MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

MM-003 Phase 3 Study Of Pomalidomide In Combination With Low-Dose Dexamethasone (POM + LoDEX) Vs High-Dose Dexamethasone (HiDEX) In Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM): POM + Lodex Is Beneficial For Elderly Patients (> 65 Years of Age)

2013· article· en· W2409224885 on OpenAlexaff
Katja Weisel, Jesús F. San Miguel, 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, Stefan Knop, Xin Yu, Latisha Watkins, Lars Sternås, Christian Jacques, Mohamed H. Zaki, Meletios Α. Dimopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreVancouver General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPomalidomideMedicineDexamethasoneMultiple myelomaInternal medicineOncologyLenalidomide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background RRMM patients (pts) who have exhausted bortezomib (BORT) and lenalidomide (LEN) or thalidomide treatment (Tx) have short overall survival (OS; Kumar, 2012). MM pt survival decreases with increased age (Pulte, 2011). POM is a distinct oral IMiD® immunomodulatory agent with direct anti-myeloma, stromal cell–support inhibition, and immune-modulation activities (Quach, 2010). The US FDA approved POM for the Tx of pts who have received ≥ 2 prior Tx, including LEN and BORT, and have demonstrated disease progression (PD) on or within 60 days of completion of the last line of Tx. POM + LoDEX has demonstrated clinical benefit in pts aged ≤ 65 y and > 65 y (Jagannath, EHA 2013; Leleu, 2013). The randomized phase 3 study MM-003 demonstrated significant progression-free survival (PFS) and OS benefits for POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX, despite half of HiDEX pts subsequently receiving POM (San Miguel, EHA 2013). This analysis examined outcomes based on age (≤ 65 y vs > 65 y). 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 pretreated pts. Tx continued until PD or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was PFS. Secondary endpoints included OS, overall response rate (ORR; ≥ partial response), and safety. Results 455 pts were randomized to POM + LoDEX (n = 302) or HiDEX (n = 153). 45% (135/302) of POM + LoDEX pts and 47% (72/153) of HiDEX pts were aged > 65 y. Since only 8% of POM + LoDEX and HiDEX pts were aged > 75 y, this analysis focused on pts aged ≤ 65 y vs > 65 y. Pts aged ≤ 65 y were more likely to have prior stem cell transplant (91% vs 45%), better renal function (creatinine clearance [CrCl] ≥ 60 mL/min: 78% vs 51%), and less advanced disease (ISS stage III: 28% vs 38%) vs pts aged > 65 y. For pts aged > 65 y, HiDEX pts were less likely to have CrCl ≥ 60 mL/min vs POM + LoDEX (43% vs 55%). All groups had a median of 5 prior Tx. Median follow-up was 10 mos. POM + LoDEX significantly extended PFS vs HiDEX in all pts, with similar benefits observed for pts aged ≤ 65 y or > 65 y (Table). For all pts, OS was significantly longer for POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX, with favorable results for POM + LoDEX in both age subgroups despite a large proportion of HiDEX pts subsequently receiving POM (Table). ORR was significantly higher for POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX in all pts and both age groups (Table). Median duration of POM Tx was similar in pts aged ≤ 65 y (4.4 mos) and > 65 y (4.0 mos). The most common grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) for pts aged ≤ 65 y (POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX) were neutropenia (50% vs 20%), anemia (35% vs 39%), and infections (31% vs 19%). Neutropenia (45% vs 11%), anemia (30% vs 34%), and infections (30% in both arms) were also the most frequent grade 3/4 AEs for pts aged > 65 y. Grade 3/4 DVT/PE was infrequent (POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX): 1% vs 0% (≤ 65 y) and 1% vs 0% (> 65 y). Grade 3/4 peripheral neuropathy was also infrequent: 1% vs 2% (≤ 65 y) and 1% vs 0% (> 65 y). Discontinuation due to AE was low in pts aged ≤ 65 y (POM + LoDEX: 6%; HiDEX 10%) and > 65 y (POM + LoDEX: 12%; HiDEX: 11%). Importantly, the median relative POM dose intensity was consistent at 90% for both age groups. Conclusion POM + LoDEX significantly extended PFS, with comparable benefits across age groups (approximately 50% reduction in rate of progression). OS results were similar to that of the overall pt population, and favored POM + LoDEX in both age groups. Tolerability profiles were consistent for pts ≤ 65 y or > 65 y. POM at 4 mg appears to be a feasible starting dose for pts aged > 65 y. These data support considering POM + LoDEX as a standard Tx option in RRMM pts regardless of age. Disclosures: Weisel: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Off Label Use: POM is approved in the US but not in Europe. San Miguel:Onyx: 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; Millenium: 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; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. 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:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Moreau:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Oriol:Celgene: Consultancy. Cavo:Bristol-Myers Squibb: 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; Millennium: 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; Celgene: 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. Knop:Celgene: Honoraria. Yu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Watkins:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sternas:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jacques:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Dimopoulos:Celgene: 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
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)0.0060.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→