Bortezomib-Containing Regimens (BCR) for the Treatment of Non-Transplant Eligible Multiple Myeloma
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction In patients not eligible for transplant due to age and/or co-morbidities, the selection of up-front therapy needs to balance efficacy and toxicity. Recently, regimens with bortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor proven to be efficacious in myeloma, have been reported. Based on these findings, we aimed to evaluate the impact of different bortezomib combinations for the treatment of non transplant-eligible MM. Methods All- consecutive patients treated with bortezomib-containing regimens (BCR) at Tom Baker Cancer Center (TBCC) from 01/2006 to June/2015 were evaluated. Definitions of response and progression were used according to the EBMT modified criteria and a category of very good partial response (VGPR) was added. Two-sided Fisher exact test was used to test for differences between categorical variables. A p value of <0.05 was considered significant. Survival curves were constructed according to the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log rank test. Results 113 consecutive patients with MM received BCR. Thirty-three patients were treated with cyclophosphamide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (CyBorD), 41 with bortezomib, melphalan and prednisone (VMP) and 39 with bortezomib and dexamethasone (VD). Clinical characteristics are shown in Table 1. At the time of analysis, 20, 17 and 18 patients in the CyBorD, VMP and VD groups are still alive and 14, 33 and 30 have already progressed, respectively. ORR and VGPR rates were 93.9%/75.7%, 80%/53% and 76%/48% (p=0.001) for patients treated with CyBorD, VMP and VD, respectively. Median OS was NR for CyBorD, compared to 41months and 37 months for VMP and VD patients (p=0.6). Median PFS was 16.7 months for CyBorD compared to 17.5 months and 11 months for VMP and VD (P=0.6), respectively. The rate of treatment discontinuation and median number of cycles were: 9%, 26% and 12.8% and 6, 7.5 and 4 cycles for CyBorD, VMP and VD patients, respectively. Patients were to receive 6-9 cycles of treatment and the regimen could be continued to a maximum of 2 years at the discretion of the treating hematologist based on tolerability and response. Nine patients (27%) in the CyBorD group and 17 (41.4%) and 4 (10%) in the VMP and VD group received maintenance treatment. Median OS and PFS was longer for the group receiving maintenance (62 months vs 32 months and 23 months vs 10 months, p=0.007). In conclusion, bortezomib containing regimens are efficacious in the treatment of non-transplant eligible MM. Patients receiving maintenance appeared to exhibit longer PFS and OS. Very elderly patients should be subjected to frailty and comorbidity indexes aiming to decrease toxicity and prolong survival. Table 1. Clinical Characteristics Characteristic CyBorD, n=33 VMP, n=41 VD, n=39 Age (median) 58 58 58 GenderMaleFemale 20 (60.6%)13 (39.4%) 22 (53.6%)19 (46.4%) 26 (66.6%)13 (33.4%) Hb (g/L) 107 110 103 Calcium (µmol/L) 2.4 2.35 2.31 Creatinine (µmol/L) 115.5 103 108 B2microglobulin (µmol/L) 4.1 3.42 5.9 Albumin (g/L) 31 31 30 Stage IStage IIStage III 6 (12.1%)14 (42.4%)13 (45.5%) 9 (21.9%)19 (46.3%)13 (31.8%) 4 (10.2%)16 (41%)18 (48.8%) LDH (IU/L) 185 179 174 BMPC (%) 31 30 33.5 Heavy chain:IgGIgAFLC onlyIgDIgMBiclonal 2247000 19148000 21107010 Light chain:KappaLambdaBiclonal 16170 29120 24150 High riskStandard risk 5 (15%) 28 6 (14.6%)35 8 (20%)31 Ab: BMPC: Bone marrow plasma cells. Figure 1. Overall survival for patients receiving CyBorD, VMP and VD Figure 1. Overall survival for patients receiving CyBorD, VMP and VD Figure 2. Progression-Free survival for patients receiving CyBorD, VMP and VD Figure 2. Progression-Free survival for patients receiving CyBorD, VMP and VD Figure 3. OS for patients receiving CyBorD, VMP and VD maintenance Figure 3. OS for patients receiving CyBorD, VMP and VD maintenance Disclosures Jimenez-Zepeda: Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; J&J: Honoraria. Duggan:Jansen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Neri:Celgene: Research Funding. Bahlis:Johnson & Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».