for MM in the US and Europe, respectively [ 13 , 14 ]. Contrastingly, the total number of AHSCTs performed for MM in India for the years 1983-2016 was less than 3000 [ 15 ]. Nonetheless, one of the largest registries for transplant data in India has shown promising trends over the past 10 years with AHSCT numbers for MM increasing from 134/year to 734/year [ 15 ]. Similar improving trends have also been noted in other developing countries [ 12 ]. Encouragingly, data also suggests AHSCT for MM to be cost-effective and beneficial in outcome despite the resource constraints faced in LMICs [ 16 , 17 ]. In this study, we report the long-term outcomes of patients with MM who underwent AHSCT at our center. Besides, we provide a comprehensive review of studies reporting long-term outcomes of AHSCT in MM from the Indian subcontinent. We highlight the challenges faced in resource-constraint settings while performing a BMSCT and ensuring its best possible long-term outcomes. While new horizons of diagnostic, therapeutic, and prognostic advancements emerge in developed countries, it is only a silver lining in resource-poor countries.

Materials and methods

This was an observational study conducted at the Department of Medical Oncology, State Cancer Institute (SCI), Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Srinagar, India. The Institutional Ethics Committee of Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences issued approval 131/IEC-SKIMS/2021. SCI is the only dedicated tertiary cancer care institution in the northernmost part of India (with geographically challenging Himalayan terrain). More than 5000 newly diagnosed patients with cancer are registered and treated annually at this center. This is the only hospital that performs HSCT in this region. All patients with MM who received AHSCT from December 2010 to July 2018 were included. Case records of all these patients were reviewed retrospectively. Data regarding clinicopathological characteristics, transplantation parameters, and follow-up events were extracted. None of our patients with MM received tandem or allogenic HSCT (including cord blood HSCT). Besides, we did not perform AHSCT in any patient with disease relapse/progression (previously treated with or without HSCT).

AHSCT protocol

Standard evaluation post-induction therapy was done in all patients. All patients were assessed as per Charlson Comorbidity Index (age-adjusted) for medical eligibility (cutoff < 6) before proceeding ahead with AHSCT. Stem cells were harvested from peripheral blood after mobilization with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) with or without plerixafor. Standard doses G-CSF (10 μg/kg/day in two divided doses for four days [days -3 to -6]) and plerixafor (0.24 mg/kg/day, for one or two days, eight to 10 hours before apheresis [day -2 or -1]) were used for mobilizing the stem cells [ 18 ]. Depending on the CD34 cell count, one or two collections using the COBE Spectra apheresis machine (Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) were done (days -1 ± -2, respectively). CD34 cell count was measured using flow cytometry and values of >2.0×10 6 cells/kg were considered optimal [ 19 ]. Collected stem cells were stored (maximum 36-48 hours) at 4°C (cryopreservation was not used) and viability testing of the stem cells was not performed before infusion [ 20 ]. Myeloablative conditioning using melphalan at 140-200 mg per m 2 (with appropriate renal modification) as an intravenous infusion over 30 minutes (on day -1) was used after stem cell mobilization [ 21 ].

Harvested stem cells were infused intravenously approximately 24 hours after administration of melphalan with routine infusion sets (labeled day 0) [ 22 ]. Post stem cell infusion, all patients were continued with G-CSF (at a dose of 5 μg/kg/day) from day +1 until the physician's discretion [ 23 ]. All patients were started on antifungal prophylaxis with posaconazole [ 24 ] and antiviral prophylaxis with low-dose acyclovir [ 25 ]. No prophylactic antibacterial therapy was used. Following AHSCT, all patients received standard maintenance therapy according to the institutional protocol.

Neutrophil engraftment was defined as the attainment of persistent absolute neutrophil counts of >0.50×10 9 /L [ 26 ]. Platelet counts of >20×10 9 /L for at least a week (in absence of platelet transfusion) signified platelet engraftment [ 26 , 27 ]. For our study, time to transplant was defined as the interval (in months) from the date of diagnosis to day 0 of AHSCT. Transplant-related mortality (TRM) was defined as a fatal outcome occurring within day +100 of AHSCT.

Statistical analysis

All data extracted was entered into a predesigned datasheet. Shapiro-Wilk test and inspection of normality plots were utilized for the assessment of data distribution. Quantitative data have been expressed as mean±standard deviation (parametric) or median (25th, 75th percentile) (non-parametric). Qualitative data are provided as percentages (n=a) where ‘a’ signifies the number of patients with the said characteristic. Time interval (in years) from AHSCT (day 0) to death or last follow-up represented OS which has been expressed as five-year survival with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). PFS was the time in years from AHSCT (day 0) to disease relapse, death, or last follow-up (expressed as five-year PFS with 95% CI). The Log Rank test was used to compare survival differences between variables (threshold for statistical significance: p=<0.05). Statistical Package for Social Sciences software (SPSS, version 23; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) was utilized for performing statistical analysis.

