First-line CyborD treatment for graft ineligible multiple myeloma patients: Real-life efficacy and tolerability.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e20516 Background: CyborD is a regimen that was widely adopted in Canada around 2010 despite very little data supporting it’s use. The aim of the study is to describe the efficacy and tolerability of First line CyborD regimen for graft ineligible myeloma patients. Methods: This is a retrospective study at two centres in the CHU de Québec for patients with graft ineligible multiple myeloma patients treated with first line CyborD regimen between 2013 and 2018. The objectives are to describe the efficacy and tolerability of CyborD and to document PFS and OS. Results: 51 patients were included in this study with a median follow-up of 31 months. Partial response or better (≥ PR) was obtain in 84% of patients and 63% of patients achieved a very good response or better (≥ VGPR). A high rate of 26% of complete response (CR) was also obtained. A median PFS of 30 months was obtained while 75% of patients were still alive at that time. Estimated survival at 48 months was 63%. Severe toxicities (grade 3 or 4) were seen as anemia (20%), neutropenia (10%), bacterial infection (16%), diarrhea (12%) and renal toxicity (4%). Side effects related to dexamethasone in this fragile patient population reached 69% of patients but only 28% needed a dose reduction. Conclusions: First-line CyborD treatment was highly effective for graft ineligible multiple myeloma patients and this is a very well tolerated regimen. It compares favorably to RD regimen making it still an excellent first-line treatment for this elderly population. [Table: see text]
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".