MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3211808513 · doi:10.1182/blood-2021-154074

Updated Results from a Phase II Study of Mini-Hyper-CVD Plus Inotuzumab Ozogamicin, with or without Blinatumomab, in Older Adults with Newly Diagnosed Philadelphia Chromosome-Negative B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia

2021· article· en· W3211808513 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicholas J. Short, Hagop Kantarjian, Farhad Ravandi, Xuelin Huang, Nitin Jain, Tapan M. Kadia, Joseph D. Khoury, Jeffrey L. Jorgensen, Sa A. Wang, Yesid Alvarado, Jan A. Burger, Naval Daver, Gautam Borthakur, Courtney D. DiNardo, Marina Konopleva, Naveen Pemmaraju, Guillermo Garcia‐Manero, William G. Wierda, Steven M. Kornblau, Jovitta Jacob, Monica Kwari, Caitlin R. Rausch, Christopher Loiselle, Anna Milton, Juan J. Rivera, Rebecca Garris, Susan O’Brien, Elias Jabbour

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineBlinatumomabRituximabInternal medicineGastroenterologyCytarabineChemotherapySurgeryLeukemiaLymphoblastic LeukemiaLymphoma

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Inotuzumab ozogamicin (INO) and blinatumomab are effective in the treatment relapsed/ refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and improve overall survival (OS) in this setting. The use of these agents in older adults with newly diagnosed B-cell ALL may allow for use of less chemotherapy and improve remission durations and OS compared to standard therapies. Methods: Patients (pts) ≥60 years of age with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)-negative pre-B-cell ALL were eligible. Pts were required to have a performance status of ≤3, total bilirubin ≤1.5 mg/dl, AST/ALT ≤3x ULN and creatinine ≤2 mg/dl. Pts received mini-hyper-CVD (cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone at 50% dose reduction, no anthracycline, methotrexate at 75% dose reduction, cytarabine at 0.5 g/m 2 x 4 doses) for up to 8 cycles. INO was given at a dose of 1.3-1.8mg/m 2 on day 3 of cycle 1 and 0.8-1.3mg/m 2 on day 3 of cycles 2-4. Rituximab (if CD20+) and prophylactic IT chemotherapy were given for the first 4 cycles. Responding pts received POMP maintenance for up to 3 years. In order to decrease the risk of veno-occlusive disease (VOD), the protocol was amended in 3/2017 (pts 50+) to give INO in fractionated doses each cycle (0.6 mg/m 2 on day 2 and 0.3 mg/m 2 on day 8 of cycle 1; 0.3 mg/m 2 on day 2 and 8 of cycles 2-4) and to administer 4 cycles of blinatumomab following 4 cycles of hyper-CVD plus INO, followed by maintenance with 12 cycles of POMP and 4 cycles of blinatumomab (1 cycle of blinatumomab after every 3 cycles of POMP). The cumulative dose of INO given before and after this most recent amendment was 4.3 mg/m 2 and 2.7 mg/m 2, respectively. Results: 75 pts have been treated. 6 pts were in complete remission (CR) at enrollment and unevaluable for morphological response. Pt characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Median age was 68 years (range, 60-87 years); 30 pts (40%) were ≥70 years. 39% were positive for TP53 mutation, 19% had Ph-like ALL (with 6 of the 8 Ph-like pts being CRLF2+ by flow), and 25% had adverse-risk karyotype. Among 69 pts evaluable for morphologic response, 68 (99%) responded (CR, n=61; CRp, n=6; CRi, n=1). MRD negativity by flow cytometry was achieved in 57/71 pts (80%) after 1 cycle and 71/74 pts (96%) overall. The 30-day and 60-day mortality rates were 0% and 3%, respectively. Among 74 pts who achieved remission, 10 (14%) relapsed, 4 (5%) underwent allogeneic SCT in first remission (1 of whom subsequently relapsed), 32 (43%) remain on treatment or have completed therapy, and 28 (38%) died in remission. Overall, 9 pts (12%) developed MDS/AML; in 7 of these cases the myeloid malignancy was TP53-mutated and in the 2 other cases, both the ALL and subsequent AML shared mutations in myeloid mutations (RUNX1, SRSF2, and TET2). Notably, 6 pts (8%) developed VOD, 1 after subsequent allogeneic SCT. The rate of VOD was 6/75 (8%) with no difference in VOD in pts who did or did not receive blinatumomab. With a median follow-up of 56 months (range, 1-111 months), the 5-year continuous remission and OS rates were 76% and 47%, respectively (Figure 1A). Outcomes were superior for those 60-69 years of age versus those who were ≥70 years (5-year OS rates: 58% and 31%, respectively; P=0.04) and for those without poor-risk cytogenetics (e.g. KMT2A rearranged, low hypodiploidy/near triploidy, complex cytogenetics) versus poor-risk cytogenetics (5-year OS rates: 56% and 25%, respectively; P=0.01). Pts ≥70 years of age were more likely to die in remission (20/29 [69%] vs. 19/45 [42%] in pts 60-69 years of age; P=0.03), which was a major driver of the poor survival in this age group. The 5-year OS for pts age 60-69 years with non-poor risk cytogenetics, age 60-69 with poor risk cytogenetics, age ≥70 with non-poor risk cytogenetics and age ≥70 with poor risk cytogenetics were 68%, 37%, 42% and 0% respectively (Figure 1B). Neither Ph-like ALL nor the presence of a TP53 mutation significantly impacted OS (P=0.26 and P=0.34, respectively). Conclusion: Low-intensity chemotherapy with hyper-CVD plus INO, with or without blinatumomab, in older adults with newly diagnosed Ph-negative ALL resulted in an overall response rate of 98% and a 5-year OS rate of 47%. Even with this relatively reduced-intensity regimen, deaths in remission (usually due to infection) occur, primarily in pts ≥70 years of age. A strategy using the combination INO and blinatumomab, without any chemotherapy, is being explored in this population. