MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2587200722 · doi:10.1182/blood.v124.21.1757.1757

Bendamustine Plus Rituximab (BR) in the Treatment of Relapsed/Refractory Mantle Cell Lymphoma of a Phase 2 Study: Multivariate Analysis and Updated Final Results By Subgroup

2014· article· en· W2587200722 sur OpenAlexaff
Myron S. Czuczman, André Goy, Dominick Lamonica, Daniel A. Graf, Mihaela Munteanu, Richard H. van der Jagt

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Ottawa
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBendamustineMedicineMantle cell lymphomaRituximabInternal medicineTolerabilityRefractory (planetary science)Progressive diseasePopulationSalvage therapyPhases of clinical researchGastroenterologyLymphomaSurgeryOncologyAdverse effectChemotherapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is an aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma that usually presents as advanced-stage disease. Relapse is common, and management of relapsed/refractory MCL is difficult due to a limited number of approved agents and numerous comorbidities seen in this typically elderly patient population. We conducted a study of bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) in patients with relapsed/refractory MCL and presented preliminary results (Czuczman et al, ASH 2012, Abstract 3662). Final data are being analyzed in a multivariate analysis of baseline demographic and disease factors affecting outcomes for this study, and we present below the final data for individual subgroups for best overall response, DOR, and progression free survival (PFS). Patients and Methods: This multicenter, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of BR in adults with relapsed or refractory CD20-positive B-cell MCL. Relapsed disease was defined as having achieved CR with a previous therapy but demonstrating recurrent disease >6 mo after the last dose. Refractory disease was defined as either a lack of CR while undergoing previous therapy or the loss of CR <6 mo after the last dose. Bendamustine 90 mg/m2 was administered on days 1 and 2; rituximab 375 mg/m2 was administered on day 1 of a 28-day cycle. The treatment period was 6 cycles, but patients without disease progression and without a documented CR could receive up to 8 cycles. Results of a univariate analysis will be conducted, and variables with a P value ≤0.1 will be included in a multivariate analysis. For the multivariate analysis, logistical regression will be used to examine the predictive value of baseline variables associated with response in categorical analyses. Results: Forty-five patients received ≥1 dose of BR. Median age was 70 years, 71% were male, and 82% had stage IV disease. Median treatment duration was 6 cycles. For the entire cohort, the overall response rate (ORR) was 82%. Results of a multivariate analysis, which is designed to identify baseline characteristics predictive of response to BR study treatment and to examine the association of response with survival in patients, will be presented. Final data among patients with relapsed (n=21) and refractory (n=24) MCL show overall response rates (ORRs) of 90% (n=19; CR 16 [76%], PR 3 [14%], 2 not calculable [NC]); and 75% (n=18; CR 5 [21%], PR 13 [54%], 1 NC), respectively. Median DOR (95% CI) was 19.7 mo (11.1, 38.8) and 15.3 mo (7.9, 35.3), and median PFS was 23.1 mo (13.2, 41.5) and 17.1 (8.3, 24.0), for relapsed and refractory patients, respectively. ORRs based on patients’ response to most recent prior rituximab treatment were CR, 95% (n=18; CR 15, PR 3); PR, 89% (n=8; CR 3, PR 5); stable disease (SD), 56% (n=5; CR 1, PR 4); progressive disease (PD), 71% (n=5; CR 1, PR 4); unknown, 100% (n=1; CR 1). DORs based on response to prior rituximab: CR, 17.0 mo (10.7, 38.8); PR, 17.9 mo (4.9, 35.9); SD, 35.3 mo (7.9, 35.3); PD, 14.3 mo (3.9, NC); unknown was NC. PFS results were: CR, 22.1 mo (13.2, 41.5); PR, 18.1 mo (4.7, 38.7); SD, 17.9 mo (2.4, 40.4); PD, 13.8 mo (5.4, NC); unknown was NC. In subgroups based on MIPI category, the ORR of patients in categories ≤3 was 92% (n=22; CR 14, PR 8); in 4–5 was 92% (n=11; CR 5, PR 6); in >5 was 44% (n=4; CR 2, PR 2). DORs based on risk category: ≤3, 20.6 mo (14.3, 35.5); 4–5, 11.1 mo (5.1, 21.3); >5, NC (5.1, NC). PFS results were: ≤3, 23.2 mo (16.2, 40.4); 4–5, 12.8 mo (8.3, 24.0); >5, 7.9 mo (2.0, NC). Main treatment-emergent grade 3/4 adverse events (>10%) were hematologic: neutropenia (n=15), lymphopenia (n=6), and leukopenia (n=5). Conclusion: The multivariate analysis is intended to indicate which patient characteristics are most closely associated with efficacy endpoints such as durability of response to BR. BR showed efficacy across a wide range of patient subgroups with relapsed/refractory MCL. In the subgroup of patients with relapsed MCL, CR was more common than PR, while patients with refractory MCL were more likely to achieve PR than CR. This information may be used to help guide treatment decisions when considering BR in heavily treated MCL patients. The BR regimen is generally well-tolerated and may serve as the backbone to which other active agents can be added in the study regimens to further improve anti-lymphoma activity. Support: Teva BPP R&D, Inc. Disclosures Czuczman: Teva: Consultancy. 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.. Goy:JNJ: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research funding for clinical trials through institution, Research funding for clinical trials through institution Other, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research funding for clinical trials through institution, Research funding for clinical trials through institution Other; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research fundiing for clinical trials through institution, Research fundiing for clinical trials through institution Other, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research funding for clinical trials through institution Other, Speakers Bureau. Munteanu:Teva: Employment, Equity Ownership. van der Jagt:Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Lundbeck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

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)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
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 non randomisé · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,008
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,041

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,007
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,278
Écart entre enseignants0,262 · 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 non 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
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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