A Phase 1b, Multi-Center, Open-Label Study of Novel Combinations of CC-122, CC-223, CC-292, and Rituximab in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: CC-122-DLBCL-001
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Relapsed/refractory (R/R) DLBCL remains an unmet medical need with no approved or standard therapy in the third-line setting. Several new promising classes of drugs are being developed based on emerging understanding of the molecular pathology of DLBCL. These include CC-122, a pleiotropic pathway modifier that promotes CRBN-dependent Aiolos and Ikaros degradation, CC-223, a potent selective ATP-competitive inhibitor of mTOR kinase, and CC-292, a highly selective irreversible-inhibitor of Btk. Early phase studies with these compounds indicated single-agent activity in B cell malignancies including DLBCL. CC-122-DLBCL-001 is a Phase 1b dose escalation and expansion study of CC-122, CC-223 and CC-292 administered orally as doublets, and as triplets in combination with rituximab (R), as well as a CC-122 plus R doublet, in subjects with high risk R/R DLBCL. Methods: The dose escalation phase of the study explores combinations of one or more doses for each novel agent using a modified 3+3 dose escalation design with higher dose cohorts including the addition of a fixed dose of rituximab 375 mg/m2 IV Q28 days. CC-122 1mg, 2mg, 3mg, or 4mg is given orally QD or for 5 out of 7 days/week (5/7d). CC-223 15mg, 20mg, or 30mg is given orally QD. CC-292 500mg is given orally BID. Subjects were treated until progression or intolerable side effects. Study endpoints were: safety, tolerability, PK, PD and preliminary efficacy [overall response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR)]. Subjects were considered efficacy evaluable if they received at least one cycle of treatment and had one post-baseline tumor assessment. Peripheral blood PD biomarkers on treatment were compared to baseline levels by flow cytometry for CC-223 mTOR pathway targets p4EBP1 and pAKT and CC-122 target Aiolos. CC-292 500mg BID was previously demonstrated to result in >90% Btk receptor occupancy at 24 hours (Blood 2013 122:4169). Results: As of May 02, 2016, a total of 102 subjects were enrolled into the ongoing dose escalation phase of the study. The median no. of prior anti-lymphoma regimens was 3 (range, 1-10), 30% had prior ASCT and 30% were refractory to any prior therapy. Arm A (CC-122 + CC-223 +/- R) enrolled 31 subjects (28 treated) on 5 dose levels. As of the data-cutoff, the MTD had not been established. The most common (> 10%) related grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (43%), thrombocytopenia (14%), diarrhea (18%), and rash (11%). Arm B (CC-122 + CC-292 +/- R) enrolled 28 (27 treated) subjects on 5 dose levels. The MTD was determined to be CC-122 1mg 5/7d + CC-292 500mg BID + R. The most common (> 10%) related grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (37%), thrombocytopenia (22%), anemia (11%) and febrile neutropenia (15%) Arm C (CC-223 + CC-292) included 14 enrolled (all treated) subjects on 2 dose levels. A tolerable dose demonstrating sufficient PD biomarker inhibition was not established. The most common (> 10%) related grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (14%), thrombocytopenia (29%) and diarrhea (14%). Arm D (CC-122 + R) included 29 subjects enrolled (28 treated) on 5 dose levels. As of the data-cutoff, the MTD had not been established. The most common (> 10%) related grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (32%). Generally, response rates of interest were noted in Arms A, B and D (Table 1). ORR increased at higher dose levels and responses were durable. Preliminary PD data (Table 2) demonstrated differential effects of CC-223 20mg dose on p4EBP1 inhibition between Arms A and C and differential effects of low and high dose CC-122 dosing on Aiolos inhibition between Arms A, B and D. Preliminary PK analysis for drug-drug interactions will be presented. Conclusions: Preliminary data from this ongoing novel-novel dose escalation study indicate that safe and tolerable combinations of CC-122 with CC-223, CC-292, and/or rituximab can be achieved. Combination effects on toxicity, efficacy and PD biomarkers were seen. The observed signals of efficacy are encouraging in this R/R DLBCL population and will be further explored in dose expansion of selected arms at the optimized doses. Disclosures Ribrag: Infinity: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Esai: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ArgenX: Research Funding; Pharmamar: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NanoString: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chavez:Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Kaplan:Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Vitolo:Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Santoro:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ArQule: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Corradini:Servier: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gentium: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Cassier:Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Merck Serono: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria. Flinn:Janssen: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding; RainTree Oncology Services: Equity Ownership. Advani:Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy, Honoraria; FortySeven: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sutro: Consultancy, Honoraria; Spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria; Stanford University: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Agensys: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Sangha:Boehringer-Ingelheim: Honoraria; Astra-Zeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Eli-Lilly: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria. Hagner:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Trowe:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gandhi:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hege:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Pourdehnad:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kuruvilla:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Roche Canada: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: 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
Étiquettes directes de modèles (non validées)
Étiquettes de catégorie et de devis d'étude par modèle, issues des rondes d'étiquetage. C'est une sortie machine, non validée, et le désaccord entre modèles est livré comme donnée. Aucun devis ici n'est encore validé contre MEDLINE.
| Bras | Catégories | Devis d'étude | Confiance |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | aucune catégorie Domaine: non disponible · Genre: Empirique Porte sur le système de recherche canadien: non · Porte sur un sujet canadien: non | Essai randomisé | low |
| gpt | aucune catégorie Domaine: non disponible · Genre: Empirique Porte sur le système de recherche canadien: non · Porte sur un sujet canadien: non | Essai non randomisé | medium |
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 | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 validéeÉtiqueté directement par 2 modèles lisant le dossier complet.
Les modèles divergent sur des parties de cette classification; chaque voix est préservée dans la section en fin de page.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».