MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2990206078 · doi:10.1182/blood-2019-124443

Clinical Impact of Ibrutinib with R-CHOP in Untreated Non-GCB DLBCL Co-Expressing BCL2 and MYC Genes in the Phase 3 Phoenix Trial

2019· article· en· W2990206078 sur OpenAlexaff
Peter Johnson, Sriram Balasubramanian, Brendan P. Hodkinson, Michael Schäffer, Lori Parisi, S. Martin Shreeve, Steven Sun, Jessica Vermeulen, Laurie H. Sehn, Louis M. Staudt, Anas Younes, Wyndham H. Wilson

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensSpinal Cord Injury BC
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHazard ratioInternal medicineMedicinePopulationOncologyCHOPDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaIbrutinibVincristineRituximabCyclophosphamideLymphomaConfidence intervalLeukemiaChronic lymphocytic leukemiaChemotherapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction In the phase 3, double-blind, placebo (pbo)-controlled PHOENIX trial (NCT01855750), 838 patients (pts) with non-germinal center B-cell-like (non-GCB) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) were randomized 1:1 to ibrutinib (IBR; 560 mg/day orally) + rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) or pbo + R-CHOP. IBR + R-CHOP did not improve event-free survival (EFS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) non-GCB population (hazard ratio [HR] 0.934; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.726-1.200). However, in an exploratory analysis, pts < 60 years benefited from the addition of IBR (HR 0.579; 95% CI, 0.380-0.881 for EFS), whereas pts ≥ 60 years did not (HR 1.228; 95% CI, 0.887-1.699 for EFS) due to increased toxicity and reduced R-CHOP exposure. Based on evidence that co-expression of BCL2 and MYC by immunohistochemistry (IHC) have a worse outcome with R-CHOP, we examined their clinical prognostic effect in the 2 arms of the PHOENIX trial. Methods Pretreatment formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded biopsy samples were collected. RNA was extracted and profiled with Illumina RNAseq. Raw sequence reads were aligned to the hs37d5 genome build with STAR v2.5.1b, and gene-level quantification was conducted using RSEM v1.2.23. The median transcript per million mapped reads (TPM) values for BCL2 and MYC gene expression across all pts with RNAseq data (n = 766) were used as the cutoffs between high and low expression for each gene. BCL2 IHC data were available from 184 pts, and based on these, the threshold expression value from RNAseq data that could best approximate positive calls from IHC (≥ 50% lymphoma cells positive) was determined. This threshold value was very close to the median level calculated above and therefore supported the use of the median expression levels as the cutoffs to define high and low expressors in the subsequent analyses. The relationship between expression by RNAseq and survival (EFS, overall survival [OS]) in the 2 study arms was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier estimate with Cox regression to determine HRs and log-rank testing to assess significance. Results Based on a cutoff at the median TPM value, the percentage of non-GCB pts with BCL2-high + MYC-high (n = 234, 30.5%) was consistent with previous literature. In the IBR + R-CHOP (n = 386) and pbo + R-CHOP (n = 380) arms, respectively, 123 (31.9%) and 111 (29.2%) pts were MYC-high + BCL2-high by RNAseq. In the pbo + R-CHOP arm, pts with MYC-high + BCL-2-high had worse EFS (HR 1.820; 95% CI, 1.264-2.620; p = 0.0011) and OS (HR 1.662; 95% CI, 1.014-2.724; p = 0.0415) versus those with low expression of 1 or both markers in the ITT population (Figure), consistent with known poor outcomes associated with these genes. However, there was no difference in outcome for high versus low expression of these genes in the IBR + R-CHOP arm in the ITT population. In the ITT population, pts with MYC-high + BCL2-high had better EFS (HR 0.648; 95% CI, 0.423-0.993; p = 0.045) with IBR + R-CHOP versus pbo + R-CHOP, but there was no significant difference in OS (HR 0.783; 95% CI, 0.446-1.372; p = 0.39; Figure). We also examined the outcome of the 97 (30.6%) pts < 60 years of age (n = 317) with MYC-high + BCL2-high and observed an improved EFS and OS with IBR + R-CHOP versus pbo + R-CHOP (HR 0.393; 95% CI, 0.198-0.780; p = 0.0056 for EFS; HR 0.191; 95% CI, 0.055-0.666; p = 0.0037 for OS; Figure). There was no significant difference in EFS or OS in pts < 60 years with MYC-low + BCL2-low or in pts ≥ 60 years with MYC-high + BCL2-high in the 2 arms. Conclusions In this exploratory analysis, IBR was associated with improved EFS in combination with R-CHOP compared with pbo + R-CHOP in pts with MYC-high + BCL2-high expression in the ITT (non-GCB) population, without a significant improvement in OS. In pts aged < 60 years, both EFS and OS were significantly better with IBR, while there was no significant difference in older pts. These data suggest that IBR + R-CHOP may particularly benefit pts with MYC-high + BCL2-high-expressing lymphomas, a hypothesis warranting further testing in other DLBCL cohorts. Disclosures Johnson: Novartis: Honoraria; Genmab: Honoraria; Kite: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; Boehringer Ingelheim: Honoraria. Balasubramanian:Janssen: Employment; Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership; Gilead Sciences: Equity Ownership; Celgene: Equity Ownership; Vertex: Equity Ownership; AbbVie: Equity Ownership. Hodkinson:Janssen: Employment. Schaffer:Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership; Janssen: Employment. Parisi:Janssen: Employment. Shreeve:Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership; Janssen: Employment. Sun:Janssen: Employment; Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership. Vermeulen:Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership; Janssen: Employment. Sehn:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; TEVA Pharmaceuticals Industries: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Ortho: Honoraria; TEVA Pharmaceuticals Industries: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Ortho: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Consultancy, Honoraria. Staudt:Nanostring: Patents & Royalties. Younes:AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Biopath: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Syndax: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; HCM: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Xynomics: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Curis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,743
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,670

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

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

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 Opus0,036
Tête enseignante GPT0,417
Écart entre enseignants0,381 · 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 tête enseignante, 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

Citations12
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchTravaux en français237 207