MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2914020209 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-116715

Outcomes for Patients with High-Risk Relapsed or Refractory Indolent B-Cell Lymphoma Treated with Copanlisib in the CHRONOS-1 Study

2018· article· en· W2914020209 sur OpenAlexaff
Armando Santoro, Luigina Mollica, Sirpa Leppä, George Follows, Georg Lenz, Won Seog Kim, Arnon Nagler, Maria Dimou, Judit Demeter, Massimo Magagnoli, Liana Rodrigues, Oliver Wirtz, Florian Hiemeyer, Li Liu, Karl Koechert, J. Garcia‐Vargas, Barrett H. Childs, Pier Luigi Zinzani, Martin Dreyling

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineInternal medicineFollicular lymphomaBendamustineRegimenPopulationClinical endpointAdverse effectRituximabPhases of clinical researchOncologySalvage therapyNeutropeniaRefractory (planetary science)LymphomaGastroenterologySurgeryChemotherapyClinical trial

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Previous studies indicate that follicular lymphoma patients who have progression of disease (POD) within 24 months (ie POD24) of receiving frontline chemoimmunotherapy have worse overall survival and thus constitute a high-risk population (Casulo et al. J Clin Oncol 33:2516-2522, 2015; Jurinovic et al., Blood 128:1112-1120, 2016). We have previously reported in the CHRONOS-1 study in patients with relapsed or refractory indolent B-cell lymphoma that treatment with the pan-class I phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitor copanlisib resulted in durable responses with a manageable safety profile (Dreyling et al., J Clin Oncol 35:3898-3905, 2017). We explore here the outcomes for the subset of patients with rapid POD from the CHRONOS-1 study. Methods: Patients with histologically confirmed indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma and relapsed after, or refractory to, ≥2 prior lines of treatment were eligible. Previous treatment had to include rituximab (R) and an alkylating agent or regimen. Copanlisib was administered at a fixed dose of 60 mg via 1-hour I.V. infusion on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Treatment continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary efficacy endpoint was objective response rate after ≥4 cycles as assessed per independent radiologic review (Cheson et al., JCO 20:579, 2007). Secondary efficacy endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Adverse events (AEs) were reported using MedDRA (version 19.1). This exploratory analysis was based on patient's first-line treatment. Results: A total of 140 patients were treated and evaluable for POD based on first-line treatment; the principal histologies were follicular lymphoma (FL; n=102) and marginal zone lymphoma (n=23). First-line treatments in 140 evaluable patients included: 34% R-CHOP, 23% R-other, 21% R-CVP, 18% chemotherapy, and 2% patients R only. For FL patients, 87 of 102 (85%) received some form of R-chemotherapy as first-line treatment. A total of 93 patients (66.4%) progressed in less than 24 months and were deemed the POD<24 group for this analysis; the remaining 47 patients (33.6%) were classified as POD>24. The median time from 1st line treatment to first POD was 11.0 months in the POD<24 and 35.3 months in the POD>24 group. The median number of lines of prior therapy for both groups was 3. The median time to progression for the most recent line of therapy prior to start of copanlisib treatment was also shorter for the POD<24 group (7.0 months; 65.6% refractory) than for the POD>24 group (15.7 months; 48.9% refractory). At the time of data cutoff (February 2018), the median duration of copanlisib treatment was 6.0 months (range 0.2-44.2) for the POD<24 group and 5.0 months (range 0.4-32.2) for POD>24. Whereas the fraction of patients with complete responses (CR) were identical in both groups (17%) [Table], the ORR was 58.1% in the POD<24 group and 68.1% in the POD>24 group. In FL patients the ORR was similar in both groups, but the percent of patients with CR was higher in the POD<24 group (22.1%) compared to the POD>24 group (17.7%). The overall median DOR was 14.9 months and 14.1 months, respectively. Median PFS was 11.3 months in the POD<24 group and 17.6 months in the POD>24 group; approximately 50% censored events in each group. Median OS was 42.6 months in the POD<24 group but had not yet been reached in the POD>24 group. The median duration of safety follow-up was 6.7 months in the POD<24 group and 6.1 months in the POD>24 group. All-grade treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were similar in both groups, with grade (G) 3/4 events 48.4%/33.3% in the POD<24 group and 66.0%/21.3% in the POD>24 group. Serious AEs considered treatment-related occurred in 29.3% of patients (15.0% G3/7.1% G4). There were 3 treatment-related G5 events, 2 (2.2%) in the POD<24 group and 1 (2.1%) in the POD>24 group. Conclusions: Two-thirds of patients treated with copanlisib in the CHRONOS-1 study were considered high-risk based on POD in less than 24 months after first-line therapy, yet the efficacy of copanlisib in both groups was similar. These results suggest that copanlisib treatment should be explored as treatment for patients failing to achieve durable responses in the first-line setting. Disclosures Leppa: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Follows:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lenz:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene Corp.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Demeter:Amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Aramis Pharma: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Angelini: Consultancy. Rodrigues:Bayer: Employment. Wirtz:Bayer: Employment. Hiemeyer:Bayer: Employment. Liu:Bayer: Employment. Koechert:Bayer: Employment. Garcia-Vargas:Bayer: Employment. Childs:Bayer: Employment. Zinzani:PFIZER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Speakers Bureau; 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; Merck: Honoraria, 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; MSD: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; SERVIER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, 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; 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; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dreyling:Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, 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, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut 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 enseignants0,001
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,007

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
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 Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,243
Écart entre enseignants0,233 · 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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

Citations4
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→Travaux en français237 207→