ArticleAmerican journal of hematology2024
Safety and efficacy of a new high-dose regimen of panobinostat, gemcitabine, busulfan, and melphalan for 1st or 2nd salvage ASCT for refractory/relapsed or high-risk myeloma: Matched-pair comparisons with concurrent control cohorts.
Article in American journal of hematology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Improvement of autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) for myeloma is needed. Building on our prior work, we prospectively evaluated panobinostat and gemcitabine/busulfan/melphalan (GemBuMel) with ASCT in this population. Patients aged 18-65 years with relapsed/refractory or high-risk myeloma and adequate end-organ function were eligible. Treatment included panobinostat (20 mg/day, days -9 to -2) and GemBuMel (days -8 to -2). Patients were enrolled in 1st (ASCT-1) or 2nd ASCT (ASCT-2) cohorts. We compared their outcomes with all our other concurrent ASCT patients who met eligibility criteria but received melphalan or BuMel off study, matched for age, prior therapy lines, high-risk cytogenetics, and response at ASCT. We enrolled 80 patients, 48 and 32 in the ASCT-1 and ASCT-2 cohorts, respectively; in these two cohorts, high-risk cytogenetics were noted in 33 and 15 patients, respectively; unresponsive disease in 12 and 11 patients, respectively, after a median of 2 and 3 therapy lines, respectively. Transplant-related mortality (TRM) occurred in two ASCT-2 patients. One-year PFS rates were 69% (ASCT-1) and 72% (ASCT-2); 1-year OS rates were 79% (ASCT-1) and 84% (ASCT-2). Minimal residual disease negativity improved after ASCT-1 (8.5%-23%, p < .0001) and ASCT-2 (34%-55%, p = .02), which correlated with improved outcomes. Trial patients and controls (N = 371) had similar TRM and post-ASCT maintenance. Trial patients had better PFS after either a 1st (p = .02) or a 2nd ASCT (p = .04) than matched-paired control patients. In conclusion, panobinostat/GemBuMel is effective for relapsed/refractory or high-risk myeloma patients, with better PFS than concurrent matched controls receiving melphalan or BuMel.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.