MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Once-weekly vs twice-weekly carfilzomib (K) dosing plus dexamethasone (d) in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): Results of the randomized phase 3 study A.R.R.O.W.

2018· article· en· W2891798328 on OpenAlexaff
María‐Victoria Mateos, Philippe Moreau, James R. Berenson, Katja Weisel, Antonio Lazzaro, Kevin Song, Meletios Α. Dimopoulos, Mei Huang, Anita Zahlten‐Kumeli, A. Keith Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsLeukemia & Lymphoma Society of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCarfilzomibInternal medicineClinical endpointLenalidomideRegimenInterim analysisMultiple myelomaTolerabilityNeutropeniaDexamethasoneGastroenterologyAdverse effectRandomized controlled trialToxicity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

8000 Background: Twice-weekly K at 20/27 mg/m2 is approved for the treatment of RRMM. To develop a more convenient K regimen, once-weekly K plus d was assessed in the phase 1/2 CHAMPION-1 study, establishing a maximum tolerated dose of K 20/70 mg/m2 for RRMM pts. We present results from the pre-planned interim analysis of the phase 3 study A.R.R.O.W. comparing Kd once-weekly at 20/70 mg/m2 (once-weekly group) vs twice-weekly at 20/27 mg/m2 (twice-weekly group). Methods: Pts with 2–3 prior therapies and prior exposure to proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulatory agent were eligible. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive either once- or twice-weekly K plus d. The once-weekly group received K (30-min IV) on days (D) 1, 8, and 15 of all cycles (20 mg/m2 on D1 [cycle 1]; 70 mg/m2 thereafter). The twice-weekly group received K (10-min IV) on D1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 (20 mg/m2 on D1 and 2 during cycle 1 and 27 mg/m2 thereafter). All pts received d at 40 mg on D1, 8, 15 (all cycles), and 22 (cycle 1–9 only). Treatment was given in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), overall survival, safety, and pharmacokinetics. Results: Baseline characteristics were generally balanced. Median PFS (once- vs twice-weekly) was 11.2 mo vs 7.6 mo (hazard ratio = 0.69; 1-sided P= 0.0014). ORR (once- vs twice-weekly) was 62.9% vs 40.8% (P< 0.0001); 7.1% vs 1.7% had a complete response or better. Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 67.6% (once-weekly) and 61.7% (twice-weekly). Treatment-related grade 5 AEs occurred in 5 pts (2.1%) (once-weekly) and 2 pts (0.9%) (twice-weekly). The incidence of grade ≥3 hypertension and cardiac failure (once- vs twice-weekly) was 5.9% vs 5.5% and 2.9% vs 4.3%, respectively. Conclusions: Once-weekly Kd at 20/70 mg/m2 significantly improved PFS and ORR vs twice-weekly Kd at 20/27 mg/m2. The incidence of AEs was comparable between groups. No new safety risks were found in the once-weekly group. Overall, once-weekly Kd showed favorable benefit-risk profile with a convenient dosing regimen vs twice-weekly Kd. Clinical trial information: NCT02412878.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.354 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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