MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7119277531

COMPARISON OF SINGLE, TANDEM, AND SECOND AUTOLOGOUS STEM CELL TRANSPLANTATION IN PATIENTS WITH MULTIPLE MYELOMA AT SASKATCHEWAN CANCER AGENCY: A RETROSPECTIVE POPULATION-BASED STUDY

2025· article· en· W7119277531 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mona Moossavi

Notice bibliographique

RevueUniversity Library (University of Saskatchewan) · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMultiple myelomaAutologous stem-cell transplantationCancerTransplantationRetrospective cohort studyHematopoietic stem cell transplantationClinical trialMalignancyStandard of care
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a malignant plasma cell disorder that ranks as the second most common hematological malignancy globally. It primarily affects older adults and poses a significant burden on both patients and healthcare systems due to its chronic relapsing nature and associated complications. For transplant-eligible patients, autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is considered the standard of care and is typically performed following induction chemotherapy. While single ASCT has long been the conventional approach, emerging evidence suggests potential advantages of alternative transplant strategies, including tandem ASCT (two planned sequential transplants within 3-6 months) as an upfront therapy and second ASCT as a salvage therapy in relapsed disease. However, the comparative outcome and safety of these strategies, particularly in real-world settings, require additional scrutiny. This retrospective chart review study was conducted to compare the outcomes of single, tandem, and second ASCT among MM patients treated at Saskatchewan Cancer Agency (SCA) between 2010 and 2025. Data were collected from SCA database using REDCap and were analyzed using SPSS (version 27). Patients’ demographics, disease characteristics, baseline laboratory findings, and transplant details were assessed. The main aims of the study were overall survival, progression-free survival, and transplant-related mortality (TRM) in different transplant groups. The study also explored high-risk myeloma subgroup outcomes, as defined by International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG). A total of 211 patients were included and followed up for the mean period of 5.4 ± 3.3 years (range: 1–14 years). Patients were categorized into single ASCT (n = 166), tandem ASCT (n = 19), and second ASCT (n = 26) groups. Mean age of patients at diagnosis was 58.3 ± 7.7 years. Common comorbidities comprised diabetes (14.2%), chronic pulmonary disease (11.4%), and chronic kidney disease (10.9%). High-risk myeloma was present in 29.9% of the patients. At diagnosis, 71.1% had bone lesions, 58.6% had anemia, 26.1% had hypercalcemia, and 38.6% had renal insufficiency. The mean overall survival for single ASCT was 8.2 ± 0.4 years, for tandem ASCT was 7.7 ± 1.3 years, and for second ASCT was 11.0 ± 0.7 years (p = 0.117). Among high-risk myeloma patients (n = 63), the mean overall survival for single ASCT was 5.5 ± 0.7 years, for tandem ASCT was 3.5 ± 0.3 years, and for second ASCT was 7.9 ± 0.8 years (p = 0.057). The mean progression-free survival after first-line ASCT for single ASCT was 5.8 ± 0.4 years and for tandem ASCT 5.2 ± 1.0 years (p = 0.780). Among high-risk myeloma patients, the mean progression-free survival for single ASCT was 3.6 ± 0.5, and for tandem ASCT was 3.1 ± 0.4 years (p = 0.472). Upon progression following single ASCT, patients who received a second salvage ASCT had markedly longer progression-free survival compared to those who received non-transplant salvage treatments (3.4 ± 0.6 vs. 1.8 ± 0.3 years, respectively; p = 0.009). This advantage was also observed among the high-risk myeloma subgroup (3.2 ± 1.1 vs. 0.8 ± 0.2 years, respectively; p = 0.012). Only one TRM occurred after a second ASCT, which was 1.25% of total deaths (n = 80). In conclusion, this study provides real-world, population-based evidence comparing outcomes of single, tandem, and second ASCT in patients with MM, offering valuable insights for optimizing transplant strategies. While survival outcomes were similar between upfront single and tandem ASCT, patients who underwent a second ASCT after relapse experienced significantly longer progression-free survival compared to those who proceeded with non-transplant salvage treatments. Similarly, among high-risk myeloma patients, a second ASCT was associated with markedly improved progression-free survival. Overall, these results support the role of second ASCT as an effective and safe salvage approach, demonstrating favourable outcomes with minimal TRM rate.

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)0,002
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 enseignants0,200
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,397

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
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 GPT0,218
Écart entre enseignants0,208 · 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
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUniversity Library (University of Saskatchewan)→Même sujetMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→Travaux en français237 207→