MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2549524390 · doi:10.1182/blood.v116.21.857.857

A Phase 3 Trial Comparing Bortezomib Plus Rituximab with Rituximab Alone In Patients with Relapsed, Rituximab-Naive or -Sensitive, Follicular Lymphoma

2010· article· en· W2549524390 on OpenAlexaff
Bertrand Coiffier, Evgenii A. Osmanov, Xiaonan Hong, Adriana Scheliga, Jiřı́ Mayer, Fritz Offner, Simon Rule, Adriana Teixeira, Jan Walewski, Michael Crump, Ofer Shpilberg, Róbert Hermann, Sudha Parasuraman, Eugene Zhu, Christopher Enny, Panteli Theocharous, Helgi van de Velde, Yusri Elsayed, Pier Luigi Zinzani

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRituximabInternal medicineBortezomibFollicular lymphomaRefractory (planetary science)GastroenterologyLymphomaPhases of clinical researchRandomizationOncologySurgeryClinical trialMultiple myeloma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 857 Background: Follicular lymphoma (FL) is an incurable B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) representing ∼20% of all NHL. Rituximab (R) is approved for the treatment of CD20+ relapsed/refractory FL, and single-agent bortezomib (Vc; VELCADE®) has shown activity in heavily pretreated patients. Vc and R show additive activity in preclinical models, and the combination was active and well tolerated in a phase 2 study. This randomized, open-label, multi-center, international, phase 3 clinical trial (LYM3001) compared the efficacy and safety of Vc plus R (Vc-R) vs R alone in patients with relapsed or refractory, R-naive or R-sensitive FL. Methods: Patients with grade 1/2 measurable FL who had relapsed/progressed following prior therapy (time to progression [TTP] ≥6 months if prior R-containing therapy), ECOG performance status ≤2, and no peripheral neuropathy grade ≥2 were randomized (1:1) to receive 5-week cycles of Vc-R (Vc 1.6 mg/m2, d 1, 8, 15, 22, cycles 1–5, plus R 375 mg/m2, d 1, 8, 15, 22 in cycle 1 and d 1 only in cycles 2–5) or R alone (administered according to the same schedule as for the Vc-R arm). In both groups, treatment was administered for five cycles or until progression or unacceptable treatment-related toxicity. Randomization was stratified by FLIPI score (0–1 vs 2 vs ≥3), prior R therapy (yes vs no), time since last dose of anti-FL therapy (≤1 vs >1 year), and region (US vs EU vs rest of world). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, TTP, and safety/tolerability. Response and progression were assessed by independent radiology committee (IRC) using the modified International Workshop Response Criteria. Planned sample size was 670 patients to provide 90% power (α=0.05, 2-sided) to detect a 33% improvement in median PFS with Vc-R vs R (i.e. 13.3 vs 10 months). Results: Between April 2006 and August 2008, 676 patients (intent-to-treat [ITT] population) were enrolled from 164 centers in 29 countries across Europe, the Americas, and Asia. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two arms; median age was 57 years (range 21–84), 54% were female, 75% were Caucasian and 21% were Asian. The majority of patients (93%) had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, 51% and 48% had grade 1 and 2 FL, respectively, and 41%, 35%, and 23% had high, intermediate, and low FLIPI score, respectively; 83% had Ann Arbor Stage III or IV, and 38% had bone marrow involvement at baseline. 33% of patients had received 3 or more prior lines of therapy (range 1–6+); 44% had received prior R therapy. The most common prior regimens were CHOP (38%), CVP (25%), single-agent R (17%), R-CHOP (12%), and R-CVP (11%). At a median follow-up of 33.9 months, a total of 440 PFS events were observed by IRC in the ITT population, 212 in the Vc-R arm and 228 events in the R arm. Median PFS improved from 334 days (95% CI: 278, 365) with R alone to 389 days (95% CI: 351, 456) with Vc-R; the hazard ratio was 0.822 (95% CI: 0.681, 0.991). This improvement is statistically significant with a 2-sided P-value of 0.039. The ORR was 63% with Vc-R vs 49% with R (P<0.001), including 25% and 18% verified CR rates, respectively (P=0.035). The durable response rate (>6 months) was 50% with Vc-R vs 38% with R (P=0.002). The median time to subsequent antilymphoma treatment was significantly improved in the Vc-R vs R arm (700 vs 537 days, P=0.027). Median OS was not reached in either group. Patients received a median 25 weeks treatment in both the Vc-R and R groups (range 5–40 and 5–35 in the Vc-R and R groups, respectively). Adverse events (AEs) were reported for 95% of Vc-R and 78% of R patients. The most common AEs were diarrhea (52% Vc-R, 8% R), nausea (29% Vc-R, 7% R), and pyrexia (25% Vc-R, 10% R). Most AEs were grade 1 or 2. Grade ≥3 AEs were reported in 46% of Vc-R and 21% of R patients; the most common grade ≥3 AEs were neutropenia (11% vs 4%) and diarrhea (7% vs 0%). Peripheral sensory neuropathy was reported in 17% of patients in the Vc-R arm vs 1% in the R arm; 3% vs 0% grade ≥3. 18% and 11% of Vc-R and R patients, respectively, had serious AEs, only 4% and 1% of patients discontinued due to drug-related AEs, and there were 9 and 4 on-treatment deaths, respectively. Conclusion: The addition of weekly Vc to R therapy in patients with relapsed FL was associated with statistically significant improvements in PFS, response rate, and time to next antilymphoma treatment, with acceptable additional toxicity. Disclosures: Coiffier: Johnson & Johnson: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Discussion of Velcade in NHL subtypes other than mantle cell lymphoma is included. Mayer:Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Rule:Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy. Walewski:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Investigators fee. Crump:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy. Shpilberg:Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hermann:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Parasuraman:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhu:Johnson & Johnson: Employment. Enny:Johnson & Johnson: Employment, Equity Ownership. Theocharous:Johnson & Johnson: Employment. van de Velde:Johnson & Johson: Employment, Equity Ownership. Elsayed:Johnson & Johnson: Employment, Equity Ownership.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→