MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2920903135 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-117063

Outcomes for Patients with Pre-Existing Diabetes or Hypertension Treated with Copanlisib from the CHRONOS-1 Study in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Indolent B-Cell Lymphoma

2018· article· en· W2920903135 sur OpenAlexaff
Pier Luigi Zinzani, Armando Santoro, Luigina Mollica, Sirpa Leppä, George Follows, Georg Lenz, Won Seog Kim, Arnon Nagler, Panayiotis Panayiotidis, Judit Demeter, Franck Morschhauser, Liana Rodrigues, John A. Reeves, Florian Hiemeyer, Ashok Miriyala, J. Garcia‐Vargas, Barrett H. Childs, Martin Dreyling

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineInternal medicineAdverse effectRegimenChemotherapy regimenCommon Terminology Criteria for Adverse EventsTolerabilityNeutropeniaFollicular lymphomaClinical endpointGastroenterologySurgeryLymphomaChemotherapyClinical trial

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: We previously reported that treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory indolent B-cell lymphoma 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). Copanlisib is administered intravenously on an intermittent schedule and two of the most commonly reported adverse events are infusion-related transient elevations in blood glucose and blood pressure. Patients with a medical history of diabetes mellitus or hypertension were allowed to enroll in the CHRONOS-1 study if these conditions were well controlled. We report here on the outcomes for these subsets of patients. 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 and an alkylating agent or regimen. Copanlisib (60 mg) was administered I.V. 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 (ORR) 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). The cut-off for this analysis was February 2018. Results: A total of 142 patients were treated, with follicular lymphoma (FL) being the principal histology (n=104). The median age was 63 years (range 25-82). Median number of prior lines of treatment was 3 (range 2-9), with 61% being refractory to the last regimen. Twenty patients with diabetes were enrolled; 17 patients with a history of diabetes mellitus, 1 with history of impaired glucose tolerance, and 2 diagnosed at screening. Forty one patients with a medical history of hypertension were enrolled; baseline median systolic blood pressure was 126 mmHg in hypertensive subgroup vs 118 mmHg in non-hypertensives. At the time of analysis, the median duration of treatment was 5.0 months in the diabetic pts, 6.0 months in non-diabetics, 6.0 months in hypertensive pts, and 5.9 months in non-hypertensives. The ORR was >60% in all subsets with the exception of the diabetic subset, where the ORR was 40% (Table). The median DOR was also the shortest for the diabetic subset (7.1 mo); 3 patients were in response for more than 2 yrs. The mDOR for non-diabetics was 14.9 mo. Interestingly, the hypertensive patient subset had the highest rate of CR (26.8%). Of the 41 pts in this subset, 31 were FL patients, and among these patients 10 (32.3%) had a CR. Likewise, the mDOR for the hypertensive subset was 22.6 mo; the non-hypertensive subset had a mDOR of 10.9 mo. Median PFS for the four subsets were: 7.2 mo for diabetics, 13.8 mo for non-diabetics, 19.0 mo for hypertensives, and 11.3 mo for non-hypertensives. Median OS had not yet been reached in the non-diabetic and non-hypertensive subsets. Regarding AEs of interest possibly impacted by pre-existing conditions, all-grade (G) treatment-emergent hyperglycemia was reported in 85% and 44.3% of diabetic and non-diabetic groups, respectively. G4 hyperglycemia was reported in 7/20 (35%) of diabetic patients but in in only 3 (2.5% of non-diabetics). Two diabetic patients and one non-diabetic patient discontinued treatment due to hyperglycemia. Mean ± SD hemoglobin A1c values increased 0.64±0.9% from baseline to last value on treatment in diabetics and 0.50±0.8% in non-diabetics. All-grade hypertension was reported for 43.9% of hypertensive patients and was principally G3 (39.0%). In non-hypertensives the all-grade and G3 values were 23.8% and 17.8%, respectively. There were no G4 events. One patient discontinued due to hypertension (G2). There were two G3 cardiac-related events (atrial fibrillation and left ventricular dysfunction) and one G4 event (arrhythmia) in the hypertensive group. Conclusions: These results support use of copanlisib in indolent lymphoma patients with well-controlled diabetes or hypertension. In particular, the transient hyperglycemia in diabetic patients did not exacerbate metabolic status as reflected in HbA1c values. Thus, patients with these pre-existing conditions should not be precluded treatment a priori. Disclosures Zinzani: Celltrion: 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; 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; Astra Zeneca: Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PFIZER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: 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; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: 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; Merck: Honoraria, 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; Celgene: 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. Leppä:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Follows:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lenz:Celgene Corp.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding. Demeter:Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Aramis Pharma: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Angelini: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Morschhauser:Janssen: Other: Scientific Lectures; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Consultancy; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: 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. Rodrigues:Bayer: Employment. Reeves:Joule INC: Employment; Bayer: Consultancy. Hiemeyer:Bayer: Employment. Miriyala:Bayer: Employment. Garcia-Vargas:Bayer: Employment. Childs:Bayer: Employment. Dreyling:Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: 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; 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.

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 enseignants0,250
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,748

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
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 Opus0,023
Tête enseignante GPT0,269
Écart entre enseignants0,246 · 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

Citations1
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchTravaux en français237 207