MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417014954 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-7547

An open-label rollover study to assess the long-term safety of ixazomib

2025· article· en· W4417014954 on OpenAlexaff
Sebastian Grosicki, Markus Hansson, Meletios Α. Dimopoulos, Tadao Ishida, Vishal Kukreti, Dok Hyun Yoon, Wee Joo Chng, Oliver Bechter, Xuejun Peng, Paul Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIxazomibAdverse effectCommon Terminology Criteria for Adverse EventsProteasome inhibitorClinical endpoint

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Long-term parenteral proteasome inhibitor (PI)-based therapy can prove challenging due to the burden of administration. Ixazomib, an oral PI, allows prolonged PI-based therapy, whilst maintaining a tolerable safety profile in patients (pts) with multiple myeloma. Ixazomib has also been studied in pts with amyloidosis and lymphoma. The purpose of this study was to continue to provide ixazomib with/without other combinational study drugs to pts who had previously received and tolerated treatment for the above indications, and to evaluate the long-term safety profile of ixazomib. Methods: This was an open-label, multicenter, rollover study (NCT02924272). Pts who had received and tolerated ixazomib for the treatment of multiple myeloma, amyloidosis, or lymphoma in a prior study, and who had no further means to access the study treatment, but in the investigator's opinion could benefit from continued therapy, were eligible for inclusion. Pts entered the study on the same ixazomib dose that they were receiving at the time of rollover from their prior study, or according to the required dose modification from their prior study. The primary endpoint was safety of ixazomib as assessed by the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) coded using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities version 27.0; TEAE severity was summarized using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for adverse events (AEs), version 5.0. All results are reported descriptively; no statistical testing was conducted. Results: Between Dec 2016 and Jan 2022, a total of 32 pts were enrolled at 19 centers across 10 countries. Overall, 23 pts (71.9%) received ixazomib monotherapy and 9 (28.1%) received ixazomib in combination with one or more of dexamethasone, lenalidomide, or cyclophosphamide. The median (range) age was 74 (47–84) years and half of the pts were male. A higher proportion of pts receiving ixazomib monotherapy were aged ≥75 years (60.9%) compared with pts receiving ixazomib in combination (11.1%). At the data cut-off date (Jul 2024), all pts had discontinued study treatment. The most common reason for discontinuation was progressive disease (n=19; 59.4%). Other reasons were: study terminated by the sponsor (n=5; 15.6%); AEs (n=3; 9.4%); withdrawal by the pt (n=2; 6.3%); and clinical deterioration, death, or other (n=1 each; 3.1%). The median (range) number of treatment cycles with ixazomib (for the rollover period) was 25.5 (1–120) cycles (monotherapy: 25.0 [1–120] cycles; combination: 26.0 [2–85] cycles). The median (range) treatment duration was 718.5 (15–2587) days (monotherapy: 687.0 [15–2587] days; combination: 841.0 [36–2381] days). Median (range) dose taken (rollover period) was 245.7 (12.0–1126.0) mg (monotherapy: 276.0 [12.0–1126.0] mg; combination: 220.0 [12.0–996.0] mg). Among pts who received ixazomib monotherapy, 4 (17.4%) had a dose reduction and 3 (13.0%) had a dose increase; no pts who received ixazomib in combination had an ixazomib dose modification. Overall, 22 pts (68.8%) experienced ≥1 TEAE (monotherapy: 65.2%; combination: 77.8%). TEAEs that occurred in ≥10% of pts overall were: pneumonia (n=6; 18.8%); upper respiratory tract infection (n=6; 18.8%); anemia (n=4; 12.5%); and hypertension (n=4; 12.5%). Eighteen pts (56.3%) experienced a grade ≥3 TEAE (monotherapy: 56.5%; combination: 55.6%); these were considered treatment-related in 6 pts (18.8%). Sixteen pts (50.0%) experienced ≥1 serious AE (monotherapy: 52.2%; combination: 44.4%). In total, 2 pts (8.7%) who received ixazomib monotherapy experienced grade ≥2 peripheral neuropathy. Four pts (12.5%) experienced ≥1 new primary malignancy (monotherapy: 13.0%; combination: 11.1%). One pt (4.3%) who received ixazomib monotherapy died during the study due to a TEAE (craniocerebral injury); the event was not considered to be related to study treatment. Conclusion: No evidence of cumulative or long-term/late-onset toxicity was observed when ixazomib was continued as monotherapy or in combination with dexamethasone, lenalidomide, or cyclophosphamide. These data support the overall safety profile of ixazomib, indicating that ixazomib as monotherapy and ixazomib in combination remain well-tolerated in the long-term after initial treatment.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.340 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→