Pomalidomide (POM) with or without low-dose dexamethasone (LoDEX) in patients (Pts) with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): MM-002 phase II age subgroup analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
8532 Background: POM demonstrated clinical efficacy and favorable tolerability in RRMM pts previously treated with lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT), in the randomized, multicenter, open label MM-002 phase II trial. This analysis evaluated whether the efficacy and tolerability of POM+LoDEX treatment is consistent across age subgroups. Methods: Pts with RRMM who had received ≥ 2 prior therapies, including LEN and BORT, and were refractory to their last regimen were randomized to either POM+LoDEX (POM 4 mg/day, days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle; LoDEX 40 mg/week) or POM alone. End points included progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (based on EBMT criteria), response duration, and safety. A post-hoc analysis based on age (≤ 65 vs. > 65 yrs) was conducted. Results: A total of 221 pts with a mean age of 64 yrs (range 34–88) were randomized to POM+LoDEX (n = 113) or POM (n = 108). The efficacy outcomes and the most common treatment emergent grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) for the age subgroups according to treatment arm are presented in the Table. Conclusions: Regardless of age (≤ 65 vs. > 65 yrs), POM with or without LoDEX was effective and generally well tolerated in heavily pretreated RRMM pts who had already received LEN and BORT. POM with or without LoDEX represents a new clinical option for pts previously treated with numerous lines of therapy. Updated data will be presented at the meeting. Clinical trial information: NCT00833833. [Table: see text]
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".