Search strategy

The PubMed/Medline and Google Scholar databases were used to identify studies from the Indian subcontinent reporting treatment of MM with AHSCT (published till September 2022). Keywords utilized for our non-systematic literature search were ‘myeloma’, ‘multiple myeloma’, ‘autologous transplant’, ‘HSCT’, ‘stem cell transplant’, ‘India’, ‘Pakistan’, ‘Bangladesh’, ‘Sri Lanka’, ‘Myanmar’, ‘Nepal’, ‘Bhutan’, and ‘Afghanistan’. The following data were extracted from the retrieved studies: basic bibliographic details, number of patients who received AHSCT, age of patients, time interval between diagnosis of MM and BMSCT, disease stage, pretransplant disease status, CD34 stem cell yield, engraftment characteristics, TRM, and long-term outcomes (in form of OS and PFS).

Results

Over a 7.5-year period, 47 patients with MM underwent ASCT (Table 1 ). The median time to transplant (interval between diagnosis of MM and day 0 of AHSCT) was 11.5 months. G-CSF alone was utilized for peripheral stem cell mobilization in 51% (n=24) and combination therapy with G-CSF and plerixafor was used in the rest. A total of 7.53±2.93×10 8 mononuclear cells/kg and 5.70 (2.92, 10.43)×10 6 CD34 cells/kg were harvested. Expectedly, the number of mononuclear cells harvested was higher with G-CSF plus plerixafor as compared to G-CSF alone (median: 8.69×10 8 vs. 6.42×10 8 cells/kg, p=0.006). Similarly, the amount of CD34 cells harvested was higher with G-CSF plus plerixafor as compared to G-CSF alone (median: 9.01×10 8 vs. 4.16×10 8 cells/kg, p=0.00009). Melphalan was used for conditioning in all the patients. Neutrophil and platelet nadir occurred on day 5 (4, 6) and day 5 (4, 7), respectively. Neutrophil and platelet engraftment occurred on day 10 (9, 12) and day 13 (11, 15), respectively. Successful engraftment was noted in all patients (no engraftment failure); however, engraftment syndrome occurred in 2% (n=1). TRM (day 100) was noted in 4% (n=2). During the cytopenic period, patients were managed with supportive therapy (e.g. repeated SDAP infusions - median no. of units: 3 (2, 4), G-CSF therapy - no. of days: 12 [10, 13.0]). Gastrointestinal toxicity (mucositis) was seen in most of the patients with grade III toxicity being the commonest (40%, n=19). Infections complicated the hospital course in 23% of patients (n=11). Hemodynamic instability occurred in 32% of patients (n=15).

The follow-up duration in our study was 3.49±1.99 years with a total follow-up of 164.25 patient-years. A fatal outcome was noted in 15% of patients (n=7). Reasons for death included disease progression (six patients relapsed) and TRM (two patients {sepsis and disease progression, respectively}). The two-year and five-year OS were 88.8% (95% CI 79.6% to 98.0%) and 81.2% (95% CI 68.1% to 94.3%), respectively (Figure 1 ).

The five-year OS in patients with (pretransplant) complete response/very good partial response (CR/VGPR) and partial response/stable disease (PR/SD) was 85.2% and 72.4%, respectively (p=0.5, Log Rank test). The five-year OS stratified according to the amount of CD34 cells harvested was as follows: <2.0×10 6 cells/kg: 55.6% and >2.0×10 6 cells/kg: 85.8%. However, this conspicuous difference in OS did not assume statistical significance (p=0.3, Log Rank test) which was likely due to the small sample size of our study. Other parameters (e.g. sex, MM subtype, disease stage, type of mobilization regimen, presence of kidney disease, etc.) also did not correlate significantly with OS on univariate analysis.

Disease relapse was noted in 28% (n=13). Nearly half of the patients with disease relapse (46%, n=6/13) had succumbed to the illness at the time of last follow-up. PFS at two years and five years was 78.5% (95% CI 66.7% to 90.1%) and 59.1% (95% CI 38.9% to 79.3%), respectively (Figure 1 ). The five-year PFS was similar in patients with (pretransplant) CR/VGPR (58.9%) compared to PR/SD (62.5%) (p=0.4, Log Rank test). Similarly, patients with stage I/II disease had comparable PFS to patients with stage III disease. The five-year PFS stratified according to the amount of CD34 cells harvested was as follows: <2.0×10 6 cells/kg: 34.3% and >2.0×10 6 cells/kg: 63.5%. However, this obvious difference also failed to assume statistical significance (p=0.4, Log Rank test) which was similar to the scenario observed for OS. Other parameters (e.g. sex, MM subtype, type of mobilization regimen, presence of kidney disease, etc.) also did not correlate significantly with PFS on univariate analysis.

