Tafasitamab plus lenalidomide versus standard of care as second‐line (2L) therapy for patients with R/R DLBCL: A post hoc internal 2L analysis of L‐MIND (IN 2L‐MIND)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Tafasitamab (tafa) is an anti-CD19 immunotherapy that enhances antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity and phagocytosis. L-MIND (NCT02399085), a phase 2 single-arm study, demonstrated efficacy of tafa plus lenalidomide (tafa/len) in autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT)–ineligible adult patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) DLBCL, and led to tafa/len accelerated approval in the US and conditional approval in Canada and Europe. Using the L-MIND 35-month follow-up data (October 30, 2020 data cutoff), the IN 2L-MIND post hoc analysis assessed 2L clinical outcomes in pts evaluated in 2 cohorts: pts treated with tafa/len as 2L therapy during the study (tafa/len cohort) and pts who received 2L systemic therapy prior to entering L-MIND (SOC cohort). Methods: Methodology for L-MIND as well as independent review committee– and investigator (INV)-assessed outcomes have been previously published (Salles et al., Lancet Oncol 2020). The primary endpoint of IN 2L-MIND was INV-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) after 2L treatment (defined as the time from initiation of 2L therapy [index date] until disease progression or death from any cause); secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR). Observable time was defined as time from initial DLBCL diagnosis until initiation of 2L treatment. Primary refractory pts enrolled in L-MIND prior to protocol amendment had disease that relapsed or progressed between 3 and 6 months after completing 1L therapy. Results: Total of 80 pts (tafa/len, n = 40; SOC, n = 40) were analyzed. Pt characteristics for the tafa/len and SOC cohorts were as follows: median age at diagnosis was 70 and 67 years, and male pts comprised 52.5% and 55.0%, respectively; 35 pts (87.5%) in each cohort had confirmed DLBCL diagnosis. In the tafa/len and SOC cohorts, median total observable time was 18.96 and 22.60 months, 6 and 9 pts had primary refractory disease, and 20 and 16 pts relapsed within 12 months of 1L therapy, respectively. Based on 35-month data, median PFS in the IN 2L-MIND analysis was 16.2 months (95% CI, 7.0-not evaluable [NE]) in the tafa/len cohort and 7.2 months (95% CI, 4.1–11.4) in the SOC cohort (Figure), and median DOR was 43.9 months (95% CI, 6.5-NE) and 7.9 months (95% CI, 3.2–13.8), respectively. ORR was 75.0% in the tafa/len cohort and 52.5% in the SOC cohort (CR, 37.5% vs. 25.0%; PR, 37.5% vs. 27.5%, respectively). PFS and ORR results were similar in a sensitivity analysis excluding pts without confirmed DLBCL diagnosis. The research was funded by: Incyte Corporation Keywords: Aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Chemotherapy, Combination Therapies Conflicts of interests pertinent to the abstract. L. H. Sehn Consultant or advisory role: AbbVie, Acerta, Apobiologix, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Debiopharm, Genentech, Genmab, Gilead Sciences, Incyte Corporation, Janssen, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Lundbeck, Merck, MorphoSys, Novartis, Sandoz, Takeda, TG Therapeutics, Verastem Oncology, Teva, Roche, Seattle Genetics Research funding: Teva Other remuneration: Roche, Seattle Genetics J. Kuruvilla Consultant or advisory role: AbbVie, Antengene, BMS, Gilead, Karyopharym, Merck, Roche, Seattle Genetics Honoraria: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Gilead, Incyte, Janssen, Karyopharm, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics Research funding: Roche, AstraZeneca, Merck G. Salles Consultant or advisory role: AbbVie, Atbtherapeutics, Bayer, Beigene, BMS/Celgene, Debiopharm, Epizyme, Genentech/Roche, Genmab, Incyte, Ipsen, Janssen, Kite/Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, Molecular Partners, MorphoSys, Nordic Nanovector, Novartis, Regeneron, Takeda Stock ownership: Owkin K. J. Maddocks Honoraria: Pharmacyclics, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, MorphoSys AG, Bristol Myers Squibb, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Kite Pharma/Gilead Company, ADC Therapeutics and Genmab, Genentech, Lilly, Epizyme, Incyte, AbbVie, AstraZeneca Research funding: Pharmacyclics, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVie, AstraZeneca C. Koch Employment or leadership position: Incyte Corporation Stock ownership: Incyte Corporation Z. Xue Employment or leadership position: Incyte Corporation Stock ownership: Incyte Corporation T. Amoloja Employment or leadership position: Incyte Corporation Stock ownership: Incyte Corporation A. Amin Employment or leadership position: MorphoSys AG J. Duell Research funding: MorphoSys, Regeneron, Incyte Other remuneration: Incyte, MorphoSys
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».