MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3213571777 · doi:10.1182/blood-2021-147598

Patient-Reported Outcomes in a Phase 3, Randomized, Open-Label Study Evaluating the Efficacy of Axicabtagene Ciloleucel (Axi-Cel) Versus Standard of Care Therapy in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Large B-Cell Lymphoma (ZUMA-7)

2021· article· en· W3213571777 sur OpenAlexaff
Mahmoud Elsawy, Julio C. Chávez, Irit Avivi, Jean-François Larouche, Luciano Wannesson, Kate Cwynarski, Keren Osman, Kelly Davison, Jakob Rudzki, Saurabh Dahiya, Kathleen Dorritie, Samantha Jaglowski, John Radford, Franck Morschhauser, David Cunningham, Alejandro Martı́n, Dimitrios Tzachanis, Matthew L. Ulrickson, Reem Karmali, Natasha Kekre, Catherine Thiéblemont, Gunilla Enblad, Peter Dreger, Ram Malladi, Namita Joshi, Wei‐Jhih Wang, Caitlyn T. Solem, Julia Thornton Snider, Christina To, Marie José Kersten

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCAR-T cell therapy research
Établissements canadiensOttawa HospitalMcGill University Health CentreHôpital de l'Enfant-JésusQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)Internal medicineRefractory (planetary science)RandomizationRandomized controlled trialOncology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Outcomes are poor for patients with large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) who relapse early or are refractory to first-line therapy. Furthermore, patients receiving second-line standard-of-care (SOC) therapy often report poor health-related quality of life (QoL; Lin V, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:e20070). In the ZUMA-7 (NCT03391466) pivotal Phase 3, randomized, open-label, multicenter study of axi-cel (an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor [CAR] T-cell therapy) versus SOC, we conducted the first comparative analysis of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with CAR T-cell therapy versus SOC as second-line treatment in relapsed/refractory (R/R) LBCL. Methods: PRO instruments, including the EORTC QLQ-C30 (cancer-specific 30-item questionnaire including global health status, functional, and symptom scales) and the EQ-5D-5L (a general questionnaire with 5 QoL domains plus a global assessment), were administered at baseline (prior to treatment), Day 50, Day 100, Day 150, Month 9, and every 3 months from randomization up to 24 months or time of event-free survival event (disease progression, death from any cause, or new lymphoma therapy), whichever occurred first. The QoL analysis set was defined as all patients who had a baseline PRO and ≥1 measure completed at Day 50, Day 100, or Day 150. Prespecified hypotheses for 3 PRO domains (EORTC QLQ-C30 Physical Functioning, EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/QoL, and EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale [VAS]) were tested using a mixed-effect model with repeated measures at Day 100 and subsequent time points if previous time points were statistically significant. False Discovery Rate was used to adjust P values across key endpoints; sensitivity analyses were conducted to control for covariates and patterns of missingness. A clinically meaningful change was defined as 10 points for each EORTC QLQ-C30 score and 7 points for EQ-5D-5L VAS score. Exploratory analyses on other domains of EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-5L were also performed. Results: Of 359 patients enrolled in the ZUMA-7 study, 296 patients (165 axi-cel, 131 SOC) had baseline PROs and ≥1 follow-up measure and were included for analysis. Overall, 70% of patients had primary refractory disease, 42% had high second-line age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (2-3), and 30% were ≥65 years old. For patients in the QoL analysis set treated with axi-cel versus SOC, there was a statistically significant (P<.0001) and clinically meaningful difference in mean change of scores from baseline at Day 100 in favor of axi-cel on all prespecified PRO domains (Figure). Sensitivity analyses showed similar results with retained significance at Day 100. Furthermore, scores also significantly favored axi-cel over SOC for EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/QoL (P=.0124) and EQ-5D-5L VAS (P=.0004) at Day 150. For the prespecified endpoints, the mean estimated scores for the axi-cel arm had numerically returned to or exceeded scores at baseline by Day 150 versus on or after Month 9 for the SOC arm. After Month 9, attrition (eg, due to disease progression, new lymphoma therapy, or death) in the QoL analysis set was substantial, particularly in the SOC arm. Additional exploratory analyses of PRO endpoints (eg, EORTC QLQ-C30 role functioning, social functioning, fatigue, nausea/vomiting, dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, diarrhea, and EQ-5D-5L index [US value set]) also showed improvements with axi-cel over SOC. Conclusion: ZUMA-7, the first randomized, global, multicenter Phase 3 study of axi-cel versus SOC in second-line R/R LBCL, showed that treatment with axi-cel results in clinically meaningful improvement in QoL over SOC at Day 100 as measured by multiple validated PRO instruments. Score comparisons at later timepoints warrant cautious interpretation, particularly in the SOC arm, as attrition due to disease progression, new lymphoma therapy, or death may select patients with the best outcomes. The data also suggest faster recovery to pretreatment QoL with axi-cel compared with SOC. The superior clinical outcomes and patient experience with axi-cel over SOC should help inform treatment choices in second-line R/R LBCL. These data are reported on behalf of all ZUMA-7 investigators and contributing Kite members. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Elsawy: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy. Chavez: MorphoSys, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech, Kite, a Gilead Company, and Epizyme: Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys, Bayer, Karyopharm, Kite, a Gilead Company, Novartis, Janssen, AbbVie, TeneoBio, and Pfizer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Merk: Research Funding. Avivi: Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Kite, a Gilead Company: Speakers Bureau. Larouche: Gilead: Consultancy. Wannesson: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cwynarski: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Atara: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Other: travel to scientific conferences; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences; Roche: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau. Osman: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy. Davison: Merck: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Celegene: Consultancy. Rudzki: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy; MSD: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS-Celgene: Consultancy. Dahiya: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Miltenyi Biotech: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Atara Biotherapeutics: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Dorritie: OncLive/Institutional Perspectives on Cancer presentation: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; University of Pittsburgh/UPMC Hillman Cancer Center: Current Employment; Juno/BMS: Research Funding; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding; SITC presentation: Honoraria. Jaglowski: CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Radford: AstraZeneca: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria. Morschhauser: Servier: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Chugai: Honoraria; Genmab: 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; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZenenca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cunningham: AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Clovis Oncology: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; 4SC: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Research Funding; OVIBIO: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Martin Garcia-Sancho: Kern Pharma: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Incyte: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy; Eusa Pharma: Consultancy; Clinigen: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel/Accommodations/Expenses; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: travel; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel/Accommodations/Expenses. Tzachanis: Partner: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; EUSA: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy; Magenta: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Fate Therapeutics: Research Funding. Karmali: Roche: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; EUSA: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Consultancy; Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; G

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)0,002
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 enseignants0,004
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,023

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,003
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,001

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 Opus0,047
Tête enseignante GPT0,373
Écart entre enseignants0,326 · 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

Citations12
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetCAR-T cell therapy researchTravaux en français237 207