FIXED‐DURATION VENETOCLAX PLUS OBINUTUZUMAB IMPROVES PFS AND MINIMAL RESIDUAL DISEASE NEGATIVITY IN PATIENTS WITH PREVIOUSLY UNTREATED CLL AND COMORBIDITIES
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: The multinational, open-label, phase 3 CLL14 trial (NCT02242942) compared fixed-duration targeted venetoclax plus obinutuzumab (VenG) treatment with chlorambucil-obinutuzumab (ClbG) treatment in previously untreated patients (pts) with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and comorbidities. We present endpoint analyses with particular emphasis on progression-free survival (PFS) and minimal residual disease (MRD)-negativity. Methods: Pts with a CIRS score >6 and/or an estimated creatinine clearance <70 mL/min were randomized 1:1 to receive equal duration treatment with 12 cycles of standard Clb or Ven 400 mg daily in combination with G for the first 6 cycles. The primary endpoint was PFS. MRD-negativity in peripheral blood (PB) or bone marrow (BM) 3 months after treatment completion was a key secondary endpoint. MRD was analyzed serially from Cycle 4 every 3 months by an allele-specific oligonucleotide polymerase chain reaction assay (ASO-PCR; cut-off, 10-4) and by next generation sequencing (NGS; cut-offs, 10-4, 10-5, 10-6). Results: 432 pts were enrolled (216 in each treatment group; intent-to-treat population). Median age, total CIRS score, and CrCl at baseline were 72 years, 8, and 66.4 mL/min respectively. After 29 months' median follow-up, superior PFS was observed with VenG vs ClbG (Figure 1a). Median PFS was not reached in either group: at Month 24, PFS rates were 88% with VenG and 64% with ClbG (hazard ratio [HR] 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23–0.53; P<0.0001). MRD-negativity by ASO-PCR was significantly higher with VenG vs ClbG in both PB (76% vs 35% [P<0.0001]) and BM (57% vs 17% [P<0.0001]) 3 months after treatment completion. Overall, 75% of VenG MRD-negative pts in PB were also MRD-negative in BM vs 49% in the ClbG group. Landmark analysis for this timepoint by PB MRD status showed that MRD-negativity was associated with longer PFS. MRD-negativity rates were more sustainable with VenG: 81% (VenG) vs 27% (ClbG) of pts were MRD-negative 12 months after treatment completion (Figure 1b). MRD-negativity rates by NGS confirmed these results; 78% (VenG) vs 34% (ClbG) of pts had MRD-negative status at <10-4, 35% vs 15% at ≥10-6–<10-5 and 31% vs 4% at <10-6, respectively. Conclusions: Fixed-duration VenG induced deep, high (<10-4 in 3/4 of pts and <10-6 in 1/3 of pts), and long lasting MRD-negativity rates (with a low rate of conversion to MRD-positive status 1 year after treatment) in previously untreated pts with CLL and comorbidities, translating into improved PFS. Funding: This study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Abbvie Inc. Third-party editing and administrative support was provided by Gardiner-Caldwell Communications, and was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. This abstract has been previously submitted in part to ASCO 2019 and EHA 2019. Keywords: chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL); obinutuzumab; venetoclax. Disclosures: Fischer, K: Other Remuneration: Expenses: Roche. Porro Lurà, M: Employment Leadership Position: Roche; Stock Ownership: Roche. Al-Sawaf, O: Other Remuneration: Other relationship: AbbVie, Roche, Gilead, Janssen. Bahlo, J: Honoraria: Roche; Other Remuneration: Expenses: Roche. Fink, A: Consultant Advisory Role: Janssen. Tandon, M: Employment Leadership Position: Roche. Dixon, M: Employment Leadership Position: Roche; Stock Ownership: Roche. Warburton, S: Employment Leadership Position: Roche. Humphrey, K: Employment Leadership Position: Roche; Stock Ownership: Roche. Liberati, A: Other Remuneration: Personal Fees: Abbvie. Pinilla-Ibarz, J: Consultant Advisory Role: