PHASE 3 TRIAL OF SUBCUTANEOUS EPCORITAMAB + R‐CHOP VERSUS R‐CHOP IN PATIENTS (PTS) WITH NEWLY DIAGNOSED DIFFUSE LARGE B‐CELL LYMPHOMA (DLBCL): EPCORE DLBCL‐2
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: In pts with newly diagnosed DLBCL, standard treatment with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) has a 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate of 67.0%, 58.4%, and 45.8% for International Prognostic Index (IPI) 2, 3, and 4–5, respectively (Ruppert et al., Blood 2020). Epcoritamab is a subcutaneously administered, bispecific antibody that binds CD3 on T cells and CD20 on B cells, inducing potent and selective T-cell–mediated killing of malignant CD20+ B cells (Hutchings et al., Lancet 2021). Epcoritamab monotherapy demonstrated deep and durable responses (overall response rate [ORR], 63%; complete response rate, 39%; median duration of response, 12 months) and was generally well tolerated in pts with relapsed/refractory (R/R) aggressive, large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) (Thieblemont et al., J Clin Oncol 2022). Results from an ongoing phase 1/2 study in high-risk pts with newly diagnosed DLBCL (EPCORE NHL-2 arm 1; NCT04663347) show that epcoritamab + R-CHOP has promising efficacy and a manageable safety profile in high-risk pts with IPI 3–5. Among efficacy-evaluable pts (n = 31), ORR was 100% and complete metabolic response (CMR) was 77%; cytokine release syndrome (CRS) events (n = 17/33; 52%) were mostly low-grade, had predictable timing, and did not lead to treatment discontinuation (Falchi et al., ASCO 2022, abstract 7523). These encouraging data support further evaluation of epcoritamab + R-CHOP for the treatment of newly diagnosed DLBCL. Methods: This phase 3, global, multicenter, open-label study (NCT05578976) evaluates the efficacy and safety of epcoritamab + R-CHOP in adults newly diagnosed with one of the following CD20+ DLBCL (de novo or transformed from follicular lymphoma [FL]): 1) DLBCL, not otherwise specified (NOS); 2) high-grade B-cell lymphoma with MYC and BCL-2 and/or BCL-6 rearrangement; 3) T-cell/histiocyte–rich LBCL; 4) Epstein-Barr virus–positive DLBCL, NOS; or 5) FL grade 3b. Other key eligibility criteria include IPI ≥2 (pts with IPI 2 not to exceed ∼30% of total pts), ECOG PS 0–2, and ≥1 measurable disease site. Approximately 900 pts will be randomized 2:1 to either epcoritamab + R-CHOP (6 cycles, followed by 2 cycles of epcoritamab) or R-CHOP (6 cycles, followed by 2 cycles of rituximab). The primary efficacy endpoint is PFS in pts with IPI 3–5 (based on IRC assessment per Lugano criteria). The secondary efficacy endpoints are PFS in pts with IPI 2–5, event-free survival, CMR, overall survival, and minimal residual disease negativity. Safety endpoints include incidence and severity of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and AEs of special interest (CRS, immune cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, and clinical tumor lysis syndrome). Enrollment began in January 2023 globally. © 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology, Inc. Reused with permission. This abstract was accepted and previously presented at the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting. All rights reserved. The research was funded by: This study was funded by AbbVie and Genmab. Keywords: aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma, combination therapies, immunotherapy Conflicts of interests pertinent to the abstract. L. H. Sehn Consultant or advisory role AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS/Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Incyte, Janssen, Kite/Gilead, Merck, Seattle Genetics Research funding: Teva, Roche/Genentech M. Chamuleau Consultant or advisory role AbbVie, Novartis, Incyte Research funding: BMS, Gilead, GenMab G. Lenz Consultant or advisory role Roche, Gilead, Janssen, Bayer, BMS, Novartis, AbbVie, Incyte, Genmab, Karyopharm, Constellation, ADC Therapeutics, Sobi, Miltenyi, PentixaPharm, Genase, Immagene, Hexal, Lilly Research funding: Janssen, Bayer, MorphoSys, AstraZeneca Other remuneration: Invited Speaker: Roche, BMS, Novartis, AbbVie, Incyte, Sobi, Hexal M. R. Clausen Consultant or advisory role AbbVie, Genmab, Janssen and Kite/Gilead C. Haioun Consultant or advisory role AbbVie, Genentech/Roche, Incyte, Kite/Gilead, Miltenyi A. Davies Honoraria: Roche, Kite, Incyte, BMS, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Genmab Research funding: Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, Cellcentric Educational grants: Roche T. Oki Employment or leadership position: AbbVie E. Szafer-Glusman Employment or leadership position: AbbVie R. Conlon Employment or leadership position: AbbVie Stock ownership: AbbVie H. Chiou Employment or leadership position: AbbVie D. Ipe Employment or leadership position: AbbVie B. Elliot Employment or leadership position: Genmab Stock ownership: Genmab J. Wu Employment or leadership position: AbbVie G. Salles Consultant or advisory role AbbVie, Bayer, BeiGene, BMS/Celgene, Epizyme, Genentech/Roche, Genmab, Incyte, Janssen, Kite/Gilead, Loxo, Miltenyi, MorphoSys, Novartis, Rapt, Regeneron, Takeda
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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».