It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Some cytogenetic abnormalities (CAs) are associated with poorer prognosis in multiple myeloma (MM); proteasome inhibitors appear to benefit patients with high-risk CAs. We evaluated 2247 MM patients from the TOURMALINE-MM1/-MM2/-MM3/-MM4 trials to assess the PFS benefit of ixazomib plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) vs placebo-Rd (TOURMALINE-MM1/-MM2) or ixazomib vs placebo (TOURMALINE-MM3/-MM4) in specific high-risk CAs. After a pooled median follow-up of 25.6 months, the hazard ratio (HR) for PFS with ixazomib- vs placebo-based therapy for high-risk patients was 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59–0.93; median PFS [mPFS] 17.8 vs 13.2 months), and 0.70 (95% CI: 0.62–0.80; mPFS 26.3 vs 17.6 months) for complementary standard-risk patients. The HR for expanded high-risk patients was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.64–0.87; mPFS 18.1 vs 14.1 months), and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.59–0.85; mPFS 36.1 vs 21.4 months) for complementary standard-risk patients. The HR for PFS with ixazomib- vs placebo-based therapy was 0.68 in patients with t(4;14) (95% CI: 0.48–0.96; mPFS 22.4 vs 13.2 months), and 0.77 for patients with amp1q21 (95% CI: 0.63–0.93; mPFS 18.8 vs 14.5 months). A PFS benefit was demonstrated with ixazomib- vs placebo-based therapy regardless of cytogenetic status, with greatest benefit observed in patients with t(4;14) and amp1q21.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details






1 National University Cancer Institute, Department of Hematology-Oncology, Singapore, Singapore (GRID:grid.440782.d) (ISNI:0000 0004 0507 018X); National University of Singapore, Cancer Science Institute of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore (GRID:grid.4280.e) (ISNI:0000 0001 2180 6431)
2 Emory University Medical School, Emory University, Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Atlanta, USA (GRID:grid.189967.8) (ISNI:0000 0001 0941 6502)
3 NYU Langone Health, Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York, USA (GRID:grid.240324.3) (ISNI:0000 0001 2109 4251)
4 Nagoya City University Institute of Medical and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Department of Hematology and Oncology, Nagoya, Japan (GRID:grid.260433.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 0728 1069)
5 University Hospital Hotel Dieu, Hematology Department, Nantes, France (GRID:grid.277151.7) (ISNI:0000 0004 0472 0371)
6 Mayo Clinic, Division of Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, Rochester, USA (GRID:grid.66875.3a) (ISNI:0000 0004 0459 167X)
7 Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc. (TDCA), Lexington, USA (GRID:grid.419849.9) (ISNI:0000 0004 0447 7762)
8 National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Medicine, Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Clinical Therapeutics, Athens, Greece (GRID:grid.5216.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 2155 0800)