MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3096049589 · doi:10.1182/blood-2020-141029

Daratumumab (DARA) Plus Carfilzomib, Pomalidomide, Dexamethasone (KPd) in Lenalidomide Refractory Multiple Myeloma (MM): A Multi-Center MMRC Study

2020· article· en· W3096049589 sur OpenAlexaff
Jagoda Jasielec, Jeff Zonder, Benjamin A. Derman, Donna Reece, Craig E. Cole, Jesús G. Berdeja, Brittany Wolfe, Sarah Major, Kathryn M. Tinari, Andrew Stefka, Fabrizio Fazzi, Megan Whelan, Christine A. Gleason, Amanda McIver, Evangelia Andreatos, Bernadette Libao, Daniel Juergens, Kent A. Griffith, Andrzej Jakubowiak

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDaratumumabPomalidomideCarfilzomibMedicineLenalidomideInternal medicineCohortPopulationRefractory (planetary science)RegimenOncologyDexamethasoneSurgery

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Lenalidomide (LEN) is a cornerstone in the treatment of newly diagnosed MM both as part of induction and maintenance therapy. As a result, most patients at first or second relapse are LEN exposed/refractory creating a need for effective 2nd line and salvage therapies. While no standard of care regimen has been established in early relapse, several therapies have been evaluated combining second generation immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and daratumumab. We have previously reported the results from the phase I/II trial of KPd demonstrating excellent efficacy in a LEN-refractory patient population. Here, we present the first efficacy and safety results from the cohort in which DARA was added to KPd (D-KPd). Methods: This is a multi-center, open-label, Phase 1b/2 study in subjects with relapsed MM with two sequential treatment cohorts: KPd and D-KPd. Eligibility criteria and KPd doses and schedules were identical for both cohorts. Subjects with measurable disease that progressed after at least 1 prior therapy (LEN refractory disease was required for 2nd-line therapy and LEN refractory/exposed for ≥ 3rd line) were eligible. The KPd cohort has completed enrollment (n=67) and results have been previously reported. The D-KPd cohort received treatment on the following 28-day schedule: Pomalidomide 4 mg daily on days 1-21 for cycles 1-8+, Carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m2 on days 1,2,8,9,15,16 for C1-8, then 1,2,15,16 for C9+ (maintenance), dexamethasone 20 mg days 1,2,8,9,15,16,22,23 for C1-2, then 40 mg days 1,8,15,22 for C3+. DARA was administered as per standard schedule, weekly for the first 2 cycles, then every 2 weeks for cycles 3-6, and monthly thereafter. A Minimax two-stage design was employed for enrollment of subjects on this cohort. Twenty-one patients were required to accrue to the first stage, with at least 4 responders of ≥nCR at 4 cycles necessary to accrue to second stage for a total of 34 pts. Primary endpoint was rate of nCR/CR as per IMWG criteria. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was evaluated by 10-color flow cytometry with limit of detection (LOD) 10-4-10-5 and will also be assessed by next-generation sequencing (LOD 10-5-10-6). Secondary endpoints include overall response rate, depth of response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival. Per study design, a nCR/CR rate of >35% (over the historical 20% rate) would support further study of the D-KPd regimen. Results: As of July 29, 2020, all 22 subjects who were enrolled into the D-KPd cohort were evaluable for safety and the primary endpoint. Median age was 62 (range 37-74) with a median of 1 (range 1-3) prior lines of therapy. 81% of patients were LEN refractory, and high-risk cytogenetics per IMWG criteria were present in 12/19 (68%) evaluable patients. Subjects completed a median of 12.5 cycles (range 2-33) of therapy and 21 (95%) subjects completed at least 4 cycles; 1 subject progressed after cycle 2. In the ITT population (n=22), after 4 cycles, 86% achieved ≥PR and 46% ≥nCR, warranting further enrollment to a second stage. At best response, the ≥PR was 86% with 55% ≥nCR/CR, 45% ≥sCR, and 55% MRD negativity by flow cytometry (n=22). The most common grade 3-4 hematologic adverse events included neutropenia (64%), lymphopenia (36%), and febrile neutropenia (18%). The most common grade 3-4 non-hematologic adverse events included fatigue (27%), respiratory infections (23%), diarrhea (14%), and insomnia (14%). There was one thrombotic event (4.5%) which was grade 2. In comparison to the KPd cohort (67 patients with similar baseline characteristics), there was an improvement in efficacy as demonstrated by an increase in rate of ≥nCR at the end of 4 cycles (from 7% to 46%), as well as the best response (from 20% to 55%). High risk cytogenetics did not significantly affect response (≥nCR 46% at best response [all sCR]). With 20 months of follow-up, median PFS was not reached in the D-KPd cohort and 12-month PFS is 84% vs 63% for KPd. Rates of grade 3/4 cytopenias were higher in the D-KPd cohort. There was no treatment related mortality and 19 of 22 pts are alive. Conclusion: D-KPd demonstrates high efficacy in a population of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma enriched for high risk cytogenetics. MRD negativity by flow cytometry was achieved in 55% of subjects. The ≥nCR rate of 55% with D-KPd compares favorably to the 20% rate with KPd alone; based on the study design, this warrants further evaluation of D-KPd. Disclosures Zonder: BMS, Celgene: Research Funding; Intellia, Amgen, Takeda, Janssen, Regeneron, Alnylam, Caelum, Oncopeptides: Consultancy. Reece:Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding. Berdeja:Kesios: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Acetylon: Research Funding; Vivolux: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bioclinica: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellularity: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; CURIS: Research Funding; EMD Sorono: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Glenmark: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Lilly: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Bluebird: Research Funding; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Jakubowiak:Adaptive, Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie, Amgen, BMS/Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Karyopharm: 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 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)0,001
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 enseignants0,004
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,022

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,002
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)0,0020,001

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 Opus0,064
Tête enseignante GPT0,321
Écart entre enseignants0,256 · 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

Citations4
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→Travaux en français237 207→