MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Outcomes of Previously Untreated Older Patients with Multiple Myeloma (MM) over Time: An Analysis of 3 Consecutive Trials Conducted by the NCIC CTG, 1983–2003.

2005· article· en· W2578051459 on OpenAlexaff
Cynthia T. Luk, Keyue Ding, Andrew R. Belch, George P. Browman, Chaim Shustik, Marina Djurfeldt, D. Johnston, Lois E. Shepherd, Ralph M. Meyer

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityJuravinski Cancer CentreMcGill UniversityQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicinePopulationMelphalanMultiple myelomaRandomizationDexamethasoneLenalidomideTransplantationSurgeryRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Improved overall survival (OS) over time has been observed in large population databases assessing patients (pts) with MM. Recent interventions, such as routine use of bisphosphonates, and stem cell transplantation for younger pts may account for some of this improvement. It is unclear whether these improvements have been seen in older symptomatic pts. The purpose of this study is to assess outcomes over time of pts > 65 yrs with MM who were entered on 3 consecutive randomized trials conducted by NCIC CTG. Methods: Databases evaluated included MY4 (1983–84; N=173), which compared etidronate to placebo; MY6 (1987–92; N=402), which tested the role of maintenance interferon; and MY7 (1995–2003; N=584), which tested dexamethasone as induction and maintenance therapy. All pts had symptomatic Salmon-Durie stage I or stage II–III MM, were previously untreated, and received melphalan 9 mg/M2 and prednisone 100 mg daily x 4, Q4 weeks; 231 pts in MY7 received melphalan and dexamethasone according to random allocation. We performed uni- and multivariate analyses to compare outcomes of pts ≤ 65 and > 65 yrs of age, to assess outcomes of pts > 65 yrs over time, and to assess other prognostic determinants in pts > 65 yrs. Outcomes of interest included OS, progression-free survival (PFS), myeloma-related survival (MRS), defined as time from registration or randomization until death from myeloma or treatment toxicity, and time from first progression to death (FPTD). Results: All eligible pts were included. By multivariate analyses, patients > 65 yrs had inferior OS (p=0.0003), FPTD (p=0.0006), and a trend for inferior MRS (p=0.08) in comparison with pts ≤ 65 yrs; no difference in PFS was detected. In comparing pts >65 yrs on MY4, MY6 and MY7, important differences in the baseline characteristics of the patients of the 3 trials were noted; pts treated on MY6 received lower median cumulative doses of melphalan (356 mg/M2) than those entered on to MY4 (432 mg/M2) or MY-7 (464 mg/M2). Median unadjusted outcomes of these pts by trial are listed in the table below. By multivariate analysis, pts > 65 yrs entered on to MY4 had a superior MRS in comparison with MY7 (p=0.037) and a trend to superior OS (p=0.053) and FPTD (p=0.06). No differences in PFS between trials were detected. Baseline characteristics associated with inferior OS in pts > 65 yrs included ECOG PS > 1 (p=0.0002), male gender (p=0.001), baseline Hb ≤ 85 g/L (p=0.001), and elevated baseline serum calcium (p=0.01). Conclusions: Patients > 65 yrs have inferior outcomes in comparison with younger pts. We were unable to detect improvements in outcomes of these pts over time. Median unadjusted outcomes of pts age > 65 yrs by trial MY4 (95% CI) MY6 (95% CI) MY7 (95% CI) OS (yrs) 2.38 (1.73–3.32) 2.75 (2.36–3.24) 2.53 (2.32–2.75) PFS (yrs) 1.00 (0.90–1.41) 1.53 (1.38–1.75) 1.80 (1.61–1.92) MRS (yrs) 2.98 (1.78–3.59) 3.30 (2.66–3.79) 2.90 (2.61–3.22) FPTD (yrs) 1.21 (0.76–1.91) 1.27 (0.84–2.02) 0.85 (0.68–1.07)

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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