Table 1

Multivariate analyses including baseline and posttreatment disease features with significant effect on TTP and/or OS in univariate analysis

TTPOS
HR (95% CI)PHR (95% CI)P
Age (<75 y vs ≥75 y) — — 1.7 (0.8-3.7) .16 
ISS (stage I vs II and III) — — 2.0 (0.6-6.8) .28 
Interphase FISH cytogenetics (standard vs high risk) 2.0 (1.1-3.4) .02 4.3 (2.0-9.2) <.001 
Depth of response (CR vs <CR) 1.7 (0.9-3.4) .07 1.2 (0.5-2.8) .63 
MRD (negative vs positive) 2.7 (1.3-5.5) .007 3.1 (1.1-8.8) .04 
TTPOS
HR (95% CI)PHR (95% CI)P
Age (<75 y vs ≥75 y) — — 1.7 (0.8-3.7) .16 
ISS (stage I vs II and III) — — 2.0 (0.6-6.8) .28 
Interphase FISH cytogenetics (standard vs high risk) 2.0 (1.1-3.4) .02 4.3 (2.0-9.2) <.001 
Depth of response (CR vs <CR) 1.7 (0.9-3.4) .07 1.2 (0.5-2.8) .63 
MRD (negative vs positive) 2.7 (1.3-5.5) .007 3.1 (1.1-8.8) .04 

MRD status (negative vs positive) was determined at cycle 18 for the 118 out of the 162 patients with MRD assessment (Figure 1). Thus, the for the remaining 44 cases, the MRD status was determined at cycle 9, because no BM aspirates from these patients were centralized at cycle 18, typically because of disease progression (32%), toxicity (20%), withdrawal of informed consent (9%), or death (5%).

CI, confidence interval; ISS, International Staging System; high-risk FISH, t(4;14), t(14;16) and/or del(17p13).

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal