MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2308972734 · doi:10.1182/blood.v124.21.81.81

Effect of Age on Efficacy and Safety Outcomes in Patients (Pts) with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (NDMM) Receiving Lenalidomide and Low-Dose Dexamethasone (Rd): The First Trial

2014· article· en· W2308972734 sur OpenAlexaff
Cyrille Hulin, Thierry Façon, Chaim Shustik, Andrew R. Belch, Maria Teresa Petrucci, Ulrich Dührsen, Jin Lu, Kevin Song, Philippe Rodon, Brigitte Pegourié, Laurent Garderet, Hannah Hunter, I Azaïs, Richard Eek, Margaret Macro, Shaker R. Dakhil, Vanessa Houck, Guang Chen, Annette Ervin‐Haynes, Fritz Offner

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensVancouver General HospitalRoyal Victoria Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineInternal medicineLenalidomideClinical endpointThalidomideInterim analysisMultiple myelomaMelphalanAdverse effectGastroenterologyPrednisoneDexamethasoneSurgeryRandomized controlled trial

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: In the pivotal FIRST trial, a randomized, international, multicenter phase 3 study, continuous Rd compared with melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide (MPT) improved progression-free survival (PFS) which was the primary endpoint (HR = 0.72; P < 0.01). The interim overall survival (OS) analysis showed a 22% reduction in risk of death with continuous Rd vs. MPT (HR = 0.78; P = 0.02) (Facon, Blood 2013). This analysis evaluates outcomes based on age, which was a stratification parameter, and compared pts aged ≤ 75 yrs and > 75 yrs. Methods: Pts with NDMM were randomized to continuous Rd until progressive disease (PD) (N = 535); 18 cycles (72 weeks [wks]) of Rd (Rd18; N = 541); or 12 cycles (72 wks) of MPT (N = 547). Starting doses were reduced in pts aged > 75 yrs: dexamethasone (20 vs. 40 mg), melphalan (0.20 vs. 0.25 mg/kg), and thalidomide (100 vs 200 mg). The primary endpoint was PFS (continuous Rd vs. MPT) and the secondary endpoint were OS, overall response rate, time to response, duration of response, time to Tx failure, time to 2nd AMT, health-related quality of life, safety. Results: The proportion of pts aged > 75 yrs was > 34% across treatment (Tx) arms. In pts ≤ 75 yrs, 37% had ISS stage III vs. 51% in > 75 yrs. ECOG score ≥ 1 was observed in 74% and 69% of pts aged > 75 and ≤ 75 yrs, respectively. Severe renal impairment (CrCl < 30 mL/min) was observed in 14% of pts > 75 vs. 7% in ≤ 75 yrs. PFS and OS outcomes favored continuous Rd over MPT in both age groups. With a median follow-up of 37 months (mos), PFS was 27.4 mos in continuous Rd pts vs. 21.8 mos in MPT pts aged ≤ 75 yrs (HR = 0.68; P < 0.001); a trend for improved PFS was also seen for pts aged > 75 yrs (HR = 0.81; P = 0.11) (Table 1). PFS for continuous Rd vs. Rd18 pts was also increased in both age groups (HR = 0.68; P < 0.001 and HR = 0.75; P = 0.03, respectively). Response rates were consistently higher with continuous Rd vs. MPT in pts aged ≤ 75 yrs (77% vs. 66%; P < 0.001) and > 75 yrs (71% vs. 55%; P < 0.001). Duration of response with continuous Rd was longer vs. MPT in pts aged ≤ 75 yrs (40 vs. 22 mos) and pts > 75 yrs (31 vs. 24 mos). The interim analysis of OS showed an improved trend for continuous Rd vs. MPT in pts aged ≤ 75 yrs (HR = 0.77; P = 0.06) and > 75 yrs (HR = 0.80; P= 0.16). Grade 3–4 adverse events (AEs) in ≥ 10% of pts were similar across age subgroups (Table 2). Tx discontinuation due to AEs was comparable across the Tx groups and independent of age. Conclusions:Regardless of age (≤ 75 vs. > 75 yrs), continuous Rd was effective, increased PFS and interim OS, and was generally well tolerated vs. MPT in NDMM pts. Duration of response was improved with continuous Rd vs. MPT and Rd18, irrespective of age, and with a more profound benefit observed in younger pts. Continuous Rd represents a new clinical option and standard of care for these pts in the first-line setting. Abstract 81. Table 1 PFS, OS and Response Aged ≤ 75 yrs Aged > 75 yrs All pts ITT population Continuous Rd (n = 349) Rd18 (n = 348) MPT (n = 359) Continuous Rd (n = 186) Rd18 (n = 193) MPT (n = 188) Continuous Rd (n = 535) Rd18 (n = 541) MPT (n = 547) Median PFS, mos 27.4 21.3 21.8 21.2 19.4 19.2 25.5 20.7 21.2 PFS HR (95% CI); P-value Continuous Rd vs. Rd18 0.68 (0.55–0.83); P < 0.01 0.75 (0.58–0.98); P = 0.03 0.70 (0.60–0.82); P < 0.01 Continuous Rd vs. MPT 0.68 (0.56–0.83); P < 0.01 0.81 (0.62–1.05); P = 0.11 0.72 (0.61–0.85); P < 0.01 4-yr OS, % 66 61 58 47 47 39 59 56 51 OS HR (95% CI); P-value Continuous Rd vs. Rd18 0.88 (0.67–1.16); P = 0.36 0.94 (0.69–1.29); P = 0.70 0.90 (0.73–1.10); P = 0.31 Continuous Rd vs. MPT 0.77 (0.59–1.01); P = 0.06 0.80 (0.59–1.09); P = 0.16 0.78 (0.64–0.96); P = 0.02 Response rate (≥ PR), % 77 77 66 71 66 55 75 73 62 Duration of response (≥ PR), mos 40 23 22 31 20 24 35 22 22 CI, confidence interval; ITT, intent to treat; PR, partial response. Table 2 Grade 3–4 AEs Observed in ≥ 10% of Pts Aged ≤ 75 yrs Aged > 75 yrs Safety population, % Continuous Rd (n = 347) Rd18 (n = 348) MPT (n = 357) Continuous Rd (n = 185) Rd18 (n = 192) MPT (n = 184) Neutropenia 28 25 47 28 29 40 Thrombocytopenia 8 9 13 9 7 7 Anemia 18 12 20 19 23 17 Leukopenia 5 6 11 4 5 8 Infections 29 21 16 29 23 20 DVT and/or PE 10 6 8 7 8 4 Peripheral sensory neuropathy 1 1 10 1 0 8 Tx discontinuation due to AEs 28 18 28 32 25 30 DVT, deep-vein thrombosis; PE, pulmonary embolism. Disclosures Hulin: Celgene: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide used in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. Facon:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Belch:Janssen, Celgene, Onyx: Honoraria. Petrucci:Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Dührsen:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Song:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Houck:Celgene: Employment. Chen:Celgene: Employment. Ervin-Haynes:Celgene: Employment.

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)0,002
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 non randomisé · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,009

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

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

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 Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,268
Écart entre enseignants0,256 · 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 non 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

Citations4
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→Travaux en français237 207→