MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2587935914 · doi:10.1182/blood.v114.22.2154.2154

Stem Cell Mobilization Capacity Is Not a Predictor of Survival in Multiple Myeloma (MM) After Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation (ASCT).

2009· article· en· W2587935914 sur OpenAlexaff
Gloria Lim, Wei Xu, Young Trieu, Andrew Winter, Donna Reece, Suzanne Trudel, Vishal Kukreti, Peter Anglin, Christine Chen

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineMultiple myelomaLeukapheresisAutologous stem-cell transplantationTransplantationCyclophosphamideSurgeryCD34PlerixaforStem cellRegimenInternal medicineMobilizationChemotherapyUrologyOncology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 2154 Poster Board II-131 Introduction: High dose therapy followed by ASCT is standard therapy for younger patients (pts) with newly diagnosed MM. Using a typical stem cell (SC) mobilization regimen of chemotherapy and growth factors, sufficient SCs to support ASCT (≥2×106 CD34+ cells/kg) can be achieved in the majority of MM cases. In addition, it is not uncommon to observe pts who mobilize much larger numbers of SCs (≥8×106 CD34+ cells/kg), or ‘supermobilizers', sufficient to support several transplants. In lymphoid malignancies, these supermobilizers have improved survival outcomes after ASCT (Bolwell et al, 2007). To investigate whether mobilization capacity was a predictor of survival outcomes in MM, we conducted a retrospective review of pts who underwent SC mobilization, collection, and transplant over a 3 year period. Methods: From January 2004 to December 2006, 298 pts with MM undergoing their first transplant (MEL200mg/m2) at our institution were reviewed. SC mobilization was performed with cyclophosphamide 2.5g/m2 IV and GCSF 10ug/kg/day followed by leukapheresis (up to 5 days), aiming for a target CD34+ cell count of ≥5×106/kg (minimum ≥2×106/kg). In this review, pts were classified as ‘supermobilizers' if total number of CD34+ cells collected was >15×106/kg, with those who collected ≤15×106/kg in the control group. Baseline patient and disease characteristics, SC collection details, complications and transplant outcomes, including overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS), were compared between the 2 groups. Results: Of the total 298 pts, 121 (40.6%) were identified as ‘supermobilizers'. Patient and disease characteristics: For the supermobilizer group, median age was 57 yrs (range 32-74), 60.3% male. MM subtypes included: IgG 61.1%, IgA 16.5%, light chain only 20.7%. Median time from diagnosis to transplant was 8.5 mos (range 5.4-48.8). Baseline labs: median Hb 111g/L (range 59-160), platelets 243 (range 48-634), serum creatinine 93 umol/L (range 45-1240), ISS 2-3 (50%). The supermobilizers were younger (median age 57 vs 61 yrs, p=0.002) and had higher baseline platelet counts (243 vs 219, p=0.006) than the control group. SC collection: The median number CD34+ cells collected was 19.9×106/kg (range 15.1-61.8) for the supermobilizer group and 11.1×106/kg (range 1.9-15.0) for the control group. The median number of days on apheresis was shorter for the supermobilizers (1 vs 2 days, p<0.0001), with more supermobilizers able to collect sufficient SCs in a single day on apheresis (74 vs 42%, p<0.0001). Transplant outcomes: At our institution, SC products with ≥5×106/kg CD34+ cells were typically split, reserving half for future salvage transplant. Therefore, regardless of number of SCs mobilized, median number of SCs reinfused for 1st transplant was higher in the supermobilizer group (9.1×106/kg vs 5.5×106/kg, p<0.0001). Not surprisingly, the supermobilizers achieved neutrophil engraftment at a median of 1 day earlier than the control group (11 vs 12 days, p=0.002). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in grade 3-4 toxicity during the peri-transplant period. At a median followup of 32 mos, the median PFS for all pts was 22.8 months (95% CI: 19.8-25.0) and OS has not yet been reached (no differences between groups). Using total SC number collected as a continuous variable, we were unable to further identify a cut-off level that predicted for improved PFS or OS. Conclusions: From our study, we confirm that younger age and higher baseline platelet count are predictors of improved SC mobilization capacity in MM, consistent with what has been previously described. Supermobilizers achieved neutrophil engraftment sooner than normal or poor mobilizers but in contrast to data in lymphoid malignancies, this did not translate into a survival benefit. SC mobilization in lymphoma is a far more challenging task than in MM, with higher rates of SC mobilization failure due to extensive chemotherapy exposure or marrow infiltration. Thus, differences in transplant outcomes in lymphoma, based on a single parameter such as mobilization capacity, may be more easily detected than in MM where mobilization failures are uncommon. With over 40% of MM patients achieving ‘supermobilizer' status, future efforts to improve SC mobilization may better target approaches to decrease the cost or time involved in the process, rather than identification of novel mobilization agents. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,001
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,004

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,027
Tête enseignante GPT0,252
Écart entre enseignants0,225 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→Travaux en français237 207→