MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2594107028 · doi:10.1182/blood.v126.23.1532.1532

Primary Results of the Health-Related Quality of Life Assessment from the Phase III Gadolin Study of Obinutuzumab Plus Bendamustine Compared with Bendamustine Alone in Patients with Rituximab-Refractory, Indolent Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

2015· article· en· W2594107028 sur OpenAlexaff
Bruce D. Cheson, Peter C. Trask, John G. Gribben, Natalie Dimier, Eva Kimby, Pieternella J. Lugtenburg, Catherine Thiéblemont, Elisabeth Wassner Fritsch, Laurie H. Sehn

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBendamustineObinutuzumabMedicineRituximabInternal medicineQuality of life (healthcare)Clinical endpointRefractory (planetary science)LymphomaPhases of clinical researchOncologySurgeryGastroenterologyClinical trial

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background Meaningful improvement in, or maintenance of, pre-treatment health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is important for rituximab-refractory (R-ref), indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients. GADOLIN (NCT01059630) is an open-label, phase III study of bendamustine (B) with or without obinutuzumab (GA101; Gazyva/Gazyvaro; G) in patients with CD20+ R-ref, indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma. In GADOLIN, independent review facility (IRF)-assessed median progression-free survival (PFS) was 14.9 months (mo) in the B arm and not reached in the G-B arm (HR=0.55; 95% CI, 0.40, 0.74; p=0.0001), with an acceptable safety profile. Here, we present patient-reported HRQoL data from GADOLIN. Methods The Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment-Lymphoma (FACT-Lym) questionnaire (Webster K, et al. Qual Life Res 2005;14:2103) was used to assess overall HRQoL, physical and functional well-being, and disease- and treatment-related symptoms. It was administered on day 1 of cycles 1, 3 and 5 during treatment, at the end of induction (EOI) treatment and every other month for 2-years (where non-progressing G-B patients received G maintenance and B patients were observed), and during follow-up. Time to ³6 point worsening from baseline in the FACT-Lym Trial Outcome Index (TOI) was estimated for each treatment group using a Kaplan-Meier curve. Minimally important differences at the individual subscale and total score levels were used to define the proportion of patients reporting improvement on the FACT-Lym lymphoma subscale (³3 points), TOI (³6 points), and lymphoma total score (³7 points). Results The primary study analysis was undertaken when 396 patients had been randomized (194 to G-B and 202 to B [198 treated]); median observation time was 21 mo. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. Median age was 63 years and patients had a median of two prior therapies. Questionnaire completion rates were generally good and balanced in the G-B vs B arms (91.2% vs 89.1% at baseline, 74.2% vs 69.8% at EOI, and 33.0% vs 31.2% at final follow up, respectively). Time to ³6 point worsening from baseline on the FACT-Lym TOI was 8.0 mo (95% CI, 5.8, 15.1) in the G-B arm and 4.6 mo (95% CI, 3.8, 6.4) in the B arm (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56, 0.98; Figure 1). In addition, a greater proportion of patients reported meaningful improvement on the lymphoma subscale, lymphoma TOI, and total score in the G-B arm than in the B arm throughout the study (Table 1). Conclusions G combined with B, followed by G maintenance, resulted in a greater proportion of patients reporting a meaningful improvement in HRQoL throughout the course of the study. This improvement occurred even during induction, despite similar clinical response rates. A longer time to clinically meaningful deterioration of lymphoma-related HRQoL compared with patients who received B alone was also observed. These results are consistent with the improvement in PFS and suggest that the improvement in PFS is not at the expense of an increase in treatment-related toxicity that could lead to a reduction in a patient's HRQoL. Figure 1. Kaplan-Meier Plot of FACT-Lym Trial Outcome Index ³ 6 point worsening from Baseline (ITT population) Figure 1. Kaplan-Meier Plot of FACT-Lym Trial Outcome Index ³ 6 point worsening from Baseline (ITT population) Figure 2. Summary of Definitive Improvement in FACT-Lym (ITT population) Figure 2. Summary of Definitive Improvement in FACT-Lym (ITT population) Disclosures Cheson: Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; MedImmune: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ascenta: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy. Off Label Use: Obinutuzumab (GA101; Gazyva/Gazyvaro) is a CD20-directed cytolytic antibody and is indicated, in combination with chlorambucil, for the treatment of patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia). This abstract reports on bendamustine with or without obinutuzumab in patients with CD20+ R-ref, indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma.. Trask:Genentech: Employment. Gribben:Janssen: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Roche/Genentech: Honoraria. Dimier:Roche: Employment. Kimby:Pfizer: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jansen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lugtenburg:Mundipharma: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Thieblemont:St. Louis Hospital, Paris, France: Employment. Wassner Fritsch:Roche: Employment. Sehn:Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Consultancy, Honoraria.

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)0,003
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 seuil0,024

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,003
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

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 Opus0,037
Tête enseignante GPT0,306
Écart entre enseignants0,269 · 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

Citations7
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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