MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2899509505 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-111178

Ibrutinib Treatment in Waldenström's Macroglobulinemia: Follow-up Efficacy and Safety from the iNNOVATETM Study

2018· article· en· W2899509505 sur OpenAlexaff
Christian Buske, Alessandra Tedeschi, Judith Trotman, Ramón García‐Sánz, D. Blair Macdonald, Véronique Leblond, Beatrice Mahé, Charles Herbaux, Constantine S. Tam, M. Lia Palomba, Jeffrey Matous, Chaim Shustik, Eftathios Kastritis, Steven P. Treon, Chih‐Jian Lih, Jianling Li, Zeena Salman, Thorsten Graef, Meletios Α. Dimopoulos

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensMcGill University Health CentreRoyal Victoria Regional Health CentreOttawa HospitalRoyal Victoria HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIbrutinibWaldenstrom macroglobulinemiaMacroglobulinemiaLymphoplasmacytic LymphomaMedicineInternal medicineOncologyChronic lymphocytic leukemiaLeukemiaLymphomaMultiple myeloma

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background : Rituximab (RTX) is commonly used to treat Waldenström's macroglobulinemia (WM). Treatment options are limited for patients (pts) who fail rituximab therapy. Single-agent ibrutinib (ibr) is highly active in WM and is approved in the United States and Europe for WM. In the phase 3 iNNOVATE study, ibr plus RTX resulted in significantly longer PFS and higher response rates vs RTX alone, both among TN and previously treated pts with WM (Dimopoulos MA, et al. N Engl J Med. 2018). Previous reports from the open-label, single-agent substudy showed sustained responses and a manageable toxicity profile in RTX-refractory WM, with a median follow-up of 18.1 mo (Dimopoulos MA, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2016). Follow-up data from both the randomized portion (median follow-up of 30.4 mo) and substudy (median follow-up of 38.7 mo) of iNNOVATE are presented. Methods : Pts had confirmed, symptomatic WM requiring treatment. Pts in the randomized portion (Arms A and B) with prior RTX therapy required a response (≥MR) to their last RTX-based regimen. Pts were randomized to daily 420 mg ibr (Arm A; IR) or placebo (Arm B; R) plus RTX (375 mg/m2/week IV at weeks 1-4 and 17-20). In Arm C, pts who failed to achieve ≥MR or relapsed <12 mo of their last RTX-containing therapy received daily 420 mg ibr until PD/unacceptable toxicity. Endpoints included PFS, response rates, OS, hemoglobin (Hb) improvement, time to next treatment (TTnT), pt-reported outcomes (PROs) and safety. Results : A total of 150 pts were randomized to Arms A and B (n=75/arm; Table 1). Median age was 69 y. High IPSSWM was reported in 38% of pts; 45% of pts were treatment naïve. With prolonged follow-up and a median duration of treatment of 29.5 mo with IR and 15.5 mo with R, investigator-assessed major response rates (≥PR) were 77% with IR vs 33% with R (P<0.0001); ORRs (≥MR) were 95% vs 48% (P<0.0001), respectively. With continued IR treatment, 27% of pts achieved a VGPR compared to only 3% in the R arm. Major responses with IR stayed robust independent of MYD88/CXCR genotype, with time to major response of 1.8, 2.9, and 5.7 mo for MYD88L265P/CXCR4WT, MYD88L265P/CXCR4WHIM, and MYD88WT/CXCR4WT, respectively. Median investigator-assessed PFS was not reached (NR) with IR vs 20.3 mo (95% CI: 11.6-31.3) with R (HR=0.219 [0.122-0.393]; P<0.0001); estimated 30-mo PFS was 79% vs 41%. Importantly, among pts receiving IR, 30-mo PFS estimates did not show any major differences among the different genotypes. The 30-mo OS estimate was 93% with IR vs 90% with R; 31 pts on R crossed over to IR after IRC-confirmed PD. Treatment with IR was ongoing in 73% of pts; the most common reasons for discontinuation of ibr were disease progression and pt withdrawal of consent (9% each); 35% of pts who received R were in response follow-up after the interim analysis. The AE profile in the IR arm was consistent with previous reports. Overall, grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 61% of pts in both arms. Incidence of grade ≥3 AEs was 53% during the first 12 months of treatment in the IR arm and increased 8% with longer follow up. Serious AEs occurred in 43% of IR pts vs 33% of R pts. Similarly, incidence of serious AEs was 39% during the first 12 months of treatment with IR and increased 4% with longer follow up. In Arm C, 31 pts received single-agent ibr (Table 1). Median age was 67 y. Most (71%) pts had ≥3 prior therapies; all patients were RTX-refractory and 90% had prior treatment with cyclophosphamide. High IPSSWM was reported in 42% of pts. With longer follow-up, median investigator-assessed PFS was NR (95% CI: 27.6-NR); estimated 36-mo PFS was 61%. Major response rate by investigator assessment was 77% and ORR was 90%. The estimated 36-mo OS was 84%. Improved Hb level was seen in 71% of pts. Treatment was ongoing in 52% of pts. Median duration of ibr treatment was 37.0 mo, with no major hemorrhagic or atrial fibrillation events reported. Grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 74% of pts and 39% had serious AEs. No fatal AEs were reported. Conclusions : IR showed continued superiority over R, in treatment-naïve and previously treated pts with WM, regardless of genotypic factors. Similarly, in heavily pretreated, RTX-refractory pts with follow-up >3 y, single-agent ibr was highly active and response improved over time. Alone or in combination, ibr had a manageable safety profile and no new safety signals were identified with longer follow-up. Disclosures Buske: Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding. Tedeschi:Gilead: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Trotman:Beigene: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; PCYC: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Jassen: Research Funding. García-Sanz:Spanish Government: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Hospira: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Amgen Inc.: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. MacDonald:Roche: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria. Leblond:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Herbaux:Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Tam:Beigene: Honoraria, Other: Travel funding; Roche: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Travel funding; Gilead: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria, Other: Travel funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Palomba:Seres: Honoraria, Patents & Royalties; Juno: Honoraria, Patents & Royalties; Merck: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Therakos: Consultancy. Matous:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Shustik:Amgen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Kastritis:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Genesis Pharma: Consultancy; Prothena: Consultancy. Treon:Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; BMS: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding. Lih:Abbvie: Employment, Equity Ownership; Abbvie/Pharmacyclics: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Li:Pharmacyclics: Employment; Abbvie: Equity Ownership; BMS: Equity Ownership; Pfizer: Equity Ownership; Abbott: Equity Ownership; Amgen: Equity Ownership; Gilead: Equity Ownership; Biogen: Equity Ownership; Celgene: Equity Ownership; Medivation: Equity Ownership; Merck: Equity Ownership; Exelixis: Equity Ownership; Juno: Equity Ownership; Isis: Equity Ownership; Aduro: Equity Ownership; Merrimack: Equity Ownership. Salman:Pharmacyclics LLC: Employment, Equity Ownership; Abbvie: Equity Ownership. Graef:Abbvie: Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties; Pharmacyclics: Employment, Other: Leadership, Patents & Royalties. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: 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

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)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut 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 enseignants0,527
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,699

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
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 Opus0,027
Tête enseignante GPT0,315
Écart entre enseignants0,288 · 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.

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

Citations24
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchTravaux en français237 207