MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4405040542 · doi:10.1182/blood-2024-205709

Maintenance after Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Improves Overall Survival and Progression Free Survival Regardless of Disease Stage at Transplant in Newly Diagnosed Myeloma Patients: A Global, Real-World Analysis from the Worldwide Network for Blood and Marrow Transplantation Global Study

2024· article· en· W4405040542 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Andrew J. Cowan, Luuk Gras, Hiroyuki Takamatsu, Linda Köster, Laurien Baaij, Nada Hamad, Anita D’Souza, Noel Estrada‐Merly, Parameswaran Hari, Wael Saber, Minako Iida, Shinichiro Okamoto, Shohei Mizuno, Koji Kawamura, Yoshihisa Kodera, Bor‐Sheng Ko, Christopher Liam, Kim Wah Ho, A Sim Goh, S Keat Tan, Alaa Elhaddad, Ali Bazarbachi, Brig Qamar Un N Chaudhry, Rozan Alfar, Mohamed Amine Bekadja, Malek Benakli, Cristobal Augusto Frutos Ortiz, Eloísa Riva, Sebastián Galeano, Francisca Bass, Hira Mian, Arleigh McCurdy, Feng‐Rong Wang, Meng Lv, Daniel Neumann, Mickey Koh, John A. Snowden, Stefan Schönland, Donal P. McLornan, Patrick Hayden, Rafael de la Cámara, Raffaella Greco, Fabio Ciceri, Mette D. Hazenberg, Anna Sureda, Damiano Rondelli, Hildegard Greinix, Mahmoud Aljurf, Yoshiko Atsuta, Dietger Niederwieser, Laurent Garderet

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensOttawa HospitalMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineMultiple myelomaTransplantationInternal medicineOncology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: In eligible newly diagnosed myeloma patients, autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) is the standard of care. The most important prognostic factors are response status at the time of AHCT and receipt of maintenance therapy. Len maintenance post AHCT improves progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Using a global registry, we analyzed whether Len or Thal maintenance can overcome a suboptimal hematological response at AHCT. Methods: Data were provided by the Worldwide Network for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (WBMT) through the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT), the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplantation (CIBMTR), the Asian Pacific Blood and Marrow Transplant Group (APBMT), the Eastern Mediterranean Blood and Marrow Transplant Group (EMBMT), the Latin American Bone Marrow Transplant group (LABMT), and the Ottawa hospital myeloma registry. The study included newly diagnosed myeloma patients receiving AHCT between 2013 and 2017 with data available on maintenance treatment. The primary endpoint was OS and secondary endpoints were PFS, Multivariable 6-month landmark analyses were performed using Cox proportional hazards models including a random effect for country. Apart from maintenance post AHCT (Len vs. Thal vs no maintenance) and hematological response at AHCT, models included patient sex, year of AHCT, Karnofsky score at AHCT, myeloma subclassification, conditioning dosage, interval between diagnosis and AHCT, HCT comorbidity index, ISS at diagnosis, and cytogenetic risk score. Results: Among the 61,797 patients in the WBMT study, 11% had information on maintenance. Fifty-one percent had Len (3460 pts), 38% other than Len (2640 pts, including 672 with Thal) and 11% none (767 pts). We report characteristics of the 4903 patients with Len, Thal or no maintenance (47.0% EBMT, 33.9% CIBMTR, 10.4% APBMT, 0.9% EMBMT, 4.4% LABMT, 3.4% Canada) and include 4555 of these who were alive at 6 months post-AHCT in the OS and 4334 who additionally were without relapse in the PFS analysis. The median age at AHCT was 60.0 (IQR: 53.7-65.5) years. Response status at AHCT was: complete response (CR) (19%), very good partial response (VGPR) (39%), partial response (PR) (36%), stable disease/minor response (SD/MR) (5%), relapse/progression (Prog) (1%). Median follow-up after AHCT was 45 months. In univariable analyses, Len and, to a lesser extent, Thal maintenance was associated with improved OS, PFS, lower RI and NRM (all p<0.001) compared to no maintenance. Improvements were observed regardless of disease status at HCT. OS at 3 years for CR, VGPR, PR and SD/MR/Prog patients was 82%, 80%, 81% and 72% in those without maintenance and was 92 (+10)%, 89 (+9)%, 88 (+7)%, 84 (+12)%, respectively for those with Len, (log-rank p<0.001). PFS at 3 years ranged from 61, 54, 45 and 35% without maintenance to 72 (+11)%, 68 (+14)%, 63 (+18)%, 58 (+23)% with Len for CR, VGPR, PR and SD/MR/Prog patients, respectively (log-rank p<0.001). In the MVA, better response status at AHCT, and Len maintenance were significantly associated with better OS and PFS. The OS and PFS HR (95% CI) comparing no maintenance vs Len were 1.92, (1.52-2.43), p=0.0004 and HR 1.74 (1.51-2.02) p<0.0001, respectively. The OS HR (95% CI) for VGPR, PR, SD/MR and Rel/Prog vs CR at AHCT was 1.07 (0.82-1.40), 1.23 (0.94-1.61), 1.79 (1.18-2.72) and 2.71 (1.55-4.74), respectively, (overall p=0.0003). For PFS, these estimates were 1.12 (0.95-1.32), 1.43 (1.21-1.68), 1.78 (1.37-2.32) and 2.10 (1.40-3.15), respectively (overall p<0.0001). In the MVA for OS, the benefit of Len maintenance decreased with longer time after AHCT (non-proportional hazards p=0.0002). The HR for no maintenance vs. Len decreased from 3.89 (95% CI 2.55-5.93) at 6 months to 1.02 (95% CI 0.67-1.54) at 36 months. For PFS, a less strong decrease in the HR over time was observed (p=0.05). The HR comparing no maintenance vs Thal for OS was 1.38 (0.98-1.95) and for PFS was 1.21 (0.98-1.49), p=0.06 and 0.07, respectively. Conclusions: In this global study of myeloma patients who underwent upfront AHCT, Len maintenance improved PFS and OS, as shown in other studies. Patients with CR as well as those with suboptimal response at AHCT benefit from Len maintenance. Thal, more broadly available globally than Len, was associated with a lesser non-significant trend towards improvement in OS and PFS compared to no maintenance.

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)0,003
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 enseignants0,004
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,018

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
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 Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,276
Écart entre enseignants0,266 · 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
Publié2024
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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