Obinutuzumab plus Bendamustine Followed by Obinutuzumab Maintenance Prolongs Overall Survival Compared with Bendamustine Alone in Patients with Rituximab-Refractory Indolent Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: Updated Results of the GADOLIN Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Treatment options for patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL) are limited. GADOLIN (NCT01059630) is an open-label, randomized, Phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and safety of obinutuzumab (GA101; GAZYVA/GAZYVARO; G) plus bendamustine (B) induction, followed by G maintenance (G-B arm), with B induction (standard of care) in rituximab-refractory iNHL pts. In the primary analysis, which involved all pts enrolled as of September 1, 2014 (n=396; median observation time, 21.0 months [mo]), median Independent Review Committee (IRC)-assessed progression-free survival (PFS; primary endpoint) was longer in the G-B arm (194 pts; median not reached) than in the B arm (202 pts; 14.9 mo), with a 45% reduction in risk of progression or death (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.40, 0.74; p=0.0001). Investigator (INV)-assessed PFS was also significantly longer in the G-B arm, but overall survival (OS) data were immature. Safety profiles were comparable. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, and infusion-related reactions (IRRs). Seventeen additional pts were enrolled after the data cut-off for the primary analysis. Here, we report updated time-to-event and safety results from a planned analysis of all pts (n=413) using a data cut-off of April 1, 2016. Methods: Enrolled pts were aged ≥18 years (yrs) with documented rituximab-refractory iNHL and an ECOG performance status of 0-2. Pts received either G 1000mg i.v. (days [D] 1, 8, and 15 of cycle [C] 1, and D1 of C2-6) plus B 90mg/m2/day i.v. (D1 and 2 of C1-6), or B monotherapy (120mg/m2/day i.v., D1 and 2 of C1-6); each cycle was 28 days. Following induction, pts in the G-B arm without evidence of progression received G maintenance (1000mg i.v. every 2 mo for 2 yrs or until disease progression, whichever occurred first). In the current analysis, assessments included INV-assessed PFS, OS, time to new anti-lymphoma treatment (TTNT), and safety. Efficacy assessment was performed on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety analysis included all pts who received any study treatment, excluding 2 pts who crossed over to G-B during maintenance. Results: Of 413 iNHL pts in the ITT population (G-B, 204; B, 209), 335 (G-B, 164; B, 171) had FL. Baseline characteristics of the ITT population were balanced between arms. Median number of prior regimens was 2 in both arms (pts with ≤2 prior regimens: G-B, 80.4%; B, 77.5%). Most pts were refractory to their last regimen (G-B, 92.2%; B, 92.3%). After 31.8 mo median follow-up, median INV-assessed PFS was 25.8 mo in the G-B arm and 14.1 mo in the B arm; HR was 0.57 (95% CI 0.44, 0.73; p<0.0001), i.e. a 43% reduction in risk of progression or death for G-B relative to B. Fewer pts died in the G-B arm (25.5%) than the B arm (34.9%), with a HR for OS of 0.67 (95% CI 0.47, 0.96; p=0.0269; risk reduction, 33%; Figure 1A); median OS was not reached for either arm. Results for FL pts were consistent with those for ITT pts (median PFS: 25.3 vs. 14.0 mo [HR 0.52; 95% CI 0.39, 0.69; p<0.0001]; median OS: not reached vs. 53.9 mo [HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.39, 0.86; p=0.0061; Figure 1B]). Median TTNT was also longer in the G-B arm than in the B arm (ITT pts: 40.8 vs. 19.4 mo, respectively [HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.45, 0.77]; FL pts: 33.6 vs. 18.0 mo, respectively [HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.43, 0.75]). The overall safety profile of G-B remained consistent with results of the primary analysis. In the ITT population, there were more grade ≥3 AEs with G-B than with B (72.5% vs. 65.5%, respectively), notably neutropenia (34.8% vs. 27.1%) and IRRs (9.3% vs. 3.5%); grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia (10.8% vs. 15.8%) and anemia (7.4% vs. 10.8%) were less frequent in the G-B arm, while grade ≥3 infections (22.5 % vs. 19.2%) and secondary malignancies (5.9% vs. 5.4%) were reported with a similar incidence. Serious AEs were more frequent in the G-B arm (43.6% vs. 36.9%), but the incidence of grade 5 (fatal) AEs was similar (7.8% vs. 6.4%). Safety results in FL pts were comparable with those in all iNHL pts. Conclusions: Updated analysis of the GADOLIN study with ~10 mo additional follow-up confirms the previously reported PFS benefit of G-B over B in pts with rituximab-refractory iNHL, and demonstrates a significant improvement in OS in the G-B arm. No new safety signals were detected. Figure 1. OS results: A) ITT population; B) FL pts Figure 1. OS results: A) ITT population; B) FL pts Disclosures Cheson: Roche-Genentech: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Teva: Research Funding. Trněný:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dueck:Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Lundbeck: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lugtenburg:Celgene: Consultancy; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Salles:Mundipharma: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Fingerle-Rowson:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mattiello:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment. Wassner-Fritsch:elisabeth.wassner_fritsch@roche.com: Employment. Sehn:Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Lundbeck: Consultancy.
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) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 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 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 ».