Literature review

Literature review of 31 studies from the Indian subcontinent reported utilization of AHSCT in >1700 patients of MM (median age ranging from 46-69 years). Of these, the proportion of patients reported to have renal involvement has been 10-35%. The median time to transplant has ranged from seven to 17 months with median CD34 counts of 2.65-6.3×10 6 cells/kg. The five-year PFS and OS in these studies have varied from 19.1-75.3% and 50-84.2%, respectively. In studies reporting median survival, PFS and OS have ranged from 2.2-4.8 years and 3.3-10.4 years, respectively. The patient characteristics and transplant outcomes of the individual studies are detailed in Table 2 .

Discussion

AHSCT has emerged as the standard treatment of MM and is increasingly being performed in developing regions of the world. Herein, we report our experience regarding the long-term outcomes of AHSCT in MM and highlight the challenges faced while performing BMSCT. Despite logistic and technical limitations in LMICs, the reported outcomes of AHSCT in MM from various centers, including ours, are encouraging. Further improvement in outcomes of patients with MM in these resource-limited settings is a hopeful future prospect.

Meta-analyses of randomized trials have shown a PFS benefit of early AHSCT in MM [ 28 ]. Delaying transplants may result in an enhanced risk of disease relapse that may be more aggressive biologically. Besides, delays may also result in an increased risk of becoming transplant ineligible due to a decrease in performance status and/or the development of additional comorbidities [ 29 ]. Also, it has been shown that in high-risk disease AHSCT results in a better OS as there is more chance of attaining a deeper hematological response in the form of negative MRD status [ 30 ]. Additionally, AHSCT in general, and particularly in MM, has a very low TRM [ 31 ]. In eligible patients with MM in first remission, no treatment modality is as beneficial as AHSCT [ 32 ]. Hence, even in the present era of ever-increasing novel therapies including monoclonal antibodies, newer immunomodulatory agents, and CAR T cells, AHSCT is the standard recommendation across all risk groups in newly diagnosed patients with MM [ 33 ].

A significant proportion of eligible patients with MM receive AHSCT in developed countries [ 34 ]. In a large series from the USA (between the years 2000-2018), ~61% of 2763 eligible patients with MM underwent a transplant in first remission [ 34 ]. Data pooled from 97 transplantation centers across Germany (from 1999-2013) reported one-third of patients with MM to have received AHSCT [ 35 ]. In stark contrast, <1% of eligible patients with MM undergo AHSCT in developing countries including India [ 36 , 37 ]. At our center, more than 1000 patients were diagnosed with MM from 2010-2018. However, only 47 underwent AHSCT in first remission. Numerous challenges hinder the undertaking of AHSCT in developing countries. Notably, these include severe financial constraints, lack of education, social taboos, and disproportionate procedural fear. Although non-financial constraints can be mitigated to some extent with psychosocial support and counseling, financial barriers are the most difficult to overcome [ 38 ].

The primary cause of financial constraints is the lack of universal health coverage policy including the non-availability of health insurance in various LMICs. As such, the expenses are primarily borne by the patients and their immediate family members. With a majority of the population having sub-optimal earnings, financial constraints become an insurmountable hurdle. In India, >50% of the population belongs to the low-income group which includes ~30% living below the poverty line (daily earnings of <2 USD/day) [ 39 ]. The estimated average expenditure for AHSCT in federally funded hospitals in India is ~5000 USD [ 40 ]. At our center, a waiver of hospital charges resulted in the incurrence of a lower average cost of AHSCT (~3700 USD). A significant proportion of this amount was also borne out of financial support from philanthropic organizations. Despite significant financial constraints in LMICs, early AHSCT is a more feasible (e.g. cost-effectiveness, favorable outcome) approach for the attainment of optimal long-term outcomes in patients with MM. Data from India has shown that the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained through AHSCT is 0.7 years with a gradational cost of ~4100 USD per QALY gained [ 17 ]. In LMICs, performing an AHSCT in relapsed MM is far more challenging than doing AHSCT in first remission in LMICs. Achieving remission in relapsed settings needs escalation of treatment which may include expensive newer agents like carfilzomib and daratumumab. Besides, patients with relapsed disease often garner far less psychosocial and philanthropic support. Additionally, patients in developing countries may even lose faith in the scientific treatment of MM (especially in the context of widespread availability of alternative indigenous systems of medicine).

