MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2908094279 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-184

MURANO Trial Establishes Feasibility of Time-Limited Venetoclax-Rituximab (VenR) Combination Therapy in Relapsed/Refractory (R/R) Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)

2018· article· en· W2908094279 sur OpenAlexaff
John F. Seymour, Thomas J. Kipps, Barbara Eichhorst, Peter Hillmen, James D’Rozario, Sarit Assouline, Carolyn Owen, Tadeusz Robak, Javier de la Serna, Ulrich Jaeger, Guillaume Cartron, Marco Montillo, Nicole Lamanna, Maria E. Verdugo, Elizabeth A. Punnoose, Yanwen Jiang, Jue Wang, Michelle Boyer, Kathryn Humphrey, Mehrdad Mobasher, Arnon P. Kater

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensUniversity of CalgaryJewish General Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésVenetoclaxMedicineBendamustineRituximabInternal medicineVenGastroenterologyNeutropeniaMinimal residual diseaseRefractory (planetary science)Chronic lymphocytic leukemiaOncologyLeukemiaChemotherapyLymphoma

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Venetoclax (Ven) is a highly selective oral inhibitor of BCL2, a key regulator of the intrinsic apoptotic pathway, which is constitutively overexpressed in CLL. Efficacy and safety of VenR given for a fixed duration in R/R CLL was evaluated in the randomized Phase III MURANO study compared with standard bendamustine + rituximab (BR). A first pre-planned analysis, when the majority of patients (pts) were still on study treatment (median follow-up 23.8 mo), established a superior PFS of VenR over BR (Seymour et al. NEJM 2018). With all pts having completed therapy, we analysed long-term outcome with a median follow up of 36.0 mo. Methods Pts were randomized to receive 6 cycles of VenR followed by Ven 400mg once daily for a total of 2 yrs, or 6 cycles of BR. Disease status was assessed by CT scan at screening, Cycle (C) 4 and 2−3 mo after end of combination therapy (EOCT). During Ven single agent and at follow-up visits, response was determined by clinical assessment every 3 mo until 3 yrs of follow-up, then every 6 mo thereafter or until PD. PFS status was based on investigator assessment. Peripheral blood (PB) minimal residual disease (MRD) was analysed centrally by ASO-PCR and/or flow cytometry at C4, EOCT and every 3/6 mo thereafter. All p values are descriptive. Results In total, 389 pts were enrolled in VenR (n=194) or BR (n=195) arms. As of May 8 2018, all pts were off treatment. For BR, 154 (79%) had completed 6 cycles. In the VenR arm, 174 (90%) completed the VenR combination phase and 130 (67%) had completed 2 yrs of Ven. The remainder had PD (11%), died (1%), or withdrew due to AEs (15%) or other reason (6%). Median Ven exposure duration and relative dose intensity were 24.4 (range 0-27.9) mo and 97.4% (26-100%), respectively, overall and 17.7 (0.5-21.9) mo and 99% during Ven single-agent therapy. With a median time off Ven after 2 yrs treatment of 9.9 (1.4-22.5) mo, PFS with VenR remains superior to BR (HR, 0.16 [95% CI 0.12, 0.23]; p<0.0001; median not reached vs 17.0 mo; Figure 1). 3-year PFS estimate was 71.4% (95% CI 64.8%, 78.1%) vs 15.2% (95% CI 9.1%, 21.4%) respectively. Consistent magnitude of treatment effect on PFS with VenR was observed in all clinical and biological subgroups (Figure 2). For pts who completed 2 yrs of Ven (n=130), 6 and 12 mo PFS estimates were 92% (95% CI 87.3, 96.8) and 87% (95% CI 81.1, 93.8), respectively (Figure 3). 16/130 pts developed PD after completion of Ven; of these, 14 were MRD-positive at >1% in PB at Mo 24 (when Ven single agent was scheduled to cease) and 10/16 pts had del(17p)/TP53 mutation at baseline. Clinical and cytogenetic risk factors in pts with and without PD after Mo 24 are in Table 1. In this analysis, OS improvement was seen with VenR over BR (HR, 0.50 [95% CI 0.30, 0.85]; p=0.0093; 3-yr rate: 87.9% vs 79.5%; Figure 4). Subsequent CLL-directed treatment was given after PD in 91 pts in the BR arm. 71/91 (78%) BR arm pts received novel targeted agents, including 45 who had ibrutinib and 7 who had Ven. 27/194 (14%) pts in the VenR arm received subsequent therapy: 13/27 (44%) had novel targeted agents as next treatment, including 8 pts who had ibrutinib and 3 who were re-treated with Ven. See Table 2 for a safety overview for VenR combination and Ven single-agent periods. During Ven single agent: 17/171 pts (10%) had an AE leading to drug withdrawal; 7/171 pts (4%) had an AE leading to dose reduction; 44/171 pts (26%) had a Ven dose interruption due to an AE; 7/171 pts (4%) had a fatal AE (4 other cancers, 2 cardiac, 1 pneumonia). Grade 3-4 AEs occurred in 59/171 pts (35%); the most frequent were neutropenia (20 pts, 12%), anemia (5 pts, 3%), and thrombocytopenia (3 pts, 2%). 12/171 (7%) pts had a grade 3-4 infection in the Ven single-agent phase. The total number of Richter transformation events was 7 with VenR and 6 with BR. Conclusions With all pts off treatment and 3 yrs' median follow-up, continued substantial benefit was observed with VenR, with PFS and OS superior to BR. There were no new safety signals; most pts were able to complete treatment. The rate of CLL progression in the first 12 mo after Ven completion was modest (13%), supporting the feasibility and safety of a time-limited VenR duration. The protocol has been amended to include assessment of response and durability of disease control with VenR reintroduction at PD. This updated analysis of this Phase III global randomized study demonstrates clinically meaningful benefit of the VenR chemotherapy-free regimen with a fixed duration in all pts with R/R CLL. Disclosures Seymour: AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Kipps:Genentech Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Eichhorst:AbbVie, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Mundipharma, Novartis, Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding. Hillmen:Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Assouline:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Owen:Teva: Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; AbbVie: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding. Robak:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy; AbbVie, Inc: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. de la Serna:Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jaeger:Takeda-Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda-Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bioverativ: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Research Funding; AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Cartron:Gilead Sciences: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria. Montillo:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Lamanna:Acerta: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jannsen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an

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)0,001
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 enseignants0,451
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
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 Opus0,032
Tête enseignante GPT0,306
Écart entre enseignants0,274 · 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

Citations10
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchTravaux en français237 207