Addition of Polatuzumab Vedotin to Bendamustine and Rituximab (BR) Improves Outcomes in Transplant-Ineligible Patients with Relapsed/Refractory (R/R) Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) Versus BR Alone: Results from a Randomized Phase 2 Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction: Transplant ineligible patients (pts) with R/R DLBCL have poor outcomes. Polatuzumab vedotin (pola) is an antibody drug conjugate that delivers the microtubule inhibitor MMAE to CD79b-expressing cells, including DLBCL (Dornan et al. Blood 2009). A P1b/2 study evaluating pola plus bendamustine (B) together with rituximab (R) or obinutuzumab (G) in R/R follicular lymphoma and R/R DLBCL is ongoing (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02257567). Previously we reported results from the P1b (pola + BR, pola + BG) and P2 expansion of pola + BG and showed that these regimens were tolerable (Matasar et al. EHA 2017). We now report results of the randomized DLBCL cohorts that compared pola + BR to BR. Aims: The P2 primary aim was to assess the efficacy of pola + BR vs BR at PRA (primary response assessment: 6-8 weeks after last study treatment) by an independent review committee (IRC) using modified Lugano Classification (CR required PET negativity and bone marrow biopsy confirmation of clearance if positive at screening). Secondary aims included safety evaluation and investigator-assessed responses by PET/CT and CT alone. Exploratory aims included duration of response (DOR), PFS, OS, and biomarker analysis. Methods: After informed consent, 80 R/R DLBCL pts were randomized to pola 1.8 mg/kg plus R (375 mg/m2) and B (90 mg/m2) or BR every 21 days for 6 cycles. Transplant eligible pts were excluded but pts could have had prior autologous but not allogeneic transplant. Pts were stratified by DOR to last prior treatment ≤12 months (mo) vs >12 mo. Results: Of 40 pts randomized to each arm, 39 pts in each arm received ≥1 treatment dose. Baseline characteristics of safety evaluable pts were comparable between the two arms (Table 1). As of 3 May 2017, median follow up for surviving pts was 10.9 mo for pola + BR and 7.6 mo for BR. Pola + BR pts completed more treatment cycles vs BR pts, with median of 5 vs 3 completed cycles, and 6 cycles completed by 46% vs 18% pts, respectively. Early treatment discontinuation due to PD occurred in 15% of pola + BR pts vs 54% of BR pts. AEs led to early treatment discontinuation in 33% pola + BR pts vs 10% BR pts. Safety: Non-heme AEs (all grades) occurring in >20% of pola + BR vs BR pts included diarrhea 41% vs 21%, infections 39% vs 41%, fatigue 36% vs 28%, pyrexia 33% vs 23%, nausea 26% vs 28%, decreased appetite 26% vs 15%, constipation 21% vs 18%, rash 10% vs 21%, and infusion related reactions 31% vs 21%. Heme AEs (all grades) in pola + BR vs BR were neutropenia 54% vs 39%, thrombocytopenia 49% vs 23%, and anemia 44% vs 15%, respectively. Peripheral neuropathy occurred in 39% pola + BR pts [21% Grade (Gr) 1, 18% Gr 2] vs 3% BR pts (3% Gr 2) and led to pola discontinuation in 1 pt and dose reduction in 2 pts. Gr 3-4 AEs occurring in >10 % of pts were infections (13% pola + BR vs 18% BR) and cytopenias. Gr 3-4 cytopenias were higher in pola + BR vs BR: neutropenia (46% vs 36%), thrombocytopenia (33% vs 21%), anemia (26% vs 13%) but were manageable with similar transfusion rates between the two arms. SAEs occurring in ≥ 10% of pts were infections (21% pola + BR vs 26% BR), febrile neutropenia (10% pola + BR vs 5% BR), and pyrexia (10% pola + BR vs 3% BR). Seven (18%) Grade 5 AEs occurred in each arm, including 3 (8%) in the setting of PD in each arm. Infection was the most common Gr 5 AE (3 per arm). Efficacy: Investigator-assessed best ORR and CR rates by PET/CT were higher in pola + BR vs BR with ORR 70% vs 33%, CR 58% vs 20% and at PRA with ORR 48% vs 18% and CR 43% vs 15%, respectively (Table 2). Median DOR for pola + BR vs BR was 8.8 mo vs 3.7 mo, respectively. Although the study was not powered for survival analyses, a significant benefit was seen in PFS and OS for pola + BR compared to BR (Figure 1). Median PFS for pola + BR vs BR was 6.7 mo (95% CI 4.9, 11.1) vs 2.0 mo (95% CI 1.5, 3.7) with stratified HR 0.31 (95% CI 0.18, 0.55) and p-value Conclusion: Pola + BR increased response rates, prolonged PFS and OS and provided significant clinical benefit with manageable toxicity in this population with high unmet need. Further evaluation of this promising therapy is warranted. Download : Download high-res image (226KB) Download : Download full-size image Disclosures Sehn: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Herrera: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding. Kamdar: Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau. McMillan: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel sponsorship. Kim: JJ Kyowa-Kirin: Research Funding; Celltrion, Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Donga: Research Funding. Penuel: Genentech, Inc.: Employment. Cheng: F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Employment. Hirata: Genentech, Inc.: Employment. Ku: Genentech, Inc.: Employment. Flowers: Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Burroughs Welcome Fund: Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Research to Practice: Research Funding; Educational Concepts: Research Funding; Prime Oncology: Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; OptumRx: Consultancy; Clinical Care Options: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; National Institutes Of Health: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Onyx: 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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».