A Phase 2, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Rituximab + Galiximab Vs Rituximab + Placebo In Advanced Follicular Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Abstract 428 Background: Galiximab is a primatized chimeric monoclonal antibody directed against CD80, an immunoregulatory protein normally expressed on antigen presenting cells and T cells, as well as in B-cell NHL, Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and certain leukemias. Galiximab directly mediates antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity against tumor cells in vitro. In ex vivo assays, galiximab can act on non-malignant cells to modulate immune signaling within the tumor microenvironment. Methods: Subjects with relapsed or refractory, Grade I-IIIa, follicular NHL in relapse following treatment with at least 1 chemotherapy regimen, and who were not refractory to rituximab were randomized to rituximab (375 mg/m2) plus galiximab (500 mg/m2; R+G) or rituximab plus placebo (R+P) and treated on Days 1, 8, 15, and 22. Randomization and primary efficacy analyses were stratified by age (≤60 vs >60), rituximab exposure (rituximab naïve vs non-naïve), and baseline tumor bulk (diameter of largest lesion ≤7 cm vs >7 cm). Primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) was analyzed using a stratified log-rank test. Results: This study, originally planned as a Phase 3 confirmatory study, was terminated early due to changes in standard of care and converted to a Phase 2 study. Therefore, interpretation of p-values was focused on assessing the potential of these data to support subsequent Phase 2 and Phase 3 studies. At study termination, 337 subjects were randomized (175 R+G and 162 R+P) with median follow-up of 13.8 months. Demographics and disease characteristics were well balanced across the 2 treatment groups (Table 1). The addition of galiximab to rituximab reduced the hazard for disease progression or death by 26% (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.738; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.543, 1.002]; p = 0.050) compared to the R+P group. Kaplan-Meier median PFS was 12.0 months (95% CI [9.0, 14.7]) for R+G and 9.0 months (95% CI [8.9, 10.5]) for R+P. Overall response rate was 51% for R+G vs 48% for R+P (p = 0.455) and complete response was 20% for R+G and 15% for R+P (p = 0.251). Consistency in treatment effect was seen across patient subgroups (Figure 1). A trend toward a larger PFS effect was observed in patients who were rituximab-naïve, had bulky tumor (largest lesion >7 cm), had lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) >1 × upper limit of normal, or had bone marrow involvement at study entry. There were 10 deaths in R+G vs 17 deaths in R+P; HR = 0.549 based on a stratified log-rank analysis (95% CI [0.248, 1.217]; p = 0.135). No substantial difference was observed between groups for Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) or serious AEs, and there were no treatment-related deaths in either group. Incidence of AEs was ≥3% higher in the R+G vs R+P group for the following: pyrexia (18% vs 11%), headache (13% vs 7%), cough (10% vs 6%), upper respiratory infection (8% vs 4%), insomnia (8% vs 4%), neutropenia (6% vs 3%), muscle spasms (5% vs <1%), and oropharyngeal pain (4% vs 1%). Anti-galiximab antibodies were not detected in 169 subjects treated with galiximab who were tested while on study. Conclusions: Galiximab in combination with rituximab demonstrated a trend toward an improved PFS compared with rituximab alone and was well tolerated in subjects with relapsed or refractory follicular NHL. Disclosure: McKinney: Biogen Idec: Employment. Ruffner:Biogen Idec: Employment. Wilson:Biogen Idec: Employment. Whiteley:Biogen Idec: Employment.
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 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 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 ».