Phase 2 Study of Venetoclax Plus Rituximab or Randomized Ven Plus Bendamustine+Rituximab (BR) Versus BR in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Follicular Lymphoma: Interim Data
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction Despite improved response and survival for patients (pts) with follicular lymphoma (FL) receiving rituximab (R) plus chemotherapy, new options are needed. FL is typically characterized by the presence of chromosomal translocation t(14;18), which results in overexpression of the anti-apoptotic protein BCL-2. BCL-2 may also contribute to resistance to chemoimmunotherapy such as bendamustine+R (BR), a regimen commonly used in FL. Venetoclax (VEN), a selective, potent oral BCL-2 inhibitor, is in development for the treatment of B-cell malignancies. Preclinical and early clinical data suggest VEN+R or VEN+BR may improve response over R or chemotherapy alone and is feasible. This open-label study will assess efficacy and toxicity of VEN+R as well as VEN+BR vs BR alone, in pts with relapsed/refractory (R/R) FL (NCT02187861). Methods R/R pts (age ≥18 yrs, confirmed Gr 1-3a FL, ECOG PS 0-2, adequate hematologic function) were assigned (at investigators' discretion) to chemotherapy-free (chemo-free) or randomized to chemotherapy-containing (chemo) arms. Those in the chemo-free Arm (Arm A) received VEN 800mg daily for 1 yr + R (cycles [C] 1, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12). After a safety run-in (9 pts at 600mg VEN daily + 6 cycles BR), those in the chemo Arm were randomized 1:1 to Arm B (VEN 800mg + 6 cycles BR) or C (BR only). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) rate by PET-CT. Secondary endpoints include CR rate by CT and overall response rate. Response assessment was per Lugano non-Hodgkin lymphoma assessment (Cheson et al. 2014) 6-8 wks after D1 of C6 (or the cycle non-VEN agents were permanently discontinued: whichever came first). Results One hundred sixty-four pts were enrolled as of May 13, 2016 (Table 1); 53 chemo-free (Arm A) and 111 chemo (9 run-in; 51 Arm B; 51 Arm C). 61% were refractory to prior treatment: 79% Arm A; 56% safety run-in; 43% Arm B; 62% Arm C. One hundred fifty-three of 160 safety evaluable pts (94%) experienced any AE (Table 2). Common AEs (all grades): diarrhea (37%), neutropenia (29%), nausea (25%), fatigue (25%), and IRR (25%). Common AEs for Arm B vs Arm C: nausea (61% vs 38%), neutropenia (51% vs 26%), diarrhea (41% vs 12%), thrombocytopenia (39% vs 20%) and fatigue (37% vs 24%). Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were the most common Gr 3-4 AEs among all groups. 40 pts had serious AE (SAEs): 14 (27%) Arm A; 4 (44%) run-in; 15 (31%) Arm B; 7 (14%) Arm C. SAEs in >1 pt in any arm: febrile neutropenia (2 run-in; 5 Arm B; 1 Arm C), pneumonia (2 Arm A; 1 Arm B), and LDH increase (2 Arm A). Laboratory tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) events occurred in 2 pts (1 Arm A; 1 Arm B): both manageable and resolved with no clinical complications. Five deaths occurred on study: 3 Arm A (colitis, pulmonary hemorrhage, PD), 1 Arm B (pneumonia), 1 Arm C (PD). Pts with AEs leading to dose interruptions or modification: 28 (54%) Arm A; 7 (78%) run-in; 37 (76%) Arm B; 12 (24%) Arm C. Pts with early drug discontinuations of VEN: 29 (56%) Arm A; 5 (56%) run-in; 11 (22%) Arm B. Early R discontinuations: 28 (54%) Arm A; 3 (33%) run-in; 7 (14%) Arm B; 5 (10%) Arm C. Early B discontinuations: 3 (33%) run-in; 7 (14%) Arm B; 4 (8%) Arm C. Efficacy by PET+CT for safety evaluable patients who reached an assessment event is shown in Table 3. Arm A had 17 (33%) responders with 14% CR. Arm A was predominantly refractory to last treatment (79%): among non-refractory pts (21%), ORR was 64% with 27% CR. There was 68% ORR in Arm B with 50% CR compared with 64% ORR with 41% CR in Arm C. 55 (51%) of chemo pts have yet to reach a response-relevant event. Correlation with expression of BCL-2 family members is pending. Conclusion Early results from the first study evaluating VEN+R and VEN+BR in pts with FL show that daily VEN 800mg has an acceptable benefit/risk ratio. As expected with the known VEN safety profile, both VEN+R and VEN+BR are associated with hematologic and GI toxicity, which appears manageable. Laboratory TLS was rare (<2%) and manageable with no clinical sequelae. Objective response with VEN+R is 33% even in a highly refractory pt population and 64% among non-refractory pts, providing a potential chemotherapy-free option for both groups. While early data shows VEN+BR is associated with more toxicity and some early treatment discontinuations compared with BR alone, data suggest it may be a tradeoff for increased CR and decreased PD. Future data will help determine whether continued VEN treatment beyond initial chemotherapy deepens response. Disclosures Zinzani: Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celegene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Topp:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Other: travel; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Travel; Boehringer: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy. Rusconi:Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Congress attendance; Takeda: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy, Other: Congress attendance. Fleury:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Lundbeck: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Pro:Celegene: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Hsu:Genetech, Inc.: Employment. Punnoose:Genetech, Inc.: Employment. Hilger:Genetech, Inc.: Employment. Mobasher:Genentech, Inc.: Employment. Hiddermann:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding.
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 | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 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 ».