Even when an AHSCT is planned, overcoming various constraints mentioned previously invariably results in time delays. The current standard of carrying out AHSCT is after three to six cycles of induction therapy corresponding to about four months [ 41 ]. However, our median time to transplant was 11 months (after initial diagnosis). Similar time delays have been noted in other transplant centers in developing countries (Table 2 ). This time delay invariably results in additional exposure to chemotherapeutic agents (immunomodulatory/alkylating agents) which often results in decreased stem cell harvest [ 42 - 44 ]. As per the International Myeloma Working Group recommendations, a CD34+ stem cell count of ~8×10 6 /kg should be administered with a minimum target of 4×10 6 cells/kg [ 45 ]. The CD34 cell count yield in studies from developing countries is lower (Table 2 ) than in well-established transplant centers in resourceful settings [ 46 , 47 ]. However, data regarding the adverse impact of lower CD34 counts on outcomes are largely lacking [ 48 , 49 ]. A CD34 count of >2×10 6 per kg is adequate for engraftment and higher counts of 8-10×10 6 per kg have been noted to reduce the duration of hospital stay (by decreasing the engraftment time) [ 50 ]. Nonetheless, irrespective of the absolute values of CD34 cells harvested, AHSCT in MM results in a better outcome (as compared to untransplanted patients) even when done after 12 months of initial therapy [ 51 - 54 ].

In developed countries, patients undergoing AHSCT in first remission have four-year survival rates of >80% with a median OS of more than eight years [ 55 - 57 ]. In the recently published update of the landmark IFM 2009 trial, patients who underwent AHSCT in first remission had a median PFS of 47.3 months and an eight-year OS of 62% [ 58 ]. In another recent multicentric study from Europe, the median PFS was higher at 56.7 months [ 59 ]. We observed a five-year PFS and OS of 59.1% and 81.2%, respectively. Similar outcomes have been noted in other studies from the Indian subcontinent (Table 2 ). Taken together, these findings indicate that despite resource limitations in LMICs, the reported outcomes of AHSCT in MM are comparable to that of the developed world. Lastly, besides long-term outcomes, data regarding the proximate safety of AHSCT (e.g. low rates of TRM) in LMICs are encouraging [ 60 ].

Limitations

The retrospective nature of the study design and the small number of patients included are significant limitations of our study. Nonetheless, we have performed a comprehensive review of the characteristics/outcomes of patients with MM treated with AHSCT, highlighting that our findings are similar to other larger cohorts from the Indian subcontinent. Molecular testing for risk stratification was not performed in the majority of the included patients. We did not perform allogenic HSCT (including cord blood HSCT), which is usually employed in relapsed/refractory cases [ 89 , 90 ], in any of our patients with MM.

Conclusions

AHSCT has emerged as the therapeutic standard of care for patients with MM as part of the post-induction consolidation phase. While significant advancements have been made in the developed world over the past few decades, centers in resource-limited settings face daunting challenges in providing early AHSCT to eligible patients with MM. Nonetheless, increasing numbers of AHSCTs are being performed in developing countries with encouraging outcomes. The establishment of newer well-equipped transplant centers and augmentation of existing (transplant) services is imperative to improve the outcomes of patients with oncological diseases (including MM) in LMICs. Besides, the incorporation of BMSCT into various sponsored healthcare programs is crucial for accoutering much-needed socio-economic support. In addition, facilities for advanced transplant options in MM (e.g. tandem transplant, allogenic HSCT) need to be developed in the existing transplant centers.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the patient care services provided by the clinical and nursing staff. The authors also express their gratitude towards the patients included in this study.

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Human Ethics

Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Institutional Ethics Committee, Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS), Srinagar, India issued approval 131/IEC-SKIMS/2021

Animal Ethics

Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue.

References

1. One and half million hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT). Dissemination, trends and potential to improve activity by telemedicine from the worldwide network for blood and marrow transplantation (WBMT) Niederwieser D, Baldomero H, Atsuta Y, et al. Blood. 2019;134:2035.

2. History of hematopoietic cell transplantation: challenges and progress. Granot N, Storb R. Haematologica. 2020;105:2716–2729. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2019.245688.

3. Advances in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in the Asia-Pacific region: the second report from APBMT 2005-2015. Iida M, Kodera Y, Dodds A, et al. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2019;54:1973–1986. doi: 10.1038/s41409-019-0554-9.

4. A global, regional, and national survey on burden and Quality of Care Index (QCI) of hematologic malignancies; global burden of disease systematic analysis 1990-2017. Keykhaei M, Masinaei M, Mohammadi E, et al. Exp Hematol Oncol. 2021;10:11. doi: 10.1186/s40164-021-00198-2.

5. Multiple myeloma: 2016 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification, and management. Rajkumar SV. Am J Hematol. 2016;91:719–734. doi: 10.1002/ajh.24402.

6. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209–249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660.

7. Role of stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma. Devarakonda S, Efebera Y, Sharma N. Cancers (Basel) 2021;13 doi: 10.3390/cancers13040863.

