MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2725206342 · doi:10.1182/blood.v128.22.3457.3457

Single Centre Experience in Treating Newly Diagnosed t(4;14) Multiple Myeloma with and without Planned Front-Line Autologous Stem Cell Transplant

2016· article· en· W2725206342 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Henry Chan, Madeline Phillips, Sophia Farooki, Giovanni Piza Rodriguez, Esther Masih‐Khan, Christine Chen, Vishal Kukreti, Anca Prica, Rodger E. Tiedemann, Suzanne Trudel, Donna Reece

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineMultiple myelomaBortezomibInternal medicineLenalidomideSurgeryDexamethasoneAutologous stem-cell transplantationCyclophosphamideMaintenance therapyMedian follow-upPrednisoneOncologyChemotherapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: The optimal management of multiple myeloma (MM) patients (pts) with t(4;14) is not certain. Before the introduction of novel agents, the progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes with autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) were disappointing (median PFS 9.9 months [mos]; Chang H, et al. Bone Marrow Transplant 2005;36:793). Subsequently, early experience with bortezomib (btz) in relapsed myeloma showed its efficacy in t(4;14) disease, and led to the prospective Canadian trial of 12 cycles of btz-based therapy (DBD = Doxorubicin + btz + dexamethasone) x 4, followed by CyBor-P (Cyclophosphamide + btz + prednisone) x 8 and then dexamethasone maintenance, without planned ASCT, in newly diagnosed pts with this cytogenetic abnormality by FISH (Reece D, et al; Blood 2010;116: abstract 1968). After completion of this trial, particularly with the absence of provincial funding for long-term upfront btz, we adopted a standard approach of btz-based induction followed by ASCT. We now report the results of newly diagnosed t(4;14) pts treated at our centre with these 2 approaches. Methods: We analysed consecutive patients with newly diagnosed MM harbouring t(4;14), who were transplant-eligible and treated at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre with btz-based therapy between July 1, 2006 and June 30, 2014. Patients lost to follow-up (F/U) before completion of front-line treatment or transferred to another centre after first-line treatment were excluded. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS version 20. Results: A total of 58 patients were analysed with a median F/U of 41.5 mos. The median age at diagnosis was 56.5 years, and 62.1% were male. Concomitant del(17p) was noted in 10.3% of the patients. Thirty-two of these pts (Group A) were enrolled onto the prospective phase II study described above; the other 26 pts (Group B) received the subsequent standard of care, which involved btz-based induction (usually CyBor-D) for 4-6 months, followed by planned ASCT. Amongst these 26 patients, 11 received single ASCT, 13 received tandem ASCT and 2 failed to respond to btz-based induction. The only significant difference in pt characteristics between these 2 groups was a higher median haemoglobin level in group A (116 g/L vs 106 g/L; p=0.003). The median OS was 54.7 months for Group A and 47.6 months in Group B (HR = 1.095, p = 0.817). Median PFS for Group A was 24.2 months and was 30.0 months for Group B (HR = 0.874, p = 0.680). No difference in OS and PFS was noted between those who received single and tandem ASCT as planned front-line treatment (OS HR = 1.105, p = 0.895; PFS HR = 1.723, p = 0.317). Amongst those in Group A, 25 patients have relapsed to date. Eight received single ASCT, 6 received tandem ASCT, and 11 received chemotherapy only as salvage therapy. In Group B, 15 patients have relapsed, and 11 of these went on to receive lenalidomide-based salvage treatment. The PFS and OS from the time of first relapse in this group of relapsed patients in Group A was similar between those who received ASCT as front-line treatment in Group B (median PFS 12.5 vs 11.1 months, p = 0.842; median OS 27.5 vs 21.6 months, p = 0.985). Amongst those who relapsed in Group A, those who received salvage ASCT had a better PFS and OS from the time of relapse than those who did not received salvage ASCT (median PFS 22.4 vs 1.7 months, p < 0.001; median OS 35.8 vs 11.7 months, p = 0.021). In multivariate analysis, only del(17p) was found to be an independent adverse risk factor for OS (HR = 5.307, p = 0.032). Age (HR = 1.050, p = 0.089) and ISS stage III (HR = 4.036, p = 0.097) were also noted to be adverse risks factor for OS. Conclusions: Newly diagnosed MM pts with t(4;14) treated with btz-based therapy with or without ASCT as part of first-line therapy have a median OS in the range of 4-4.5 years; 2) the use of ASCT at some time point in the course of t(4;14) disease is likely beneficial; 3) however, there was no obvious benefit for tandem ASCT as part of initial or salvage therapy in this analysis, although we cannot exclude an effect of pt bias in the ability to perform 1 or 2 ASCT; 4) the integration of an IMiD, particularly lenalidomide, in more pts either in combination with btz or as maintenance therapy, may have improved the outcome but was not available for all pts in this analysis; 5) as observed in other centres, the co-existence of del 17p and t(4;14) identifies a particularly high risk group of MM pts. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. Disclosures Chen: Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kukreti:Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria. Prica:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Tiedemann:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS Canada: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda Oncology: Honoraria. Trudel:Celgene: Honoraria; Glaxo Smith Kline: Honoraria, Research Funding; Oncoethix: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria. Reece:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: 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 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)0,001
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 enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,008

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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 Opus0,024
Tête enseignante GPT0,260
Écart entre enseignants0,236 · 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

Citations1
Publié2016
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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