Bortezomib-Containing Regimens (BCR) for the Treatment of Non-Transplant Eligible Multiple Myeloma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction In patients not eligible for transplant due to age and/or co-morbidities, the selection of up-front therapy needs to balance efficacy and toxicity. Recently, regimens with bortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor proven to be efficacious in myeloma, have been reported. Based on these findings, we aimed to evaluate the impact of different bortezomib combinations for the treatment of non transplant-eligible MM. Methods All- consecutive patients treated with bortezomib-containing regimens (BCR) at Tom Baker Cancer Center (TBCC) from 01/2006 to June/2015 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. Two-sided Fisher exact test was used to test for differences between categorical variables. 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 113 consecutive patients with MM received BCR. Thirty-three patients were treated with cyclophosphamide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (CyBorD), 41 with bortezomib, melphalan and prednisone (VMP) and 39 with bortezomib and dexamethasone (VD). Clinical characteristics are shown in Table 1. At the time of analysis, 20, 17 and 18 patients in the CyBorD, VMP and VD groups are still alive and 14, 33 and 30 have already progressed, respectively. ORR and VGPR rates were 93.9%/75.7%, 80%/53% and 76%/48% (p=0.001) for patients treated with CyBorD, VMP and VD, respectively. Median OS was NR for CyBorD, compared to 41months and 37 months for VMP and VD patients (p=0.6). Median PFS was 16.7 months for CyBorD compared to 17.5 months and 11 months for VMP and VD (P=0.6), respectively. The rate of treatment discontinuation and median number of cycles were: 9%, 26% and 12.8% and 6, 7.5 and 4 cycles for CyBorD, VMP and VD patients, respectively. Patients were to receive 6-9 cycles of treatment and the regimen could be continued to a maximum of 2 years at the discretion of the treating hematologist based on tolerability and response. Nine patients (27%) in the CyBorD group and 17 (41.4%) and 4 (10%) in the VMP and VD group received maintenance treatment. Median OS and PFS was longer for the group receiving maintenance (62 months vs 32 months and 23 months vs 10 months, p=0.007). In conclusion, bortezomib containing regimens are efficacious in the treatment of non-transplant eligible MM. Patients receiving maintenance appeared to exhibit longer PFS and OS. Very elderly patients should be subjected to frailty and comorbidity indexes aiming to decrease toxicity and prolong survival. Table 1. Clinical Characteristics Characteristic CyBorD, n=33 VMP, n=41 VD, n=39 Age (median) 58 58 58 GenderMaleFemale 20 (60.6%)13 (39.4%) 22 (53.6%)19 (46.4%) 26 (66.6%)13 (33.4%) Hb (g/L) 107 110 103 Calcium (µmol/L) 2.4 2.35 2.31 Creatinine (µmol/L) 115.5 103 108 B2microglobulin (µmol/L) 4.1 3.42 5.9 Albumin (g/L) 31 31 30 Stage IStage IIStage III 6 (12.1%)14 (42.4%)13 (45.5%) 9 (21.9%)19 (46.3%)13 (31.8%) 4 (10.2%)16 (41%)18 (48.8%) LDH (IU/L) 185 179 174 BMPC (%) 31 30 33.5 Heavy chain:IgGIgAFLC onlyIgDIgMBiclonal 2247000 19148000 21107010 Light chain:KappaLambdaBiclonal 16170 29120 24150 High riskStandard risk 5 (15%) 28 6 (14.6%)35 8 (20%)31 Ab: BMPC: Bone marrow plasma cells. Figure 1. Overall survival for patients receiving CyBorD, VMP and VD Figure 1. Overall survival for patients receiving CyBorD, VMP and VD Figure 2. Progression-Free survival for patients receiving CyBorD, VMP and VD Figure 2. Progression-Free survival for patients receiving CyBorD, VMP and VD Figure 3. OS for patients receiving CyBorD, VMP and VD maintenance Figure 3. OS for patients receiving CyBorD, VMP and VD maintenance Disclosures Jimenez-Zepeda: Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; J&J: Honoraria. Duggan:Jansen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Neri:Celgene: Research Funding. Bahlis:Johnson & Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".