8. The evolution of stem-cell transplantation in multiple myeloma. Mahajan S, Tandon N, Kumar S. Ther Adv Hematol. 2018;9:123–133. doi: 10.1177/2040620718761776.

9. Age no bar: a CIBMTR analysis of elderly patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. Munshi PN, Vesole D, Jurczyszyn A, et al. Cancer. 2020;126:5077–5087. doi: 10.1002/cncr.33171.

10. Autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation for multiple myeloma patients with renal insufficiency: a center for international blood and marrow transplant research analysis. Mahindra A, Hari P, Fraser R, et al. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2017;52:1616–1622. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2017.198.

11. Feasibility of outpatient stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma and risk factors predictive of hospital admission. Larsen K, Spencer H, Mohan M, et al. J Clin Med. 2022;11 doi: 10.3390/jcm11061640.

12. The global state of hematopoietic cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: an analysis of the Worldwide Network of Blood and Marrow Transplantation Database and the Global Burden of Disease Study. Cowan AJ, Baldomero H, Atsuta Y, et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2020;26:2372–2377. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2020.08.018.

13. Current use of and trends in hematopoietic cell transplantation in the United States. D'Souza A, Fretham C, Lee SJ, et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2020;26:0–82. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2020.04.013.

14. The EBMT activity survey on hematopoietic-cell transplantation and cellular therapy 2018: CAR-T's come into focus. Passweg JR, Baldomero H, Chabannon C, et al. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2020;55:1604–1613. doi: 10.1038/s41409-020-0826-4.

15. Stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma: very much alive and kicking. Yanamandra U, Malhotra P. Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus. 2019;35:205–207. doi: 10.1007/s12288-019-01111-y.

16. Cost of treatment of multiple myeloma in a public sector tertiary care hospital of North India. Kaur G, Prinja S, Malhotra P, et al. Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus. 2018;34:25–31. doi: 10.1007/s12288-017-0843-7.

17. Cost-effectiveness of autologous stem cell treatment as compared to conventional chemotherapy for treatment of multiple myeloma in India. Prinja S, Kaur G, Malhotra P, Jyani G, Ramachandran R, Bahuguna P, Varma S. Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus. 2017;33:31–40. doi: 10.1007/s12288-017-0776-1.

18. Treatment of autologous stem cell transplant-eligible multiple myeloma patients: ten questions and answers. Mohty M, Harousseau JL. Haematologica. 2014;99:408–416. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2013.096149.

19. Autologous stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma in the era of novel therapies. Parrondo RD, Ailawadhi S, Sher T, Chanan-Khan AA, Roy V. JCO Oncol Pract. 2020;16:56–66. doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00335.

20. Extended storage of liquid-preserved stem cells at 4°c results in good engraftment in patients of multiple myeloma undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation. Thakral B, Saluja K, Sharma RR, et al. Lab Med. 2005;36:650–651.

21. Melphalan 140 mg/m(2) or 200 mg/m(2) for autologous transplantation in myeloma: results from the Collaboration to Collect Autologous Transplant Outcomes in Lymphoma and Myeloma (CALM) study. A report by the EBMT Chronic Malignancies Working Party. Auner HW, Iacobelli S, Sbianchi G, et al. Haematologica. 2018;103:514–521. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2017.181339.

22. Effect of time to infusion of autologous stem cells (24 vs. 48 h) after high-dose melphalan in patients with multiple myeloma. Talamo G, Rakszawski KL, Rybka WB, Dolloff NG, Malysz J, Berno T, Zangari M. Eur J Haematol. 2012;89:145–150. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0609.2012.01795.x.

23. G-CSF starting day +1 after autologous transplant is safer than day +5 or day +7 in patients with multiple myeloma. Cottini F, Sborov D, Cho YK, et al. Blood. 2016;128:5790.

24. Posaconazole: use in the prophylaxis and treatment of fungal infections. Clark NM, Grim SA, Lynch JP 3rd. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;36:767–785. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1562902.

25. Low-dose acyclovir prophylaxis for the prevention of herpes simplex virus and varicella zoster virus diseases after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Kawamura K, Hayakawa J, Akahoshi Y, et al. Int J Hematol. 2015;102:230–237. doi: 10.1007/s12185-015-1810-4.

26. Second hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for the treatment of graft failure, graft rejection or relapse after allogeneic transplantation. Wolff SN. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2002;29:545–552. doi: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1703389.

27. Treatment of graft failure with TNI-based reconditioning and haploidentical stem cells in paediatric patients. Teltschik HM, Heinzelmann F, Gruhn B, et al. Br J Haematol. 2016;175:115–122. doi: 10.1111/bjh.14190.

28. A meta-analysis of autologous transplantation for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in the era of novel agents. Su B, Zhu X, Jiang Y, et al. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019;60:1381–1388. doi: 10.1080/10428194.2018.1543874.

