Is Tandem ASCT Needed in MM Patients with High Risk Cytogenetics in the Era of Maintenance Therapy? Results from the Canadian Myeloma Research Group (CMRG) Database
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Recent studies evaluating tandem autologous transplantation for multiple myeloma (MM) show conflicting results in terms of efficacy. However subgroup analysis suggests that those with high-risk disease may benefit the most from tandem transplant. We used the CMRG database to compare single versus tandem ASCT for patients with MM with high-risk cytogenetics. Methods: The primary objective was to compare PFS in MM patients with high-risk cytogenetics (p53 deletion, t(4;14), t(14;16)) identified from the CMRG database undergoing front-line single or tandem ASCT from 01/2010 to 06/2019. Secondary objectives compared OS, ORR, and outcomes based on whether post-transplant maintenance was given. OS and PFS rates were calculated from the date of first ASCT using the Kaplan-Meier method. ORR was assessed by Chi-square using best response post ASCT. Results: There were 302 single and 125 tandem transplants, followed by maintenance therapy in 190 (63%) and 96 (77%) respectively. Translocation (4;14) was seen in 209 (49%), t(14:16) in 61 (15.6%) and delP53 in 222 (52%) with more than one abnormality in 65 patients. The most common induction regimen consisted of cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and steroids, (83%) followed by bortezomib and dexamethasone (8%) and dexamethasone alone (4.7%). Forty-seven patients (11%) required reinduction prior to first ASCT with regimens including RVD (49%), Rd (23%) and others (D/DT/VD-PACE, CyBor-D, KRD, VD, IxaRD, 28%). Maintenance was prescribed to 286 patients with regimens including lenalidomide ± dexamethasone (65%), lenalidomide + proteasome inhibitor ± dexamethasone (22%), proteasome inhibitor ± dexamethasone (11%) and others (2%). Patient characteristics are summarised in table 1. The overall response rate was 93.9% (94.5% for single ASCT and 92% for tandem ASCT). The PFS at 3 years was 41.1% (single) and 45.7% (tandem) with median PFS 26 vs 35 months respectively (p=0.0621). Three year OS was 71.5% (single) and 83.8% (tandem), median OS 83 vs 89 months (p=0.0060). Both PFS and OS were improved with the use of maintenance therapy, regardless of single vs tandem transplant. PFS at 3 years was 52.1% for those receiving maintenance therapy compared to 21.7% for no maintenance (median 42 vs 16 months, p<0.0001). Overall survival was 79.5% with maintenance vs 63.6% without (median 92 vs 60 months, p<0.0001). Figures 1 shows PFS and OS for single or tandem transplant, with or without maintenance therapy. There was no difference in PFS or OS after a single or tandem transplant when maintenance was given. PFS for single or tandem ASCT with maintenance at 3 years was 53.7% and 46.3% respectively (p=0.527). Three year OS rates were 76.7% and 85.6% (p=0.0962). However, PFS was better with tandem compared to single ASCT when no maintenance was given. PFS at 3 years for single transplant with no maintenance was 19.0% (median 13 months) vs 48.9% (median 23.7 months) for tandem without maintenance (p=0.0084), while OS were not statistically different (62.4% vs 74.7%, median 60 months vs not reached, p=0.5271). Conclusions: Tandem ASCT does improve outcomes for MM with high-risk cytogenetics. However, the main benefit was seen in patients who did not receive maintenance therapy. Our data demonstrate the potent anti-myeloma effect of post-ASCT maintenance and raise the question of the optimal role of tandem ASCT in the modern treatment era. Disclosures Duggan: Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Jannsen: Consultancy. Reece:Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding. Song:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen, Celgene,Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Otsuka: Honoraria. Jimenez-Zepeda:Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Takeda: Honoraria. McCurdy:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Louzada:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mian:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy. Sebag:Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. White:Takeda: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Antengene: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria. Stakiw:Lundbeck: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Leblanc:Celgene Canada; Janssen Inc.; Amgen Canada; Takeda Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding. Kotb:Takeda: Honoraria; Sanofi: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding. Venner:Janssen, BMS/Celgene, Sanofi, Takeda, Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene, Amgen: Research Funding.
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 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».