
==== Front
Clin Exp Med
Clin Exp Med
Clinical and Experimental Medicine
1591-8890
1591-9528
Springer International Publishing Cham

39249542
1481
10.1007/s10238-024-01481-2
Research
Modest survival benefits of autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma with renal impairment: a critical appraisal of the pre-antibody era
Li Yan 1
Zhang Xinyi 12
Zou Zhongqing 13
Xiong Yanqiu 13
Gu Xinyuan 12
Zou Ruiji 12
Tan Jing 4
Zhang Li Drzhangli2014@sina.com

1
Zheng Yuhuan yuhuan_zheng@163.com

1
Niu Ting 1
1 grid.13291.38 0000 0001 0807 1581 Department of Hematology, Institute of Hematology, West China Hospital/ State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan China
2 https://ror.org/011ashp19 grid.13291.38 0000 0001 0807 1581 West China School of Medicine, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
3 https://ror.org/034z67559 grid.411292.d 0000 0004 1798 8975 Department of Hematology, Clinical Medical College & Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu University, Chengdu University, Chengdu, Sichuan China
4 https://ror.org/00ebdgr24 grid.460068.c 0000 0004 1757 9645 Department of Hematology, Chengdu Third People’s Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan China
9 9 2024
9 9 2024
2024
24 1 21517 7 2024
29 8 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
The benefit of high-dose melphalan followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HDM-ASCT) for multiple myeloma (MM) patients with renal insufficiency (RI) is debated. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of HDM-ASCT in MM patients with RIs, and the findings were compared with real-world data. The study included 26 articles, 13 of which were pooled for meta-analysis. We compared three different types of MM patients with RI against MM patients with normal renal function (NRF). These patients were: MM patients with RI at the time of transplantation; MM patients with RI at the time of diagnosis; MM patients with RI at diagnosis but with NRF at transplantation. The meta-analysis indicated that MM patients with RIs conditioned with melphalan ≤ 140 mg/m2 followed by ASCT had transplant-related mortality rates comparable to those without RIs. The complete response rates post-ASCT were similar between MM patients with RIs and those with NRF. Although progression-free survival (PFS) was statistically similar between the groups, MM patients with RIs had significantly poorer overall survival (OS) than those with NRF. The real-world data supported these findings. With a reduced dose of melphalan, ASCT is safe and effective for MM patients with RI. MM patients with RI have similar complete response rates and PFS after ASCT compared to MM patients with NRF. The lower OS in MM patients with RI indicates the need for further research to improve OS in these patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10238-024-01481-2.

Keywords

Multiple myeloma
Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation
Renal insufficiency
Meta-analysis
Systematic review
Sichuan University faculty start fundNational Natural Science Foundation of China82070219 Zheng Yuhuan issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Multiple myeloma (MM) is often complicated by renal insufficiency (RI), which is defined as reduced clearance of creatinine (CrCl < 40 ml/min) or increased serum creatinine (Scr > 2 mg/dl) in MM patients [1]. The MM with RI have an inferior prognosis [2], which may be related to early mortality and disease complications caused by RI [3, 4]. MM with dialysis-dependent RI have an even worse prognosis than those with mild RI [5]. Therefore, the inductive treatment options for MM with RI are of pivotal importance.

In general, high-dose melphalan followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HDM-ASCT) confers the best treatment outcomes and fewer adverse effects for transplantation-eligible MM patients [6]. Compared to MM patients treated with chemotherapy, the patients received HDM-ASCT can achieve longer event-free survival and a higher response rate [6]. In the new-drug era, the combination of novel medications for induction and consolidation therapy with HDM-ASCT benefits eligible MM patients more in survival outcomes than the traditional pharmaceuticals coupled HDM-ASCT [7, 8].

However, whether HDM-ASCT benefits MM with RI is still controversial. Some research indicated that HDM-ASCT might result in increased treatment-related mortality (TRM) in MM with RI, therefore, the presence of RI limits the ASCT eligibility [9]. A meta-analysis published in 2019 reported that MM with RI received HDM-ASCT had an increased risk of mortality, while the survival benefit was controversial [10]. In recent years, several studies showed that HDM-ASCT in MM with RI did not significantly increase the toxicity and demonstrated the feasibility of HDM-ASCT in these patients [11–15]. Besides, recent data suggests that CD38 monoclonal antibodies are both safe and highly effective in MM patients with RI, including those on dialysis, with some patients experiencing rapid improvement in kidney function. Ongoing research is exploring the potential of incorporating CD38 monoclonal antibodies before and after ASCT, which could alter the treatment approach for MM patients with RI. Consequently, we performed a meta-analysis to assess how RI affects the safety and efficacy of ASCT in MM patients before the advent of monoclonal antibody treatments. Additionally, we compared the real-world clinical data from MM patients at our center with the results of the meta-analysis. This analysis aims to provide baseline data for comparing the effectiveness of new treatment strategies in the era of monoclonal antibody immunotherapy for MM patients with RI.

Methods

The systematic review and meta-analysis followed the guidance of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [16]. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021297282).

Search strategy and selection of studies

The literature search was conducted in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the EMBASE with the keywords of “multiple myeloma”, “renal insufficiency”, “renal failure” and “hematopoietic stem cell transplantation”. Relevant publications in English before December 2023 were collected. The references of the selected articles were retrieved manually to supplement the electronic database retrieval. A study was included when it met all the inclusion criteria: (1) include MM patients with a validated diagnosis of RI; (2) provide the outcomes of clinical response and survival after ASCT; (3) compare the outcomes after ASCT between MM patients with or without RI, or analyze the outcomes after ASCT in patients with MM and RI; (4) original research. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) studies of duplicated enrollment of patients; (2) patients in the study did not experience ASCT; (3) renal function of patients was not assessed; (4) studies without detailed data on clinical response and survival data; (5) patients in the study received monoclonal antibody therapy; (6) case reports, reviews, letters, and conference abstracts. Selection of studies was first undertaken by two reviewers and confirmed by two separate reviewers. Any disagreements were settled by consensus.

Data extraction

Data extraction was conducted by 2 reviewers, and the following information was collected: the first name of the corresponding author, publication year, country, study design, sample size, number of participants in each group, diagnosis of RI, median age, conditioning regimen, induction chemotherapy, clinical response and survival rate including TRM, overall response rate (ORR), partial response (PR) rate, very good partial response (VGPR) rate, complete response (CR) rate, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Some studies compared MM patients who had different levels of RI with those who had normal renal function. For our analysis, we focused solely on data from patients with severe renal impairment and normal renal function.

Quality assessment

The assessment of the quality of case series and cohort studies has been evaluated using the Johanna Briggs Institute Scale for Case Series [17] and the Newcastle–Ottawa scale [18], respectively. Two independent reviewers assessed the quality of the studies using the checklists. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion.

MM patients for comparison

Clinical information from MM patients who underwent ASCT between March 2018 and January 2024 at West China Hospital of Sichuan University was retrospectively collected. Clinical data including pre-transplant estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), TRM, post-transplant response, PFS, and OS were collected. Patients whose pre-transplant renal function data were unavailable were excluded. Based on the pre-transplant eGFR, patients were categorized into two groups: the RI group (eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2) and the normal renal function group (eGFR ≥ 60 ml/min/1.73m2). The TRM, clinical response, and survival outcomes were then compared between the two groups.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was done using Revman 5.3 and R-4.3.3 software. Odds ratio (OR) was used as the effect analysis statistic for dichotomous variables, and hazard ratio (HR) was used as the effect analysis statistic for time-to-event variables. If HR cannot be obtained directly from the original text, relevant parameters should be obtained to calculate HR indirectly according to the method provided by Parmar et al. [19]. When the paper provided Kaplan–Meier curves of PFS and OS, Engauge Digitizer was used to extract the survival probability of each time point. The data was then imported into the HR calculation table developed by Tierney et al. [20]. Furthermore, their estimated HR and 95%CI were used for analysis. Heterogeneity among studies was calculated using I2 measures. When I2 was less than 50%, the fixed-effect model was used; on the contrary, the source of heterogeneity was further analyzed by subgroup-analysis, and the random-effect model was used. The funnel plots were established to check publication bias. The PFS and OS were estimated using Kaplan–Meier method and compared by Renyi-type test.

