MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2900694112 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-111370

Ibrutinib + Obinutuzumab Versus Chlorambucil + Obinutuzumab As First-Line Treatment in Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia or Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma (CLL/SLL): Results from Phase 3 iLLUMINATE

2018· article· en· W2900694112 sur OpenAlexaff
Carol Moreno, Richard Greil, Fatih Demırkan, Alessandra Tedeschi, Bertrand Anz, Loree Larratt, Martin Šimkovič, Olga Samoilova, Jan Novák, Dina Ben‐Yehuda, Владимир Стругов, Devinder Gill, John G. Gribben, Emily Hsu, Cathy Zhou, Fong Clow, Danelle F. James, Lori Styles, Ian W. Flinn

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésObinutuzumabIbrutinibChlorambucilChronic lymphocytic leukemiaMedicineLeukemiaLymphomaInternal medicineImmunologyOncologyChemotherapyCyclophosphamide

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background : Ibrutinib (ibr), a first-in-class, once-daily inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase, is approved in the US and EU for patients (pts) with CLL and allows for treatment without chemotherapy. Standard of care for first-line CLL in older pts or those with comorbidities includes single-agent ibr and chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) with chlorambucil (clb) plus anti-CD20 therapy. As the addition of obinutuzumab (G) to clb provides superior efficacy over clb alone or rituximab-G, we investigated the potential for improved efficacy with addition of G to single-agent ibr vs clb-G in an international, open-label, randomized phase 3 study (PCYC-1130; iLLUMINATE) in first-line CLL/SLL. Methods : Eligible pts had previously untreated CLL/SLL requiring treatment per iwCLL criteria and were ≥65 years of age or were <65 years old with coexisting conditions (Cumulative Illness Rating Scale score >6, creatinine clearance <70 mL/min, and/or del(17p) or TP53 mutation). Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive ibr (420 mg once daily continuously) combined with G (1000 mg on days 1/2, 8, and 15 of cycle 1, and day 1 of subsequent 28-day cycles, for a total of 6 cycles), or clb (0.5 mg/kg on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle for 6 cycles) combined with G (as above). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by independent review committee (IRC). Secondary endpoints included PFS in high-risk population (del(17p)/TP53 mutation, del(11q), and/or unmutated IGHV), rate of undetectable minimal residual disease (MRD), overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety. Pts with IRC-confirmed progression on clb-G could cross over to next-line therapy with single-agent ibr. Results : A total of 229 pts were randomized to ibr-G (n=113) or clb-G (n=116). Median age was 71 years (range, 40-87) and 65% of pts had high-risk genomic features. At a median follow-up of 31.3 mo, ibr-G significantly prolonged IRC-assessed PFS compared with clb-G (median not reached [NR] vs 19.0 mo; HR 0.231; 95% CI, 0.145-0.367; P<0.0001), with a 77% reduction in risk of progression or death (Figure 1). PFS rates at 30 mo were 79% and 31% with ibr-G and clb-G, respectively. Investigator (INV)-assessed PFS was also significantly improved with ibr-G vs clb-G (median NR vs 21.9 mo; HR 0.260; 95% CI, 0.163 to 0.415; P<0.0001). PFS benefit with ibr-G was consistent across subgroups examined. Superior PFS with ibr-G vs clb-G was also seen in the high-risk population (median NR vs 14.7 mo; HR 0.154; 95% CI, 0.087-0.270; P<0.0001), with an 85% reduction in risk of progression or death in this population (Figure 2). IRC-assessed ORR was 88% with ibr-G vs 73% with clb-G; complete response (CR/CRi) rate was also higher with ibr-G (19% vs 8%). INV-assessed ORR was 91% with ibr-G vs 81% with clb-G; CR/CRi rates were 41% and 16%, respectively. MRD was undetectable in blood and/or bone marrow (<10-4 by flow cytometry) for 35% of pts with ibr-G and 25% with clb-G. 30-mo OS rates were 86% and 85% in the ibr-G and clb-G arms, respectively, with 40% of pts randomized to clb-G receiving single-agent ibr as second-line therapy. Over a median follow-up of 31.3 mo, 4% in the ibr-G arm and 44% in the clb-G arm initiated subsequent therapy. Median treatment duration was 29.3 mo with ibr-G and 5.1 mo with clb-G. Most common (≥3%) serious adverse events (AEs) were pneumonia (5%), atrial fibrillation (4%), febrile neutropenia (4%), and pyrexia (4%) with ibr-G, and infusion-related reactions (IRRs; 7%), febrile neutropenia (6%), pneumonia (4%), tumor lysis syndrome (4%), and pyrexia (3%) with clb-G. IRRs were less frequent with ibr-G vs clb-G for both any grade (25% vs 58%) or grade ≥3 or serious IRRs (3% vs 9%). No pt discontinued G due to IRRs with ibr-G vs 7 pts (6%) with clb-G. AEs leading to discontinuation of ibr or clb occurred in 18 (16%) and 11 pts (9%), respectively; AEs leading to discontinuation of G occurred in 10 pts (9%) in ibr-G arm and 15 (13%) in clb-G arm. With ~3 yrs of follow-up, 70% of pts in the ibr-G arm remain on single-agent ibr. Conclusions : Ibr-G resulted in superior PFS regardless of high-risk genomic features, compared with clb-G, a standard CIT regimen. Response rates and depth of remission (CR and undetectable MRD) were also higher with ibr-G. Combination therapy with ibr-G was tolerable with no new safety signals identified and represents an effective chemotherapy-free treatment option for first-line CLL/SLL including the high-risk population. Disclosures Moreno: Janssen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy. Greil:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sandoz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES. Demirkan:Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES, Research Funding. Tedeschi:Gilead: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Larratt:Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding. Simkovic:Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding. Novak:Amgen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Strugov:Beigene Ltd: Equity Ownership; Kite Pharma: Equity Ownership; Portola Pharmaceuticals Inc: Equity Ownership; Juno Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; TG Therapeutics Inc: Equity Ownership; Loxo Oncology Inc: Equity Ownership; Crispr Therapeutics AG: Equity Ownership; Intellia Therapeutics Inc: Equity Ownership; Editas Medicine Inc.: Equity Ownership; Ignyta Inc.: Equity Ownership; Astellas: Honoraria; AbbVie: Equity Ownership, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMODATIONS, EXPENSES; Janssen: Honoraria; ECO-SAFETY Medical Center: Employment; Aptose Biosciences Inc: Equity Ownership; Esperion Therapeutics Inc: Equity Ownership; Merck & Company: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMODATIONS, EXPENSES. Gill:Janssen: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES, Speakers Bureau. Gribben:Roche: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Kite: Honoraria; NIH: Research Funding; Wellcome Trust: Research Funding; Unum: Equity Ownership; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Acerta Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Cancer Research UK: Research Funding; Medical Research Council: Research Funding. Hsu:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment; AbbVie: Equity Ownership. Zhou:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment; AbbVie: Equity Ownership. Clow:AbbVie: Equity Ownership; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment, Other: LEADERSHIP; TRAVEL, ACCOMODATIONS, EXPENSES. James:AbbVie: Equity Ownership, Other: Spouse's employment and stocks, Patents & Royalties: AbbVie Patent Applications; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. Styles:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment; AbbVie: Equity Ownership. Flinn:Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Calithera: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Portola: 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 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)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
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 enseignants0,310
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,002

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 Opus0,032
Tête enseignante GPT0,293
Écart entre enseignants0,261 · 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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

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

Citations9
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchTravaux en français237 207