MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2979726845 · doi:10.1182/blood.v128.22.994.994

Patients (pts) with Renal Insufficiency (RI) and Multiple Myeloma (MM) Have Similar Outcomes after Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (AHCT) As Those without

2016· article· en· W2979726845 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anuj Mahindra, Parmeswaran Hari, Raphael Fraser, Mingwei Fei, Tomer M. Mark, Yago Nieto, Anita D’Souza

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineMultiple myelomaTransplantationHazard ratioMelphalanInternal medicineUrologyProportional hazards modelRenal functionSurgeryCreatinineLenalidomideConfidence interval

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: High dose melphalan [HDM] followed by AHCT is widely used in pts with MM as upfront and salvage therapy. The safety and efficacy of AHCT in patients with RI is controversial and results in an inconsistent arbitrary cutoff for creatinine clearance for performing AHCT. Herein we compare the outcomes of MM pts with various degrees of RI who received AHCT. Methods: Patients from US/Canada who underwent AHCT for MM and reported to the CIBMTR between 2008 and 2013 and had a reported creatinine at AHCT were included in this study (N =1492). Pts were grouped by GFR using the MDRD equation at AHCT as Normal/Mild [>60 ml/min], moderate and Severe RI [<30]. Multivariate analysis of non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse/progression (rel), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall (OS) was performed using the Cox proportional hazard regression model and RI was considered the main variable. Results: Of the total cohort, 1240 pts had normal/mild, 185 pts had moderate and 67 pts had severe RI. 35 pts were on dialysis prior to ASCT. Majority of pts with severe RI had Karnofsky <90% (55%) compared to moderate (41%) and normal/mild (40%). Light chain MM was more frequent in severe RI (55%) compared to 30% (moderate) and 18% (normal/mild). There was no difference in high-risk chromosomal versus non-high risk abnormalities between the 3 groups. Induction chemotherapies included non-lenalidomide based treatments in 39% of normal/mild, 51% of moderate and 72% of severe, RI and ≥2 lines of chemotherapy in 20% normal/mild, 22% moderate and 45% severe RI. Pre-transplant disease status was similar with ≥VGPR in 49% normal/mild,, 49% moderate and 50% severe RI. Median time from diagnosis to ASCT was <6 months in 38% of normal/mild., 36% of moderate and 25% of pts with severe RI. HDM dose was 200mg/m2 in 92% pts with normal/mild, 75% pts with moderate and 33% pts with severe RI. Median [range] inpatient hospital stay was 14 days [1-90] in pts with normal/mild, 16[3-77] in pts with moderate and 17[4-70] in pts with severe RI. Time to neutrophil and platelet engraftment, NRM, rel, PFS and OS were not statistically different between the groups. On multivariate analysis, IgA subtype, ISS stage III at diagnosis, lack of planned post-transplant therapy post-AHCT, 2 or more lines of pre-AHCT therapy [2+] were associated with lower PFS and OS (Table 1). IgA or light chain subtypes, ISS Stage III, ≥2 lines of chemotherapy, sensitivity to therapy and lack of planned post-transplant therapy were significant for higher rel. 30 of 35 pts [85%] with severe RI achieved dialysis independence. The probability of PFS at 5 years for pts with normal, mod and severe RI was 35% [95% CI, 31-38%], 40% [31-49] and 27% [15-40%] respectively (p=0.42). The probability of OS at 5 years for pts with normal, mod and severe RI was 68% [95% CI, 65-71%], 68% [60-76] and 60% [46-74%] respectively (p=0.69)(Figure 1). For pts with moderate RI, probability of PFS at 5 years for pts receiving Mel 140 mg/m2 was 18% [95% CI, 6-35%] and for pts receiving Mel 200 mg/m2 was 46% [36-57] (p=0.009); probability of OS at 5 years for pts receiving Mel 140 mg/m2 was 67% [95% CI, 51-82%] and for pts receiving Mel 200 mg/m2 was 68% [58-78] (p=0.52). For pts with severe RI, probability of PFS at 5 years for pts receiving Mel 140 mg/m2 was 25% [95% CI,11-41%] and for pts receiving Mel 200 mg/m2 was 32% [11-58] (p=0.37); probability of OS at 5 years for pts receiving Mel 140 mg/m2 was 63% [95% CI, 46-80%] and for pts receiving Mel 200 mg/m2 was 55% [31-77] (p=0.65). Relapse was the primary cause of death in pts with normal/mild (81%), moderate (73%) and severe RI (73%). Conclusions: HDM with AHCT using melphalan is safe and effective in pts with MM with RI at transplant. A significant proportion of pts achieved dialysis independence with treatment. Improved PFS was noted among pts with moderate RI receiving Mel 200 mg/m2 compared to Mel 140 mg/m2. Post-transplant maintenance treatment was associated with improved outcomes. Multivariate Analysis of outcomes Multivariate Analysis of outcomes Figure 1. Kaplan-Meier survival curve of PFS and OS of pts with Normal/mild, moderate and severe renal insufficiency Figure 1. Kaplan-Meier survival curve of PFS and OS of pts with Normal/mild, moderate and severe renal insufficiency Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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)0,001
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
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
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)0,0020,000

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 Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,259
Écart entre enseignants0,248 · 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

Citations6
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetMultiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207