Results

Study selection

Figure 1 showed the selection procedures. A total of 26 studies [2, 11–14, 21–41] were included in our analysis, and 13 [14, 21–29, 38–40] of them were selected for the qualitative analysis, and the other 13 [2, 11–13, 30–37, 41] for the meta-analysis.Fig. 1 Flow diagram of literature search and selection criteria (adapted from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis)

Characteristic and risk of bias of included studies

The characteristics of the studies included in the systematic review and meta-analysis are shown in Table 1 and Table 2. Most included studies were conducted in North America and Europe. The definitions of RI in these studies were different, including Scr ≥ 2.0 mg/ml or 177 mmol/l, Scr ≥ 3 mg/dl, CrCl < 60 ml/min, CrCl < 30 ml/min, eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2 or dialysis dependent. The majority of studies reported different doses of melphalan for conditioning. Table 1 Characteristics of included case series involving multiple myeloma patients with renal insufficiencya

Author, year	Country	Sample size	Median age	Definition of RI	Conditioning regimen	Induction chemotherapy	TRM (%)	ORR (%)	PR (%)	VGPR (%)	CR (%)	PFS	OS	
Ballester, 1997 [29]	USA	All patients: 6;DD patients: 4	50	Creatinine > 3 mg/dl	BUCY	NR	17	83	50	0	33	NR	NR	
Tosi, 2000 [28]	Italy	All patients: 6; DD patients: 1	47	CrCl < 40 ml/min	Mel 80 (33%); Mel 120 (67%)	VAD (83%)	0	84	67	0	17	Median: 16 months	1-year OS: 80%	
Badros, 2001 [27]	USA	All patients: 81; DD patients: 38	53	Creatinine > 176.8 mmol/l	Mel 140 (26%); Mel 200 (74%)	NR	6	NR	NR	NR	38	Median: 23 months	Median > 55 months;

3-years OS: 55%

	
Lee, 2004 [26]	USA	DD patients: 59	51	Dialysis dependent	Mel 140 (54%); Mel 200 (46%)	NR	12	73	27	NR	46	Median: 22 months; 5-years PFS: 24%	Median: 41 months;

5-years OS: 36%

	
Qazilbash, 2009 [25]	USA	All patients: 46; DD patients: 10	54	Creatinine > 2 mg/dl sustained for > 1 month	Mel 140 (6%); Mel 180 (29%), Mel 200 (65%)	NR	4	75	53	NR	22	Median: 25 months; 3-years PFS: 36%	3-years OS: 64%	
Glavey, 2011 [24]	USA	All patients: 30; DD patients: 15	61	Creatinine > 3 mg/dl	Mel 120 (3%); Mel 140 (97%)	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	40	NR	Median: DD patients: 29.3 months; low-CrCl group patients: 64.7 months	
Chen, 2014 [22]	Canada	DD patients: 33	55	Dialysis dependent	Mel 140 (36%); Mel 200 (61%)	VAD (45%); HDD (30%); PI-based (12%)	15	96	46	50	Median: 45 months	Median: 67 months	
Fakih, 2015 [23]	USA	DD patients: 24	53	Dialysis dependent	Mel 140 (29.2%); Mel 180 (12.5%); Mel 200 (58.3%)	NR	0	92	38	29	25	Median: 23 months	Median: 45 months	
Cornillon, 2018 [21]	France	All patients: 55; DD patients: 23	61	CrCl < 30 ml/min	Mel ≤ 140 (76%); Mel 140–195 (11%); Mel 200 (13%)	PI-based (56%)	6	88	34	14	40	Median: 51 months	Median: 76 months	
Amanda, 2020 [14]	Canada	2008–2016 year: All patients: 51; DD patients: 22	60	Creatinine > 2 mg/dl or > 177 μmol/l	Mel 140 (84%); Mel 200 (16%)	PI-based (75%)	0	96	16	79	Median: 56 months	Median > 60 months	
1998–2007 year:All patients: 45; DD patients: 23	56	Mel 140 (13%); Mel 200 (87%)	VAD (58%); HDD (24%)	13	90	55	35	Median: 30 months	Median > 56 months	
Garderet L, 2023 [39]	France	All patients: 50; DD patients: 6	56	CrCl < 40 ml/min	Mel ≤ 140 (90%); Mel 200 (10%)	PI-based (98%)	2	95	4	16	75	2-years PFS: 70%	2-years OS: 84%	
Anna, 2023 [40]	Europe	DD patients 110	56.5	Dialysis dependent	Mel ≤ 140 (82%); Mel > 140 (18%)	PI-based (62%)	7	NR	NR	47	Median: 35 months; 5-years PFS: 28%	Median: 105 months; 5-years OS: 64%	
Wu, 2023 [38]	China	All patients: 34	55	CrCl < 60 ml/min	BUCY (29%); Mel 140 (53%); Mel 100 (18%)	PI-based (100%)	3	100	3	21	76	Median PFS not reached	Median OS not reached	
aRI, renal insufficiency; TRM, treatment-related mortality; ORR, overall response rate; PR, partial response; VGPR, very good partial response; CR, complete response; PFS, progression-free survival; OS, overall survival; DD, dialysis dependent; BUCY, Busulfan and cyclophosphamide; NR, not reported; Mel 80, melphalan (80 mg/m2); Mel 120, melphalan (120 mg/m2); Mel 140, melphalan (140 mg/m2); Mel 200, melphalan (200 mg/m2); PI, proteasome inhibitor; VAD, vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone; HDD, high-dose dexamethasone

Table 2 Characteristics of included cohort studies involving multiple myeloma patients with renal insufficiencya

Author, year	Country	Study design	Sample size	Definition of RI	Conditioning regimen	Induction chemotherapy	
Miguel, 1999 [35]	Spain	Cohort study	Patients with RI at diagnosis but normal at transplant: 73; Patients with RI at transplantation: 14; Patients with NRF: 479	Creatinine ≥ 2.0 mg/ml	Mel 140 plus TBI (8/10 Gy) (21%); Mel 140 plus busulfan (12 mg/kg) (19%); Mel 200 (54%)	NR	
Knudsen, 2005 [2]	Denmark	Cohort study	Patients with RI at diagnosis but normal at transplant: 30; Patients with RI at transplantation: 29; Patients with NRF: 78	CrCl < 60 ml/min	Mel 140 (2%); Mel 200 (98%)	VAD	
Raab, 2006 [34]	USA	Cohort study	Dialysis-dependent patients at transplantation: 17; Patients with NRF: 17	Dialysis dependent	Mel 100 (50%); Mel 200 (50%)	VAD	
Gertz, 2007 [33]	USA	Cohort study	Patients with RI at transplantation: 40; Patients with NRF: 637	Creatinine ≥ 2.0 mg/ml	Mel ≤ 160 (9%); Mel 200 (91%)	NR	
Scheid, 2013 [32]	Europe	Cohort study	Patients with RI at diagnosis: 36; patients with NRF: 377	Creatinine ≥ 2.0 mg/ml	Mel 100 (4%); Mel 200 (96%)	PAD	
Sweiss, 2016 [31]	USA	Cohort study	Patients with RI at transplantation: 46; patients with NRF: 103	CrCl < 60 ml/min	Mel 200 (100%)	NR	
Souza, 2017 [13]	USA/Canada	Cohort study	Patients with RI at transplantation: 67; Patients with NRF: 1240	eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73m2	Mel 140 (13%); Mel 200 (87%)	NR	
Anna, 2018 [41]	Poland	Cohort study	Dialysis-dependent patients at transplantation: 24; Patients with NRF: 55	Dialysis dependent	Mel 100 (4%); Mel 140 (25%); Mel 200 (71%)	CTD, VAD, bortezomib-based	
Krauth, 2018 [12]	Australia	Cohort study	Patients with RI at diagnosis but normal at transplant: 67; Patients with RI at transplantation: 50; Patients with NRF: 238	eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2	Mel 140 (10%); Mel 200 (85%)	IMiD, PI, conventional chemotherapy	
Ho, 2019 [11]	Australia, New Zealand	Cohort study	Patients with RI at diagnosis: 97; Patients with NRF: 365	eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2	Mel 140 (12%); Mel 200 (88%)	Bortezomib-based, carfilzomib-based	
Anna, 2020 [30]	Poland	Cohort study	Patients with RI at diagnosis: 21; Patients with NRF: 38	eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2	Mel 100 (41%); Mel 140 (5%); Mel 200 (50%)	VAD	
Lazana, 2022 [36]	UK	Cohort study	Patients with RI at transplantation: 24; Patients with NRF: 132	eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73m2	Mel 100/140 (19%); Mel 200 (81%)	IMiD-based, PI-based, conventional chemotherapy	
Ursu, 2023 [37]	USA	Cohort study	Patients with RI at transplantation: 16; Patients with NRF: 108	CrCl < 60 ml/min	Mel 140 (7%); Mel 200 (93%)	NR	
aRI, renal insufficiency; NRF, normal renal function; ASCT, autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; Mel 140, melphalan (140 mg/m2); Mel 200, melphalan (200 mg/m2); TBI, total body irradiation; NR, not reported; CrCl, creatinine clearance; VAD, vincristin, doxorubicine, dexametasone; PAD, bortezomib, doxorubicin and dexamethasone; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; CTD, cyclophosphamide thalidomide and dexamethasone; IMiD, immunomodulatory drugs; PI, proteasome inhibitor

