Clinical Outcomes in t(4;14) Multiple Myeloma: A Chemotherapy-Sensitive Disease Characterized by Rapid Relapse and Alkylating Agent Resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether primary drug resistance or rapid relapse explains the poor prognosis seen in t(4;14)-positive multiple myeloma (MM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 131 patients treated with high-dose therapy (HDT) were assessed, of whom 19 were t(4;14) positive. We examined the presentation features, chemotherapy responsiveness at presentation and to salvage therapies at relapse, and overall survival outcomes. RESULTS: t(4;14)-positive patients had a predominance of the immunoglobulin A isotype (52.6%) but otherwise baseline characteristics were indistinguishable. After treatment with vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone or dexamethasone alone, 17 (89.7%) of the 19 patients achieved a partial response and 11 patients (57.9%) demonstrated an additional 50% reduction in paraprotein after HDT. Thus, t(4;14)-positive patients are chemotherapy sensitive; however, early progression was common, with 26% of patients progressing before HDT and a median progression-free survival after HDT of only 14.1 months. At relapse, a resistance to alkylating agents was evident, with no responses (zero of 11 patients) seen with conventional-dose alkylating agents. Salvage regimens using thalidomide and/or dexamethasone achieved at least minimal response in 59% of patients. The duration of response was short, however, with a median of only 4.7 months. The median overall survival after HDT was 24.2 months. CONCLUSION: We conclude that t(4;14)-positive MM is chemotherapy sensitive but rapid relapse occurs. Resistance to alkylating agents is evident at relapse. The development of novel therapeutic agents is required, including the early clinical study of targeted fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 tyrosine kinase inhibitors, which have shown promise in preclinical studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".