MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2528329272 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1607751

Daratumumab, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma

2016· article· en· W2528329272 on OpenAlexaff
Meletios Α. Dimopoulos, Albert Oriol, Hareth Nahi, Jesús F. San Miguel, Nizar J. Bahlis, Saad Z. Usmani, Neil Rabin, Robert Z. Orlowski, Mieczysław Komarnicki, Kenshi Suzuki, Torben Plesner, Sung‐Soo Yoon, Dina Ben Yehuda, Paul G. Richardson, Hartmut Goldschmidt, Donna Reece, Steen Lisby, Nushmia Z. Khokhar, Lisa O’Rourke, Christopher Chiu, Xiang Qin, Mary Guckert, Tahamtan Ahmadi, Philippe Moreau

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Calgary
FundersOtsuka PharmaceuticalCelgeneBristol-Myers SquibbIncyteChugai PharmaceuticalSpectrum PharmaceuticalsAmgen
KeywordsDaratumumabLenalidomideDexamethasoneMultiple myelomaMedicineOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUNDDaratumumab showed promising efficacy alone and with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in a phase 1-2 study involving patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODSIn this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 569 patients with multiple myeloma who had received one or more previous lines of therapy to receive lenalidomide and dexamethasone either alone (control group) or in combination with daratumumab (daratumumab group).The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTSAt a median follow-up of 13.5 months in a protocol-specified interim analysis, 169 events of disease progression or death were observed (in 53 of 286 patients [18.5%] in the daratumumab group vs. 116 of 283 [41.0%] in the control group; hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27 to 0.52; P<0.001 by stratified log-rank test).The Kaplan-Meier rate of progression-free survival at 12 months was 83.2% (95% CI, 78.3 to 87.2) in the daratumumab group, as compared with 60.1% (95% CI, 54.0 to 65.7) in the control group.A significantly higher rate of overall response was observed in the daratumumab group than in the control group (92.9% vs. 76.4%,P<0.001), as was a higher rate of complete response or better (43.1% vs. 19.2%,P<0.001).In the daratumumab group, 22.4% of the patients had results below the threshold for minimal residual disease (1 tumor cell per 10 5 white cells), as compared with 4.6% of those in the control group (P<0.001);results below the threshold for minimal residual disease were associated with improved outcomes.The most common adverse events of grade 3 or 4 during treatment were neutropenia (in 51.9% of the patients in the daratumumab group vs. 37.0% of those in the control group), thrombocytopenia (in 12.7% vs. 13.5%), and anemia (in 12.4% vs. 19.6%).Daratumumab-associated infusion-related reactions occurred in 47.7% of the patients and were mostly of grade 1 or 2. CONCLUSIONSThe addition of daratumumab to lenalidomide and dexamethasone significantly lengthened progression-free survival among patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.Daratumumab was associated with infusion-related reactions and a higher rate of neutropenia than the control therapy.(Funded by Janssen Research and Development; POLLUX ClinicalTrials.govnumber, NCT02076009.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations1,434
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicMultiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207