The bias risk assessment outcomes for the included case series, assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Scale for Case Series, are summarized in Table 3. Eleven studies were identified as having a low risk of bias, whereas the other two were classified as having a moderate risk of bias. The results of the bias risk assessment for the included cohort studies, evaluated using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale, are provided in Table 4. The scores of 13 cohort studies ranged from 7 to 8, indicating a low risk of bias.Table 3 The results of the bias risk assessment for the included case series using the Joanna Briggs Institute Scale for Case Series

Study	Were there clear criteria for inclusion?	Was the condition measured in a standard, reliable way for participants?	Were valid methods used for identification of the condition for participants?	Did the case series have consecutive inclusion of participants?	Did the case series have complete inclusion of participants?	Was there clear reporting of the demographics of the participants?	Was there clear reporting of clinical information?	Were the outcomes of cases clearly reported?	Was there clear reporting of the presenting site(s)/clinic(s) demographic information?	Was statistical analysis appropriate	Overall risk of bias	
Ballester, 1997 [29]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Low	
Tosi, 2000 [28]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Low	
Badros, 2001 [27]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Low	
Lee, 2004 [26]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Low	
Qazilbash, 2009 [25]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Moderate	
Glavey, 2011 [24]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Low	
Chen, 2014 [22]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Low	
Fakih, 2015 [23]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low	
Cornillon, 2018 [21]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Moderate	
Amanda, 2020 [14]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Low	
Garderet, 2023 [39]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low	
Anna, 2023 [40]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Low	
Wu, 2023 [38]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Low	
The potential risk of bias was categorized as low if a study provided detailed information pertaining to 8 or more parameters. Moderate risk was considered if a study provides information corresponding to 5–7 parameters, whereas if a study showed missing information regarding < 5 parameters, the study was categorized as exhibiting a high risk of bias

Table 4 The results of the bias risk assessment for the included cohort studies using the Newcastle–Ottawa quality assessment scale

Study	Selection	Comparability	Outcome	Final score	Risk of Bias	
Miguel, 1999 [35]	★★★★	★★	★★	8	Low	
Knudsen, 2005 [2]	★★★★	★★	★★	8	Low	
Raab, 2006 [34]	★★★	★★	★★	7	Low	
Gertz, 2007 [33]	★★★★	★★	★★	8	Low	
Scheid, 2013 [32]	★★★	★★	★★★	8	Low	
Sweiss, 2016 [31]	★★★★	★★	★★	8	Low	
Souza, 2017 [13]	★★★	★★	★★	7	Low	
Anna, 2018 [41]	★★★	★★	★★	7	Low	
Krauth, 2018 [12]	★★★★	★★	★★	8	Low	
Ho, 2019 [11]	★★★★	★★	★★	8	Low	
Anna, 2020 [30]	★★★	★★	★★	7	Low	
Lazana, 2022 [36]	★★★	★★	★★	7	Low	
Ursu, 2023 [37]	★★★★	★★	★★	8	Low	
Each study was judged on eight items categorized into three groups: selection of cohorts, comparability of the cohorts and ascertainment of the outcome. One star is awarded for each item in “selection" and "outcome" groups if the criteria are fulfilled, whereas "comparability" can be awarded a maximum of two stars. Final scores ranged from 0–9, with 0–3 considered low, 4–6 moderate, and 7–9 high quality

Results of qualitative analysis

Thirteen retrospective studies [14, 21–29, 38–40], involving 630 MM patients with RI, of whom 368 were dialysis-dependent, reported outcomes such as TRM, clinical response, and survival, were analyzed (see Table 1).

TRM

There were 12 studies [14, 21–23, 25–27, 29, 38–40] reporting TRM data, defined as treatment-related mortality within 100 days post-ASCT (Table 1). The reported TRM rates varied significantly across different studies, ranging from 0 to 17%. Studies with a higher proportion of patients receiving low-dose melphalan (no more than 140 mg/m2) as a conditioning regimen tended to report lower TRM rates. Specifically, Badros et al. [27] compared the TRM rates in patients treated with melphalan of 140 mg/m2 (MEL140) and 200 mg/m2 (MEL200). It showed that the ratios of TRM in MEL140 group and MEL200 group were 5% and 7%, but the p value was not significant. In the study of Cornillon et al. [21] and Amanda et al. [14], more than half of included RI patients received new drugs such as bortezomib for induction therapy, and 80% of patients were treated with dose-reduced melphalan of no more than 140 mg/m2 for conditioning agent, and these studies reported lower TRM rates of 6% and 0%. Additionally, the timing of ASCT can also affect TRM, which may be associated with reduced dosage of melphalan for conditioning regimen, the use of novel agents for induction therapy and improvements in supportive care. In the study by Amanda et al. [14], MM patients with RI who underwent ASCT in the older era had a TRM rate of 13%. These patients did not receive new drugs for induction therapy, and 87% of them received MEL200 for conditioning regimen. On the other hand, patients who received ASCT in new era had a lower TRM rate of 0%; most of these patients were treated with new drugs such as bortezomib during induction therapy, and 84% received MEL140 for conditioning regimen. Similarly, in the study by Garderet et al. [39], 98% of the patients received proteasome inhibitor-based induction therapy, and 90% received a melphalan dose of no more than 140 mg/m2, with a reported TRM rate of 2%.

ORR

The ORR rate of MM with RI after ASCT was high, ranging from 73 to 100% (Table 1). ASCT could also result in high rate of VGPR and above (about 50%) for dialysis-dependent patients [22, 23, 26, 40]. Specifically, Badros et al. [27] reported comparable CR rates after ASCT between patients treated with MEL200 and MEL140 (35% and 33%, p = 0.90), showing that the intensity of the conditioning regimen at ASCT had no significant effect on CR rate. In the studies of Amanda et al. [14] and Garderet et al. [39], in which MM with RI had received bortezomib-based induction chemotherapy and dose-reduced melphalan for the conditioning regimen, both reported high rates of VGPR and above (79%; 91%) after ASCT.

