Skip to main content
. 2020 Oct 10;113(2):219–230. doi: 10.1007/s12185-020-03013-6

Table 2.

Summary of efficacy results of the Japanese subgroup of the A.R.R.O.W. study

Once-weekly
Kd 20/70 mg/m2
(N = 26)
Twice-weekly
Kd 20/27 mg/m2
(N = 14)
Best overall response, n (%)a
Stringent complete response (sCR) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
Complete response (CR) 3 (11.5) 0 (0.0)
Very good partial response (VGPR) 8 (30.8) 4 (28.6)
Partial response (PR) 8 (30.8) 4 (28.6)
Minimal response (MR) 3 (11.5) 0 (0.0)
Stable disease 0 (0.0) 5 (35.7)
Progressive disease 1 (3.8) 1 (7.1)
Not evaluable (NE) 3 (11.5) 0 (0.0)
Duration of responseb
Number of events, n (%) 8 (30.8) 3 (21.4)
Median (95% CI) (months)a 15.1 (11.1, NE) NE (2.8, NE)
Clinical benefit rate (CBR)c
Number of subjects who achieved clinical benefit 22 8
CBR (95% CI) (%)d 84.6 (65.1, 95.6) 57.1 (28.9, 82.3)
Overall survival
Number of subjects who died, n (%) 3 (11.5) 1 (7.1)
Median (95% CI) (months)e NE (NE, NE) NE (NE, NE)

Stratification factors: ISS stage at study entry (Stage 1 vs. Stage 2 or 3), refractory to bortezomib treatment (yes vs. no), and age (< 6 vs. ≥ 65 years)

CI confidence interval, Kd carfilzomib (Kyprolis) plus dexamethasone, NE not estimable

aBest overall response is defined as a subject's best response during the study

bMedian and percentiles were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Corresponding CIs were estimated using the method by Klein and Moeschberger (1997) with log–log transformation

cClinical benefit is defined as achieving a best overall response of MR, PR, VGPR, CR or sCR

dClopper–Pearson interval

eMedian was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Corresponding CIs were estimated using the method by Klein and Moeschberger (1997) with log–log transformation