Efficacy and safety of pomalidomide combined with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone in treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma
10.3760/cma.j.cn115355-20220930-00610
- VernacularTitle:泊马度胺联合环磷酰胺、地塞米松治疗复发难治多发性骨髓瘤的效果及安全性
- Author:
Xiangbiao FANG
1
;
Xingxing CHAI
;
Guihua ZHU
;
Jinlian LI
;
Yao HE
;
Fanjing MENG
;
Yanqiu XU
;
Wanchuan ZHUANG
Author Information
1. 蚌埠医学院附属连云港市第二人民医院血液科，连云港 222000
- Keywords:
Multiple myeloma;
Pomalidomide;
Treatment outcome;
Adverse effects
- From:
Cancer Research and Clinic
2023;35(4):252-257
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the therapeutic effect and safety of pomadomide combined with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (PCD) in the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM).Methods:The clinical data of 20 relapsed/refractory MM patients receiving PCD regimen in the Second People's Hospital of Lianyungang Affiliated to Bengbu Medical College from March 2021 to June 2022 were retrospectively analyzed; and 29 relapsed/refractory MM patients receiving other regimens including DECP (dexamethasone+etoposide+cyclophosphamide+cisplatin, 13 cases) and VCD (bortezomib+ cyclophosphamide+ dexamethasone, 16 cases) during the same period were treated as the control group. The efficacy and adverse effects of both groups were compared after 4 cycles of treatment.Results:After 4 cycles of treatment, the overall response rate (ORR) and the clinical benefit rate (CBR) of 20 cases in PCD group was 70.0% (14/20) and 85.0% (17/20), respectively; among 20 cases, there were 5 cases of complete response (CR), 4 cases of very good partial remission (VGPR), 5 cases of partial remission (PR), 3 cases of minimal remission (MR), 2 cases of stable disease (SD), 1 case of the progression of the disease (PD). ORR and CBR of 29 cases in the control group was 41.4% (12/29) and 65.5% (19/29), respectively; among 29 cases, there were 2 cases of CR, 3 cases of VGPR, 7 cases of PR, 7 cases of MR, 5 cases of SD, 5 cases of PD. There was a statistically significant difference in ORR of both group ( χ2 = 3.89, P = 0.048), while the difference in CBR of both group was not statistically significant ( χ2 = 2.30, P = 0.129). There were 2 patients with renal impairment achieving CR in PCD group and 1 patient with renal impairment achieving CR in the control group ( P = 0.152); 1 genetically high-risk patient achieved CR in PCD group and none of patients in the control group achieved CR, and the difference was statistically significant ( P>0.05). The common hematological adverse effects of two groups were anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia; the common non-hematological adverse effects were malaise, infection and fatigue, and the differences were statistically significant (all P>0.05). The incidence of grade 3-4 infection was 25.0% (5/20) in PCD group and the disease was under the control after anti-infective therapy, and the incidence of grade 3-4 infection was 24.1% (7/29) in the control group; and the difference was not statistically significant ( P > 0.05). Conclusions:PCD regimen has good clinical efficacy and safety in treatment of relapsed/refractory MM.
