MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4417042055 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-lba-6

Phase 3 randomized study of teclistamab plus daratumumab versus investigator’s choice of daratumumab and dexamethasone with either pomalidomide or Bortezomib (DPd/DVd) in patients (Pts) with relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): Results of majestec-3

2025· article· en· W4417042055 sur OpenAlexaff
María-Victoria Mateos, Nizar J. Bahlis, Aurore Perrot, Ajay K. Nooka, Jin Lu, Charlotte Pawlyn, Roberto Mina, Gastón Caeiro, Alain Kentos, Vânia Hungria, Donna Reece, Ting Niu, Anne K. Mylin, Charlotte T. Hansen, Raphael Teipel, Britta Besemer, Meletios Α. Dimopoulos, Elena Zamagni, Satoshi Yoshihara, Kihyun Kım, Chang‐Ki Min, Paulus A.F. Geerts, Elena van Leeuwen-Segarceanu, Agata Tyczyńska, Juan Luis Reguera, Magnus Johansson, Markus Hansson, Mehmet Turgut, Mark Grey, Surbhi Sidana, Paula Rodríguez‐Otero, Joaquín Martínez‐López, Hamza Hashmi, Rachel Kobos, Weili Sun, Kristen Lantz, Anne Seifert, Debbie Briseno-Toomey, Lisa O’Rourke, Ingrid Maria Cecilia Rubin, Diego Vieyra, Lijuan Kang, Luciano J. Costa

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDaratumumabPomalidomideLenalidomideMultiple myelomaBortezomibDexamethasoneRefractory (planetary science)DosingRegimen

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: In RRMM, increasing rates of pt attrition and decreasing durability of responses with each line of therapy (LOT) necessitate early treatment (tx) with the most effective therapies. Immunotherapies that are widely accessible across different MM tx settings have the potential to change the trajectory of RRMM. Teclistamab (Tec), the first approved BCMA×CD3 bispecific antibody (BsAb) for heavily pretreated RRMM, provided deep, durable responses in MajesTEC-1, with improved efficacy and safety in earlier LOTs. Daratumumab (Dara), a standard-of-care (SoC) foundational CD38 targeted therapy with direct on-tumor activity, has been shown to deplete immunosuppressive T-cells and expand cytotoxic T-cells, creating an immune-permissive microenvironment for synergistic Tec-mediated killing of MM cells. MajesTEC-3 (NCT05083169) evaluates Tec-Dara vs SoC DPd/DVd in RRMM. We report initial results for this first phase 3 study of BsAb therapy in MM. Methods: Eligible pts had 1-3 prior LOTs including a PI and lenalidomide (Len; pts with 1 prior LOT must have been Len-refractory) with progressive disease (PD) on or after the last LOT. Pts with prior BCMA-directed therapy or refractory to anti-CD38 were excluded; prior anti-CD38 exposure was permitted. Pts were randomized 1:1 to Tec-Dara or DPd/DVd. The Tec-Dara group received 28-day cycles (C) of Tec (1.5 mg/kg QW in C1-2 [C1 preceded by the approved step-up dose schedule]; 3 mg/kg Q2W in C3-6; and 3 mg/kg Q4W in C7+) with Dara; steroids were not required after C1 Day 8. Tec and Dara dosing were aligned with the approved Dara schedule. DPd/DVd were administered per approved schedules. Progression-free survival (PFS) by IRC was the primary endpoint; secondary endpoints included complete response or better (≥CR), overall response, minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity (10–5; next-generation sequencing), overall survival (OS), time to worsening of symptoms (MySIm-Q), and safety. Results: 587 pts were randomized (Tec-Dara, n=291; DPd/DVd, n=296). Median (range) age was 64 (25-88) yrs, median number of prior LOTs was 2 (1-3). With 34.5-mo median follow-up, Tec-Dara significantly improved PFS vs DPd/DVd (HR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.12-0.23; P<0.0001); mPFS was NR and 18.1 mo, and 36-mo PFS rate was 83.4% and 29.7%, respectively. PFS benefit was consistent across all prespecified and clinically relevant pt subgroups, including age ≥75 yrs, Len-refractory, high-risk cytogenetics, ≥60% bone marrow plasma cells, soft-tissue plasmacytomas, and anti-CD38 exposed. Significantly higher rates of ≥CR (81.8% vs 32.1%; OR, 9.56; 95% CI, 6.47-14.14), overall response (89.0% vs 75.3%; OR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.68-4.18), and MRD-negativity (58.4% vs 17.1%; OR, 6.78; 95% CI, 4.53-10.15) were observed with Tec-Dara (P<0.0001). There were 45 deaths with Tec-Dara and 96 with DPd/DVd, primarily due to PD (4.6%; 20.3%). OS significantly favored Tec-Dara (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32-0.65; P<0.0001), including across all prespecified subgroups. The 36-mo OS rates were 83.3% and 65.0%, respectively and >90% of Tec-Dara pts alive at 6 mo were also alive at 30 mo. Median time to worsening of MM symptoms was NR with Tec-Dara vs 39.9 mo with DPd/DVd (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.34-0.72; P=0.0002). At data cutoff, 49.4% of pts remained on study tx (Tec-Dara, 71.0%; DPd/DVd, 28.3%). Median tx duration was twice as long with Tec-Dara vs DPd/DVd (32.4 vs 16.1 mo). Frequency of grade 3/4 (Tec-Dara, 95.1%; DPd/DVd, 96.6%) and grade 5 (7.8%; 6.2%) treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), were comparable (safety set: Tec-Dara, n=283; DPd/DVd, n=290). Serious TEAEs occurred in 70.7% Tec-Dara and 62.4% DPd/DVd pts; tx discontinuations due to TEAEs were low (4.6% vs 5.5%). Any grade infections occurred in 96.5% and 84.1% of Tec-Dara and DPd/DVd pts, respectively; grade 3/4 infections occurred in 54.1% and 43.4%. New onset grade ≥3 infections decreased over time, coinciding with transition to Q4W dosing and supported by antimicrobial and Ig prophylaxis guidance. CRS rate was 60.1% (grade 1/2: 44.2%/15.9%) and ICANS was 1.1% with Tec-Dara. Conclusion: We demonstrate the clinically remarkable and statistically significant PFS and OS benefits of Tec-Dara vs SoC triplets in RRMM, with 83.4% of Tec-Dara pts alive and progression-free at 3 yrs. Infections with Tec-Dara were well managed with established protocols. This highly effective, off-the-shelf, immunotherapy combination represents a new SoC for RRMM as early as first relapse.

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)0,003
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 randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,007
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,022

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,003
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,001

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 Opus0,028
Tête enseignante GPT0,318
Écart entre enseignants0,291 · 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

Citations9
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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