MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4310126655 · doi:10.1182/blood-2022-158180

Iberdomide (IBER) in Combination with Dexamethasone (DEX) in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM): Results from the Anti-B-Cell Maturation Antigen (BCMA)-Exposed Cohort of the CC-220-MM-001 Trial

2022· article· en· W4310126655 sur OpenAlexaff
Sagar Lonial, Al‐Ola Abdallah, Faiz Anwer, Ashraf Badros, Manisha Bhutani, Abdullah Khan, Brea Lipe, Albert Oriol, Darrell White, Michael Amatangelo, Kexin Jin, Mark Masin, Vi Nguyen, Alpesh Amin, Paulo Maciag, Niels WCJ van de Donk

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueProtein Degradation and Inhibitors
Établissements canadiensQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreDalhousie University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMultiple myelomaMedicineDexamethasoneLenalidomideInternal medicineRefractory (planetary science)OncologyImmunologyBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: IBER, a novel, oral cereblon E3 ligase modulator (CELMoD®), has greater tumoricidal and immune-stimulatory effects compared with immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs®), and has shown marked synergy with DEX and other antimyeloma therapies in preclinical models. IBER is being investigated in the phase 1/2 CC-220-MM-001 (NCT02773030) and phase 3 EXCALIBER-RRMM (NCT04975997) studies with different treatment combinations in patients (pts) with RRMM. In phase 1 of CC-220-MM-001, IBER + DEX showed notable efficacy (overall response rate [ORR] 31.9%) and a manageable safety profile. Given the emergence of novel anti-BCMA therapies in RRMM, assessment of pts with prior anti-BCMA exposure is an important consideration. Here we report results from the dose-expansion phase of IBER + DEX in heavily pretreated, triple-class-exposed (including ≥ 1 IMiD agent, ≥ 1 proteasome inhibitor [PI], and ≥ 1 anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody [mAb]) pts with RRMM who had also received prior anti-BCMA therapy. Methods: Eligible pts had RRMM, had received ≥ 3 prior lines of therapy (including lenalidomide or pomalidomide, a PI, an anti-CD38 mAb, and an anti-BCMA therapy) and had documented progressive disease (PD) on or within 60 days of their last antimyeloma therapy (documented PD if chimeric antigen receptor [CAR] T cell therapy was the last therapy). IBER 1.6 mg was given orally on days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle, plus weekly DEX (40 mg; 20 mg if > 75 years of age). The primary objectives were to determine preliminary efficacy (ORR) and safety. Results: As of April 15, 2022, 38 pts had received IBER + DEX in the anti-BCMA-exposed cohort. Median age was 65 (range 50-78) years and median time since initial diagnosis was 7.8 (0.6-24.8) years. High-risk cytogenetics were present in 31.6% of pts (52.6% pts were not evaluable), and 23.7% of pts had extramedullary plasmacytomas. Median number of prior regimens was 7 (4-15). All pts were triple-class exposed. Prior anti-BCMA therapies included CAR T cell therapy (36.8%), antibody-drug conjugates (34.2%), and T-cell engagers (TCEs; 23.7%) (Table); 78.9% of pts were refractory to the last antimyeloma regimen and 84.2% were triple-class refractory. Median follow-up was 8.1 (range 1.5-24.2) months, with a median number of 3.5 (1-19) cycles received and 21.1% of pts continuing treatment. Discontinuation was due mainly to PD, reported in 68.4% of pts. ORR (≥ partial response) was 36.8%, with 2 (5.3%) complete responses, 5 (13.2%) very good partial responses, and 7 (18.4%) partial responses. Clinical benefit rate (≥ minimal response) was 39.5%. Responses were observed regardless of prior anti-BCMA therapy (Figure; updated data will be presented at the congress). Median duration of response was 7.5 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.2-not reached) months, median progression-free survival was 2.4 (95% CI 2.1-4.2) months, and median time to response was 1.4 (range 0.9-5.4) months. Grade (Gr) 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 30 (78.9%) pts and were mostly hematologic; most frequent (≥ 20% pts) were neutropenia (50.0%, with 5.3% cases of febrile neutropenia), anemia (28.9%), leukopenia (23.7%), and thrombocytopenia (21.1%). Gr 3/4 infections occurred in 23.7% of pts and included pneumonia (21.1%); the occurrence of other Gr 3/4 non-hematologic TEAEs was low and included hypokalemia, hypertension, and mood alterations (all 5.3%). Two (5.3%) deaths were reported (due to sepsis and PD) which were not considered related to study treatment. IBER dose interruptions and reductions occurred in 24 (63.2%) and 7 (18.4%) pts, respectively. No pts discontinued IBER due to TEAEs. Immunophenotyping showed comparable immunodeficiency (low absolute B-cell counts, T-cell counts, and CD4:CD8 ratio) between anti-BCMA-exposed pts and triple-class-exposed pts without prior anti-BCMA exposure; this was more pronounced following TCE-based therapies. Importantly, IBER + DEX remained immune-stimulatory in this population, increasing T- and NK-cell proliferation and T-cell activation. Conclusions: IBER + DEX showed encouraging efficacy and safety in pts with triple-class-exposed RRMM and prior anti-BCMA therapy. The results are comparable to those from Cohort D of the same study, which is assessing IBER + DEX in pts with triple-class refractory RRMM. These findings support further development of IBER in RRMM, including in anti-BCMA-exposed pts. Figure 1View largeDownload PPTFigure 1View largeDownload PPT Close modal

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)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: Expérimental (laboratoire)
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,209
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,453

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
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 Opus0,009
Tête enseignante GPT0,203
Écart entre enseignants0,195 · 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.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
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

Citations11
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetProtein Degradation and InhibitorsTravaux en français237 207