29. Analysis of clinical factors and outcomes associated with nonuse of collected peripheral blood stem cells for autologous stem cell transplants in transplant-eligible patients with multiple myeloma. Kansagra A, Gonsalves WI, Gertz MA, et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2018;24:2127–2132. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.04.007.

30. Depth of response in multiple myeloma: a pooled analysis of three PETHEMA/GEM clinical trials. Lahuerta JJ, Paiva B, Vidriales MB, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:2900–2910. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.69.2517.

31. Autologous transplantation for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in the era of novel agent induction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dhakal B, Szabo A, Chhabra S, et al. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4:343–350. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.4600.

32. Utilization of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for the treatment of multiple myeloma: a Mayo Stratification of Myeloma and Risk-Adapted Therapy (mSMART) consensus statement. Gonsalves WI, Buadi FK, Ailawadhi S, et al. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2019;54:353–367. doi: 10.1038/s41409-018-0264-8.

33. Multiple myeloma: 2022 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management. Rajkumar SV. Am J Hematol. 2022;97:1086–1107. doi: 10.1002/ajh.26590.

34. Frontline treatment patterns and attrition rates by subsequent lines of therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Fonseca R, Usmani SZ, Mehra M, et al. BMC Cancer. 2020;20:1087. doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-07503-y.

35. Autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma patients: utilization patterns and hospital effects. Jansen L, Merz M, Engelhardt M, et al. Leuk Lymphoma. 2020;61:2365–2374. doi: 10.1080/10428194.2020.1768383.

36. Asia-Pacific Hematology Consortium Report on approach to multiple myeloma. Survey results from the 6th International Hematologic Malignancies Conference: Bridging the Gap 2015, Beijing, China. Lu J, Hou J, Liu KY, et al. Leuk Lymphoma. 2016;57:1534–1538. doi: 10.3109/10428194.2015.1135434.

37. Autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: single centre experience from north India. Malhotra P, Yanamandra U, Khadwal A, et al. Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus. 2018;34:261–267. doi: 10.1007/s12288-017-0876-y.

38. Autologous stem cell transplantation in first remission is associated with better progression-free survival in multiple myeloma. Aggarwal M, Agrawal N, Yadav N, et al. Ann Hematol. 2018;97:1869–1877. doi: 10.1007/s00277-018-3370-1.

39. Government of India, Press Information Bureau. Rangarajan Report on Poverty. [ Oct; 2022 ]. 2014. https://www.pib.gov.in/newsite/printrelease.aspx?relid=108291 https://www.pib.gov.in/newsite/printrelease.aspx?relid=108291

40. Case for more autologous transplants in myeloma in resource-constrained settings. Singh S, Sharma R. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol. 2022;43:311–313.

41. Induction therapy prior to autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: an update. Bazarbachi AH, Al Hamed R, Malard F, Bazarbachi A, Harousseau JL, Mohty M. Blood Cancer J. 2022;12:47. doi: 10.1038/s41408-022-00645-1.

42. Impact of lenalidomide therapy on stem cell mobilization and engraftment post-peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. Kumar S, Dispenzieri A, Lacy MQ, et al. Leukemia. 2007;21:2035–2042. doi: 10.1038/sj.leu.2404801.

43. Effect of lenalidomide therapy on mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells in previously untreated multiple myeloma patients. Mazumder A, Kaufman J, Niesvizky R, Lonial S, Vesole D, Jagannath S. Leukemia. 2008;22:1280–1281. doi: 10.1038/sj.leu.2405035.

44. Plerixafor and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for first-line steady-state autologous peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in lymphoma and multiple myeloma: results of the prospective PREDICT trial. Russell N, Douglas K, Ho AD, et al. Haematologica. 2013;98:172–178. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2012.071456.

45. International myeloma working group (IMWG) consensus statement and guidelines regarding the current status of stem cell collection and high-dose therapy for multiple myeloma and the role of plerixafor (AMD 3100) Giralt S, Stadtmauer EA, Harousseau JL, et al. Leukemia. 2009;23:1904–1912. doi: 10.1038/leu.2009.127.

46. Individual quality assessment of autografting by probability estimation for clinical endpoints: a prospective validation study from the European group for blood and marrow transplantation. Lanza F, Campioni DC, Hellmann A, et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2013;19:1670–1676. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2013.08.005.

47. Therapeutic relevance of CD34 cell dose in blood cell transplantation for cancer therapy. Siena S, Schiavo R, Pedrazzoli P, Carlo-Stella C. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:1360–1377. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2000.18.6.1360.

48. CD34+ hematopoietic progenitor cell dose as a predictor of engraftment and survival in multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation. Aladağ Karakulak E, Demiroğlu H, Büyükaşik Y, et al. Turk J Med Sci. 2020;50:1851–1856. doi: 10.3906/sag-2001-173.

