MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2726667285 · doi:10.1182/blood.v128.22.2137.2137

Pattern of First Relapse in Multiple Myeloma (MM) Patients (Pts) after a Cybord Induction Regimen and Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation (ASCT): Impact of Maintenance Therapy in the Real-World Setting

2016· article· en· W2726667285 sur OpenAlexaff
Julie Anne Côté, Madeline Phillips, Eshetu G. Atenafu, Esther Masih‐Khan, Donna Reece, Christine Chen, Anca Prica, Rodger E. Tiedemann, Suzanne Trudel, Vishal Kukreti

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineLenalidomideMaintenance therapyThalidomideRegimenInternal medicineAutologous stem-cell transplantationMultiple myelomaOncologyBortezomibTransplantationSurgeryChemotherapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Maintenance therapy after first-line ASCT improves outcomes, although virtually all pts eventually relapse. The pattern of first relapse shows significant heterogeneity. The literature is scarce about the impact of maintenance on the pattern of relapse and about predictors of a more aggressive or indolent relapse course. Our objectives were, in a cohort of transplant-eligible MM pts treated with a CyBorD induction regimen followed by ASCT as part of first-line therapy, to describe the pattern of first relapse, to determine if patterns differ between pts with and without maintenance and to identify predictors for patterns of first relapse, early relapse, PFS, OS and OS after relapse in the real-world setting. Methods Inclusion criteria were MM pts who received at least 2 cycles of induction with a CyBorD regimen with their induction regimen start date from January 2007 to December 2012. Pts then underwent single (126) or tandem ASCT (10) in first-line. Primary refractory disease was excluded. Charts were retrospectively reviewed for descriptive and univariate analysis. The pattern of relapse was categorized as biochemical, clinical, clinical with extramedullary disease or clinical with plasma cell leukemia. Results Median follow-up of the 136 pts was 43.4 months (mos). Pt and first-line treatment characteristics are presented in Table 1. Most pts presented with anemia and bone lesions. The maintenance (n= 82; lenalidomide= 84%, thalidomide= 13%, lenalidomide and bortezomib= 2%) and no maintenance (n= 44) groups were similar, except for fewer pts with high-risk cytogenetics in the no maintenance group (9% vs 19%). All 10 tandem ASCT pts had maintenance. Response rates at 3 mos post-ASCT and best response rates after ASCT were similar between the maintenance and no maintenance groups (VGPR or better response rates were respectively 70% and 83% for the maintenance group and 75% and 85% for the no maintenance group) (Table 1). The median duration of maintenance was 11.1 mos (0.5-55.1) and 56% had stopped for progression. Overall median PFS was 41.3 mos (95%CI= 34.6-54.3) and overall median OS was 96.7 mos (95%CI lower bound= 64.9). For pts on lenalidomide maintenance, median PFS was 51.5 mos (95%CI= 35.9-61.8) and median OS was not reached on the study duration. Pts on maintenance had a significantly shorter median OS after relapse when compared to pts without maintenance (9.2 vs 19.9 mos, p= 0.006). Sixty-eight pts relapsed (50%), 40 in the maintenance group and 27 in the no maintenance group (Table 2). Overall, biochemical relapse was the most frequent type of relapse (56%) in all pts. However, pts receiving maintenance more often relapsed clinically and pts in the no maintenance group more often experienced biochemical relapses. Six of the 7 cases of FLC escape (86%) were in the maintenance group. Clinical relapsers usually had at least 1 component of the clinical presentation at relapse that was the same as at diagnosis (Dx). Overall, the most frequent types of clinical relapse involved bone lesions (51%), anemia (43%) and extramedullary disease (34%), the latter being more frequent in the maintenance group (40% vs 22%).Correlations between hypercalcemia at Dx and at relapse (positive correlation; coefficient= 0.45, p= 0.0064) and extramedullary disease at Dx and at relapse (positive correlation; coefficient= 0.39, p= 0.0201) were significant. By univariate analysis, maintenance (OR= 3.866, 95%CI= 1.333-11.211, p= 0.013) and high LDH at Dx (OR= 1.009, 95%CI= 1.001-1.016, p= 0.027) were associated with a clinical pattern of relapse. Bone lesions versus no bone lesions at progression were: 1) less likely to relapse early (OR= 0.178, 95%CI= 0.037-0.849, p= 0.030); 2) had a significantly longer median PFS (34.3 vs 15.6 mos, p= 0.0002); 3) had a longer OS (79.4 vs 36.3 mos, p= 0.031) and 4) had a longer OS after relapse (13.9 vs 3.7 mos, p= 0.003). Conclusions The most common pattern of first relapse was biochemical. Although we cannot exclude an effect of pt bias regarding use of maintenance, we observed an impact of maintenance on the pattern of relapse, with more clinical relapses. For pts relapsing on maintenance, cases of FLC escape and of extramedullary disease at relapse were also more frequent and OS after relapse tended to be shorter. High LDH at Dx was also associated with a clinical pattern of relapse. Interestingly, pts presenting with bone lesions at progression had better outcomes. Disclosures Cote: Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Reece:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Otsuka: Honoraria, Research Funding. Chen:Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Prica:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Tiedemann:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Trudel:Amgen: Honoraria; Oncoethix: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; Glaxo Smith Kline: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Honoraria. Kukreti:Lundbeck: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: 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 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)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
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
Métarecherche0,0000,002
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 Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,267
Écart entre enseignants0,251 · 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

Citations3
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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