An Open-Label, Randomized Study of Bendamustine and Rituximab (BR) Compared with Rituximab, Cyclophosphamide, Vincristine, and Prednisone (R-CVP) or Rituximab, Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin, Vincristine, and Prednisone (R-CHOP) in First-Line Treatment of Patients with Advanced Indolent Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL) or Mantle Cell Lymphoma (MCL): The Bright Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Abstract 902 Background Bendamustine (B) is an active agent for relapsed and refractory indolent NHL, both as monotherapy and combined with rituximab (R), results recently updated by the StiL study group. This study compared efficacy and safety of BR with standard treatment regimens of R-CHOP and R-CVP as first-line treatment for indolent NHL or MCL. Methods Patients were randomized to 6–8 cycles of BR or R-CHOP/R-CVP (R-CHOP or R-CVP determined by investigator prior to randomization). BR regimen was B 90 mg/m2/day on days 1 and 2 plus R 375 mg/m2on day 1 of a 28-day cycle. Standard dosing and 21 day cycles were used for R-CHOP and R-CVP. Primary objective was to demonstrate noninferiority of complete response (CR) rate of BR vs standard treatment (noninferiority margin [ratio] 0.88). Secondary measures included overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival, and overall survival. Tumor response was determined by a blinded independent review committee (IRC) using International Working Group revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. Investigator assessments were compared with those of the IRC. Results Of 447 randomized patients, 436 received treatment (BR n=221; R-CHOP/R-CVP n=215 [R-CHOP n=99; R-CVP n=116]) and were evaluable for safety. Of these, 419 patients (BR n=213; R-CHOP/R-CVP n=206 [R-CHOP 97; R-CVP n=109]) were evaluable for efficacy. The randomized groups were well matched for age (median 60 and 58 years), sex (male, 61% and 59%), ECOG status (64% performance status 0, both groups), lymphoma type (83% indolent NHL, both groups), and Ann Arbor stage (62% stage IV, both groups). Among randomized patients and efficacy evaluable patients, the IRC-assessed CR rate was numerically higher for BR than R-CHOP/R-CVP and statistically noninferior (Table). In the randomized groups, CR rates for indolent NHL were numerically similar between BR and R-CHOP/R-CVP; however, in MCL, BR was statistically superior (P=0.018) (Table). Investigator-assessed response in randomized patients found superiority of BR vs R-CHOP/R-CVP (P=0.0013). IRC and investigator assessments differed mainly in quality of response (CR vs partial) rather than in whether a patient was a responder. For randomized patients, the ORR was 94% for BR and 84% for R-CHOP/R-CVP. Time-to-event data are immature and will be analyzed later. At time of data cut-off, 8% of the BR group had progressed, relapsed, or died, compared with 4% of R-CHOP/R-CVP group. Most patients completed 6 cycles (92% for BR and 91% for R-CHOP/R-CVP), with high relative dose intensity (>96%). Dose delays were more common for BR-treated patients (35% vs 19%), and dose reductions were less common (22% vs 29%). Most common AEs for BR and R-CHOP/R-CVP, respectively, were nausea (139 vs 102 patients), fatigue (113 vs 107), neutropenia (76 vs 85), constipation (65 vs 90), and alopecia (8 vs 74). Laboratory grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities for BR and R-CHOP/R-CVP were lymphopenia (137 vs 64), neutropenia (98 vs 151), leukopenia (84 vs 116), thrombocytopenia (16 vs 15), and anemia (6 vs 9), respectively. The most frequent investigator-reported nonhematologic grade 3/4 AEs for BR and R-CHOP/R-CVP were infusion-related reaction (13 vs 8 patients). Granulocyte colony stimulating factors were given at investigator discretion (per ASCO recommendations) to 29% of the BR group and 43% of the R-CHOP/R-CVP group. Fatal AEs occurred in 6 BR patients (pneumonia, respiratory failure, and sepsis; acute respiratory failure; cardiac arrest; pneumonia; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; lung cancer) and 1 R-CHOP/R-CVP patient (sepsis). Conclusion In patients with advanced indolent NHL and MCL, BR produces a CR rate that is noninferior to that of R-CHOP/R-CVP. In the subgroup of patients with MCL, BR produces a significantly higher CR rate (51% vs 24%). High ORRs were attained in both treatment groups. The AE profile of BR was distinct from that of R-CHOP/R-CVP. Support: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Disclosures: Flinn: Teva Pharmaceuticals : Research Funding. Off Label Use: Bendamustine is FDA-approved for adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia or indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma that has progressed during or within six months of treatment with rituximab or a rituximab-containing regimen. Van der Jagt:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Sponsorship Other; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, sponsorship, sponsorship Other; Roche: Consultancy, sponsorship, sponsorship Other; Cephalon: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Xanthus: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb : Consultancy. Kahl:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Teva Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. MacDonald:Lundbeck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Munteanu:Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.: Employment. Clementi:Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.: Employment. Chen:Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.: Employment. Burke:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy.
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 | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 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 ».