MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2907519508 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-117363

Real-World Outcomes with Bortezomib-Containing Regimens and Lenalidomide Plus Dexamethasone for the Treatment of Transplant Ineligible MM Patients: A Multi-Institutional Report from the National Myeloma Canada Research Network (MCRN) Database

2018· article· en· W2907519508 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Víctor H. Jiménez‐Zepeda, Donna Reece, McCurdy R Arleigh, Esther Masih‐Khan, Eshetu G. Atenafu, Michaël Sébag, Julie Stakiw, Kevin Song, Richard LeBlanc, Tony Reiman, Martha Louzada, Rami Kotb, Engin Gul, Christopher P. Venner

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversity Health NetworkOttawa HospitalCancerCare ManitobaSaint John Regional HospitalLeukemia & Lymphoma Society of CanadaUniversity of New BrunswickHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontUniversity of CalgaryPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of OttawaMcGill University Health Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLenalidomideMultiple myelomaMedicineBortezomibDexamethasoneExact testInternal medicineLog-rank testRegimenOncologySurvival analysis

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Bortezomib-containing regimens (BCRs) have been the standard frontline approach for the treatment of transplant ineligible multiple myeloma (TIMM) patients in Canada for many years. Based on recent randomized clinical trial results lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Ld) has become another provincially funded option in Canada in the same therapeutic space. We aimed to compare the effect of BCRs and Ld for the treatment of TIMM using the newly-formed Myeloma Canada Research Network Multiple Myeloma Database (MCRN-MM-DB) project. This web-based centralized platform can track and characterize real-world outcomes of patients treated at major Canadian institutions and includes both legacy data dating back to 2007 (from 4 centres) as well as ongoing prospective data collection (from 11 centres) analyzed up to 01/07/18. Patients and Methods: The primary objective was to assess the ORR, PFS and OS for TIMM patients treated with CyBorD/CyBorP, Ld, VMP or VD/VP, each given as reported previously but with dose-adjustments at the discretion of the treating physician to maintain patients on therapy. The two-sided Fisher exact test was used to test for differences between categorical variables. Survival curves were constructed according to the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log rank test; a p value of <0.05 was considered significant. Results: 842 TIMM patients were evaluated. Clinical characteristics are shown in Table 1. Median OS and PFS for the entire cohort were 54.1 and 20.4 months, respectively. ORR and ≥VGPR better rates were 83% and 52% for the entire cohort. A ≥VGPR rate of 53%, 46%, 56% and 51% were observed for patients treated with CyBorD/P, VMP, Ld and VD/VP, respectively (p=0.3). The median PFS was longer for Ld patients (25 months) compared to CyBorD/CyBorP, VMP and Vd/VP (19.3, 20.5 and 13.7 months, respectively), (p=0.03, Fig 1a); there was no significant difference in PFS between the 2 different alkylating-agent containing regimens when combined with bortezomib + steroids (CyBorD/P vs VMP, p =0.9). Median OS was 51, 59.5, 29.4 and 66.5 months for those patients treated with CyBorD/CyBorP, VMP, VD/VP and Ld, respectively (p=0.07, Fig 1b). When the OS and PFS for CyBorD/P (typically given for a fixed duration of 9 cycles) were compared with Ld in a subset analysis, the p-values were 0.08 and 0.008, respectively. Conclusions: 1) OS was not significantly different in patients treated with either a bortezomib-containing triplet that includes an alkylator + steroid or continuous Ld. 2) The BCR triplets and Ld were more efficacious than the bortezomib + steroid doublet (VD/VP) for both OS and PFS although, the small sample size and adverse factors, such as frailty and comorbidities, may have influenced the findings. 3) The results in the real-world setting, i.e., a median PFS in the range of 1.5-2 years and median OS of 4.5-5.5 years, confirm triplet-based BCRs and Ld as current valid standards of care for frontline therapy in TIMM. 5) This study confirms the utility of a large comprehensive national database to benchmark current results for comparison with newer regimens as they are introduced into the Canadian therapeutic landscape. Disclosures Arleigh: Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Sebag:Janssen Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Leblanc:Celgene Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Louzada:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; amgen: Honoraria; pfizer: Honoraria. Venner:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: 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)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,011
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 enseignants0,311
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,626

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,011
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,006
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0020,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
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 Opus0,089
Tête enseignante GPT0,362
Écart entre enseignants0,273 · 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
Publié2018
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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