Efficacy and safety of isa-vrd in elderly patients with or without frailty criteria: Pooled analysis of imroz and phase 1b studies in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: In the phase 3 IMROZ study (NCT03319667), isatuximab (Isa) given intravenously (IV) with bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) followed by Isa-Rd was associated with a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) not eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Although frail pts often have worse outcomes, a post-hoc subgroup analysis of frailty in the IMROZ study found Isa-VRd to be an effective option in these pts, with PFS benefit. The efficacy and safety of Isa-VRd was also demonstrated in a phase 1b study (TCD13983; NCT02513186) in NDMM pts not eligible or with no immediate intent for ASCT. In addition, long-term efficacy and safety data from the phase 1b study showed PFS benefit in the subgroup of pts ≥75 years (yrs). Here we report on a pooled post hoc analysis of IMROZ and phase 1b studies exploring the efficacy and safety of Isa-VRd in pts ≤75 yrs and >75 yrs with and without frailty criteria, to evaluate the consistent efficacy of Isa-VRd in hard to treat pt populations. Methods: Pts in the Isa-VRd arm (n=265) from IMROZ, a global, randomized, phase 3 study, and pts from the multicenter, phase 1b study (n=73) were included in this analysis. In both studies, pts received Isa 10mg/kg IV weekly in cycle 1, then every 2 weeks (Q2W), and then Q4W from cycle 18 onwards in combination with VRd and then Rd. A subgroup analysis was performed by baseline age (≤75 yrs, >75 yrs) and further by frailty [defined according to the simplified International Myeloma Working Group (Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome) score]. PFS and overall response rate (ORR) were examined. Minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity was evaluated by central-laboratory testing (next-generation sequencing (clonoSEQ®)) at 10-5 sensitivity level. Safety was also evaluated. Results: In this pooled analysis (N=336), median age was 71 (range, 49-87) yrs. Of the pts ≤75 yrs (n=271) and >75 yrs (n=65), 14.4% and 64.6% were frail, respectively. Median PFS was not reached in the overall population or in the ≤75 and >75 yrs subgroups. Similarly, median PFS was not reached in non-frail and frail pts within each age subgroup. Pts ≤75 yrs experienced greater PFS than those >75 yrs [hazard ratio=1.630 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.041–2.550; p=0.033)]. Within each age subgroup, however, no PFS difference was observed between non-frail and frail pts. ORR was similar between the two age groups: ≤75 yrs, 93.0% and >75 yrs, 92.3%, with complete response or better (≥CR) in 72.0% and 67.7% of pts, respectively. However, ORR was generally greater in the non-frail vs frail pts within each age subgroup (non-frail vs frail: ≤75 yrs, 95.7% vs 76.9%; >75 yrs, 100% vs 88.1%) as was ≥CR (non-frail vs frail: ≤75 yrs, 72.9% vs 66.7%; >75 yrs, 87.0% vs 57.2%). Rates of MRD- with CR/stringent CR (CR/sCR) were 53.5% vs 50.8% in the ≤75 yrs and >75 yrs subgroups, respectively. The 24-month sustained MRD- rates were 32.8% vs 23.1% in the ≤75 and >75 yrs subgroups, respectively. In the ≤75 yrs subgroup, rates of MRD- with CR/sCR were 53.9% in non-frail and 51.3% in frail pts, with 24-month sustained MRD- rates of 34.9% and 20.5%, respectively. In the >75 yrs subgroup, rates of MRD- with CR/sCR were 60.9% in non-frail and 45.2% in frail pts, with 24-month sustained MRD- rates of 34.8% and 16.7%, respectively. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 87.8% pts ≤75 yrs (non-frail, 87.6%; frail, 89.5%) and 95.4% pts >75 yrs (non-frail, 95.7%; frail, 95.2%). Serious TEAEs occurred in 66.8% pts ≤75 yrs (non-frail, 64.4%; frail, 81.6%) and 73.8% pts >75 yrs (non-frail, 65.2%; frail, 78.6%). Isa-VRd was well tolerated with definitive treatment discontinuation due to AE in 21.8% pts ≤75 yrs (non-frail, 20.2%; frail, 31.6%) and 26.2% pts >75 yrs (non-frail, 21.7%; frail, 28.6%). Conclusions: Thispooled analysis of the IMROZ and phase 1b studies further supports the broad applicability of the Isa-VRd regimen in NDMM pts not eligible for ASCT, demonstrating consistent efficacy in pts ≤75 yrs and >75 yrs with and without frailty criteria. This was evidenced by median PFS not being reached with Isa-VRd in all subgroups analyzed and the similarity of sustained MRD- among pts ≤75 yrs and >75 yrs old.
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 | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".