|Year : 2020 | Volume
| Issue : 2 | Page : 209-214
Outcome of response of multiple myeloma to induction treatment in kurdistan region of Iraq
Akram Mahmood Mohammed1, Kawa M Hasan2, Dana A Abdullah3, Ameer I A. Badi4, Ahmed K Yassin2, Banaz M Safar1, Basil K Abdulla1, Rawand P Shamoon5, Truska A Amin1, Zeki A Mohamed6, Ali I Mohammed3, Diveen J Hussein7, Nawsherwan S Mohammed5, Rezhin N Rajab7, Firiad Hiwaizi7, Kanar J Karim1, Abid M Hassan6, Hisham A Getta3, Najmaddin S H. Khoshnaw1, Sana D Jalal3
1 Department of Hematology, Hiwa Cancer Hospital, University of Sulaymaniyah, Sulaymaniyah, Iraq
2 Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, Hawler Medical University, Erbil, Iraq
3 Department of Pathology, College of Medicine, University of Sulaymaniyah, Sulaymaniyah, Iraq
4 Department of Pathology, College of Medicine, University of Duhok, Kurdistan Region, Iraq
5 Department of Pathology, College of Medicine, Hawler Medical University, Erbil, Iraq
6 Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Duhok, Kurdistan Region, Iraq
7 Department of Hematology, Nanakali Hospital, Erbil, Iraq
|Date of Submission||17-Apr-2020|
|Date of Acceptance||20-May-2020|
|Date of Web Publication||17-Jun-2020|
Akram Mahmood Mohammed
Department of Hematology, Hiwa Cancer Hospital, Sulaymaniyah, Kurdistan Region
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
Background: Nowadays, the therapy of multiple myeloma (MM) has successful and hopeful outcomes. Worldwide, various treatment regimens are prescribed by clinical hematologists. Objectives: The objective was to evaluate response to induction treatment and survival of MM patients treated with various treatment regimens in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI). Materials and Methods: A total of 114 patients in the KRI were included in a retrospective study through the period of January 1, 2010, to September 31, 2019. The diagnosis of MM was confirmed using the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) guidelines. The treatment responses were assessed according to the IMWG response criteria. Results: Complete response among the MM patients was 35.7%, very good partial response (VGPR) was 28.7%, partial response reached 9.1%, and stable disease reached 16.5%. The Kaplan–Meier curve showed those with VGPR had better survival than the rest of the response categories. Meanwhile, there was a significant association between MM patients on bortezomib and dexamethasone treatment regimen and complete remission was noticed (P = 0.02). Conclusions: The combination therapy of bortezomib and dexamethasone is effective in achieving a better response to treatment and good survival than other therapy regimens.
Keywords: Bortezomib and dexamethasone, Kurdistan region of Iraq, multiple myeloma
|How to cite this article:|
Mohammed AM, Hasan KM, Abdullah DA, Badi AI, Yassin AK, Safar BM, Abdulla BK, Shamoon RP, Amin TA, Mohamed ZA, Mohammed AI, Hussein DJ, Mohammed NS, Rajab RN, Hiwaizi F, Karim KJ, Hassan AM, Getta HA, Khoshnaw NS, Jalal SD. Outcome of response of multiple myeloma to induction treatment in kurdistan region of Iraq. Med J Babylon 2020;17:209-14
|How to cite this URL:|
Mohammed AM, Hasan KM, Abdullah DA, Badi AI, Yassin AK, Safar BM, Abdulla BK, Shamoon RP, Amin TA, Mohamed ZA, Mohammed AI, Hussein DJ, Mohammed NS, Rajab RN, Hiwaizi F, Karim KJ, Hassan AM, Getta HA, Khoshnaw NS, Jalal SD. Outcome of response of multiple myeloma to induction treatment in kurdistan region of Iraq. Med J Babylon [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Jul 14];17:209-14. Available from: http://www.medjbabylon.org/text.asp?2020/17/2/209/287051
| Introduction|| |
Multiple myeloma (MM) is a malignant proliferation of a single clone of plasma cells that produces monoclonal proteins. The plasma cell proliferation leads to extensive skeletal involvement, with osteolytic lesions, hypercalcemia, and anemia and/or soft-tissue plasmacytomas. Furthermore, the excessive production of nephrotoxic monoclonal immunoglobulin can result in renal failure and an increased risk of developing potentially life-threatening infections as a result of deficient functional immunoglobulins.,,,
The annual incidence of MM is about 4 / 100,000 population, which comprises about 1% of all malignant diseases and 15% of all hematological malignancies. MM is reported to affect less Asian populations and dark-skinned Americans are affected more than Whites with slightly higher male-to-female ratio. The age at diagnosis is around 65–70 years. About 15% and 2% of the patients are younger than 50 and 40 years, respectively.,