49. Poor mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells-definitions, incidence, risk factors, and impact on outcome of autologous transplantation. Wuchter P, Ran D, Bruckner T, et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2010;16:490–499. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2009.11.012.

50. What is the optimum number of CD34 + peripheral blood stem cells for an autologous transplant? Jillella AP, Ustun C. Stem Cells Dev. 2004;13:598–606. doi: 10.1089/scd.2004.13.598.

51. Early versus delayed autologous transplantation after immunomodulatory agents-based induction therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Kumar SK, Lacy MQ, Dispenzieri A, et al. Cancer. 2012;118:1585–1592. doi: 10.1002/cncr.26422.

52. Early versus delayed autologous stem cell transplant in patients receiving novel therapies for multiple myeloma. Dunavin NC, Wei L, Elder P, et al. Leuk Lymphoma. 2013;54:1658–1664. doi: 10.3109/10428194.2012.751528.

53. Early versus delayed autologous stem cell transplantation and interferon maintenance in multiple myeloma: single-center experience of 18 years. Remenyi P, Varga G, Mikala G, et al. Transplant Proc. 2016;48:177–184. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2015.12.031.

54. Multiple myeloma: impact of time to transplant on the outcome. Kumar L, Hussain MM, Chethan R, et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2022;22:0–35. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2022.04.020.

55. Bortezomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma without intent for immediate autologous stem-cell transplant (SWOG S0777): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Durie BG, Hoering A, Abidi MH, et al. Lancet. 2017;389:519–527. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31594-X.

56. Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone with transplantation for myeloma. Attal M, Lauwers-Cances V, Hulin C, et al. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1311–1320. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1611750.

57. Bortezomib before and after high-dose therapy in myeloma: long-term results from the phase III HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 trial. Goldschmidt H, Lokhorst HM, Mai EK, et al. Leukemia. 2018;32:383–390. doi: 10.1038/leu.2017.211.

58. Early versus late autologous stem cell transplant in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: long-term follow-up analysis of the IFM 2009 trial. Perrot A, Lauwers-Cances V, Cazaubiel T, et al. Blood. 2020;136:39.

59. Autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation versus bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone, with or without bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone consolidation therapy, and lenalidomide maintenance for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (EMN02/HO95): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study. Cavo M, Gay F, Beksac M, et al. Lancet Haematol. 2020;7:456–468. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(20)30099-5.

60. Prospective validation of the predictive power of the hematopoietic cell transplantation comorbidity index: a center for international blood and marrow transplant research study. Sorror ML, Logan BR, Zhu X, et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2015;21:1479–1487. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2015.04.004.

61. Autologous bone marrow/stem cell transplantation: initial experience at a north Indian referral centre. Gupta S, Kumar L, Raju GM, et al. http://archive.nmji.in/archives/Volume-13/issue-2/original-articles-2.pdf . Natl Med J India. 2000:61–66.

62. High dose chemotherapy followed by autologous haemopoietic stem cell transplant in multiple myeloma. Kumar L, Raju GK, Ganessan K, et al. http://archive.nmji.in/archives/Volume%2016-1%20Jan%20Feb%202003/original%20article/High_dose.htm . Natl Med J India. 2003:16–21.

63. Outcomes of autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in multiple myeloma from a tertiary cancer center in India. Bagal BP, Khattry N, Dongre A, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:17003.

64. Auto-SCT for myeloma patients in non-HEPA filtered room: initial experience of a tertiary care center. Dolai TK, Kumar M, Mandal PK, et al. Leuk Lymphoma. 2013;54 Suppl 1:26.

65. High-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma: a single institution experience at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, using non-cryopreserved peripheral blood stem cells. Kayal S, Sharma A, Iqbal S, Tejomurtula T, Cyriac SL, Raina V. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2014;14:140–147. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2013.09.001.

66. Complete response after autologous stem cell transplant in multiple myeloma. Kumar L, Iqbal N, Mookerjee A, et al. Cancer Med. 2014;3:939–946. doi: 10.1002/cam4.257.

67. Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation-10 years of data from a developing country. Ali N, Adil SN, Shaikh MU. Stem Cells Transl Med. 2015;4:873–877. doi: 10.5966/sctm.2015-0015.

68. Autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: Long-term results. Kumar L, Boya RR, Pai R, et al. https://nmji.in/autologous-stem-cell-transplantation-for-multiple-myeloma-long-term-results/ Natl Med J India. 2016:192–199.

69. The journey of stem cell transplantation in Bangladesh: a hike to the state of the art with collaboration between DMCH and MGH. Akter M, Khan MA, Yeh AC, et al. Blood Adv. 2017;1:62–64.

