A Randomized Phase III Trial of Thalidomide and Prednisone as Maintenance Therapy Following Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation (ASCT) In Patients with Multiple Myeloma (MM): The NCIC CTG MY.10 Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Abstract 39 Three randomized trials have previously reported a progression-free survival (PFS) advantage for patients receiving thalidomide (T) maintenance post ASCT in MM. Two trials reported an overall survival (OS) advantage but the largest trial reported shows no OS advantage and in very high risk MM the use of T was deleterious. Recent trial reports demonstrate a PFS but not yet an OS advantage for patients receiving maintenance lenalidomide. We report results of NCIC CTG MY.10 which compared treatment with T (200 mg daily) and prednisone (50 mg alternate days) (T/P) until progression versus observation alone when used as maintenance therapy following ASCT. Importantly, OS was the 1ry endpoint of this study, 2ry endpoints were PFS, quality of life (QoL), toxicity, and the incidence of venous thromboembolism events (VTE). Eligibility: Patients with MM who had ASCT within 1 year of beginning initial treatment for their disease. Patients were randomized 60–100 days post ASCT and had no other medical condition precluding long term use of T/P. Results: 332 patients were enrolled. Median age was 58 years and the arms were balanced. Patients were stratified by age (<60 or >60), and CR status post transplant. Median follow up is 4 years. Only 14% of patients were in CR post transplant. 111 patients died (50 versus 61 in T/P vs. observation). The median OS was 5 years for observation, and has not yet been reached for T/P, however T/P maintenance therapy did not significantly prolong OS: p = 0.18, HR of maintenance vs. observation 0.77 (95% CI 0.53–1.13). The 4 year survival rate was 68% for T/P and 60% for observation. Age and response to transplant had no significant association with OS (p=0.21), while higher disease stage was associated with shorter OS (p=0.03). The median PFS was 28 months for T/P versus 17 months for observation: p<0.0001, HR of T/P vs. observation 0.56 (95% CI 0.43 – 0.73). The 4 year PFS rate was 32% for T/P treated patients versus 14% for patients on observation. At relapse, treatment by arm (T/P vs observation) included lenalidomide (39 vs 34%), T (13 vs 22%) or bortezomib (50 versus 46%). Non hematologic toxicities were seen in more patients with treatment (Grade 3: 92% T/P vs 49% observation, grade 4: 16% vs 7%). Common toxicities of all grades that were significantly higher in T/P treated patients included hyperglycemia, edema, hypertension, fatigue, Cushingoid appearance, constipation, mouth dryness, dyspepsia, anxiety, memory loss, sensory neuropathy, tremor, blurred vision, depressed consciousness, cataracts, dyspnea and bruising. 7% of patients on maintenance T/P developed a VTE in the absence of prophylaxis versus 0% on observation. NCIC CTG standardized response analysis was use to compare QoL data between the 2 treatment arms. Overall, patients on T/P had worse QoL specifically in physical (p=0.07), role (p=0.08), cognitive (p = 0.01) and global (p=0.06) domains, and worse symptoms with dyspnea (p = 0.0007), constipation (p<0.0001), thirst (p=0.003), swelling in leg (p=0.03), numbness (p=0.02), dry mouth (p<0.0001), and balance problems (p<0.0001). However, patients on T/P reported improvement in appetite (p 0.02), and sleep (p=0.04). Conclusions: T/P maintenance did not improve overall survival, the primary objective of this trial, although a trend in favor of T/P was seen. In contrast, PFS was significantly improved in the T/P arm while toxicity was demonstrably increased and quality of life diminished. Disclosures: Stewart: Millennium: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria. Trudel:Celgene: Honoraria. Bahlis:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. White:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Meyer:Celgene: Honoraria.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".