MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3216453369 · doi:10.1182/blood-2021-153321

Outcomes of Tandem Hematopoietic Stem Cell Autologous Transplant in High-Risk Myeloma Patients: A Single-Center Experience

2021· article· en· W3216453369 sur OpenAlexaff
Shona Philip, Selay Lam, Chai W. Phua, Martha Louzada, Anargyros Xenocostas, Uday Deotare

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineMultiple myelomaSingle CenterInternal medicineAutologous stem-cell transplantationOncologyHematopoietic stem cell transplantationTransplantationProgression-free survivalStem cellMelphalanSurgeryOverall survival

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Studies have demonstrated that multiple myeloma (MM) is a clinically, genetically complex and heterogeneous disease. Cytogenetic alterations identify high-risk patients in MM and are associated with a poor prognosis. They include at least one of the following at diagnosis: t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), del(17p), 1q amp and 1q amp + del(1p). Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and the development of novel agents have considerably increased the median survival of MM patients. Patients with high-risk cytogenetics are associated with worse survival, and studies have shown improvement in progression-free survival with tandem ASCT when compared to single ASCT. Methods: This is a retrospective single-center study evaluating MM patients with high-risk cytogenetics at our center who have undergone a tandem autologous transplant from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2020. Primary objective was overall response rates (ORR) and relapse rates. Secondary objectives looked at progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: From January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2020, 25 high-risk patients underwent tandem ASCT. Key patient characteristics are shown in table 1. Translocation (4:14) was seen in 8/25 (32%) patients; t(14:16) in 5/25 (20%) patients; del17p in 7/25 (28%), 1q amp in 8/25 (32%) patients, del1p + 1q amp in 5/25 (20%) patients. In terms of double hit and triple hit disease, 9/25 (36%) patients had two high risk changes and 3/25 (12%) with had three high risk changes. ISS staging wise, 5/25 (20%) patients were ISS stage I, 5/25 (20%) patients ISS stage 2 and 9/25 (36%) patients were ISS stage 3. The most common induction regimen consisted of cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (CyBorD). One patient each transitioned to daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone and PAD/CVD due to poor response. Maintenance therapy was given to 21/25 (84%) tandem ASCT patients with 5 (20%) patients receiving lenalidomide, 4 (16%) patients receiving proteasome inhibitor and 12 (48%) patients received dual maintenance. In terms of response, we recorded CR (complete response) vs VGPR (very good partial response) vs PR (partial response) after induction, 2-3 months after ASCT #1, 2-3 months after ASCT #2, 12 months after ASCT #2, and 12 months after maintenance. Following induction, 16 patients had achieved VGPR, and 9 of patients had achieved PR. After ASCT #1, 5 (55.5%) PR patients deepened their response to a VGPR. 1-3 months post ASCT #2, 3 (33.3%) PR patients deepened to a VGPR, and 2 (12.5%) VGPR patients achieved CR. 12 months after ASCT #2, 2 of the previous VGPR patients (12.5%) achieved CR, and 1 PR (11.1%) patient achieved VGPR. At the median follow-up time of 60 months, 44% of patients had relapsed. 1 patient relapsed within 1-3 months post ASCT#1. Nine other patients relapsed post ASCT #2 and maintenance except one patient who relapsed at time of ASCT #2. Univariable analysis identified hemoglobin as a statistically significant association with risk of progression or death. All patients who received any maintenance after tandem transplant were progression-free at 60 months (p<0.001). Conclusion: In our retrospective study, results suggest that tandem ASCT allows for deepening of responses. Together with maintenance therapy, this contributes to the durability of further PFS prolongation in high-risk MM patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Lam: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hoffmann-La Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SeaGen: 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; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Phua: Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; NovoNordisk: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Louzada: Amgen: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: 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: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,001
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,005

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
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,001
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 Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,256
Écart entre enseignants0,237 · 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

Citations0
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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