MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2782542268 · doi:10.1182/blood.v130.suppl_1.739.739

Daratumumab, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone (DRd) Versus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone (Rd) in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM): Updated Efficacy and Safety Analysis of Pollux

2017· article· en· W2782542268 sur OpenAlexaff
Meletios Α. Dimopoulos, Darrell White, Lofti Benboubker, Gordon Cook, Merav Leiba, James Morton, P. Joy Ho, Kihyun Kım, Naoki Takezako, Sonali Trivedi, Kaida Wu, Tineke Casneuf, Christopher Chiu, Jordan M. Schecter, Philippe Moreau

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreDalhousie University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLenalidomideDaratumumabMedicineDexamethasoneInternal medicineInterim analysisPomalidomideOncologyMultiple myelomaBortezomibClinical endpointNeutropeniaIxazomibProgression-free survivalCarfilzomibGastroenterologyClinical trialChemotherapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Daratumumab is a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody targeting CD38 with a direct on-tumor and immunomodulatory mechanism of action. Daratumumab induces rapid, deep, and durable responses in combination with a proteasome inhibitor (bortezomib) or an immunomodulatory drug (lenalidomide or pomalidomide) in patients with RRMM (Palumbo A, et al. N Engl J Med 2016. 375(8):754-766; Dimopoulos MA, et al. N Engl J Med 2016.375(14):1319-1331; Chari A, et al. Blood 2017. Epub ahead of print). At the time of the pre-specified interim analysis of the phase 3 study POLLUX (median follow-up of 13.5 months), DRd reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 63% and significantly improved the overall response rate (ORR) compared with Rd alone (92.9% vs 76.4%; P <0.001). This analysis reports updated efficacy and safety data in POLLUX based on longer follow-up. 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 per week) with or without daratumumab (16 mg/kg IV weekly for Cycles 1 and 2, q2w for Cycles 3-6, then q4w until disease progression). The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). Minimal residual disease (MRD) was assessed on bone marrow aspirate samples at the time of suspected complete response (CR) and at 3 and 6 months after suspected CR at sensitivity thresholds of 10-4, 10-5, and 10-6 via the clonoSEQTM next-generation sequencing assay (V.1.3; Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA). For PFS on subsequent line of therapy (PFS2; defined as time from randomization to progression after next line of subsequent therapy or death) was examined as an exploratory endpoint. Results: Pts in both treatment groups (DRd, n=286; Rd, n=283) received a median of 1 prior line of therapy and 18% of patients received prior treatment with lenalidomide. After a median follow-up of 25.4 months, PFS was significantly prolonged with DRd vs Rd (median, not reached [NR] vs 17.5 months; HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.31-0.53; P <0.0001; Figure 1A). A higher ORR was observed with DRd compared with Rd (93% vs 76%; P <0.0001), including significantly higher rates of ≥very good partial response (79% vs 48%; P <0.0001) and ≥CR (51% vs 21%; P <0.0001; Figure 1B). DRd prolonged the duration of response compared with Rd (median, NR vs 26.0 months). MRD-negative rates were >3-fold higher with DRd vs Rd at all sensitivity thresholds evaluated. At a sensitivity threshold of 10-5, MRD-negative rates were 26% with DRd vs 6% for Rd (P <0.0001) and pts with MRD-negative status accumulated more rapidly with DRd vs Rd. Regardless of treatment group, PFS was prolonged in pts who achieved MRD-negative status compared with MRD-positive status. PFS2 was significantly improved with DRd vs Rd in the intent to treat (ITT) population (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.40-0.76; P=0.0002; Figure 2A). Among MRD-negative (10-5) pts who received DRd (n=75) or Rd (n=18), no significant differences in PFS2 were observed between treatment groups (Figure 2B). Time to next therapy was also significantly prolonged with DRd vs Rd in the ITT population (median, NR vs 22.7 months; HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.25-0.46; P <0.0001). The most common (≥10%) grade 3/4 TEAEs included neutropenia (54% vs 40%), anemia (16% vs 21%), thrombocytopenia (14% vs 16%), and pneumonia (12% vs 9%), in pts treated with DRd vs Rd, respectively. The incidence of TEAE-related treatment discontinuations was similar between groups, occurring in 12% of pts in both treatment groups. No differences in the incidence of secondary primary malignancies were observed between treatment groups (16 [6%] patients in each group). Updated data will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion: This updated analysis reveals that DRd continues to demonstrate a significant PFS benefit compared with Rd alone, and pt responses continue to deepen with DRd with longer follow up. Pts who receive DRd demonstrated longer time to next therapy and responded more favorably to subsequent therapy as evidenced by prolonged PFS2, suggesting that patients continue to observe clinical benefit from prior daratumumab treatment. Importantly, the favorable safety profile was maintained with longer follow-up. These data support the addition of daratumumab to standard of care regimens in RRMM. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Genesis Pharma: Research Funding; Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Onyx Pharmaceuticals, an Amgen subsidiary, Takeda Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory Committee: Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Onyx Pharmaceuticals, an Amgen subsidiary, Takeda Oncology; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. White: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Benboubker: Takeda, Celgene, Janssen, Amgen: Consultancy. Cook: Glycomimetcs: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ho: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Novartis, Janssen, Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Trivedi: Janssen: Employment. Wu: Janssen: Employment. Casneuf: Janssen: Employment. Chiu: Janssen: Employment. Schecter: Janssen: Employment. Moreau: Amgen: Honoraria; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Novartis, Amgen, Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx Pharmaceutical: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, 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)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
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 seuil0,015

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,002
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

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 Opus0,046
Tête enseignante GPT0,335
Écart entre enseignants0,289 · 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

Citations35
Publié2017
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetMultiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207