Survival

The existing data showed an increase in survival time for MM patients as the study era progressed, with the longest median PFS being 56 months, and the longest median OS being 105 months. In 4 studies [22, 23, 26, 40] which reported outcomes of dialysis-dependent patients, the longest median PFS was 45 months, and the longest median OS was 105 months. However, Glavey et al. [24] found that dialysis-dependent patients had worse OS outcomes than low-CrCl group patients (median OS: 29.3 and 64.7 months, p = 0.06). The result indicated that ASCT could benefit MM patients with RI in survival. Besides, with the use of new agents such as bortezomib-based regimens as induction chemotherapy and the advances in supportive care, the survival time of MM patients with RI who underwent ASCT could be gradually prolonged.

Results of meta-analysis

The effects of RI on TRM, clinical response, and survival after ASCT were analyzed in MM patients with RI and MM patients with NRF. A total of 13 retrospective cohort studies [2, 11–13, 30–37, 41] were included in the meta-analysis, where the definition of RI and the timing of RI diagnosis varied across different studies (Table 2). Overall, these studies reported comparisons between three types of MM patients diagnosed with RI at different times and MM patients with NRF. The three types of MM patients with RI included those diagnosed with RI at the time of MM diagnosis, those diagnosed with RI at the time of MM diagnosis but who recovered normal renal function before transplantation, and those with persistent RI at the time of transplantation. We will subsequently analyze and compare these three groups of MM patients separately with those having NRF.

MM patients with RI at transplantation vs MM patients with NRF

Ten studies [2, 12, 13, 31, 33–37, 41] compared the clinical responses and survival outcomes post-autologous transplantation between MM patients with RI at the time of transplantation and MM patients with NRF. A total of 3414 MM patients were included, with 327 patients having RI at transplantation and 3087 patients having NRF.

TRM

Eight studies [2, 12, 33–37, 41] reported the data of TRM, but the doses of melphalan ranged from 100 ~ 200 mg/m2. When a meta-analysis of TRM was conducted regardless of melphalan doses, MM with RI at transplantation had higher TRM than MM with NRF (fixed-effects OR 5.95, 95%CI 3.10–11.43, p < 0.001, I2 = 0%) (Fig. 2a). Three studies [34, 36, 41] made comparisons between MM patients with severe RI (dialysis-dependent or eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73m2) at transplantation and MM with NRF. The meta-analysis showed that TRM was comparable between RI and NRF groups when melphalan was controlled no more than 140 mg/m2 in MM with RI (fixed-effects OR 2.56, 95%CI 0.59–11.09, p = 0.21, I2 = 0%) (Fig. 2b).Fig. 2 The meta-analysis of TRM, ORR and CR rate after ASCT in MM patients with RI at transplantation compared with patients with NRF. a TRM regardless of melphalan doses; b TRM when melphalan didn’t exceed 140 mg/m2; c ORR; d CR rate

ORR

Among included studies, 6 studies [2, 12, 13, 34, 35, 41] reported ORR, and another 6 studies [12, 13, 31, 34, 35, 41] reported CR after ASCT. The evaluation of the response to transplantation was determined by the best response status achieved after transplantation or the status at 100 days after transplantation. According to the meta-analysis results, the ORR for the group with NRF is greater than that for the group with RI at transplantation, with a p-value of 0.05 (fixed-effects OR 0.65, 95%CI 0.42–1.00, p = 0.05,  I2= 0%) (Fig. 2c). The meta-analysis showed that CR rates were comparable between MM with RI at transplantation and NRF (fixed-effects OR 1.17, 95%CI 0.84–1.61, p = 0.35, I2 = 4%) (Fig. 2d).

Survival

A total of 9 studies [2, 12, 13, 31, 33–37, 41] with data of PFS could be pooled in the meta-analysis. The treatment-free survival was reported in the research by Sweiss et al. [31], but it was excluded from the meta-analysis of PFS. The meta-analyses of PFS at 2 and 5 years after transplantation showed that the PFS was comparable between MM patients with RI at transplantation and those with NRF (fixed-effects HR/2y 1.13, 95%CI 0.92–1.38, p = 0.23, I2 = 0%; fixed-effects HR/5y 1.20, 95% CI 0.99–1.45, p = 0.07, I2 = 5%) (Fig. 3a and b).Fig. 3 The meta-analysis of PFS and OS after ASCT in MM patients with RI at transplantation compared with patients with NRF. a PFS at 2 years after ASCT; b PFS at 5 years after ASCT; c OS at 2 years after ASCT; d OS at 5 years after ASCT

Nine studies [2, 12, 13, 31, 33–36, 41] were available for the meta-analysis of OS. The meta-analysis showed that the OS was poorer after ASCT in MM with RI at transplantation than in MM with NRF (fixed-effects HR/2y 2.66, 95% CI 1.91–3.72, p < 0.001, I2 = 19%; fixed-effects HR/5y 1.68, 95% CI 1.35–2.10, p < 0.001, I2 = 0%) (Fig. 3c and d).

Funnel plots were evaluated for all included studies for survival analysis. The two sides of the funnel are symmetrical, and no significant publication bias was found. The funnel plots are presented in Supplementary Figs. 1–4.

MM patients with RI at diagnosis vs MM patients with NRF

Three studies [11, 32, 42] comparing the clinical outcomes after ASCT between MM patients with RI at diagnosis and those with NRF were analyzed. A total of 154 MM patients with RI at diagnosis and 780 patients with NRF were included. However, since none of the three studies reported TRM and only one reported ORR, a meta-analysis of TRM and treatment response could not be conducted. There were no significant differences in 2-year and 5-year PFS between the 2 groups (fixed-effects HR/2y 1.12, 95%CI 0.79–1.60, p = 0.52, I2 = 0%; random-effects HR/5y 1.32, 95%CI 0.89–1.97, p = 0.16, I2 = 75%) (Fig. 4a and b). The meta-analysis of OS showed that there was no significant difference in 2-year OS between the two groups (fixed-effects HR/2y 1.13, 95%CI 0.86–1.5, p = 0.38, I2 = 5%) (Fig. 4c), however, the 5-year OS was poorer in patients with RI at diagnosis compared to those without (fixed-effects HR/5y 1.21, 95%CI 1.09–1.35, p < 0.001, I2 = 48%) (Fig. 4d).Fig. 4 The meta-analysis of PFS and OS after ASCT in MM patients with RI at time of diagnosis compared with multiple patients with NRF. a PFS at 2 years after ASCT; b PFS at 5 years after ASCT; c OS at 2 years after ASCT; d OS at 5 years after ASCT

MM patients with RI at diagnosis but normal renal function before ASCT vs MM patients with NRF

Three studies [2, 12, 35] comparing MM patients with RI at diagnosis but normal renal function before ASCT to MM patients with NRF were included for meta-analysis, including 170 patients with RI and 795 patients with NRF. Despite most patients receiving MEL200 for conditioning regimen, there was no significant difference in TRM between the two groups (fixed-effects OR 1.37, 95%CI 0.47–3.96, p = 0.56, I2 = 0%) (Fig. 5a). Regarding treatment response, there was no significant difference in the post-transplant ORR and CR rate between the two groups (fixed-effects OR 1.61, 95%CI 0.75–3.42, p = 0.22, I2 = 0%; fixed-effects OR 1.31, 95%CI 0.91–1.9, p = 0.14, I2 = 0%) (Fig. 5b and c). The meta-analysis of PFS showed no significant differences in the risk of a poorer PFS from 2 to 5 years after ASCT in MM patients with RI at diagnosis but normal renal function before ASCT than those with NRF (fixed-effects HR/2y 1.33, 95%CI 0.98–1.79, p = 0.06, I2 = 0%; fixed-effects HR/5y 1.14, 95%CI 0.87–1.51, p = 0.34, I2 = 0%) (Fig. 5d and e). However, the meta-analysis revealed that MM patients with RI had significantly lower 2-year and 5-year OS rates compared to patients with NRF (fixed-effects HR/2y 2.24, 95%CI 1.62–3.1, p < 0.001, I2 = 24%; fixed-effects HR/5y 1.81, 95%CI 1.41–2.31, p < 0.001, I2 = 2%) (Fig. 5f and g).Fig. 5 The meta-analysis of TRM, ORR, CR rate, PFS and OS after ASCT in MM patients with RI at diagnosis but normal renal function before ASCT compared with multiple myeloma patients with NRF. a TRM; b ORR; c CR rate; d PFS at 2 years after ASCT; e PFS at 5 years after ASCT; f OS at 2 years after ASCT; g OS at 5 years after ASCT

