MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3216453369 · doi:10.1182/blood-2021-153321

Outcomes of Tandem Hematopoietic Stem Cell Autologous Transplant in High-Risk Myeloma Patients: A Single-Center Experience

2021· article· en· W3216453369 on OpenAlexaff
Shona Philip, Selay Lam, Chai W. Phua, Martha Louzada, Anargyros Xenocostas, Uday Deotare

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMultiple myelomaSingle CenterInternal medicineAutologous stem-cell transplantationOncologyHematopoietic stem cell transplantationTransplantationProgression-free survivalStem cellMelphalanSurgeryOverall survival

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Studies have demonstrated that multiple myeloma (MM) is a clinically, genetically complex and heterogeneous disease. Cytogenetic alterations identify high-risk patients in MM and are associated with a poor prognosis. They include at least one of the following at diagnosis: t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), del(17p), 1q amp and 1q amp + del(1p). Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and the development of novel agents have considerably increased the median survival of MM patients. Patients with high-risk cytogenetics are associated with worse survival, and studies have shown improvement in progression-free survival with tandem ASCT when compared to single ASCT. Methods: This is a retrospective single-center study evaluating MM patients with high-risk cytogenetics at our center who have undergone a tandem autologous transplant from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2020. Primary objective was overall response rates (ORR) and relapse rates. Secondary objectives looked at progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: From January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2020, 25 high-risk patients underwent tandem ASCT. Key patient characteristics are shown in table 1. Translocation (4:14) was seen in 8/25 (32%) patients; t(14:16) in 5/25 (20%) patients; del17p in 7/25 (28%), 1q amp in 8/25 (32%) patients, del1p + 1q amp in 5/25 (20%) patients. In terms of double hit and triple hit disease, 9/25 (36%) patients had two high risk changes and 3/25 (12%) with had three high risk changes. ISS staging wise, 5/25 (20%) patients were ISS stage I, 5/25 (20%) patients ISS stage 2 and 9/25 (36%) patients were ISS stage 3. The most common induction regimen consisted of cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (CyBorD). One patient each transitioned to daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone and PAD/CVD due to poor response. Maintenance therapy was given to 21/25 (84%) tandem ASCT patients with 5 (20%) patients receiving lenalidomide, 4 (16%) patients receiving proteasome inhibitor and 12 (48%) patients received dual maintenance. In terms of response, we recorded CR (complete response) vs VGPR (very good partial response) vs PR (partial response) after induction, 2-3 months after ASCT #1, 2-3 months after ASCT #2, 12 months after ASCT #2, and 12 months after maintenance. Following induction, 16 patients had achieved VGPR, and 9 of patients had achieved PR. After ASCT #1, 5 (55.5%) PR patients deepened their response to a VGPR. 1-3 months post ASCT #2, 3 (33.3%) PR patients deepened to a VGPR, and 2 (12.5%) VGPR patients achieved CR. 12 months after ASCT #2, 2 of the previous VGPR patients (12.5%) achieved CR, and 1 PR (11.1%) patient achieved VGPR. At the median follow-up time of 60 months, 44% of patients had relapsed. 1 patient relapsed within 1-3 months post ASCT#1. Nine other patients relapsed post ASCT #2 and maintenance except one patient who relapsed at time of ASCT #2. Univariable analysis identified hemoglobin as a statistically significant association with risk of progression or death. All patients who received any maintenance after tandem transplant were progression-free at 60 months (p<0.001). Conclusion: In our retrospective study, results suggest that tandem ASCT allows for deepening of responses. Together with maintenance therapy, this contributes to the durability of further PFS prolongation in high-risk MM patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Lam: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hoffmann-La Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SeaGen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Phua: Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; NovoNordisk: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Louzada: Amgen: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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