Sustained Overall Survival Benefit of Obinutuzumab Plus Bendamustine Followed By Obinutuzumab Maintenance Compared with Bendamustine Alone in Patients with Rituximab-Refractory Indolent Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: Final Results of the Gadolin Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: For patients (pts) with relapsed indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL) who develop resistance to rituximab, treatment options are limited and the prognosis is poor. The open-label, randomized, Phase III GADOLIN (NCT01059630) study compared the efficacy and safety of obinutuzumab (GA101; G) plus bendamustine (B) induction, followed by G maintenance (G-B arm), with B induction (B arm; standard of care) in rituximab-refractory iNHL. The primary analysis in 396 pts (data cutoff: September 1, 2014; median observation time, 21.0 months) showed that Independent Review Committee (IRC)-assessed progression-free survival (PFS; primary endpoint) was significantly longer with G-B (median not reached [NR]) vs B (14.9 months), corresponding to a 45% reduction in risk of progression or death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40, 0.74; p=0.0001; Sehn et al. Lancet Oncol 2016). The safety profile of G-B was manageable. Here, we report the final analysis of efficacy and safety for GADOLIN (when safety follow-up for all pts had been completed [2 years' safety follow-up from last dose]; data cutoff: November 30, 2018). Methods: Enrolled pts were aged ≥18 years with documented rituximab-refractory iNHL and an ECOG performance status of 0-2. Pts received either G 1000mg intravenously (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) in 28-day cycles. Following induction, pts in the G-B arm without evidence of progression received G maintenance (1000mg i.v. every 2 months for 2 years or until disease progression). Final analysis endpoints included investigator (INV)-assessed PFS, overall survival (OS), time to new anti-lymphoma treatment (TTNT), and safety. The safety population included pts who received ≥1 dose of study treatment, excluding two pts crossing 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 follicular lymphoma (FL). Median (range) observation time was 57.5 (0.4-97.6) months for the G-B arm and 47.9 (0-100.9) months for the B arm (i.e. 27.6 and 35.6 months additional follow-up since the primary analysis). Median INV-assessed PFS was 25.8 months for the G-B arm vs 14.1 months for the B arm (HR, 0.57; 95% CI: 0.45, 0.73; p<0.0001) in all iNHL pts (Figure 1A). Overall, fewer iNHL pts died in the G-B (84/204; 41.2%) than in the B (100/203; 49.3%) arm; median OS was 88.3 vs 65.6 months (HR, 0.77; 95% CI: 0.57, 1.03; p=0.0810; 23% risk reduction [Figure 1A]). Median TTNT was also longer with G-B vs B (38.2 vs 18.9 months, respectively [HR, 0.60; 95% CI: 0.47, 0.76]). Results for FL pts were as follows: median PFS, 24.1 vs 13.7 months (HR, 0.51; 95% CI: 0.39, 0.67; p<0.0001 [Figure 1B]); median OS, NR vs 60.3 months (HR, 0.71; 95% CI: 0.51, 0.98; p=0.0343); median TTNT, 33.6 vs 18.0 months (HR, 0.56; 95% CI: 0.43, 0.73). In the safety population (N=407; G-B, 204; B, 203), 149/204 (73.0%) of pts in the G-B arm and 134/203 (66.0%) in the B arm experienced grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs). Compared with B, grade ≥3 neutropenia (37.3% vs 30.0%) and grade ≥3 infusion-related reactions (11.3% vs 5.4%) were more frequent with G-B, and grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia (10.8% vs 15.8%) and anemia (7.4% vs 10.8%) were less frequent. The incidences of grade ≥3 infections (22.5% vs 19.2%) and grade ≥3 second malignancies (7.8% vs 5.9%) were similar between arms. The proportion of pts with serious AEs was 91/204 (44.6%) in the G-B arm and 76/203 (37.4%) in the B arm; fatal AEs were reported in 20/204 (9.8%) and 15/203 (7.4%) of pts, respectively. The most frequent AEs leading to death in the G-B vs B arms were infections (six vs seven pts, respectively) and second malignancies (eight vs four pts, respectively). Safety results in FL pts were comparable with all iNHL pts. Conclusions: Final analysis of the GADOLIN study showed that G-B was associated with a 43% reduction in the risk of progression or death compared with B in pts with rituximab-refractory iNHL and a 49% reduction in pts with FL, with a sustained and clinically relevant OS benefit in pts with FL. There were no new safety signals with longer follow-up. Acknowledgments: The GADOLIN study was sponsored by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Third party medical writing assistance, under the direction of Laurie Sehn, was provided by Louise Profit of Gardiner-Caldwell Communications and was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Disclosures Sehn: TEVA Pharmaceuticals Industries: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Consultancy, Honoraria; TEVA Pharmaceuticals Industries: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Apobiologix: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Ortho: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Ortho: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria. Trněný:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bouabdallah:Roche: 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, Speakers Bureau. Dueck:Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding. Gribben:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta/Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Lugtenburg:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genmab: Honoraria. Salles:Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Roche, Janssen, Gilead, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis, Servier, AbbVie, Karyopharm, Kite, MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Autolus: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Educational events; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events. Knapp:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment. Nielsen:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment, Equity Ownership. Liu:Roche Pharma Development, Shanghai, China: Employment. Cheson:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Symbios: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Epizyme: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding.
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) | 0,001 | 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 | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| 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 ».