Canadian Retrospective Multicentric Study Comparing the Combination of Bortezomib, Cyclophosphamide and Dexamethasone (Cybord) Versus Bortezomib, Thalidomide and Dexamethasone (VTD) Versus Bortezomib and Dexamethasone (Vd) in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Eligible for Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation (HCT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is the second most common hematologic cancer. The management of this disease consists of induction therapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT). There is no standard of care as for the best induction regime. Recently, the first phase III study (Moreau P and all.) comparing two chemotherapy triplets in transplant-eligible patients, suggested a superiority of VTD over VCD. Although VTD was associated with better treatment response rates, the survival data remains to be seen. We wanted to retrospectively compare 3 Bortezomib-based therapies using response rates (RR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Bortezomib-Cyclophosphamide-Dexamethasone (CyBorD) remains the standard in Canada. Method: A total of 75 patients induced between 2010 and 2016 were analyzed. Their charts were reviewed and the data was retrospectively collected. Three distinct treatment groups were included : Vd (19), CyBorD (39) and VTD (17).The main outcome was treatment response rate, 2-year progression-free survival rate (PFS) and 2-year overall survival rate (OS). The secondary outcome was median PFS. Results: Patient characteristics are presented below (table 1). The difference between the treatment response rates were non-statistically significant but demonstrated a favorable trend towards VTD as the VGPR rate was 58.8%, 65% and 88.1% respectively in the Vd, CyBoRD and VTD groups (table 2 and 3). Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the group that received VTD than in the group that received CyBord (3.58 years vs. 2,80 years; P = 0.03). The 2-year overall survival rate was 88,9%, 96,3% et 93,3% respectively in the 3 groups (table 4). Conclusion: The data from this retrospective study supports the superiority of the VTD induction regimen compared with CyBorD and Vd in terms of response rate and progression-free survival. However, there is no major difference in overall survival over the time period observed. Disclosures Leblanc: Amgen Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Boudreault:Celgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".