MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2785907460 · doi:10.1182/blood.v130.suppl_1.5211.5211

Clinical Pharmacology of CTL019 in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory (r/r) Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL)

2017· article· en· W2785907460 sur OpenAlexaff
Rakesh Awasthi, Constantine S. Tam, Ulrich Jaeger, Samantha Jaglowski, S.R. Foley, Koen van Besien, Nina D. Wagner‐Johnston, Marie José Kersten, Stephen J. Schuster, Gilles Salles, Richard T. Maziarz, Oezlem Anak, Lida Pacaud, Lucien Gazi, Edward Waldron, Jason S. Hamilton, Iulian Pruteanu, Feng Tai, Karen Thudium Mueller, Edmund K. Waller

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCAR-T cell therapy research
Établissements canadiensMcMaster UniversityJuravinski Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésOncologyBiologyInternal medicineProportional hazards modelDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaMedicinePharmacologyLymphoma

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: CTL019 (tisagenlecleucel) is an adoptive cellular immunotherapy that uses the autologous peripheral blood T cells that have been genetically modified ex vivo to target CD19 on the surface of B cells. To date, little is known about the effect of cellular kinetics on clinical response, dose-response, and safety of CTL019 in DLBCL patients. Methods: Data from a pivotal phase 2 study (JULIET; NCT02445248) in r/r DLBCL patients were utilized to characterize exposure-response, dose-response, and dose-safety analyses of CTL019 in DLBCL patients. The cellular kinetic parameters were estimated from non-compartmental analysis (NCA) utilizing the time course of CTL019 transgene levels in peripheral blood, as determined using quantitative real-time polymerase-chain-reaction (qPCR) assay, following CTL019 infusion. The descriptive summary statistics for the cellular kinetic parameters (AUC, Cmax, Tmax, and Tlast) were compared between responder (CR and PR) and non-responder patients (SD, PD, and unknown response status) to investigate the relationship between exposure and response at month 3. In addition, the cellular kinetics were compared between DLBCL and pediatric ALL patients to assess the indication-specific differences in CTL019 expansion in vivo . To assess the impact of dose on month 3 tumor response, duration of response (DOR), and safety (CRS and neurologic event, any grade and grade 3 or 4), logistic regression or Cox regression analyses were performed. Results: Data from 99 patients (JULIET) were utilized for the analysis. The cellular kinetic parameters were summarized for a subset (N=81) of the data obtained through serial measurements in peripheral blood using qPCR assay. The geometric mean AUC0-28d and Cmax values and median Tmax in responder patients (CR and PR) were similar to those in non-responding patients, suggesting similar levels of in vivo expansion in responding and non-responding r/r DLBCL patients (Figure 1, Table 1). Most of the patients with longer follow up, as of the data cutoff date (8 March 2017), continue to demonstrate detectable transgene levels in peripheral blood. The geometric mean estimate for expansion (Cmax) in DLBCL patients were observed to be 6-fold lower than that in pediatric ALL patients, (Mueller KT, et al. EHA 2017) indicating possible indication-specific differences in expansion in peripheral blood. Higher expansion were associated with higher CRS grades. No obvious relationship between dose and exposure (AUC0-28d and Cmax) was observed. Across the wide range of dose administered, the logistic regression dose response curve showed that there is no apparent impact of dose on response at month 3 (two-fold increase in dose associated with odds ratio (OR): 1.03; 95% CI: 0.624, 1.685). Similarly, Cox regression showed no apparent impact of dose on DOR. The analysis showed that the probability of CRS increases with increase in the dose (any grade and grade 3 or 4) (two-fold increase in dose associated with OR = 2.79 for any grade CRS, 95% CI: 1.394, 5.567). The logistic regression results indicated that there is no obvious impact of dose on the neurological event. Conclusion: The differences in expansion levels between two indications (DLBCL and pediatric ALL) in peripheral blood highlight the mechanistic differences in CTL019 expansion based on the tumor type. CTL019 demonstrates efficacy across the dose range evaluated with no obvious impact of dose on neurologic events. An increased probability for higher grade CRS with increased dose was observed; however, CRS is generally manageable with appropriate staff training. These analyses provide insights into the relationship among exposure, response, dose and safety endpoints for CAR therapy in the DLBCL indication. Disclosures Awasthi: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Employment. Tam: Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jaeger: Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Jaglowski: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Foley: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy. Wagner-Johnston: Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kersten: MSD: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Milennium/Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Honoraria. Schuster: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Salles: Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Kite, Merck & Co., Inc., Morphosys, Novartis, Roche, Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Research Funding. Maziarz: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Juno Therapeutics: Honoraria; Kite Therapeutics: Honoraria; Athersys, Inc: Patents & Royalties. Anak: Novartis Pharma AG: Employment. Bubuteishvili Pacaud: Novartis Pharma AG: Employment. Gazi: Novartis Pharma AG: Employment. Waldron: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Employment. Hamilton: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Employment. Pruteanu: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Employment. Tai: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Employment. Mueller: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Employment. Waller: Cambium Medical Technologies: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties; AMGEN: Consultancy; Coulter Foundation: Research Funding; Celldex: Consultancy; Chimerix: Equity Ownership; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; National Institutes of Health: Research Funding; Katz Foundation: Research Funding; PRA: Consultancy; Cerus: Equity Ownership; Helocyte: 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 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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,001
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,004

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

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

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 Opus0,025
Tête enseignante GPT0,344
Écart entre enseignants0,319 · 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'étudeObservationnel
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

Citations2
Publié2017
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetCAR-T cell therapy researchTravaux en français237 207