MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A randomized phase II study of elotuzumab with lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

2012· article· en· W2600008150 on OpenAlexaff
Philippe Moreau, Paul G. Richardson, Andrzej Jakubowiak, Sundar Jagannath, Marc S. Raab, Thierry Façon, Ravi Vij, Donna Reece, Darrell White, Lotfi Benboubker, Jeffrey A. Zonder, Jean‐François Rossi, Claire Tsao, Teresa Parli, Glenn S. Kroog, Anil Singhal, Sagar Lonial

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLenalidomideDexamethasoneThalidomideMultiple myelomaRefractory (planetary science)BortezomibInternal medicinePhases of clinical researchProgressive diseaseGastroenterologyToxicityUrologySurgeryChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

8020 Background: Elotuzumab (Elo) is a humanized monoclonal IgG1 antibody targeting CS1, a cell surface glycoprotein. CS1 is highly expressed on >95% of multiple myeloma (MM) cells, with lower expression on natural killer cells and little to no expression on normal tissues. A phase 1 trial of Elo plus lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Elo/Len/Dex) demonstrated an 82% objective response rate (ORR) in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (RR) MM (Lonial et al. J Clin Oncol, in press). Methods: In this phase 2 study, previously treated pts with MM were randomized to Elo 10 or 20 mg/kg IV (days 1, 8, 15, and 22 every 28-days in first 2 cycles and days 1 and 15 of subsequent cycles), Len 25 mg PO (days 1-21) and Dex 40 mg PO weekly. Prophylaxis for infusion-related reactions (IRs) was administered prior to each Elo infusion. Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary objective was to assess efficacy (ORR ≥partial response [PR]) according to IMWG criteria. Results: Among73 pts (median age 63 years; range, 39-82), 55% had received ≥2 prior therapies, 60% had received prior bortezomib, and 62% prior thalidomide. ORR was 82% for all pts including 48% ≥ very good PR (VGPR). The ORRs were 92% in the 10 mg/kg group (n=36) and 73% in the 20 mg/kg group (n=37). Median time to best response was 2.2 months (range, 0.7-17.5). After a median follow-up of 14.1 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) has not been reached, with PFS rates of 75% (10 mg/kg) and 65% (20 mg/kg). Elo/Len/Dex also showed encouraging activity in pts with high-risk cytogenetics (ORR 80%) and/or Stage 2-3 MM (ORR 81%). The most common grade 3/4 toxicities were neutropenia (16%), lymphopenia (16%), and thrombocytopenia (16%). Investigator-designated IRs were reported in 12% of pts (all grades); 1 pt (1.4%) had grade 3 IR (rash). Conclusions: Elo/Len/Dex was generally well tolerated and resulted in a high ORR, and PFS not reached after 14.1 months of median follow-up in pts with RR MM. Updated results will be presented at the meeting. Two phase 3 trials of 10 mg/kg Elo/Len/Dex are ongoing in newly diagnosed MM (ELOQUENT1; CA204-006; NCT01335399) and RR MM (ELOQUENT2; CA204-004; NCT01239797).

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.356 · 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→