Every case of myeloma is approached with a proper history, physical examination, and laboratory investigations (including complete blood count and differential count, blood urea nitrogen, serum creatinine, serum calcium, serum albumin, serum and urine protein electrophoresis and immunofixation, and measurements of serum immunoglobulin levels). Others such as bone marrow aspirate and biopsy including bone marrow immunohistochemistry and flowcytometry, radiological bone survey (X-ray, computed tomography [CT] scan, magnetic resonance imaging or positron emission tomography-CT scan), beta 2 microglobulin, C-reactive protein, lactic dehydrogenase and measurement of free monoclonal light chain are all crucial in confirming the pathology.,,
The diagnosis of symptomatic MM is made by the presence of M protein in serum and/or urine electrophoresis, increased plasma cells in bone marrow (or plasmacytomas), and evidence of tissue damage and organ impairment. Staging of MM is done using the International Staging System (ISS) or the Revised ISS.
MM patients are planned to start treatment, according to whether he/she is a transplant eligible or not and this is mostly age dependent. The age of 65 years and less is transplant eligible and more than 65 years are not eligible in most centers.,,
An important prognostic factor associated with improved survival in patients with newly diagnosed MM is the quality of response to first-line induction treatment especially the attainment of complete response (CR).,,,, In order to help the clinical hematologists in our locality (Kurdistan Region of Iraq, KRI) to select the appropriate therapy modules for patients with MM, we implemented this study to evaluate the treatment response and survival of MM patients treated with different treatment regimens.
| Materials and Methods|| |
Study design and patients
The study design was a retrospective data review carried out on 114 patients with MM in KRI (including Erbil, Sulaymaniyah, and Duhok Cancer centers) through the period from January 1, 2010, to September 31, 2019.
Patients included in this study were diagnosed according to the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG), and then they were selected to start induction treatment. We included those received induction while excluded others who could not enter induction treatment.
A sample of 176 patients with MM was selected after eligibility for inclusion and exclusion criteria, only 114 patients were enrolled in the study.
The data were collected from the three governorates (Erbil, Sulaymaniyah, and Duhok) Cancer Centers. The questionnaire designed and included the required information as residency, age, gender, presenting features (fatigue, anemia, bone pain, pathological fracture, serum creatinine, hypercalcemia, and finally infectious states such as pneumonia, urinary tract infection, and Herpes Zoster) that are well demonstrated in [Table 1] and [Table 2]. Other valuable information included were the treatment regimens used such as VTD (bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone), VRD (bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone), VMP (bortezomib, melphalan, and dexamethasone), VD (bortezomib and dexamethasone), MPT (melphalan, prednisolone, and thalidomide), MP (melphalan and prednisolone), VCD (bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone), and RD (lenalidomide and dexamethasone). Also, treatment responses according to IMWG assessed by the senior clinical hematologists; CR, very good partial response (VGPR), PR (partial response), SD (stable disease), and the survival of MM patients (in months) after completing treatment regimen. All the required laboratory tools to diagnose the disease were carried out at our cancer center laboratories of KRI.
|Table 1: Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients under study (n=114)|
Click here to view
|Table 2: Patterns of response of multiple myeloma cases in relation to induction regimens, disease stage at diagnosis, age at presentation, gender, serum creatinine, pathological fractures and serum calcium, hemoglobin, and serum protein electrophoresis at diagnosis (n=114)|
Click here to view
Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS version 22 (SPSS, IBM Company, Chicago, IL 60606, USA). Chi-square test and Fisher's exact test was applied for analyzing the data. Kaplan–Meier curve was used to assess the survival of MM patients. The level of significance (P value) was regarded as statistically significant if it was 0.05 or less.
Ethical considerations considered in concordance with the Helsinki Declaration with approval of the study from Ethical Committee of Kurdistan Board for Medical Specialties and Cancer Centers.
| Results|| |
This study included 114 MM patients. The proportion of patients was as follows Sulaymaniyah (42.1%), Erbil (41.2%), and Duhok (16.7%). Nearly 2/3rd (64.03%) of patients were <65 years, the rest (35.96%) were 65 years and more. The male to female ratio was 1.3:1 [Table 1].
