MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4417004940 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-1020

Long-term follow-up with sustained progression-free survival (PFS) benefit after subcutaneous (SC) mosunetuzumab in combination with polatuzumab vedotin compared with rituximab plus polatuzumab vedotin in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma

2025· article· en· W4417004940 sur OpenAlexaff
Nilanjan Ghosh, Julio C. Chávez, Mariana Bastos‐Oreiro, Catherine Diefenbach, Izidore S. Lossos, Nirav N. Shah, Sarit Assouline, Seema Naik, Song Pham, Michael C. Wei, Connie Lee Batlevi, Iris To, Wahib S. Ead, Sneha Makadia, Elicia Peneul

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensRoche (Canada)Jewish General Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRituximabFollicular lymphomaRefractory (planetary science)Clinical endpointPhases of clinical researchCytokine release syndromeLymphomaCohort

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: A prior analysis of mosunetuzumab (Mosun) SC, a CD20xCD3 T-cell-engaging bispecific antibody, with polatuzumab vedotin (Pola; M-Pola), an anti-CD79b monoclonal antibody, in a Phase Ib/II study (NCT03671018) showed promising durability of response and manageable safety versus (vs) rituximab (R)-Pola in patients with R/R transplant-ineligible large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL; Chavez et al. ASH 2024). Here we report an updated analysis of ≥2 years' follow-up in the randomized cohort of the Phase Ib/II study. Methods: Patients with histologically confirmed R/R LBCL and ≥1 previous line of treatment, including anti-CD20 therapy, were randomized 1:1 to receive M-Pola or R-Pola. Patients previously treated with Pola were not included. Patients in the R-Pola arm with PD during or at end of treatment (EOT) or stable disease at EOT could cross over to receive M-Pola (up to 8 cycles of cumulative Pola). Primary endpoint was best independent review committee-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per Lugano 2014 criteria. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) events were defined per ASTCT criteria. All p-values were descriptive. Results: As of November 15, 2024, 80 patients were enrolled (M-Pola, n=40; R-Pola, n=40) of which 54 patients (67.5%) were enrolled in the United States (US). Baseline characteristics were as previously reported, with 75% diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, 10% Grade 3b follicular lymphoma, 20% high-grade B-cell lymphoma, and 17.5% transformed follicular lymphoma (Chavez et al. ASH 2024). Median follow-up in the M-Pola vs R-Pola arms was 25.7 (range 1–35) months vs 27.2 (range 0‒34) months, respectively. For M-Pola vs R-Pola, best ORR and complete response (CR) rate were 78% (95% CI: 61.6–89.2) and 55% (95% CI: 38.5–70.7) vs 50% (95% CI: 33.8–66.2) and 35% (95% CI: 20.6–51.7), respectively. Median PFS was 25.4 months (95% CI: 9.2– not evaluable [NE]) for M-Pola and 6.4 months (95% CI: 4.7–18.6) for R-Pola (HR 0.47 [95% CI: 0.2–0.9] p=0.0287]). Median overall survival (OS) was not reached (NR) for M-Pola (95% CI: 17.6–NE) and 25.5 months (95% CI: 16.2–NE) for R-Pola (HR 0.78 [95% CI: 0.4‒1.5] p=0.4749). Median duration of response (DOR) and duration of CR were NR in the M-Pola arm (95% CI: 15.0–NE and 95% CI: 16.8–NE, respectively) and were 11.3 months (95% CI: 5.8–NE) and 12.7 months (95% CI: 3.6–NE) in the R-Pola arm, respectively. With a median follow-up of 18.7 (95% CI: 15.2–NE) months for 20 crossover patients, ORR was 50% (95% CI: 27.0–72.8) and the median DOR was 15.7 months (95% CI: 2.8–NE). In the safety population (n=79), no new safety signals were identified. The most common adverse events (AEs) for M-Pola vs R-Pola were diarrhea (48% vs 33%), fatigue (35% vs 31%), and nausea (25% vs 36%), respectively. Grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 58% of M-Pola vs 54% R-Pola patients; serious AEs (SAE) occurred in 33% of M-Pola vs 26% R-Pola patients. Grade 5 (fatal) AEs occurred in 5% of patients in the M-Pola arm (COVID-19 [n=1], COVID-19 pneumonia [n=1]) and 3% in the R-Pola arm (hepatic failure [n=1]). AEs leading to discontinuation of study treatment occurred in 7.5% of M-Pola patients (COVID-19 pneumonia [n=1], peripheral motor neuropathy [n=1], peripheral sensory neuropathy [n=1]) and in 7.7% of R-Pola patients (peripheral neuropathy [n=1], neutrophil count decreased [n=1], pain in extremity [n=1]). CRS events were reported in 13% (5/40) of patients in the M-Pola arm: all were low grade (Grade 1: 10%; Grade 2: 3%) and occurred during Cycle 1 Days 1–7, with median time to CRS onset of 2 days (range 1–3) and median duration of 2 days (range 1–5), and all CRS events were resolved. Other AEs of interest included serious infections, which occurred in 23% and 18% of patients in M-Pola and R-Pola arms, respectively. There were no investigator-reported events of immune effector-cell associated neurotoxicity syndrome. Neutropenia occurred in 40.0% of M-Pola patients (Grade 2: 7.5%; Grade 3/4: 32.5%); 1 patient experienced a Grade 3 event of febrile neutropenia. Conclusions: Fixed-duration outpatient M-Pola continues to demonstrate clinically meaningful and sustained improvements across all efficacy endpoints compared with R-Pola. These extended follow-up results reveal no new safety signals, reinforcing the treatment's favorable profile. The findings provide strong additional evidence for the long-term efficacy of the M-Pola regimen in the US patient population, supporting broad use in the second-line plus setting.

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 seuil0,008

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
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 Opus0,005
Tête enseignante GPT0,225
Écart entre enseignants0,220 · 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

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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