MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2910326971 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-118577

PD-L1 Blockade with Atezolizumab in Higher-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome: An Initial Safety and Efficacy Analysis

2018· article· en· W2910326971 sur OpenAlexaff
Aaron T. Gerds, Bart L. Scott, Peter L. Greenberg, Samer K. Khaled, Tara L. Lin, Daniel A. Pollyea, Amit Verma, Monique Dail, Cherie Green, Connie Ma, Bruno C. Medeiros, Patrick Phuong, Michael Wenger, Mark Yan, William B. Donnellan

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensRoche (Canada)
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAtezolizumabMedicineTolerabilityAzacitidineInternal medicineOncologyCohortAdverse effectCancerPembrolizumabImmunotherapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Patients (pts) with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (HR-MDS) and those who fail to respond to or relapse/progress after treatment with hypomethylating agents (HMA) have limited therapeutic options and poor prognosis. PD-L1 expression is upregulated in HR-MDS pts (compared with lower-risk MDS pts) and in those who fail HMA therapy. Combining inhibition of the PD-L1/PD-1 pathway with azacitidine may improve outcomes in MDS. Methods: We conducted a Phase Ib trial of the anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody atezolizumab, with or without azacitidine, in HMA-failure and HMA-naive MDS pts (NCT02508870). The primary objective was to determine the safety and tolerability of atezolizumab as a single agent or in combination with azacitidine. An initial safety evaluation was performed in three cohorts. Cohort A1 (10 pts) consisted of HMA-failure HR-MDS pts treated with atezolizumab alone (1200mg IV q3w). Cohort B1 (11 pts) consisted of HMA-failure HR-MDS pts treated with atezolizumab (840mg IV q2w) in combination with azacitidine (75mg/m2 qd for 7 days q4w) for 6 cycles, followed by atezolizumab maintenance alone (1200mg IV q3w). Cohort C1 (6 pts) consisted of HMA-naive HR-MDS pts treated with atezolizumab (840mg IV q2w) in combination with azacitidine (75mg/m2 qd for 7 days q4w). If atezolizumab alone or in combination with azacitidine was deemed safe and tolerable in Cohorts A1 and B1, an additional 1:1 randomization into two cohorts of 30 pts each (Cohorts A2 and B2) was planned. If the combination of atezolizumab and azacitidine was found to be safe and tolerable in Cohort C1, an additional expansion cohort (Cohort C2) of 14 pts with HMA-naive HR-MDS was planned. Primary endpoints included determining the safety and tolerability of atezolizumab-based regimens in HR-MDS and defining the recommended Phase II dose for the combination. Results: As of January 2018, 42 HR-MDS pts had been treated with atezolizumab-based regimens: Cohort A, 10 pts; Cohort B, 11 pts; Cohort C, 21 pts. Median age for the entire pt cohort was 76 years (range: 63−89). Median treatment duration for Cohorts A, B, and C was 4.2, 5.5, and 5.8 months, respectively. The overall response rate for Cohorts A, B, and C was 0%, 9% (hematologic improvement [HI]: 9%), and 62% (CR, 14%; mCR, 19%; mCR + HI, 10%; HI, 19%), respectively. All pts in Cohorts A and B have discontinued therapy, with a median overall survival (OS) of 5.9 months and 10.7 months, respectively. For pts in Cohort C, 8/21 pts remain on therapy, and median OS has not been reached. Grade 3−5 adverse events (AEs) in >10% of pts were primarily hematologic; grade 3−5 febrile neutropenia occurred in 29% of all pts and was particularly common in pts receiving the atezolizumab-azacitidine combination (Cohorts B [36%] and C [33%] compared with Cohort A [10%]; Table 1). In Cohort A, 70% (7/10) of pts died, as did 64% (7/11) of pts in Cohort B and 29% (6/21) of pts in Cohort C. Median time to death was 160 days (Cohort A), 299 days (Cohort B), and 53 days (Cohort C). Timing and causes of death were different in the three cohorts. Causes of death were more commonly from disease progression in Cohorts A and B, while serious AEs accounted for all deaths in Cohort C (Table 2). In addition, deaths within 3 months occurred in 10%, 18%, and 29% of pts in Cohorts A, B, and C, respectively. The high early death rate compared with historical controls observed in HMA-naive HR-MDS patients (Cohort C) led to early termination of the study prior to completing recruitment. Biomarker assessment demonstrated PD-L1 expression on variable proportions of AML blasts in samples from all pts analyzed. However, PD-L1 expression was not associated with clinical response (Figure). Conclusions: Combination of atezolizumab plus azacitidine in HMA-naive HR-MDS pts had an unfavorable safety profile, which led to early termination. Limited responses were observed with atezo-based regimens (with or without azacitidine) in HMA-failure HR-MDS pts, without excessive or unexpected toxicity. Better understanding of the reasons associated with the differential toxicity profile observed between HMA-naive versus HMA-failure HR-MDS pts will be crucial for potential future developments of this combination. Disclosures Gerds: Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy; Apexx Oncology: Consultancy. Khaled:Daiichi: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Other: Travel Funding. Lin:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Pollyea:AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Curis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Argenx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celyad: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dail:Genentech: Employment, Equity Ownership. Green:Genentech: Employment. Ma:Genentech: Employment. Medeiros:Genentech: Employment, Equity Ownership. Phuong:Genentech Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Ownership interests PLC. Wenger:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Ownership interests PLC. Yan:Roche: 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)0,000
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: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,061
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,884

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
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 Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,290
Écart entre enseignants0,272 · 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'étudeObservationnel
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 sujetAcute Myeloid Leukemia ResearchTravaux en français237 207