Common presenting clinical features among MM patients were bone pain (78%), fatigue (68.4%), anemia (43.9%), pathological fracture (22%), renal involvement (17.5%), hypercalcemia (7%), and infective events (3.5%) [Table 1].
Treatment regimens used for patients were commonly VTD (in 58 cases), VRD (in 34 cases), VMP (in 6 cases), VD (in 5 cases), MPT (in 4 cases), MP (in 3 cases, VCD (in 3 cases), and RD (in 1 case), as shown in [Figure 1].
CR to the induction treatment recorded at 35.7% of the MM patients, VGPR among 28.7%, PR among 19.1% and SD among 16.5% [Figure 2].
Kaplan–Meier curve showed that our MM patients with VGPR had better survival than other patients with other responses as shown in [Figure 3]. The Kaplan–Meier curve showed that MM patients had a good 5-year survival response and a cumulative rate of 5-year survival was 75% [Figure 4].
A significant association between MM patients on the VD treatment regimen and CR was observed, while PR and SD were significantly higher among patients on the MP treatment regimen (P = 0.02). Furthermore, a significant association was observed between lower stage MM disease (using ISS stage) and VGPR to treatment (P = 0.01) [Table 2].
No significant association was observed between different response criteria and age of the patient (P = 0.31), serum creatinine (P = 0.67), hemoglobin (P = 0.46), serum protein electrophoresis (P = 0.64), serum calcium (P = 0.58), and gender of the patients (P = 0.38). The pathological fractures were significantly higher among MM patients with standard treatment (P = 0.03) [Table 2].
| Discussion|| |
Previously, the MM had an average survival of 3 years but with the advancement in diagnosis and combination therapies, almost 60%–70% of the patients will obtain a CR with the survival of more than 10 years for patient's age within the fifth decade.
The present study showed that CR was achieved in 35.7% of the patients, VGPR by 28.7% and SD by 16.5%. These findings are better than the results of the Terzi et al. study in Turkey, which reported that CR was achieved by 27.6% of MM patients after first-line induction treatment. This difference might be due to difference in the treatment regimens and other risk factors such as age between two studies.
In the present study, there was a significant association between MM patients on the VD treatment regimen and CR, while PR and SD were significantly higher among patients on the MP treatment regimen (P = 0.02). These findings are similar to other studies done, such as that by Bassiony et al. study in Egypt and Driscoll et al. study in the USA, they stated that combination therapy of VD for MM is effective in achieving a significant response to treatment. A previous study in France revealed that the therapy regimen of VD was effective and well tolerated in the treatment of newly diagnosed MM. Another study in the USA by Kapoor et al., reported that Bortezomib combination therapy is effective in targeting proteasome and a high response to treatment with better survival. Jagannath et al. found that adding VD regimen for MM leads to higher treatment response more than using bortezomib alone with less adverse effects. Regarding patients with VGPR, Petrucci et al. study in Italy, found that weekly infusion of bortezomib and low-dose melphalan and dexamethasone lead to a high response to treatment among elderly patients with relapsed/refractory.
In the current study, patients with lower MM ISS stage had significantly VGPR to treatment (P = 0.01). This finding coincides with the results of Tan et al. study in Singapore, which found that advancing age, high ISS, and adverse cytogenetics are independent risk factors on achieving a high rate of VGPR.
Our study also showed that patients with VGPR had better survival than other regimens. This finding is consistent with the results of Tandon et al. study in the USA and Harousseau et al. study in France.
Generally, our study reported a good prognosis for MM patients with a 75% cumulative rate for 5 years of survival. These findings are better than the results of Yassin study in Erbil, which found that the median survival of patients with MM after adding thalidomide was 34 months. Additionally, our study survival is better than the results of Hameed et al. study in Pakistan which found that the cumulative survival of MM patients at 36 months was 85%. This might be due to more nonbortezomib containing regimens in both other studies particularly in the second study that reaches 90% of the cases.
