MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2987820069 · doi:10.1182/blood-2019-122700

Improved Overall Survival with Enasidenib Compared with Standard of Care Among Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia and IDH2 Mutations: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis Using Data from the AG221-C-001 Trial and Two Data Sources from France and Germany

2019· article· en· W2987820069 sur OpenAlexaff
Stéphane de Botton, Joseph Brandwein, Eytan M. Stein, Andrew H. Wei, Daniela Weber, Arnaud Pigneux, Nicolas Boissel, Peter Paschka, Konstanze Döhner, Salem Abi Nehme, Mark G. Frattini, Roland Marion‐Gallois, Jixian Wang, Chris Cameron, Muhaimen Siddiqui, Rana A. Qadeer, Hartmut Döhner

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPropensity score matchingMedicineInternal medicineOncology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Enasidenib is approved for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with an isocitrate dehydrogenase-2 mutation (mIDH2+) in the USA. To compare the relative effectiveness of enasidenib with standard of care (SoC) in terms of overall survival (OS) among patients with mIDH2+ R/R AML who are ineligible for hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), a propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed using data from the phase 1/2 AG221-C-001 single-arm trial and a real-world chart review study of patients from France (France chart review [FCR] study) and historical data from the AML Study Group (AMLSG) database. Methods: Individual patient data (IPD) were obtained from the phase 1/2 AG221-C-001 trial for enasidenib (100 mg/day) and from the FCR study and AMLSG database for SoC. Data from the FCR study and AMLSG database were combined to create a single pooled SoC group. Based on clinician feedback and data availability, 6 clinically important covariates (history of HCT before baseline, age, number of prior lines of AML therapy at baseline, cytogenetic risk at baseline, history of myelodysplastic syndromes [MDS], Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status) were used for propensity score calculation and matching. Patients from the 2 groups were matched using nearest neighbor 1:1 matching with a caliper of 0.2 standard deviations (SDs) of the logit transform of the propensity score. A comparison of means, SDs, and standardized mean differences (SMDs) between treatment groups was conducted for each covariate to assess the balance between the pre- and post-match populations. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using doubly robust Cox proportional hazard models that adjusted for the aforementioned covariates. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using alternative matching algorithms, weighting methods, and covariates. Additional sensitivity analyses excluding patients with early events (landmark analyses) were conducted. Results: Before matching, considerable differences existed between the enasidenib (N = 195) and SoC (N = 258) groups (i.e. SMDs > 0.10 were observed for nearly all covariates), and OS was numerically in favor of enasidenib (HR 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-1.01). After matching, the enasidenib and SoC groups (N = 144 per group) were mostly well balanced (SMDs for all covariates except for prior MDS were < 0.10), and enasidenib was associated with significantly longer OS than SoC (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.47-0.80). The median OS was 8.8 months (95% CI 7.5-10.7) for enasidenib and 4.4 months (95% CI 3.5-6.1) for SoC (Figure). Sensitivity analyses (i.e., analyses using alternative matching algorithms, weighting methods and covariates, and landmark analyses) delivered results consistent with the primary analysis. Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that enasidenib may prolong survival compared with SoC for patients with mIDH2+ R/R AML who are ineligible for HCT. The incorporation of 2 separate data sources (i.e. the FCR study and AMLSG database) into a combined SoC group increases the generalizability and robustness of these findings. Additional studies should aim to validate these findings using data sources from other countries and assess the comparative efficacy of enasidenib with SoC for other clinically important outcomes. Disclosures De Botton: Syros: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Daiichi: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Forma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Pierre Fabre: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy. Brandwein:Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Otsuka: Honoraria. Stein:Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bioline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PTC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas Pharma US, Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wei:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Walter and Eliza Hall Institute: Other: former employee, Patents & Royalties: receives a fraction of its royalty stream related to venetoclax; Genentech: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria, Research Funding; Macrogenics: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: former employee, Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria. Weber:Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Pigneux:Roche: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Daichi: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Boissel:NOVARTIS: Consultancy. Paschka:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Other: Travel expenses; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Other: Travel expenses; Takeda: Other: Travel expenses; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Other: Travel expenses; Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Otsuka: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Travel expenses; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau. Döhner:Daiichi: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Honoraria. Nehme:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Frattini:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Marion-Gallois:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Wang:Celgene International: Employment, Equity Ownership. Cameron:Cornerstone Research Group: Employment, Equity Ownership. Siddiqui:Celgene: Consultancy; Cornerstone Research Group: Employment. Qadeer:Cornerstone Research Group: Employment; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Döhner:Pfizer: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Swuibb: Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Honoraria; Arog: Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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 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)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,007
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,039

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,008
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,003
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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 Opus0,038
Tête enseignante GPT0,290
Écart entre enseignants0,252 · 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'étudeObservationnel
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

Citations1
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research→Travaux en français237 207→