Bortezomib-Based Induction, Augmented Conditioning with Busulfan and Melphalan + ASCT and Lenalidomide Maintenance for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: Long-Term Results of the National Canadian Mcrn-001 Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Although melphalan 200 mg/m2 (Mel 200) followed by ASCT has been a standard approach for eligible multiple myeloma (MM) patients (pts) for over 25 years, efforts to improve transplant results continue, particularly in high-risk (HR) pts. One approach has been to augment the high-dose (HD) regimen by adding agents to Mel or performing "tandem" ASCT using Mel each time. The first MCRN Canadian national trial (MCRN-001) was designed to optimize the results of ASCT by using bortezomib (BTZ)-based induction, augmented HD chemotherapy with busulfan + melphalan (BuMel) before ASCT, and lenalidomide (Len) maintenance post-ASCT. We now report longer-term outcomes from this study, including results in HR pts and the incidence of secondary primary malignancies (SPMs). METHODS: Following BTZ-based induction (typically weekly CyBorD), stem cells were harvested and pts received BuMel (busulfan 3.2 m/kg IV days -5 to -3 or days -6 to -4 and Mel 140 mg/m2 days -2 or -3), followed by ASCT on day 0. On day 100, Len maintenance was commenced at a dose of 10 mg/d, escalated if appropriate to 15 mg/d and continued until progression. IMWG criteria were used for clinical response and progression. Bone marrow 8-color multiparameter flow cytometry (10 -4 sensitivity) was measured at diagnosis, before ASCT, on day +100, every 3 months the first year and every 6 months until progression; serum heavy light chain (HLC) (Hevylite®) assay and serum M spike by mass spectrometry (spec) were also evaluated at the same time points. RESULTS: 78 newly diagnosed MM pts were entered between 03/2013-05/2016. Median age was 57 yrs (range 34-69); HR FISH cytogenetics were identified in 15 (19%) and included t(4;14) in 9 [3 also had t(14;16) and 1 also had del 17p]. Four others had t(14;16), including 1 with concomitant del 17p, while 2 additional pts had del 17p. Median follow-up (F/U) is 55.7 mos (range 6-68). There were no early ASCT deaths. Best response in all pts was CR in 44 (56%), VGPR in 31 (40%), for a ≥VGPR rate of 96%, and PR in 3 (4%). For HR pts, best response was ≥VGPR in 93% (CR in 47%). MRD negativity rates increased from 28% after induction to 39% at day +100; 6- and 12-mo MRD negativity rates were 44% and 41%, respectively. A normal HLC ratio was achieved in 58% after induction and 65% at day +100. Among evaluable pts who were MRD negative, 77% after induction and 83% at day +100 also had a normal HLC ratio, while 50 % and 55% who were MRD positive had a normal HLC ratio. Mass spec data will be presented separately. As of 05/31/2019, 24 pts have progressed and 12 have died, 8 from MM. Median PFS and OS for all pts have not yet been reached, but the estimated 5-year PFS is 60% (95% CI 47.5-70.8%) and OS 82% (95% CI 69.7-89.3%). For HR pts, the 5-year PFS is 28% (95% CI 7.2-54.3%) compared with 67% (95% CI 53.9-96.2%) for standard-risk (SR) pts (p=0.0169). 5-year OS was 61.3% (95% CI 30.2-81.9%) versus 86% (95% CI 72.2-93.2%) in HR and SR pts, respectively (p=0.0170). SPMs were diagnosed in a total of 16 (21%) individuals (5 HR), including 1 pt with 2 SPMs (colon and basal cell), at a median of 29 mos (7-55) post-ASCT; 3 were diagnosed after discontinuation of Len. There were 6 skin cancers (melanoma in 1; non-melanoma in 5) -all successfully treated; 4 heme malignancies (2 AML, 1 NHL and 1 Hodgkin's) with 1 death due to AML; and 7 adenocarcinomas (1 in situ endocervical and 6 invasive) with 3 causing death. Therefore, there were 4 deaths (5.1%) in total from SPM. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS: 1) BTZ-based induction and BuMel + ASCT followed by Len maintenance produced an overall ≥VGPR rate of 96% and excellent 5-year PFS, particularly in SR pts; 2) despite a high initial VGPR rate of 93%, a shorter PFS and OS were noted in HR pts; 3) the PFS in HR pts in the current study appears somewhat shorter than that observed in the MD Anderson phase 3 study comparing BuMel versus Mel 200 (Qazilbash, ASH 2017); this observation might be due to the use of different criteria for HR FISH, variable induction and maintenance regimens and a different dose/schedule of Bu and Mel in addition to a shorter median F/U time in the phase 3 trial; 4) nevertheless, HR pts in the current trial still experienced a median PFS of 48.5 mos; 5) with a median F/U of almost 5 years, invasive SPMs were diagnosed in 10 pts; although most were successfully treated, the findings illustrate the need for long-term monitoring of MM pts, particularly in the setting of HD therapy with dual alkylating agents and the longer survival times now observed after ASCT. Figure Disclosures Reece: Otsuka: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. White:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Venner:Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; J&J: Research Funding. Stakiw:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Lundbeck: Honoraria. Sebag:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Comeau:Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Song:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Roy:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi Canada: Research Funding; ExCellThera: Patents & Royalties: Royalties from sales of UM171, Research Funding; Amgen Canada: Honoraria; Janssen Canada: Honoraria. Louzada:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria. McCurdy:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Kukreti:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Trudel:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Astellas: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria. Prica:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Tiedemann:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Chen:Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: The combination of busulfan IV and melphalan conditioning for ASCT in myeloma is off-label.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».