MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4405107409 · doi:10.1182/blood-2024-212970

Tafasitamab Plus Lenalidomide and Rituximab for Relapsed or Refractory Follicular Lymphoma: Results from a Phase 3 Study (inMIND)

2024· article· en· W4405107409 sur OpenAlexaff
Laurie H. Sehn, Stefano Luminari, Christian W. Scholz, Kai Hübel, Antonio Salar, Shankara Paneesha, Björn E. Wahlin, Panayiotis Panayiotidis, Hui‐Peng Lee, Ana Jiménez Ubieto, Juan‐Manuel Sancho, Tae Min Kim, Eva Domingo‐Doménech, Takahiro Kumode, Christina Poh, Catherine Thiéblemont, Dries Deeren, Edwin de Wit, Michael Arbushites, Marie‐Laure Casadebaig, Marek Trněný

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensSpinal Cord Injury BCUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLenalidomideRituximabFollicular lymphomaMedicineRefractory (planetary science)OncologyInternal medicinePhases of clinical researchLymphomaClinical trialMultiple myelomaBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Follicular lymphoma (FL) is characterized by episodes of remission and relapse, with patients (pts) requiring multiple lines of treatment (tx). While chemoimmunotherapy is often used frontline, it yields shorter response duration with successive lines of tx. In the relapsed/refractory (R/R) setting, immunotherapy approaches are preferred but there remains a need to improve durability. Lenalidomide (len) + rituximab (R) is approved after ≥1 prior line of tx and frequently used. Tafasitamab (tafa), a humanized CD19-targeting monoclonal antibody (mAb), induces direct cytotoxicity and enhances NK cell and macrophage immune-mediated mechanisms. Tafa has been previously approved in combination with len for R/R DLBCL based on the L-MIND study. inMIND (NCT04680052) is an international phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo (pbo)-controlled, multicenter trial evaluating efficacy and safety of adding tafa to len+R in pts with R/R FL or marginal zone lymphoma. The trial was powered to assess PFS in pts with FL only and the planned primary analysis is presented here. Methods: Pts ≥18 y with R/R CD19+ and CD20+ FL (grade 1-3A) and ECOG PS ≤2, requiring tx after ≥1 prior systemic therapy including an anti-CD20 mAb, were randomized 1:1 to receive tafa 12 mg/kg iv or pbo on days (D) 1, 8, 15, and 22 of cycles (C) 1-3 and D1 and D15 of C4-12 with standard dosing of len+R for up to twelve 28-day cycles. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS, planned for analysis after 174 events were observed. Additional endpoints included PET-CR rate (FDG-avid population), OS, PFS (by independent review committee [IRC]), ORR, DOR, safety, and TTNT. Results: 548 pts with FL were randomized: tafa, n=273; pbo, n=275. Baseline demographics were similar between arms: median age 64 y (range, 31-88); 55% male; 79% intermediate- or high-risk FLIPI; 83% high tumor burden per GELF criteria. Median number of prior lines of tx was 1 (range, 1-10), 45% had ≥2 prior lines, 32% had disease progression within 24 m (POD24), and 43% were refractory to prior anti-CD20 mAb. At data cutoff, pts in tafa and pbo arms had received a median of 12 and 11 cycles of tx, 19% and 15% were still on tx, 81% and 84% had discontinued tx, primarily due to tx completion (54% and 43%) or disease progression (11% and 31%), respectively. With median follow-up of 14.1 m, addition of tafa to len+R resulted in significantly lower risk of progression, relapse, or death vs pbo (median investigator-assessed PFS, 22.4 m vs 13.9 m; hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI], 0.43 [0.32, 0.58]; P<0.0001). Benefit was confirmed by IRC assessment (median PFS not reached [NR] with tafa vs 16.0 m with pbo; HR [95% CI], 0.41 [0.29, 0.56]; P<0.0001). PFS benefit with tafa was consistent in all prespecified subgroups analyzed including: pts with POD24, pts refractory to prior anti-CD20 mAb, pts receiving multiple prior lines of tx. PET-CR rate (49.4% vs 39.8%; P=0.029) and ORR (83.5% vs 72.4%; P=0.0014) were higher with tafa vs pbo. DOR was improved with tafa vs pbo (median 21.2 m vs 13.6 m; HR [95% CI], 0.47 [0.33, 0.68]; P<0.0001), as was TTNT (median NR vs 28.8 m; HR [95% CI], 0.45 [0.31, 0.64]; P<0.0001). Despite OS data being immature, there was a trend favoring tafa (HR [95% CI], 0.59 [0.31, 1.13]). A similar rate of tx-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (99% vs 99%), grade (gr) 3 or 4 AEs (71% vs 69.5%), and serious AEs (36% vs 32%) were observed with tafa and pbo, respectively. Most common gr 3 or 4 AEs with tafa vs pbo were neutropenia (40% vs 38%), pneumonia (8% vs 5%), thrombocytopenia (6% vs 7%), decreased neutrophils (6% vs 7%), COVID-19 (6% vs 2%), and COVID-19 pneumonia (5% vs 1%). TEAEs leading to discontinuation were reported by 11% and 7% of pts in tafa and pbo arms. In total, 15 pts (5.5%) in the tafa arm and 23 (8.5%) in the pbo arm died during the study, including 5 (2%) vs 17 (6%) due to disease progression and 6 (2%) in each arm due to fatal AEs. Conclusions: Addition of tafa to len+R resulted in significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS, representing a 57% reduction in risk of progression, relapse, or death in pts with R/R FL. Although OS data are immature, a trend in favor of tafa was observed. The safety profile was manageable and consistent with expected toxicities. This study is the first to validate combining two mAbs (anti-CD19 with anti-CD20) in the tx of lymphoma. Tafa+len+R can be administered in community as well as academic settings and represents a potential new standard of care option for pts with R/R FL.

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)0,003
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 randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,004
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,017

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,003
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,001

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 Opus0,029
Tête enseignante GPT0,312
Écart entre enseignants0,283 · 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 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

Citations17
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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