70. Assessment of quality of life in myeloma patients post autologous stem cell transplant- a single centre experience in south India. Damodar S, Karanth S, Nataraj KS, et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2017;17:153–154.

71. High dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: outcomes at tata memorial centre. Gokarn A, Bonda A, Mathew L, et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2017;17:126.

72. Where there’s a will, there’s a way: establishing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in Myanmar. Gyi AA, Mra R, Nyein HL, et al. Blood Adv. 2017;1:65–69.

73. Working together: establishment of the first national hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) center in Sri Lanka. Abeysinghe P, Morawaka L, Gunasekara S, et al. Blood Adv. 2018;2:46–49. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2018GS110686.

74. Long term clinical outcomes of adult hematolymphoid malignancies treated at Tata Memorial Hospital: an institutional audit. Khattry N, Laskar S, Sengar M, et al. Indian J Cancer. 2018;55:9–15. doi: 10.4103/ijc.IJC_656_17.

75. Autologous stem cell transplantation in elderly myeloma patients (>65 years): single institutional experience. Jena RK, Sethy S, Panigrahi A, Panda T. Indian J Cancer. 2018;55:307–309. doi: 10.4103/ijc.IJC_187_18.

76. Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma in India. Naithani R, Dayal N, Rai R, Pathak S, Singh M. Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus. 2018;34:564–565. doi: 10.1007/s12288-018-0951-z.

77. Multiple myeloma- real world experience of transplantation in multiple myeloma from a tertiary care center in North India. Yanamandra U, Yadav S, Das SR, et al. Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus. 2018;34:61. doi: 10.1007/s12288-017-0876-y.

78. Autologous stem cell transplant program in 2016‒country report from Bangladesh. Akter M, Khan MA, Dey BR. https://bct.apbmt.org/articles/bct-2019-006/ BCT. 2020;3:1–5. doi: 10.31547/bct-2019-006.

79. Outcome of autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma, in the era of novel agents: a single-centre experience. Bafna V, Damodar S, Bendi C. Leuk Res. 2019;85:41.

80. Clinical outcomes in multiple myeloma post-autologous transplantation-a single centre experience. Kulkarni U, Devasia AJ, Korula A, et al. Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus. 2019;35:215–222. doi: 10.1007/s12288-018-0989-y.

81. High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplant for multiple myeloma: predictors of long-term outcome. Kumar L, Ramavath D, Kataria B, et al. Indian J Med Res. 2019;149:730–739. doi: 10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_1593_18.

82. Autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma: experience of a single center from Eastern India. Kumar J, Nair R, Radhakrishnan V, et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2019;19:326.

83. Limiting factors for autologous transplantation among transplant-eligible multiple myeloma patients: lesson from a tertiary cancer centre in rural India. Nair CK, Selvaraj K, Raghavan V, et al. Leuk Res. 2019;83:106167. doi: 10.1016/j.leukres.2019.106167.

84. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in Nepal: international partnership, implementation steps, and clinical outcomes. Poudyal BS, Tuladhar S, Neupane S, et al. Transplant Cell Ther. 2022;28:268–275. doi: 10.1016/j.jtct.2022.02.011.

85. The limited use of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant for fit older patients with multiple myeloma in India: a retrospective analysis. Revannasiddaiah S, Nagaraju PR, Palassery R, et al. J Egypt Natl Canc Inst. 2022;34:21. doi: 10.1186/s43046-022-00123-6.

86. A multicenter study of clinical presentations and outcomes of multiple myeloma in Pakistan: the real-world analysis in a resource-constrained country. Saeed N, Ahmad U, Moosajee M, et al. Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus. 2022;38:309–318. doi: 10.1007/s12288-021-01485-y.

87. Hematopoietic stem cell transplant for hematological malignancies: experience from a tertiary care center in northern India and review of Indian data. Sharma SK, Choudhary D, Doval D, Khandelwal V, Setia R, Dadu T, Handoo A. South Asian J Cancer. 2022;11:62–67. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1731599.

88. Clinical outcomes of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) In multiple myeloma patients: 5-year experience from a single centre in north India. Sood N, Tiwari AK, Pabbi S, et al. South Asian J Cancer. 2022;16:2022. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-1748184.

89. Allogeneic stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma. Greil C, Engelhardt M, Finke J, Wäsch R. Cancers (Basel) 2021;14 doi: 10.3390/cancers14010055.

90. Outcomes of unrelated cord blood transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma: a survey on behalf of Eurocord, the Cord Blood Committee of Cellular Therapy and Immunobiology Working Party, and the Chronic Leukemia Working Party of the EBMT. Paviglianiti A, Xavier E, Ruggeri A, et al. Haematologica. 2016;101:1120–1127. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2015.138917.