P1113: COMPARATIVE EFFICACY OF ZANUBRUTINIB (ZANU) VERSUS RITUXIMAB (RTX) IN RELAPSED MARGINAL ZONE LYMPHOMA (MZL): MATCHING-ADJUSTED INDIRECT COMPARISON (MAIC)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Topic: 36. Ethics and health economics Background: ZANU is a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor that has been evaluated for relapsed/refractory MZL in two phase 2, single-arm (MAGNOLIA, n=66, NCT03846427; BGB-3111-AU-003, n=20, NCT02343120). At 28 and 35 months of study follow-up in MAGNOLIA and BGB-3111-AU-003, respectively, median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were not reached. Aims: Here, we conducted an unanchored MAIC to estimate relative treatment effects of ZANU versus RTX, a commonly used treatment for patients with relapsed MZL. Note the comparison was restricted to the relapsed population because RTX refractory patients would not be retreated with RTX. Methods: The MAIC was performed using pooled individual patient-level data from MAGNOLIA and BGB-3111-AU-003. Study level-data of RTX in relapsed patients were used from CHRONOS-3 (Özcan et al., Ann Oncol 2021) which was identified as the most suitable comparator study via a systematic literature review. A logistic propensity score model was used to estimate weights for patients in the ZANU trials such that their weighted mean baseline characteristics matched those of CHRONOS-3. The following characteristics were identified as key prognostic factors and included in the base case propensity score model: prior lines of therapy, MZL subtype, relapse after prior therapy, and age. Sensitivity analyses incorporating additional characteristics were not possible owing to a lack of reporting from CHRONOS-3, but the impact of each covariate in the base model was explored via a leave-one-out analysis. Comparisons were conducted for OS, PFS, and objective response rate (ORR) by independent review committee using weighted statistical models, with relative treatment effects presented as hazard ratios (HRs), odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: After applying weights estimated from the base case propensity score model, the effective sample size (ESS) for ZANU was 39. ZANU significantly reduced the risk of progression (HR 0.29; 95% CI 0.13–0.65, P=0.003) and had a higher probability of response (OR 5.09; 95% CI: 1.84–14.08, P=0.0017) when compared with RTX (Table). OS was comparable for ZANU and RTX, which is consistent with the survival expectancy for indolent lymphomas. The leave-one-out analysis showed that removing any of the characteristics from the propensity score model yielded comparable results. Summary/Conclusion: MAIC results suggest ZANU is associated with improved PFS and ORR compared with RTX in relapsed MZL.Keywords: Marginal zone, Tyrosine kinase inhibitor, Indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, relapsed/refractory
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 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| 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 | 0,001 |
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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».