MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficacy of Daratumumab, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone Versus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma Patients with 1 to 3 Prior Lines of Therapy: Updated Analysis of Pollux

2016· article· en· W2596288557 on OpenAlexaff
Saad Z. Usmani, Meletios Α. Dimopoulos, Andrew Belch, Darrell White, Lofti Benboubker, Gordon Cook, Merav Leiba, James Morton, P. Joy Ho, Kihyun Kım, Naoki Takezako, Nushmia Z. Khokhar, Mary Guckert, Kaida Wu, Xiang Qin, Tineke Casneuf, Christopher Chiu, A. Kate Sasser, Jesús F. San Miguel

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLenalidomideDaratumumabDexamethasoneMedicineOncologyMultiple myelomaInternal medicineThalidomideRefractory (planetary science)CarfilzomibBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Daratumumab is a human monoclonal antibody targeting CD38 that demonstrated superior efficacy in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (Rd) in a pre-specified interim analysis of a randomized phase 3 study of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM; Dimopoulos MA, et al. N Engl J Med 2016; in press). We report subgroup analyses from this study in patients (pts) who received 1 to 3 prior lines of therapy (1-3 PL), including outcomes based on high-risk cytogenetics within these subgroups. Methods: Patients (pts) who received ≥1 prior line of therapy were randomized (1:1) to Rd (lenalidomide: 25 mg PO on Days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle; dexamethasone: 40 mg PO weekly) with or without daratumumab (16 mg/kg IV qw for 8 weeks, q2w for 16 weeks, then q4w until progression). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The site investigator determined the number of prior lines of therapy according to IMWG consensus guidelines. Treatment-free interval (TFI) was defined as the duration between the end/start date of last line of prior therapy and the date of randomization. Pts with high-risk cytogenetic status had at least one of the following abnormalities as assessed via fluorescence in-situ hybridization or karyotyping by local laboratory assessment: t(4;14), t(14;16), or del17p. Results: In the 1-3 PL subgroup (DRd, n=272; Rd, n=264), PFS was significantly improved with DRd vs Rd (median: not reached [NR] vs 18.4 months; HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.25-0.50; P<0.0001), with estimated 12-month PFS rates of 83.2% vs 60.4%, respectively. Time to progression was also significantly longer with DRd vs Rd (median: NR vs 18.4 months; HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.22-0.46; P<0.0001). ORR (94% vs 77%), rates of very good partial response (VGPR) or better (76% vs 45%) and complete response (CR) or better (44% vs 20%) were significantly higher with DRd vs Rd, respectively (P<0.0001 for all). Among responders, median time to VGPR or better was 2.8 months in DRd vs 2.9 months in Rd; median time to CR or better was 6.7 months vs 7.5 months, respectively. For pts in the 1-3 PL subgroup with high-risk cytogenetics (n=33 in each treatment group), significantly longer PFS was observed in DRd vs Rd (median: NR vs 8.3 months; HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.14-0.67; P=0.0019). Significantly higher ORR (91% vs 69%; P=0.0267), rate of VGPR or better (73% vs 28%; P=0.0004), and rate of CR or better (36% vs 9%; P=0.0104) were achieved in pts with high-risk cytogenetic status treated with DRd vs Rd, respectively. For 1-3 PL pts who had a TFI of >12 months (DRd, n=138; Rd, n=145), median PFS was NR in DRd vs 18.4 months in Rd (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.74; P=0.0019; Figure A); the estimated 12-month PFS rate was 88.0% vs 74.5%, respectively. ORR was significantly higher with DRd vs Rd (96% vs 86%, P=0.0084), along with rate of VGPR or better (77% vs 56%; P=0.0008) and rate of CR or better (43% vs 27%; P=0.0083). Among pts with a TFI of ≤12 months (DRd, n=134; Rd, n=119), median PFS was NR in DRd vs 10.3 months in Rd (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.21-0.51; P<0.0001; Figure B); the estimated 12-month PFS rate was 78.1% vs 43.1%, respectively. ORR (92% vs 67%), rate of VGPR or better (76% vs 32%), and rate of CR or better (44% vs 10%) were all significantly higher with DRd vs Rd (P<0.0001 for all). Among pts with 1-3 PL who were refractory to their last line of therapy (DRd, n=73; Rd, n=67), PFS was significantly prolonged with DRd vs Rd (median: NR vs 10.3 mo; HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P=0.0010). ORR (92% vs 66%; P=0.0002), rate of VGPR or better (72% vs 34%; P<0.0001), and rate of CR or better (47% vs 14%; P<0.0001) were significantly higher with DRd vs Rd. Data for all subgroup analyses will be updated for the meeting. Conclusions: Responses with DRd were deep and durable which translated into significantly improved clinical outcomes vs Rd in 1-3 PL pts with RRMM. The results of these subgroup analyses suggest that the treatment benefit of DRd vs Rd was maintained across these subgroups, including pts with TFI of ≤12 months and those who were refractory to their last line of therapy. Figure Progression-free survival in patients with 1 to 3 prior lines of therapy and treatment-free interval of (A) >12 months (B) ≤12 months prior to randomization Figure. Progression-free survival in patients with 1 to 3 prior lines of therapy and treatment-free interval of (A) >12 months (B) ≤12 months prior to randomization Disclosures Usmani: Britsol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Array: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Dimopoulos:Novartis: 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; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Belch:Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. White:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Benboubker:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cook:Takeda Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Glycomimetics: Consultancy. Ho:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: 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. Khokhar:Janssen: Employment. Guckert:Janssen: Employment; Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership. Wu:Janssen: Employment. Qin:Janssen: Employment. Casneuf:Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership; Janssen R&D, Beerse, Belgium: Employment. Chiu:Janssen: Employment. Sasser:Janssen: Employment; Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership. San-Miguel:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations28
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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