MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2979704099 · doi:10.1182/blood.v118.21.2936.2936

Lenalidomide (Revlimid), Bortezomib (Velcade) and Dexamethasone (RVD) for Heavily Pretreated Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma

2011· article· en· W2979704099 sur OpenAlexaff
Víctor H. Jiménez‐Zepeda, Donna Reece, Suzanne Trudel, Christine Chen, Vishal Kukreti

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLenalidomideMedicineInternal medicineBortezomibRegimenMultiple myelomaDexamethasoneRefractory (planetary science)NeutropeniaOncologyProgression-free survivalThalidomideToxicityGastroenterologySurgeryChemotherapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 2936 Almost all patients (pts) with multiple myeloma eventually relapse and remission duration decreases with each regimen. The median Progression Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) in pts with relapsed myeloma refractory to lenalidomide (len) and bortezomib (btz) is poor at 5 and 9 months respectively. A phase 1 study of len plus btz in pts with relapsed or relapsed, refractory MM (RRMM) demonstrated favorable toxicity and promising response and survival further confirmed in a phase 2 study with len, btz and dexamethasone (dex) [RVD]. In this retrospective study, we assessed the efficacy and toxicity profile of RVD therapy for pts with advanced RRMM. We retrospectively reviewed the records of all pts with RRMM treated with RVD at Princess Margaret Hospital between 03/09 and 05/11. Relapse was defined according to the Uniform International Criteria. Pts were given RVD therapy as previous described by Anderson et al and must have completed at least one cycle of RVD therapy. Primary endpoints were response rate (RR), PFS, OS, and toxicity. Pts discontinued therapy if they experienced PD, no additional benefit or unacceptable toxicity. Definitions of response and progression were used according to the EBMT modified criteria with a category of very good partial response (VGPR). To examine variables independently prognostic for PFS and OS, multivariate Cox analysis was performed. Differences in continuous variables between groups were compared using Mann-Whitney or Kruskal-Wallis tests. Survival curves were constructed according to the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log rank test. Thirty pts with RRMM received RVD therapy. Clinical characteristics are seen in Table 1. Median age at RVD initiation was 57 yrs (37–76 yrs), and 46.7% were male. Pts received a median of 3 prior therapies (1–6). In many instances, pts previously treated with len had len added to btz + dex at progression (n=6), or pts previously treated with btz had btz added to len + dex, at progression (n=5). Thalidomide (thal), len and btz containing regimens were previously used in 60%, 73.3% and 80% of pts respectively. PR or better was observed in 46.6%. After a median of 4.6 cycles (1–14), VGPR was seen in 4.8%, PR in 33% and SD in 14%. Pts who achieved PR or better experienced a significant improvement in PFS. There was no difference in terms of RR between those pts according to prior exposure to either btz or len (p=0.7 and 0.9 respectively). Eight pts experienced non-hematological grade 3/4 adverse events (26%), including muscle weakness, sepsis and pneumonia but there was no worsening of peripheral neuropathy. Grade 3–4 neutropenia and/or thrombocytopenia were commonly seen in 70% of pts (n=21). Disease progression was seen in 19 pts at a median of 3.9 months. Median PFS for pts previously exposed to len was 2.3 months vs 2.9 months for those with no prior exposure (p=0.75). On the other hand, median PFS for pts previously exposed to btz was 2.1 months vs 3.4 months for those with no prior exposure (p=0.9) In addition, median PFS for pts who achieved at least PR was significantly better at 5.9 vs 2.0 months for those who did not (p<0.005). (Figure 1) FISH cytogenetics studies were available in 19 out of 30 patients at relapse: 5 -normal, 4–13q deletion, 3-p53 deletion and 2 - t(4, 14). High-risk MM pts had a median PFS significantly lower of 0.6 months (CI 95%, 0–1.99) vs 4.7 months for those without high-risk features (CI 2.5–7.0) (p=0.008) (Figure 2) At the time of submission, 13 pts are alive (43.3%) and 7 pts (23%) continue on RVD therapy.Table 1.Clinical characteristics of patients with RRMM treated with RVDClinical characteristic N=30MedianRange%Age5737-76Male46.7%Female53.3%Hemoglobin (g/L)10571-155Creatinine (mmol/L)99.936-383Beta-2 microglobulin (mmol/L)280119-1440Lactate dehydrogenase (U/L)18189-255IgG56.6% (17)IgA23.3% (7)IgM3.3% (1)Light Chain16.6% (5)Kappa (mg/L)4005.3-346063.3% (19)Lambda (mg/L)5145.1-530036.7% (11)KappaLambda*BMPC57%6-95%M-spike serum (g/L)300-77M-spike urine (g/d)0.890-7.9Prior therapies31-6ASCT83.3% (25)Thal60% (18)Len73.3% (22)Btz80% (24)*BMPC, Bone marrow plasma cells In conclusion, RVD is active and well tolerated in pts with RRMM, including pts who have received prior len, btz, thal and ASCT but PFS is short at 3.9 months in this highly advanced disease group of patients. We question whether response is dependent on recognized risk factors such as adverse cytogenetics. Disclosures: Jimenez-Zepeda: J & J: Honoraria. Reece:Bristol, Meyers, Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Johnson&Johnson: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Honoraria, Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria. Kukreti: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 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: Essai non randomisé · Signal consensuel: aucune
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
Métarecherche0,0010,001
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 Opus0,076
Tête enseignante GPT0,307
Écart entre enseignants0,231 · 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'étudeEssai non randomisé
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
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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