In the present study, a higher proportion of MM patients are those with younger than 65 years. This finding is close to the results of Zweegman et al. study in Netherlands. Our study reported the predominance of the male gender. Similarly, Boyd et al. study in the UK found gender differences in the prevalence of MM in favor of male predominance also. Bone pain was a common complaint among studied patients. This finding is consistent with the results of Yassin study in Erbil. However, the current study revealed no significant differences between patients with different responses to treatment regarding the age of patients, serum creatinine, hemoglobin, serum protein electrophoresis, and gender. These findings resemble the results of Mohammed's study in Iraq and Liu et al. study in Taiwan. Inconsistently, other literatures such as Najjar and Al Tameemi study in Iraq and Lu et al. study in China reported the effect of age, gender, serum creatinine, hemoglobin, and serum protein electrophoresis on treatment outcome of MM. This inconsistency might be attributed to differences in treatment protocols used or discrepancies in disease epidemiology between different studies. The present study found that pathological fractures were significantly higher among MM patients with standard treatment (P = 0.03). Consistently, Collins' study in Ireland reported that healing of pathological fractures is correlated significantly with the treatment response of MM.
| Conclusions|| |
This study concluded that combination therapy of VD is effective in achieving a better response of treatment and good survival than other therapy regimens. MM patients with VGPR are related to lower ISS stages and better survival.
Special thanks and appreciation for all medical workers in Cancer centers in Kurdistan for their support.
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References|| |
Kumar SK. Management of multiple myeloma. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2018;16:624-7.
Jasielec JK, Jakubowiak AJ. Current approaches to the initial treatment of symptomatic multiple myeloma. Int J Hematol Oncol 2013;2: 10.2217/ijh.13.3.
Armitage JO, Antman KH Attal M, Harousseau JL. High-dose therapy in multiple myeloma. In: Armitage JO, Antman KH, editors. High-Dose Cancer Therapy. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1999. p. 743-54.
Anderson KC, Ghobrial Harousseau JL. High dose therapy in multiple myeloma. In: Anderson KC, Ghobrial IM, editors. Multiple Myeloma: Translational and Emergent Therapies. New York, NY: Informa Healthcare; 2008. p. 197-209.
Mateos MV, San Miguel JF. How should we treat newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients? Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program 2013;2013:488-95.
Alexanian R, Wang M, Delasalle K, Wang S, Qazilbash M, Handy B, et al
. Value of novel agents and intensive therapy for patients with multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant 2014;49:422-5.
Mina R, Cerrato C, Bernardini A, Aghemo E, Palumbo A. New pharmacotherapy options for multiple myeloma. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2016;17:181-92.
Robak P, Drozdz I, Szemraj J, Robak T. Drug resistance in multiple myeloma. Cancer Treat Rev 2018;70:199-208.
Bladé J, López-Guillermo A, Bosch F, Cervantes F, Reverter JC, Montserrat E, et al
. Impact of response to treatment on survival in multiple myeloma: Results in a series of 243 patients. Br J Haematol 1994;88:117-21.
Barlogie B, Jagannath S, Vesole DH, Naucke S, Cheson B, Mattox S, et al
. Superiority of tandem autologous transplantation over standard therapy for previously untreated multiple myeloma. Blood 1997;89:789-93.
Oivanen TM, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen P, Koivisto AM, Koivunen E, Palva I. Response level and survival after conventional chemotherapy for multiple myeloma: A Finnish Leukaemia Group study. Eur J Haematol 1999;62:109-16.
Durie BG, Jacobson J, Barlogie B, Crowley J. Magnitude of response with myeloma frontline therapy does not predict outcome: Importance of time to progression in southwest oncology group chemotherapy trials. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:1857-63.
Kyle RA, Leong T, Li S, Oken MM, Kay NE, Van Ness B, et al
. Complete response in multiple myeloma: Clinical trial E9486, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study not involving stem cell transplantation. Cancer 2006;106:1958-66.
Niesvizky R, Richardson PG, Rajkumar SV, Coleman M, Rosiñol L, Sonneveld P, et al
. The relationship between quality of response and clinical benefit for patients treated on the bortezomib arm of the international, randomized, phase 3 APEX trial in relapsed multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 2008;143:46-53.
Harousseau JL, Weber D, Dimopoulos M. Relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma treated with Lenalidomide/dexamethasone who achieve a complete or near complete response have longer overall survival and time to progression compared with patients achieving a partial response. Blood 2007;110:3598.
Landgren O, Iskander K. Modern multiple myeloma therapy: Deep, sustained treatment response and good clinical outcomes. J Intern Med 2017;281:365-82.
