MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PF631 HEALTH‐RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE WITH POMALIDOMIDE + LOW‐DOSE DEXAMETHASONE + DARATUMUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH RELAPSED REFRACTORY MULTIPLE MYELOMA AFTER LENALIDOMIDE TREATMENT

2019· article· en· W2952813810 on OpenAlexaff
Donna Reece, Nizar J. Bahlis, Χρήστος Σαμαράς, Michaël Sébag, Jesús G. Berdeja, Siddhartha Ganguly, J. Matous, Kevin Song, Christopher S. Seet, Giampaolo Talamo, Mirelis Acosta-Rivera, M H Bar, Donald P. Quick, Bertrand Anz, Gustavo Fonseca, Amit Agarwal, Weiyuan Chung, Faiza Zafar, David S. Siegel

Bibliographic record

VenueHemaSphere · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of CalgaryPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPomalidomideMedicineLenalidomideDaratumumabMultiple myelomaRegimenInternal medicineCohortClinical endpointDexamethasoneProgressive diseaseOncologyClinical trialChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Treatment of relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) is complex and requires evaluation of disease and patient factors to maximize efficacy and minimize toxicity. As survival has improved with therapeutic advances, maintaining quality of life has become an important aspect of multiple myeloma treatment. Results from cohort B of the ongoing phase 2 MM‐014 trial (NCT01946477) have demonstrated that pomalidomide (POM) + low‐dose dexamethasone (LoDEX) + daratumumab (DARA) is safe and effective in patients with RRMM after first‐ or second‐line lenalidomide (LEN)‐based treatment. Aims: To evaluate the impact of POM+ LoDEX + DARA on health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with RRMM who received this regimen after first‐ or second‐line LEN. Methods: Patients with RRMM and 1 to 2 prior lines of treatment, LEN‐based treatment as their most recent regimen, and progressive disease during or after their last treatment line were eligible for inclusion in cohort B. In 28‐day cycles, patients received POM 4 mg/day on days 1–21 + LoDEX 40 mg/day (20 mg/day if aged > 75 years) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22, and DARA 16 mg/kg IV on DEX dosing days of cycles 1 and 2, then on days 1 and 15 of cycles 3–6, and then on day 1 of cycle 7 and beyond. Thromboprophylaxis was mandatory. The primary endpoint was overall response rate. HRQoL, an exploratory endpoint for cohort B, was assessed via EQ‐5D. Results: As of 15 October 2018, 108 patients were evaluable for HRQoL. Baseline characteristics were similar to those of the ITT population (N = 112). EQ‐5D completion rates for each cycle (1–6) were ≥ 88%. Through 6 treatment cycles, mean change from baseline in the EQ‐5D index and VAS health score was stable. At cycle 6, minimum clinically important improvement in the EQ‐5D index (≥ 0.1) and VAS health score (≥ 6) was achieved by 28.8% and 39.0% of patients, respectively. EQ‐5D index values were stable; however, a trend toward improvement was observed in usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression (Figure). Summary/Conclusion: In patients with RRMM who received POM + LoDEX + DARA after first‐ or ‐second‐line LEN based treatment, HRQoL was maintained or trended toward improvement, despite the combination of 3 drugs with distinct toxicity profiles. In context with the previously reported safety and efficacy data from cohort B of MM‐014, the results of this HRQoL analysis further support the earlier use of POM‐based treatment in RRMM immediately following treatment with LEN. image

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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