Search

This is the seventh special EBMT report on the indications for haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for haematological diseases, solid tumours and immune disorders. Our aim is to provide general guidance on transplant indications according to prevailing clinical practice in EBMT countries and centres. In order to inform patient decisions, these recommendations must be considered together with the risk of the disease, the risk of the transplant procedure and the results of non-transplant strategies. In over two decades since the first report, the EBMT indications manuscripts have incorporated changes in transplant practice coming from scientific and technical developments in the field. In this same period, the establishment of JACIE accreditation has promoted high quality and led to improved outcomes of patient and donor care and laboratory performance in transplantation and cellular therapy. An updated report with operating definitions, revised indications and an additional set of data with overall survival at 1 year and non-relapse mortality at day 100 after transplant in the commonest standard-of-care indications is presented. Additional efforts are currently underway to enable EBMT member centres to benchmark their risk-adapted outcomes as part of the Registry upgrade Project 2020 against national and/or international outcome data.

Item does not contain fulltext In patients treated with allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT) for malignant disease who suffer from a relapse after the transplantation, the role of second allogeneic SCT is often uncertain. In a retrospective analysis, 2632 second allogeneic transplantations carried out for a relapse after the first transplantation were analyzed to define indications and identify predictive factors. Fifteen percent of the patients remained relapse-free until 5 years after the second SCT. Patients with CML had a better survival than patients with other diseases. In a multivariate analysis, factors associated with better survival were low disease burden, longer remission duration after the first transplantation, longer interval between the transplantations, younger age, absence of grade II-IV acute GvHD or chronic GvHD after the first transplantation, and later year of transplantation. The European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation risk score predicted the outcome. Using the same donor as in the first transplantation vs another donor had no predictive value for survival. Sibling donor was a favorable predictive factor. In conclusion, second allogeneic SCT offers a reasonable option especially for young patients with a long remission after the first transplantation and a low disease burden. The present findings do not support the usefulness of changing the donor for the second transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Bortezomib with dexamethasone is a standard treatment option for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Carfilzomib with dexamethasone has shown promising activity in patients in this disease setting. The aim of this study was to compare the combination of carfilzomib and dexamethasone with bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this randomised, phase 3, open-label, multicentre study, patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had one to three previous treatments were randomly assigned (1:1) using a blocked randomisation scheme (block size of four) to receive carfilzomib with dexamethasone (carfilzomib group) or bortezomib with dexamethasone (bortezomib group). Randomisation was stratified by previous proteasome inhibitor therapy, previous lines of treatment, International Staging System stage, and planned route of bortezomib administration if randomly assigned to bortezomib with dexamethasone. Patients received treatment until progression with carfilzomib (20 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1; 56 mg/m(2) thereafter; 30 min intravenous infusion) and dexamethasone (20 mg oral or intravenous infusion) or bortezomib (1·3 mg/m(2); intravenous bolus or subcutaneous injection) and dexamethasone (20 mg oral or intravenous infusion). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. All participants who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analyses. The study is ongoing but not enrolling participants; results for the interim analysis of the primary endpoint are presented. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01568866. FINDINGS: Between June 20, 2012, and June 30, 2014, 929 patients were randomly assigned (464 to the carfilzomib group; 465 to the bortezomib group). Median follow-up was 11·9 months (IQR 9·3-16·1) in the carfilzomib group and 11·1 months (8·2-14·3) in the bortezomib group. Median progression-free survival was 18·7 months (95% CI 15·6-not estimable) in the carfilzomib group versus 9·4 months (8·4-10·4) in the bortezomib group at a preplanned interim analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 0·53 [95% CI 0·44-0·65]; p

