Elotuzumab Plus Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone for Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Final Overall Survival Analysis From the Randomized Phase II ELOQUENT-3 Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE In the phase II ELOQUENT-3 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02654132 ), elotuzumab combined with pomalidomide/dexamethasone (EPd) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus pomalidomide/dexamethasone (Pd) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) previously treated with lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor (PI). Here, we present the final overall survival (OS) results. METHODS Patients with RRMM who had received ≥ 2 prior lines of therapy, with disease refractory to last therapy and either refractory or relapsed and refractory to lenalidomide and a PI were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive EPd or Pd. The primary end point was PFS per investigator assessment. ORR and OS were secondary end points planned to be tested hierarchically. RESULTS A total of 117 patients were randomly assigned to EPd (n = 60) and Pd (n = 57). Among treated patients (EPd 60, Pd 55), there were 37 (61.7%) deaths in the EPd group and 41 (74.5%) in the Pd group, most commonly because of disease progression (EPd 41.7%, Pd 49.1%). Median (95% CI) OS was significantly improved with EPd (29.8 [22.9 to 45.7] months) versus Pd (17.4 [13.8 to 27.7] months), with a hazard ratio of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.93; P = .0217). OS benefit with EPd was observed in most patient subgroups. The safety profile of EPd was consistent with prior reports with no new safety signals detected. CONCLUSION EPd demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in OS versus Pd in patients with RRMM previously treated with lenalidomide and a PI who had disease refractory to last therapy. In this setting, ELOQUENT-3 is the first randomized study of a triplet regimen incorporating a monoclonal antibody and Pd to improve both PFS and OS significantly.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".