MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3041001077 · doi:10.1182/blood.v130.suppl_1.3462.3462

Tolerability and Efficacy of Post Transplant Lenalidomide Maintenance Therapy in Multiple Myeloma: A Real World Single Centre Experience

2017· article· en· W3041001077 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Chloe Yang, Haiyan Jiang, Esther Masih‐Khan, Christine I. Chen, Anca Prica, Donna Reece, Rodger E. Tiedemann, Suzanne Trudel, Vishal Kukreti

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineLenalidomideTolerabilityDiscontinuationMaintenance therapyRegimenSalvage therapyMultiple myelomaInternal medicineNeutropeniaSurgeryMelphalanOncologyAdverse effectChemotherapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Lenalidomide maintenance therapy (LMT) post autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM) has been shown to improve PFS and has become a mainstay therapy. This study examines the tolerability and efficacy of LMT in a real world setting at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PMH). Methods: Retrospective review was done for consecutive patients (pts) who underwent ASCT at PMH from Jan 2012 to Jan 2015. Pts who started LMT and followed at PMH were included. Pts were excluded if: 1) diagnosis was not solely MM, 2) tandem or salvage ASCT, 3) on no or a different maintenance regimen, 4) on clinical trial, and 5) exclusively followed in the community. The following were collected for up to 36 months (mo): 1) duration of LMT, 2) dose delivered (calculated as % of standard dosing of 10 mg daily i.e. 280mg per 28 day cycle), 3) reasons for reduction or discontinuation, 4) toxicities (graded per CTCAE v4. Where clinical documentation not sufficient for grading, marked as grade 3/4 if dose reduction/discontinuation occurred), 5) secondary primary malignancies (SPM), and 6) patient reported outcomes (PRO) through the validated Edmonton Symptom Assessment Score (ESAS). PFS (calculated from start of LMT) and OS were collected until date of last follow up. Univariate analysis was done for subgroup analysis. Patient compliance on therapy was not able to be captured. Results: 575 consecutive pts were screened. 119 pts were included with their characteristics in Table 1. Common reasons for exclusion include: followed exclusively in the community (200), no maintenance (92), different maintenance (58), tandem/salvage transplant (61). The average duration on LMT was 33.2 mo (95%CI: 26.1-Not reached). The average starting dose was 80% of standard dosing with 48 pts (41%) starting below, 63 pts (54%) starting at the standard dosing, and 5 pts (4%) starting above. Average % dose delivered was as low as 53% by 30 mo follow up (Figure 1). The median time to first dose reduction (DR) was 6 mo (0.7-27mo). 59 pts (50%) required DR after starting LMT and common reasons were neutropenia (41%), other cytopenias (17%), fatigue (15%), rash (12%), diarrhea (5%), infection (3%), renal impairment (3%). No pts were dose escalated beyond 10 mg daily. For the 5 pts started at dose of 15mg daily, all eventually required DR to ≤ 10mg daily. The most common clinical toxicity (any grade occurring at least once in each patient) include infection (66%), fatigue (58%), diarrhea (29%), rash (23%), muscle cramps (18%), peripheral neuropathy (15%), bleeding (12%), VTE (6%). The most common grade 3 and 4 hematologic toxicity include neutropenia (31%), thrombocytopenia (6%), anemia (1%). There were 4 cases of SPM during LMT (SCC of skin at 6 mo, breast at 12 mo, colon at 18mo, MDS at 36 mo) and 1 case of cancer recurrence (bladder at 6 mo). Over the study period, 53 (45%) pts discontinued LMT. Reasons included: 34 (64%) disease progression, 16 (30%) toxicity, 3 (6%) patient or clinician choice. Of the 16 pts discontinued due to toxicity, the reasons include cytopenia (5), fatigue (5), cancer (1), peripheral neuropathy (1), GI intolerance (1), MDS (1), pneumonitis (1), and infection (1). PRO was collected in the domains of “tiredness”, “drowsiness”, “nausea”, “appetite”, “shortness of breath”, “depression”, “anxiety”, and “wellbeing” (Figure 2) on a scale of 0 to 10. Highest (worst) scores were reported in the categories of “tiredness” and “wellbeing”. The scores in each domain remained stable during the follow up period, with “appetite” statistically significantly improved (p=0.025). The median PFS was 41.7 mo (95% CI: 30.1- Not reached). There were 2 reported deaths. There were no difference in PFS between those who did and did not require dose reduction (p=0.235). Difference in PFS was statistically significant based on ISS stage (p=0.008). There were no subgroup differences based on gender, type of MM, or response to ASCT. OS was not reached. Conclusion: In this real world experience of LMT in MM, few pts were able to achieve a dose of 10mg daily with 70% of pts requiring dose reduction by 36 mo and 13% discontinuation of therapy due to side effects. Nonetheless, this did not have significant impact on PRO and a PFS was achieved of 41.7 mo which is comparable to clinical trials. This study confirms efficacy and tolerability of LMT in a real practice setting. Maintenance lenalidomide should be encouraged for all post-ASCT pts even if at reduced doses. Download : Download high-res image (211KB) Download : Download full-size image Disclosures Chen: Abbvie: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Prica: Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Reece: Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Tiedemann: BMS Canada: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda Oncology: Honoraria. Trudel: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kukreti: 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)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
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 seuil0,009

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
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 Opus0,040
Tête enseignante GPT0,305
Écart entre enseignants0,264 · 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

Citations8
Publié2017
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetMultiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207