Comparison of Single Agent GA101 In Japanese and European Patients with Relapsed/Refractory B-Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (B-NHL) – Results From Two Phase I Studies
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Abstract 4921 Background: Most studies regarding the chimeric anti-CD20-antibody rituximab have reported no ethnic differences including response or safety in B-NHL. GA101 is the first type II, glycoengineered and humanized anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody to enter clinical trials. Results in B-NHL patients have previously been reported from three phase I studies, conducted in Europe, Canada and Japan (Salles 2008, 2010, Sehn 2009, Tobinai 2010), and all have demonstrated good tolerability along with promising activity, with a safety profile largely similar to rituximab when compared to historical rituximab data. Here we report a comparison of the phase I studies BO20999 and JO21900, conducted in Europe and Japan, respectively, to analyze any potential ethnic differences in safety/efficacy. Both studies were conducted in patients with relapsed/refractory B-NHL, with the majority of patients being of indolent histology and both studies used identical drug administration and response assessment schedules. Methods: In both studies GA101 was administered IV as monotherapy (as an absolutely flat dose) on days 1, 8 and 22, and then every 3 wks, for a total of 9 infusions. The dose was escalated using a 3+3 design, with study JO21900 starting at a higher dose of 200/400mg (with doses up to 2,000mg, a dose level judged safe and well tolerated in BO20999 (doses ranging from 50-2, 000mg). Patient and disease characteristics, prior treatments, response rates and safety parameters from both studies were compared. Given the small sample sizes, heterogeneity, the dose-escalation design and the cross-trial comparison, no formal statistical analysis was applied. Results: Patient age and other baseline parameters were substantially similar between the two studies (Table 1). The safety profiles in both studies were comparable, with the most common AEs being infusion-related reactions (86% BO20999; 100% JO21900) of grade 1–2 mainly associated with the first infusion and decreasing with subsequent infusions. Incidence of SAEs were similar (BO20999 [n=4], JO21900 [n=2]). Importantly, no dose-limiting toxicities and no dose reductions were observed in either study. No patients with aggressive histology were enrolled into study JO21900, and Japanese patients were less heavily pretreated (median of 1 vs 4 prior treatments for European patients) and no Japanese patient had received prior autologous stem cell transplant. End of treatment response rates were slightly higher in Japanese study than those in the European study (Table 1). GA101 plasma drug concentrations in both studies were comparable, with the observation of a large inter-patient variability, however, a dose-dependent increase in mean plasma concentrations, increasing with dose, was observed in both studies. Conclusion: These clinical, safety and pharmacokinetic results from two phase I studies suggest that there appears to be no apparent differences between Japanese and European patients with respect to the safety or efficacy of GA101 monotherapy in indolent B-NHL patients, although analyses on larger datasets would be required to confirm these initial results. The slightly higher response rates observed in Japanese patients may be attributable to the small sample size, and a less heavily pre-treated population that comprised of patients solely of indolent histology only. Disclosures: Morschhauser: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cartron: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hatake: Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.: Honoraria, Research Funding. Wenger: Roche: Employment. Birkett: Roche: Employment. Oya: Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.: Employment. Nishima: Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.: Employment. Salles: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.
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 | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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 ».