MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Analysis of Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma with Vs without Moderate Renal Impairment

2015· article· en· W2518878080 on OpenAlexaffabout
David S. Siegel, Katja Weisel, Meletios Α. Dimopoulos, Rachid Baz, Paul G. Richardson, Michel Delforge, Kevin Song, Jesús F. San Miguel, Philippe Moreau, Xin Yu, Kevin Hong, Lars Sternås, Mohamed H. Zaki, Antonio Palumbo

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsVancouver General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPomalidomideMedicineLenalidomideNeutropeniaInternal medicineDexamethasoneMultiple myelomaSurgeryRefractory (planetary science)PopulationUrologyGastroenterologyToxicity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Renal impairment (RI) occurs in ≈ 20% to 40% of patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM; Kastritis et al, Haematologica, 2007) and is a major comorbidity with this disease (Korbet et al, J Am Soc Nephrol, 2006). Pts with MM who relapse on or become refractory to treatment (Tx) experience shortened overall survival (OS; Kumar et al, Leukemia, 2012). Pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone (POM + LoDEX) is approved for the Tx of relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) in pts who have had Tx failure with lenalidomide and/or bortezomib. POM + LoDEX demonstrated safety and efficacy in pts with RRMM (MM-010; Dimopoulos et al, EHA 2015) as well as extended progression-free survival (PFS) and OS vs high-dose dexamethasone (MM-003; San Miguel et al, Lancet Oncol, 2013) or POM alone (MM-002; Richardson et al, Blood, 2014). Each trial included pts with moderate RI, and this pooled analysis examines the safety and efficacy of POM + LoDEX in pts with moderate RI. Patients and Methods: Pts from MM-002, MM-003, and MM-010 who had received POM + LoDEX were grouped by RI status (with moderate RI [creatinine clearance (CrCl) ≥ 30 to < 60 mL/min] and without RI [CrCl ≥ 60 mL/min]) and assessed for safety and efficacy. Results: Overall, from the 3 trials, data from 356 pts with moderate RI and 716 pts without RI were analyzed. Pts with moderate RI were slightly older (70 vs 63 yrs) and more commonly had International Staging System stage III disease (45.8% vs 25.4% in the 271 and 544 pts with available data). Median time from diagnosis was similar, 5.2 yrs (with moderate RI) vs 5.3 years (without RI); pts in both subgroups had a median of 5 prior Tx. The proportions of pts with moderate RI vs without RI who were refractory to LEN (95.5% vs 93.0%), BORT (82.0% vs 80.7%), and both LEN and BORT (78.4% vs 76.1%) were similar. The median Tx duration was slightly shorter for pts with moderate RI vs without RI (16.6 vs 20.4 weeks), but the median average daily dose (4.0 mg/day) and median relative dose intensity (0.9) were the same between renal subgroups. There were similar frequencies of discontinuations (7.4% vs 5.8%), dose reductions (22.7% vs 21.1%), and interruptions (63.1% vs 63.5%) due to adverse events (AEs) between subgroups of pts with moderate RI vs without RI. The most common grade 3/4 AEs for pts with moderate RI vs without RI were neutropenia (45.5% vs 48.3%), anemia (34.9% vs 27.5%), infections (31.3% vs 32.3%), and thrombocytopenia (21.3% vs 22.6%). The frequency of deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism or peripheral neuropathy was ≤ 2% in both subgroups. The overall response rate (ORR) was 32.0% vs 33.0%, the median PFS was 18.1 weeks (95% CI, 15.6-20.9 weeks) vs 21.1 weeks (95% CI, 19.0-24.3 weeks), and median time to progression (TTP) was 20.3 weeks (95% CI, 17.3-24.1 weeks) vs 24.0 weeks (95% CI, 20.1-25.6 weeks) in pts with vs without moderate RI, respectively. Consistent with the poor prognosis associated with RI, median OS was shorter for pts with moderate RI (45.6 weeks [95% CI, 37.9-50.1 weeks]) vs those without RI (62.7 weeks [95% CI, 54.9-70.3 weeks]). Conclusions: In a pooled analysis of 3 trials of pts with RRMM treated with POM + LoDEX, ORR, PFS, TTP, and tolerability results appeared to be independent of the presence or absence of moderate RI. This analysis supports the use of POM + LoDEX as a standard of care in RRMM for pts with or without moderate RI. Disclosures Siegel: Celgene Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Merck: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Weisel:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Travel Support; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria; Noxxon: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support. Dimopoulos:Genesis: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Baz:Karyopharm: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Richardson:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Delforge:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Song:Celgene Canada: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. San Miguel:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau:Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yu:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hong:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sternas:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Palumbo:Novartis, Sanofi Aventis: Honoraria; Celgene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab, Janssen-Cilag, Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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