MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2523786227 · doi:10.1182/blood.v116.21.1954.1954

Pooled Safety Analysis From Phase (Ph) 1 and 2 Studies of Carfilzomib (CFZ) In Patients with Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma (MM)

2010· article· en· W2523786227 sur OpenAlexaff
Seema Singhal, David S. Siegel, Thomas G. Martin, Ravi Vij, Michael Wang, Andrzej Jakubowiak, Sagar Lonial, Vishal Kukreti, Jeffrey A. Zonder, Alvin Wong, Leanne McCulloch, Michael Kauffman, Ashraf Badros, Rubén Niesvizky, Robert Z. Orlowski, A. Keith Stewart, Sundar Jagannath

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCarfilzomibTolerabilityProteasome inhibitorNeutropeniaBortezomibMedicineAdverse effectInternal medicinePharmacologyMultiple myelomaToxicity

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 1954 Background: Carfilzomib (CFZ) is a novel, highly selective epoxyketone proteasome inhibitor that produces potent and sustained proteasome inhibition both in vitro and in vivo. CFZ appears to lack many of the off-target activities frequently associated with bortezomib (BTZ). This lack of off-target activity may account for observed differences in tolerability seen with CFZ including lack of significant neuropathy and minimal neutropenia and diarrhea. To date, single agent CFZ has been evaluated in Ph 1 and 2 studies in >600 patients, and the vast majority of patients treated had relapsed and/or refractory (R/R) MM. In these settings, CFZ has demonstrated durable single-agent activity and was well-tolerated in patients with advanced stage disease with co-morbidities including baseline neuropathy or renal insufficiency. Here we present the results of parallel safety analyses of patients from four Ph 1 and 2 studies with CFZ. Materials and Methods: The present safety analyses were based on data accumulated from patients enrolled in the following trials: PX-171-003 A0 (R/R MM), PX-171-003 A1 (R/R MM), PX-171-004 (relapsed MM), and PX-171-005 (R/R MM with varying degrees of renal function). In all studies, the treatment schedule was based on a 28-day cycle, dosing CFZ QDx2 each week for 3 weeks (Days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16) with 12 days of rest. Doses of CFZ ranged from 15–20 mg/m2 in cycle 1 (005 [15 mg/m2], 003 A0 and A1, 004 [20 mg/m2]). In three studies CFZ was escalated to 27 mg/m2 after the first cycle, as tolerated (003- A1, 004-BTZ naïve subset and 005). In PX-171-005, low-dose dexamethasone was added in the majority of patients. Results: CFZ was well-tolerated by patients across the 4 studies analyzed. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) included fatigue, anemia, nausea, dyspnea, and thrombocytopenia. Detailed descriptions of the incidence of treatment-related AEs (all Grades (G) in ≥25% of pts; ≥G3 in ≥5% of pts) across studies are presented in the table. Peripheral neuropathy (PN) occurred infrequently across all 4 studies (N= 517), with only 20 patients (3.9%) experiencing PN of any G and only 2 patients (0.4%) with G3 PN. Febrile neutropenia was likewise uncommon, occurring in only 3 patients (0.6%). Serious treatment emergent AEs (SAEs) occurring in ≥1% of patients and considered possibly/probably related to study drug across all 4 studies included: pneumonia (3.5%), congestive cardiac failure (2.5%), acute renal failure (1.7%), pyrexia (1.2%), and dyspnea (1%). Conclusions: Despite a substantial disease burden present in the patient populations described here, CFZ was well-tolerated by patients with MM across all studies examined. The excellent safety/tolerability profile of CFZ has permitted prolonged administration (in some cases over 24 mos of continuous therapy including extension study) with minimal dose modifications or discontinuations due to toxicity. The low levels of neuropathy seen with CFZ make this agent a potentially important treatment option for patients with pre-existing neuropathy from either underlying disease or prior neuropathic anti-myeloma therapy. Disclosures: Singhal: Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Research Funding. Siegel:Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Martin:Celgene: Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy. Vij:Onyx: Honoraria. Wang:Celgene: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Jakubowiak:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Centocor Ortho Biotec: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Exelixis: 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. Lonial:Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kukreti:Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Ortho Biotech: Honoraria. Zonder:Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Wong:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Employment. McCulloch:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Kauffman:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Niesvizky:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding. Stewart:Millennium: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria. Jagannath:Millenium, OrthoBiotec, Celgene, Merck, Onyx: Honoraria; Imedex, Medicom World Wide, Optum Health Education, PER Group: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

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)0,015
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Méta-analyse · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,015
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,077

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0150,010
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,005
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
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 GPT0,301
Écart entre enseignants0,282 · 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'étudeMéta-analyse
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

Citations11
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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