MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4405042974 · doi:10.1182/blood-2024-203269

First-Line Ibrutinib Plus Venetoclax Vs Chlorambucil Plus Obinutuzumab in Elderly or Comorbid Patients (Pts) with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL): Glow Study 64-Month Follow-up (FU) and Adverse Event (AE)-Free Progression-Free Survival (PFS) Analysis

2024· article· en· W4405042974 sur OpenAlexaff
Carsten Utoft Niemann, Talha Munir, Carolyn Owen, George Follows, Jose-Angel Hernandez Rivas, Ohad Benjamini, Ann Janssens, Mark‐David Levin, Tadeusz Robak, Martin Šimkovič, Sergey Voloshin, Vladimir Vorobyev, Loïc Ysebaert, Natasha Schuier, Kurt Baeten, Ping Xu, Nguyet Tran, Bennett Levitan, Claire Kavanagh, Arnon P. Kater

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensBaker Hughes (Canada)University of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésVenetoclaxIbrutinibObinutuzumabChlorambucilChronic lymphocytic leukemiaMedicineAdverse effectInternal medicineOncologyLeukemiaChemotherapyCyclophosphamide

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Time-limited ibrutinib plus venetoclax (Ibr+Ven) demonstrated superior PFS, overall survival (OS), and time to next treatment (TTNT) vs chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (Clb+O) in elderly or comorbid pts with untreated CLL in the GLOW study (Niemann et al. Lancet Oncol 2023). Longer FU provides insight into the sustained benefit of Ibr+Ven and the predictive clinical impact of IGHV status and minimal residual disease (MRD) at end of treatment (EOT). With various effective treatment (tx) options available in CLL, balancing overall benefit with AEs is important. As such, a tx-emergent AE (TEAE)-free PFS analysis provides a clinically meaningful assessment of tx benefit by capturing the time pts spend without significant toxicity or disease progression, offering a more comprehensive view of tx impact. Here we report clinical outcomes from the 64-mo FU of the GLOW study, including subgroup analysis by IGHV and MRD status, and an evaluation of grade 3/4 (G3/4) TEAE-free PFS benefit. Methods: Elderly or comorbid pts with untreated CLL/small lymphocytic leukemia were randomized 1:1 to Ibr+Ven (3 cycles Ibr lead-in then 12 cycles Ibr+Ven, n = 106) or 6 cycles Clb+O (n = 105). MRD in peripheral blood was measured by next-generation sequencing 3 months post-EOT (EOT+3), with undetectable MRD (uMRD) defined as < 10-4. TEAEs were collected until 30 days after EOT; therefore, AE collection was longer for Ibr+Ven vs Clb+O (median exposure: Ibr+Ven, 13.8 mo vs Clb+O, 5.1 mo). AEs after this were not considered tx emergent unless specifically considered tx related by investigator. Outcomes reported include investigator-assessed PFS, TTNT, and OS. Additionally, TEAE-free PFS was assessed (using restricted mean survival time, based on G3/4 TEAEs only), including quantification of time spent in different health states (time with G3/4 TEAEs and G3/4 TEAE-free PFS). Results: At a median FU of 64 mo, Ibr+Ven prolonged PFS, reducing the risk of progression or death by 73% vs Clb+O (HR 0.27 [95% CI, 0.18-0.39]; p < 0.0001); 60-mo PFS rates were 59.9% and 17.8% for Ibr+Ven and Clb+O, respectively. Ibr+Ven prolonged PFS independent of IGHV status (unmutated IGHV [uIGHV], HR 0.26 [95% CI, 0.17-0.42]; p < 0.0001; mutated IGHV [mIGHV], HR 0.24 [95% CI, 0.10-0.62]; p = 0.0014). Estimated 60-mo PFS rates in the Ibr+Ven arm were 52.2% and 82.5% for pts with uIGHV (n = 67) and mIGHV (n = 32), respectively. In the Ibr+Ven arm, PFS rates at 48 mo post tx were 69% in pts who achieved uMRD at EOT+3 (n = 58) and 61% in pts with detectable MRD (dMRD; n = 31). Among Ibr+Ven-treated pts with uIGHV, PFS rates at 48 mo post tx were 67% for those achieving uMRD at EOT+3 (n = 40) and 40% for those with dMRD (n = 16). For Ibr+Ven-treated pts with mIGHV, PFS rates at 48 mo post-tx were ≥ 84% regardless of MRD status (uMRD, n = 13; dMRD, n = 14). Ibr+Ven prolonged TTNT and reduced risk of need for second-line (2L) therapy vs Clb+O in pts with uIGHV (HR 0.18 [95% CI, 0.09-0.36]; p < 0.0001); there was no difference in TTNT in pts with mIGHV (HR 1.20 [95% CI, 0.31-4.60], p = 0.7878). Ibr+Ven prolonged OS vs Clb+O, reducing relative risk of death by 54% (HR 0.46 [95% CI, 0.27-0.79]; p = 0.004); 60-mo OS rates were 81.6% and 60.8% for Ibr+Ven and Clb+O, respectively. OS rates were prolonged in pts with mIGHV (HR 0.22 [95% CI, 0.06-0.77]; p = 0.010), while a trend was seen in pts with uIGHV (HR 0.51 [95% CI, 0.26-1.02]; p = 0.052). At 64-mo FU, the time pts spent without significant toxicity or progression (TEAE-free PFS) was significantly longer for Ibr+Ven vs Clb+O (52 vs 31 mo, respectively). TEAE-free PFS analysis showed that while pts receiving 15 mo of Ibr+Ven spent slightly more time in the G3/4 toxicity state vs pts receiving 6 mo of Clb+O (2 vs 1 mo), pts in the Ibr+Ven arm spent substantially more time in TEAE-free PFS (50 vs 30 mo). These results show a 20-mo improvement in TEAE-free PFS with Ibr+Ven vs Clb+Ob, indicating longer disease control without significant toxicity. Conclusion: With 64-mo FU, Ibr+Ven continues to show superior PFS, reduced risk of requiring 2L tx, and sustained OS advantage vs Clb+O. Moreover, analysis integrating clinical benefits and risks shows improved survival time free from G3/4 toxicity or relapse for Ibr+Ven. This long-term FU of time-limited Ibr+Ven provides valuable insights into the combination's durable efficacy and tolerability profile, offering a robust foundation for informed clinical decision-making in pts with previously untreated CLL.

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)0,001
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 enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,007

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
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 ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,019
Tête enseignante GPT0,296
Écart entre enseignants0,277 · 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

Citations16
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchTravaux en français237 207