MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Lymphoma Symptoms: Data from a Phase 3, International, Randomized, Open-Label, Multicenter Study in Patients with Previously Treated Mantle Cell Lymphoma (MCL) Treated with Ibrutinib Vs. Temsirolimus

2015· article· en· W2570200366 on OpenAlexaff
Georg Heß, Simon Rule, Wojciech Jurczak, Mats Jerkeman, Rodrigo Santucci, Chiara Rusconi, Dolores Caballero, Cristina João, Mathias Witzens‐Harig, Isabelle Bence‐Bruckler, Seok‐Goo Cho, Nibedita Bandyopadhyay, John Bothos, Christopher Enny, Jessica Vermeulen, Shana Traina, Martin Dreyling

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMantle cell lymphomaMedicineInternal medicineIbrutinibTemsirolimusClinical endpointLymphomaPhases of clinical researchInternational Prognostic IndexOncologyRandomized controlled trialGastroenterologyClinical trialRituximabLeukemiaChronic lymphocytic leukemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction MCL is an incurable aggressive B-cell lymphoma with a poor overall prognosis. For patients with MCL who fail initial therapy (ie, with relapsed or refractory [R/R] disease), treatment options historically have been limited. While remission duration is generally short, the goal of therapy has been to achieve remission while balancing treatment-related toxicities. Consequently, a substantial proportion of patients continuously suffer from lymphoma symptoms and other disease signs, such as itching and trouble sleeping or concentrating. Additionally, worries and high emotional sensitivity lead to reduced functional status and well-being. Therefore, it is crucial to any treatment to maintain and improve the functional status and well-being of patients with R/R MCL for as long as possible throughout the treatment period. Methods RAY (MCL3001) is a phase 3, randomized, open-label, multicenter study in patients with R/R MCL. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive ibrutinib (560 mg once daily) or temsirolimus (175 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of Cycle 1; 75 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of subsequent cycles). Stratification factors were the number of prior lines of therapy (1-2 vs ³3) and simplified MCL international prognostic index risk (low [0-3] vs intermediate [4-5] vs high [6-11]). Patients in both arms received treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary end point of the study was progression-free survival (PFS), as assessed by an independent review committee. Lymphoma symptoms were assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lymphoma (FACT-Lym) questionnaire lymphoma subscale. The FACT-Lym was administered before any tests, procedures, or other consultations, and was used until disease progression, death, or the clinical cutoff, whichever came first. Median time to worsening (TTW), a prespecified secondary end point, and time to clinically meaningful improvement (TTI) on the lymphoma subscale were estimated. Worsening was defined as a ≥ 5-point decrease from baseline and clinically meaningful improvement as a ≥ 5-point increase from baseline. TTW and TTI on the lymphoma subscale were examined using Kaplan-Meier methods. Results In total, 280 patients were randomized to ibrutinib (n = 139) or temsirolimus (n = 141); 253 patients (ibrutinib, n = 130; temsirolimus, n = 123) provided FACT-Lym lymphoma subscale responses at baseline. Patients were compliant to therapy, and attrition was balanced between treatment arms. Disease characteristics and demographics at baseline (including FACT-Lym lymphoma subscale scores) were also generally well balanced. The study met its primary end point with a statistically significant 57% reduction in disease progression or death (PFS) with ibrutinib versus temsirolimus (hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.58; p < 0.0001). The median PFS was 14.6 months for the ibrutinib arm and 6.2 months for the temsirolimus arm. When adjusted for exposure, incidence of TEAEs was lower for the ibrutinib arm than the temsirolimus arm. The proportion of patients with worsening from baseline on the FACT-Lym lymphoma subscale was lower for ibrutinib compared with temsirolimus (26.6% vs 51.8%, respectively). Median TTW was not reached with ibrutinib versus 9.7 weeks with temsirolimus, with a statistically significant reduction in the risk of worsening of 73% (p < 0.0001; Figure 1). The proportion of patients with a clinically meaningful improvement from baseline on the FACT-Lym lymphoma subscale was higher for ibrutinib compared with temsirolimus (61.9% vs 35.5%, respectively). Median TTI was shorter for ibrutinib compared with temsirolimus (6.3 weeks vs 57.3 weeks, respectively; HR, 2.19; p < 0.0001; Figure 2). Conclusions RAY (MCL3001) is the first trial comparing different targeted approaches in R/R MCL. The presented data indicate that ibrutinib is associated with greater improvements and less worsening in lymphoma symptoms compared with temsirolimus, as measured by the lymphoma subscale of the FACT-Lym. These results suggest that the superior efficacy results and favorable safety profile of ibrutinib are accompanied by better lymphoma symptom outcomes, indicating significant clinical benefit for the majority of patients with R/R MCL. Disclosures Hess: Pfizer, Janssen, Roche, Mundipharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen, Roche, Celgene, Novartis: Consultancy. Rule:J&J: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement; Gilead: Research Funding. Jurczak:CELLTRION, Inc,: Research Funding. Rusconi:Roche: Honoraria. Witzens-Harig:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria. Bandyopadhyay:Janssen: Employment. Goldberg:Janssen: Employment. Bothos:Janssen: Employment. Enny:Janssen: Employment. Vermeulen:Janssen: Employment. Traina:Janssen: Employment.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207