MANAGING CYTOKINE RELEASE SYNDROME (CRS) AND NEUROTOXICITY WITH STEP‐UP DOSING OF MOSUNETUZUMAB IN RELAPSED/REFRACTORY (R/R) B‐CELL NON‐HODGKIN LYMPHOMA (NHL)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: T-cell directed therapies (e.g., CAR-T, blinatumomab) are associated with significant risk of Grade (Gr) ≥3 neurotoxicity and CRS/infusion-related reaction (IRR). Mosunetuzumab is a CD20/CD3 bispecific antibody that directs T-cells to engage and eliminate malignant B-cells. We report safety results from an ongoing Phase 1/1b study (NCT02500407) of mosunetuzumab in patients (pts) with R/R B-cell NHL. Methods: Pts received ascending doses on Day 1, Day 8, and Day 15 of Cycle 1 (step-up dosing), then a fixed dose on Day 1 of every 21-day cycle thereafter, up to a maximum of 17 cycles. Primary outcome measures included safety and efficacy. Results: As of October 23, 2018, 114 pts who received step-up dosing of mosunetuzumab were evaluable for safety (Table). The majority of adverse events (AE) occurred during Cycle 1 and 2. Neurologic AEs (NAE), defined from Nervous System or Psychiatric System Organ Classes, were mostly low grade, transient (median duration 4 days) and reversible; most common ones were headache (14%) and dizziness (8%). Gr ≥3 NAEs occurred in 4 pts (4%) with only 1 treatment-related event (hepatic encephalopathy). CRS/IRR was reported in 25% of pts, with only 1 Gr 3 event. Most common CRS symptoms were pyrexia (86%), chills (38%), and tachycardia and headache (14% each). There were no Gr 5 events related to CRS or NAEs. No apparent dose toxicity relationship was observed with step-up dosing in these pts, despite escalation of the Cycle 1 Day 15 dose to 20 mg, consistent with observed peak IL-6 levels after a low Cycle 1 Day 1 dose. In these pts, objective responses were observed in 24/73 (33%; complete response [CR], 13 [18%]) aggressive NHL and 17/32 (53%; CR, 10 [31%]) indolent NHL pts. Conclusions: Step-up dosing has enabled continued dose escalation of mosunetuzumab with no apparent increases in toxicity, exhibiting a promising risk-benefit profile. Acknowledgement: This work was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Third-party medical writing assistance, under the direction of Laurie Sehn, was provided by Louise Profit and Russell Craddock of Gardiner-Caldwell Communications, and was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. © 2019 American Society of Clinical Oncology, Inc. Reused with permission. This abstract was accepted and previously presented at the 2019 ASCO Annual Meeting. All rights reserved. Keywords: CD20; CD3; non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Disclosures: Sehn, L: Consultant Advisory Role: AbbVie, Amgen, Roche/Genentech, Inc., Apobiologix, AstraZeneca, Acerta, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Kite, Karyopharm, Lundbeck, Merck, MorphoSys, Seattle Genetics, Teva, Takeda, TG Therapeutics; Honoraria: /Genentech, Inc., Apobiologix, AstraZeneca, Acerta, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Kite, Karyopharm, Lundbeck, Merck, MorphoSys, Seattle Genetics, Teva, Takeda, TG Therapeutics; Research Funding: Roche/Genentech, Inc. Assouline, S: Employment Leadership Position: No; Consultant Advisory Role: Yes. Pfizer, Roche; Stock Ownership: No; Honoraria: No; Research Funding: No; Other Remuneration: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses: Roche; Speakers' bureau: Pfizer, Roche. Bartlett, N: Consultant Advisory Role: Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, ADC Therapeutics; Research Funding: Seattle Genetics, Genentech, Kite Pharma, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Immune Design, Forty Seven, Affirmed Therapeutics, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Millennium, Gilead Sciences. Bosch, F: Consultant Advisory Role: Roche, Janssen, Celgene, Abbvie, Novartis, Gilead; Honoraria: