MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3113309259 · doi:10.1182/blood-2021-147101

Part 1 Results of a Dose-Finding Study of Belantamab Mafodotin in Combination with Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone for the Treatment of Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM)

2021· article· en· W3113309259 sur OpenAlexaff
Suzanne Trudel, Arleigh McCurdy, Heather J. Sutherland, Martha Louzada, Christopher P. Venner, Hira Mian, Rami Kotb, Ibraheem Othman, Fernando Camacho, Engin Gul, Donna Reece, Darrell White, Molei Fu

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensDalhousie UniversityJuravinski Cancer CentreQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreUniversity of AlbertaLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern UniversityCancerCare ManitobaVancouver General HospitalOttawa HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPomalidomideLenalidomideMedicineMultiple myelomaDosingDexamethasoneInternal medicineRefractory (planetary science)PharmacologyAdverse effectOncologyGastroenterology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) is a first-in-class antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) targeting B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) that has shown clinically meaningful activity as a single agent in relapse/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Pre-clinical studies demonstrate that the immune mediated anti-myeloma activities of belamaf are enhanced by immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) providing the rationale for combining Belamaf with pomalidomide (POM). The Algonquin study is an ongoing Phase 1/2 trial designed to evaluate the recommended Part 2 dose (RP2D), safety, and preliminary efficacy of belamaf in combination with POM and dexamethasone (DEX) (B-Pd) in patients (pts) with RRMM. The initial data from the dose-escalation phase of the study identified 2.5 mg/kg in combination with standard dosing of POM/DEX as the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) (Trudel et al. ASH 2020). Here we report updated safety and efficacy data and additional dosing cohorts used to identify the RP2D. Methods: Eligibility required > 1 prior lines of treatment (LoT), lenalidomide (LEN) and proteasome inhibitor (PI) exposure and refractoriness to the last LoT. POM was administered at 4 mg days 21/28 days, DEX 40 mg (20 mg age > 75 years) weekly in conjunction with IV belamaf SINGLE (1.92 or 2.5 mg/kg) Q4W, 2.5 mg/kg LOADING dose followed by 1.92 mg/kg Q4W from cycle 2+, 2.5 mg/kg dosed Q8W (BIMONTHLY) or Q12W (TRIMONTHLY), or belamaf SPLIT (2.5 or 3.4 mg/kg), split equally on days 1 and 8 Q4W. Dose escalation was accomplished using a standard 3+3 dose escalation design. Responses were assessed by International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria and adverse events (AEs) were graded by CTCAE criteria except for corneal findings which were also graded by the pre-specified keratopathy and visual acuity (KVA) scale. Up to 12 pts could be enrolled at dose levels not exceeding the MTD to inform the R2PD. Results: At cut-off (July 15, 2021), 60 pts had been enrolled in the following dose levels and schedules: 1.92 SINGLE (n=12), 2.5 SINGLE (n=7), 2.5 LOADING (n=5), 2.5 BIMONTHLY (n=12), 2.5 TRIMONTHLY (n=11), 2.5 SPLIT (n=8) and 3.4 SPLIT (n=5). The median age was 65 years (range 36-81) and median prior LoT was 3 (1-5). Prior therapies (exposed/refractory) included stem cell transplant (57%), PI (100%/82%), LEN (100%/90%) and daratumumab (DARA) (58%/100%). 76% were refractory to LEN and a PI and 48% to LEN, a PI and DARA. The most frequent AEs regardless of attribution were keratopathy (an ophthalmologic finding) (96.9%), blurred vision (87.5%), fatigue (59.4%), neutropenia (62.5%), thrombocytopenia (50%), fever (46.9%), diarrhea (34.4%), constipation (34.4%), and dry eye (28.1%). Grade 3/4 AEs reported in >20% of pts across all cohorts, were keratopathy (56.7%), neutropenia (38.3%), thrombocytopenia (35%) and blurred vision (30%). Corneal safety profile by dosing cohort as well as dose reductions and dose delays used to manage corneal AEs are listed in Table 1. Two patients discontinued treatment due to AEs (one G4 decreased visual acuity and one G3 elevated ALT) while no grade 5 AEs were observed. At cut-off, 54/60 patients were evaluable for response. Across all cohorts the ORR was 88.9% (11 PR, 24 VGPR, and 13 sCR). Responses by dosing cohort are summarized in Table 1. At a median follow up of 8.6 months (range 0.9-27.9) the median PFS was 24.2 months (95% CI: 14.1, NYR). Conclusions: The safety profile of B-Pd is consistent with that observed for Pd or Belamaf individually. All dosing cohorts demonstrate deep and durable responses however the 2.5 mg/kg dose appears to have better efficacy. The 2.5 BIMONTHLY dosing schedule has been selected for the Part 2 cohort expansion based on optimized safety and efficacy. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Trudel: Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding. McCurdy: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sutherland: Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Louzada: Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Venner: Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; BMS: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Mian: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kotb: Pfizer: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Takeda: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Akcea: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Othman: Sanofi: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Camacho: Janssen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Bausch-Health: Consultancy. Reece: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria. White: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Forus: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: belantamab and pomalidomide in combination

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)0,002
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 enseignants0,004
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,013

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,002
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,001

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 Opus0,050
Tête enseignante GPT0,313
Écart entre enseignants0,263 · 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

Citations22
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetMultiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207