Item does not contain fulltext Previous studies have shown that obtaining complete hematologic remission (CR) in multiple myeloma is an important predictor of PFS and OS. This applies both to autologous and allogeneic transplantation. However, the importance of CR obtained before vs after second transplant or following allogeneic vs autologous transplantation is not clear. We investigated the role of CR analyzing data from the EBMT-NMAM2000 interventional prospective study comparing tandem autologous/reduced intensity conditioning allogeneic transplantation (auto/RICallo) to autologous transplantation-single or double (auto/auto). Allocation to treatment was performed according to availability of a matched sibling donor. Cox regression and multi-state models were applied. The long-term probability of survival in CR was superior in auto/RICallo, both comparing groups according to treatment allocated at start (28.8 vs 11.4% at 60 months, P=0.0004) and according to actual administration of second transplant (25.6 vs 9.6% at 60 months, P=0.008). CR achieved before the second transplant was predictive for PFS (hazard ratio (HR)=0.44, P= 0.003) and OS (HR 0.51, P=0.047) irrespective of the type of second transplant. CR achieved after auto/RICallo was more beneficial for PFS (HR=0.53, P=0.027) than CR after auto/auto (HR=0.81, P=0.390), indicating a better durability of CR obtained after an allotransplant procedure.

Item does not contain fulltext Long-term follow-up of prospective studies comparing allogeneic transplantation to autologous transplantation in multiple myeloma is few and controversial. This is an update at a median follow-up of 96 months of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation Non-Myeloablative Allogeneic stem cell transplantation in Multiple Myeloma (NMAM)2000 study that prospectively compares tandem autologous/reduced intensity conditioning allogeneic transplantation (auto/RICallo) to autologous transplantation alone (auto). There are 357 myeloma patients up to age 69 years enrolled. Patients with an HLA-identical sibling were allocated to auto/RICallo (n = 108) and those without to auto alone (n = 249). At 96 months progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 22% and 49% vs 12% (P = .027) and 36% (P = .030) with auto/RICallo and auto respectively. The corresponding relapse/progression rate (RL) was 60% vs 82% (P = .0002). Non-relapse mortality at 36 months was 13% vs 3% (P = .0004). In patients with the del(13) abnormality corresponding PFS and OS were 21% and 47% vs 5% (P = .026), and 31% (P = .154). Long-term outcome in patients with multiple myeloma was better with auto/RICallo as compared with auto only and the auto/RICallo approach seemed to overcome the poor prognostic impact of del(13) observed after autologous transplantation. Follow up longer than 5 years is necessary for correct interpretation of the value of auto/RICallo in multiple myeloma.

Item does not contain fulltext Outcomes and prognostic factors of reduced intensity-conditioned allo-SCT (RIC allo-SCT) for multiple myeloma (MM) relapsing or progressing after prior autologous (auto)-SCT are not well defined. We performed an analysis of 413 MM patients who received a related or unrelated RIC allo-SCT for the treatment of relapse/progression after prior auto-SCT. Median age at RIC allo-SCT was 54.1 years, and 44.6% of patients had undergone two or more prior auto-SCTs. Median OS and PFS from the time of RIC allo-SCT for the entire population were 24.7 and 9.6 months, respectively. Cumulative non-relapse mortality (NRM) at 1 year was 21.5%. In multivariate analysis, CMV seronegativity of both patient and donor was associated with significantly better PFS, OS and NRM. Patient-donor gender mismatch was associated with better PFS, fewer than two prior auto-SCT was associated with better OS, and shorter time from the first auto-SCT to the RIC allo-SCT was associated with lower NRM. The results of this study identify patient and donor CMV seronegativity as the key prognostic factor for outcome after RIC allo-SCT for MM relapsing or progressing after prior auto-SCT.Bone Marrow Transplantation advance online publication, 27 May 2013; doi:10.1038/bmt.2013.73.

