MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2990707530 · doi:10.1182/blood-2019-124407

First Analysis from a Phase 1/2 Study of Venetoclax in Combination with Daratumumab and Dexamethasone, +/- Bortezomib, in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma

2019· article· en· W2990707530 sur OpenAlexaff
Nizar J. Bahlis, Rachid Baz, Simon J. Harrison, Hang Quach, Shir‐Jing Ho, Annette Juul Vangsted, Philippe Moreau, Simon Gibbs, Ahmed Hamed Salem, Jeremy A. Ross, John C. Pesko, Sally Westrup, Jenny Vue, Paulo Maciag, Orlando F. Bueno, Jonathan L. Kaufman

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensInstitute of Cancer ResearchUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDaratumumabMedicineVenetoclaxBortezomibTolerabilityInternal medicineVenRegimenOncologyProteasome inhibitorLenalidomideDexamethasoneCarfilzomibCombination therapyPhases of clinical researchMultiple myelomaPharmacologyClinical trialAdverse effectLeukemiaChronic lymphocytic leukemia

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Novel and more effective therapies for multiple myeloma (MM) have led to increasing overall survival, but most patients (pts) will eventually relapse or become refractory (RR). The proteasome inhibitor (PI) bortezomib (V), the anti-CD38 antibody daratumumab (D), and dexamethasone (d) are key agents for combination therapy in first-line and RR settings. Venetoclax (Ven) is a highly selective, potent, oral BCL-2 inhibitor that induces apoptosis in BCL-2-dependent MM cells in vitro. Encouraging clinical efficacy has been observed with Ven monotherapy in t(11;14) pts, and with VenV in pts irrespective of disease genetic background. In view of MM intraclonal heterogeneity, the addition of D to Ven +/- PI is postulated to further enhance antitumor activity of Ven-based regimens in RRMM. Methods: M15-654 (NCT03314181) is an ongoing Phase 1/2, nonrandomized, multicenter study of combination therapy consisting of VenDd +/- V in pts with RRMM. The primary objective is to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and preliminary efficacy of VenDd +/- V. In Part 1, VenDd was evaluated in t(11;14) MM pts who received ≥1 prior line of therapy that included a PI and an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD). In Part 2, VenDVd was evaluated in MM pts irrespective of t(11;14) status who were non-refractory to PIs and received 1 - 3 prior lines of therapy. Each regimen was evaluated in a dose escalation and expansion phase. In each part, Ven dose escalation was initiated at 400 mg daily (QD) and escalated to 800 mg QD if acceptable safety and tolerability were observed. Escalation cohorts had ≥3 pts, and escalation decisions were based on a Bayesian optimal interval design and the number of pts with a dose limiting toxicity (DLT). In Part 1, cycles (C) were 28-day: Ven QD + D 16 mg/kg intravenous (IV) (C1, 2: Days 1, 8, 15, 22; C3 - 6: Days 1, 15; C7+: Day 1) + d 40 mg total weekly. In Part 2, C1 - 8 were 21-day, C9+ were 28-day: Ven QD + D 16 mg/kg IV (C1 - 3: Days 1, 8, 15; C4+: Day 1) + V 1.3 mg/m2 subcutaneous (C1 - 8, Days 1, 4, 8, 11) + d 20 mg (C1 - 3: Days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15; C4 - 8, Days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12) and 40 mg weekly for C9+. Results: As of 13 May 2019, 48 pts were enrolled. Of 24 t(11;14) pts treated in Part 1 with VenDd, median age was 63 (range, 51 - 76), median prior lines of therapy was 2.5 (range, 1 - 8), 14 (58%) had ISS II/III disease, and 24 (100%) received both prior PI and IMiD (46% refractory to PI, 71% refractory to IMiD, 42% double refractory). Of 24 pts treated in Part 2 with VenDVd, median age was 64 (range, 41 - 80), median prior lines of therapy was 1 (range, 1 - 3), 14 (58%) had ISS II/III disease, and 6 (25%) were t(11;14). Twenty-two (92%) pts received prior PI, 17 (71%) received prior IMiD (33% refractory), and 15 (63%) received prior PI + IMiD. The most common adverse events (AEs; VenDd/VenDVd) were fatigue (54%/21%), diarrhea (50%/42%), nausea (33%/38%), insomnia (29%/42%), cough (21%/8%), headache (21%/4%), upper respiratory tract infection (21%/17%), constipation (8%/33%), infusion related reaction (8%/33%), peripheral neuropathy (4%/25%), and dyspepsia (4%/21%). Grade 3/4 AEs were seen in 63%/54% of pts. The most common Grade 3/4 AEs in pts receiving VenDd were neutropenia (13%), fatigue, hyperglycemia, and hypertension (8% each); in pts receiving VenDVd, the most common were insomnia (17%), diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia (8% each). There were 6 pts with infection-related Grade 3/4 AEs (3 VenDd, 3 VenDVd). No AEs of tumor lysis syndrome were observed. Eleven pts had a serious AE (5 VenDd, 6 VenDVd), the most common being pyrexia in 3 pts. One pt treated with VenDd had a DLT of febrile neutropenia, and 1 pt treated with VenDVd died due to progressive disease. No infection-related deaths were seen. Pharmacokinetic analyses demonstrated that addition of D and V did not impact Ven exposure. Median time on study is 3.6 months (m; 8.1 m escalation, 2.8 m expansion) in the VenDd arm and 3.1 m (5.8 m escalation, 2.4 m expansion) in the VenDVd arm. The objective response rate (ORR) was 92% and 88% in pts receiving VenDd and VenDVd, respectively (Table). Conclusions: This first analysis of pts treated with VenDd +/- V demonstrate a tolerable safety profile with encouraging efficacy, notably among t(11;14) pts treated with VenDd who had an ORR of 92%. No new safety signals were observed. Although the study is currently on partial clinical hold, enrolled pts continue to be followed. Analysis will be updated at presentation. Disclosures Bahlis: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Baz:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Harrison:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: investigator on studies, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Quach:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ho:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vangsted:Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria; Jansen: Honoraria. Moreau:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gibbs:BMS: 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; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: 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. Salem:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Ross:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Pesko:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Westrup:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Vue:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Maciag:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Bueno:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Kaufman:Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University: Employment; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: Venetoclax is a BCL-2 inhibitor that is FDA-approved in some indications. This presentation will focus on venetoclax for treatment of multiple myeloma, which is not an approved indication.

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)0,004
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 enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,020

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,003
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,001

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 Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,263
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

Citations10
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetMultiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207