MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4417005015 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-1819

Phase 3 study (inMIND) of tafasitamab plus lenalidomide and rituximab for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma: Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients receiving second-line treatment

2025· article· en· W4417005015 sur OpenAlexaff
Ajay K. Gopal, Marek Trněný, Laurie H. Sehn, Julie M. Wu, Michael Arbushites, Oscar Bortolami, Stefano Luminari

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensSpinal Cord Injury BCUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLenalidomideRituximabChemoimmunotherapyFollicular lymphomaRefractory (planetary science)PopulationPhases of clinical researchNeutropeniaPlaceboMaintenance therapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: In patients (pts) with follicular lymphoma (FL) durability of response in second-line (2L) therapy is important, as prognosis worsens and burden increases with subsequent lines of therapy. Chemoimmunotherapy is often used as 1L; however, immunotherapy is preferred for relapsed or refractory (R/R) FL. Tafasitamab (tafa) is a humanized CD19-targeting monoclonal antibody (mAb) recently approved in combination with lenalidomide (len) + rituximab (R) for treatment of adult pts with R/R FL in the US. The primary analysis from the inMIND (NCT04680052) study demonstrated significant improvement in investigator-assessed PFS in pts with R/R FL representing a 57% reduction in the risk of progression or death, with a safety profile as expected for the pt population (Sehn LH, et al. Blood. 2024;144[Suppl 2]:LBA1). This post hoc analysis evaluates efficacy and safety outcomes from inMIND in pts with R/R FL who had received 1 prior line of therapy. Methods: Pts aged ≥18 years with R/R CD19+ and CD20+ FL (grade 1-3A), ECOG PS ≤2, and who had received ≥1 prior systemic therapy including an anti-CD20 mAb were eligible. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive tafa 12 mg/kg IV or placebo (pbo) with standard dosing of len+R for up to 12×28-day cycles. Analyses in pts who received 2L treatment included investigator-assessed PFS (primary endpoint), PFS by IRC, PET-CR rate (FDG-avid population), ORR, TTNT, and safety. Results: Of 548 pts randomized to the tafa arm (n=273) or pbo arm (n=275), 300 (55%) had only 1 prior line of therapy (tafa, n=147; pbo, n=153). Baseline characteristics in the 2L pt subgroup were generally consistent with the overall FL study population and balanced between treatment arms: median age 65 y (range, 31-88); 56% male; 77% intermediate- or high-risk FLIPI; 81% high tumor burden per GELF criteria; 43% POD24 (progression within 24 months of start of initial treatment). In this 2L pt subgroup, median investigator-assessed PFS was improved with the addition of tafa vs pbo (24.0 months vs 15.4 months [hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) 0.40 (0.26, 0.62)]). Median PFS by IRC (not reached [NR] vs 20.7 months; HR [95% CI] 0.44 [0.28, 0.70]), PET-CR rate (50.7% vs 43.4%; odds ratio [OR] [95% CI] 1.3 [0.84, 2.15]), ORR (86.4% vs 73.9%; OR [95% CI] 2.3 [1.26, 4.17]), and median TTNT (NR vs 28.8 months; HR [95% CI] 0.52 [0.32, 0.84]) were also improved with addition of tafa vs pbo among 2L pts. Outcomes were also evaluated in pts receiving prior anti-CD20 plus chemotherapy as 1L therapy (tafa, n=122; pbo, n=132). Analysis was not performed in pts who received anti-CD20 monotherapy in 1L due to small numbers (tafa, n=26; pbo, n=20). Median investigator-assessed PFS was higher with addition of tafa vs pbo in 2L pts who received 1L anti-CD20+chemo (24.0 months vs 14.4 months; HR [95% CI] 0.45 [0.29, 0.71]). Pts receiving 1L anti-CD20+chemo also had higher median PFS by IRC (not reached [NR] vs 20.1 months; HR [95% CI] 0.51 [0.31, 0.82]), PET-CR rate (52.2% vs 41.6%; odds ratio [OR] [95% CI] 1.6 [0.95, 2.66]), ORR (86.9% vs 71.2%; OR [95% CI] 2.8 [1.40, 5.45]), and median TTNT (NR vs 28.8 months; HR [95% CI] 0.52 [0.31, 0.86]) with addition of tafa vs pbo. Among 2L pts with POD24, median investigator-assessed PFS was improved with the addition of tafa vs pbo (19.2 months vs 11.7 months; HR [95% CI] 0.46 [0.26, 0.82]); median PFS by IRC, PET-CR rate, ORR, and median TTNT were also consistent with the overall 2L population (data will be presented). In the overall 2L pt subgroup, similar rates of TEAEs (100% vs 99%) were observed in the tafa vs pbo arm. Most common TEAEs in the tafa vs pbo arm were neutropenia (47% vs 39%), diarrhea (37% vs 31%), constipation (31% vs 30%), COVID-19 (30% vs 20%), rash (22% vs 24%), fatigue (20% vs 18%), cough (20% vs 17%), nausea (20% vs 14%), and muscle spasm (18% vs 20%). Grade 3 or 4 TEAEs were reported in 69% vs 61% of pts and serious TEAEs in 31% vs 25% of pts in the tafa and pbo arms, respectively. Three (2%) pts in both the tafa and pbo arms experienced fatal AEs. Conclusions: This analysis of R/R FL pts receiving 2L treatment in the inMIND study confirms that addition of tafa to len+R improved PFS, representing a 60% reduction in risk of progression or death, including in pts receiving prior anti-CD20+chemo or with POD24. Improvements were also observed in PET-CR, ORR, and TTNT. The safety profile was manageable in pts receiving 2L treatment with toxicities as expected for the pt population.

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 seuil0,010

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,002
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
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 Opus0,031
Tête enseignante GPT0,348
Écart entre enseignants0,316 · 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→