MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2188151624 · doi:10.1182/blood.v118.21.1605.1605

CPOP-R Versus CHOP-R As First-Line Therapy for Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL): A Phase 2, Randomized, Open-Label, Multicenter Study

2011· article· en· W2188151624 sur OpenAlexaff
Raoul Herbrecht, David MacDonald, Florian Weißinger, Martin Wilhelm, Charles Holladay, Nam H. Dang, Peter Holman, Paul Cernohous, Jack W. Singer, Richard H. van der Jagt

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensOttawa HospitalQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésInternal medicineMedicineGastroenterologyClinical endpointCHOPDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaPhases of clinical researchOncologyLymphomaRandomized controlled trialChemotherapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 1605 Introduction: CHOP-R is standard therapy for patients with untreated DLBCL. Pixantrone dimaleate (P) is a novel aza-anthracenedione that, unlike doxorubicin (D), forms stable DNA adducts and has enhanced efficacy compared to D in preclinical lymphoma models. Due to its inability to bind iron or form alcohol metabolites, P has substantially less cardiotoxicity than D or mitoxantrone in preclinical studies. In a Phase I-II study in 65 patients with relapsed aggressive B cell NHL after CHOP (±R), patients treated with CPOP (P replaced D in CHOP) had CR/CRu rate of 52% and an overall response rate (ORR) of 77% with median progression-free survival (PFS) of 8.2 months and overall survival (OS) of 17.9 months (Leuk Lymph 2011;52: 620–8). The present Phase II study evaluated efficacy and safety, particularly cardiotoxicity, of CPOP-R vs CHOP-R as first-line therapy in patients with DLBCL. Patients and Methods: Patients with untreated DLBCL (CD20+, stage II-IV disease) were randomized to CPOP-R or CHOP-R (1: 1). CHOP-R was administered at standard doses; in CPOP-R, P (150 mg/m2) was substituted for D. After 4 cycles, patients with a partial response (PR) received 4 more cycles of treatment; those with CR received 2 more cycles. Follow-up after treatment was 36 months. Response was assessed by an independent assessment panel. A primary objective to evaluate non-inferiority of CPOP-R to CHOP-R, measured by CR/CRu rates, required 280 patients. Secondary endpoints included ORR, PFS, OS, and time to progression (TTP) and safety. Enrollment was stopped after 124 patients because of resource constraints; the study was no longer powered to detect non-inferiority. Results: Of the 124 patients enrolled, 61 were randomized to CPOP-R and 63 to CHOP-R. Treatments were administered to 122 patients (98%). Demographics and baseline disease characteristics were balanced between arms. Median age was 68 years in both arms, 79% of patients in CPOP-R vs 78% in CHOP-R were Ann Arbor stage 3–4, 48% vs 54% had IPI ≥3, and 20% vs 11% had ≥3 comorbid conditions. Median number of cycles delivered was 8 for CPOP-R vs 6 for CHOP-R. CR/CRu rate in the ITT population was 72.1% for CPOP-R vs 79.4% for CHOP-R (95% CI for the difference = −7.8%, 22.3%) and ORR (CR+CRu+PR) was 82.0% vs 87.3%. PFS appeared similar for CPOP-R and CHOP-R (HR=1.08). TTP was also similar (median not reached in either arm). Median OS was not reached in either arm (HR=2.34, 95% CI=1.05, 5.22, P =.032). The 3-year survival rates were 66% in CPOP-R vs 85% in CHOP-R. Three-year survival for patients with IPI ≤2 was 82% for CPOP-R vs 86% for CHOP-R; IPI ≥3, survival was 50% vs 84%. It was unusual that in the CHOP-R arm, patients with the modal IPI score=3 (n=25) had a better survival than patients with IPI ≤2 with only 8% mortality at 3 years. This historically high survival rate for CHOP-R patients with IPI=3 appeared responsible for the disparate survival rates between CPOP-R and CHOP-R. Eight patients in CPOP-R and 2 in CHOP-R had a history of coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure (CHF), or myocardial infarction. Overall, adverse events (AEs) were similar between arms; grade 3/4 AEs occurred in about 85% of patients in both arms. Incidence of grade 3/4 AEs was similar for neutropenia (61.0% vs 60.3%), febrile neutropenia (15.3% vs 15.9%), thrombocytopenia (5.1% vs 6.3%), and infections (16.9% vs 17.5%). Stomatitis was less common in CPOP-R (6.8% vs 17.5%). LVEF was measured prospectively at intervals through 24 months. LVEF values were generally stable in CPOP-R, but declined significantly from baseline in CHOP-R (P <.05). One patient in CPOP-R vs 8 in CHOP-R had LVEF declines ≥20% (P<.05). In CPOP-R, 6.7% of patients vs 35.2% in CHOP-R developed elevated troponin T levels (P<.05). No patients in CPOP-R vs 4 in CHOP-R developed CHF. Three deaths occurred within 30 days of last dose in CPOP-R vs none in CHOP-R. Most deaths after treatment in both arms were related to progressive disease. Conclusions: This study compared CPOP-R, a pixantrone-containing regimen, with CHOP-R as first-line therapy for DLBCL and showed comparable efficacy as measured by response, PFS, and TTP. Hematopoietic toxicities were similar; however, CPOP-R had reduced cardiotoxicity as determined by overall and serious declines in LVEF, elevations in troponin T, and CHF occurrence. Non-inferiority of CPOP-R to CHOP-R could not be established. Disclosures: Herbrecht: Cell Therapeutics, Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cernohous:Cell Therapeutics, Inc: Employment. Singer:Cell Therapeutics, Inc: Employment. van der Jagt:Cell Therapeutics, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,016

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0010,002
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,069
Tête enseignante GPT0,345
Écart entre enseignants0,277 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→Travaux en français237 207→