Item does not contain fulltext This randomized-controlled trial studied the efficacy of palifermin in a chemotherapy-only, high-dose Melphalan (HDM) transplant setting, to reduce oral mucositis (OM) and its sequelae measured by patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and medical resource use. Palifermin, relative to placebo was given either pre-/post-HDM or pre-HDM in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) undergoing auto-SCT at 39 European centers. Oral cavity assessment (WHO) and PRO questionnaires (oral mucositis daily questionnaire (OMDQ) and EQ 5D) were used in 281 patients (mean age 56, +/-s.d.=8 years). 57 patients received placebo. One hundred and fifteen subjects were randomized to pre-/post-HDM receiving palifermin on 3 consecutive days before HDM and after auto-SCT and 109 patients were randomized to pre-HDM, receiving palifermin (60 mug/kg/day) i.v. for 3 consecutive days before HDM. There was no statistically significant difference in maximum OM severity. Severe OM occurred in 37% (placebo), 38% (pre-/post-HDM) and 24% (pre-HDM) of patients. No significant difference was observed with respect to PRO assessments or medical resource use, but more infections and fever during neutropenia were reported in pre-/post-HDM vs placebo (for example, 51 and 26%). To conclude, palifermin was unable to reduce OM or OM-related patient's burden in MM transplant patients. 01 juli 2013

Contains fulltext : 96617.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: Bone marrow fibrosis in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome is associated with a poor outcome, but whether the outcome after allogeneic stem cell transplantation is related to the degree of bone marrow fibrosis is unknown. DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients with myelodysplastic syndrome and known bone marrow histology (n=721) who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation were classified according to the degree of bone marrow fibrosis into those without fibrosis (n=483), those with mild or moderate fibrosis (n=199) and those with severe fibrosis (n=39) and analyzed regarding engraftment, treatment-related mortality, relapse and survival. RESULTS: The degree of fibrosis was not associated with disease status or abnormal cytogenetics. The cumulative incidence of engraftment achieved at day +30 in non-fibrotic patients was 93% and was significantly lower in those with mild or moderate fibrosis (89%) and severe fibrosis (75%) (P=0.009). Neutrophil engraftment occurred later in patients with mild or moderate fibrosis and severe fibrosis than in patients without fibrosis (median 17 versus 20 versus 16 days, respectively; P=0.002). The cumulative incidence of relapse at 3 years was significantly higher in patients with severe fibrosis than in those with a lesser degree of fibrosis or no fibrosis (47% versus 28% versus 27%, respectively; P=0.04), resulting in comparable 3-year disease-free survival rates in patients without fibrosis and in those with mild or moderate fibrosis (42% versus 38%, respectively) but a lower disease-free survival rate in those with severe fibrosis (18%; P=0.002). Severe fibrosis remained an independent factor for reduced survival (hazard ratio, 1.9; P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with myelodysplastic syndromes, only severe fibrosis affects survival after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation while patients with mild or moderate fibrosis have an outcome comparable to that of patients without bone marrow fibrosis.

The number of CML patients in child-bearing age and treated with imatinib is increasing. These women may want to be pregnant or are actually pregnant while on imatinib. Physicians do not know when to stop the treatment and what the risks are for the foetus and the mother. We report a case of a CML patient treated with imatinib who has two children, now 3 years and 10 months of age, in good health. The mother was in complete molecular remission, relapsed during pregnancy and reverted to remission in both cases after delivery.

Acute megakaryoblastic leukemia (M7 AML) is a highly aggressive disease. We evaluated outcomes in 57 children (11 with Down syndrome) and 69 adults with M7 AML after first complete remission (CR1) following autologous or HLA-identical allogeneic transplantation. Characteristics of the recipients of autologous transplants (38 children, 37 adults) were, respectively: median age, 1.7 and 46 years; non-total body irradiation (non-TBI) conditioning regimen, 97% and 70%; bone marrow as stem cell source, 74% and 43%. Characteristics of the recipients of allogeneic transplants (19 children, 32 adults) were, respectively: median age, 2.8 and 37 years; non-TBI regimen, 63% and 42%; bone marrow as stem cell source, 95% and 69%. Autologous transplantation benefited children more; the relapse rate was high in adults. Results for autologous transplantation were (children and adults, respectively): engraftment, 90% and 100%; 3-year treatment-related mortality (TRM) rate, 3% and 8%; relapse rate, 45% and 64%; leukemia-free survival (LFS) rate, 52% and 27%; overall survival (OS) rate, 61% and 30%. After allogeneic transplantation, TRM was fairly low in children and adults, and relapse rates were lower than after autologous transplantation. Results for allogeneic transplantation were, respectively: engraftment, 95% and 90%; TRM, 0% and 26%; relapse rate, 34% and 28%; LFS, 66% and 46%; OS, 82% and 43%). We conclude that M7 AML patients in CR1 (except children with Down syndrome, who already have better outcomes) can benefit from transplantation. (Blood. 2005;105:405-409)

