MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2570200366 · doi:10.1182/blood.v126.23.1542.1542

Lymphoma Symptoms: Data from a Phase 3, International, Randomized, Open-Label, Multicenter Study in Patients with Previously Treated Mantle Cell Lymphoma (MCL) Treated with Ibrutinib Vs. Temsirolimus

2015· article· en· W2570200366 sur OpenAlexaff
Georg Heß, Simon Rule, Wojciech Jurczak, Mats Jerkeman, Rodrigo Santucci, Chiara Rusconi, Dolores Caballero, Cristina João, Mathias Witzens‐Harig, Isabelle Bence‐Bruckler, Seok‐Goo Cho, Nibedita Bandyopadhyay, John Bothos, Christopher Enny, Jessica Vermeulen, Shana Traina, Martin Dreyling

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensOttawa Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMantle cell lymphomaMedicineInternal medicineIbrutinibTemsirolimusClinical endpointLymphomaPhases of clinical researchInternational Prognostic IndexOncologyRandomized controlled trialGastroenterologyClinical trialRituximabLeukemiaChronic lymphocytic leukemia

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction MCL is an incurable aggressive B-cell lymphoma with a poor overall prognosis. For patients with MCL who fail initial therapy (ie, with relapsed or refractory [R/R] disease), treatment options historically have been limited. While remission duration is generally short, the goal of therapy has been to achieve remission while balancing treatment-related toxicities. Consequently, a substantial proportion of patients continuously suffer from lymphoma symptoms and other disease signs, such as itching and trouble sleeping or concentrating. Additionally, worries and high emotional sensitivity lead to reduced functional status and well-being. Therefore, it is crucial to any treatment to maintain and improve the functional status and well-being of patients with R/R MCL for as long as possible throughout the treatment period. Methods RAY (MCL3001) is a phase 3, randomized, open-label, multicenter study in patients with R/R MCL. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive ibrutinib (560 mg once daily) or temsirolimus (175 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of Cycle 1; 75 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of subsequent cycles). Stratification factors were the number of prior lines of therapy (1-2 vs ³3) and simplified MCL international prognostic index risk (low [0-3] vs intermediate [4-5] vs high [6-11]). Patients in both arms received treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary end point of the study was progression-free survival (PFS), as assessed by an independent review committee. Lymphoma symptoms were assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lymphoma (FACT-Lym) questionnaire lymphoma subscale. The FACT-Lym was administered before any tests, procedures, or other consultations, and was used until disease progression, death, or the clinical cutoff, whichever came first. Median time to worsening (TTW), a prespecified secondary end point, and time to clinically meaningful improvement (TTI) on the lymphoma subscale were estimated. Worsening was defined as a ≥ 5-point decrease from baseline and clinically meaningful improvement as a ≥ 5-point increase from baseline. TTW and TTI on the lymphoma subscale were examined using Kaplan-Meier methods. Results In total, 280 patients were randomized to ibrutinib (n = 139) or temsirolimus (n = 141); 253 patients (ibrutinib, n = 130; temsirolimus, n = 123) provided FACT-Lym lymphoma subscale responses at baseline. Patients were compliant to therapy, and attrition was balanced between treatment arms. Disease characteristics and demographics at baseline (including FACT-Lym lymphoma subscale scores) were also generally well balanced. The study met its primary end point with a statistically significant 57% reduction in disease progression or death (PFS) with ibrutinib versus temsirolimus (hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.58; p < 0.0001). The median PFS was 14.6 months for the ibrutinib arm and 6.2 months for the temsirolimus arm. When adjusted for exposure, incidence of TEAEs was lower for the ibrutinib arm than the temsirolimus arm. The proportion of patients with worsening from baseline on the FACT-Lym lymphoma subscale was lower for ibrutinib compared with temsirolimus (26.6% vs 51.8%, respectively). Median TTW was not reached with ibrutinib versus 9.7 weeks with temsirolimus, with a statistically significant reduction in the risk of worsening of 73% (p < 0.0001; Figure 1). The proportion of patients with a clinically meaningful improvement from baseline on the FACT-Lym lymphoma subscale was higher for ibrutinib compared with temsirolimus (61.9% vs 35.5%, respectively). Median TTI was shorter for ibrutinib compared with temsirolimus (6.3 weeks vs 57.3 weeks, respectively; HR, 2.19; p < 0.0001; Figure 2). Conclusions RAY (MCL3001) is the first trial comparing different targeted approaches in R/R MCL. The presented data indicate that ibrutinib is associated with greater improvements and less worsening in lymphoma symptoms compared with temsirolimus, as measured by the lymphoma subscale of the FACT-Lym. These results suggest that the superior efficacy results and favorable safety profile of ibrutinib are accompanied by better lymphoma symptom outcomes, indicating significant clinical benefit for the majority of patients with R/R MCL. Disclosures Hess: Pfizer, Janssen, Roche, Mundipharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen, Roche, Celgene, Novartis: Consultancy. Rule:J&J: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement; Gilead: Research Funding. Jurczak:CELLTRION, Inc,: Research Funding. Rusconi:Roche: Honoraria. Witzens-Harig:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria. Bandyopadhyay:Janssen: Employment. Goldberg:Janssen: Employment. Bothos:Janssen: Employment. Enny:Janssen: Employment. Vermeulen:Janssen: Employment. Traina:Janssen: Employment.

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)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
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 seuil0,027

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,003
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,001

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 Opus0,046
Tête enseignante GPT0,330
Écart entre enseignants0,283 · 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

Citations0
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchTravaux en français237 207