MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902998154 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-112697

Three-Year Follow up of the Phase 3 Pollux Study of Daratumumab Plus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone (D-Rd) Versus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone (Rd) Alone in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM)

2018· article· en· W2902998154 on OpenAlexaff
Nizar J. Bahlis, Meletios Α. Dimopoulos, Darrell White, Lotfi Benboubker, Gordon Cook, Merav Leiba, P. Joy Ho, Kihyun Kım, Naoki Takezako, Philippe Moreau, Maria Krevvata, Christopher Chiu, Xiang Qin, Linda Okonkwo, Sonali Trivedi, Ming Qi, Jesús F. San Miguel

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLenalidomideDaratumumabMedicineInternal medicineDexamethasoneOncologyGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Daratumumab is a human, CD38-targeted, IgGκ monoclonal antibody with both direct on-tumor and immunomodulatory mechanisms of action. In the phase 3 POLLUX study, D-Rd reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 63% and significantly increased the overall response rate (ORR) versus Rd alone (93% vs 76%; P <0.001) in RRMM patients (pts). When combined with standard of care regimens across three phase 3 studies including POLLUX, daratumumab demonstrated ≥50% reductions in the risk of progression or death, doubled complete response (CR) rates, and tripled minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative rates at the 10-5 sensitivity threshold in pts with RRMM or newly diagnosed MM (Palumbo A, et al. N Engl J Med 2016. 375[8]:754-766; Dimopoulos MA, et al. N Engl J Med 2016. 375[14]:1319-1331; Mateos MV, et al. N Engl J Med 2018. 378[6]:518-528). Improvements in deeper responses gained from novel MM treatments have led to interest in sustained MRD negativity as a potential surrogate endpoint (Kumar S, et al. Lancet Oncol 2016. 17[8]:e328-e346; Anderson KC. Blood Adv 2017. 1[8]:517-521). Here, we present updated efficacy and safety analyses of POLLUX, including sustained MRD negativity, after >3 years of median follow-up. Methods: Pts with ≥1 prior line of therapy were randomized (1:1) to receive Rd (lenalidomide 25 mg PO on Days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle; dexamethasone 40 mg per week) ± daratumumab (16 mg/kg IV QW for Cycles 1-2, Q2W for Cycles 3-6, then Q4W until disease progression). High risk cytogenetic abnormalities included t(4;14), t(14;16), and del17p. At the time of suspected CR and at 3 and 6 months after confirmed CR (and every 12 months thereafter if CR was maintained), bone marrow aspirates were assessed for MRD using clonoSEQ® V2.0 (Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA). Sustained MRD negativity was defined as maintenance of MRD negativity at the 10-5 threshold for ≥6 or ≥12 months. PFS on subsequent line of therapy (PFS2), an exploratory endpoint, was defined as time from randomization to progression after next line of subsequent therapy or death. Results: A total of 569 pts were randomized (D-Rd, n = 286; Rd, n = 283). At a median follow-up of 39.5 months, D-Rd significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus Rd (median, not reached [NR] vs 17.5 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35-0.55; P <0.0001); 36-month PFS rate was 55% versus 28%. D-Rd also prolonged PFS versus Rd among pts with 1 prior line of therapy and pts with 1-3 prior lines of therapy (Table 1). A PFS benefit for D-Rd versus Rd was also observed regardless of cytogenetic risk status (Table 1). D-Rd was associated with a significantly higher ORR versus Rd (93% vs 76%), including higher rates of ≥very good partial response (80% vs 49%) and ≥CR (56% vs 23%; all P <0.0001). At the 10-5 sensitivity threshold, MRD-negativity was achieved by 87 (30%) D-Rd pts versus 15 (5%) Rd pts (P <0.000001). Among the ITT population, sustained MRD negativity was achieved by 47 (16%) D-Rd pts versus 2 (0.7%) Rd pts for ≥6 months and 37 (13%) D-Rd pts versus 1 (0.4%) Rd pt for ≥12 months (both P <0.0001). Median time to next therapy for D-Rd versus Rd was NR in the D-Rd group versus 22.8 months in the Rd group (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.29-0.49; P <0.0001). In the D-Rd group, 98 (34%) overall survival (OS) events were observed versus 118 (42%) OS events in the Rd group; OS follow-up is ongoing. The median duration of treatment was 34.3 months in the D-Rd arm versus 16.0 months in the Rd arm. The most common (≥10%) grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) observed with D-Rd versus Rd are described in Table 2. No differences were observed for D-Rd versus Rd in discontinuations due to TEAEs (14% of pts in each treatment group) or incidences of second primary malignancies (7% of pts in each treatment group). Updated data including PFS2 will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion: After >3 years of median follow-up, D-Rd continued to demonstrate a significant PFS benefit and higher rates of deeper responses versus Rd alone in RRMM pts. The higher rate of sustained MRD negativity with D-Rd compared with Rd suggests that continued D-Rd treatment drives these deep responses and delays progression. No new safety signals were observed following a median of 34 months of D-Rd exposure. Disclosures Bahlis: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Dimopoulos:Janssen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. White:Amgen: 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; Janssen: 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. Cook:Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlycoMimetics, Celgene, Janssen and Takeda and Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene, Janssen and Takeda: Research Funding. Ho:Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel to meeting; Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Other: Travel to meeting. Moreau: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; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: 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. Krevvata:Janssen Research & Development, LLC: Employment. Chiu:Janssen Research & Development, LLC: Employment. Qin:Janssen Research & Development, LLC: Employment. Okonkwo:Janssen Research & Development, LLC: Employment. Trivedi:Janssen Research & Development, LLC: Employment. Qi:Janssen Research & Development, LLC: Employment. San-Miguel:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations24
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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