P05: DARATUMUMAB PLUS LENALIDOMIDE AND DEXAMETHASONE VERSUS LENALIDOMIDE AND DEXAMETHASONE ALONE IN PATIENTS WITH PREVIOUSLY TREATED MULTIPLE MYELOMA: OVERALL SURVIVAL RESULTS FROM THE PHASE 3 POLLUX TRIAL
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
(1) National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, (2) Institut Català d’Oncologia and Institut Josep Carreras, Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol, (3) Karolinska Institute, Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology, Karolinska University Hospital at Huddinge, (4) Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Centro de Investigación Médica Aplicada (CIMA), Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Navarra (IDISNA), CIBER-ONC, (5) Arnie Charbonneau Cancer Research Institute, University of Calgary, (6) Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, (7) Department of Haematology, University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, (8) Department of Lymphoma and Myeloma, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, (9) Japanese Red Cross Medical Center, Department of Hematology, (10) Vejle Hospital and University of Southern Denmark, (11) Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, (12) Hematology Department, Hadassah Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University, (13) Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, (14) University Hospital Heidelberg, Internal Medicine V and National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), (15) Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, (16) Genmab US, Inc., (17) Janssen Research & Development, LLC, (18) Janssen Research & Development, LLC, (19) Janssen Research & Development, LLC, (20) Hematology, University Hospital Hôtel-Dieu Introduction: Daratumumab (DARA) is a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody targeting CD38 that is approved in combination with standard-of-care regimens for pts with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) and as monotherapy and in combination with standard-of-care regimens for pts with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In the primary analysis of the phase 3 POLLUX study (median follow-up, 13.5 months), DARA plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (D-Rd) provided a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) alone, and key secondary endpoints (including time to disease progression, rate of very good partial response or better, overall response rate, and minimal residual disease [MRD]–negativity rate) showed a statistically significant benefit favoring D-Rd. Here, we report final overall survival (OS) and updated MRD-negativity and safety results after >6 years of follow-up. Methods: Pts with RRMM and ≥1 prior line of therapy were randomized 1:1 to receive D-Rd or Rd. All pts received 28-day cycles of Rd (R 25 mg PO on Days 1-21; d 40 mg QW). Pts in the D-Rd group also received DARA (16 mg/kg IV QW in Cycles 1-2, Q2W in Cycles 3-6, and Q4W thereafter). In both groups, pts were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was PFS; OS was a secondary endpoint. Results: In total, 569 pts were randomized (D-Rd, n=286; Rd, n=283). The median (range) age was 65 (34-89) years; pts had received a median (range) of 1 (1-11) prior lines of therapy. At a median (range) follow-up of 79.7 (0.0-86.5) months, the POLLUX study showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in OS with D-Rd versus Rd (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-0.91; P=0.0044 [crossing the prespecified stopping boundary of P<0.0331]), representing a 27% reduction in the risk of death in the D-Rd group (Figure). The median OS was 67.6 (95% CI, 53.1-80.5) months in the D-Rd group versus 51.8 (95% CI, 44.0-60.0) months in the Rd group. Prespecified subgroup analyses showed an OS improvement with D-Rd versus Rd in most subgroups, including pts aged ≥65 years; pts who had received 1, 2, or 3 prior lines of therapy; pts with International Staging System stage III disease; and pts who were refractory to a proteasome inhibitor or to their last prior line of therapy. D-Rd achieved significantly higher rates of MRD negativity (10–5) versus Rd (33.2% vs 6.7%; P<0.0001). The most common (≥10%) grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; D-Rd/Rd) were neutropenia (57.6%/41.6%), anemia (19.8%/22.4%), pneumonia (17.3%/11.0%), thrombocytopenia (15.5%/15.7%), and diarrhea (10.2%/3.9%). Rates of discontinuation due to TEAEs were comparable between treatment groups (D-Rd, 19.1%; Rd, 16.0 %). There were no new safety concerns identified with extended follow-up. Conclusion: Treatment with D-Rd significantly prolonged OS compared with Rd alone. These results, together with the OS results observed with DARA in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone in the phase 3 CASTOR study, demonstrate for the first time an OS benefit with DARA-containing regimens in RRMM. Our results support the use of DARA in pts with RRMM.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».