MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400345395 · doi:10.1016/j.jtct.2024.06.030

Tandem Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation Does Not Benefit High-Risk Myeloma Patients in the Maintenance Era: Real-World Results from The Canadian Myeloma Research Group Database

2024· article· en· W4400345395 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christopher P. Venner, Peter Duggan, Kevin Song, Donna Reece, Smriti Sharma, Jiandong Su, Víctor H. Jiménez‐Zepeda, Arleigh McCurdy, Martha Louzada, Hira Mian, Michaël Sébag, Darrell White, Julie Stakiw, Rami Kotb, Muhammad Aslam, Tony Reiman, Engin Gul, Michael P. Chu, Debra Bergstrom, Richard LeBlanc

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation and Cellular Therapy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of AlbertaUniversité de MontréalUniversity of SaskatchewanQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreDalhousie UniversitySaskatchewan Cancer AgencyCancerCare ManitobaOttawa HospitalOttawa Regional Cancer FoundationJuravinski Cancer CentreInstitute of Cancer ResearchSaint John Regional HospitalBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of CalgaryPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaAlberta Cancer FoundationMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMultiple myelomaTransplantationAutologous stem-cell transplantationInternal medicineOncologyBortezomibRegimenMaintenance therapyCyclophosphamideCohortSurgeryChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In patients with multiple myeloma (MM), the presence of high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities is associated with worse disease control and survival. Autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) does benefit these patients. Tandem transplantation has been explored as a means to deepen responses and further improve survival however, its role remains controversial. This is particularly true in the era of novel agent induction and post-transplant maintenance therapy. The aim of this study was to use the Canadian Myeloma Research Group database and examine a large cohort of real-world patients comparing the outcomes of tandem versus single ASCT specifically in high-risk patients receiving novel agent-based induction and post-transplant maintenance. The data for this study was derived retrospectively from a comprehensive national-level database of Canadian patients with MM. High-risk cytogenetics was defined as presence of del17p, t(4;14), or t(14;16). Those receiving allogeneic transplant were excluded. Tandem transplantation was defined as a second ASCT performed consecutively without interim relapse or progression after first ASCT. Those with relapse or progressive disease within 3 months of completing a first transplant were excluded. We compared response depth, progression-free, and overall survival (OS) based on single or tandem transplantation procedures. The impact of covariates of interest was also assessed. A total of 381 patients with high-risk cytogenetics were identified. A total of 242 received single and 139 patients received tandem transplants. All received post-transplant maintenance. The most common induction regimen for these patients was cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and steroids (CyBorD, 87%). Forty-one patients (10.8%) required reinduction prior to first ASCT. The best overall responses at any time were 98.3% (90.5% ≥ very good partial response [VGPR]) and 98.6% (89.9% ≥ VGPR) in the single and tandem ASCT groups, respectively. Survival outcomes were similar with the median progression-free survival for single or tandem ASCT of 35.2 and 35.3 months (P = .88) and the median OS were 92.6 and 88.9 months, respectively (P = .72). No statistically significant differences were seen based on type of cytogenetic abnormality or type of maintenance. This was confirmed on multivariate analysis. In the real-world setting, tandem ASCT does not improve outcomes for MM patients with high-risk cytogenetics. This may be driven by the use of effective pre- and post-ASCT therapies. The development of more potent induction and consolidation along with current nearly ubiquitous continuous maintenance therapies until disease progression does not support the use of a second high-dose procedure.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueTransplantation and Cellular TherapySame topicMultiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207