MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2907079093 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-110429

Final Analysis of the Front-Line Phase III Randomized ACT-1 Trial in Younger Patients with Systemic Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma Treated with CHOP Chemotherapy with or without Alemtuzumab and Consolidated By Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant

2018· article· en· W2907079093 sur OpenAlexaff
Francesco d’Amore, Sirpa Leppä, María Gomes da Silva, Thomas Relander, Grete F. Lauritzsen, Peter de Nully Brown, Antonio Pezzutto, Jeanette K. Doorduijn, Eckhart Weidmann, Michel van Gelder, Achiel Van Hoof, Ilse Christiansen, Unn Merete Fagerli, Hans Hagberg, Pieternella J. Lugtenburg, Jan Walewski, Ka Lung Wu, Hilde Demuynck, Rob Fijnheer, Jacob Haaber Christensen, Milada Jankovská, Pär Josefsson, Hanneke C. Kluin‐Nelemans, José Mariz, Mats Merup, Thomas Noesslinger, Eric Van Den Neste, Josée M. Zijlstra, Georg Hopfinger, Vit Prochazka, Esa Jantunen, L Boudová, José Cabeçadas, Andreas Chott, Jan Delabie, Laurence de Leval, Arjan Diepstra, Marja‐Liisa Karjalainen‐Lindsberg, Peter Noergaard, Andreas Rosenwald, Grzegorz Rymkiewicz, Christer Sundström, Lorenz Truemper, Gerald Wulf, Lauren C. Chong, Alyssa Bouska, Lynette M. Smith, Christian Gisselbrecht, Marita Ziepert, Markus Loeffler, Knut Liestøl, Christian Steidl, Randy D. Gascoyne, David W. Scott, Bettina Altmann, Javeed Iqbal, Wing C. Chan, Helle Toldbod

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCAR-T cell therapy research
Établissements canadiensBC Cancer AgencySpinal Cord Injury BCUniversity Health Network
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCHOPMedicineAlemtuzumabInternal medicineClinical endpointInterim analysisPeripheral T-cell lymphomaLymphomaRandomized controlled trialSurgeryOncologyTransplantationImmunologyImmune systemT cell

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract [§ share last authorship] Background: In 2000-2010, the first large prospective trials in peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) showed outcomes burdened by high failure rates during induction. Concurrently, trials with the anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody alemtuzumab (ALZ) yielded promising responses in PTCL while demonstrating the feasibility of combining ALZ with CHOP. Hence, the Nordic Lymphoma Group initiated the randomized ACT-1 trial to test, in younger patients (pts) (18-65yrs), the addition of ALZ to CHOP + autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Primary endpoint was the 3 years event-free survival (EFS). Here, we present the final analysis of the ACT-1 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00646854). Patients and Methods: Overall, 136 pts were randomized (43% of planned sample size due to slow accrual), five did not receive study treatment, and 131 were analyzed (ALZ-CHOP: 65; CHOP: 66). Due to lack of tumoral CD52 expression, anaplastic large cell lymphomas (ALCL) were not included in the ACT-1 trial. An amendment tapering ALZ dose from 360 mg (30 mg on days 1+2 of each CHOP course) to 120 mg (30 mg on day 1 of CHOP courses 1-4) was introduced early on due to systemic fungal infections in 2 pts. Of the 65 pts treated with ALZ-CHOP, 4 received the pre- and 61 (94%) the post-amendment dose. Monitoring for CMV- and EBV-DNA and antimicrobial prophylaxis were mandatory. Results: The median observation time for the Full Analysis Set was 66 months and the median age 51 yrs. The ALZ-CHOP and CHOP cohorts were well balanced with regard to classical prognostic factors and histological subtypes (PTCL-NOS 58% vs 54%, AILT 21% vs 25%, other 21% vs 21%). Feasibility: Neither CHOP nor ALZ-CHOP pts experienced substantial treatment delay. ALZ exposure did not affect stem cell harvest nor hematopoietic recovery. Grade 4 leucopenia was more frequent in ALZ-CHOP pts (73% vs 35%; p=0.001), whereas the occurrence of grade 3-4 anemia and thrombocytopenia did not differ significantly. After ALZ dose amendment, the frequency of bacterial and fungal infections of grade ≥3 was similar in both treatment arms. ALZ treated pts had more viral events (22/57=42% vs 4/23=17%), mainly due to asymptomatic CMV reactivations. The ratio of serious adverse events per ALZ-CHOP treated patient dropped markedly (from 3.25 to 0.86, comparable with 0.46 for CHOP) after dose amendment. Additional toxicity was mild and similar in both arms. Treatment related mortality was 4% (5% vs 3%). Efficacy: Complete remission (CR) was 52% in ALZ-CHOP vs 42% in CHOP. Primary refractory disease occurred for ALZ-CHOP and CHOP in 23% and 38% of pts, respectively. Overall, females had a significantly better outcome than males (p=0.004), also after adjustment for classical prognostic factors. Analyzing time-related endpoints without knowledge of CD52 expression, 3-years EFS, progression-free, and overall survival (PFS, OS) did not differ significantly between ALZ-CHOP and CHOP (EFS 35% vs 26%, PFS 37% vs 26%, OS 52% vs 50%). Fig.1A shows EFS by treatment arm, by gender, and by gender and treatment arm. Although not significantly different, EFS, PFS and OS values of ALZ-CHOP treated females in the ACT-1 trial were consistently higher than those of non-ALZ treated females or of males regardless of treatment group. RNA sequencing from evaluable pre-therapeutic tumor biopsies defined a signature of differentially expressed genes to be predictive of clinical outcome in ALZ-CHOP but not CHOP treated pts (n=33). Tumor microenvironment genes were prominent in determining response to ALZ. Tumors rich in B-cell milieu showed good responses, while the opposite was observed in tumors with signatures enriched with high endothelial cell genes (p<0.001) (Fig.1B). The good risk signature was associated with a higher frequency of X-linked and the bad risk with a higher frequency of Y-linked transcripts (Fig.1B). Conclusion: In previously untreated younger non-anaplastic PTCL pts, the addition of ALZ to CHOP + ASCT was feasible. Overall, we did not find a significant outcome benefit. However, a gene expression signature predictive of ALZ response was identified and found predominantly in female patients. Carriers of this signature had an outcome benefit only if exposed to ALZ. A validation of this predictor of ALZ response is ongoing. Due to the limited sample size of the ACT-1 study cohort, both the negative and the positive findings of the trial should be interpreted with caution. Disclosures Leppä: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Silva:Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Abbvie, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche, Janssen, Celgene: Other: Travel Support; Roche, Janssen: Other: Institution's payment for consultancy. Hagberg:Roche: Honoraria. Lugtenburg:takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; servier: Consultancy, Research Funding; roche: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; GenMab: Research Funding. Walewski:Roche, GSK/Novartis, Takeda, and Janssen-Cilag: Research Funding; Roche, Celgene, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, and Servier: Honoraria; Roche, Celegene, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, and Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hopfinger:Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Jantunen:Amgen: Honoraria; Genzyme/Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Steidl:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Tioma: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Nanostring: Patents & Royalties: patent holding; Roche: Consultancy. Gascoyne:NanoString: Patents & Royalties: Named Inventor on a patent licensed to NanoString Technologies. Scott:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; NanoString: Patents & Royalties: Named Inventor on a patent licensed to NanoString Technologies, 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)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
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 enseignants0,038
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,948

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,000
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)0,0010,000

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 Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,260
Écart entre enseignants0,248 · 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'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

Citations27
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetCAR-T cell therapy researchTravaux en français237 207