MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Lenalidomide (Revlimid), Bortezomib (Velcade) and Dexamethasone (RVD) For The Treatment Of Secondary Plasma Cell Leukaemia

2013· article· en· W2278895774 on OpenAlexaff
Victor H Jimenez Zepeda, Donna Reece, Suzanne Trudel, Christine I. Chen, Rodger E. Tiedemann, Vishal Kukreti

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLenalidomideMedicineBortezomibThalidomidePlasma cell leukemiaDexamethasoneMultiple myelomaInternal medicineGastroenterologyMelphalanNeutropeniaToxicityOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Secondary plasma cell leukemia (SPCL) is an aggressive variant of multiple myeloma (MM) characterized by the presence of >20% and/or an absolute number of >2 × 109/L circulating PCs cells in the peripheral blood. Recently, combinations of bortezomib (bor) or lenalidomide (len) with conventional cytotoxic drugs have demonstrated very high rates and quality of response in MM, and, based on this data, we aimed to assess the efficacy of len, bor and dexamethasone (RVD) in SPCL. Methods In this retrospective study, we reviewed the records of all patients (pts) with SPCL treated with RVD at Princess Margaret Cancer Center between 03/09 and 06/12. A total of 9 pts were identified. Pts received oral len 10-15 mg/d on days 1-14 (dose adjusted for creatinine clearance), bor 1.0 or 1.3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of 21-day cycles (in 3 pts) and once weekly (in 6 pts) along with dexamethasone (20 mg or 40 mg weekly). Primary endpoints were response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. Results Clinical characteristics are showed in Table 1. Pts had received a median of 3 lines of therapy (1-5). Thalidomide, len and bor containing regimens were previously used in 3, 5 and 7 pts respectively. After a median of 3 cycles (1-14), CR was seen in 1, VGPR in 2, PR in 1 and 5 pts progressed while on therapy. Pts who achieved ≥ PR experienced a significantly better PFS (11.67 versus 1.57 months) (p=0.0049). At the time of analysis all of the cases had progressed and died. The median PFS was 5.23 months (range 1.68-31.53) with 2 pts progressing after 27 months. Median OS for the entire group was 5.13 months (range 1.17-32). Furthermore, median OS was significantly longer for pts achieving ≥ PR compared to those who did not (7.93 versus 2.93 months, p=0.0472). The median time to first and best response was 4 and 8 weeks, respectively. Two pts (22.2%) experienced non-hematological grade 3/4 adverse events, including sepsis and pneumonia. Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 6 pts, and 3 pts required G-CSF to avoid treatment delays. In conclusion we demonstrated that the combination of RVD is able to obtain responses in 44% of in SPCL cases within one month of therapy. Although the median PFS was only 5.23 months, 2 pts experienced responses exceeding 2 years. Thus, we recommend trying RVD for 1 cycle; if no response is seen, an alternative approach should be utilized. Newer agents such as pomalidomide and carfilzomib should be investigated in this aggressive disease in which the majority of responses are short-lived. Disclosures: Reece: Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Otsuka: Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Tiedemann:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Kukreti:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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