Janssen, Gilead, Abbvie, Pharmacyclics, Millenium Pharmaceuticals/Takeda, TEVA, TG Therapeutics; Research Funding: TG Therapeutics; Other Remuneration: Speakers' Bureau: Janssen, Gilead, Abbvie, Pharmacyclics, Millenium Pharmaceuticals/Takeda, TEVA, Bayer. Opat, S: Consultant Advisory Role: Roche, AbbVie; Honoraria: Roche, AbbVie; Research Funding: Roche; Other Remuneration: Speakers' Bureau: Roche. Utoft Niemann, C: Consultant Advisory Role: Abbvie, Janssen, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Sunesis, Acerta, CSL Behring, Roche; Research Funding: Abbvie, Janssen; Other Remuneration: Expenses: Novartis, Gilead, Roche; Other relationship: Roche - Payment for trial enrollment/patient management of the trial, indirectly through GCLLSG. Weinkove, R: Consultant Advisory Role: Abbvie; Honoraria: Abbvie; Other Remuneration: Other relationship: Capital & Coast District Health Board - Institution received reimbursement of the costs of conducting trial-related clinical procedures. Robinson, S: Consultant Advisory Role: Roche, AbbVie. Kipps, T: Employment Leadership Position: UC, San Diego Health, Moores Cancer Center; Consultant Advisory Role: AbbVie, Genentech-Roche, Gilead, Pharmacyclics, Celgene; Honoraria: Gilead, AbbVie, Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Verastem; Research Funding: AbbVie, Genentech-Roche, Pharmacyclics, Oncternal; Other Remuneration: Membership on an entity's board of directors, speaker's bureau, or its advisory committees: AbbVie, Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Verastem. Boettcher, S: Honoraria: Roche, AbbVie, Janssen; Research Funding: Celgene, Roche, AbbVie, Janssen; Other Remuneration: Personal Fees: Janssen, Abbvie. Tausch, E: Consultant Advisory Role: Roche; Other Remuneration: Speakers' Bureau: Roche; Expert testimony: Abbvie; Expenses: Abbvie. Schary, W: Employment Leadership Position: AbbVie; Stock Ownership: AbbVie. Eichhorst, B: Consultant Advisory Role: Abbvie, Roche; Honoraria: Abbvie, Roche; Research Funding: Abbvie, Roche; Other Remuneration: Speakers' Bureau and expenses: Abbvie, Roche. Wendtner, C: Honoraria: F. Hoffmann La-Roche Ltd, Abbvie, Janssen-Cilag, Gilead, MorphoSys, Mundipharma, Novartis; Research Funding: F. Hoffmann La-Roche Ltd, Abbvie, Janssen-Cilag, Gilead, MorphoSys, Mundipharma, Novartis. Langerak, A: Consultant Advisory Role: AbbVie; Research Funding: Roche-Genentech, Gilead. Kreuzer, K: Consultant Advisory Role: Roche, Abbvie; Other Remuneration: Expert Testimony: Roche, Abbvie. Goede, V: Consultant Advisory Role: Roche, Janssen, Gilead, AbbVie; Other Remuneration: Speakers' Bureau: Roche, Janssen, Gilead. Stilgenbauer, S: Research Funding: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann La-Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, Sunesis; Other Remuneration: Personal Fees: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann La-Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, Sunesis. Mobasher, M: Employment Leadership Position: Genentech/F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Corvus; Stock Ownership: Genentech/F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Corvus; Other Remuneration: Expenses: Genentech/F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Corvus. Ritgen, M: Consultant Advisory Role: Roche, Abbvie; Research Funding: Roche, Abbvie; Other Remuneration: Personal Fees – Roche. Hallek, M: Consultant Advisory Role: Roche, Abbvie; Honoraria: Roche, Abbvie, Gilead, Janssen, Celgene, Boehringer Ingelheim; Research Funding: Roche, Abbvie; Other Remuneration: Speakers' Bureau: Roche, Abbvie.
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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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) | 0,003 | 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 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 ».