Reply to letters on review ‘evolving treatment strategies for myeloma’

Reply to letters on review ‘evolving treatment strategies for myeloma’

Play all audios:

Loading...

SIR, We would like to thank the authors for their comments on our recent review article ‘evolving treatment strategies for myeloma’. Although very rare, the occasional patient may present with a pyrexia of unknown origin (PUO), arising presumably from cytokines released by the myeloma plasma cells. While we agree this is possible, it should not be the first conclusion as the immunosuppressed myeloma patient is at great risk of infection. These patients represent a difficult diagnostic challenge and need to be screened for active infection and treated with antibiotics where appropriate. The only clear proof that the temperature is related to the myeloma is that it will resolve when antimyeloma treatment is initiated. However, it is important not to delay the initiation of treatment, which may be detrimental to the patient. Therefore, we totally agree that once active infection had been ruled out in a newly diagnosed patient with a PUO, chemotherapy should be initiated promptly. The antitumour role of bisphosphonates in myeloma is intriguing especially with the highly potent third-generation compounds such as zoledronic acid, which are now in routine use. To date, their antimyeloma effect has only been shown in cell lines and mouse models. The apoptotic action of sodium clodronate is clearly different from that of zoledronic acid. Clodronate is metabolised to a number of ATP analogues, which are resistant to hydrolysis and therefore accumulate within the cell resulting in the inhibition of important metabolic enzymes, such as phosphatases and pyrophosphatases, whereas zoledronic acid inhibits the mevalonate pathway leading to an inhibition of the prenylation of small GTPases important in cell signalling, such as RAS. While these and other effects such as inhibition of _γδ_ T cells are clearly demonstratable _in vitro_, their relevance _in vivo_ is less clear. Dose levels in this setting are lower, and the drugs rapidly leave the circulation and become fixed in the bone; thus, it has to be postulated that bisphosphonates are concentrated in proximity to osteoclasts and can reach doses that are able to kill them. The relevance of this mechanism to myeloma plasma cells rather than osteoclasts is less certain. However, what is clear is that the direct inhibition of bone resorption and the resulting change in the pattern of cytokines produced can inhibit positive feedback loops important in maintaining survival of the myeloma clone. Available data from numerous clinical trials only support the effect of bisphosphonates in inhibiting bone resorption and reducing skeletal-related events, and we believe that no conclusion regarding their _in vivo_ antimyeloma effect can be drawn at present. We agree in view of the dramatic effects on skeletal-related events that all patients should receive a bisphosphonate; however, whether this should be a first- or third-generation derivative is unclear. We eagerly await the results of the current large Medical Research Council randomised phase III trial, which compares oral sodium clodronate with intravenous zoledronic acid in order to determine whether there is any differential antimyeloma effect in patients. CHANGE HISTORY * _ 16 NOVEMBER 2011 This paper was modified 12 months after initial publication to switch to Creative Commons licence terms, as noted at publication _ AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Royal Marsden Hospital and Institute of Cancer Research, SM2 5PT, Downs Road, Surrey, UK G J Morgan & F E Davies Authors * G J Morgan View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * F E Davies View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to G J Morgan. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS From twelve months after its original publication, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Morgan, G., Davies, F. Reply to letters on review ‘Evolving treatment strategies for myeloma’. _Br J Cancer_ 93, 269 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6602695 Download citation * Published: 12 July 2005 * Issue Date: 25 July 2005 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6602695 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

SIR, We would like to thank the authors for their comments on our recent review article ‘evolving treatment strategies for myeloma’. Although very rare, the occasional patient may present


with a pyrexia of unknown origin (PUO), arising presumably from cytokines released by the myeloma plasma cells. While we agree this is possible, it should not be the first conclusion as the


immunosuppressed myeloma patient is at great risk of infection. These patients represent a difficult diagnostic challenge and need to be screened for active infection and treated with


antibiotics where appropriate. The only clear proof that the temperature is related to the myeloma is that it will resolve when antimyeloma treatment is initiated. However, it is important


not to delay the initiation of treatment, which may be detrimental to the patient. Therefore, we totally agree that once active infection had been ruled out in a newly diagnosed patient with


a PUO, chemotherapy should be initiated promptly. The antitumour role of bisphosphonates in myeloma is intriguing especially with the highly potent third-generation compounds such as


zoledronic acid, which are now in routine use. To date, their antimyeloma effect has only been shown in cell lines and mouse models. The apoptotic action of sodium clodronate is clearly


different from that of zoledronic acid. Clodronate is metabolised to a number of ATP analogues, which are resistant to hydrolysis and therefore accumulate within the cell resulting in the


inhibition of important metabolic enzymes, such as phosphatases and pyrophosphatases, whereas zoledronic acid inhibits the mevalonate pathway leading to an inhibition of the prenylation of


small GTPases important in cell signalling, such as RAS. While these and other effects such as inhibition of _γδ_ T cells are clearly demonstratable _in vitro_, their relevance _in vivo_ is


less clear. Dose levels in this setting are lower, and the drugs rapidly leave the circulation and become fixed in the bone; thus, it has to be postulated that bisphosphonates are


concentrated in proximity to osteoclasts and can reach doses that are able to kill them. The relevance of this mechanism to myeloma plasma cells rather than osteoclasts is less certain.


However, what is clear is that the direct inhibition of bone resorption and the resulting change in the pattern of cytokines produced can inhibit positive feedback loops important in


maintaining survival of the myeloma clone. Available data from numerous clinical trials only support the effect of bisphosphonates in inhibiting bone resorption and reducing skeletal-related


events, and we believe that no conclusion regarding their _in vivo_ antimyeloma effect can be drawn at present. We agree in view of the dramatic effects on skeletal-related events that all


patients should receive a bisphosphonate; however, whether this should be a first- or third-generation derivative is unclear. We eagerly await the results of the current large Medical


Research Council randomised phase III trial, which compares oral sodium clodronate with intravenous zoledronic acid in order to determine whether there is any differential antimyeloma effect


in patients. CHANGE HISTORY * _ 16 NOVEMBER 2011 This paper was modified 12 months after initial publication to switch to Creative Commons licence terms, as noted at publication _ AUTHOR


INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Royal Marsden Hospital and Institute of Cancer Research, SM2 5PT, Downs Road, Surrey, UK G J Morgan & F E Davies Authors * G J Morgan View author


publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * F E Davies View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CORRESPONDING


AUTHOR Correspondence to G J Morgan. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS From twelve months after its original publication, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons


Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS


ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Morgan, G., Davies, F. Reply to letters on review ‘Evolving treatment strategies for myeloma’. _Br J Cancer_ 93, 269 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6602695


Download citation * Published: 12 July 2005 * Issue Date: 25 July 2005 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6602695 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able


to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing


initiative