MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139026714 · doi:10.3324/haematol.11168

Intermediate-dose melphalan compared with myeloablative treatment in multiple myeloma: long-term follow-up of the Dutch Cooperative Group HOVON 24 trial

2007· article· en· W2139026714 on OpenAlexaff
P. Sonneveld, Bronno van der Holt, Christine M. Segeren, Edo Vellenga, Alexandra Croockewit, G. Verhoef, Jan J. Cornelissen, M Schaafsma, Marinus H. J. van Oers, P. W. Wijermans, Petra H.M. Westveer, H M Lokhorst

Bibliographic record

VenueHaematologica · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and ImmunityLeukemia & Lymphoma Society of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMelphalanMultiple myelomaCyclophosphamideInternal medicineTotal body irradiationRegimenChemotherapyRandomized controlled trialSurgeryOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Dutch-Belgian HOVON group performed a randomized phase 3 trial to compare single non-myeloablative intensive treatment with double, intensive treatment in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma (MM). DESIGN AND METHODS: Three hundred and three patients with stage II/III MM were randomized after VAD induction chemotherapy to receive two cycles of non-myeloablative intermediate-dose melphalan (70 mg/m2) (single treatment) or the same regimen followed by cyclophosphamide 120 mg/kg iv plus total body irradiation (TBI) 9 Gy and autologous stem cell transplantation (double, intensive treatment). In both treatment arms interferon .IIa was given as maintenance until relapse/progression. RESULTS: A significantly higher proportion of patients achieved a complete remission (CR) on protocol treatment with double, intensive therapy (32 % vs 13 %, p<0.001). Double treatment produced better outcome in terms of event-free survival (median 22 vs 21 months, 28% vs 14% at 4 years and 15% vs 7% at 6 years after randomization; logrank p=0.013; univariate HR 0.74, 95% CI, 0.58-0.94), progression-free survival (median 27 vs 24 months, 33% vs 16% at 4 years, and 17% vs 9% at 6 years after randomization; logrank p=0.006; HR=0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.91), but not overall survival (median 50 vs 55 months, 52% vs 56% at 4 years and 39% vs 36% at 6 years after randomization; logrank p=0.51; HR=1.10, 95% CI 0.83-1.46). The achievement of a CR had a favorable prognostic impact on event-free survival (HR=0.60 , 95% CI=0.44 -0.82 , p=0.001) and progression-free survival (HR=0.62 , 95% CI=0.45 -0.84, p=0.002). INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS: Double, intensive treatment resulted in a better CR rate, event-free survival and progression-free survival but not overall survival compared to single non-myeloablative treatment in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations80
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHaematologicaSame topicMultiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207