Zanubrutinib plus obinutuzumab versus obinutuzumab in patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma: Updated analysis of the ROSEWOOD study.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
7545 Background: In an early-phase study, the combination of zanubrutinib plus obinutuzumab (ZO) was well tolerated and associated with an early signal of efficacy in patients (pts) with follicular lymphoma (FL) (Tam et al. Blood Adv 2020). ROSEWOOD (NCT03332017) is a phase 2, randomized study designed to assess efficacy and safety of ZO vs obinutuzumab (O) in pts with relapsed/refractory (R/R) FL. Here, we present an updated analysis with a median follow-up of 20.2 mo. Methods: Pts with R/R FL (grade 1–3a) who received ≥2 lines of therapy including an anti-CD20 antibody and alkylating agent were randomized 2:1 to receive ZO or O. Zanubrutinib was given at 160 mg twice daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) by independent central review. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), time to next treatment (TTNT), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: A total of 217 pts were randomized (145 for ZO; 72 for O). Median age was 64 years. Of the 217 pts, 114 (52.5%) had a high Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) score at screening and 123 (56.7%) pts had high tumor burden criteria according to Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomes Folliculaires (GELF) criteria. Median number of prior lines of therapy was 3 (range, 2–11). A total of 114 (52.5%) pts were refractory to rituximab; 214 (98.6%) pts received prior immunochemotherapy. Prior exposure to anticancer drugs included anthracyclines (80.6%), cyclophosphamide (94.0%), and bendamustine (54.8%). ORR was 69.0% (ZO) vs 45.8% (O) ( P = 0.0012). Complete response rate was 39.3% (ZO) vs 19.4% (O); 18-mo DOR rate was 69.3% (ZO) vs 41.9% (O); median PFS was 28.0 mo (ZO) vs 10.4 mo (O) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.50 [95% CI: 0.33, 0.75]; P = 0.0007). Median TTNT was not evaluable for ZO and 12.2 mo for O (HR, 0.34 [95% CI: 0.22, 0.52]; P < 0.0001). Estimated OS rate at 24 mo was 77.3% (ZO) and 71.4% (O), with median OS not reached in either arm. Nonhematologic treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade that occurred more frequently for ZO vs O ( > 5% difference) were petechiae (6.3% vs 0%) and herpes zoster infection (6.3% vs 0%); in contrast, pyrexia (13.3% vs 19.7%) and infusion-related reaction (2.8% vs 9.9%) occurred more frequently in pts on O. When adjusted for duration of treatment exposure, incidences of infection and cytopenia were similar, and incidence of all grades of hemorrhage was 2.4 (ZO) vs 1.3 (O) persons per 100 person-months. Two pts in each treatment group reported major hemorrhage. Incidences of atrial fibrillation and hypertension were low and similar in both treatment arms. Conclusions: ZO demonstrated meaningful activity and a manageable safety profile in pts with heavily pretreated R/R FL, representing a potential novel therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT03332017 .
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 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».