MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2903962322 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-112988

A Global, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 3 Study of Ibrutinib Plus Rituximab, Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin, Vincristine, and Prednisone (RCHOP) in Patients with Previously Untreated Non-Germinal Center B-Cell-like (GCB) Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL)

2018· article· en· W2903962322 sur OpenAlexaff
Anas Younes, Laurie H. Sehn, Peter Johnson, Pier Luigi Zinzani, Xiaonan Hong, Jun Zhu, Olga Samoilova, Cheolwon Suh, Itaru Matsumura, Andrés López‐Hernandez, Ulrich Dührsen, Catherine Thiéblemont, Jodi Carey, Grace Liu, S. Martin Shreeve, Steven Sun, Jessica Vermeulen, Louis M. Staudt, Wyndham H. Wilson

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensSpinal Cord Injury BCUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIbrutinibVincristineRituximabMedicinePrednisoneCyclophosphamideInternal medicinePhases of clinical researchNuclear medicineOncologySurgeryChemotherapyLymphomaLeukemiaChronic lymphocytic leukemia

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction DLBCL is an aggressive disease that can be classified by immunohistochemistry (IHC) into GCB and non-GCB or by gene expression profiling (GEP) into GCB, activated B-cell (ABC), and unclassified subtypes. RCHOP is the standard frontline treatment (tx) for DLBCL with a 60% cure rate. Ibrutinib (ibr), an oral covalent Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor, showed activity in relapsed/refractory ABC DLBCL. This study aimed to analyze if the addition of ibr to RCHOP would improve efficacy in previously untreated patients (pts) with non-GCB DLBCL or the ABC subtype. Methods Pts with centralized IHC-confirmed non-GCB DLBCL were randomized 1:1 to standard RCHOP with either ibr (560 mg/d, po) or placebo (pbo) on a 21-day cycle for 6 or 8 cycles. Pts were stratified by revised International Prognostic Index, region (US/Western Europe vs rest of world), and number of prespecified RCHOP cycles (6 or 8). ABC DLBCL was retrospectively identified using GEP (HTG EdgeSeq cell of origin assay). Primary end point was event-free survival (EFS), defined as time from randomization to progression, relapse from complete response (CR), initiation of tx for PET-positive or biopsy-proven residual disease after ≥ 6 cycles of RCHOP, or death, in the intent-to-treat (ITT) or ABC population. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), CR rate, overall survival (OS), and safety. Results Overall, 838 pts were randomized to ibr + RCHOP (n = 419) or pbo + RCHOP (n = 419). Median age was 62 years (yrs) with 58.5% < 65 yrs; 67.7% had ABC subtype. Baseline prognostic factors were balanced; slightly more pts ≥ 65 yrs in the ibr + RCHOP arm (45% vs 38%). In the ibr + RCHOP and pbo + RCHOP arms, 80.8% and 90.7% of pts received ≥ 6 cycles of RCHOP; 22.4% and 13.6% discontinued tx (all drugs) with adverse event (AE) being the most common reason (12.2% vs 5.3%). All deaths rate was 16.5% vs 17.2% in the ibr + CHOP vs pbo + RCHOP arm, respectively. In pts < 65 yrs, 90.4% vs 91.1% of pts received ≥ 6 cycles of RCHOP in the ibr + RCHOP vs pbo + RCHOP arm, respectively. Fewer pts ≥ 65 yrs in the ibr + RCHOP arm (69.0%) received ≥ 6 cycles of RCHOP compared with the pbo + RCHOP arm (90.0%). Ibr pharmacokinetics with RCHOP was similar to other studies in B-cell malignancies where ibr was used as a single agent or in combination. Median follow-up was 34.8 months. Ibr + RCHOP did not improve EFS in pts with non-GCB (by IHC) or ABC (by GEP) DLBCL: The hazard ratio (HR) for EFS was 0.934 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.726-1.200) for the ITT and 0.949 (95% CI, 0.704-1.279) for the ABC subset. Multivariate analysis showed a significant interaction (based on SAP prespecified 1-sided α level p < 0.1) between tx effect and age as a continuous or categorical variable. Efficacy was a function of age: stable benefit seen in younger pts, with a decline with increasing age, and benefit no longer favorable in pts ≥ 65 yrs. Efficacy outcomes favored ibr + RCHOP-treated pts < 65 years with statistically significant risk reduction in EFS (30%), PFS (33%), and OS (43%; Table, Figure). A similar trend was seen in the ABC subset. Multivariate analyses, adjusting for other baseline covariates, confirmed the tx benefit in younger but not elderly pts. Grade ≥ 3 AE rates were 89.9% and 87.1% in the ibr + RCHOP and pbo + RCHOP arms, respectively. Serious AEs (SAEs) were greater in the ibr + RCHOP vs pbo + RCHOP arm (53.1% vs 34.0%), particularly febrile neutropenia and pneumonia, as were AEs leading to RCHOP discontinuation. In pts ≥ 65 yrs, there were more SAEs (67.4% vs 40.6%) and pts who received < 6 cycles of RCHOP (31.0% vs 10.0%) in the ibr + RCHOP vs pbo + RCHOP arm. In pts < 65 yrs, grade ≥ 3 AEs were similar; SAEs were numerically higher (41.5% vs 29.8%) in the ibr + RCHOP vs pbo + RCHOP arm, but the proportion of pts who received < 6 cycles of RCHOP was similar (9.6% vs 8.9%) between arms. Conclusions While the addition of ibr to RCHOP did not improve efficacy in the ITT population, there was a significant interaction between tx and age. Among pts ≥ 65 yrs, unexpected increased toxicity associated with ibr + RCHOP resulted in reduced RCHOP exposure, which may explain in part the worse clinical benefit/risk profile of pts in the ibr + RCHOP vs pbo + RCHOP arm. However, in pts < 65 yrs, the addition of ibr showed clinically meaningful improvement in EFS, PFS, and OS with an acceptable safety profile. Funding Source Sponsored by Janssen. Writing assistance was provided by Liqing Xiao of PAREXEL and funded by Janssen. Disclosures Younes: J&J: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; Curis: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria. Sehn:Lundbeck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria. Johnson:Takeda: Honoraria, Travel, accommodations, expenses; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy; Boeringher Ingelheim: Consultancy; Zenyaku Kogyo: Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses; Genmab: Consultancy. Zinzani:Verastem: 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; MSD: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: 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; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; PFIZER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PFIZER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SERVIER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Lopez-Hernandez:Servier: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Research Funding; Takeda: Speakers Bureau. Dührsen:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria. Carey:Janssen Research & Development: Employment. Liu:Janssen Research & Development: Employment, Equity Ownership. Shreeve:Janssen Research & Development: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sun:Janssen Research & Development: Employment, Equity Ownership. Vermeulen:Janssen Research & Development: Employment, Equity Ownership.

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)0,000
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 enseignants0,274
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
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 Opus0,005
Tête enseignante GPT0,257
Écart entre enseignants0,252 · 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

Citations20
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchTravaux en français237 207