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Short: NGMBio: Consultancy; Astellas: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Novartis: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Takeda Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kantarjian: BMS: Research Funding; Aptitude Health: Honoraria; NOVA Research: Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Immunogen: Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas Health: Honoraria; Jazz: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Ipsen Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; KAHR Medical Ltd: Honoraria; Precision Biosciences: Honoraria; Taiho Pharmaceutical Canada: Honoraria. Ravandi: Novartis: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Xencor: Honoraria, Research Funding; Syros Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Prelude: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; Taiho: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria. Jain: Janssen: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria; Precision Biosciences: Honoraria, Research Funding; Servier: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Aprea Therapeutics: Research Funding; Fate Therapeutics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Cellectis: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Kadia: Genfleet: Other; AstraZeneca: Other; Genentech: Consultancy, Other: Grant/research support; Jazz: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Grant/research support; Cure: Speakers Bureau; Aglos: Consultancy; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy; Pulmotech: Other; Dalichi Sankyo: Consultancy; BMS: Other: Grant/research support; Cellonkos: Other; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other; Astellas: Other; Ascentage: Other; Novartis: Consultancy; Liberum: Consultancy; Amgen: Other: Grant/research support. Khoury: Kiromic: Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics: Research Funding; Angle: Research Funding. Wang: Stemline Therapeutics: Honoraria. Alvarado: Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; FibroGen: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; CytomX Therapeutics: Consultancy; BerGenBio: Research Funding; Sun Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Burger: Novartis: Other: Travel/Accommodations/Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC: Consultancy, Other: Travel/Accommodations/Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel/Accommodations/Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Travel/Accommodations/Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel/Accommodations/Expenses, Speakers Bureau. Daver: Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novimmune: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; Hanmi: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Trillium: Consultancy, Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Trovagene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sevier: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; FATE Therapeutics: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: Data Monitoring Committee member; Dava Oncology (Arog): Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Syndax: Consultancy; Shattuck Labs: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; SOBI: Consultancy; STAR Therapeutics: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Newave: Research Funding. Borthakur: University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center: Current Employment; Astex: Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; ArgenX: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Protagonist: Consultancy; Ryvu: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. DiNardo: Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria; ImmuneOnc

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)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
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 enseignants0,329
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
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 Opus0,013
Tête enseignante GPT0,275
Écart entre enseignants0,262 · 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.

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

Citations9
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia researchTravaux en français237 207