MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4405040001 · doi:10.1182/blood-2024-205985

Zilovertamab Vedotin in Combination with Nemtabrutinib for Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Mantle Cell Lymphoma: Cohort C of the Open-Label, Phase 2 Waveline-006 Study

2024· article· en· W4405040001 sur OpenAlexaff
Ewa Paszkiewicz‐Kozik, Cláudia Moreira, Mehmet Turgut, Marcelo Garrido, Ingrid Glimelius, Seung‐Tae Lee, Yazeed Sawalha, Yixin Ren, Katherine Elizabeth Ryland, Uzor C. Ogbu, Diego Villa

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensSpinal Cord Injury BC
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMantle cell lymphomaMedicineInternal medicineRefractory (planetary science)Open labelOncologyPhases of clinical researchCohortLymphomaClinical trialMaterials science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis) are a standard-of-care option for relapsed or refractory (R/R) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL); however, patients (pts) discontinue therapy because of resistance or intolerance. Patients who discontinue BTKis, especially those with progressive disease (PD), have a poor prognosis and an overall survival between 6-10 months. Thus, an unmet need exists for more effective treatments. Zilovertamab vedotin (ZV) is a ROR1-targeted antibody-drug conjugate with a monomethyl auristatin E payload that has shown antitumor activity in pts with MCL in the waveLINE-001 study. Nemtabrutinib is a novel noncovalent BTKi that has showed antitumor activity in pts with hematologic malignancies. The phase 2 waveLINE-006 study (NCT05458297) was designed to assess efficacy and safety of ZV as monotherapy and in combination with nemtabrutinib in R/R aggressive and indolent B-cell malignancies. We present preliminary results from cohort C, which evaluated ZV in combination with nemtabrutinib in pts with R/R MCL. Methods: In cohort C, eligible pts were aged ≥18 y who had histologically confirmed MCL according to the 2016 WHO Classification of Neoplasms of the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues, at least 1 prior systemic therapy, and no prior exposure to a noncovalent BTKi. Eligible pts had PET-positive disease by blinded independent central review (BICR) at screening (4-5 on the Lugano 5-point scale), measurable disease per Lugano criteria, and an ECOG PS of 0 to 2. Dose finding (escalation and de-escalation) was conducted using the mTPI design with 3 prespecified dose levels combining different ZV doses with nemtabrutinib at a fixed 65 mg dose (DL-1: ZV at 2.00 mg/kg ZV; DL0: ZV at 2.25 mg/kg; and DL1: ZV at 2.50 mg/kg). ZV was given IV every 3 weeks and nemtabrutinib by mouth once daily until PD or discontinuation to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Primary prophylaxis with growth factors was not permitted. Each dose level required 3-15 pts. The dose-limiting toxicity (DLT)-evaluable population comprised the all-patients-as-treated population who finished the DLT evaluation period regardless of experiencing a DLT. Primary end points were safety and tolerability and objective response rate (ORR) per Lugano criteria by investigator review. Results: At the data cutoff date (May 1, 2024), 28 pts had been enrolled in cohort C. Median age was 70 y (range, 45-78), 18 pts (64%) had an ECOG PS of 0, 6 (21%) had high-risk disease per the mantle cell lymphoma prognostic index, 6 (21%) were positive for TP53 mutation, 16 (57%) had a Ki67 index ≥30%, and the median number of prior lines of therapy was 2.5 (range, 1-6). Twelve pts (43%) had undergone prior autologous stem cell transplant, and 7 (25%) had undergone prior chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Of the overall 28 pts, 12 pts received ZV at DL0, 8 at DL1, and 8 at DL-1. Median time from first dose to data cutoff was 7.3 mo (range, 0.9-14.0). Of the 24 pts evaluable for DLTs, 3 of 12 pts who received ZV at DL0 experienced a DLT (1 asthenia, 1 peripheral neuropathy [PN], and 1 maculopapular rash), 2 of 7 at DL1 (1 fatigue; 1 neutropenia), and 0 of 5 at DL-1. At data cutoff, 11 pts (39%) had discontinued treatment (4 PD, 3 adverse event [AE], 3 patient withdrawal, 1 nonstudy anticancer therapy) and 17 (61%) remained on treatment. Treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) occurred in 26 pts (93%), most commonly (≥35%) neutropenia (57%). Grade 3 or 4 TRAEs occurred in 22 pts (79%); most commonly (≥20%) neutropenia (grade 3 [29%] and grade 4 [25%]). One patient (4%) had grade 3 tumor lysis syndrome, and 1 (4%) had a grade 2 infusion-related reaction. Nineteen pts (68%) had PN regardless of treatment based on the following terms: gait disturbance, muscular weakness, peripheral neuropathy, paresthesia, peripheral sensory neuropathy, polyneuropathy; 3 pts (11%) had grade 3 or 4 events. TRAEs led to discontinuation in 5 pts (18%). No pts died due to TRAEs. The ORR was 64% (95% CI, 44-81); complete and partial responses occurred in 9 pts (32%) each. Of 22 pts with ≥1 postbaseline target lesion, 21 (96%) had any reduction in target lesion size, of whom 14 (64%) had a ≥50% reduction. Conclusions: ZV in combination with nemtabrutinib showed clinically meaningful antitumor activity and manageable safety in pts with R/R MCL. Further investigation into efficacy of this combination is warranted for pts with R/R MCL. The study is ongoing and the RP2D is yet to be determined.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai non randomisé · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,011

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,291
Écart entre enseignants0,274 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai non randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→Travaux en français237 207→