Salvage Thalidomide Improves Survival of Relapsed Multiple Myeloma Patients When Compared to Other Salvage Chemotherapies: A Retrospective Analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Thalidomide has become one of the standard treatments of multiple myeloma patients either at diagnosis or in relapse and refractory disease. Up to date there are no randomized trials comparing the efficacy of thalidomide to other chemotherapy combinations in relapsed and refractory disease. We have conducted a retrospective analysis comparing the outcome of patients (n=141) younger than 65 years old who received either thalidomide (Group A; n=58) or non-thalidomide containing regimens including dexamethasone, cylophosphamide, melphalan+ prednisone, VAD (Group B; n=83) at first or second relapse post autologous stem cell transplant. The two groups were comparable in respect to age at relapse, Durie Salmon staging, IPS staging, serum beta-2 microglobulin, serum albumin and ECOG performance status. The median time to relapse from the date of initiation of salvage therapy in the thalidomide group was 12.1 months vs 6.5 months in the non-thalidomide group (p < 0.05). The median overall survival from the time of diagnosis was significantly longer in the thalidomide group (median survival = 131 months) vs the non-thalidomide group (median survival 50 months) (p =0.0055) (Figure below). In summary our retrospective analysis supports the superiority of thalidomide in the treatment of younger relapsed and refractory myeloma patients when compared to other previously established salvage chemotherapy regimen. Figure Figure
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".