Roche, Janssen, Celgene, Abbvie, Novartis, Gilead; Research Funding: Roche, Janssen, Celgene, Abbvie, Novartis, Gilead, Sobi, Bayer; Other Remuneration: Roche, Janssen, Celgene, Abbvie, Novartis, Gilead (speakers' bureau). Diefenbach, C: Consultant Advisory Role: Seattle Genetics, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, Merck; Stock Ownership: Gilead Sciences; Research Funding: Seattle Genetics, Genentech, Incyte, LAM Therapeutics, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Millennium, MEI Pharma. Flinn, I: Consultant Advisory Role: AbbVie, Seattle Genetics, TG Therapeutics, Verastem; Research Funding: Acerta, Agios, Calithera Biosciences, Celgene, Constellation Pharmaceuticals, Genentech, Inc., Gilead Sciences, Incyte, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Seattle Genetics, TG Therapeutics, Trillim Therapeutics, AbbVie, ArQule, BeiGene, Curis, FoRMA Therapeutics, Forty Seven, Merck, Pfizer, Takeda, Teva, Verastem. Hong, J: Consultant Advisory Role: Takeda, Roche; Honoraria: Takeda, Roche, Janssen, Celgene, Mundipharma, Celtrion, Eisai; Research Funding: Janssen, Boryung Pharmaceutical. Kim, W: Research Funding: Roche, Takeda, Eisai, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Celtrion, Kyowa-Kirin, J&J. Matasar, M: Consultant Advisory Role: Genentech, Bayer, Merck, Juno Therapeutics, Roche, Teva, Rocket Medical, Seattle Genetics; Stock Ownership: Merck; Honoraria: Genentech, Roche, Bayer, Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Seattle Genetics; Research Funding: Genentech, Roche, Bayer, Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Seattle Genetics; Other Remuneration: Genentech, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Bayer (travel, accommodation and expenses). Nastoupil, L: Honoraria: Celgene, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Spectrum, TG Therapeutics; Research Funding: Celgene, Genentech, Janssen, Merck, TG Therapeutics. Schuster, S: Consultant Advisory Role: Celgene, Genentech, Inc., Gilead, Pfizer, Novartis, Nordic Nanovector, Acerta; Honoraria: Celgene, Genentech, Inc., Gilead, Pfizer, Novartis, Nordic Nanovector, Acerta; Research Funding: Celgene, Genentech, Inc., Novartis, Acerta, Gilead. Shadman, M: Consultant Advisory Role: AbbVie, Genentech, Inc., Sound Biologics, Verastem, ADC Therapeutics, Atara Biotherapeutics; Research Funding: Mustang Biopharma, Celgene, Pharmacyclics, Gilead, Genentech, Inc., AbbVie, TG Therapeutics, Beigene, Acerta Pharma, Merck. Yoon, S: Consultant Advisory Role: Novartis, AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Roche; Research Funding: Roche. Bender, B: Employment Leadership Position: Genentech, Inc.; Stock Ownership: Genentech, Inc.; Other Remuneration: Genentech, Inc.. Chu, W: Employment Leadership Position: Genentech, Inc.; Stock Ownership: Roche. Hernandez, G: Employment Leadership Position: Genentech, Inc.; Stock Ownership: Genentech, Inc.. Kwan, A: Employment Leadership Position: Genentech, Inc./Roche; Stock Ownership: Genentech, Inc./Roche. McCall, B: Employment Leadership Position: Genentech, Inc.; Stock Ownership: Roche. Sison, I: Employment Leadership Position: Genentech, Inc.; Stock Ownership: Genentech, Inc.. Wang, C: Employment Leadership Position: Ultragenyx Pharmaeuticals, Inc.. Wei, M: Employment Leadership Position: Genentech, Inc.; Stock Ownership: Roche. Yin, S: Employment Leadership Position: Genentech, Inc.; Stock Ownership: Genentech, Inc.; Other Remuneration: Genentech, Inc. (travel, accommodation, expenses). Yousefi, K: Employment Leadership Position: Roche; Other Remuneration: Roche (travel, accommodation and expenses). Budde, L: Consultant Advisory Role: Gilead, Genentech, AstraZeneca; Research Funding: Mustang Therapeutics, Merck & Co, Amgen; Other Remuneration: Gilead, AstraZeneca (speakers' bureau).
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».