MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2902998154 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-112697

Three-Year Follow up of the Phase 3 Pollux Study of Daratumumab Plus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone (D-Rd) Versus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone (Rd) Alone in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM)

2018· article· en· W2902998154 sur OpenAlexaff
Nizar J. Bahlis, Meletios Α. Dimopoulos, Darrell White, Lotfi Benboubker, Gordon Cook, Merav Leiba, P. Joy Ho, Kihyun Kım, Naoki Takezako, Philippe Moreau, Maria Krevvata, Christopher Chiu, Xiang Qin, Linda Okonkwo, Sonali Trivedi, Ming Qi, Jesús F. San Miguel

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLenalidomideDaratumumabMedicineInternal medicineDexamethasoneOncologyGastroenterology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Daratumumab is a human, CD38-targeted, IgGκ monoclonal antibody with both direct on-tumor and immunomodulatory mechanisms of action. In the phase 3 POLLUX study, D-Rd reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 63% and significantly increased the overall response rate (ORR) versus Rd alone (93% vs 76%; P <0.001) in RRMM patients (pts). When combined with standard of care regimens across three phase 3 studies including POLLUX, daratumumab demonstrated ≥50% reductions in the risk of progression or death, doubled complete response (CR) rates, and tripled minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative rates at the 10-5 sensitivity threshold in pts with RRMM or newly diagnosed MM (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; Mateos MV, et al. N Engl J Med 2018. 378[6]:518-528). Improvements in deeper responses gained from novel MM treatments have led to interest in sustained MRD negativity as a potential surrogate endpoint (Kumar S, et al. Lancet Oncol 2016. 17[8]:e328-e346; Anderson KC. Blood Adv 2017. 1[8]:517-521). Here, we present updated efficacy and safety analyses of POLLUX, including sustained MRD negativity, after >3 years of median follow-up. Methods: Pts with ≥1 prior line of therapy were randomized (1:1) to receive Rd (lenalidomide 25 mg PO on Days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle; dexamethasone 40 mg per week) ± daratumumab (16 mg/kg IV QW for Cycles 1-2, Q2W for Cycles 3-6, then Q4W until disease progression). High risk cytogenetic abnormalities included t(4;14), t(14;16), and del17p. At the time of suspected CR and at 3 and 6 months after confirmed CR (and every 12 months thereafter if CR was maintained), bone marrow aspirates were assessed for MRD using clonoSEQ® V2.0 (Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA). Sustained MRD negativity was defined as maintenance of MRD negativity at the 10-5 threshold for ≥6 or ≥12 months. PFS on subsequent line of therapy (PFS2), an exploratory endpoint, was defined as time from randomization to progression after next line of subsequent therapy or death. Results: A total of 569 pts were randomized (D-Rd, n = 286; Rd, n = 283). At a median follow-up of 39.5 months, D-Rd significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus Rd (median, not reached [NR] vs 17.5 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35-0.55; P <0.0001); 36-month PFS rate was 55% versus 28%. D-Rd also prolonged PFS versus Rd among pts with 1 prior line of therapy and pts with 1-3 prior lines of therapy (Table 1). A PFS benefit for D-Rd versus Rd was also observed regardless of cytogenetic risk status (Table 1). D-Rd was associated with a significantly higher ORR versus Rd (93% vs 76%), including higher rates of ≥very good partial response (80% vs 49%) and ≥CR (56% vs 23%; all P <0.0001). At the 10-5 sensitivity threshold, MRD-negativity was achieved by 87 (30%) D-Rd pts versus 15 (5%) Rd pts (P <0.000001). Among the ITT population, sustained MRD negativity was achieved by 47 (16%) D-Rd pts versus 2 (0.7%) Rd pts for ≥6 months and 37 (13%) D-Rd pts versus 1 (0.4%) Rd pt for ≥12 months (both P <0.0001). Median time to next therapy for D-Rd versus Rd was NR in the D-Rd group versus 22.8 months in the Rd group (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.29-0.49; P <0.0001). In the D-Rd group, 98 (34%) overall survival (OS) events were observed versus 118 (42%) OS events in the Rd group; OS follow-up is ongoing. The median duration of treatment was 34.3 months in the D-Rd arm versus 16.0 months in the Rd arm. The most common (≥10%) grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) observed with D-Rd versus Rd are described in Table 2. No differences were observed for D-Rd versus Rd in discontinuations due to TEAEs (14% of pts in each treatment group) or incidences of second primary malignancies (7% of pts in each treatment group). Updated data including PFS2 will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion: After >3 years of median follow-up, D-Rd continued to demonstrate a significant PFS benefit and higher rates of deeper responses versus Rd alone in RRMM pts. The higher rate of sustained MRD negativity with D-Rd compared with Rd suggests that continued D-Rd treatment drives these deep responses and delays progression. No new safety signals were observed following a median of 34 months of D-Rd exposure. Disclosures Bahlis: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Dimopoulos:Janssen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. White:Amgen: 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; Janssen: 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. Cook:Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlycoMimetics, Celgene, Janssen and Takeda and Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene, Janssen and Takeda: Research Funding. Ho:Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel to meeting; Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Other: Travel to meeting. Moreau: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; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: 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. Krevvata:Janssen Research & Development, LLC: Employment. Chiu:Janssen Research & Development, LLC: Employment. Qin:Janssen Research & Development, LLC: Employment. Okonkwo:Janssen Research & Development, LLC: Employment. Trivedi:Janssen Research & Development, LLC: Employment. Qi:Janssen Research & Development, LLC: Employment. San-Miguel:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Roche: 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)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
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 enseignants0,008
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,043

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,004
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,006
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 Opus0,061
Tête enseignante GPT0,335
Écart entre enseignants0,274 · 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

Citations24
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetMultiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207