Mario Boccadoro

Dr. Mario Boccadoro


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

51Years (1976-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 August 2016 in The Lancet Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
SKShaji Kumar
Shaji Kumar
Bruno David Lourenco PaivaBruno David Lourenco Paiva
Bruno David Lourenco Paiva
KAKenneth C Anderson
Kenneth C Anderson
BDBrian Durie
Brian Durie
OLOla Landgren
Ola Landgren
HAHerve Avet-Loiseau
Herve Avet-Loiseau

20 May 2005 in Journal of Clinical Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PGPhilip R. Greipp
Philip R. Greipp
JMJesus San Miguel
Jesus San Miguel
BDBrian G.M. Durie
Brian G.M. Durie
JCJohn J. Crowley
John J. Crowley
BBBart Barlogie
Bart Barlogie
JWJan Westin
Jan Westin
Purpose: There is a need for a simple, reliable staging system for multiple myeloma that can be applied internationally for patient classification and stratification.Patients and Methods: Clinical and laboratory data were gathered on 10,750 previously untreated symptomatic myeloma patients from 17 institutions, including sites in North America, Europe, and Asia. Potential prognostic factors were evaluated by univariate and multivariate techniques. Three modeling approaches were then explored to develop a staging system including two nontree and one tree survival assessment methodologies.Results: Serum beta2-microglobulin (Sβ2M), serum albumin, platelet count, serum creatinine, and age emerged as powerful predictors of survival and were then used in the tree analysis approach. A combination of Sβ2M and serum albumin provided the simplest, most powerful and reproducible three-stage classification. This new International Staging System (ISS) was validated in the remaining patients and consists of the following stages: stage I, Sβ2M less than 3.5 mg/L plus serum albumin ≥ 3.5 g/dL (median survival, 62 months); stage II, neither stage I nor III (median survival, 44 months); and stage III, Sβ2M ≥ 5.5 mg/L (median survival, 29 months). The ISS system was further validated by demonstrating effectiveness in patients in North America, Europe, and Asia; in patients less than and ≥ 65 years of age; in patients with standard therapy or autotransplantation; and in comparison with the Durie/Salmon staging system.Conclusion: The new ISS is simple, based on easy to use variables (Sβ2M and serum albumin), and recommended for early adoption and widespread use.

16 June 2005 in New England Journal of Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Paul G. RichardsonPaul G. Richardson
Paul G. Richardson
PSPieter Sonneveld
Pieter Sonneveld
MSMichael W. Schuster
Michael W. Schuster
DIDavid Irwin
David Irwin
ESEdward A. Stadtmauer
Edward A. Stadtmauer
KAKenneth C. Anderson
Kenneth C. Anderson
This study compared bortezomib with high-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma who had received one to three previous therapies. We randomly assigned 669 patients with relapsed myeloma to receive either an intravenous bolus of bortezomib (1.3 mg per square meter of body-surface area) on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 for eight three-week cycles, followed by treatment on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 for three five-week cycles, or high-dose dexamethasone (40 mg orally) on days 1 through 4, 9 through 12, and 17 through 20 for four five-week cycles, followed by treatment on days 1 through 4 for five four-week cycles. Patients who were assigned to receive dexamethasone were permitted to cross over to receive bortezomib in a companion study after disease progression. Patients treated with bortezomib had higher response rates, a longer time to progression (the primary end point), and a longer survival than patients treated with dexamethasone. The combined complete and partial response rates were 38 percent for bortezomib and 18 percent for dexamethasone (P<0.001), and the complete response rates were 6 percent and less than 1 percent, respectively (P<0.001). Median times to progression in the bortezomib and dexamethasone groups were 6.22 months (189 days) and 3.49 months (106 days), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.55; P<0.001). The one-year survival rate was 80 percent among patients taking bortezomib and 66 percent among patients taking dexamethasone (P=0.003), and the hazard ratio for overall survival with bortezomib was 0.57 (P=0.001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 75 percent of patients treated with bortezomib and in 60 percent of those treated with dexamethasone. Bortezomib is superior to high-dose dexamethasone for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who have had a relapse after one to three previous therapies.

