MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2587295203 · doi:10.1182/blood.v128.22.234.234

Updated Efficacy and Safety from the Phase 3 Resonate-2 Study: Ibrutinib As First-Line Treatment Option in Patients 65 Years and Older with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia/Small Lymphocytic Leukemia

2016· article· en· W2587295203 sur OpenAlexaff
Paul M. Barr, Tadeusz Robak, Carolyn Owen, Alessandra Tedeschi, Osnat Bairey, Nancy L. Bartlett, Jan A. Burger, Peter Hillmen, Steven Coutré, Stephen Devereux, Sebastian Grosicki, Helen O. McCarthy, Jianyong Li, David Simpson, Fritz Offner, Carol Moreno, Cathy Zhou, Lori Styles, Danelle F. James, Thomas J. Kipps, Paolo Ghia

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensFoothills Medical Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineIbrutinibChronic lymphocytic leukemiaChlorambucilInternal medicineBendamustineOncologyLeukemiaChemotherapyGastroenterologyCyclophosphamide

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) occurs primarily in older patients (pts) who often have increased comorbidities and cannot tolerate aggressive treatments, which leads to poorer outcomes (Balducci, Cancer Control 2015; Thurmes, Leuk Lymphoma 2008). Alkylating agents, such as chlorambucil (clb), have been commonly used to treat these pts (Eichhorst, Blood 2009). Ibrutinib (ibr), a first-in-class, once-daily, inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase, is indicated by the US FDA for the treatment of pts with CLL/SLL and allows for treatment without chemotherapy. RESONATE-2 (PCYC-1115) is a randomized phase 3 trial designed to compare the efficacy and safety of ibr vs clb in pts with treatment-naïve (TN) CLL/SLL (Tedeschi, ASH 2015). Primary results, as assessed by an independent review committee (IRC), demonstrated with a median follow-up of 18.4 mo that ibr significantly reduced the risk of progression or death by 84% (P<0.001)(Burger, N Engl J Med 2015). Based on these results, ibr was approved as a first-line treatment option for CLL pts. This extension study provides updated efficacy and safety results of ibr for RESONATE-2. Methods: Eligible pts with TN CLL/SLL aged ≥65 y were randomized 1:1 to receive 420 mg ibr daily until progression or 0.5 mg/kg clb (max 0.8 mg/kg) on days 1 and 15 of a 28-d cycle for up to 12 cycles. Pts with del17p were excluded. Pts were stratified by ECOG status and Rai stage. The primary endpoint was PFS per iwCLL 2008 criteria, with 2012 clarification for treatment related lymphocytosis. Secondary endpoints included OS, ORR, rate of hematologic improvement, and safety; longer term follow-up safety data focused on ibr. Pts in the 1115 study with progressive disease (PD) were enrolled in the PCYC-1116 extension study. At 1115 study closure, all pts in 1115 rolled over to 1116. Pts on the clb arm with PD could cross-over to ibr or investigator's choice. Results: Median age of the 269 pts was 73 y (70% ≥70 y). Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms; 45% had advanced Rai stage, 20% had del11q, and 69% had comorbidities at baseline, including CIRS score >6, reduced creatinine clearance, or ECOG performance status of 2. With a median follow-up of 28.6 mo, prolongation of PFS for ibr vs clb was sustained (89% vs 34% at 24-mo; HR, 0.121; 95% CI 0.074-0.198; P<0.0001; Figure). PFS was significantly improved for ibr across high-risk subgroups, including del11q and unmutated IGHV gene (Figure). Overall, 4 of 135 pts discontinued ibr due to PD. 1 case of Richter's transformation was observed in each arm. With 41% of pts switching from clb to ibr, the OS analysis in the ITT population resulted in 2-yr survival rate estimates of 95% and 84% in the ibr and chlorambucil arms, respectively. The investigator-assessed ORR was 92% with ibr vs 36% with clb (P<0.0001). CR/CRi within the ibr arm improved from 11% at 18.4 mo to 18% with longer follow-up of 28.6-mo. Sustained hematological improvements were higher for ibr vs clb for those with anemia (90% vs 45%; P<0.0001) or thrombocytopenia (80% vs 46%; P=0.0055) at baseline. The most frequent adverse events in ibrutinib treated pts (AEs; ≥20%) are presented in the Table. Grade [Gr] ≥3 AEs in ≥5% of pts included neutropenia (12%), pneumonia (7%), anemia (7%), and hypertension (5%); AEs (any Gr) leading to dose reductions occurred in 13%. The most common reason for discontinuation was AEs (12%), with most occurring during the first yr of ibr therapy. The incidence of the common Gr ≥3 AEs in these ibr-treated pts typically decreased over time. Major hemorrhage occurred in 7% (1 Gr 2, 7 Gr 3, 1 Gr 4; 5 in first 12 mo and 4 between 1-2 y) and atrial fibrillation occurred in 10% (1 Gr 1, 7 Gr 2, 6 Gr 3) of ibr-treated pts. With a median treatment duration of 28.5 mo (range, 1-36), 79% of pts remain on first-line ibr. Conclusions: With a median time on study of 28.6 mo, ibr continued to have substantial efficacy, with 88% reduction in risk of progression or death. Furthermore, the quality of responses has improved over time, with 18% of CLL/SLL pts achieving a CR/CRi with single agent ibr. Treatment limiting AEs decreased in frequency with longer follow-up, with 79% of this elderly pt population continues daily ibr. Lastly, even with a high rate of cross-over in the clb arm, OS remains significantly improved for pts randomized to ibr. Disclosures Barr: AbbVie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Robak:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Owen:Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding. Bairey:Janssen: Consultancy. Bartlett:Gilead: Consultancy. Burger:Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Portola: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Roche: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Hillmen:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding. Coutre:AbbVie: Research Funding; Pharmacylics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy. Devereux:Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau. McCarthy:Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses; Chugai: Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses; Celgene: Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses. Simpson:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Offner:Novartis: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy. Zhou:AbbVie: Equity Ownership; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. Styles:AbbVie: Equity Ownership; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. James:Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment; AbbVie: Equity Ownership. Kipps:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Ghia:Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, 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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,626
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

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

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 Opus0,015
Tête enseignante GPT0,273
Écart entre enseignants0,258 · 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 tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

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

Citations44
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchTravaux en français237 207