MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405043607 · doi:10.1182/blood-2024-202098

Eliminating the Need for Sequential Confirmation of Response in Multiple Myeloma

2024· article· en· W4405043607 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Sébastien Claveau, Angela Dispenzieri, Prashant Kapoor, Moritz Binder, Francis K. Buadi, David Dingli, Amie Fonder, Morie A. Gertz, Wilson I. Gonsalves, Suzanne R. Hayman, Miriam Hobbs, Yi L. Hwa, Taxiarchis Kourelis, Martha Q. Lacy, Nelson Leung, Yi Lin, Rahma Warsame, Robert A. Kyle, S. Vincent Rajkumar, Shaji Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiple myelomaMedicineLenalidomideInternal medicineOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Multiple myeloma (MM) is a hematological cancer characterized by the proliferation of plasma cells (PC). Progressive disease (PD) criteria are primarily characterized by an increase in (1) serum M-protein (SPEP), (2) urinary M-protein (UPEP), (3) serum free light chains (sFLC), or (4) PC percentage in the bone marrow. An essential aspect of the PD criteria is the requirement for confirmatory results from blood or urine analyses. However, in many cases, patients may be taken off treatment in favor of a new therapy after only one assessment. This can introduce clinical trial endpoint inaccuracies when confirmatory values are missing, resulting in increased censoring and underestimation of the progression rate (if the second assessment is not done). Moreover, in subjects with high tumor burden and rapidly progressing disease, it is often urgent to confirm PD before starting a subsequent line of treatment. This study assessed the necessity of repeating biomarkers to confirm PD if two biomarkers meet the progression criteria. Methods In this retrospective study, between 2002 and 2020, we assessed all consecutive patients with relapsed MM enrolled in any therapeutic clinical trial at Mayo Clinic. We included patients with measurable disease if SPEP and sFLC were available at the time of assessment. Patients required at least two consecutive assessments (by the same method) to be included in our study. PD was based on the IMWG criteria. Relapse characterized by the development of new bone lesions or extramedullary relapse without meeting biochemical progression criteria was an exclusion criterion. Patients starting a new line of treatment after non-confirmed PD were also excluded. Furthermore, patients who did not meet simultaneous progression criteria and had unconfirmed PD (did not meet IMWG criteria at the second assessment) were excluded from the analysis (n=15). The probability of meeting the progression threshold with 1 and 2 consecutive assessments was calculated. We then examined the proportions of patients meeting PD by 2 biomarkers simultaneously at the first assessment. Results We evaluated episodes of treatment among 434 patients enrolled in clinical trials, including 601 episodes: 593 episodes of biochemical confirmed PD and 8 episodes when patients did not progress but who met simultaneous progression criteria at the same time with two different biomarkers. Per measurable disease criteria, MM isotypes were 71.0% IgG, 16.8% IgA, 0.9% IgM, 1.2% IgD, 0.3% biclonal, and 9.8% light chain. According to the standard IMWG response criteria (sequential criteria), 78% and 9% of episodes reached the progression threshold with serum and urine M-components, respectively, with two consecutive assessments. For the FLC, 21% of episodes met the progression criteria. No patients had a second bone marrow examination for confirmation of PD. At the first available assessment, 82%, 19%, and 2% of episodes met progression threshold, respectively, with serum M-protein, urine M-protein, and both (serum + urine M-protein). Additionally, 58%, and 19%, episodes met the progression threshold at the first assessment with FLC and bone marrow examination, respectively. Moreover, 67% of patients with IgA myeloma meet the progression threshold with the total quantitative IgA. With the simultaneous criteria at time of first assessment, 403 episodes meet progression threshold: 45% with SPEP+sFLC (n=269/593), 4% with SPEP+UPEP (n=21/593), 9% with sFLC+UPEP (n=55/593), 11% with BME only (n=66/593), and 0.3% with qIgA +dFLC/UPEP (n=2/593). Thus, among these 413 episodes, which meet progression criteria by 2 simultaneous values at the time of the first assessment, 98% (n=413/(413+8)) of these patients (positive predictive value of the new criteria) subsequently had confirmed progression by sequential value. Conclusions In summary, we showed that the simultaneous criteria allow to identify patients with true progressive disease without overestimating the progression rate of myeloma. Therefore, confirmatory results of progression for relapsed MM patients having two biomarkers meeting criteria of progression at the same time is useless for determining disease progression.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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