A Phase 3 Trial Comparing Bortezomib Plus Rituximab with Rituximab Alone In Patients with Relapsed, Rituximab-Naive or -Sensitive, Follicular Lymphoma
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Abstract 857 Background: Follicular lymphoma (FL) is an incurable B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) representing ∼20% of all NHL. Rituximab (R) is approved for the treatment of CD20+ relapsed/refractory FL, and single-agent bortezomib (Vc; VELCADE®) has shown activity in heavily pretreated patients. Vc and R show additive activity in preclinical models, and the combination was active and well tolerated in a phase 2 study. This randomized, open-label, multi-center, international, phase 3 clinical trial (LYM3001) compared the efficacy and safety of Vc plus R (Vc-R) vs R alone in patients with relapsed or refractory, R-naive or R-sensitive FL. Methods: Patients with grade 1/2 measurable FL who had relapsed/progressed following prior therapy (time to progression [TTP] ≥6 months if prior R-containing therapy), ECOG performance status ≤2, and no peripheral neuropathy grade ≥2 were randomized (1:1) to receive 5-week cycles of Vc-R (Vc 1.6 mg/m2, d 1, 8, 15, 22, cycles 1–5, plus R 375 mg/m2, d 1, 8, 15, 22 in cycle 1 and d 1 only in cycles 2–5) or R alone (administered according to the same schedule as for the Vc-R arm). In both groups, treatment was administered for five cycles or until progression or unacceptable treatment-related toxicity. Randomization was stratified by FLIPI score (0–1 vs 2 vs ≥3), prior R therapy (yes vs no), time since last dose of anti-FL therapy (≤1 vs >1 year), and region (US vs EU vs rest of world). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, TTP, and safety/tolerability. Response and progression were assessed by independent radiology committee (IRC) using the modified International Workshop Response Criteria. Planned sample size was 670 patients to provide 90% power (α=0.05, 2-sided) to detect a 33% improvement in median PFS with Vc-R vs R (i.e. 13.3 vs 10 months). Results: Between April 2006 and August 2008, 676 patients (intent-to-treat [ITT] population) were enrolled from 164 centers in 29 countries across Europe, the Americas, and Asia. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two arms; median age was 57 years (range 21–84), 54% were female, 75% were Caucasian and 21% were Asian. The majority of patients (93%) had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, 51% and 48% had grade 1 and 2 FL, respectively, and 41%, 35%, and 23% had high, intermediate, and low FLIPI score, respectively; 83% had Ann Arbor Stage III or IV, and 38% had bone marrow involvement at baseline. 33% of patients had received 3 or more prior lines of therapy (range 1–6+); 44% had received prior R therapy. The most common prior regimens were CHOP (38%), CVP (25%), single-agent R (17%), R-CHOP (12%), and R-CVP (11%). At a median follow-up of 33.9 months, a total of 440 PFS events were observed by IRC in the ITT population, 212 in the Vc-R arm and 228 events in the R arm. Median PFS improved from 334 days (95% CI: 278, 365) with R alone to 389 days (95% CI: 351, 456) with Vc-R; the hazard ratio was 0.822 (95% CI: 0.681, 0.991). This improvement is statistically significant with a 2-sided P-value of 0.039. The ORR was 63% with Vc-R vs 49% with R (P<0.001), including 25% and 18% verified CR rates, respectively (P=0.035). The durable response rate (>6 months) was 50% with Vc-R vs 38% with R (P=0.002). The median time to subsequent antilymphoma treatment was significantly improved in the Vc-R vs R arm (700 vs 537 days, P=0.027). Median OS was not reached in either group. Patients received a median 25 weeks treatment in both the Vc-R and R groups (range 5–40 and 5–35 in the Vc-R and R groups, respectively). Adverse events (AEs) were reported for 95% of Vc-R and 78% of R patients. The most common AEs were diarrhea (52% Vc-R, 8% R), nausea (29% Vc-R, 7% R), and pyrexia (25% Vc-R, 10% R). Most AEs were grade 1 or 2. Grade ≥3 AEs were reported in 46% of Vc-R and 21% of R patients; the most common grade ≥3 AEs were neutropenia (11% vs 4%) and diarrhea (7% vs 0%). Peripheral sensory neuropathy was reported in 17% of patients in the Vc-R arm vs 1% in the R arm; 3% vs 0% grade ≥3. 18% and 11% of Vc-R and R patients, respectively, had serious AEs, only 4% and 1% of patients discontinued due to drug-related AEs, and there were 9 and 4 on-treatment deaths, respectively. Conclusion: The addition of weekly Vc to R therapy in patients with relapsed FL was associated with statistically significant improvements in PFS, response rate, and time to next antilymphoma treatment, with acceptable additional toxicity. Disclosures: Coiffier: Johnson & Johnson: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Discussion of Velcade in NHL subtypes other than mantle cell lymphoma is included. Mayer:Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Rule:Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy. Walewski:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Investigators fee. Crump:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy. Shpilberg:Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hermann:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Parasuraman:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhu:Johnson & Johnson: Employment. Enny:Johnson & Johnson: Employment, Equity Ownership. Theocharous:Johnson & Johnson: Employment. van de Velde:Johnson & Johson: Employment, Equity Ownership. Elsayed:Johnson & Johnson: Employment, Equity Ownership.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».