MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154559926 · doi:10.1186/s13045-021-01071-9

Effect of prior treatments on selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in previously treated multiple myeloma

2021· letter· en· W3154559926 on OpenAlexaff
María‐Victoria Mateos, Maria Gavriatopoulou, Thierry Façon, Holger W. Auner, Xavier Leleu, Roman Hájek, Meletios Α. Dimopoulos, Sosana Delimpasi, Maryana Simonova, Ivan Špıčka, Luděk Pour, Iryna Kriachok, Halyna Pylypenko, Vadim Doronin, Ganna Usenko, Reuben Benjamin, Tuphan Kanti Dolai, Dinesh Kumar Sinha, Christopher P. Venner, Mamta Garg, Don A. Stevens, Hang Quach, Sundar Jagannath, Philippe Moreau, Moshe Levy, Ashraf Badros, Larry D. Anderson, Nizar J. Bahlis, Michèle Cavo, Yi Chai, Jacqueline Jeha, Melina Arazy, Jatin J. Shah, Sharon Shacham, Michael Kauffman, Paul G. Richardson, Sebastian Grosicki

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hematology & Oncology · 2021
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCilagJazz PharmaceuticalsJanssen PharmaceuticalsCelgeneKaryopharm TherapeuticsGilead SciencesBristol-Myers SquibbSpectrum PharmaceuticalsAmgen
KeywordsBortezomibMedicineDexamethasoneMultiple myelomaInternal medicinePeripheral neuropathyAdverse effectLenalidomideProteasome inhibitorThalidomideHematologyOncologyGastroenterologySurgeryEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Therapeutic regimens for previously treated multiple myeloma (MM) may not provide prolonged disease control and are often complicated by significant adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy. In patients with previously treated MM in the Phase 3 BOSTON study, once weekly selinexor, once weekly bortezomib, and 40 mg dexamethasone (XVd) demonstrated a significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS), higher response rates, deeper responses, a trend to improved survival, and reduced incidence and severity of bortezomib-induced peripheral neuropathy when compared with standard twice weekly bortezomib and 80 mg dexamethasone (Vd). The pre-specified analyses described here evaluated the influence of the number of prior lines of therapy, prior treatment with lenalidomide, prior proteasome inhibitor (PI) therapy, prior immunomodulatory drug therapy, and prior autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) on the efficacy and safety of XVd compared with Vd. In this 1:1 randomized study, enrolled patients were assigned to receive once weekly oral selinexor (100 mg) with once weekly subcutaneous bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2) and 40 mg per week dexamethasone (XVd) versus standard twice weekly bortezomib and 80 mg per week dexamethasone (Vd). XVd significantly improved PFS, overall response rate, time-to-next-treatment, and showed reduced all grade and grade ≥ 2 peripheral neuropathy compared with Vd regardless of prior treatments, but the benefits of XVd over Vd were more pronounced in patients treated earlier in their disease course who had either received only one prior therapy, had never been treated with a PI, or had prior ASCT. Treatment with XVd improved outcomes as compared to Vd regardless of prior therapies as well as manageable and generally reversible adverse events. XVd was associated with clinical benefit and reduced peripheral neuropathy compared to standard Vd in previously treated MM. These results suggest that the once weekly XVd regimen may be optimally administered to patients earlier in their course of disease, as their first bortezomib-containing regimen, and in those relapsing after ASCT. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03110562). Registered 12 April 2017. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03110562 .

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hematology & OncologySame topicMultiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207