Real‐world outcomes with bortezomib‐containing regimens and lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for the treatment of transplant‐ineligible multiple myeloma: a multi‐institutional report from the Canadian Myeloma Research Group database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bortezomib-containing regimens (BCRs) represented standard, first-line therapy for transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma (TIMM) in Canada until the introduction of lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Ld). However, little comparative data exist to inform the selection of regimens. We assessed the outcomes for TIMM patients treated with cyclophosphamide, bortezomib and dexamethasone or prednisone (CyBorD/P), bortezomib, melphalan and prednisone (VMP), bortezomib and dexamethasone or prednisone (VD/P) and lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Ld) using the Canadian Myeloma Research Group database. Of 1156 TIMM patients evaluated, 82% received bortezomib combinations while 18% received Ld. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 21·0, 21·1, 13·2 and 28·5 months (P = 0·0002) and median overall survival (OS) was 52·0, 63·6, 30·8 and 65·7 months (P < 0·0001) in the CyBorD/P, VMP, VD/P and Ld groups respectively. There was no significant difference in PFS and OS between the two triplet bortezomib regimens (VMP and CyBorD/P). Ld was associated with a longer PFS but not a significantly superior OS to date. Outcomes with the bortezomib-steroid doublet were inferior (VD/P). However, multivariable analysis identified features related to disease biology as the most important prognostic factors for PFS and OS. Such factors, as well as those affecting the physician's choice of regimen, are likely to influence the results observed with different regimens. This study demonstrated real-world outcomes in TIMM similar to those reported in clinical trials.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".