Results of real-world data

A total of 97 newly diagnosed MM patients who underwent ASCT at West China Hospital of Sichuan University were included in the study, of whom 51 (52.6%) were males, with a median age of 53 years (range 24–67). At diagnosis, the median hemoglobin and platelet levels were 108 g/L and 176*109/L, respectively; the median albumin, LDH, and beta 2-microglobulin levels were 41.5 g/dL, 180 IU/L, and 3.7 mg/dL, respectively. The International Staging System (ISS) stage was 1–2 for 65 patients (67%) and stage 3 for 32 patients (33%); for the Revised-ISS stage, 69 patients (71.2%) were stage 1–2, and 28 patients (28.9%) were stage 3. For pre-transplant induction therapy, 58.8% of patients received a proteasome inhibitor-based induction regimen, 39.1% received a regimen based on proteasome inhibitors plus immunomodulatory drugs, and only 2.1% received a regimen based solely on immunomodulatory drugs. Based on pre-transplant eGFR levels, 16 patients were in the RI group, and 81 patients were in the NRF group. The median pre-transplant eGFR in the RI group was 40.2 ml/min/1.73m2 (range 20.7–55.8). Compared to patients in the NRF group, those in the RI group had lower hemoglobin levels and higher LDH and beta 2-microglobulin levels at diagnosis, and a significantly higher proportion of stage 3 ISS. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of gender, age, platelet count, albumin level, R-ISS stage, or induction regimen. Details were shown in Supplementary Table 1. In the NRF group, 96.3% of patients received MEL200 as the conditioning regimen, whereas 62.5% of patients in the RI group received MEL140. No TRM occurred in either group. The post-transplant ORR was 100% in the RI group and 97.5% in the NRF group (p = 1.00). The CR rate post-transplant was 68.7% in the RI group and 60.5% in the NRF group, with no significant statistical difference (p = 0.59). After a median follow-up of 30.3 months (range 3.5–72), survival analysis showed no significant difference in PFS between the two groups (p = 0.29) (Fig. 6a). Despite the lack of a statistically significant difference in OS between the two groups (p = 0.37, Fig. 6b), MM patients with RI had a slightly shorter 5-year restricted mean survival time. Specifically, the 5-year restricted mean survival time for the RI group was 54.7 months, compared to 55.8 months for those with NRF.Fig. 6 The Kaplan–Meier survival curve of MM patients at our center after ASCT. a PFS; b OS. NRF, normal renal function; RI, renal insufficiency

Discussion

RI is a pejorative factor for the prognosis of MM patients [43]. Although RI is not considered as an exclusion criterion for HDM-ASCT, MM with RI might have diminished administration for HDM-ASCT in the real world [44]. Given the inconsistent conclusions of previous retrospective studies and the lack of timeliness of a previous meta-analysis [10], we conducted this meta-analysis and systematic review to analyze TRM, clinical response and survival in MM patients with RI before the advent of monoclonal antibody treatments. The findings of this study have potential implications for clinical practice, including better treatment decisions and patient management by clinicians.

The results of the meta-analysis indicated that reducing the dose of melphalan was safe for MM with RI at transplantation undergoing ASCT. Lowering the dose of melphalan can decrease TRM, and when the dose of melphalan didn’t exceed 140 mg/m2, the TRM for MM patients with RI was comparable to that of MM patients with NRF. Besides, the toxicity results of ASCT in MM with RI in new drug era and pre-era were compared in a study from the University of Toronto [14]. The study showed that the TRM rate in the new era was significantly lower than that in the old era, mainly due to the widespread use of MEL140 for the conditioning regimen, the novel agents for induction therapy, and the improvement of supportive care. Additionally, research from the University of Florida College of Medicine examined the effects of MEL140 and MEL200 on results in MM patients undergoing ASCT and showed that MM patients treated with MEL140 achieved similar long-term survival to those who received MEL200 [45]. All of this suggested that ASCT is safe and effective for MM patients with RI when the dose of melphalan is lowered. In clinical practice, RI should not be a contraindication for MM patients undergoing ASCT, and clinicians now routinely and empirically reduce the dose of melphalan for MM patients with RI considering the reduced toxicity and similar efficacy.

The results of the meta-analysis showed that the ORR in the NRF group is slightly higher than that in the RI at transplantation group, with a p-value of 0.05. This is inconsistent with the results of a previous meta-analysis [10]. It is important to note that a p-value of 0.05 is a borderline result, indicating that the difference observed, although statistically significant, may not be strong. Therefore, caution should be exercised in interpreting these results, and future studies with larger sample sizes may be warranted to confirm these findings. However, ASCT can enable MM with RI to achieve equivalent CR rates to MM with NRF. In addition, owing to the use of bortezomib-based induction, patients were able to attain deeper response rates after ASCT [14, 21]. Besides, compared to RI patients who only received novel agents without ASCT [46], the response rates were better in MM with RI treated with novel agents and ASCT [21]. All these suggested that ASCT remained a necessary regimen to upgrade outcome of MM with RI.

As for the survival outcomes, ASCT can enable MM with RI to achieve comparable PFS to MM with NRF when the PFS rate was maintained at a high level. According to quantitative analysis, the PFS rates for MM with RI and NRF were comparable. However, this conclusion is inconsistent with a previous meta-analysis [10], which showed that MM with RI had poorer PFS than MM with NRF after ASCT. There might be 2 possible reasons for this discrepancy. 1) We two meta-analyses included different studies. Seven new studies [11, 30–32, 36, 37] were additionally included in our meta-analysis. 2) We two meta-analyses used different methods to calculate PFS. In our study, data of PFS each year after ASCT were extracted from the survival curves and subgroup analyses were conducted, while the previous meta-analysis did not take time into account. In addition, compared to traditional medications with ASCT, the combination of new agents, such as bortezomib-based induction, may increase the response rate and event-free survival in MM patients with RI [47].

Of notice, although MM with RI could achieve comparable PFS after ASCT to those with NRF, the OS of MM patients with RI after ASCT was still inferior to those with NRF, even in those whose renal function had returned to normal before transplantation. This result may be attributed to the fact that MM patients with RI who experience disease progression after transplantation, as opposed to those with NRF, had poorer organ function, more comorbidities, fewer treatment options, and a poorer response to treatment. In the pre-antibody immunotherapy era, MM patients with RI had poorer long-term OS following transplantation, highlighting the need for enhanced treatment strategies for these patients. Recent research indicates that novel therapies, including CD38 monoclonal antibodies and chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy, significantly improve treatment outcomes for MM patients, and are safe for those with RI [48–50]. These findings suggest that such therapies may potentially improve OS in MM patients with RI. Thus, further investigation is required to explore the role of antibody immunotherapy in MM patients with RI and to integrate these therapies into current treatment protocols.

Consistent with the results of the meta-analysis, data from our center also indicate that pre-transplant renal insufficiency does not affect TRM, treatment response, or PFS. However, our data show no significant difference in OS between the RI and non-RI groups, which is inconsistent with the meta-analysis results. This discrepancy may be due to the small sample size of the RI group in this real-world analysis. Larger future studies may be needed to further validate the reliability of these meta-analysis findings.

