MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2898644963 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-114960

Atezolizumab in Combination with Daratumumab with or without Lenalidomide or Pomalidomide: A Phase Ib Study in Patients with Multiple Myeloma

2018· article· en· W2898644963 sur OpenAlexaff
Hearn Jay Cho, Luciano J. Costa, Faith E. Davies, Natalia Neparidze, Ravi Vij, Yuning Feng, Anastasia Teterina, Elisabeth Wassner Fritsch, Michael Wenger, Jonathan L. Kaufman

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensRoche (Canada)
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPomalidomideLenalidomideAtezolizumabDaratumumabMedicineInternal medicineOncologyMultiple myelomaCohortTolerabilityCancerAdverse effectImmunotherapyNivolumab

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Atezolizumab (atezo) is an anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibody (mAb) approved for the treatment (tx) of urothelial carcinoma and non-small cell lung cancer. PD-L1 is expressed on myeloma cells and appears to be upregulated in patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) multiple myeloma (MM). Daratumumab (dara) is an anti-CD38 mAb approved for the tx of R/R MM; tx options are limited for pts who progress on dara. Given the anti-myeloma activity and immunomodulatory properties of dara, combination with an immune checkpoint inhibitor such as atezo may lead to additive or synergistic activity. A Phase Ib study is investigating the safety and preliminary efficacy of atezo alone or with lenalidomide (len) and/or dara, or with dara and pomalidomide (pom), in R/R MM pts (NCT02431208). Atezo alone and with len demonstrated good tolerability, but little activity. Here we present early data from the dara-combination cohorts. Methods: R/R MM pts were enrolled into three cohorts: Cohort D (atezo + dara: Cohort D1, 1-3L prior tx; Cohort D2, 2-3L prior tx, refractory to last tx; Cohort D3, ≥2L prior tx, progressed on anti-CD38 mAb tx, refractory to proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulatory agent [IMiD]), Cohort E1 (atezo + dara + len: 1-3L prior tx), and Cohort F1 (atezo + dara + pom: ≥4 prior tx, refractory to last tx). Pts received atezo 840mg IV (C1, d2 and d16; C2, d1 and d15) plus dara 16mg/kg IV; pts in Cohort E1 also received len 10mg or 15mg orally (PO) d1-d21; pts in Cohort F1 also received pom 2mg or 4mg PO d1-d21. Primary endpoints included safety and objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, overall survival and duration of response (DoR). Results: Data cut-off was March 6, 2018; 24 pts have been enrolled and treated: 6 in Cohort D1; 4 in D2; 1 in D3; 7 in E1; and 6 in F1. Nine pts have discontinued ≥1 tx: 1 (17%) in D1; 1 (25%) in D2; 5 (71%) in E1; and 2 (33%) in F1. Median duration of follow-up was 16.2 months (mo) in Cohort D1, 0.5 mo in D2, 0.7 mo in D3, 8.5 mo in E1, and 7.1 mo in F1. High-risk cytogenetic features were present in 2 (50%) pts in Cohort D2, 5 (71%) pts in E1, and 2 (33%) pts in F1, and were absent in pts from Cohorts D1 and D3. The median number of prior tx was 2 in Cohorts D1, D2, and E1, and 4 in Cohort F1; the pt in Cohort D3 had received 9 prior tx. All pts experienced ≥1 adverse event (AE); Grade 3-4 AEs occurred in 2/6 (33%) pts in Cohort D1, 3/4 (75%) pts in D2, 0/1 pt in D3, 6/7 (86%) pts in E1, and 6/6 (100%) pts in F1. Serious AEs occurred in 0 pts in Cohorts D1 and D3, 1 (25%) pt in Cohort D2, 3 (43%) pts in Cohort E1, and 2 (33%) pts in Cohort F1; the majority were Grade 3-4 (Table). Two deaths were reported: 1 in Cohort D2 (due to an AE of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome following an AE of sepsis and suspicion of progression and assessed by the investigator as related to the underlying disease) and 1 in Cohort E1 (due to disease progression). AEs leading to dose modification/interruption for any study drug occurred in 4/6 (67%) pts in Cohort D1, 2/4 (50%) pts in D2, 0/1 pt in D3, 5/7 (71%) pts in E1, and 4/6 (67%) pts in F1. Two pts were withdrawn from all study tx due to AEs: persistent Grade 4 thrombocytopenia (Cohort E1, 1 pt) and Grade 4 gastrointestinal hemorrhage (Cohort D2, 1 pt). ORR was 67% (4/6 pts) in Cohort D1, 57% (4/7) in E1, and 67% (4/6 pts) in F1; in Cohort D2, 1 pt had stable disease, 1 pt died before assessment, and 2 pts had not yet had a response assessment at data cut-off; the pt in Cohort D3 had not yet had a response assessment. A very good partial response or better was observed in 3 pts (50%) in Cohort D1, 3 pts (43%) in E1, and 4 (67%) in F1. Response and DoR data are presented in the Figure. A reduction in M-protein was reported in 6/6 pts in Cohort D1, 5/7 pts in E1, and 4/5 pts in F1. Conclusions: Atezo plus dara and in combination with len or pom demonstrated acceptable tolerability; no new safety signals were identified. Some pts treated with either atezo plus dara or atezo plus dara and IMiD appeared to have deep and durable responses. The benefit-risk profile of atezo in combination with dara with/without pom in R/R MM pts is promising. These early data support continuation of the study. Disclosures Cho: Agenus Inc.: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; J & J: Consultancy; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Costa:BMS: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding. Davies:Abbvie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MMRF: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ASH: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TRM Oncology: Honoraria. Vij:Bristol Myer Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Feng:Genentech Inc: Employment. Teterina:Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment. Wassner Fritsch:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment. Wenger:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Ownership interests PLC. Kaufman:Karyopharm: Other: data monitoring committee; Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy.

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)0,002
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 seuil0,010

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,002
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,001

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 GPT0,322
Écart entre enseignants0,295 · 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

Citations21
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetMultiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207