MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Isatuximab plus carfilzomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma according to prior lines of treatment and refractory status: IKEMA subgroup analysis.

2021· article· en· W3169299949 on OpenAlexaff
Roman Hájek, Philippe Moreau, Bradley Augustson, Nelson Castro, Tomáš Pika, Sosana Delimpasi, Javier de la Rubia, Ângelo Maiolino, Tony Reiman, I. V. Kryuchkova, Joaquín Martínez‐López, Thomas G. Martin, Joseph Mıkhael, Kwee Yong, Marie‐Laure Risse, Gaëlle Asset, Sylvia Marion, Meletios Α. Dimopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSaint John Regional HospitalDalhousie UniversityUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersSanofi
KeywordsMedicineCarfilzomibRegimenRefractory (planetary science)LenalidomideInternal medicineDexamethasoneClinical endpointMultiple myelomaGastroenterologyUrologyOncologySurgeryRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

8034 Background: Patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM) often relapse and become refractory to successive lines of therapy, warranting better treatment options. The Phase 3 IKEMA study (NCT03275285) demonstrated that isatuximab (Isa) plus carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with Kd in pts with relapsed MM (RMM) (HR 0.53; 99% CI 0.32–0.89; P= 0.0007). We evaluated the efficacy and/or safety of Isa-Kd by number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs > 1) and refractoriness to lenalidomide (Len) or bortezomib (Bor). Methods: Pts were randomized (3:2) to Isa-Kd (n = 179) or Kd (n = 123). Isa (10 mg/kg IV) was given weekly for 4 weeks, then every 2 weeks. K (20 mg/m² days 1-2, then 56 mg/m²) was given twice-weekly 3 of 4 weeks, and d (20 mg) twice-weekly. The primary endpoint was PFS; key secondary endpoints were very good partial response or better (≥VGPR), minimal residual disease negativity (MRD-), and complete response (CR) rates. Results: Of the 302 randomized pts, 44.7% had 1 prior line, 55.3% had > 1 prior line, 32.8% were Len-refractory, and 30.1% were Bor-refractory. PFS was improved with Isa-Kd vs Kd in pts who received 1 prior line and > 1 prior line, as well as in pts refractory to Len, Len at last regimen, Bor, or Bor at last regimen (Table). The addition of Isa to Kd improved depth of response (≥VGPR, MRD-, and CR rates) in all subpopulations analyzed by prior treatment. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were generally similar between the prior line subgroups (77.2% [Isa-Kd] vs 64.8% [Kd], 1 prior line; 76.5% [Isa-Kd] vs 69.1% [Kd], > 1 prior line) and the overall safety population (76.8% [Isa-Kd] vs 67.2% [Kd]). Serious AEs were 62.0% vs 48.1% in the 1 prior line subgroup, and 57.1% vs 64.7% in the > 1 prior line subgroup; TEAEs leading to discontinuations were 8.9% vs 11.1%, 1 prior line and 8.2% vs 16.2%, > 1 prior line. Conclusions: The addition of Isa to Kd improved PFS and depth of response, irrespective of prior lines of therapy or refractory status, consistent with the benefit observed in the overall IKEMA study population. Isa-Kd had a manageable safety profile regardless of number of prior lines. Isa-Kd is a potential new treatment option for pretreated pts with RMM. Clinical trial information: NCT03275285. [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 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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.347 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→