However, there are some limitations. First, there were only 3 cohort studies on MM patients with RI at the time of diagnosis and patients with RI at diagnosis but normal renal function before ASCT, and the limited sample size might affect the accuracy of the meta-analysis in those groups. Secondly, the included studies had different definitions of RI and some studies only included patients who were dialysis-dependent, and the effect of ASCT on patients with different degrees of RI could not be analyzed. Thirdly, the melphalan dose for the conditioning regimen was arbitrary, which might be the main source of heterogeneity in meta-analysis. What’s more, it would be ideal to conduct a meta-regression analysis to explore the influence of confounding factors such as the different definitions of RI, publication year, and sample size on the results. However, due to the limited number of studies included in the meta-analysis, performing a reliable meta-regression analysis is challenging, which may reduce the reliability of the results. Finally, all the studies included in meta-analysis were retrospective cohort studies. Since there is no prospective randomized study on this topic, the quality of this meta-analysis may be deficient.

In conclusion, this meta-analysis and systematic review is performed in the context of non-antibody immunotherapy and shows that ASCT is generally safe and efficacious in MM with RI with a reduced dose of melphalan. MM with RI can achieve comparable TRM, CR rates and PFS to those with NRF after ASCT. RI is no longer a contraindication for MM patients undergoing ASCT, but it is recommended to reduce the dose of melphalan for MM patients with RI. Nevertheless, the lower OS in MM patients with RI underscores the need for further research to improve OS in these patients. With the advent of antibody immunotherapy, it may be a solution to this problem.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.Supplementary file1 (DOCX 44 KB)

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Author Contributions

Yan Li, Xinyi Zhang and Li Zhang contributed to conceptualization; Yan Li and Xinyi Zhang helped in methodology, formal analysis and investigation, writing—original draft preparation. Li Zhang and Yuhuan Zheng helped in writing—review and editing; Yuhuan Zheng done funding acquisition; Zhongqing Zou, Yanqiu Xiong, Xinyuan Gu and Ruiji Zou helped in resources; Zhongqing Zou, Yanqiu Xiong, Xinyuan Gu and Ruiji Zou done data curation; Li Zhang, Jing Tan and Ting Niu done supervision; Li Zhang and Ting Niu helped in project administration.

Funding

This work was supported by grants to YZ from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 82070219) and Sichuan University faculty start fund.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Declarations

Conflict of interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of West China Hospital, Sichuan University, with the need for written informed consent waived.

Consent to publish

Not applicable.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Yan Li and Xinyi Zhang have contributed equally to this work.
==== Refs
References

