MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W114597356 · doi:10.1182/blood.v122.21.408.408

Final Analysis, Cytogenetics, Long-Term Treatment, and Long-Term Survival In MM-003, A Phase 3 Study Comparing Pomalidomide + Low-Dose Dexamethasone (POM + LoDEX) Vs High-Dose Dexamethasone (HiDEX) In Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM)

2013· article· en· W114597356 sur OpenAlexaff
Meletios Α. Dimopoulos, Katja Weisel, Kevin Song, Michel Delforge, Lionel Karlin, Hartmut Goldschmidt, Philippe Moreau, Anne Banos, Albert Oriol, Laurent Garderet, Michèle Cavo, Valentina Ivanova, Adrían Alegre, Joaquín Martínez‐López, Christine I. Chen, Andrew Spencer, Stefan Knop, Nizar J. Bahlis, Christoph Renner, Xin Yu, Kevin Hong, Lars Sternås, Christian Jacques, Mohamed H. Zaki, Jesús F. San Miguel

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensUniversity of CalgaryPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreVancouver General Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPomalidomideMedicineLenalidomideInternal medicineTolerabilityClinical endpointDexamethasoneNeutropeniaPhases of clinical researchPopulationBortezomibIxazomibOncologyMultiple myelomaSurgeryAdverse effectRandomized controlled trialClinical trialToxicityCarfilzomib

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background RRMM patients (pts) who have exhausted novel agent treatment (Tx) have limited effective options and short overall survival (OS). The presence of high-risk cytogenetics predicts shorter OS (Kumar, 2012). POM is a distinct oral IMiD® immunomodulatory agent with direct anti-myeloma, stromal cell-support inhibitory, and immune modulatory effects (Quach, 2010). The US FDA approved POM for the Tx of pts with ≥ 2 prior Tx, including lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT), and progressive disease (PD) on or within 60 days of completion of the last line of Tx. POM + LoDEX has demonstrated significant progression-free survival (PFS) and OS benefits with a tolerable safety profile in RRMM (San Miguel, EHA 2013). MM-003 compared POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX in RRMM pts who exhausted BORT and LEN. Methods Pts had to be refractory to last prior Tx (PD during Tx or within 60 days) and exhausted BORT and LEN after ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of each (alone or in combination). Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive 28-day cycles of POM 4 mg D1-21 + DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) weekly or DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) D1-4, 9-12, and 17-20. HiDEX was chosen as the comparator to isolate the effects of POM as at the time of trial design it was the standard salvage Tx for heavily pre-treated pts. Tx continued until PD or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was PFS. Secondary endpoints included OS, overall response rate (ORR; ≥ partial response), duration of Tx (DoT), and safety. These endpoints were further explored in relation to pt characteristics, cytogenetics, and prior antimyeloma Tx. Modified high-risk cytogenetics were defined as the presence of del(17) and/or t(4;14). Results 455 pts were randomized to POM + LoDEX (n = 302) or HiDEX (n = 153). Pt characteristics were well balanced. Pts were heavily pretreated: median 5 prior Tx (range, 2-17); 75% were refractory to BORT and LEN. Modified high-risk cytogenetics were detected in 25% of POM + LoDEX pts and 23% of HiDEX pts. With a median follow-up of 10 mos, POM + LoDEX significantly extended PFS and OS vs HiDEX (Figure). The OS benefit was observed despite 50% of HiDEX pts receiving subsequent POM. ORR was 31% vs 10% (P < .001). Advantages in ORR and median PFS were maintained for POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX regardless of modified high-risk cytogenetics (ORR: 23% vs 6%, P = .032; PFS: 3.8 vs 1.1 mos, HR = 0.46, P < .001) or standard-risk cytogenetics (ORR: 34% vs 7%, P < .001; PFS: 4.2 vs 2.3 mos, HR = 0.50, P < .001). Favorable median OS was observed regardless of cytogenetics (modified high risk: 9.9 vs 4.9 mos, HR = 0.69, P = .16; standard risk: 14.1 vs 10.0 mos, HR = 0.85, P = .42). Of note, 43% of HiDEX pts with high-risk and 56% of HiDEX pts with standard-risk cytogenetics received subsequent POM. Median DoT for all pts was 4.2 mos for POM + LoDEX pts and 3.9 mos for HiDEX pts receiving subsequent POM. To date, 27 (9%) POM + LoDEX pts have a DoT > 12 mos; 5 pts have received > 12 mos of POM after HiDEX. POM + LoDEX pts with DoT > 12 mos had lower baseline β2-microglobulin (β2-M) levels (52% vs 29% with β2-M < 3.5 mg/mL), higher serum albumin (85% vs 63% with ≥ 3.5 g/dL), and higher hemoglobin levels (70% vs 45% grade 0/1 hemoglobin) vs pts with POM DoT ≤ 12 mos. Importantly, for DoT > 12 mos vs ≤ 12 mos, there were no differences by LEN-refractory disease (95% vs 96%) or refractoriness to LEN as last prior Tx (30% vs 28%). Other similarly distributed factors included presence of modified high-risk cytogenetics, ISS stage, and ECOG performance status (PS; 0-1 vs 2). Similar trends were observed for pts with OS > 12 mos vs ≤ 12 mos and HiDEX pts receiving subsequent POM. The most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) for POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX were neutropenia (48% vs 16%), anemia (33% vs 37%), and infections (30% vs 24%). Grade 3/4 DVT/PE was infrequent (1% vs 0%). Only 1% of pts in each arm experienced grade 3/4 peripheral neuropathy. Discontinuation due to AEs was low: 9% vs 10%. Conclusions This final analysis further confirms the significant PFS and OS benefits for POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX. High-risk cytogenetics did not impact median PFS for pts receiving POM + LoDEX. In this heavily pretreated population, 9% of POM + LoDEX pts had a DoT > 12 mos. Interestingly, no trends were observed in pts who received long-term Tx with regards to LEN as last prior Tx, high-risk cytogenetics, PS, or disease stage. POM + LoDEX should be considered a standard Tx option in RRMM pts with prior BORT and LEN. Disclosures: Dimopoulos: Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: POM is approved in the US but not in Europe. Weisel:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Song:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Delforge:Celgene: Honoraria. Karlin:Celgene: Export board committee Other, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Goldschmidt:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Moreau:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Oriol:Celgene: Consultancy. Cavo:Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Alegre:Janssen: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Martinez-Lopez:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Chen:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Spencer:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Knop:Celgene: Honoraria. Bahlis:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Renner:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Travel support Other. Yu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hong:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sternas:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jacques:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. San Miguel:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,016

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,002
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,058
Tête enseignante GPT0,336
Écart entre enseignants0,279 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations17
Publié2013
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetMultiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207