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
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».