Results of Salvage Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation (ASCT) for Relapsed Multiple Myeloma (MM) in the Era of Novel Agents: Outcome of Patients (Pts) Receiving Prior Bortezomib (BTZ)-Based Therapy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: A second (salvage) ASCT has frequently been offered to MM patients with relapsed disease who experience benefit from the first procedure. We have previously reported that pts undergoing a salvage ASCT in the era of VAD or thalidomide (thal) have a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 19 months (mos). The best results were observed in pts who experienced ≥ 2 year benefit after their first ASCT (Jimenez-Zepeda VH et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2012; 18: 773-9). However, the utility of this approach after the introduction of novel chemotherapeutic agents--such as bortezomib (BTZ)--remains unclear. Initially, provincial funding for BTZ in Ontario was provided only for relapsed disease. However, in 2007, the combination of either BTZ + dexamethasone (BTZ-dex) or cyclophosphamide, BTZ + dex (CyBorD) was adopted as the standard induction regimen for newly diagnosed pts before ASCT performed as part of first-line therapy. We now examine the results of salvage ASCT in our centre after the availability of BTZ. Methods: We used the Princess Margaret Myeloma Database to identify and characterize patients with relapsed MM who had received a bortezomib (BTZ)-based regimen for remission induction prior to their first ASCT or for re-induction before salvage ASCT. A retrospective chart review was performed to investigate the PFS and overall survival (OS) outcomes of these pts. Results: Between 01/2005 and 07/2015, 64 pts with MM who had previously received BTZ-based therapies underwent salvage ASCT for relapsed disease at our centre (Table 1). Median age was 56.9 yrs (range 37-67.3); 37 (58%) were male. ISS stage was 1 in 32 (50%), 2 in 16 (25%), 3 in 14 (22%) and NA in 2 (3%). The median interval between first and salvage ASCT for all pts was 48.6 mos (range 26.9-130.3), reflecting our policy of preferentially offering salvage ASCT to pts with at least a 2-yr benefit from the first transplant; the median time between re- induction therapy and salvage ASCT was 6.3 mos (range 0.3-95.9). Group A pts (n=27) had received BTZ-based therapy before their first ASCT; 48% of these also received BTZ-based regimens again prior to salvage ASCT. Pts in Group B (n=37) received BTZ-based regimens before the salvage transplant only, while induction therapy before the first ASCT consisted of VAD (21), dex alone (8), thal + dex or other regimens (5). Twenty-two (34%) of the pts received maintenance therapy between the first and salvage ASCT (most often thal-based), while 35 (55%) of the pts received maintenance therapy following salvage ASCT (most frequently lenalidomide [len]-based). The survival outcomes are summarized in Table 2. Median duration of follow-up (F/U) following salvage ASCT was 19.1 mos (range 0.8-96.4). One patient (1.6%) died several days following salvage ASCT. No other transplant-related mortality occurred. The median PFS following salvage ASCT was 19.1 mos (range 0.8- 87.5) with a median OS of 26.5 mos (range 0.8-101.9) in all pts. The median PFS after salvage ASCT was 15.8 mos for Group A and 25.2 mos for Group B pts. Conclusions: Even in the era of novel agents, salvage ASCT may provide PFS benefit to pts with relapsed MM who were previously treated with a BTZ-based regimen. However, the details of the optimal approach in this setting are not certain, including the impact of maintenance therapy given after the first and/or salvage ASCT. We are performing additional analyses of this population to try to identify factors associated with the best outcomes. Disclosures Kukreti: Celgene: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Prica:Janssen: Honoraria. Tiedemann:Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda Oncology: Honoraria; BMS Canada: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Trudel:Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Glaxo Smith Kline: Honoraria, Research Funding; Oncoethix: Research Funding. Reece:Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.
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 | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».