MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4417008940 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-3581

Prognostic impact of Mantle Cell Lymphoma frontline induction response assessments in the ECOG-ACRIN E1411 study of bendamustine-rituximab +/- bortezomib and maintenance with rituximab +/- lenalidomide

2025· article· en· W4417008940 sur OpenAlexaff
Christine E. Ryan, Victoria Wang, Mitchell R. Smith, Brian G. Till, Samir Parekh, David T. Yang, Lale Kostakoğlu, Nizar Abdel Samad, Opeyemi A. Jegede, Richard F. Little, Jonathan W. Friedberg, John P. Leonard, Brad S. Kahl, Peter Martin

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensMoncton Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLenalidomideMantle cell lymphomaRituximabBortezomibChemoimmunotherapyMaintenance therapyDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaInduction chemotherapyPhases of clinical researchFollicular lymphoma

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background The prognostic utility of positron emission tomography/computer tomography (PET/CT) scan and bone marrow biopsy (BMB) as response assessments in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is incompletely explored. We sought to: 1) interrogate the prognostic impact of a mid-induction PET/CT scan, and 2) investigate whether end-of-induction (EOI) BMB results add prognostic significance to EOI PET/CT scan results in patients with MCL receiving frontline chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in the context of the E1411 clinical trial. Methods Briefly, the E1411 randomized phase 2 study (NCT01415752) investigated whether addition of bortezomib to bendamustine/rituximab (BR) induction and/or addition of lenalidomide to rituximab maintenance improved progression-free-survival (PFS) in treatment-naïve MCL. Patient characteristics and results are as previously published (Smith et al., 2024). Neither addition of bortezomib to BR nor addition of lenalidomide to rituximab maintenance following BR-based induction impacted PFS. PET/CT scans, read locally, were completed at initial staging, after cycle 3, and at EOI. BMB was part of initial staging and was required at EOI for any patient with baseline BM involvement who otherwise met complete remission (CR) criteria. Response criteria were per International Working Group 2007. Survival distributions were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. Univariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the association between PET/CT or BMB and PFS or overall survival (OS). Results 37% (132/358) of patients who initiated induction therapy had interim PET/CT results available, with 42% (56/132) remaining PET-positive after 3 cycles of treatment. With median survival follow-up of 7.5 years (yrs), median PFS for interim PET-positive vs. negative patients was 4.9 vs. 7.4 yrs (HR 1.49; 95% CI: 0.89-2.49; p=0.13). Median OS for interim PET-positive vs. negative patients was 9.2 vs. 10.2 yrs (HR 1.40; 95% CI: 0.76-2.57; p=0.28). All patients who initiated induction therapy underwent baseline BMB, 82% of whom (293/358) had confirmed lymphoma involvement. 237/304 patients who completed 6 cycles of induction had EOI BMB results available, 96% (227/237) of which were negative for lymphoma. Rates of EOI BM involvement by PET response were as follows: 1/181 patients with CR, 6/50 with partial response (PR), 1/1 with stable disease, 0/1 with progressive disease, 2/3 with response unevaluable. Median PFS and OS of patients with CR and negative EOI BM was 6.8 yrs and 10.1 yrs, respectively (95% CI: 5.9-NR). Within patients who achieved PR and had EOI BM results available, the median PFS for EOI BM-positive vs. negative was 3.1 vs. 5.4 yrs (HR 2.38; 95% CI: 0.95-5.99; p=0.06). The median OS for EOI BM-positive vs. negative patients was 6.3 vs. 9.4 yrs (HR 2.39; 95% CI: 0.67-8.50; p=0.18). Conclusion Our results generate 3 key either conclusions or hypotheses for future studies. First, the trend to inferior PFS with PET-positive disease after 3 cycles of induction therapy provides foundation to evaluate whether patients may benefit from early adjustment of therapeutic strategy. Second, the extremely low rate of 0.6% of patients in a CR with EOI BM involvement suggests EOI BMB is not needed for patients achieving metabolic CR after frontline CIT. These results align with a recent study demonstrating baseline BMB adds little value to response assessment in follicular lymphoma, leading to recommendation for deferral in most cases (Rutherford et al., 2023). Patients with MCL could therefore similarly be spared a procedure that does not provide clear clinical utility. Third, the trend toward difference in PFS by EOI BMB status even in patients with a PR additionally identifies a group for whom escalated treatment, such as intensified maintenance treatment, may be beneficial to investigate. Limitations of our analyses include the unavailable interim PET/CT results for 63% of patients who initiated induction therapy. Additionally, none received frontline BTK inhibition. Future directions include combining minimal residual disease with interim and EOI PET/CT results. EOI BMB analyses should be performed in trials investigating frontline BTK inhibitors and particularly those without chemotherapy, to determine if a BMB is of similarly low clinical utility across treatment types. Such analyses will shed further light on the assessments with highest prognostic utility for MCL.

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)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,004
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,020

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
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)0,0010,000

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 Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,304
Écart entre enseignants0,292 · 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'étudeObservationnel
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→