Phase 1/2 study of carfilzomib, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone with and without daratumumab in relapsed multiple myeloma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a phase 1/2 study of carfilzomib, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (KPd) and KPd with daratumumab (Dara-KPd) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. The primary end points were identification of a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of KPd for phase 1, and rates of overall response (ORR) and near complete response (nCR) after 4 cycles of KPd and Dara-KPd, respectively, for phase 2. The MTD for KPd was carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m2 on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 (cycles 1-8) and days 1, 2, 15, and 16 for cycles 9 and beyond; oral pomalidomide 4 mg on days 1 to 21; and oral dexamethasone 40 mg weekly in 28-day cycles. Sixty-six patients received KPd, including 34 at the MTD. The ORR after 4 cycles of KPd at the MTD was 27/34 (79%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 62%-91%), meeting the statistical threshold for efficacy. At a median follow-up of 44 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 13 months and overall survival (OS) 44 months. Twenty-eight patients received Dara-KPd. The rate of nCR or better after 4 cycles was 11/28 (39%; 95% CI, 22%-59%), meeting the statistical threshold for efficacy. As the best response to Dara-KPd, the ORR was 25/28 (89%) and the rate of measurable residual disease negativity by flow cytometry (10-5) was 17/26 (65%). At a median follow-up of 26 months, the median PFS and OS for Dara-KPd were not reached. Dara-KPd induced deeper and more durable responses than KPd without compromising safety in a predominantly high-risk, lenalidomide-refractory population, warranting further evaluation of this quadruplet. This trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01665794.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".