MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3095134159 · doi:10.1182/blood-2020-135874

Apollo: Phase 3 Randomized Study of Subcutaneous Daratumumab Plus Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone (D-Pd) Versus Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone (Pd) Alone in Patients (Pts) with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM)

2020· article· en· W3095134159 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Meletios Α. Dimopoulos, Evangelos Terpos, Mario Boccadoro, Sosana Delimpasi, Meral Beksaç, Eirini Katodritou, Philippe Moreau, Luca Baldini, Argiris Symeonidis, Jelena Bila, Albert Oriol, María‐Victoria Mateos, Hermann Einsele, Ioannis Orfanidis, Tahamtan Ahmadi, Jon Ukropec, Tobias Kampfenkel, Jordan M. Schecter, Yanping Qiu, Himal Amin, Jessica Vermeulen, Robin Carson, Pieter Sonneveld

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPomalidomideDaratumumabDexamethasoneMedicineInternal medicineRefractory (planetary science)OncologyMultiple myelomaLenalidomideMaterials science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction Immunomodulatory drug (IMiD)-based regimens are a standard of care (SOC) for RRMM. Daratumumab (DARA) is a CD38-targeted mAb approved for treatment of pts with RRMM. The subcutaneous (SC) formulation of DARA has a similar safety profile as intravenous DARA, with a statistically significant reduction in infusion-related reaction (IRR) rates and a considerably shorter administration duration of 5 mins. DARA SC is approved for use in the US, EU, Canada, and Korea. In the phase 1b study of DARA plus the IMiD pomalidomide, D-Pd induced deep responses and was well tolerated in pts with heavily pretreated RRMM, including those with prior lenalidomide (len) treatment. D-Pd is approved in the US for RRMM pts with ≥2 prior lines of therapy, including len and a proteasome inhibitor (PI). APOLLO (NCT03180736) is a phase 3 study conducted in collaboration between European Myeloma Network investigators and Janssen to evaluate DARA SC plus Pd vs Pd alone in RRMM pts who had received ≥1 prior line of therapy including len and a PI. We report the primary analysis of APOLLO. Methods In this open-label, multicenter study, eligible pts had RRMM and received ≥1 prior line of therapy including len and a PI, had responded to prior treatment and progressed on or after their last regimen; pts with only 1 prior line of therapy (1PL) were required to be refractory to len. Prior anti-CD38 or pomalidomide was not permitted. Pts were randomized 1:1 to Pd ± DARA SC. Stratification was based on International Staging System (ISS) disease stage (I, II, III) and number of lines of prior therapy (1, 2-3, ≥4). All pts received 28-day treatment cycles (C). P: 4 mg (PO) QD on Days 1-21; d: 40 mg (PO) on Days 1, 8, 15 and 22 (20 mg for pts ≥75 years of age). For D-Pd pts, DARA was given QW for C 1-2, Q2W for C 3-6, and Q4W thereafter. Prior to protocol amendment, pts received DARA IV 16 mg/kg (n=7); after protocol amendment, all pts received DARA SC 1,800 mg co-formulated with recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20; ENHANZE® drug delivery technology, Halozyme, Inc.). All pts were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was PFS. Major secondary endpoints included overall response rate, rates of very good partial response or better and complete response or better, MRD-negativity rate, overall survival (OS), and safety. Results A total of 304 pts from 12 European countries were randomized (151 D-Pd; 153 Pd). The median (range) age was 67 (35-90) years, and 45%/33%/22% pts were ISS stage I/II/III. 35% had high cytogenetic risk (presence of del17p, t[14;16], or t[4;14]). 11% of pts had received 1PL (median [range] prior lines of therapy = 2 [1-5]). 82% of pts were refractory to len, 68% of pts were refractory to a PI, and 63% of pts were refractory to both. Median duration of treatment was 11.5 months with D-Pd vs 6.6 months with Pd. The primary analysis was performed after 190 PFS events. The study met its primary endpoint of improved PFS; the hazard ratio (HR) was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.47-0.85; P=0.0018), representing a 37% reduction in the risk of progression or death in pts treated with D-Pd. The median PFS for the D-Pd vs Pd arms was 12.4 vs 6.9 months, respectively. With a median follow-up of 16.9 months, 99 pts (33%) have died; the HR for OS was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.61-1.35); survival data are immature and follow-up is ongoing. ≥CR rates for D-Pd vs Pd were 24.5% vs 3.9%; ≥VGPR rates were 51.0% vs 19.6%. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events with a >5% difference between D-Pd vs Pd were neutropenia (68% vs 51%), leukopenia (17% vs 5%), lymphopenia (12% vs 3%), febrile neutropenia (9% vs 3%), and pneumonia (13% vs 7%). The rate of IRRs with DARA SC was low (6%, all grade 1/2), and 2% of pts had local injection-site reactions (all grade 1). Median duration of injection was 5 mins. Rates of study treatment discontinuation due to TEAEs were similar for D-Pd vs Pd (2% vs 3%). The safety profile of D-Pd is consistent with known profiles of DARA SC and Pd. Conclusion In this phase 3 study evaluating DARA SC plus Pd, D-Pd significantly reduced the risk of progression or death by 37% in pts with RRMM who had received ≥1 prior line of therapy vs Pd alone. No new safety concerns were observed. The IRR rate was very low and administration duration short, thus increasing convenience for pts and decreasing treatment burden. Collectively, these data show that D-Pd is an effective and convenient treatment for pts with RRMM who received ≥1 prior therapy, including len and a PI. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Beigene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Terpos:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Genesis: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Boccadoro:Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Beksac:Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Katodritou:Theagenion Cancer Hospital: Current Employment; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Expenses, Research Funding; Genesis Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Expenses, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Moreau:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy. Symeonidis:Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; WinMedica: Research Funding; GenesisPharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi/Genzyme: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Oriol:Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mateos:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PharmaMar-Zeltia: Consultancy; Abbvie/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: 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;

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
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 enseignants0,146
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,027
Tête enseignante GPT0,286
Écart entre enseignants0,259 · 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 tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

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

Citations51
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetMultiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207