PURPOSE 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) is currently the standard technique to define minimal residual disease (MRD) status outside the bone marrow (BM) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). This study aimed to define criteria for PET complete metabolic response after therapy, jointly analyzing a subgroup of newly diagnosed transplantation-eligible patients with MM enrolled in two independent European randomized phase III trials (IFM/DFCI2009 and EMN02/HO95). PATIENTS AND METHODS Two hundred twenty-eight patients were observed for a median of 62.9 months. By study design, PET/CT scans were performed at baseline and before starting maintenance (premaintenance [PM]). The five-point Deauville scale (DS) was applied to describe BM (BM score [BMS]) and focal lesion (FL; FL score [FS]) uptake and tested a posteriori in uni- and multivariable analyses for their impact on clinical outcomes. RESULTS At baseline, 78% of patients had FLs (11% extramedullary), 80% with an FS ≥ 4. All patients had BM diffuse uptake (35.5% with BMS ≥ 4). At PM, 31% of patients had visually detectable FLs (2% extramedullary), 24% and 67.7% of them with an FS of 3 and ≥ 4, respectively. At PM, 98% of patients retained residual BM diffuse uptake, which was significantly lower than at baseline (mainly between BMS 2 and 3, BMS was ≥ 4 in only 8.7% of patients). By both uni- and multivariable analysis, FS and BMS < 4 were associated with prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) at PM (OS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.6 and 0.47, respectively; PFS: HR, 0.36 and 0.24, respectively) CONCLUSION FL and BM FDG uptake lower than the liver background after therapy was an independent predictor for improved PFS and OS and can be proposed as the standardized criterion of PET complete metabolic response, confirming the value of the DS for patients with MM.

Patients with multiple myeloma frequently present with substantial immune impairment and an increased risk for infections and infection-related mortality. The risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2 virus and resulting mortality is also increased, emphasising the importance of protecting patients by vaccination. Available data in patients with multiple myeloma suggest a suboptimal anti-SARS-CoV-2 immune response, meaning a proportion of patients are unprotected. Factors associated with poor response are uncontrolled disease, immunosuppression, concomitant therapy, more lines of therapy, and CD38 antibody-directed and B-cell maturation antigen-directed therapy. These facts suggest that monitoring the immune response to vaccination in patients with multiple myeloma might provide guidance for clinical management, such as administration of additional doses of the same or another vaccine, or even temporary treatment discontinuation, if possible. In those who do not exhibit a good response, prophylactic treatment with neutralising monoclonal antibody cocktails might be considered. In patients deficient of a SARS-CoV-2 immune response, adherence to measures for infection risk reduction is particularly recommended. This consensus was generated by members of the European Multiple Myeloma Network and some external experts. The panel members convened in virtual meetings and conducted an extensive literature research and evaluated recently published data and work presented at meetings, as well as findings from their own studies. The outcome of the discussions on establishing consensus recommendations for COVID-19, This study has been funded by the Austrian Forum against Cancer, which covered in part expenses for interaction between authors and for secretarial support.

