MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2588865522 · doi:10.1182/blood.v118.21.634.634

Randomized, Open Label Phase 1/2 Study of Pomalidomide (POM) Alone or in Combination with Low-Dose Dexamethasone (LoDex) in Patients (Pts) with Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma Who Have Received Prior Treatment That Includes Lenalidomide (LEN) and Bortezomib (BORT): Phase 2 Results

2011· article· en· W2588865522 sur OpenAlexaff
Paul G. Richardson, David S. Siegel, Ravi Vij, Craig C. Hofmeister, Sundar Jagannath, Christine Chen, Sagar Lonial, Andrzej Jakubowiak, Nizar J. Bahlis, Rachid Baz, Gail Larkins, Min Chen, Mohamed H. Zaki, Kenneth C. Anderson

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensUniversity of CalgaryPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicinePomalidomideNeutropeniaInternal medicineClinical endpointPopulationPhases of clinical researchLenalidomideAdverse effectDexamethasoneFebrile neutropeniaRegimenSurgeryGastroenterologyRandomized controlled trialClinical trialChemotherapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 634 Background: Pts with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), resistant to LEN and BORT, have poor outcomes. POM (2 or 4 mg/d for 28 d of each 28-d cycle) is an immunomodulatory compound with activity in pts refractory to both LEN and BORT (Lacy MQ et al. Blood 2011;doi:10.1182). This multicenter phase 1/2 study investigated the safety and efficacy of POM alone or in combination with LoDex (POM+LoDex) for treatment of pts with RRMM who had received both BORT and LEN. Phase 1 identified 4 mg/d of POM as the recommended dose for phase 2 (Richardson PG et al. Blood 2010;116:Abs 864). Phase 2 results are presented. Methods: Pts with RRMM after ≥ 2 prior regimens, including ≥ 2 cycles of LEN and BORT separately or in combination, were eligible. Pts had to have progressed ≤ 60 d of their last treatment prior to study entry (refractory disease). This analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of POM+LoDex (POM 4 mg/d 1–21 d of each 28-d cycle; Dex 40 mg/wk) and POM alone in a randomized open-label study. Results presented here were based on investigator assessed responses for the intent-to-treat population. Responses were independently adjudicated. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were objective response (partial response [PR] or ≥ PR), duration of response (DOR), overall survival (OS), and safety. All pts received daily low-dose aspirin thromboprophylaxis. Results: A total of 221 pts were enrolled in phase 2 (POM+LoDex n = 113; POM n = 108); 219 received ≥ 1 cycle of study treatment and 191 pts were evaluable for response. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two arms with a median of 5 (range 2–13) prior therapies in both arms; 74% of pts in POM+LoDex and 76% of pts in POM alone had prior autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT). The remaining pts were elderly (aged > 75 yrs) or ineligible for ASCT; all pts were exposed to corticosteroids and 84% in the POM+LoDex and 95% in POM alone arms were exposed to alkylators. Pts were refractory to LEN (POM+LoDex 77% and POM alone 79%), BORT (73% and 69%), or both drugs (61% and 59%). Among pts who were randomized to receive POM alone, 61 (56%) subsequently went on to receive POM+LoDex due to progressive disease (PD) per protocol. A median of 5 (range 1–17) treatment cycles were received by pts in both arms. Median treatment duration was 5.0 mos. Response of ≥ PR was seen in 34% of pts in the POM+LoDex arm and 13% in the POM alone arm, including 1% complete response (CR) in each arm; ≥ minor response (MR) was 45% vs 29%, respectively. Median DOR was 7.7 mos with POM+LoDex and 8.3 mos with POM alone, and median PFS was 4.6 mos and 2.6 mos, respectively (Fig 1). Median OS was comparable for both arms (14.4 and 13.6 mos). Results from independent adjudication were similar, with ≥ PR in 30% of pts in the POM+LoDex arm and 9% in the POM alone arm, including 1% and 0% CR, respectively, in each arm. ≥ MR was achieved with POM+LoDex in 45% and with POM alone in 25%; PFS was 3.8 mos and 2.5 mos, respectively. In the subgroup of pts refractory to both LEN and BORT, 30% and 16% of pts treated with POM+LoDex or POM alone, respectively, achieved ≥ PR; ≥ MR was 45% and 30%, respectively. Median PFS was 3.8 mos for POM+LoDex and 2.0 mos for POM alone; median OS showed a similar trend (13.5 and 10.8 mos, respectively). The main reason for treatment discontinuation was PD in both arms (POM+LoDex 51%; POM alone 44%); discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs) were 7% and 12%, respectively. Grade 3/4 AEs in POM+LoDex vs POM alone, respectively, were: neutropenia 38% and 47%; febrile neutropenia 2% and 2%; thrombocytopenia 19% and 21%; anemia 21% and 17%; pneumonia 19% and 8%; and fatigue 10% and 8%. All grades of peripheral neuropathy, deep vein thrombosis, and renal failure occurred in 7% and 10%, 2% and 1%, and 2% and 1% of pts for POM+LoDex vs POM alone, respectively. Conclusions: POM (4 mg/d 1–21 d of each 28-d cycle) with or without LoDex demonstrates clinical activity and is generally well tolerated in pts with advanced MM who have received multiple prior therapies and are refractory to both LEN and BORT. Prospective comparison indicates that POM+LoDex is associated with greater clinical benefit and no increased toxicity vs POM alone. This is supported by high response rates, long DOR, and PFS benefit achieved with POM+LoDex. The regimen is now being investigated both in phase 3 trials, and as part of combination treatment including with BORT. Disclosures: Richardson: Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Pomalidomide is a new treatment for multiple myeloma. Siegel:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Vij:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Jagannath:PER Group: Honoraria; J & J Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Envision Communication: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imedex: Honoraria; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Investigators meeting; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jansen Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Medicom Worldwide: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Lonial:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jakubowiak:Ortho Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, 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; Exelixis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bahlis:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Baz:BMS: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Larkins:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Zaki:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Anderson:Acetylon Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: 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)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
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 enseignants0,011
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,036

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0030,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,002
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0110,002

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 Opus0,067
Tête enseignante GPT0,338
Écart entre enseignants0,271 · 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

Citations34
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetMultiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207