Terzi H, Korkmaz S, Berber I, Keklik M, Doǧu MH, Şencan M, et al
. Clinical Characteristics and Treatments Outcomes in Elderly Patients with Multiple Myeloma: A Multicenter Retrospective Study. Cumhuriyet Med J 2017;39:389-95.
Bassiony ES, Barakat AF, Ghannam AA, Abozena EA. Bortezomib in multiple myeloma: Treatment response and survival outcome. Tanta Med J 45:129-34.
Driscoll JJ, Burris J, Annunziata CM. Targeting the proteasome with bortezomib in multiple myeloma: Update on therapeutic benefit as an upfront single agent, induction regimen for stem-cell transplantation and as maintenance therapy. Am J Ther 2012;19:133-44.
Harousseau JL, Attal M, Leleu X, Troncy J, Pegourie B, Stoppa AM, et al
. Bortezomib plus dexamethasone as induction treatment prior to autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: Results of an IFM phase II study. Haematologica 2006;91:1498-505.
Kapoor P, Ramakrishnan V, Rajkumar SV. Bortezomib combination therapy in multiple myeloma. Semin Hematol 2012;49:228-42.
Jagannath S, Richardson PG, Barlogie B, Berenson JR, Singhal S, Irwin D, et al
. Bortezomib in combination with dexamethasone for the treatment of patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma with less than optimal response to bortezomib alone. Haematologica 2006;91:929-34.
Petrucci MT, Levi A, Bringhen S, Scotti S, Gentilini F, Russo S, et al
. Bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone in elderly patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: A multicenter, open label phase 1 / 2 study. Cancer 2013;119:971-7.
Tan D, Lao Z, Loh Y, Ng HJ, Chuah C, Wong GC, et al
. Attainment of at least a very good partial response after induction treatment is an important surrogate of longer survival for multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant 2010;45:1625-30.
Tandon N, Sidana S, Rajkumar SV, Gertz MA, Buadi FK, Lacy MQ, et al
. Outcomes with early response to first-line treatment in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood Adv 2019;3:744-50.
Harousseau JL, Avet-Loiseau H, Attal M, Charbonnel C, Garban F, Hulin C, et al
. Achievement of at least very good partial response is a simple and robust prognostic factor in patients with multiple myeloma treated with high-dose therapy: Long-term analysis of the IFM 99-02 and 99-04 Trials. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:5720-6.
Yassin AK. Survival advantage of adding thalidomide as compared with chemotherapy only in the treatment of symptomatic myeloma in Kurdistan/Iraq. Iraqi J Hematology 2014;3:75-84.
Hameed A, Ali J, Munawar K, Arshad F, Badar F, Siddiqui N. Characteristics and outcomes of patients with multiple myeloma: Data from a developing country. Med J Islam Repub Iran 2018;32:1.
Zweegman S, Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Sonneveld P. Age and aging in blood disorders: Multiple myeloma. Haematologica 2014;99:1133-7.
Boyd KD, Ross FM, Chiecchio L, Dagrada G, Konn ZJ, Tapper WJ, et al
. Gender disparities in the tumor genetics and clinical outcome of multiple myeloma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011;20:1703-7.
Yassin AK. Clinical and laboratory profiles of 109 patients diagnosed as multiple myeloma in Erbil City. J Fac Med Baghdad 2013;55:121-4.
Mohammed MT. Effect of Trigonella Foenum-Graecum L
.(Fenugreek) on liver enzymes in ischemia-reperfusion injury. Iraqi Postgraduate Med J 2013;12:69-74.
Liu WN, Chang CF, Chung CH, Chien WC, Huang TC, Wu YY, et al
. Clinical outcomes of bortezomib-based therapy in Taiwanese patients with multiple myeloma: A nationwide population-based study and a single-institute analysis. PLoS One 2019;14:e0222522.
Najjar SA, Al Tameemi WF. Application of serum C-reactive protein in comparison with βeta-2-microglobulin in patient with multiple myeloma. Iraqi J Hematol 2017;6:6-11. [Full text]
Lu J, Lu J, Chen W, Huo Y, Huang X, Hou J, et al
. Clinical features and treatment outcome in newly diagnosed Chinese patients with multiple myeloma: Results of a multicenter analysis. Blood Cancer J 2014;4:e239.
Collins CD. Problems monitoring response in multiple myeloma. Cancer Imaging 2005;5 Spec No A:S119-26.
[Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
[Table 1], [Table 2]