MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Second Autologous Stem Cell Transplant As Salvage Therapy For Multiple Myeloma

2013· article· en· W2300957547 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mohamed Elemary, Mohamed Emara, Ankur Sharma, Sabuj Sarker, Waleed Sabry, Julie Stakiw

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaSaskatchewan Cancer AgencyUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSalvage therapyLenalidomideMultiple myelomaSurgeryBortezomibThalidomideTransplantationInternal medicineMedian follow-upChemotherapyOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Therapeutic options for patients with multiple myeloma whose disease has relapsed after a prior autologous SCT include novel agents, traditional chemotherapy or a second transplant, with no clear standard of care. Limited data are available regarding the value of salvage therapy with a second autologous SCT in patients who relapse after the first one, and the factors that determine the outcome of the second SCT. We retrospectively reviewed our experience at Saskatoon Cancer Center with salvage autologous SCT for relapsed multiple myeloma. Methods Thirty three patients had received a salvage auto-SCT at our institution between February 2000 to February 2012. Median age at second SCT was 60 years (range; 46-71), Median time to relapse after the first SCT was 32 months (range; 3-80). Median interval between the first and second transplant was 34 months (range; 4-85). Re-induction therapy prior to second transplant contained combination with novel therapies (Bortezomib , lenalidomide or Thalidomide) in Thirteen patients ( 40 %) and the rest received conventional combination chemotherapies. Median line of therapies before the second SCT was 1 (range 0-3) with 23 patients (70%) received less than 2 lines and 30% received more than 2 lines. Results Responses to second autologous SCT at day 100 showed CR in 21%, VGPR 30 %, PR 42% with ORR 93 %. Non relapse mortality at day 100 after second transplant was 3 % (no= 1) With a median follow up time of 24 months (range 1-99) from the salvage SCT, the median PFS was 27 months (range 1-89) and the median overall survival (OS) was 36 months ( range 1-99) Eleven patients had TTP inversion (PFS longer after the second transplant) with a median increase of 18 months , of note only two of them received novel agents for salvage, but 70 % required less than two lines prior to salvage SCT. In univariate analysis, patients who had received < 2 lines of therapy prior to salvage SCT (23/33) had significantly higher median TTP of 31 and OS of 52 months, compared to 19 and 33 months for patients who had received ≥2 lines of therapy (10/33). (P = 0.04) Patients who had relapsed more than 2 years post 1st SCT (18/33) had a significantly higher median TTP and OS of 27 and 39 months respectively compared to 22 and 24 months patients who had relapsed less or equal to 2 years (15/33) (P= 0.04) In multivariate analysis, only response to salvage SCT > PR had an impact on TTP and OS; however it was not statistically significant. Conclusion Second salvage auto-SCT generally is safe and effective in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. Patients with ≥2 prior lines of therapy and a TTP after initial transplant of ≤24 months are unlikely to benefit significantly. Salvage auto-SCT should therefore be considered for appropriate patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

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)0.0030.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→