PURPOSE The double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III TOURMALINE-MM1 study demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival with ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (ixazomib-Rd) versus placebo-Rd in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. We report the final analyses for overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to ixazomib-Rd (n = 360) or placebo-Rd (n = 362), stratified by number of prior therapies (1 v 2 or 3), previous proteasome inhibitor (PI) exposure (yes v no), and International Staging System disease stage (I or II v III). OS (intent-to-treat population) was a key secondary end point. RESULTS With a median follow-up of 85 months, median OS with ixazomib-Rd versus placebo-Rd was 53.6 versus 51.6 months (hazard ratio, 0.939; P = .495). Lower hazard ratios, indicating larger magnitude of OS benefit with ixazomib-Rd versus placebo-Rd, were seen in predefined subgroups: refractory to any (0.794) or last (0.742) treatment line; age > 65-75 years (0.757); International Staging System stage III (0.779); 2/3 prior therapies (0.845); high-risk cytogenetics (0.870); and high-risk cytogenetics and/or 1q21 amplification (0.862). Following ixazomib-Rd versus placebo-Rd, 71.7% versus 69.9% of patients received ≥ 1 anticancer therapy, of whom 24.7% versus 33.9% received daratumumab and 71.8% versus 76.9% received PIs (next-line therapy: 47.5% v 55.8%). Rates of new primary malignancies were similar with ixazomib-Rd (10.3%) and placebo-Rd (11.9%). There were no new or additional safety concerns. CONCLUSION Median OS values in both arms were the longest reported in phase III studies of Rd-based triplets in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma at the time of this analysis; progression-free survival benefit with ixazomib-Rd versus placebo-Rd did not translate into a statistically significant OS benefit on intent-to-treat analysis. OS benefit was greater in subgroups with adverse prognostic factors. OS interpretation was confounded by imbalances in subsequent therapies received, especially PIs and daratumumab.

Vaccination is one of the most successful medical interventions that has saved the life of millions of people. Vaccination is particularly important in patients with multiple myeloma, who have an increased risk of infections due to the disease-inherent immune suppression, and because of the immune suppressive effects of therapy. Hence, all appropriate measures should be exploited, to elicit an effective immune response to common pathogens like influenza, pneumococci, varicella zoster virus, and to those bacteria and viruses (haemophilus influenzae, meningococci, and hepatitis) that frequently may pose a significant risk to patients with multiple myeloma. Patients after autologous, and specifically after allogeneic transplantation have severely reduced antibody titers, and therefore require a broader spectrum of vaccinations. Response to vaccination in myeloma often is less vigorous than in the general population, mandating either measurement of the postvaccination antibody titers and/or repeating the vaccination. Here, we compile the existing data on vaccination in multiple myeloma and provide recommendations for clinical practice. ispartof: LEUKEMIA vol:35 issue:1 pages:31-44 ispartof: location:England status: published

© The Author(s) 2020., Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic precursor state of multiple myeloma (MM). Recently, MM was redefined to include biomarkers predicting a high risk of progression from SMM, thus necessitating a redefinition of SMM and its risk stratification. We assembled a large cohort of SMM patients meeting the revised IMWG criteria to develop a new risk stratification system. We included 1996 patients, and using stepwise selection and multivariable analysis, we identified three independent factors predicting progression risk at 2 years: serum M-protein >2 g/dL (HR: 2.1), involved to uninvolved free light-chain ratio >20 (HR: 2.7), and marrow plasma cell infiltration >20% (HR: 2.4). This translates into 3 categories with increasing 2-year progression risk: 6% for low risk (38%; no risk factors, HR: 1); 18% for intermediate risk (33%; 1 factor; HR: 3.0), and 44% for high risk (29%; 2–3 factors). Addition of cytogenetic abnormalities (t(4;14), t(14;16), +1q, and/or del13q) allowed separation into 4 groups (low risk with 0, low intermediate risk with 1, intermediate risk with 2, and high risk with ≥3 risk factors) with 6, 23, 46, and 63% risk of progression in 2 years, respectively. The 2/20/20 risk stratification model can be easily implemented to identify high-risk SMM for clinical research and routine practice and will be widely applicable., The data collection study was conducted by the International Myeloma Foundation as an International Myeloma Working Group project supported in part by a grant funded by Janssen.

