MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2518878080 · doi:10.1182/blood.v126.23.3031.3031

Analysis of Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma with Vs without Moderate Renal Impairment

2015· article· en· W2518878080 sur OpenAlexaffabout
David S. Siegel, Katja Weisel, Meletios Α. Dimopoulos, Rachid Baz, Paul G. Richardson, Michel Delforge, Kevin Song, Jesús F. San Miguel, Philippe Moreau, Xin Yu, Kevin Hong, Lars Sternås, Mohamed H. Zaki, Antonio Palumbo

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensVancouver General Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPomalidomideMedicineLenalidomideNeutropeniaInternal medicineDexamethasoneMultiple myelomaSurgeryRefractory (planetary science)PopulationUrologyGastroenterologyToxicity

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Renal impairment (RI) occurs in ≈ 20% to 40% of patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM; Kastritis et al, Haematologica, 2007) and is a major comorbidity with this disease (Korbet et al, J Am Soc Nephrol, 2006). Pts with MM who relapse on or become refractory to treatment (Tx) experience shortened overall survival (OS; Kumar et al, Leukemia, 2012). Pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone (POM + LoDEX) is approved for the Tx of relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) in pts who have had Tx failure with lenalidomide and/or bortezomib. POM + LoDEX demonstrated safety and efficacy in pts with RRMM (MM-010; Dimopoulos et al, EHA 2015) as well as extended progression-free survival (PFS) and OS vs high-dose dexamethasone (MM-003; San Miguel et al, Lancet Oncol, 2013) or POM alone (MM-002; Richardson et al, Blood, 2014). Each trial included pts with moderate RI, and this pooled analysis examines the safety and efficacy of POM + LoDEX in pts with moderate RI. Patients and Methods: Pts from MM-002, MM-003, and MM-010 who had received POM + LoDEX were grouped by RI status (with moderate RI [creatinine clearance (CrCl) ≥ 30 to < 60 mL/min] and without RI [CrCl ≥ 60 mL/min]) and assessed for safety and efficacy. Results: Overall, from the 3 trials, data from 356 pts with moderate RI and 716 pts without RI were analyzed. Pts with moderate RI were slightly older (70 vs 63 yrs) and more commonly had International Staging System stage III disease (45.8% vs 25.4% in the 271 and 544 pts with available data). Median time from diagnosis was similar, 5.2 yrs (with moderate RI) vs 5.3 years (without RI); pts in both subgroups had a median of 5 prior Tx. The proportions of pts with moderate RI vs without RI who were refractory to LEN (95.5% vs 93.0%), BORT (82.0% vs 80.7%), and both LEN and BORT (78.4% vs 76.1%) were similar. The median Tx duration was slightly shorter for pts with moderate RI vs without RI (16.6 vs 20.4 weeks), but the median average daily dose (4.0 mg/day) and median relative dose intensity (0.9) were the same between renal subgroups. There were similar frequencies of discontinuations (7.4% vs 5.8%), dose reductions (22.7% vs 21.1%), and interruptions (63.1% vs 63.5%) due to adverse events (AEs) between subgroups of pts with moderate RI vs without RI. The most common grade 3/4 AEs for pts with moderate RI vs without RI were neutropenia (45.5% vs 48.3%), anemia (34.9% vs 27.5%), infections (31.3% vs 32.3%), and thrombocytopenia (21.3% vs 22.6%). The frequency of deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism or peripheral neuropathy was ≤ 2% in both subgroups. The overall response rate (ORR) was 32.0% vs 33.0%, the median PFS was 18.1 weeks (95% CI, 15.6-20.9 weeks) vs 21.1 weeks (95% CI, 19.0-24.3 weeks), and median time to progression (TTP) was 20.3 weeks (95% CI, 17.3-24.1 weeks) vs 24.0 weeks (95% CI, 20.1-25.6 weeks) in pts with vs without moderate RI, respectively. Consistent with the poor prognosis associated with RI, median OS was shorter for pts with moderate RI (45.6 weeks [95% CI, 37.9-50.1 weeks]) vs those without RI (62.7 weeks [95% CI, 54.9-70.3 weeks]). Conclusions: In a pooled analysis of 3 trials of pts with RRMM treated with POM + LoDEX, ORR, PFS, TTP, and tolerability results appeared to be independent of the presence or absence of moderate RI. This analysis supports the use of POM + LoDEX as a standard of care in RRMM for pts with or without moderate RI. Disclosures Siegel: Celgene Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Merck: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Weisel:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Travel Support; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria; Noxxon: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support. Dimopoulos:Genesis: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Baz:Karyopharm: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Richardson:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Delforge:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Song:Celgene Canada: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. San Miguel:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau:Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yu:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hong:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sternas:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Palumbo:Novartis, Sanofi Aventis: Honoraria; Celgene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab, Janssen-Cilag, Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria.

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)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,016

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,006
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
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 Opus0,019
Tête enseignante GPT0,267
Écart entre enseignants0,247 · 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'étudeObservationnel
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

Citations3
Publié2015
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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