MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2596288557 · doi:10.1182/blood.v128.22.1151.1151

Efficacy of Daratumumab, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone Versus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma Patients with 1 to 3 Prior Lines of Therapy: Updated Analysis of Pollux

2016· article· en· W2596288557 sur OpenAlexaff
Saad Z. Usmani, Meletios Α. Dimopoulos, Andrew Belch, Darrell White, Lofti Benboubker, Gordon Cook, Merav Leiba, James Morton, P. Joy Ho, Kihyun Kım, Naoki Takezako, Nushmia Z. Khokhar, Mary Guckert, Kaida Wu, Xiang Qin, Tineke Casneuf, Christopher Chiu, A. Kate Sasser, Jesús F. San Miguel

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLenalidomideDaratumumabDexamethasoneMedicineOncologyMultiple myelomaInternal medicineThalidomideRefractory (planetary science)CarfilzomibBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Daratumumab is a human monoclonal antibody targeting CD38 that demonstrated superior efficacy in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (Rd) in a pre-specified interim analysis of a randomized phase 3 study of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM; Dimopoulos MA, et al. N Engl J Med 2016; in press). We report subgroup analyses from this study in patients (pts) who received 1 to 3 prior lines of therapy (1-3 PL), including outcomes based on high-risk cytogenetics within these subgroups. Methods: Patients (pts) who received ≥1 prior line of therapy were randomized (1:1) to Rd (lenalidomide: 25 mg PO on Days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle; dexamethasone: 40 mg PO weekly) with or without daratumumab (16 mg/kg IV qw for 8 weeks, q2w for 16 weeks, then q4w until progression). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The site investigator determined the number of prior lines of therapy according to IMWG consensus guidelines. Treatment-free interval (TFI) was defined as the duration between the end/start date of last line of prior therapy and the date of randomization. Pts with high-risk cytogenetic status had at least one of the following abnormalities as assessed via fluorescence in-situ hybridization or karyotyping by local laboratory assessment: t(4;14), t(14;16), or del17p. Results: In the 1-3 PL subgroup (DRd, n=272; Rd, n=264), PFS was significantly improved with DRd vs Rd (median: not reached [NR] vs 18.4 months; HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.25-0.50; P<0.0001), with estimated 12-month PFS rates of 83.2% vs 60.4%, respectively. Time to progression was also significantly longer with DRd vs Rd (median: NR vs 18.4 months; HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.22-0.46; P<0.0001). ORR (94% vs 77%), rates of very good partial response (VGPR) or better (76% vs 45%) and complete response (CR) or better (44% vs 20%) were significantly higher with DRd vs Rd, respectively (P<0.0001 for all). Among responders, median time to VGPR or better was 2.8 months in DRd vs 2.9 months in Rd; median time to CR or better was 6.7 months vs 7.5 months, respectively. For pts in the 1-3 PL subgroup with high-risk cytogenetics (n=33 in each treatment group), significantly longer PFS was observed in DRd vs Rd (median: NR vs 8.3 months; HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.14-0.67; P=0.0019). Significantly higher ORR (91% vs 69%; P=0.0267), rate of VGPR or better (73% vs 28%; P=0.0004), and rate of CR or better (36% vs 9%; P=0.0104) were achieved in pts with high-risk cytogenetic status treated with DRd vs Rd, respectively. For 1-3 PL pts who had a TFI of >12 months (DRd, n=138; Rd, n=145), median PFS was NR in DRd vs 18.4 months in Rd (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.74; P=0.0019; Figure A); the estimated 12-month PFS rate was 88.0% vs 74.5%, respectively. ORR was significantly higher with DRd vs Rd (96% vs 86%, P=0.0084), along with rate of VGPR or better (77% vs 56%; P=0.0008) and rate of CR or better (43% vs 27%; P=0.0083). Among pts with a TFI of ≤12 months (DRd, n=134; Rd, n=119), median PFS was NR in DRd vs 10.3 months in Rd (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.21-0.51; P<0.0001; Figure B); the estimated 12-month PFS rate was 78.1% vs 43.1%, respectively. ORR (92% vs 67%), rate of VGPR or better (76% vs 32%), and rate of CR or better (44% vs 10%) were all significantly higher with DRd vs Rd (P<0.0001 for all). Among pts with 1-3 PL who were refractory to their last line of therapy (DRd, n=73; Rd, n=67), PFS was significantly prolonged with DRd vs Rd (median: NR vs 10.3 mo; HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P=0.0010). ORR (92% vs 66%; P=0.0002), rate of VGPR or better (72% vs 34%; P<0.0001), and rate of CR or better (47% vs 14%; P<0.0001) were significantly higher with DRd vs Rd. Data for all subgroup analyses will be updated for the meeting. Conclusions: Responses with DRd were deep and durable which translated into significantly improved clinical outcomes vs Rd in 1-3 PL pts with RRMM. The results of these subgroup analyses suggest that the treatment benefit of DRd vs Rd was maintained across these subgroups, including pts with TFI of ≤12 months and those who were refractory to their last line of therapy. Figure Progression-free survival in patients with 1 to 3 prior lines of therapy and treatment-free interval of (A) >12 months (B) ≤12 months prior to randomization Figure. Progression-free survival in patients with 1 to 3 prior lines of therapy and treatment-free interval of (A) >12 months (B) ≤12 months prior to randomization Disclosures Usmani: Britsol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Array: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Dimopoulos:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Belch:Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. White:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Benboubker:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cook:Takeda Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Glycomimetics: Consultancy. Ho:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: 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. Khokhar:Janssen: Employment. Guckert:Janssen: Employment; Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership. Wu:Janssen: Employment. Qin:Janssen: Employment. Casneuf:Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership; Janssen R&D, Beerse, Belgium: Employment. Chiu:Janssen: Employment. Sasser:Janssen: Employment; Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership. San-Miguel:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: 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)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
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 enseignants0,006
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,030

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,004
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 Opus0,030
Tête enseignante GPT0,299
Écart entre enseignants0,270 · 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

Citations28
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetMultiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207