A Comparison of Cyclophosphamide, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone Versus Bortezomib and Dexamethasone in Transplant Eligible Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction Cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (CyBor-D) is considered a standard induction regimen for transplant eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) based primarily on phase 2 data. It has not been directly compared to bortezomib and dexamethasone (Bor-Dex) alone. Therefore, we sought to compare the efficacy CyBor-D and Bor-Dex induction in transplant eligible patients treated at a tertiary care center. Methods A retrospective observational study was performed from a single tertiary care center between January 1, 2008 and April 30, 2016. All transplant eligible patients with MM who received induction chemotherapy with CyBor-D or Bor-Dex and were included. The primary outcome was progression free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes were response to induction, toxicity, stem cell collection yield and failures, and response to autologous stem cell transplant (autoSCT). Continuous variables were reported as median and compared using Mann-Whitney test. Categorical variables were compared using Pearson's chi-square test. PFS was estimated with Kaplan-Meier. Results One hundred and fifty nine patients were included, 82 (51.6%) treated with CyBor-D and 77 (48.4%) treated with Bor-Dex. The relative proportion of patients treated with CyBor-D increased annually: 1/23 (4%) in 2012, 20/30 (66%) in 2013, 33/34 (97%) in 2014, and 28/28 (100%) in 2015. Patient demographics and disease characteristics were similar between all groups for sex, subtype of MM and stage by the International Staging System. The Bor-Dex group was significantly younger than the CyBor-D group (mean age 56 vs. 61 years, p < 0.001). Median number of cycles was the same for both groups (4, p= 0.73); however, the Bor-Dex group was more likely to have treatment held, reduced or discontinued than the CyBor-D group (19.7% vs. 6.4%, p=0.017). The overall response rate (ORR) was similar between both groups, 88.5% for CyBor-D and 82.7% for Bor-Dex (p=0.36), but patients treated with CyBor-D had deeper responses to induction with 57.5% achieving ≥VGPR whereas 38.7% in the Bor-Dex group achieved ≥ VGPR (p=0.02). The stem cell mobilization regimen was predominantly Cyclophosphamide and GCSF for both groups. Plerixafor use was more common in the CyBor-D cohort, 14.6% vs. 1.3% in Bor-Dex (p=0.002), and there were more collection failures in the CyBor-D group compared to Bor-Dex (6.1% vs. 0%, p=0.03). The median number of CD34 cells collected was higher in the Bor-Dex compared to CyBor-D (9.88 x 106 cells/kg vs. 7.66 x 106cells/kg, p=0.004), however median collection days was similar (1 in both groups, p=0.175). The mobilization toxicity was similar between both groups with a trend towards increased hospitalizations in the CyBor-D group (26% vs. 14%, p=0.075). The conditioning regimen was the same in both groups, predominantly Melphalan 200 mg/m2. Day 100 response was similar, with 76.7% of CyBor-D patients achieving ≥ VGPR vs. 71.21% for Bor-Dex (p= 0.25). The median PFS was 36.5 months in the Bor-Dex group and not yet reached in the CyBor-D group, due to shorter follow up time. However, the percentage of patients free from relapse was similar at 1 year (92.8% for CyBorD vs 98.7% for Bor-Dex) and at 2 years (69.4% for CyBor-D vs 72.9% for Bor-Dex). Conclusions CyBor-D and Bor-Dex appear to have similar overall efficacy for newly diagnosed transplant eligible patients with multiple myeloma in our cohort. CyBor-D was associated with deeper response to induction, but after autoSCT there was no difference in the depth of response between the two cohorts. Longer follow up is required to detect if the deeper response to induction with CyBor-D leads to differences in PFS. When used with Cyclophosphamide-GCSF mobilization, CyBor-D appears to result in more collection failures and a trend towards increased hospitalizations. Further prospective studies are required to examine this relationship. Disclosures Kew: Celgene: Honoraria. McCurdy:Celgene: Honoraria.
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 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».