MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Pharmacokinetics (PK), Safety and Overall Response Rate (ORR) Achieved with Subcutaneous (SC) Administration of Rituximab in Combination with Chemotherapy Were Comparable to Those Achieved with Intravenous (IV) Administration in Patients (pts) with Follicular Lymphoma (FL) in the First-Line Setting: Stage 1 Results of the Phase III SABRINA Study (BO22334)

2012· article· en· W2556823464 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrew Davies, Francesco Merli, Biljana Mihaljevik, Noppadol Siritanaratkul, Philippe Solal‐Céligny, Axel Boehnke, Claude Berge, Christine McIntyre, Martin Barrett, David MacDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRituximabDosingPharmacokineticsClinical endpointChemotherapyInternal medicinePhases of clinical researchGastroenterologyUrologyPharmacologySurgeryRandomized controlled trialLymphoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 1629 Rituximab and chemotherapy induction followed by maintenance rituximab is the backbone of therapy for FL. IV rituximab administration can take several hours; therefore, a SC formulation has been developed which may shorten administration times and increase convenience for pts. Achieving clinically effective rituximab serum concentrations is essential for optimal activity (Yin et al, ASCO 2010, abstract e13108). Therefore, achieving non-inferior Ctrough levels with SC compared with IV dosing is expected to provide comparable efficacy. BO22334 (NCT01200758) is a two-stage, phase III, international, randomized, controlled, open-label study of SC vs IV rituximab combined with up to 8 cycles of CHOP or 8 cycles of CVP chemotherapy followed by maintenance in pts with previously untreated FL. Pts were scheduled to receive 8 cycles of rituximab, regardless of the number of chemotherapy cycles. In the SC arm, rituximab was administered IV (375 mg/m2) for the first cycle, with following cycles administered SC (1400 mg). Stage 1 aimed to confirm that the SC rituximab dose of 1400 mg (dose based on phase I study BP22333; Salar et al, EHA 2012, abstract 0794), resulted in non-inferior Ctrough rituximab levels compared with the 375 mg/m2 IV dose when given as 3-weekly induction therapy combined with chemotherapy. The stage 1 primary endpoint was non-inferiority of the Ctrough,SC:Ctrough,IV ratio (limit for non-inferiority was Ctrough ratio > 0.8) at Cycle 7 of induction. Secondary endpoints included comparisons of SC vs IV: area under the serum concentration–time curve (AUC); end of induction ORR; CR (CR/CRu); and safety. Previously untreated pts with histologically confirmed CD20-positive grade 1, 2, or 3a FL requiring treatment (N = 127) were randomized 1:1 to SC (n = 63) or IV (n = 64) rituximab, stratified by Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index score, chemotherapy, and region. Allocation to R-CHOP or R-CVP was at the investigator's discretion; 40 pts in each arm (63%) received CHOP chemotherapy and the remaining pts (37%) received CVP chemotherapy. The primary PK endpoint was met with a geometric mean of 134.6 μg/mL for the rituximab SC arm (n = 48) and 83.1 μg/mL for the rituximab IV arm (n = 54) resulting in an SC:IV ratio of 1.62 (90% confidence interval [CI]: 1.36, 1.94). The Ctrough achieved with SC rituximab was therefore concluded to be non-inferior to IV administration. The geometric mean ratio of AUCSC:AUCIV (1.378 [90% CI: 1.241, 1.530]) was also non-inferior. After a median follow-up of approximately 9 months, the overall safety profile was as would be expected for IV administration, with no new or unexpected adverse events (AEs). In the SC and IV arms AEs were experienced by 92% (n = 57) and 88% of pts (n = 57), respectively. Grade 3/4 AE were observed in 47% of pts in the SC arm and 46% in the IV arm. The only grade 3/4 AE occurring in > 10% of pts was neutropenia (26% in the SC arm, 22% in the IV arm) which was not associated with increased infection rate (grade 3/4 infections and infestations: 5% SC vs 9% IV). Total administration-related reactions (ARRs; any events occurring during/within 24 hours of drug administration that were considered treatment-related by the study investigator) were higher in the SC vs IV arm (50% vs 32%) with the majority being grade 1/2; there were no grade 4 ARRs. Individual ARRs (all grades) occurring in ≥5% of pts in the SC vs IV arms were: erythema (8% vs 3%), pruritus (6% vs 3%), chills (3% vs 6%), injection site erythema (10% vs 0%), and vomiting (3% vs 6%). Investigator-assessed ORR was 90.5% (95% CI: 80.4, 96.4) in the SC arm and 84.4% (95% CI: 73.1, 92.2) in the IV arm. Complete response (CR/CRu) rates were 46.0% (29/63 pts, 95% CI: 33.4, 59.1) for the SC arm and 29.7% (19/64 pts, 95% CI: 18.9, 42.4) for the IV arm. Stable and progressive disease rates were similar in each arm. An independent review of response assessments is planned. Data demonstrate PK non-inferiority and comparable efficacy for SC (1400 mg) compared with IV (375 mg/m2) rituximab administration, with similar ORR and CR rates in the rituximab SC and IV arms. Overall, SC and IV rituximab AE profiles were similar; ARRs were mostly of mild/moderate intensity. Stage 1 pts are continuing to receive maintenance treatment with SC or IV rituximab. Stage 2 of the study has opened recruitment of an additional 280 pts who will be randomized to receive SC (1400 mg) or IV rituximab. Disclosures: Davies: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Pharmacokinetics (PK), safety and overall response rate (ORR) achieved with subcutaneous (SC) administration of rituximab in combination with chemotherapy were comparable to those achieved with intravenous (IV) administration in patients (pts) with follicular lymphoma (FL) in the first-line setting. Siritanaratkul:Roche: Research Funding. Solal-Céligny:Roche, France: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Boehnke:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Employment. Berge:Roche: Employment. McIntyre:Roche: Employment. Barrett:Roche: Employment. Macdonald:Roche, Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, 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 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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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