Bortezomib and High Dose Melphalan (Bor-HDM) Compared to HDM Conditioning for the Treatment of Transplant Eligible Multiple Myeloma: Report from a Single Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Preclinical and clinical data suggest that bortezomib in combination with high-dose melphalan (Bor-HDM) provides with a synergistic effect able to improve the quality of response for MM patients undergoing auto-SCT. In the present study, we aimed to assess the impact of Bor-HDM conditioning on ORR, and MRD negativity for MM patients undergoing single auto-SCT at our Institution. Methods All consecutive patients who underwent single auto-SCT at Tom Baker Cancer Center (TBCC) from 01/2004 to 06/2015 using Bor-HDM or HDM as conditioning regimen were evaluated. Definitions of response and progression were used according to the EBMT modified criteria and a category of very good partial response (VGPR) was added. MRD negativity was assessed by multiparameter flow cytometry. All patients received induction chemotherapy before undergoing auto-SCT. Bortezomib was administered intravenously at 1-1.3 mg/m2 on days −5, −2, 1, and 4, while melphalan was given at 200 mg/m2 on day −1. A p value of <0.05 was considered significant. Survival curves were constructed according to the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log rank test. Results Two-hundred and fifty-eight consecutive patients receiving Bor-HDM or HDM alone were evaluated. A total of 85 patients received Bor-HDM conditioning and 173 received HDM. Clinical characteristics and chemotherapy induction regimens are listed in Table 1. At day-100 post auto-SCT a ³VGPR was seen in 83.3% in the Bor-HDM group compared to 67.6% for HDM patients. The CR/nCR rate was higher in the Bor-HDM group (47.6% vs 23.6%) as well as MRD negativity assessed by flow cytometry (30.9% vs 9.7%, p=0.0001). Median OS in the Bor-HDM group was NR compared to 95 months for HDM alone (p=0.572), while median PFS was 39.3 months for Bor-HDM compared to 27 months for HDM (p=0.1). Median OS was shorter in the HR cytogenetic group regardless of the type of conditioning regimen employed (39 months vs NR for SR cytogenetics). In addition, patients who achieved MRD negativity, exhibited a longer OS (NR vs 78 months, p=0.007). Transplant-related mortality (TRM) was similar between both groups (p0.5). In conclusion, Bor-HDM is a safe and efficacious conditioning regimen able to increase the nCR/CR and MRD negativity rates compared to HDM. Further studies are warranted to explore this regimen, especially when other upfront therapies are employed, with special view on the high-risk MM patients where response rates are good but sustainability remains an issue. Table 1. Clinical Characteristics Characteristic Bor/HDM, N=85 HDM alone, N=173 Age (median) 58 59 GenderMaleFemale 51 (60%)34 (40%) 113 (65.3%)60 (34.7%) Hb (g/L) 112 117 Calcium (µmol/L) 2.25 2.29 Creatinine (µmol/L) 85 80 B2microglobulin (µmol/L) 3.3 2.79 Albumin (g/L) 31 35 Stage IStage IIStage III 154723 617333 M-spike (g/L) 34 30 LDH (IU/L) 194 180 BMPC (%) 40 33 Heavy chain:IgGIgAIgDFLC onlyBiclonalIgM 491811511 1142403210 Light chain:KappaLambdaBiclonal 50351 124471 High riskStandard risk 2263 36135 InductionCyBorDVDDexamethasoneRVD 4524016 16544315 Figure 1. Overall Survival for patients with MM undergoing single auto-SCT according to the type of conditioning regimen Figure 1. Overall Survival for patients with MM undergoing single auto-SCT according to the type of conditioning regimen Figure 2. Progression-Free survival for patients with MM undergoing single auto-SCT according to the type of conditioning regimen Figure 2. Progression-Free survival for patients with MM undergoing single auto-SCT according to the type of conditioning regimen Figure 3. Overall Survival for patients with MM undergoing single auto-SCT according to MRD negativity assessed by flow cytometry Figure 3. Overall Survival for patients with MM undergoing single auto-SCT according to MRD negativity assessed by flow cytometry Disclosures Jimenez-Zepeda: Celgene: Honoraria; J&J: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Duggan:Jansen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Neri:Celgene: Research Funding. Bahlis:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Johnson & Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".