MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2980125828 · doi:10.1182/blood.v128.22.615.615

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

2016· article· en· W2980125828 sur OpenAlexaff
Bruce D. Cheson, Marek Trněný, Kamal Bouabdallah, Greg Dueck, John G. Gribben, Pieternella J. Lugtenburg, Oliver W. Press, Gilles Salles, Günter Fingerle‐Rowson, Federico Mattiello, Elisabeth Wassner-Fritsch, Laurie H. Sehn

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineObinutuzumabBendamustineRituximabInternal medicineNeutropeniaRefractory (planetary science)Clinical endpointAdverse effectSurgeryGastroenterologyOncologyClinical trialLymphomaChemotherapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,012

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,007
Tête enseignante GPT0,212
Écart entre enseignants0,205 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations49
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentTravaux en français237 207