MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3095406040 · doi:10.1182/blood-2020-136164

Multicenter, Retrospective Evaluation of Therapeutic Efficacy of Ruxolitinib for Chronic Gvhd Treatment

2020· article· en· W3095406040 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Jennifer White, Nada Hamad, Swe Mar Linn, Igor Novitzky‐Basso, Omar Abduljalil, Arjun Law, Dennis Dong Hwan Kim

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Établissements canadiensPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health NetworkVancouver General HospitalUniversity of TorontoBC Cancer Agency
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineRuxolitinibPrednisoneInternal medicineRetrospective cohort studyGraft-versus-host diseaseClinical trialCorticosteroidSurgeryDiseaseBone marrow

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background Several agents have been investigated for beyond second-line treatment of chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). Ruxolitinib has been recently approved for steroid-refractory acute GVHD, while a prospective randomized study is ongoing to examine its efficacy in steroid-resistant chronic GVHD (cGVHD). The present study evaluated the efficacy of Ruxolitinib in terms of 1) overall response rate (ORR), 2) clinical benefit (CB), 3) dose reduction of corticosteroid exposure, 4) failure-free survival (FFS) and 5) overall survival (OS), in patients heavily pretreated for steroid-resistant cGVHD. Patients and methods A total of 47 patients who developed cGVHD after HCT and treated with Ruxolitinib for cGVHD from March 2016 to April 2020, at three different sites (Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Canada; Vancouver General Hospital, Canada and Saint Vincent Hospital, Australia), were evaluated in the retrospective study. Patients and disease characteristics are as follows: median age 52 years; classical 35 (71%), overlap syndrome 14 (29%). Of note, 27 patients (57.4%) had a previous history of acute GVHD. The ORR and CB were assessed at months 3, 6 and 12, retrospectively. Responses were evaluated according to NIH scoring/staging/response assessment as part of standard clinical practice. CB was assessed considering clinical response as well as steroid dose reduction. For systemic steroid dose reduction, prednisone dose per kg per day was captured prior to Ruxolitinib start, at months 3, 6 and 12. Treatment failure was defined as 1) resistance requiring treatment switch, 2) non-relapse mortality (NRM), 3) relapse, 4) intolerance to treatment. FFS and OS were calculated from the day of starting Ruxolitinib therapy for cGVHD treatment. Results A total of 47 patients had moderate (11/47, 24.4%) to severe (33/47, 73.3%) cGVHD except one who had mild grade cGVHD with a high-risk feature (thrombocytopenia at the time of Ruxolitinib start). The median number of organ involvement was 3 (range 1-7). Over half of patients (63.8%) received Ruxolitinib as 4th line or beyond for cGVHD treatment, while median number of previous lines of therapy was 3 (range 1-9). All 47 patients (100%) had been previously treated with systemic steroids; other previous treatments included ECP therapy (53.2%), Imatinib (29.8%), Ibrutinib (23.4%), Rituximab (21.3%). Ruxolitinib was started at 10-15 mg daily as initial dose, then maintained at 20mg daily in two divided doses on months 3, 6 and 12.With a median follow-up duration of 12 months, ORR was attained in 35.7%, 36.0% and 35.0% at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively (Figure A). Of note, ORR in patients with sclerotic changes was 56%, and 61.5% in those with lung involvement. Patients resistant to TKI (i.e. Imatinib or Ibrutinib) for cGVHD treatment showed similar ORR compared to those naïve to TKI therapy.The CB was observed in 53.5%, 66.7% and 72.2% at months 3, 6 and 12, respectively (Figure B). Patients resistant to TKI for cGVHD treatment did not show any difference in CB compared to those naïve to TKI therapy.In terms of prednisone dose reduction, by 12 months , half of patients (50.0%) could taper prednisone doses below 0.1mg/kg/day, while the proportion of patients on prednisone dose below 0.1mg/kg/day was 9.3%, 20.0%, 17.4%, and 50.0% at month 0, 3, 6 and 12, respectively (Figure C). The group who achieved CB at 3 months showed a significantly lower dose of prednisone at 12 months (0.078mg/kg/day) compared to those without clinical benefit at 3 months (0.197mg/kg/day; p=0.033; Figure D).Out of 37 patients evaluated, 11 failures (29.7%) were noted, including resistance requiring a switch to other therapy (n=7), NRM (n=2) and intolerance (n=2). The FFS rate at 1 year in the overall population was 68.5% (Figure E). The FFS at 1 year in those having CB at 3 months vs not was 86.5% vs 51.4% (p=0.025).The OS at 1 year was 90.9% (Figure F). The OS at 1 year in those having a CB at 3 months vs not was 100% vs 78.8% (p=0.053). Conclusion: This multicenter retrospective study revealed that Ruxolitinib is an effective treatment option for patients with cGVHD, with good ORR and CB. The achievement of CB in the first 3 months correlated well with steroid dose reduction. It suggests that Ruxolitinib is a feasible GVHD treatment option, even for patients who were heavily pretreated for cGVHD or failed previous TKI drug. Figure 1 Disclosures Hamad: Abbvie: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: Ruxolitinib treatment for steroid resistant chronic GVHD

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)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
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 enseignants0,004
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,020

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
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 Opus0,073
Tête enseignante GPT0,343
Écart entre enseignants0,270 · 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
Publié2020
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation→Travaux en français237 207→