Venous thromboembolism is a common complication of patients with hematologic malignancies, due both to release of procoagulant factors by tumor cells and to external factors, such us drugs. In ...multiple myeloma patients, the risk is increased by use of immunomodulants, especially when associated to multidrug therapy, during the induction phase. Prevention of venous thromboembolism in myeloma patients is highly recommended but specific guidelines are still lacking. The most common approach is to stratify the thrombotic risk according to individual, myeloma-related and therapy-related risk factors and to use aspirin for all patients, except those with two or more thrombotic risk factors who should be treated with traditional oral or parenteral anticoagulant. A more controversial approach indicates for prophylaxis either anticoagulant or aspirin, regardless of risk stratification. Recent trials investigate prophylaxis in myeloma patients with direct oral anticoagulants, based on studies showing efficacy and safety of this new class of drugs in the treatment and prophylaxis of thrombosis in patients with any malignancy. The results of these trials are encouraging but they need to be confirmed by larger studies. An international consensus about best prophylaxis to prevent venous thromboembolism in patients with multiple myeloma on treatment is still missing. Therefore, thrombosis in multiple myeloma remains an ongoing issue.
High‐dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (auto‐SCT) is the standard treatment for young patient ≤65 years with multiple myeloma (MM). The role of auto‐SCT in elderly ...patients older than 70 years remains controversial in the era of novel agents and especially since the recent introduction of monoclonal antibodies (AbMo). In this study, we evaluated 12 patients with MM over 70 years old undergoing auto‐SCT (elderly graft cohort) in seven centers of GIMEMA Working Group Lazio. We compared the baseline characteristics, treatment and outcome with 97 MM elderly patients who did not receive auto‐SCT (nontransplant patients) from the same registry who were ≥ 70 years old, but did not undergo auto‐SCT. The median progression free survival (PFS) for graft versus no‐graft cohort was 56.4 versus 26.1 months, respectively. There was a trend for better PFS among graft compared to nontransplant patient (p = .1). On the other hand, the median overall survival for transplant versus nontransplant cohort was 107.6 versus 49.5 months (p = .02). Despite the small number of patients aged ≥70 years and ≤74 years, it seems that auto‐SCT is well tolerated, safe and effective. Therefore, we propose that it should be considered an important treatment option in the era of new drugs in elderly fit patients with MM.