Prospective comparison of autologous stem cell transplantation followed by dose-reduced allograft (IFM99-03 trial) with tandem autologous stem cell transplantation (IFM99-04 trial) in high-risk de novo multiple myeloma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome (IFM) initiated 2 trials in 1999 to study patients with high-risk (beta2-microglobulin level greater than 3 mg/L and chromosome 13 deletion at diagnosis) de novo multiple myeloma. In both protocols, the induction regimen consisted of vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (VAD) followed by first autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) prepared by melphalan 200 mg/m(2). Patients with an HLA-identical sibling donor were subsequently treated with dose-reduced allogeneic stem cell transplantation (IFM99-03 trial), and patients without an HLA-identical sibling donor were randomly assigned to undergo second ASCT prepared by melphalan 220 mg/m(2) and 160 mg dexamethasone with or without anti-IL-6 monoclonal antibody (IFM99-04 protocol). Two hundred eighty-four patients-65 in the IFM99-03 trial and 219 in the IFM99-04 trial-were prospectively treated and received at least one course of VAD. On an intent-to-treat basis, overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) did not differ significantly in the studies (medians 35 and 25 months in the IFM99-03 trial vs 41 and 30 months in the IFM99-04 trial, respectively). With a median follow-up time of 24 months, the EFS of the 166 patients randomly assigned in the tandem ASCT protocol was similar to the EFS of the 46 patients who underwent the entire IFM99-03 program (median, 35 vs 31.7 months), with a trend for a better OS in patients treated with tandem ASCT (median, 47.2 vs 35 months; P = .07). In patients with high-risk de novo MM, the combination of ASCT followed by dose-reduced allogeneic transplantation was not superior to tandem dose-intensified, melphalan-based ASCT.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".