MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2907997089 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-110439

Efficacy and Safety of Single-Agent Quizartinib (Q), a Potent and Selective FLT3 Inhibitor (FLT3i), in Patients (pts) with FLT3-Internal Tandem Duplication (FLT3-ITD)-Mutated Relapsed/Refractory (R/R) Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) Enrolled in the Global, Phase 3, Randomized Controlled Quantum-R Trial

2018· article· en· W2907997089 sur OpenAlexaff
Jörge E. Cortes, Samer K. Khaled, Giovanni Martinelli, Alexander E. Perl, Siddhartha Ganguly, Nigel H. Russell, Alwin Krämer, Hervé Dombret, Donna E. Hogge, Brian A. Jonas, Anskar Y.H. Leung, Priyanka Mehta, Pau Montesinos, Markus P. Radsak, Simona Sica, Meena Arunachalam, Melissa F. Holmes, Ken Kobayashi, Ruth Namuyinga, Nanxiang Ge, Antoine Yver, Yufen Zhang, Mark J. Levis

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensVancouver General Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRefractory (planetary science)MedicinePharmacologyCancer researchBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: FLT3-ITD mutations are among the most common molecular abnormalities in AML, occurring in ≈ 25% of pts. These driver mutations are associated with high leukemic burden and poor prognosis, eg, high risk of relapse, decreased response to salvage therapy, and shorter overall survival (OS). Pts with R/R FLT3-ITD AML have a worse prognosis and represent a population with high unmet medical need. Q is a once-daily, oral, highly potent and selective FLT3i shown in phase 2 trials to have promising single-agent antileukemic activity and a manageable safety profile. QuANTUM-R was the first global, phase 3, randomized controlled trial (NCT02039726) to show that an FLT3i prolonged OS compared with salvage chemotherapy (SC) in pts with R/R FLT3-ITD AML. Final efficacy and safety data from this pivotal phase 3 trial are reported. Methods: Pts aged ≥ 18 years with FLT3-ITD AML refractory to or relapsed (duration of first remission ≤ 6 mo) after standard AML therapy, w/wo hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) were randomized 2:1 to receive Q (60 mg [30-mg lead-in]) or 1 of 3 preselected investigator's choice (IC) SC: low-dose cytarabine (LoDAC); mitoxantrone, etoposide, and intermediate-dose cytarabine (MEC); or fludarabine, cytarabine, and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) with idarubicin (FLAG-IDA). Up to 2 cycles of MEC or FLAG-IDA were permitted; Q and LoDAC were given until lack of benefit, unacceptable toxicity, or HSCT. Prior therapy with midostaurin was allowed, but all other FLT3i were not. Pts receiving HSCT in the Q arm could resume Q after HSCT. Primary and secondary endpoints were OS and event-free survival (EFS), respectively. Sensitivity analyses for OS and EFS were conducted: (1) using the per-protocol set (randomized and treated patients without major protocol deviations), (2) censoring at HSCT, (3) censoring at the use of other postbaseline FLT3i (for OS only). Predefined subgroup analyses of OS were also performed. Exploratory endpoints included response rates, duration of CRc, and transplant rate. Results: 367 pts were randomized; 245 to Q and 122 to IC SC (LoDAC, n=29; MEC, n=40; FLAG-IDA, n=53). Four pts randomized to Q and 28 pts randomized to SC did not receive therapy. Median follow-up was 23.5 mo. Six pts were still on initial Q treatment at data cutoff vs 0 in the SC arm. Treatment groups were well balanced for baseline characteristics, including age, response to prior therapy, transplant history, and FLT3-ITD allelic burden. OS hazard ratio (HR) of Q relative to SC was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.58-0.98; stratified log-rank test, 1-sided P=0.0177). Median OS was 6.2 (95% CI, 5.3-7.2) vs 4.7 (95% CI, 4.0-5.5) mo, with an estimated 12-mo OS probability of 27% vs 20% in Q and SC arms, respectively. EFS HR was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.70-1.16; stratified log-rank test, 1-sided P=0.1071); median EFS was 6.0 (95% CI, 0.1-8.3) vs 3.7 (95% CI, 0.4-5.9) wk, respectively. Sensitivity analyses of OS and EFS all supported benefit of quizartinib compared with SC, as did OS analyses across subgroups, including varying allelic ratio, prior HSCT, AML risk score, and response to prior therapy (Tables 1 and 2, Figure). CRc was 48% (95% CI, 42%-55%) and 27% (95% CI, 19%-36%) in Q and SC arms (nominal P=0.0001), respectively. Duration of CRc was 12.1 (95% CI, 10.4-27.1) vs 5.0 (95% CI, 3.3-12.6) wk. Transplant rate was 32% and 12% in Q and SC arms (nominal P<0.0001), respectively; of 79 eligible pts, 49 (62%) resumed single-agent Q after HSCT (15 ongoing Q treatment at data cutoff). Median duration of post-HSCT Q was 129 d. Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were comparable between the 2 arms, despite higher total drug exposure in Q vs SC arms (101.9 vs 3.7 patient-years [pt-y], respectively). Exposure-adjusted TEAEs were 2.3 vs 25.2 per pt-y, respectively. Most common grade ≥ 3 TEAEs in both arms were infections and those associated with cytopenia. Only 2 pts discontinued Q due to QTcF prolongation. QTcF >500 ms (grade 3) by central laboratory was 3% in the Q arm; no grade 4 QTcF occurred. Q-treated pts post-HSCT had a similar AE profile to those overall. Conclusions: This report confirms the survival benefit observed with single-agent Q compared with SC in pts with R/R FLT3-ITD AML and the favorable Q safety profile, providing evidence of meaningful clinical benefit in pts who have few options. These results are paradigm changing in the R/R FLT3-ITD AML treatment setting. Disclosures Cortes: Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Arog: Research Funding. Khaled:Juno: Other: Travel Funding; Daiichi: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Perl:Arog: Consultancy; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Consultancy; NewLink Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ganguly:Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau. Russell:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Jazz Pharma: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kramer:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Research Funding. Dombret:Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Roche/Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Ariad: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria; Sunesis: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Menarini: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria. Jonas:Accelerated Medical Diagnostics: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Esanex: Research Funding; LP Therapeutics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Kalobios: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; Tolero: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Forma: Research Funding. Leung:Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Daiichi: Research Funding. Mehta:Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria. Montesinos:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Radsak:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Travel grant; TEVA: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Other: Travel grant; Gilead: Other: Travel grant; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel grant; Takeda: Consultancy. Arunachalam:Daiichi Sankyo: Employment. Holmes:Daiichi Sankyo: Employment. Kobayashi:Daiichi Sankyo: Employment. Namuyinga:Daiichi Sankyo: Employment. Ge:Daiichi Sankyo: Employment. Yver:Daiichi Sankyo: Employment. Zhang:Daiichi Sankyo: Employment.

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)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
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 enseignants0,012
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
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 recherche0,0000,001
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 Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,281
Écart entre enseignants0,270 · 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

Citations36
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetAcute Myeloid Leukemia ResearchTravaux en français237 207