Presentation and Outcome of Patients with Multiple Myeloma (MM), Single Centre Experience from Windsor Essex Regional Cancer Centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma has significantly improved through the years. This is mainly related to the use of novel agents. Methods: This is a retrospective study that reviewed presentation and outcome of 139 patients with multiple myeloma at the Windsor Essex Regional Cancer Centre from Jan. 1, 2015 to Dec. 31, 2019. Median age was 71 years and most patients had higher risk disease (65.5% either R ISS stage II or III). 30% had high risk FISH for myeloma including del.17P, t (4:14), t (14:16) and Gain (1q21). In terms of presentation, 38.8% had anemia (hemoglobin <100g/L), 18.7% had hypercalcemia, 74.1% had skeletal lytic lesions, 38.8% had pathologic fracture and 17.3% had plasmacytoma. Results: Almost all (92%) of the patients were treated using at least one novel agent (proteasome inhibitor or immunomodulators [ImiDs]). Cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (CyBorD) was the most used treatment regimen (48.9%) followed by bortezomib, melphalan and prednisone (BMP) at 28.8% and lenalidomide, dexamethasone (LenDex) at 14.4%. With respect to response to therapy, 51.8% had at least Very good partial response (VGPR), while 9.4% had progressive disease. 33% had autologous stem cell transplant. After a median follow up of 2.4 years, median overall survival was 3.7 years. 2 years overall survival and relapse-free survival were 70% and 83%, respectively. Discussion: Our study showed comparable outcome for patients with multiple myeloma despite older age and higher risk disease. Outcome is expected to improve with the introduction of more novel agents.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".