MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3096338919 · doi:10.1182/blood-2020-138498

CC-486 Improves Overall Survival (OS) and Relapse-Free Survival (RFS) for Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) in First Remission after Intensive Chemotherapy (IC), Regardless of Amount of Consolidation Received: Results from the Phase III QUAZAR AML-001 Maintenance Trial

2020· article· en· W3096338919 sur OpenAlexaff
Andrew H. Wei, Gail J. Roboz, Hervé Dombret, Hartmut Döhner, Andre C. Schuh, Pau Montesinos, Christopher Pocock, Dominik Selleslag, Sergey N. Bondarenko, Ignazia La Torre, Barry Skikne, Keshava Kumar, Qian Dong, C.L. Beach, Farhad Ravandi

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineInternal medicineConsolidation (business)ChemotherapySurgery

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Approximately 40-60% of older patients (pts) with AML achieve complete remission (CR) with IC. Factors influencing the use of consolidation after induction include disease-related considerations, extent of hematopoietic recovery, pt fitness, and physician and pt preference. Most older pts who achieve AML remission will experience disease relapse despite consolidation therapy (Schlenk, Haematologica, 2018). In the phase III, randomized, double-blind QUAZAR AML-001 Maintenance Trial, CC-486, an oral hypomethylating agent, was shown to significantly prolong OS and RFS vs. placebo (PBO) in pts with AML in first remission following induction ± consolidation. Prior to study entry, the use of consolidation chemotherapy and number of consolidation cycles was at the discretion of the treating physician, with study eligibility not contingent on the use of consolidation. Objective: Assess survival outcomes in the QUAZAR AML-001 trial in pt subgroups defined by number of consolidation courses received before study entry. Methods: Eligible pts were aged ≥55 years with newly diagnosed AML, intermediate- or poor-risk cytogenetics, and ECOG PS ≤3. Within 4 months (mo) of attaining first CR or CR with incomplete blood count recovery (CRi), pts were randomized 1:1 to CC-486 300 mg or PBO QD for 14 days per 28-day treatment (Tx) cycle. OS and RFS were compared among pts who received no consolidation ("No Consolidation"), 1 cycle of consolidation ("1 Consolidation"), or ≥2 cycles of consolidation ("≥2 Consolidations"). For these analyses, "induction" and "consolidation" defined regimens received before and after, respectively, the reported date of first CR/CRi. OS was defined as the time from randomization to death, and RFS as time from randomization to relapse or death. Kaplan-Meier OS/RFS estimates were compared for CC-486 vs. PBO using log-rank test. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were generated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model. These analyses were not powered sufficiently to determine statistical significance. Results: 472 pts were randomized to CC-486 (N=238) or PBO (N=234). Most pts (80%) received consolidation before study entry. The No Consolidation cohort comprised 94 pts (20%; CC-486 52, PBO 42), the 1 Consolidation cohort comprised 212 pts (45%; CC-486 110, PBO 102), and the ≥2 Consolidations cohort comprised 166 pts (35%; CC-486 76, PBO 90), including 19 pts (CC-486 6, PBO 13) who received 3 consolidation cycles. Common agents used for consolidation were cytarabine (377/378 pts), idarubicin (95/378), and daunorubicin (37/378). While most pts received 1 induction, 97 pts received ≥2 induction courses; of them, 21 (CC-486 14, PBO 7) did not receive consolidation and 76 (CC-486 43, PBO 33) received ≥1 consolidation cycle. Baseline characteristics (eg, CR / CRi after IC, ECOG PS, cytogenetic risk at diagnosis) were generally similar among Tx arms and cohorts. Median (range) ages of pts in the 0 / 1 / ≥2 Consolidation cohorts were 71 (58-84), 68 (55-86), and 67 (55-82) years, respectively. In the No Consolidation cohort, median OS from the time of randomization with CC-486 vs. PBO was 23.3 vs. 10.9 mo, respectively (HR 0.55 [95%CI 0.34, 0.89]), and median RFS was 8.4 vs. 3.9 mo (0.55 [0.34, 0.88]) (Figure A). In the 1 Consolidation cohort, median OS was 21.0 vs. 14.3 mo with CC-486 vs. PBO, respectively (HR 0.75 [95%CI 0.55, 1.02]), and median RFS was 10.0 vs. 4.7 mo (0.72 [0.53, 0.99]) (Figure B). In the ≥2 Consolidations cohort, median OS was 28.6 mo with CC-486 vs. 17.6 mo with PBO (HR 0.75 [95%CI 0.50, 1.11]), and median RFS was 13.0 vs. 6.1 mo (0.59 [0.41, 0.87]) (Figure C). Conclusions: CC-486 was associated with consistent survival benefits vs. PBO regardless of number of prior consolidation cycles. Use of consolidation was generally associated with nominal improvements in OS and RFS within each Tx arm; however, in the CC-486 arm, median OS for pts who did not receive consolidation was similar to those who received 1 consolidation cycle (23.3 and 21.0 mo, respectively). Results should be interpreted with caution, as these cohorts were not prospectively defined and the study was not powered to detect significant differences between subgroups. Nevertheless, these data clearly suggest that older pts with AML in first remission after induction can benefit from CC-486, regardless of their fitness to receive consolidation or the number of consolidation cycles received before starting CC-486. Disclosures Wei: AMGEN: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding; Walter and Eliza Hall Institute: Patents & Royalties; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee; Astellas: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee; Pfizer: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee; Macrogenics: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Speakers Bureau; Astra-Zeneca: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Other. Roboz:Orsenix: Consultancy; Actinium: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Jasper Therapeutics: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Trovagene: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Amphivena: Consultancy. Dombret:Sunesis: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Shire-Baxalta: Consultancy; Immunogen: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Menarini: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Nova: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Cellectis: Consultancy. Döhner:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AROG: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Research Funding; Oxford Biomedicals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Helsinn: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; GEMoaB: Consultancy, Honoraria. Selleslag:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Belgian College: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. La Torre:Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Skikne:Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment. Kumar:Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Dong:Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Beach:Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ravandi:Macrogenics: Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Orsenix: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Xencor: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, 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 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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,011

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

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 Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,266
Écart entre enseignants0,249 · 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'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

Citations7
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetAcute Myeloid Leukemia ResearchTravaux en français237 207