MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2782297997 · doi:10.1182/blood.v130.suppl_1.lba-2.lba-2

Venetoclax Plus Rituximab Is Superior to Bendamustine Plus Rituximab in Patients with Relapsed/ Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia - Results from Pre-Planned Interim Analysis of the Randomized Phase 3 Murano Study

2017· article· en· W2782297997 sur OpenAlexaffabout
John F. Seymour, Thomas J. Kipps, Barbara Eichhorst, Peter Hillmen, James M. D’Rozario, Sarit Assouline, Carolyn Owen, John F. Gerecitano, Tadeusz Robak, Javier de la Serna, Ulrich Jaeger, Guillaume Cartron, Marco Montillo, Rod Humerickhouse, Elizabeth A. Punnoose, Yan Li, Michelle Boyer, Kathryn Humphrey, Mehrdad Mobasher, Arnon P. Kater

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensUniversity of CalgaryJewish General Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRituximabBendamustineMedicineChemoimmunotherapyTumor lysis syndromeInternal medicineInterim analysisVenetoclaxNeutropeniaGastroenterologyRefractory (planetary science)ObinutuzumabChronic lymphocytic leukemiaOncologyRandomized controlled trialLeukemiaChemotherapyLymphoma

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Venetoclax (V), an orally administered, highly selective, potent BCL-2 inhibitor, induces high ORR when given as monotherapy to pts with relapsed/refractory (R/R) CLL, including high-risk populations, e.g. del(17p). V is also well tolerated when combined with rituximab (R) and achieves improved CR rates and minimal residual disease negativity (MRD-). Here, we provide first released data from the primary analysis of MURANO (NCT02005471), the first Phase 3 study of V in pts with R/R CLL, which assessed efficacy/safety of VR vs standard chemoimmunotherapy, bendamustine (B) + rituximab (BR). Methods Eligibility for this open-label, randomized, Phase 3 study included R/R CLL requiring treatment (iwCLL guidelines), 1-3 prior lines of therapy (including ≥1 chemo-containing) and ECOG PS ≤1. Prior B was allowed provided response duration was ≥24 mo. Pts were randomized (1:1) to VR or BR. Stratification factors were del(17p), responsiveness to prior therapy and geographic region. In the VR arm, a 4- or 5-wk graduated dose ramp-up of V from 20-400 mg daily was used to mitigate potential tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) risk. Beginning at Wk 6, R was then given monthly for six 28-day cycles (IV 375 mg/m2 first dose, then 500 mg/m2) in combination with V daily. Pts continued with V 400 mg for a maximum of 2 yr or until disease progression (whichever first). In the BR arm, pts were given B (IV 70 mg/m2) on Days 1 and 2 of each of six 28-day cycles in combination with R using same R dosing schedule. MRD was centrally assessed by ASO-PCR and/or flow cytometry in peripheral blood at screening, Mo. 4 and 9, and 3-monthly follow-up visits. The primary endpoint was investigator (INV)-assessed PFS. An interim analysis was preplanned at ~140 INV-assessed PFS events. On data review, an Independent Data Monitoring Committee recommended study arms to be unblinded to the sponsor as pre-specified statistical boundaries for early stopping were crossed for PFS in favor of VR. Results 389 pts were enrolled in VR (n=194) and BR (n=195) arms, which were well balanced: median (range) age, 64.5 (28-83) vs 66.0 (22-85) yr; 1 prior therapy, 57.2% vs 60.0%; fludarabine refractory, 14.1% vs 15.5%; del(17p), 26.6% vs 27.2%. At data cut-off (8 May 2017; median follow-up, 23.8 mo. [range 0.0-37.4]), INV-assessed PFS was superior for VR vs BR with HR 0.17, 95% CI 0.11-0.25, P<0.0001; median not reached vs 17.0 mo. (Fig 1). 24-mo. PFS estimates were 84.9% vs 36.3%, respectively. Consistent treatment effects on PFS were observed in all subgroups assessed (Fig 2). With HR 0.19, 95% CI 0.13-0.28, P<0.0001, Independent Review Committee-assessed PFS showed a similar magnitude of benefit. Key secondary efficacy endpoints showed consistent improvements for VR vs BR including a notable improvement in OS (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25-0.90). INV-assessed ORR was 93.3% with VR vs 67.7% with BR (Δ=25.6%, 95% CI 17.9-33.3%); CR/CRi was achieved in 26.8% vs 8.2% of pts, respectively (Table 1). Higher peripheral blood MRD- rates attained at any time were seen with VR vs BR (83.5% vs 23.1%; Δ=60.4%, 95% CI 52.3-68.6%) by ITT analysis. MRD negativity was more durable in the VR arm. Consistent with known safety profiles of the regimens, Grade 3-4 neutropenia was higher in VR arm but there was no increase in febrile neutropenia or Grade 3-4 infection (Table 2). There were 6 (3.1 %) and 2 (1.1%) Grade ≥3 AEs of TLS reported for VR and BR, respectively; one clinical TLS event in each arm (a Grade 4 acute renal failure in BR, transient increase in creatinine in VR; VR event occurred on an earlier 4-week ramp-up schedule). Richter transformation was confirmed in 6 pts and 5 pts for VR vs BR, respectively. AEs leading to death were seen in 5.2% vs 5.9% of pts. Median relative V dose intensity was 97% of protocol-specified drug exposure. Conclusion The primary analysis of MURANO, the first Phase 3 study of V in R/R CLL, shows a profound improvement in PFS vs standard BR chemoimmunotherapy, with consistent effects in all-risk subsets. Key secondary endpoints, including OS, ORR and CR rate, also showed consistent improvements with remarkable rates of peripheral blood MRD- that exceed those previously attained in treatment of R/R CLL. This enhanced disease control was achieved in a multinational setting with an acceptable safety profile, without significant TLS, demonstrating that treatment with VR resulted in outcomes superior to that of BR for pts with R/R CLL. Disclosures Seymour: AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sunesis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kipps:Celgene: Consultancy; Oncternal: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Eichhorst:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hillmen:Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria. D'Rozario:Roche: Consultancy. Assouline:Lundbeck: Other: Advisory Board; Paladin: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myer Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Roche Canada: Consultancy. Owen:AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria. Gerecitano:Merck: Consultancy; Mass Medical International: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Arcus Medica: Consultancy; Aratana: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Samus Therapeutics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Orexo: Consultancy. Robak:AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Akari Therapeutics Plc: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. De la Serna:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Jaeger:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; AOP Orphan: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Infinity: Honoraria; Millennium: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bioverativ: Honoraria, Research Funding. Cartron:Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria. Montillo:Novartis: Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Humerickhouse:AbbVie: Employment, Equity Ownership. Punnoose:Genentech: Employment. Li:Genentech: Employment. Boyer:Roche: Employment. Humphrey:F-Hoffmann-La Roche: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mobasher:Roche: Equity Ownership; Genentech: Employment. Kater:Roche: Consultancy; Acerta/Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Sandoz: Consultancy.

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
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: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,040
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
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 Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,310
Écart entre enseignants0,292 · 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

Citations23
Publié2017
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchTravaux en français237 207