MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4310105226 · doi:10.1182/blood-2022-163257

Initiating First-Line (1L) Ibrutinib (Ibr) in Patients (pts) with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) Improves Overall Survival (OS) Outcomes to Rates Approximating an Age-Matched Population of ≥65 Years

2022· article· en· W4310105226 sur OpenAlexaff
Paolo Ghia, Carolyn Owen, Jacqueline C. Barrientos, Paul M. Barr, Anthony R. Mato, Chunxue Shi, Anita Szőke, Chris Abbazio, Gabriel Krigsfeld, Jan A. Burger

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineChemoimmunotherapyIbrutinibPopulationFludarabineInternal medicineOncologyHazard ratioClinical trialVenetoclaxChronic lymphocytic leukemiaChemotherapyLeukemiaConfidence intervalCyclophosphamide

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: CLL OS rates have improved over the last 20 years (y), starting with the use of chemotherapy and chemoimmunotherapy (CT/CIT), to the introduction of novel agents such as Ibr. Ibr has shown superiority to standard CT/CIT across a range of 1L pt populations with demonstrated OS improvements in multiple pivotal trials. Recently presented 8-y follow-up data from the first pivotal trial for Ibr demonstrated that more than half of 1L unfit pts remain progression-free. The ideal goal of any therapeutic regimen would be to cure patients of their disease, but the first step could be to provide enough effective therapeutic options to allow patients to live with their disease rather than die from it. Given the size of the program and the length of follow-up, Ibr is uniquely positioned to assess whether the initiation of 1L Ibr could essentially remove the survival hazard associated with CLL vs the general population. Aims: 1) To compare pooled OS of previously untreated CLL pts treated with Ibr to that of the available age-matched general population 2) To compare the pooled characteristics and OS results with Ibr vs CT/CIT across three phase 3 trials. Methods: Data were pooled from the RESONATE-2 (NCT01722487), ECOG1912 (NCT02048813), and iLLUMINATE (NCT02264574) clinical studies which evaluated Ibr alone and in combination with other agents in pts with previously untreated CLL/SLL. Individual trial descriptions and key eligibility criteria have been previously published. For the comparison of OS for Ibr-treated pts with that of the available age-matched population, an age-matched approach was applied to pooled Ibr-treated pts to include those who were ≥65 y at the time of initial CLL diagnosis. These pts were then compared to a simulated age-matched OS data cohort from the general population (CDC life table for total US population in 2019). Pooled OS data from Ibr-treated pts from the 3 Ibr studies were compared to OS data from CT/CIT-treated pts. OS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methodology. Results: 603 pts with previously untreated CLL/SLL received Ibr treatment across the 3 pooled studies. Among those treated with Ibr, 58.7% received Ibr + rituximab, 22.6% received single agent Ibr, and 18.7% received Ibr + obinutuzumab; the median age was 63 y (range, 31‒89); among pts with available genetic data, 90% (482/538) were without del(17p)/TP53 mutation; median follow-up was 42 months (mo). To compare Ibr data to an age-matched general population, 201 pts age ≥65 y at initial diagnosis were pooled from the 3 Ibr studies; median time from initial diagnosis to randomization was 20 mo and the median follow-up from initial diagnosis was 7.6 y. OS estimate at 8-y for Ibr-treated pts aged ≥65 y from time of CLL diagnosis was 78% (95% CI, 71‒84) compared to 77% (95% CI, 70‒82) in the age-matched general population [HR, Ibr over general population, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.63‒1.51; p=0.90]; Figure 1. Pooled data from the 603 Ibr-treated pts were also compared to data from pts who received CT/CIT (N=424 pts) across the 3 pooled studies. Among pts who received CT/CIT, 41.3% received fludarabine + cyclophosphamide + rituximab; 31.4% received chlorambucil, and 27.4% received chlorambucil + obinutuzumab; the median age was 66.5 y (range, 28‒90); 91% (308/339) of pts with available genetic data were without del(17p)/TP53 mutation; median follow-up was 42 mo. OS estimates were significantly improved with Ibr: 3- and 5- y rates were 93% (95% CI, 91‒95) and 88% (95% CI, 83‒91), respectively, for pts who received Ibr and 85% (95% CI, 81‒89) and 75% (95% CI, 68‒81), respectively, for pts treated with CT/CIT [HR, Ibr over CT/CIT, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.33‒0.66); p<0.0001]; Figure 2. Conclusion: This pooled analysis suggests that initiating therapy with 1L Ibr improves OS vs traditional CT/CIT regardless of age or fitness. It is also the first demonstration to our knowledge that pts who initiate Ibr over an 8- y follow-up have similar survival estimates as age-matched pts in the general population. Figure 1View largeDownload PPTFigure 1View largeDownload PPT Close modal

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)0,001
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: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,117
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
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 Opus0,022
Tête enseignante GPT0,289
Écart entre enseignants0,268 · 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'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

Citations11
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchTravaux en français237 207