MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4252341638 · doi:10.1182/blood-2019-123483

Four-Year Follow-up of the Phase 3 Pollux Study of Daratumumab Plus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone (D-Rd) Versus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone (Rd) Alone in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM)

2019· article· en· W4252341638 sur OpenAlexaff
Jonathan L. Kaufman, Saad Z. Usmani, Jesús F. San Miguel, Nizar J. Bahlis, Darrell White, Lotfi Benboubker, Gordon Cook, Merav Leiba, P. Joy Ho, Kihyun Kım, Naoki Takezako, Philippe Moreau, Maria Krevvata, Huiling Pei, Jon Ukropec, Thomas Renaud, Sonali Trivedi, Rachel Kobos, Meletios Α. Dimopoulos

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensDalhousie UniversityQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreInstitute of Cancer ResearchUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLenalidomideDaratumumabMedicineInternal medicineDexamethasoneMultiple myelomaOncologySurgeryGastroenterology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Daratumumab, a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody targeting CD38 with a direct on-tumor and immunomodulatory mechanism of action, is approved in combination with standard-of-care regimens for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) and RRMM. When combined with standard of care regimens across four phase 3 studies, daratumumab demonstrated ≥44% reductions in the risk of progression or death, nearly doubled complete response (CR) or better rates, and tripled minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative rates at the 10-5 sensitivity threshold in pts with RRMM or NDMM (Palumbo A, et al. N Engl J Med 2016. 375[8]:754-766; Dimopoulos MA, et al. N Engl J Med 2016. 375[14]:1319-1331; Mateos MV, et al. N Engl J Med 2018. 378[6]:518-528; Facon T, et al. N Engl J Med 2019. 380[22]2104-2015). In the phase 3 POLLUX study (median follow-up 44.3 months), D-Rd reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 56% and significantly increased the overall response rate (ORR) versus Rd alone (93% vs 76%; P <0.0001) in patients (pts) with RRMM. Here, we present updated efficacy and safety analyses of POLLUX after >4 years of median follow-up. Methods: Pts who received ≥1 prior line of therapy were randomized (1:1) to Rd (lenalidomide 25 mg PO on Days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle; dexamethasone 40 mg per week) ± daratumumab (16 mg/kg IV QW for Cycles 1-2, Q2W for Cycles 3-6, then Q4W until disease progression). Cytogenetic risk was determined by local fluorescence in situ hybridization or karyotyping; pts with high cytogenetic risk had t(4;14), t(14;16), and del17p abnormalities. PFS on subsequent line of therapy (PFS2), an exploratory endpoint, was defined as time from randomization to progression after next line of subsequent therapy or death. Results: A total of 569 pts were randomized (D-Rd, n = 286; Rd, n = 283). At a median follow-up of 51.3 months, D-Rd significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus Rd (median 45.8 vs 17.5 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35-0.54; P <0.0001; Figure). D-Rd also prolonged PFS versus Rd among pts with 1 prior line of therapy, among pts with 1-3 prior lines of therapy, and regardless of cytogenetic risk status (Table). A PFS benefit with D-Rd was also observed among pts who received prior lenalidomide (median 38.8 vs 18.6 months; HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.19-0.59; P <0.0001) and among pts refractory to bortezomib (median 34.3 vs 11.3 months; HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.25-0.68; P = 0.0004). D-Rd was associated with a significantly higher ORR versus Rd (93% vs 76%), including higher rates of ≥very good partial response (81% vs 49%) and ≥CR (57% vs 24%; all P <0.0001). Median time to next therapy for D-Rd versus Rd was not reached in the D-Rd group versus 22.8 months in the Rd group (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.30-0.49; P <0.0001). D-Rd significantly prolonged PFS2 versus Rd (median 53.3 vs 31.6 months; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.43-0.68; P <0.0001). In the D-Rd group, 121 deaths were observed versus 133 deaths in the Rd group; follow-up for overall survival is ongoing. The median duration of treatment was 34.3 months in the D-Rd arm versus 16.0 months in the Rd arm. The most common (≥10%) grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) observed with D-Rd versus Rd included neutropenia (56% vs 42%), anemia (18% vs 22%), thrombocytopenia (15% vs 16%), pneumonia (16% vs 10%), and diarrhea (10% vs 4%). Similar rates of discontinuations due to TEAEs were observed for D-Rd versus Rd (16% vs 15%). The incidence of invasive second primary malignancies was 4.9% and 5.7% for the D-Rd and Rd groups, respectively. Additional efficacy data, including minimal residual disease, and safety analyses will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion: After >4 years of median follow-up, D-Rd continues to demonstrate a significant PFS benefit and higher rates of deeper responses versus Rd alone in pts with RRMM. Although significant PFS benefit was observed with D-Rd in RRMM pts regardless of prior lines of therapy or cytogenetic risk status, the greatest benefit was observed when used in patients treated earlier with D-Rd. The significant improvement in PFS2 suggests a potential survival benefit, but OS data is still immature. No new safety concerns were identified with this additional follow-up. Disclosures Kaufman: Celgene: Consultancy; Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University: Employment; Takeda: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Usmani:Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, SkylineDX, Takeda: Other: Consultant/Advisor; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Amgen Array Biopharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Takeda: Other: Research Grant. San-Miguel:Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bahlis:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. White:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cook:Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squib, GlycoMimetics, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi: Honoraria; Janssen, Takeda, Sanofi, Karyopharm, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ho:Novartis: Other: Trial Investigator meeting travel costs; La Jolla: Other: Trial Investigator meeting travel costs; Janssen: Other: Trial Investigator meeting travel costs; Celgene: Other: Trial Investigator meeting travel costs. Moreau:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Krevvata:Janssen: Employment. Pei:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ukropec:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Renaud:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Trivedi:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kobos:Janssen: Employment. Dimopoulos:Sanofi Oncology: Research Funding.

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)0,011
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,008
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 randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,011
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,056

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0110,008
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,005
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,005
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 Opus0,052
Tête enseignante GPT0,319
Écart entre enseignants0,266 · 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 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

Citations35
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetMultiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207