Background Therapeutic advancements following the introduction of autologous stem cell transplantation and ‘novel’ agents have significantly improved clinical outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Increased life expectancy, however, has led to renewed concerns about the long-term risk of second primary malignancies (SPMs). This review outlines the most up-to-date knowledge of possible host-, disease-, and treatment-related risk factors for the development of SPMs in patients with MM, and provides practical recommendations to assist physicians. Design A Panel of International Myeloma Working Group members reviewed the most relevant data published in the literature as full papers, or presented at meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Hematology, European Hematology Association, or International Myeloma Workshops, up to June 2016. Here, we present the recommendations of the Panel, based on this literature review. Results Overall, the risk of SPMs in MM is low, multifactorial, and partially related to the length of patients’ survival and MM intrinsic susceptibility. Studies suggest a significantly increased incidence of SPMs when lenalidomide is administered either following, or concurrently with, oral melphalan. Increased SPM incidence has also been reported with lenalidomide maintenance following high-dose melphalan, albeit to a lesser degree. In both cases, the risk of death from MM was significantly higher than the risk of death from SPMs, with lenalidomide possibly providing a survival benefit. No increase in SPM incidence was reported with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (without melphalan), or with bortezomib plus oral melphalan, dexamethasone, or thalidomide. Conclusion In general, the risk of SPMs should not alter the current therapeutic decision-making process in MM. However, regimens such as lenalidomide plus dexamethasone should be preferred to prolonged exposure to lenalidomide plus oral melphalan. SPM risk should be carefully discussed with the patient in the context of benefits and risks of different treatment options.

[Background]: Few effective treatments exist for patients with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma not responding to treatment with bortezomib and lenalidomide. Pomalidomide alone has shown limited efficacy in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma, but synergistic effects have been noted when combined with dexamethasone. We compared the efficacy and safety of pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone with high-dose dexamethasone alone in these patients. [Methods]: This multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial was undertaken in Australia, Canada, Europe, Russia, and the USA. Patients were eligible if they had been diagnosed with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma, and had failed at least two previous treatments of bortezomib and lenalidomide. They were assigned in a 2:1 ratio with a validated interactive voice and internet response system to either 28 day cycles of pomalidomide (4 mg/day on days 1-21, orally) plus low-dose dexamethasone (40 mg/day on days 1, 8, 15, and 22, orally) or high-dose dexamethasone (40 mg/day on days 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20, orally) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Stratification factors were age (≤75 years vs >75 years), disease population (refractory vs relapsed and refractory vs bortezomib intolerant), and number of previous treatments (two vs more than two). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01311687, and with EudraCT, number 2010-019820-30. [Findings]: The accrual for the study has been completed and the analyses are presented. 302 patients were randomly assigned to receive pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone and 153 high-dose dexamethasone. After a median follow-up of 10·0 months (IQR 7·2-13·2), median PFS with pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone was 4·0 months (95% CI 3·6-4·7) versus 1·9 months (1·9-2·2) with high-dose dexamethasone (hazard ratio 0·48 [95% CI 0·39-0·60]; p, Funding: Celgene Corporation.

The prognosis for patients multiple myeloma (MM) has improved substantially over the past decade with the development of new, more effective chemotherapeutic agents and regimens that possess a high level of anti-tumor activity. In spite of this important progress, however, nearly all MM patients ultimately relapse, even those who experience a complete response to initial therapy. Management of relapsed MM thus represents a vital aspect of the overall care for patients with MM and a critical area of ongoing scientific and clinical research. This comprehensive manuscript from the International Myeloma Working Group provides detailed recommendations on management of relapsed disease, with sections dedicated to diagnostic evaluation, determinants of therapy, and general approach to patients with specific disease characteristics. In addition, the manuscript provides a summary of evidence from clinical trials that have significantly impacted the field, including those evaluating conventional dose therapies, as well as both autologous and allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Specific recommendations are offered for management of first and second relapse, relapsed and refractory disease, and both autologous and allogeneic transplant. Finally, perspective is provided regarding new agents and promising directions in management of relapsed MM.Leukemia accepted article preview online, 29 December 2015. doi:10.1038/leu.2015.356.