MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2409224885 · doi:10.1182/blood.v122.21.3198.3198

MM-003 Phase 3 Study Of Pomalidomide In Combination With Low-Dose Dexamethasone (POM + LoDEX) Vs High-Dose Dexamethasone (HiDEX) In Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM): POM + Lodex Is Beneficial For Elderly Patients (> 65 Years of Age)

2013· article· en· W2409224885 sur OpenAlexaff
Katja Weisel, Jesús F. San Miguel, 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, Stefan Knop, Xin Yu, Latisha Watkins, Lars Sternås, Christian Jacques, Mohamed H. Zaki, Meletios Α. Dimopoulos

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreVancouver General Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPomalidomideMedicineDexamethasoneMultiple myelomaInternal medicineOncologyLenalidomide

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background RRMM patients (pts) who have exhausted bortezomib (BORT) and lenalidomide (LEN) or thalidomide treatment (Tx) have short overall survival (OS; Kumar, 2012). MM pt survival decreases with increased age (Pulte, 2011). POM is a distinct oral IMiD® immunomodulatory agent with direct anti-myeloma, stromal cell–support inhibition, and immune-modulation activities (Quach, 2010). The US FDA approved POM for the Tx of pts who have received ≥ 2 prior Tx, including LEN and BORT, and have demonstrated disease progression (PD) on or within 60 days of completion of the last line of Tx. POM + LoDEX has demonstrated clinical benefit in pts aged ≤ 65 y and > 65 y (Jagannath, EHA 2013; Leleu, 2013). The randomized phase 3 study MM-003 demonstrated significant progression-free survival (PFS) and OS benefits for POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX, despite half of HiDEX pts subsequently receiving POM (San Miguel, EHA 2013). This analysis examined outcomes based on age (≤ 65 y vs > 65 y). 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 pretreated pts. Tx continued until PD or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was PFS. Secondary endpoints included OS, overall response rate (ORR; ≥ partial response), and safety. Results 455 pts were randomized to POM + LoDEX (n = 302) or HiDEX (n = 153). 45% (135/302) of POM + LoDEX pts and 47% (72/153) of HiDEX pts were aged > 65 y. Since only 8% of POM + LoDEX and HiDEX pts were aged > 75 y, this analysis focused on pts aged ≤ 65 y vs > 65 y. Pts aged ≤ 65 y were more likely to have prior stem cell transplant (91% vs 45%), better renal function (creatinine clearance [CrCl] ≥ 60 mL/min: 78% vs 51%), and less advanced disease (ISS stage III: 28% vs 38%) vs pts aged > 65 y. For pts aged > 65 y, HiDEX pts were less likely to have CrCl ≥ 60 mL/min vs POM + LoDEX (43% vs 55%). All groups had a median of 5 prior Tx. Median follow-up was 10 mos. POM + LoDEX significantly extended PFS vs HiDEX in all pts, with similar benefits observed for pts aged ≤ 65 y or > 65 y (Table). For all pts, OS was significantly longer for POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX, with favorable results for POM + LoDEX in both age subgroups despite a large proportion of HiDEX pts subsequently receiving POM (Table). ORR was significantly higher for POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX in all pts and both age groups (Table). Median duration of POM Tx was similar in pts aged ≤ 65 y (4.4 mos) and > 65 y (4.0 mos). The most common grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) for pts aged ≤ 65 y (POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX) were neutropenia (50% vs 20%), anemia (35% vs 39%), and infections (31% vs 19%). Neutropenia (45% vs 11%), anemia (30% vs 34%), and infections (30% in both arms) were also the most frequent grade 3/4 AEs for pts aged > 65 y. Grade 3/4 DVT/PE was infrequent (POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX): 1% vs 0% (≤ 65 y) and 1% vs 0% (> 65 y). Grade 3/4 peripheral neuropathy was also infrequent: 1% vs 2% (≤ 65 y) and 1% vs 0% (> 65 y). Discontinuation due to AE was low in pts aged ≤ 65 y (POM + LoDEX: 6%; HiDEX 10%) and > 65 y (POM + LoDEX: 12%; HiDEX: 11%). Importantly, the median relative POM dose intensity was consistent at 90% for both age groups. Conclusion POM + LoDEX significantly extended PFS, with comparable benefits across age groups (approximately 50% reduction in rate of progression). OS results were similar to that of the overall pt population, and favored POM + LoDEX in both age groups. Tolerability profiles were consistent for pts ≤ 65 y or > 65 y. POM at 4 mg appears to be a feasible starting dose for pts aged > 65 y. These data support considering POM + LoDEX as a standard Tx option in RRMM pts regardless of age. Disclosures: Weisel: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Off Label Use: POM is approved in the US but not in Europe. San Miguel:Onyx: 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; Millenium: 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; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. 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:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Moreau:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Oriol:Celgene: Consultancy. Cavo:Bristol-Myers Squibb: 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; Millennium: 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; Celgene: 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. Knop:Celgene: Honoraria. Yu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Watkins:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sternas:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jacques:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Dimopoulos:Celgene: 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 enseignants0,006
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,018

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,003
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)0,0060,001

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 Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,283
Écart entre enseignants0,265 · 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

Citations5
Publié2013
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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