Cyclophosphamide, Bortezomib and Dexamethasone (CyBorD) Compared to Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone (LD) for the Treatment of Non-Transplant Eligible Multiple Myeloma
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction: Cyclophosphamide, bortezomib and Dexamethasone (CyBorD) has become the standard frontline approach for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) in many centers across Canada. In the non-transplant eligible setting, recently a randomized controlled trial reported on the impact of Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone (LD), showing that this doublet-therapy is a feasible and efficacious combination. Based on the above-mentioned success of the LD combination, we aimed to compare the effect of CyBorD and LD for the treatment of non-transplant eligible MM (NTE) patients in the Alberta Myeloma and Dysproteinemia Program (AMDP). Patients and Methods: The primary objective was to assess ORR and PFS for NTE MM patients treated with CyBorD and LD. The recommended CyBorD regimen was as follows: bortezomib 1.3-1.5 mg/m2 SC or IV days 1, 8, 15 of a 28 day cycle (as of August, 2013 we adopted the a strategy whereby bortezomib can also be given on day 22), cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 PO days 1, 8, 15 and 22 and dexamethasone 20-40 mg PO days 1, 8, 15 and 22 with an aim to deliver a minimum of 9 cycles of treatment. LD was given at 25 mg days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle with Dexamethasone 20-40 mg PO days 1, 8, 15 and 22. Dose adjustments were at the discretion of the treating physician. Two-sided Fisher exact test was used to test for differences between categorical variables. A p value of <0.05 was considered significant and survival curves were constructed according to the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log rank test. Results: Ninety-one patients have received CyBorD and 56 have received LD. Clinical characteristics are shown in Table 1. At the time of analysis, 64 and 32 patients in the CyBorD and LD are alive of which 10 and 11, respectively, have progressed, ORR and VGPR rates were 85.7% and 56% for patients treated with CyBorD, and 83.9% and 64% for LD respectively (p=0.3). Estimated median OS was 40 months for CyBorD compared to 66 months for LD (p=0.156). In addition, median PFS was longer for LD patients compared to CyBorD (26 months vs 16.4 months, p=0.018). The rate of treatment discontinuation was similar between both groups (8.7% vs 10%, p=0.3). In Conclusion: CyBorD and LD appeared to be effective treatment options for NTE myeloma patients with similar response rates. Recognizing the limitations of a retrospective series, it is interesting to note a longer PFS and a trend towards better PFS in the LD group, however, longer follow-up and prospective validation is still required. Table 1. Clinical Characteristics Characteristic CyBorD, n=91 LD, n=56 P value Age (median) 73.9 73.6 0.2 GenderMaleFemale 57 (62.6%)34 (37.4%) 34 (60.7%)22 (39.3%) 0.8 B2microglobulin (µmol/L) 4.9 4.89 0.4 Albumin (g/L) 35 36 0.7 Stage IStage IIStage III 17.7%35.4%46.9% 23.5%37.2%39.3% 0.6 BMPC (%) 32 37.5 0.6 Heavy chain:IgGIgAFLC onlyIgDIgMBiclonal 501018113 26179010 0.068 Response rateORRCR/nCRVGPRPR 85.7%23%31.8%30.7 83.9%28%37.5%17.8% 0.3 Ab: BMPC: Bone marrow plasma cell Figure 1. Overall Survival according to treatment regimen Figure 1. Overall Survival according to treatment regimen Figure 2. Progression-Free survival according to treatment regimen Figure 2. Progression-Free survival according to treatment regimen Disclosures Jimenez-Zepeda: Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; J&J: Honoraria. Venner:J&J: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria. Sandhu:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Duggan:Celgene: Honoraria; Jansen: Honoraria. Neri:Celgene: Research Funding. Bahlis:Johnson & Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.
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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».