MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2533157543 · doi:10.1182/blood.v114.22.132.132

Lenalidomide, Bortezomib, Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin, and Dexamethasone in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: Updated Results of Phase I/II MMRC Trial.

2009· article· en· W2533157543 sur OpenAlexaff
Andrzej Jakubowiak, Donna Reece, Craig C. Hofmeister, Sagar Lonial, Todd M. Zimmerman, Erica Campagnaro, Robert Schlossman, Jacob P. Laubach, Noopur Raje, Tara Anderson, Kent A. Griffith, Melissa A. Hill, Colleen K Harvey, Akari M. Dollard, Sandra Wear, Jennifer Barrickman, Craig Tendler, Dixie-Lee Esseltine, Susan L. Kelley, Mark Kaminski, Kenneth C. Anderson, Paul G. Richardson

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLenalidomideMedicineMultiple myelomaDexamethasoneRegimenBortezomibInternal medicineThalidomideMelphalanTransplantationPhases of clinical researchGastroenterologyOncologyUrologyChemotherapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 132 Background: The RVD combination of Lenalidomide (Revlimid®, Len), Bortezomib, (Velcade®, Bz), and Dexamethasone (Dex) and the VDD combination of Bz, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil®, PLD), and Dex are among the most active in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). Pre-clinical studies suggest that combining 4 drugs from RVD and VDD into RVDD may produce even higher activity. The aims of this Phase I/II trial were to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the RVDD regimen and to assess its safety and evaluate efficacy in newly diagnosed MM. Methods: Patients (Pts) received Len 15–25 mg (days 1–14), Bz 1.3 mg/m2 (days 1, 4, 8, 11), Dex 20/10 mg (cycles 1–4/5–8; days of and after Bz), PLD 20 or 30 mg/m2 (day 4) at 4 dose levels for up to eight 21-day cycles. In the Phase I portion of the study, pts were assigned to dose levels 1-4 according to the TITE-CRM algorithm. Responses were assessed by modified European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) and Uniform Criteria. Pts who achieved at least partial response (PR) could proceed to autologus stem cell transplant (ASCT) after ≥ 4 cycles. After 8 cycles, pts could continue treatment using 21-day maintenance cycles with Len (days 1–14), Bz (day 1 and 8), and Dex (days of and after Bz) at the doses tolerated by the end of initial treatment. Results: The study has enrolled 68 pts to date (median age 61; 52% ISS II/III), 42 pts in phase I (including 6 pts treated at the MTD) and 26 pts in phase II, for a total of 32 of 38 planned pts at the MTD. Pts received a median of 4 cycles (range 1–16); 48 completed at least 4 cycles, 11 completed all 8 cycles, and 34 have discontinued/completed therapy. Seven patients remain on maintenance therapy. Toxicity data are available for 55 pts. In the phase I, 4 pts were assigned to level 1 (Len/PLD 15/20), 11 to level 2 (Len/PLD 20/20, 21 to level 3 (Len/PLD 25/20), and 6 to level 4 (Len/PLD 25/30). Two pts were not evaluable for DLT per protocol criteria and were replaced; 1 at level 2 and 1 at level 3, leaving 40 pts evaluable for DLTs. There were no DLTs at level 1, 2 at level 2, 3 at level 3, consisting of 2 grade (G) 3 asymptomatic neutropenia on day 1 cycle 2, 1 G3 elevation of transaminases, 1 G3 drug fever, and 1 grade 3 hypophosphatemia and none at level 4. Based on the pre-determined definition of maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and probability estimates of DLTs of 4.7% for level 1, 9.7% for level 2, 13.7% for level 3, and 17.9% for level 4, the maximum planned dose level 4 was selected as the MTD for the phase II portion of the study as the closest to, but not exceeding, a target rate of 20% of DLTs. Overall, toxicities have been manageable with G3/4 toxicities in 3–18% of all pts including neutropenia (18%), thrombocytopenia (7%) , infections (16 %) , DVT (2%). There was 4% G3 and no G4 peripheral neuropathy reported, 24% G 1/2 palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, and no treatment-related mortality. Response rates in 57 pts evaluable for response were as follows: 96% ≥ PR, 58% ≥ VGPR, and 30% CR/nCR. In 48 pts who completed 4 cycles, defined in the protocol for efficacy assessment, response rates were: 98% ≥ PR, 58% ≥ VGPR and 29% CR/nCR; at MTD ≥PR is 100%. Response rates were not statistically different in a subset of pts (24) with 13q deletion or t(4;14) or t(14;16) or 17p del, with PR, VGPR, and CR/nCR rates 92%, 67%, and 33%, respectively. Twenty four pts proceeded to stem cell collection with 7.5 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg collected after a median of 4 cycles of RVDD (range 3–10). After a median of 6 months of follow-up, median progresssion-free survival and overall survival have not been reached. Conclusion: RVDD is well tolerated in newly diagnosed MM and appears highly active with ≥ PR of 96%, including 58% ≥VGPR, which is unaffected by adverse cytogenetic status. Pts treated at the MTD ,which was determined as Len 25 mg, Bz 1.3 mg/m2, Dex 20 mg, and PLD 30 mg/m2, and completed at least 4 cycles, show 100% ≥PR. Stem cell mobilization and collection was successful in all pts, with unremarkable transplant course reported to date. Updated toxicity and efficacy data will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures: Jakubowiak: Bristol Myers-Squibb: 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; Centocor OrthoBiotech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Reece:Ortho Biotech: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lonial:Novartis: Consultancy; Gloucester: Research Funding; Bristol Myers - Squibb : Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Zimmerman:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau; Centocor: Speakers Bureau. Schlossman:Millennium: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Laubach:Novartis: Advisory Board. Raje:Celgene, Norvartis, Astrazeneca: Research Funding. Anderson:Millennium: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Barrickman:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Tendler:Johnson and Johnson: Employment, Equity Ownership. Esseltine:Johnson and Johnson: Equity Ownership; Milllennium: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kelley:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Equity Ownership. Anderson:Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Richardson:Bristol Myers-Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Keryx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: 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)0,003
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 non randomisé · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,018

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
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 Opus0,026
Tête enseignante GPT0,314
Écart entre enseignants0,288 · 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

Citations18
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetMultiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207