CPOP-R Versus CHOP-R As First-Line Therapy for Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL): A Phase 2, Randomized, Open-Label, Multicenter Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Abstract 1605 Introduction: CHOP-R is standard therapy for patients with untreated DLBCL. Pixantrone dimaleate (P) is a novel aza-anthracenedione that, unlike doxorubicin (D), forms stable DNA adducts and has enhanced efficacy compared to D in preclinical lymphoma models. Due to its inability to bind iron or form alcohol metabolites, P has substantially less cardiotoxicity than D or mitoxantrone in preclinical studies. In a Phase I-II study in 65 patients with relapsed aggressive B cell NHL after CHOP (±R), patients treated with CPOP (P replaced D in CHOP) had CR/CRu rate of 52% and an overall response rate (ORR) of 77% with median progression-free survival (PFS) of 8.2 months and overall survival (OS) of 17.9 months (Leuk Lymph 2011;52: 620–8). The present Phase II study evaluated efficacy and safety, particularly cardiotoxicity, of CPOP-R vs CHOP-R as first-line therapy in patients with DLBCL. Patients and Methods: Patients with untreated DLBCL (CD20+, stage II-IV disease) were randomized to CPOP-R or CHOP-R (1: 1). CHOP-R was administered at standard doses; in CPOP-R, P (150 mg/m2) was substituted for D. After 4 cycles, patients with a partial response (PR) received 4 more cycles of treatment; those with CR received 2 more cycles. Follow-up after treatment was 36 months. Response was assessed by an independent assessment panel. A primary objective to evaluate non-inferiority of CPOP-R to CHOP-R, measured by CR/CRu rates, required 280 patients. Secondary endpoints included ORR, PFS, OS, and time to progression (TTP) and safety. Enrollment was stopped after 124 patients because of resource constraints; the study was no longer powered to detect non-inferiority. Results: Of the 124 patients enrolled, 61 were randomized to CPOP-R and 63 to CHOP-R. Treatments were administered to 122 patients (98%). Demographics and baseline disease characteristics were balanced between arms. Median age was 68 years in both arms, 79% of patients in CPOP-R vs 78% in CHOP-R were Ann Arbor stage 3–4, 48% vs 54% had IPI ≥3, and 20% vs 11% had ≥3 comorbid conditions. Median number of cycles delivered was 8 for CPOP-R vs 6 for CHOP-R. CR/CRu rate in the ITT population was 72.1% for CPOP-R vs 79.4% for CHOP-R (95% CI for the difference = −7.8%, 22.3%) and ORR (CR+CRu+PR) was 82.0% vs 87.3%. PFS appeared similar for CPOP-R and CHOP-R (HR=1.08). TTP was also similar (median not reached in either arm). Median OS was not reached in either arm (HR=2.34, 95% CI=1.05, 5.22, P =.032). The 3-year survival rates were 66% in CPOP-R vs 85% in CHOP-R. Three-year survival for patients with IPI ≤2 was 82% for CPOP-R vs 86% for CHOP-R; IPI ≥3, survival was 50% vs 84%. It was unusual that in the CHOP-R arm, patients with the modal IPI score=3 (n=25) had a better survival than patients with IPI ≤2 with only 8% mortality at 3 years. This historically high survival rate for CHOP-R patients with IPI=3 appeared responsible for the disparate survival rates between CPOP-R and CHOP-R. Eight patients in CPOP-R and 2 in CHOP-R had a history of coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure (CHF), or myocardial infarction. Overall, adverse events (AEs) were similar between arms; grade 3/4 AEs occurred in about 85% of patients in both arms. Incidence of grade 3/4 AEs was similar for neutropenia (61.0% vs 60.3%), febrile neutropenia (15.3% vs 15.9%), thrombocytopenia (5.1% vs 6.3%), and infections (16.9% vs 17.5%). Stomatitis was less common in CPOP-R (6.8% vs 17.5%). LVEF was measured prospectively at intervals through 24 months. LVEF values were generally stable in CPOP-R, but declined significantly from baseline in CHOP-R (P <.05). One patient in CPOP-R vs 8 in CHOP-R had LVEF declines ≥20% (P<.05). In CPOP-R, 6.7% of patients vs 35.2% in CHOP-R developed elevated troponin T levels (P<.05). No patients in CPOP-R vs 4 in CHOP-R developed CHF. Three deaths occurred within 30 days of last dose in CPOP-R vs none in CHOP-R. Most deaths after treatment in both arms were related to progressive disease. Conclusions: This study compared CPOP-R, a pixantrone-containing regimen, with CHOP-R as first-line therapy for DLBCL and showed comparable efficacy as measured by response, PFS, and TTP. Hematopoietic toxicities were similar; however, CPOP-R had reduced cardiotoxicity as determined by overall and serious declines in LVEF, elevations in troponin T, and CHF occurrence. Non-inferiority of CPOP-R to CHOP-R could not be established. Disclosures: Herbrecht: Cell Therapeutics, Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cernohous:Cell Therapeutics, Inc: Employment. Singer:Cell Therapeutics, Inc: Employment. van der Jagt:Cell Therapeutics, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".