22 April 2010 in Leukemia
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
RKR A Kyle
R A Kyle
BDB G M Durie
B G M Durie
SRS V Rajkumar
S V Rajkumar
OLO Landgren
O Landgren
JBJ Blade
J Blade
OGon behalf of the International Myeloma Working Group
on behalf of the International Myeloma Working Group
Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) was identified in 3.2% of 21 463 residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota, 50 years of age or older. The risk of progression to multiple myeloma, Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia, AL amyloidosis or a lymphoproliferative disorder is approximately 1% per year. Low-risk MGUS is characterized by having an M protein <15 g/l, IgG type and a normal free light chain (FLC) ratio. Patients should be followed with serum protein electrophoresis at six months and, if stable, can be followed every 2–3 years or when symptoms suggestive of a plasma cell malignancy arise. Patients with intermediate and high-risk MGUS should be followed in 6 months and then annually for life. The risk of smoldering (asymptomatic) multiple myeloma (SMM) progressing to multiple myeloma or a related disorder is 10% per year for the first 5 years, 3% per year for the next 5 years and 1–2% per year for the next 10 years. Testing should be done 2–3 months after the initial recognition of SMM. If the results are stable, the patient should be followed every 4–6 months for 1 year and, if stable, every 6–12 months.

20 December 2007 in Leukemia
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
APA Palumbo
A Palumbo
SRS V Rajkumar
S V Rajkumar
Meletios-Athanasios DimopoulosMeletios-Athanasios Dimopoulos
Meletios-Athanasios Dimopoulos
PRP G Richardson
P G Richardson
JMJ San Miguel
J San Miguel
OGon behalf of the International Myeloma Working Group
on behalf of the International Myeloma Working Group
The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is more than 1‰ annually in the general population and increases further in cancer patients. The risk of VTE is higher in multiple myeloma (MM) patients who receive thalidomide or lenalidomide, especially in combination with dexamethasone or chemotherapy. Various VTE prophylaxis strategies, such as low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), warfarin or aspirin, have been investigated in small, uncontrolled clinical studies. This manuscript summarizes the available evidence and recommends a prophylaxis strategy according to a risk-assessment model. Individual risk factors for thrombosis associated with thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy include age, history of VTE, central venous catheter, comorbidities (infections, diabetes, cardiac disease), immobilization, surgery and inherited thrombophilia. Myeloma-related risk factors include diagnosis and hyperviscosity. VTE is very high in patients who receive high-dose dexamethasone, doxorubicin or multiagent chemotherapy in combination with thalidomide or lenalidomide, but not with bortezomib. The panel recommends aspirin for patients with 1 risk factor for VTE. LMWH (equivalent to enoxaparin 40 mg per day) is recommended for those with two or more individual/myeloma-related risk factors. LMWH is also recommended for all patients receiving concurrent high-dose dexamethasone or doxorubicin. Full-dose warfarin targeting a therapeutic INR of 2–3 is an alternative to LMWH, although there are limited data in the literature with this strategy. In the absence of clear data from randomized studies as a foundation for recommendations, many of the following proposed strategies are the results of common sense or derive from the extrapolation of data from many studies not specifically designed to answer these questions. Further investigation is needed to define the best VTE prophylaxis.

20 November 2008 in Leukemia
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
ADA Dispenzieri
A Dispenzieri
RKR Kyle
R Kyle
GMGiampaolo Merlini
Giampaolo Merlini
JMJ S Miguel
J S Miguel
HLH Ludwig
H Ludwig
OGon behalf of the International Myeloma Working Group
on behalf of the International Myeloma Working Group
The serum immunoglobulin-free light chain (FLC) assay measures levels of free κ and λ immunoglobulin light chains. There are three major indications for the FLC assay in the evaluation and management of multiple myeloma and related plasma cell disorders (PCD). In the context of screening, the serum FLC assay in combination with serum protein electrophoresis (PEL) and immunofixation yields high sensitivity, and negates the need for 24-h urine studies for diagnoses other than light chain amyloidosis (AL). Second, the baseline FLC measurement is of major prognostic value in virtually every PCD. Third, the FLC assay allows for quantitative monitoring of patients with oligosecretory PCD, including AL, oligosecretory myeloma and nearly two-thirds of patients who had previously been deemed to have non-secretory myeloma. In AL patients, serial FLC measurements outperform PEL and immunofixation. In oligosecretory myeloma patients, although not formally validated, serial FLC measurements reduce the need for frequent bone marrow biopsies. In contrast, there are no data to support using FLC assay in place of 24-h urine PEL for monitoring or for serial measurements in PCD with measurable disease by serum or urine PEL. This paper provides consensus guidelines for the use of this important assay, in the diagnosis and management of clonal PCD.