[1] Dimopoulos MA Sonneveld P Leung N International myeloma working group recommendations for the diagnosis and management of myeloma-related renal impairment J Clin Oncol 2016 34 1544 1557 10.1200/JCO.2015.65.0044 26976420
Dimopoulos MA, Sonneveld P, Leung N, et al. International myeloma working group recommendations for the diagnosis and management of myeloma-related renal impairment. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1544–57.26976420 10.1200/JCO.2015.65.0044
[2] Knudsen LM Nielsen B Gimsing P Geisler C Autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma: outcome in patients with renal failure European J Haematol 2005 75 27 33 10.1111/j.1600-0609.2005.00446.x 15946307
Knudsen LM, Nielsen B, Gimsing P, Geisler C. Autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma: outcome in patients with renal failure. European J Haematol. 2005;75:27–33.15946307 10.1111/j.1600-0609.2005.00446.x
[3] Mohyuddin GR Koehn K Shune L Renal insufficiency in multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized trials from 2005–2019 Leuk Lymphoma 2021 62 1386 1395 10.1080/10428194.2020.1867725 33416412
Mohyuddin GR, Koehn K, Shune L, et al. Renal insufficiency in multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized trials from 2005–2019. Leuk Lymphoma. 2021;62:1386–95.33416412 10.1080/10428194.2020.1867725
[4] Heher EC Rennke HG Laubach JP Richardson PG Kidney disease and multiple myeloma Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2013 8 2007 2017 10.2215/CJN.12231212 23868898
Heher EC, Rennke HG, Laubach JP, Richardson PG. Kidney disease and multiple myeloma. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2013;8:2007–17.23868898 10.2215/CJN.12231212
[5] Haynes RJ Read S Collins GP Darby SC Winearls CG Presentation and survival of patients with severe acute kidney injury and multiple myeloma: a 20-year experience from a single centre Nephrol Dial Transplant 2010 25 419 426 10.1093/ndt/gfp488 19767634
Haynes RJ, Read S, Collins GP, Darby SC, Winearls CG. Presentation and survival of patients with severe acute kidney injury and multiple myeloma: a 20-year experience from a single centre. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010;25:419–26.19767634 10.1093/ndt/gfp488
[6] Attal M Harousseau JL Stoppa AM A prospective, randomized trial of autologous bone marrow transplantation and chemotherapy in multiple myeloma. Intergroupe Français du Myélome N Engl J Med 1996 335 91 97 10.1056/NEJM199607113350204 8649495
Attal M, Harousseau JL, Stoppa AM, et al. A prospective, randomized trial of autologous bone marrow transplantation and chemotherapy in multiple myeloma. Intergroupe Français du Myélome. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:91–7.8649495 10.1056/NEJM199607113350204
[7] Cavo M Gay F Beksac M 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 Lancet Haematol 2020 7 e456 e468 10.1016/S2352-3026(20)30099-5 32359506
Cavo M, Gay F, Beksac M, et al. 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. Lancet Haematol. 2020;7:e456–68.32359506 10.1016/S2352-3026(20)30099-5
[8] Stadtmauer EA Pasquini MC Blackwell B Autologous transplantation, consolidation, and maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma: results of the BMT CTN 0702 trial J Clin Oncol 2019 37 589 597 10.1200/JCO.18.00685 30653422
Stadtmauer EA, Pasquini MC, Blackwell B, et al. Autologous transplantation, consolidation, and maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma: results of the BMT CTN 0702 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:589–97.30653422 10.1200/JCO.18.00685
[9] Harousseau J-L Moreau P Autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma N Engl J Med 2009 360 2645 2654 10.1056/NEJMct0805626 19535803
Harousseau J-L, Moreau P. Autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:2645–54.19535803 10.1056/NEJMct0805626
[10] Zhong H, Xie X, Xu G. Autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma with renal failure: friend or foe? stem cells international. 2019 (no pagination).
[11] Ho PJ Moore EM McQuilten ZK Renal impairment at diagnosis in myeloma: patient characteristics, treatment, and impact on outcomes. results from the Australia and New Zealand myeloma and related diseases registry Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2019 19 e415 e424 10.1016/j.clml.2019.05.010 31208889
Ho PJ, Moore EM, McQuilten ZK, et al. Renal impairment at diagnosis in myeloma: patient characteristics, treatment, and impact on outcomes. results from the Australia and New Zealand myeloma and related diseases registry. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2019;19:e415–24.31208889 10.1016/j.clml.2019.05.010
[12] Antlanger M Dust T Reiter T Impact of renal impairment on outcomes after autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma: a multi-center, retrospective cohort study BMC Cancer 2018 18 1008 10.1186/s12885-018-4926-0 30342509
Antlanger M, Dust T, Reiter T, et al. Impact of renal impairment on outcomes after autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma: a multi-center, retrospective cohort study. BMC Cancer. 2018;18:1008.30342509 10.1186/s12885-018-4926-0
[13] Mahindra A Hari P Fraser R Autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation for multiple myeloma patients with renal insufficiency: a center for international blood and marrow transplant research analysis Bone Marrow Transplant 2017 52 1616 1622 10.1038/bmt.2017.198 28920949
Mahindra A, Hari P, Fraser R, et al. Autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation for multiple myeloma patients with renal insufficiency: a center for international blood and marrow transplant research analysis. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2017;52:1616–22.28920949 10.1038/bmt.2017.198
[14] Li AY Atenafu EG Bernard RS Toxicity and survival outcomes of autologous stem cell transplant in multiple myeloma patients with renal insufficiency: an institutional comparison between two eras Bone Marrow Transplant 2020 55 578 585 10.1038/s41409-019-0697-8 31558786
Li AY, Atenafu EG, Bernard RS, et al. Toxicity and survival outcomes of autologous stem cell transplant in multiple myeloma patients with renal insufficiency: an institutional comparison between two eras. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2020;55:578–85.31558786 10.1038/s41409-019-0697-8
[15] Firsova MV Mendeleeva LP Solovev MV Autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma complicated by dialysis-dependent renal failure Ter Arkh 2020 92 70 76 33346447
Firsova MV, Mendeleeva LP, Solovev MV, et al. Autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma complicated by dialysis-dependent renal failure. Ter Arkh. 2020;92:70–6.33346447
[16] Moher D Liberati A Tetzlaff J Altman DG Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement BMJ 2009 339 b2535 10.1136/bmj.b2535 19622551
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339: b2535.19622551 10.1136/bmj.b2535
[17] Munn Z Barker TH Moola S Methodological quality of case series studies: an introduction to the JBI critical appraisal tool JBI Evid Synth 2020 18 2127 2133 33038125
Munn Z, Barker TH, Moola S, et al. Methodological quality of case series studies: an introduction to the JBI critical appraisal tool. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18:2127–33.33038125
[18] Stang A Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses Eur J Epidemiol 2010 25 603 605 10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z 20652370
Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25:603–5.20652370 10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z
[19] Parmar MKB Torri V Stewart L Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints Stat Med 1998 17 2815 2834 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19981230)17:24<2815::AID-SIM110>3.0.CO;2-8 9921604
Parmar MKB, Torri V, Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Stat Med. 1998;17:2815–34.9921604 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19981230)17:24<2815::AID-SIM110>3.0.CO;2-8
[20] Tierney JF Stewart LA Ghersi D Burdett S Sydes MR Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis Trials 2007 8 16 10.1186/1745-6215-8-16 17555582
Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR. Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials. 2007;8:16.17555582 10.1186/1745-6215-8-16
[21] Augeul-Meunier K Chretien ML Stoppa AM Extending autologous transplantation as first line therapy in multiple myeloma patients with severe renal impairment: a retrospective study by the SFGM-TC Bone Marrow Transplant 2018 53 749 755 10.1038/s41409-018-0122-8 29523884
Augeul-Meunier K, Chretien ML, Stoppa AM, et al. Extending autologous transplantation as first line therapy in multiple myeloma patients with severe renal impairment: a retrospective study by the SFGM-TC. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2018;53:749–55.29523884 10.1038/s41409-018-0122-8
[22] St Bernard R Chodirker L Masih-Khan E Efficacy, toxicity and mortality of autologous SCT in multiple myeloma patients with dialysis-dependent renal failure Bone Marrow Transplant 2015 50 95 99 10.1038/bmt.2014.226 25285800
St Bernard R, Chodirker L, Masih-Khan E, et al. Efficacy, toxicity and mortality of autologous SCT in multiple myeloma patients with dialysis-dependent renal failure. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2015;50:95–9.25285800 10.1038/bmt.2014.226
[23] El Fakih R Fox P Popat U Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in dialysis-dependent myeloma patients Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2015 15 472 476 10.1016/j.clml.2015.03.003 25963284
El Fakih R, Fox P, Popat U, et al. Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in dialysis-dependent myeloma patients. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2015;15:472–6.25963284 10.1016/j.clml.2015.03.003
[24] Glavey SV Gertz MA Dispenzieri A Long term outcome of renal failure in multiple myeloma following autologous stem cell transplant Am J Kidney Dis 2011 57 4 A41 10.1053/j.ajkd.2011.02.103
Glavey SV, Gertz MA, Dispenzieri A, et al. Long term outcome of renal failure in multiple myeloma following autologous stem cell transplant. Am J Kidney Dis. 2011;57(4):A41.10.1053/j.ajkd.2011.02.103
[25] Parikh GC Amjad AI Saliba RM Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation may reverse renal failure in patients with multiple myeloma Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2009 15 812 816 10.1016/j.bbmt.2009.03.021 19539212
Parikh GC, Amjad AI, Saliba RM, et al. Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation may reverse renal failure in patients with multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2009;15:812–6.19539212 10.1016/j.bbmt.2009.03.021
[26] Lee CK Zangari M Barlogie B Dialysis-dependent renal failure in patients with myeloma can be reversed by high-dose myeloablative therapy and autotransplant Bone Marrow Transplant 2004 33 823 828 10.1038/sj.bmt.1704440 14767499
Lee CK, Zangari M, Barlogie B, et al. Dialysis-dependent renal failure in patients with myeloma can be reversed by high-dose myeloablative therapy and autotransplant. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2004;33:823–8.14767499 10.1038/sj.bmt.1704440
[27] Badros A Barlogie B Siegel E Results of autologous stem cell transplant in multiple myeloma patients with renal failure Br J Haematol 2001 114 822 829 10.1046/j.1365-2141.2001.03033.x 11564069
Badros A, Barlogie B, Siegel E, et al. Results of autologous stem cell transplant in multiple myeloma patients with renal failure. Br J Haematol. 2001;114:822–9.11564069 10.1046/j.1365-2141.2001.03033.x
