MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Final Analysis, Cytogenetics, Long-Term Treatment, and Long-Term Survival In MM-003, A Phase 3 Study Comparing Pomalidomide + Low-Dose Dexamethasone (POM + LoDEX) Vs High-Dose Dexamethasone (HiDEX) In Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM)

2013· article· en· W114597356 on OpenAlexaff
Meletios Α. Dimopoulos, Katja Weisel, Kevin Song, Michel Delforge, Lionel Karlin, Hartmut Goldschmidt, Philippe Moreau, Anne Banos, Albert Oriol, Laurent Garderet, Michèle Cavo, Valentina Ivanova, Adrían Alegre, Joaquín Martínez‐López, Christine I. Chen, Andrew Spencer, Stefan Knop, Nizar J. Bahlis, Christoph Renner, Xin Yu, Kevin Hong, Lars Sternås, Christian Jacques, Mohamed H. Zaki, Jesús F. San Miguel

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreVancouver General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPomalidomideMedicineLenalidomideInternal medicineTolerabilityClinical endpointDexamethasoneNeutropeniaPhases of clinical researchPopulationBortezomibIxazomibOncologyMultiple myelomaSurgeryAdverse effectRandomized controlled trialClinical trialToxicityCarfilzomib

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background RRMM patients (pts) who have exhausted novel agent treatment (Tx) have limited effective options and short overall survival (OS). The presence of high-risk cytogenetics predicts shorter OS (Kumar, 2012). POM is a distinct oral IMiD® immunomodulatory agent with direct anti-myeloma, stromal cell-support inhibitory, and immune modulatory effects (Quach, 2010). The US FDA approved POM for the Tx of pts with ≥ 2 prior Tx, including lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT), and progressive disease (PD) on or within 60 days of completion of the last line of Tx. POM + LoDEX has demonstrated significant progression-free survival (PFS) and OS benefits with a tolerable safety profile in RRMM (San Miguel, EHA 2013). MM-003 compared POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX in RRMM pts who exhausted BORT and LEN. Methods Pts had to be refractory to last prior Tx (PD during Tx or within 60 days) and exhausted BORT and LEN after ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of each (alone or in combination). Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive 28-day cycles of POM 4 mg D1-21 + DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) weekly or DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) D1-4, 9-12, and 17-20. HiDEX was chosen as the comparator to isolate the effects of POM as at the time of trial design it was the standard salvage Tx for heavily pre-treated pts. Tx continued until PD or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was PFS. Secondary endpoints included OS, overall response rate (ORR; ≥ partial response), duration of Tx (DoT), and safety. These endpoints were further explored in relation to pt characteristics, cytogenetics, and prior antimyeloma Tx. Modified high-risk cytogenetics were defined as the presence of del(17) and/or t(4;14). Results 455 pts were randomized to POM + LoDEX (n = 302) or HiDEX (n = 153). Pt characteristics were well balanced. Pts were heavily pretreated: median 5 prior Tx (range, 2-17); 75% were refractory to BORT and LEN. Modified high-risk cytogenetics were detected in 25% of POM + LoDEX pts and 23% of HiDEX pts. With a median follow-up of 10 mos, POM + LoDEX significantly extended PFS and OS vs HiDEX (Figure). The OS benefit was observed despite 50% of HiDEX pts receiving subsequent POM. ORR was 31% vs 10% (P < .001). Advantages in ORR and median PFS were maintained for POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX regardless of modified high-risk cytogenetics (ORR: 23% vs 6%, P = .032; PFS: 3.8 vs 1.1 mos, HR = 0.46, P < .001) or standard-risk cytogenetics (ORR: 34% vs 7%, P < .001; PFS: 4.2 vs 2.3 mos, HR = 0.50, P < .001). Favorable median OS was observed regardless of cytogenetics (modified high risk: 9.9 vs 4.9 mos, HR = 0.69, P = .16; standard risk: 14.1 vs 10.0 mos, HR = 0.85, P = .42). Of note, 43% of HiDEX pts with high-risk and 56% of HiDEX pts with standard-risk cytogenetics received subsequent POM. Median DoT for all pts was 4.2 mos for POM + LoDEX pts and 3.9 mos for HiDEX pts receiving subsequent POM. To date, 27 (9%) POM + LoDEX pts have a DoT > 12 mos; 5 pts have received > 12 mos of POM after HiDEX. POM + LoDEX pts with DoT > 12 mos had lower baseline β2-microglobulin (β2-M) levels (52% vs 29% with β2-M < 3.5 mg/mL), higher serum albumin (85% vs 63% with ≥ 3.5 g/dL), and higher hemoglobin levels (70% vs 45% grade 0/1 hemoglobin) vs pts with POM DoT ≤ 12 mos. Importantly, for DoT > 12 mos vs ≤ 12 mos, there were no differences by LEN-refractory disease (95% vs 96%) or refractoriness to LEN as last prior Tx (30% vs 28%). Other similarly distributed factors included presence of modified high-risk cytogenetics, ISS stage, and ECOG performance status (PS; 0-1 vs 2). Similar trends were observed for pts with OS > 12 mos vs ≤ 12 mos and HiDEX pts receiving subsequent POM. The most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) for POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX were neutropenia (48% vs 16%), anemia (33% vs 37%), and infections (30% vs 24%). Grade 3/4 DVT/PE was infrequent (1% vs 0%). Only 1% of pts in each arm experienced grade 3/4 peripheral neuropathy. Discontinuation due to AEs was low: 9% vs 10%. Conclusions This final analysis further confirms the significant PFS and OS benefits for POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX. High-risk cytogenetics did not impact median PFS for pts receiving POM + LoDEX. In this heavily pretreated population, 9% of POM + LoDEX pts had a DoT > 12 mos. Interestingly, no trends were observed in pts who received long-term Tx with regards to LEN as last prior Tx, high-risk cytogenetics, PS, or disease stage. POM + LoDEX should be considered a standard Tx option in RRMM pts with prior BORT and LEN. Disclosures: Dimopoulos: Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: POM is approved in the US but not in Europe. Weisel:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Song:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Delforge:Celgene: Honoraria. Karlin:Celgene: Export board committee Other, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Goldschmidt:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Moreau:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Oriol:Celgene: Consultancy. Cavo:Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Alegre:Janssen: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Martinez-Lopez:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Chen:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Spencer:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Knop:Celgene: Honoraria. Bahlis:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Renner:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Travel support Other. Yu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hong:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sternas:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jacques:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. San Miguel:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicMultiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207