MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4389222230 · doi:10.1182/blood-2023-174443

Mezigdomide (MEZI) Plus Dexamethasone (DEX) and Daratumumab (DARA) or Elotuzumab (ELO) in Patients (pts) with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM): Results from the CC-92480-MM-002 Trial

2023· article· en· W4389222230 sur OpenAlexaff
Paul G. Richardson, Irwindeep Sandhu, Craig C. Hofmeister, Robert Z. Orlowski, Darrell White, Angelo Belotti, Charlotte Toftmann Hansen, Noopur Raje, Tracy T. Chow, Zehua Zhou, Tiziana Civardi, Phillip J. Koo, Yue Zhu, Jessica Katz, Albert Oriol

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreDalhousie University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineDaratumumabInternal medicineLenalidomideMultiple myelomaRegimenDexamethasoneOncologyGastroenterology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction : MEZI is a novel oral cereblon E3 ligase modulator (CELMoD ™) with enhanced tumoricidal and immune-modulatory effects compared with immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs ®). In preclinical studies, MEZI showed synergy with anti-myeloma drugs including DEX, proteasome inhibitors (PIs), and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), and is being assessed in the phase 1/2 CC-92480-MM-002 (NCT03989414) trial with different treatment combinations in RRMM. Here we report the preliminary efficacy and safety of MEZI, DARA, and DEX (MeziDd) over 3 dosing schedules, as well as MEZI, ELO and DEX (MeziEd), in pts with RRMM. Methods : Eligible pts had: RRMM, received 2-4 prior lines of therapy, a minimal response or better to ≥ 1 prior regimen, and disease progression during or after their last therapy. In the MeziDd cohort, oral MEZI was given at escalating doses on days (D) 1-21 per 28-D cycle (C) (subcohort B1); on D1-14 per 21-D cycle from C1-8 and D1-21 per 28-D cycle ≥ C9 (subcohort B2); or on D1-7 and D15-21 per 28-D cycle from C1-6 and D1-21 per 28-D cycle ≥ C7 (subcohort B3). Intravenous (IV; 16 mg/kg) or subcutaneous (1800 mg) DARA was given weekly (C1-2), then biweekly (C3-6), and monthly (≥ C7) for subcohorts B1 and B3, and weekly (C1-3) then on D1 of each 21-D (C4-8) or 28-D (≥ C9) cycle for subcohort B2; with weekly oral/IV DEX (40 mg; 20 mg > 75 y or body mass index < 18.5 kg/m 2). In the MeziEd cohort, oral MEZI was given at escalating doses on D1-21 per 28-D cycle, with weekly (C1-2; 10 mg/kg) then monthly (≥ C3; 20 mg/kg) IV ELO, and oral/IV DEX on ELO dosing days (36 mg; 16 mg > 75 y) plus on D8, 15, and 22 of ≥ C3 (40 mg; 20 mg > 75 y). Thromboembolism (TE) prophylaxis was given within 48 hours of C1D1 and until 48 hours after last MEZI dose. Primary objectives were to determine the recommended dose and regimen and to assess safety and preliminary efficacy as overall response rate (ORR). Results : As of the May 25, 2023 data cut, 57 pts were enrolled and had received MeziDd (B1: n = 23; B2: n = 16; B3: n = 18) at the 0.3 mg or 0.6 mg dose. Median age was 67 (range, 45-83) y, median time since initial diagnosis was 8.2 (1.0-15.8) y, and median number of prior regimens was 2 (2-5). Prior therapies included stem cell transplantation (15.8%), IMiD agents (100%), PIs (98.2%), and anti-CD38 mAbs (8.8%); 82.5% of pts were refractory to IMiD agents and 61.4% to PIs. Extramedullary plasmacytomas were present in 4 (7.0%) pts. Forty-five of 57 (78.9%) pts continued treatment; the main reason for discontinuation was progressive disease (5 pts; 8.8%). In the safety population (n = 56), ORR was 75.0% overall, with 2 (3.6%) stringent complete responses, 8 (14.3%) complete responses, 16 (28.6%) very good partial responses, and 16 (28.6%) partial responses (Figure). Duration of response and progression-free survival data were not yet mature. Grade (Gr) 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 43/56 (76.8%) pts and were mostly hematologic (Table). Gr 3/4 neutropenia occurred in 30 (53.6%) pts; Gr 3/4 thrombocytopenia occurred in 4 (7.1%) pts (3/4 pts were in subcohort B1-0.6 mg) and was not associated with bleeding. Gr 3/4 infections occurred in 11 (19.6%) pts and proved manageable in all cases (Table). Non-hematologic Gr 3/4 TEAEs were low. No Gr 3/4 TE or peripheral neuropathy was observed. MEZI dose reductions were needed for 7 (30.4%) pts in subcohort B1 (1 at 0.3 mg, 6 at 0.6 mg) and 1 (5.6%) pt in subcohort B3 (at 0.6 mg). In the evaluable population (n = 35), 5 (14.3%) pts had ≥ 1 dose-limiting toxicity. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached. MeziDd had pharmacodynamically active immune stimulation in T and NK cells in all 3 schedules and both doses. Twenty pts received MeziEd at 0.3 mg (n = 11) or 0.6 mg (n = 9); median prior lines of therapy was 3 (2-4) and 3 (2-5), and most pts (72.7% and 100%) had prior anti-CD38 mAb exposure. ORRs were 36% and 56%, respectively. The safety profile was consistent with known TEAEs and was generally well tolerated, although 2 Gr 3 pulmonary embolisms occurred. Conclusions : MeziDd showed promising efficacy and a manageable safety profile in pts with RRMM and 2-4 prior lines of therapy, as did MeziEd in pts with prior anti-CD38 mAb therapy. The immune activity of MEZI was consistent with previous preclinical reports. Improved safety and efficacy may be achieved by schedule and dose adjustments. These results support further evaluation of MEZI plus anti-myeloma mAbs in phase 1/2 and phase 3 studies. Updated results will be presented at the meeting.

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)0,001
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 enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,007

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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 Opus0,037
Tête enseignante GPT0,283
Écart entre enseignants0,247 · 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

Citations13
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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