[28] Tosi P Zamagni E Ronconi S Safety of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma and chronic renal failure Leukemia 2000 14 1310 1313 10.1038/sj.leu.2401819 10914557
Tosi P, Zamagni E, Ronconi S, et al. Safety of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma and chronic renal failure. Leukemia. 2000;14:1310–3.10914557 10.1038/sj.leu.2401819
[29] Ballester OF Tummala R Janssen WE High-dose chemotherapy and autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma and renal insufficiency Bone Marrow Transplant 1997 20 653 656 10.1038/sj.bmt.1700950 9383228
Ballester OF, Tummala R, Janssen WE, et al. High-dose chemotherapy and autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma and renal insufficiency. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1997;20:653–6.9383228 10.1038/sj.bmt.1700950
[30] Waszczuk-Gajda A Małyszko J Vesole DH Negative impact of borderline creatinine concentration and glomerular filtration rate at baseline on the outcome of patients with multiple myeloma treated with autologous stem cell transplant Transplant Proc 2020 52 2186 2192 10.1016/j.transproceed.2020.02.067 32222395
Waszczuk-Gajda A, Małyszko J, Vesole DH, et al. Negative impact of borderline creatinine concentration and glomerular filtration rate at baseline on the outcome of patients with multiple myeloma treated with autologous stem cell transplant. Transplant Proc. 2020;52:2186–92.32222395 10.1016/j.transproceed.2020.02.067
[31] Sweiss K Patel S Culos K Oh A Rondelli D Patel P Melphalan 200 mg/m(2) in patients with renal impairment is associated with increased short-term toxicity but improved response and longer treatment-free survival Bone Marrow Transplant 2016 51 1337 1341 10.1038/bmt.2016.136 27183094
Sweiss K, Patel S, Culos K, Oh A, Rondelli D, Patel P. Melphalan 200 mg/m(2) in patients with renal impairment is associated with increased short-term toxicity but improved response and longer treatment-free survival. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2016;51:1337–41.27183094 10.1038/bmt.2016.136
[32] Scheid C Sonneveld P Schmidt-Wolf IG Bortezomib before and after autologous stem cell transplantation overcomes the negative prognostic impact of renal impairment in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a subgroup analysis from the HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 trial Haematologica 2014 99 148 154 10.3324/haematol.2013.087585 23996482
Scheid C, Sonneveld P, Schmidt-Wolf IG, et al. Bortezomib before and after autologous stem cell transplantation overcomes the negative prognostic impact of renal impairment in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a subgroup analysis from the HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 trial. Haematologica. 2014;99:148–54.23996482 10.3324/haematol.2013.087585
[33] Gertz MA Lacy MQ Dispenzieri A Impact of age and serum creatinine value on outcome after autologous blood stem cell transplantation for patients with multiple myeloma Bone Marrow Transplant 2007 39 605 611 10.1038/sj.bmt.1705627 17369867
Gertz MA, Lacy MQ, Dispenzieri A, et al. Impact of age and serum creatinine value on outcome after autologous blood stem cell transplantation for patients with multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2007;39:605–11.17369867 10.1038/sj.bmt.1705627
[34] Raab MS Breitkreutz I Hundemer M The outcome of autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with plasma cell disorders and dialysis-dependent renal failure Haematologica 2006 91 1555 1558 17082013
Raab MS, Breitkreutz I, Hundemer M, et al. The outcome of autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with plasma cell disorders and dialysis-dependent renal failure. Haematologica. 2006;91:1555–8.17082013
[35] San Miguel JF Lahuerta JJ Garcia-Sanz R Are myeloma patients with renal failure candidates for autologous stem cell transplantation? Hematol J 2000 1 28 36 10.1038/sj.thj.6200003 11920166
San Miguel JF, Lahuerta JJ, Garcia-Sanz R, et al. Are myeloma patients with renal failure candidates for autologous stem cell transplantation? Hematol J. 2000;1:28–36.11920166 10.1038/sj.thj.6200003
[36] Lazana I Floro L Christmas T Autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma patients with chronic kidney disease: a safe and effective option Bone Marrow Transplant 2022 57 959 965 10.1038/s41409-022-01657-y 35413986
Lazana I, Floro L, Christmas T, et al. Autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma patients with chronic kidney disease: a safe and effective option. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2022;57:959–65.35413986 10.1038/s41409-022-01657-y
[37] Ursu SG Maples S Williams KJ The impact of renal impairment in multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation with melphalan conditioning J Hematol 2023 12 201 207 10.14740/jh1148 37936977
Ursu SG, Maples S, Williams KJ, et al. The impact of renal impairment in multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation with melphalan conditioning. J Hematol. 2023;12:201–7.37936977 10.14740/jh1148
[38] Zhai Y Yan L Jin S Autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma patients with renal impairment Ann Hematol 2023 102 621 628 10.1007/s00277-023-05085-w 36633638
Zhai Y, Yan L, Jin S, et al. Autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma patients with renal impairment. Ann Hematol. 2023;102:621–8.36633638 10.1007/s00277-023-05085-w
[39] Garderet L Ouldjeriouat H Bekadja MA Low non-relapse mortality and good haematological and renal responses after autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma patients with renal insufficiency at transplant: a prospective Societe francophone de Greffe de Moelle-Therapie Cellulaire observational study Br J Haematol 2024 204 1450 1458 10.1111/bjh.19163 37953476
Garderet L, Ouldjeriouat H, Bekadja MA, et al. Low non-relapse mortality and good haematological and renal responses after autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma patients with renal insufficiency at transplant: a prospective Societe francophone de Greffe de Moelle-Therapie Cellulaire observational study. Br J Haematol. 2024;204:1450–8.37953476 10.1111/bjh.19163
[40] Waszczuk-Gajda A Gras L de Wreede LC Safety and efficacy of autologous stem cell transplantation in dialysis-dependent myeloma patients-The DIADEM study from the chronic malignancies working party of the EBMT Bone Marrow Transplant 2023 58 424 429 10.1038/s41409-023-01915-7 36681775
Waszczuk-Gajda A, Gras L, de Wreede LC, et al. Safety and efficacy of autologous stem cell transplantation in dialysis-dependent myeloma patients-The DIADEM study from the chronic malignancies working party of the EBMT. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2023;58:424–9.36681775 10.1038/s41409-023-01915-7
[41] Waszczuk-Gajda A Lewandowski Z Drozd-Sokolowska J Autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in dialysis-dependent multiple myeloma patients-DAUTOS Study of the Polish Myeloma Study Group Eur J Haematol 2018 101 475 485 10.1111/ejh.13101 29797662
Waszczuk-Gajda A, Lewandowski Z, Drozd-Sokolowska J, et al. Autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in dialysis-dependent multiple myeloma patients-DAUTOS Study of the Polish Myeloma Study Group. Eur J Haematol. 2018;101:475–85.29797662 10.1111/ejh.13101
[42] Waszczuk-Gajda A Malyszko J Vesole DH Negative impact of borderline creatinine concentration and glomerular filtration rate at baseline on the outcome of patients with multiple myeloma treated with autologous stem cell transplant Transplant Proc 2020 52 2186 2192 10.1016/j.transproceed.2020.02.067 32222395
Waszczuk-Gajda A, Malyszko J, Vesole DH, et al. Negative impact of borderline creatinine concentration and glomerular filtration rate at baseline on the outcome of patients with multiple myeloma treated with autologous stem cell transplant. Transplant Proc. 2020;52:2186–92.32222395 10.1016/j.transproceed.2020.02.067
[43] Zannetti BA Zamagni E Santostefano M Bortezomib-based therapy combined with high cut-off hemodialysis is highly effective in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients with severe renal impairment Am J Hematol 2015 90 647 652 10.1002/ajh.24035 25858483
Zannetti BA, Zamagni E, Santostefano M, et al. Bortezomib-based therapy combined with high cut-off hemodialysis is highly effective in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients with severe renal impairment. Am J Hematol. 2015;90:647–52.25858483 10.1002/ajh.24035
[44] Attal M Lauwers-Cances V Hulin C Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone with transplantation for myeloma N Engl J Med 2017 376 1311 1320 10.1056/NEJMoa1611750 28379796
Attal M, Lauwers-Cances V, Hulin C, et al. Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone with transplantation for myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1311–20.28379796 10.1056/NEJMoa1611750
[45] Katragadda L McCullough LM Dai Y Effect of melphalan 140 mg/m(2) vs 200 mg/m(2) on toxicities and outcomes in multiple myeloma patients undergoing single autologous stem cell transplantation-a single center experience Clin Transplant 2016 30 894 900 10.1111/ctr.12762 27219740
Katragadda L, McCullough LM, Dai Y, et al. Effect of melphalan 140 mg/m(2) vs 200 mg/m(2) on toxicities and outcomes in multiple myeloma patients undergoing single autologous stem cell transplantation-a single center experience. Clin Transplant. 2016;30:894–900.27219740 10.1111/ctr.12762
[46] Dimopoulos MA Roussou M Gkotzamanidou M The role of novel agents on the reversibility of renal impairment in newly diagnosed symptomatic patients with multiple myeloma Leukemia 2013 27 423 429 10.1038/leu.2012.182 22763386
Dimopoulos MA, Roussou M, Gkotzamanidou M, et al. The role of novel agents on the reversibility of renal impairment in newly diagnosed symptomatic patients with multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2013;27:423–9.22763386 10.1038/leu.2012.182
[47] Breitkreutz I Heiss C Perne A Bortezomib improves outcome after SCT in multiple myeloma patients with end-stage renal failure Bone Marrow Transplant 2014 49 1371 1375 10.1038/bmt.2014.165 25089594
Breitkreutz I, Heiss C, Perne A, et al. Bortezomib improves outcome after SCT in multiple myeloma patients with end-stage renal failure. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2014;49:1371–5.25089594 10.1038/bmt.2014.165
[48] Tang W Zhang L Zheng Y Pan L Niu T Daratumumab-based immunotherapy vs. lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a systemic review Front Oncol 2024 14 1286029 10.3389/fonc.2024.1286029 38333688
Tang W, Zhang L, Zheng Y, Pan L, Niu T. Daratumumab-based immunotherapy vs. lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a systemic review. Front Oncol. 2024;14:1286029.38333688 10.3389/fonc.2024.1286029
[49] Li H Yin L Wang Y Safety and efficacy of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma with renal impairment Bone Marrow Transplant 2020 55 2215 2218 10.1038/s41409-020-0930-5 32388534
Li H, Yin L, Wang Y, et al. Safety and efficacy of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma with renal impairment. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2020;55:2215–8.32388534 10.1038/s41409-020-0930-5
[50] Facon T Kumar SK Plesner T Daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MAIA): overall survival results from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol 2021 22 1582 1596 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00466-6 34655533
Facon T, Kumar SK, Plesner T, et al. Daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MAIA): overall survival results from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:1582–96.34655533 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00466-6
