Efficacy and safety of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-Rd) in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): Updated subgroup analysis of POLLUX based on cytogenetic risk.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
8038 Background: High-risk cytogenetic abnormalities confer poor outcomes in MM patients (pts). In POLLUX, D-Rd demonstrated significant clinical benefit, including prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) vs lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd), and tolerability in RRMM pts. We present a subgroup analysis of POLLUX, based on cytogenetic risk. Methods: Pts had ≥1 prior line of therapy. Cytogenetic risk was based on a combined analysis of fluorescence in situ hybridization/karyotype testing and next-generation sequencing (NGS). High-risk pts had t(4;14), t(14;16), or del17p abnormalities; standard (std)-risk pts did not meet high-risk criteria. Minimal residual disease (MRD; 10–5) was assessed via NGS using clonoSEQ® assay V2.0. Results: In POLLUX (D-Rd, n = 286; Rd, n = 283), 17.1% of pts in the D-Rd group and 20.1% of pts in the Rd group had high-risk abnormalities. After 44.3 months (mo) of median follow up, D-Rd prolonged PFS vs Rd in pts with high- (median 26.8 vs 8.8 mo; HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.32-0.91]; P = 0.0175) or std-risk (median not reached [NR] vs 19.9 mo; HR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.31-0.55]; P <0.0001). Responses with D-Rd were deep, including higher rates of MRD negativity and sustained MRD negativity vs Rd (Table). D-Rd prolonged PFS in first relapse pts (high risk: median 46.0 vs 7.3 mo; HR, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.11-0.59]; P = 0.0005; std risk: median NR vs 20.6 mo; HR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.28-0.66]; P <0.0001) and prolonged PFS2 vs Rd in high- (median 38.3 vs 22.1 mo; HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.30-0.93]; P = 0.0249) or std-risk (median NR vs 33.8 mo; HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.39-0.72]; P <0.0001) pts. Additional data will be presented. Conclusions: D-Rd demonstrates significant efficacy in high-risk RRMM. Among high-risk pts, MRD negativity was only achieved with D-Rd. Clinical trial information: NCT02076009. [Table: see text]
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".