MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2905841490 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-111920

Pomalidomide + Low-Dose Dexamethasone + Daratumumab in Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma after Lenalidomide-Based Treatment Failure

2018· article· en· W2905841490 on OpenAlexaffabout
David S. Siegel, Gary J. Schiller, Christy Samaras, Michaël Sébag, Jesús G. Berdeja, Siddhartha Ganguly, Jeffrey Matous, Kevin Song, Christopher S. Seet, Giampaolo Talamo, Mirelis Acosta-Rivera, Michael Bär, Donald P. Quick, Bertrand Anz, Gustavo Fonseca, Donna Reece, Amit Agarwal, Weiyuan Chung, Faiza Zafar, Nizar J. Bahlis

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreVancouver General HospitalUniversity of CalgaryMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPomalidomideLenalidomideMedicineDaratumumabPopulationMultiple myelomaInternal medicineRegimenClinical endpointCohortDexamethasoneProgressive diseaseSurgeryOncologyClinical trialChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND Lenalidomide (LEN) until progressive disease (PD) is an established treatment (Tx) in newly diagnosed and relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM); thus, patients (pts) for whom the benefit of LEN has been exhausted are a clinically relevant population. However, LEN-refractory pts have typically been excluded from recent clinical trials investigating triplet regimens after ≤ 3 prior Tx lines. MM-014 (NCT01946477) is an ongoing phase 2 study that was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of pomalidomide (POM)-based Tx regimens in pts with RRMM and first- or second-line LEN Tx failure immediately before study entry. Earlier results from cohort A (POM + low-dose dexamethasone [LoDEX]) and cohort B (POM + LoDEX + daratumumab [DARA]) indicate that POM-based Tx is safe and effective in this setting. Here we report updated results from cohort B. METHODS Eligible pts had RRMM, had 1 or 2 prior lines of Tx, received LEN-based Tx as their most recent Tx regimen, and had PD during or after their last line of Tx. Pts received POM 4 mg/day on days 1 through 21 + LoDEX 40 mg/day (20 mg/day if aged > 75 years) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 and DARA 16 mg/kg intravenously on DEX dosing days of cycles 1 and 2, days 1 and 15 of cycles 3 through 6, then day 1 of cycle 7 and beyond. Each Tx cycle lasted 28 days. Thromboprophylaxis was mandatory. The primary endpoint for cohort B is overall response rate (ORR) by modified International Myeloma Working Group criteria. Secondary endpoints include time to response (TTR), progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP), and safety. RESULTS The intention-to-treat (ITT) population comprised 112 pts (median follow-up, 8.2 mos); data cutoff was April 30, 2018. Median age was 66.5 years, 67.9% of pts were male, and 111 (99.1%) had ECOG PS ≤ 1. A total of 34 pts discontinued Tx: 19 due to PD, 9 due to study withdrawal, 2 due to adverse events (AEs), and 4 due to other reasons. All pts received prior LEN, and 87 (77.7%) received prior bortezomib; 84 pts (75.0%) were refractory to LEN, while 28 (25.0%) relapsed after LEN-based Tx. Median duration of the most recent prior LEN-based Tx was 23.9 mos, with 36 pts (32.1%) receiving LEN 25 mg/day during their last LEN-based Tx. ORR was 77.7%, with 33.9% of pts achieving ≥ very good partial response. Median TTR was 1.0 mo. The clinical benefit rate (≥ minimal response [MR]) was 85.7%. ORR was 80.6% in the efficacy-evaluable population (n = 108; defined as all pts who received ≥ 1 dose of study drug and had ≥ 1 post-baseline response assessment), 75.0% in LEN-refractory pts, and 76.2% in pts with 2 prior lines of Tx (n = 42). The 9-mo PFS rate was 86.3% (range, 76.5%-92.2%); median PFS was not estimable (NE; Figure). The 9-mo TTP rate was 88.1% (range, 78.3%-93.6%); median TTP was NE. The most common grade 3/4 hematologic treatment-emergent AE (TEAE) in the safety population (n = 112) was neutropenia (61.6%; Table); pneumonia was the most common grade 3/4 nonhematologic TEAE (7.1%). POM dose reductions occurred in 31 pts (27.7%); per protocol, DARA dose reductions were not allowed. POM dose interruptions due to AEs were reported in 69 pts (61.6%) and DARA dose interruptions due to AEs were reported in 82 pts (73.2%). POM and DARA dose interruptions due to neutropenia were reported in 39 (34.8%) and 42 (37.5%) pts, respectively; 25 pts (22.3%) had DARA dose interruptions due to infusion-related reactions. Median durations of POM and DARA Tx were 6.0 mos (range, 0.3-17.7 mos) and 6.6 mos (range, 0.3-18.6 mos), respectively; among those who achieved ≥ MR, pts remained on POM Tx for a median of 7.4 mos (range, 0.9-17.7 mos) and on DARA Tx for a median of 7.5 mos (range, 0.9-18.6 mos). CONCLUSIONS LEN-refractory pts with RRMM are in need of effective Tx options. MM-014 is the first prospective clinical trial to investigate a POM-based doublet or triplet regimen immediately after LEN-based Tx failure. In the context of a relatively short follow-up, the 9-mo PFS rate (86.3%) is promising. The ORR (77.7%) was higher than that previously reported with this triplet combination in heavily pre-treated pts with RRMM (≥ 2 prior lines [median, 4]; ORR, 60%), and the rate of grade 3/4 neutropenia in the present study was lower (61.6% vs 77%). These updated results from cohort B continue to demonstrate that POM + LoDEX + DARA is safe and effective following first- or second-line LEN-based Tx failure and further support earlier use of POM-based Tx in pts with RRMM Disclosures Siegel: Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Schiller:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celator/Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Sebag:Amgen Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Berdeja:Bluebird: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Glenmark: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; Poseida Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding. Ganguly:Janssen: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding. Matous:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Bar:Celgene: Consultancy. Quick:CTI BioPharma: Research Funding. Fonseca:Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Reece:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding. Agarwal:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chung:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zafar:Celgene: Employment. Bahlis:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

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)0.001
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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→