Indolent lymphoma: Bendamustine, rituximab and acalabrutinib in Waldenstroms Macroglobulinemia (BRAWM)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Waldenström’s macroglobulinaemia (WM) is an uncommon lymphoproliferative disorder. Many options are available, however, an optimal first-line therapy for WM has not be defined. We postulated that combining bendamustine and rituximab (BR) with a next generation BTK inhibitor would result in deeper responses as measured by complete response (CR) and very good partial response (VGPR) rates, and provide a longer duration of response. Objectives: The primary objective of this trial is to document the CR and VGPR rates Methods: The BRAWM clinical trial combines BR with acalabrutinib in a fixed duration treatment course including six cycles of BR and 12 months of acalabrutinib. This trial is taking place at 8 clinical sites across Canada and 33 patients have been enrolled, with a recruitment goal of 59. Results: A pre-defined interim analysis of the first 30 enrolled patients showed; median age of patients was 66; 25 were male; two patients were low risk, 14, intermediate and 15 high risk. Seventeen patients completed combination therapy, 9 completed monotherapy and 2 were followed-up at 18 months (6 months post therapy). Clinical results to date: Two patients discontinued treatment early; 1 at cycle 7 (with a VGPR) but experienced an adverse event requiring treatment; 1 at cycle 3 with possible disease progression. There were 186 treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) among 25 of 30 participants; 5 participants did not experience a TRAE; 163 of these occurred during combination therapy; 23 during monotherapy in 7 of 17 participants, where 10 participants did not experience a TRAE. During combination therapy, 16 of the 163 TRAE’s were grade 3; neutropenia (n = 8), including 2 that were febrile neutropenia, n = 1 for each: atrial fibrillation, transaminitis, cellulitis, fatigue and pulmonary emphysema. An additional five were also considered serious and included febrile neutropenia (n = 2), and n = 1 for each fever, allergic reaction and bowel obstruction. During monotherapy, there were no serious TRAEs. There were 2 grade 3 events during monotherapy in two different patients; decreased neutrophil count, and syncope. There were 21 dose interruptions in 11 participants, all but one of whom returned to regular dosage. Of assessed patients, 20/20 have MyD88 mutations, 4/20 have a CXCR4 mutation, and none had a TP53 mutation. Minimal residual disease (MRD) analysis using next generation sequencing of the IgV regions will be reported. Conclusions: Bendamustine, rituximab and acalabrutinib front-line therapy for WM is safe and well tolerated and initial clinical results show that this treatment induces a high percentage of VGPRs. The research was funded by: AstraZeneca Keywords: Combination Therapies, Indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma Conflicts of interests pertinent to the abstract. N. L. Berinstein Consultant or advisory role: AstraZeneca Research funding: AstraZeneca, Merck, IMV N. Forward Honoraria: AstraZeneca, AbbVie, BeiGene, Celgene/BMS, IMV, Kite, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Servier Research funding: Astellas, AstraZeneca, IMV, Merk, MorphoSys, Seattle Genetics, Roche Other remuneration: Speaker Fees: Pfizer, BeiGene, AstraZeneca M. Shafey Consultant or advisory role: Jansen, Roche Canada, Kite/Gilead, Novartis, BeiGene, Incyte, Abbvie, BMS, AstraZeneca A. Nikonova Consultant or advisory role: Forus, Janssen, Astra Zeneca, Apotex, Incyte Educational grants: Janssen D. MacDonald Honoraria: Abbvie, Astra Zeneca, Beigene, BMS, Incyte, Kite Gilead, Roche, and Seattle Genetics D. Villa Consultant or advisory role: AZ, BeiGene, Janssen, Roche, Kite/Gilead, Merck, BMS/Celgene, ONO Pharmaceuticals. Honoraria: AZ, BeiGene, Janssen, Roche, Kite/Gilead, Merck, BMS/Celgene, ONO Pharmaceuticals. Research funding: Roche, AstraZeneca I. Sandhu Honoraria: Celgene/BMS, Kite/Gilead, Janssen, Sanofi, FORUS, Pfizer M. Aljama Consultant or advisory role: Jansen, Sanofi, Pfizer, Beigene J. Larouche Consultant or advisory role: Incyte, Gilead Research funding: Incyte, Astra-Zeneca, Genmab
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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 | 0,001 |
| 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 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 ».