MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2595228860 · doi:10.1182/blood.v126.23.4234.4234

Insulin Growth Factor 1 Receptor (IGF-1R) Inhibitor, Linsitinib (OSI-906) in Combination with Bortezomib and Dexamethasone Demonstrates Favorable Safety Prolife and Clinical Activity in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma

2015· article· en· W2595228860 sur OpenAlexaff
Suzanne Trudel, Darrell White, M Gyger, J. Kaufmann, Andrzej Jakubowiak, Engin Gul, Lisa W. Le, Zhi‐Hua Li, Donna Reece, Vishal Kukreti, Richard LeBlanc

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontDalhousie UniversityUniversity Health NetworkJewish General HospitalUniversité de MontréalQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTolerabilityMedicineBortezomibInternal medicineDexamethasoneLenalidomideDosingMultiple myelomaPharmacologyRefractory (planetary science)CarfilzomibOncologyGastroenterologyAdverse effectUrologyBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Preclinical studies have demonstrated anti-myeloma activity of IGF-1R inhibition against myeloma cell lines, primary patient samples and myeloma xenograft models. Further, it has previously been reported that IGF-1R inhibition enhances the in vitro activity of bortezomib (BTZ), suggesting that IGF-1R inhibitors may improve the clinical efficacy of proteosome inhibitors (PIs). Based upon these observations, we initiated a phase I trial combining linsitinib (a selective IGF-IR an IR inhibitor) with BTZ and dexamethasone (Dex) to clinically evaluate the tolerance and efficacy of this combination. Methods: This study investigates BTZ 1.3 mg/m2 and dex 20 mg given on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 together with escalating doses of oral linsitinib (75-150mg bid) given daily on a 21-day cycle. Continued daily linsitinib and BTZ dosing on days 1, 8, 15 and 22 of a 35-day cycle is allowed after 8 cycles for those benefitting and tolerating treatment. The primary objective is to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination using a modified 3+3 design with 4 dose cohorts. The secondary objectives are to assess tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PKs), predictive biomarkers and clinical activity. Responses per dosing cohort are assessed by IMWG criteria (plus MRs as per the EBMT). Results: 18 patients (pts) have been enrolled to date into dose levels 75 mg (n=3), 100 mg (n=6), 125 mg (n=5) and 150 mg (n=4). All pts had refractory and/or progressive disease (PD); with a median number of 3 prior lines of treatment (range 1- 4). 67% of pts had received prior immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), 78% had prior PI exposure of which 3 were were confirmed refractory, and 50% had received both an IMiD and a PI. Two dose limiting toxicities (DLT) consisting of Gr 4 thrombocytopenia without bleeding (100 mg dose) and a grade 4 ALT (150 mg dose) were observed. All DLTs were reversible. The most common (>20%) adverse events (AEs) were anemia (41%), nausea (35%), fatigue (41%), creatinine increase (47%), thrombocytopenia (88%), cough (35%) and increase in ALT (24%). Most were grade 1-2. The most frequent Gr 3-4 AEs (>10%) regardless of causality were diarrhea (17.6%), back pain (11.8%), thrombocytopenia (47.1%), anemia (17.6%) and neutropenia (11.8%). Additional Gr 3 toxicities included renal insufficiency due to progressive disease (PD), pneumonia, altered mental state (not drug-related) and weight loss. Two deaths occurred; one due to PD, the other due to a cardiac event possibly related to BTZ. IGF-1R expression on CD138 positive cells was confirmed by flow cytometry in 8 pts. Analysis of substrate phosphorylation downstream of IGF-1R at baseline, are ongoing. PK analysis will also be reported. Of 18 pts assessable for response we observed 1 sCR, 1 VGPR, 7 PRs and 2 MR, for an overall response rate (ORR) of 50% and a clinical benefit rate of 61% (PR+MR). 5 pts achieved SD and 2 pts had PD. Of the 2 pts that had PD, neither expressed IGF-1R and of the 3 pts that were progressing on a PI-based regimen immediately prior to starting linistinib and BTZ, one achieved a PR, one an MR and one had SD. The median PFS is 7.3 months. Pts have received a median of 5 cycles of treatment (range 1-22). Dose escalation of linistinib at the 150 mg cohort is currently ongoing. Conclusions: The combination of BTZ and linsitinib is supported by preclinical rationale and has produced stable disease or better in 88% of advanced myeloma patients and appears to be safe and well tolerated. The optimal dose of linsitinib combined with BTZ however, has yet to be defined and data from the complete cohort of pts in addition to studies correlating response to tumor expression of IGF-1R and CD45 will be presented. Disclosures White: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Jakubowiak:SkylineDx: 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, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; SkylineDx: 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, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: institutional funding for support of clinical trial conduct, Speakers Bureau. Reece:Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy; Otsuka: Research Funding; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kukreti:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Janssen Ortho: 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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
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 enseignants0,001
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,005

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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 GPT0,278
Écart entre enseignants0,252 · 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

Citations0
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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