Acalabrutinib ± Obinutuzumab Vs Obinutuzumab + Chlorambucil in Treatment-Naive Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: 6-Year Follow-up of Elevate-TN
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Previous reports of ELEVATE-TN (NCT02475681) at median follow-up of up to 58.2 months (mo) demonstrated superior efficacy of acalabrutinib (A) ± obinutuzumab (O) compared with O + chlorambucil (Clb) in patients (pts) with treatment-naive (TN) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Herein, updated results at 74.5 mo of follow-up are reported. Methods: Pts received A monotherapy, A+O, or O+Clb. Pts who progressed on O+Clb could cross over to A monotherapy. Investigator (INV)-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), INV-assessed overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety were evaluated. All analyses are ad-hoc and P-values are descriptive. Results: A total of 535 pts (A, n=179; A+O, n=179; O+Clb, n=177) were randomized: median age was 70 years, 63% had unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region genes (uIGHV), and 14% had del(17p) and/or TP53 mutation ( TP53m). At a median follow-up of 74.5 mo (range, 0.0-89.0; data cutoff March 3, 2023), median PFS was not reached (NR) for A+O and A vs 27.8 mo for O+Clb (hazard ratio [HR] vs O+Clb: 0.14 and 0.23, respectively; P<0.0001 for both; HR A+O vs A: 0.58; P=0.0229); estimated 72-mo PFS rates were 78%, 62%, and 17%, respectively (Figure 1). For the 79 pts who crossed over from O+Clb to A, median PFS2 (time to second disease progression or death) was NR; estimated 72-mo PFS2 rate was 54%. Median OS was NR in any treatment arm and was significantly longer with A+O vs O+Clb (HR: 0.62; P=0.0349); estimated 72-mo OS rates were 84% for A+O, 76% for A, and 75% for O+Clb ( Figure 2). In 337 pts with uIGHV, median PFS was NR in both the A+O and A arms vs 22.2 mo for O+Clb (HR: 0.08 and 0.12, respectively; P<0.0001 for both), and estimated 72-mo PFS rates were 75%, 60%, and 5%, respectively, with median OS NR in all treatment arms and estimated 72-mo OS rates of 84%, 76%, and 74%, respectively. In 73 pts with del(17p) and/or TP53m, median PFS was 73.1 mo for A+O and NR for A vs 17.5 mo for O+Clb (HR: 0.28 and 0.23, respectively; P≤0.0009 for both), and estimated 72-mo PFS rates were 56%, 56%, and 18%, respectively. Median OS was NR in both the A+O and A arms vs 74.9 mo for O+Clb (HR: 0.53 and 0.46, respectively, neither statistically significant) and estimated 72-mo OS rates were 68%, 72%, and 53%, respectively. ORR was significantly higher with A+O (96%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 92-98; P<0.0001) and A (90%; 95% CI: 85-94; P=0.0499) vs O+Clb (83%; 95% CI: 77-88). Combined complete response (CR) plus CR with incomplete hematologic recovery rates were higher with A+O (37%) and A (19%) vs O+Clb (14%; P≤0.0499 for both). Median treatment exposure was 74.4 mo and 72.0 mo for A in the A+O and A arms, respectively; 5.5 mo and 5.6 mo for O in the A+O and O+Clb arms, respectively; and 5.5 mo for Clb in O+Clb arm. Adverse events (AEs) for the O+Clb arm have been previously reported. The most common (≥5% of pts) grade ≥3 AEs for A+O and A, respectively, were neutropenia (31% and 12%), thrombocytopenia (8% and 3%), diarrhea (6% and 1%), COVID-19 (9% and 7%), pneumonia (7% and 6%), syncope (5% and 2%), and hypertension (4% and 5%). For events of clinical interest, grade ≥3 atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and secondary primary malignances were reported in 2%, 4%, and 10% of pts treated with A+O and 2%, 5%, and 5% of pts treated with A, respectively. Treatment is ongoing in 54% (A+O; n=96) and 47% (A; n=84) of pts; the most common reasons for treatment discontinuation were AEs, observed in 21% (n=38) of pts treated with A+O and 18% (n=32) of pts treated with A, and progressive disease, observed in 6% (n=10) of pts treated with A+O and 14% (n=25) of pts treated with A. For pts who crossed over from O+Clb to A, 41% (n=32) discontinued A due to AEs in 13% (n=10) of pts and progressive disease in 16% (n=13) of pts. Conclusions: With a median follow-up of 74.5 mo, the efficacy and safety of A+O and A monotherapy were maintained in pts with TN CLL, including in pts with high-risk genetic features. At 6 years of follow-up, PFS was significantly longer in pts treated with A+O vs A. Median OS was NR in any treatment arm and was significantly longer in pts treated with A+O vs O+Clb.
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 | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| 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 ».