MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4411333669 · doi:10.1002/hon.70093_136

136 | MINIMAL RESIDUAL DISEASE WITH BENDAMUSTINE‐RITUXIMAB WITH OR WITHOUT ACALABRUTINIB IN PATIENTS WITH PREVIOUSLY UNTREATED MANTLE CELL LYMPHOMA: RESULTS FROM THE ECHO TRIAL

2025· article· en· W4411333669 sur OpenAlexaff
Pier Luigi Zinzani, S. Spurgeon, Miguel Arturo Pavlovsky, Chan Y. Cheah, Diego Villa, S. Luminari, V. Otero, G. De Jesus, Robin Lesley, M. L. Wang

Notice bibliographique

RevueHematological Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesAstraZeneca
Mots-clésBendamustineMantle cell lymphomaRituximabMedicineMinimal residual diseaseOncologyInternal medicineLymphomaCancer researchBone marrow

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: The combination of acalabrutinib with bendamustine-rituximab (ABR) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo with BR (PBR) in the phase 3 ECHO trial (NCT02972840) in older patients (pts) with previously untreated mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) (Wang M, et al. EHA 2024. Abstract #LB3439). Minimal residual disease (MRD) has been shown to be an impactful prognostic factor for outcomes in MCL. Previously presented data from the trial showed that a lower percentage of pts receiving ABR had molecular relapse during the maintenance period than pts receiving PBR (Dreyling M, et al. Blood. 2024;144(Suppl 1):1626). Herein, we examine the association between MRD status and clinical outcomes in the ECHO trial. Methods: Pts aged ≥ 65 years with previously untreated MCL and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 2 were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive ABR or PBR. BR was given for 6 cycles (induction) followed by rituximab maintenance for 2 years in pts achieving a partial or complete response (CR). Acalabrutinib (100 mg twice daily) or placebo was administered until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Crossover to acalabrutinib was permitted at disease progression. The primary endpoint was PFS per independent review committee. MRD (10−5) was assessed in peripheral blood every 24 weeks and at CR or progressive disease using the ClonoSEQ assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies). Results: At the February 15, 2024 data cutoff, 266 pts in the ABR arm and 252 pts in the PBR arm were evaluable for MRD (89.0% and 84.3%, respectively). Pts who did not achieve MRD negativity at any time had a median PFS and overall survival (OS) of 13.8 and 22.8 months, respectively, while pts achieving MRD negativity had a median PFS of 66.7 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.22; p < 0.0001) and median OS was not reached (HR: 0.31; p = 0.00015); pts who did not achieve MRD negativity were 4.5 times more likely to experience disease progression. Pts who became MRD negative at any time also had better outcomes with or without clinical complete response versus those who remained MRD positive (Figure). The probability of maintaining MRD negativity after induction was 2.3-fold greater for pts in the ABR arm (HR: 0.44; p = 0.022). Among all pts, those who maintained MRD negativity after 24 weeks had improved outcomes (median PFS 70.2 months) versus those who converted from MRD negative at 24 weeks to MRD positive during the maintenance period (median PFS 44.2 months; HR: 1.96; p < 0.0001). Conclusions: In the phase 3 ECHO trial, achieving MRD negativity was associated with improved PFS. MRD was a stronger prognostic factor for outcome than clinical response. Continuous therapy with acalabrutinib increased the probability of maintaining MRD negativity after induction, and sustained MRD negativity was associated with improved PFS, suggesting potential benefit of continuous acalabrutinib therapy after chemoimmunotherapy induction. Research funding declaration: Study funded by AstraZeneca. Encore Abstract: EHA 2025 Keywords: non-Hodgkin; combination therapies; ongoing trials Potential sources of conflict of interest: P. L. Zinzani Consultant or advisory role: BMS, Gilead, Roche, Kyowa Kirin, Sobi, Incyte, Novartis, Beigene, Janssen, AbbVie Honoraria: BMS, Gilead, Roche, Kyowa Kirin, Sobi, Incyte, Novartis, Beigene, Janssen, AbbVie S. Spurgeon Consultant or advisory role: Genentech, Janssen, Beigene, ADC Therapeutics Other remuneration: Research Funding: Beigene, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Janssen, ADC Therapeutics, Shrodinger, Merck, Profound Bio, Gilead, Acutar. Expert Witness: AbbVie M. Pavlovsky Consultant or advisory role: Beigene, AstraZeneca, Ascentage Pharma Honoraria: AbbVie, Janssen, AstraZeneca Educational grants: Sanofi, Roche, AstraZeneca, Beigene C. Y. Cheah Consultant or advisory role: Roche, Janssen, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Beigene, Menarini, Dizal, AbbVie, Genmab, Sobi, CRISPR Therapeutics, BMS, Regeneron Honoraria: Roche, Janssen, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Beigene, Menarini, Dizal, AbbVie, Genmab, Sobi, CRISPR Therapeutics, BMS, Regeneron Educational grants: Lilly, Beigene Other remuneration: Speaker’s bureau: Janssen, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Genmab, AbbVie, Roche, MSD. Research funding: BMS, Roche, AbbVie D. Villa Consultant or advisory role: AstraZeneca, Janssen, BeiGene, AbbVie, Kite/Gilead, BMS/Celgene, InCyte, Merck, Novartis, Zetagen Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Janssen, BeiGene, AbbVie, Kite/Gilead, BMS/Celgene, InCyte, Merck, Novartis, Zetagen Other remuneration: Research funding (institution): AstraZeneca, Roche S. Luminari Consultant or advisory role: Roche, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Kite, Novartis, BMS, Sobi, Regeneron, AbbVie, Beigene V. Otero Employment or leadership position: AstraZeneca Stock ownership: AstraZeneca G. De Jesus Employment or leadership position: AstraZeneca R. Lesley Employment or leadership position: AstraZeneca Stock ownership: AstraZeneca, Amgen M. L. Wang Consultant or advisory role: Acerta Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boxer Capital, Galapagos NV, Genmab, InnoCare, Janssen, Kite Pharma, Lilly, Merck, PER, Pfizer, Oncternal Honoraria: AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Binaytara Foundation, Bristol Myers Squibb, CAHON, Editorial Medica AWWE SA, East Virtinia Medical School, Instituto Scientifico Romagnolo, Janssen, Kite Pharma, Mayo Clinic, MJH Life Sciences, Merck, MSC National Research Institute of Oncolgy, Pfizer, Physicians Education Resources (PER), Plexus Communications, PromCon S.R.E., Research to Practice, Studio ER Congressi, South African Clinical Hematology Society, Medscape/WebMD, VJHem Other remuneration: Research: AbbVie, Acerta Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bantam Pharma, BeiGene, BioInvent, Celgene, Genmab, Genentech, Innocare, Janssen, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Lilly, Loxo Oncology, Molecular Templates, Nurix Therapeutics, Oncternal, Pharmacyclics, Velosbio, Vincerx

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut 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 enseignants0,052
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

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

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 Opus0,022
Tête enseignante GPT0,311
Écart entre enseignants0,288 · 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 tête enseignante, 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

Citations1
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHematological OncologyMême sujetChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchTravaux en français237 207