Polatuzumab Vedotin Plus Bendamustine and Rituximab in Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Updated Results of a Phase Ib/II Randomized Study and Preliminary Results of a Single-Arm Extension
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Polatuzumab vedotin (Pola) is a novel antibody-drug conjugate targeting CD79b on B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. In the randomized cohort of GO29365, a Phase [Ph] Ib/II study (NCT02257567; data cut-off: April 30, 2018), Pola plus bendamustine and rituximab (Pola+BR) improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with BR alone in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL). The study met its primary endpoint, with an independent review committee (IRC)-assessed complete response (CR) rate of 40.0% with Pola+BR vs 17.5% with BR. These results led to regulatory approvals of Pola+BR for the treatment of pts with R/R DLBCL. The study was later amended to include a single-arm Ph II extension (Ext) cohort of additional pts who received Pola+BR. Here, we report updated results from the GO29365 study, including the Ph Ib safety run-in cohort, Ph II randomized arms, and previously unpublished results from the Ext cohort. Methods: This open-label study enrolled pts with R/R DLBCL (aged ≥18 years, stem cell transplant [SCT]-ineligible, ECOG performance status of 0-2). Pts with Grade [Gr] >1 peripheral neuropathy [PN] were excluded. In the initial study, Pola+BR was investigated in DLBCL in a Ph Ib safety run-in cohort (Pola+BR; N=6) and Ph II randomized arms (Pola+BR vs BR; N=80); full methods were previously described (Sehn et al. J Clin Oncol 2020). Pts in the Ext cohort received Pola+BR with the same dosing regimen (Pola 1.8mg/kg IV with each cycle of BR). The primary endpoint was IRC-assessed CR at primary response assessment [PRA] by PET-CT (modified Lugano criteria). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), best objective response (BOR), OS, PFS, duration of response (DOR), and safety. Results: As of January 2, 2020, median follow-up for pts treated with Pola+BR was 56.1 mo in the safety run-in cohort (N=6), 42.9 mo in the randomized arm (N=40), and 9.7 mo for the Ext cohort (N=106). Baseline characteristics (Table 1) were largely similar between the randomized Pola+BR arm and the Ext cohort. Updated survival data from the randomized cohort (Pola+BR vs BR) showed the median IRC-assessed PFS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 9.2 (6.0-13.0) vs 3.7 (2.1-4.5) mo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.4; 95% CI: 0.2-0.7); median OS (95% CI) was 12.4 (9.0-32.0) vs 4.7 (3.7-8.3) mo (HR 0.4; 95% CI: 0.2-0.7), respectively (Figure). In the Pola+BR arm, 6 pts (15%) had an IRC-assessed DOR of >24 mo (range: 26.6-38.6 mo) at last follow-up; 5 pts received no new treatment, 1 pt underwent an allogeneic SCT. In the Ext cohort (N=106), the primary endpoint of IRC-assessed PET-CR at PRA was 39.6% (n=42; 95% CI: 30.3-49.6) (Table 2), consistent with that observed in the randomized Pola+BR arm (16/40; 40.0%). The BOR rate was 56.6% and best CR rate was 52.8%. The median (95% CI) IRC-assessed PFS and OS were 6.1 (5.1-8.0) and 11.0 (8.3-14.2) mo, respectively; however, OS was not fully mature. An exploratory subgroup analysis of all Pola+BR-treated pts (N=152) showed differences in median (m) PFS and OS between: pts who were primary refractory (n=97) vs non-primary refractory (n=55) (mPFS: 4.8 vs 12.6 mo; mOS: 7.8 vs 32 mo); pts who were refractory to last treatment (n=116) vs pts who were not (n=36) (mPFS: 5.3 vs 14.2 mo; mOS: 9.1 mo vs not reached); and pts who had received 1 (n=50) vs ≥2 (n=102) prior lines of therapy (mPFS: 10.4 vs 6 mo; mOS: 14 vs 9.5 mo). There were no new safety signals with Pola+BR. A safety analysis of all pts who received Pola+BR in the safety run-in, randomized and Ext cohorts (N=151) showed that 121 (80.1%) pts had Gr 3-4 adverse events (AEs), 84 (55.6%) had serious AEs, most commonly infections, febrile neutropenia, and pyrexia, and 18 (11.9%) had Gr 5 AEs, which were primarily infections. PN events of any grade were reported in 46 (30.5%) pts; 3 pts experienced Gr 3 PN, 2 of which were reported as muscular weakness. Secondary malignancies were reported in 4 (2.6%) pts. Conclusions: With additional follow-up for the randomized arms, the significant improvement in PFS and OS seen with Pola+BR vs BR persisted. The Ext cohort of additional pts who received Pola+BR (N=106) shows overall consistent efficacy with the randomized Pola+BR arm. No new safety signals were identified with Pola+BR. These data further strengthen the evidence that Pola+BR is an effective treatment for R/R DLBCL. An updated clinical cut-off date providing more mature data will be presented. Disclosures Sehn: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Apobiologix: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; Chugai: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Verastem Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hertzberg:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Opat:CSL Behring: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Epizyme: Research Funding; AstraZenca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Herrera:Immune Design: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding. Assouline:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Flowers:Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas: Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; V Foundation: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; OptumRx: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding. Kim:Takeda: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy; Voronoi: Consultancy; Boryung: Consultancy; AstraZeneca and Korea Health Industry Development Institute: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. McMillan:Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau. Ozcan:Janssen: Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Abdi Ibrahim: Other; Sanofi: Other; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Bristol Myers Squibb: Other: Travel support; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Travel support, Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Archigen Biotech: Research Funding. Salles:Karyopharm: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Participation in educational events; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Participation in educational events; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Participation in educat
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 | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».