MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Randomized phase 3 trial of ibrutinib/rituximab vs placebo/rituximab in Waldenström's macroglobulinemia.

2018· article· en· W2889637655 on OpenAlexaff
Meletios Α. Dimopoulos, Alessandra Tedeschi, Judith Trotman, Ramón García‐Sánz, David MacDonald, Véronique Leblond, Beatrice Mahé, Charles Herbaux, Constantine S. Tam, Maria Lia Palomba, Jeffrey Matous, Chaim Shustik, Efstathios Kastritis, Steven P. Treon, Jianling Li, Zeena Salman, Thorsten Graef, Christian Buske

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreRoyal Victoria Regional Health CentreOttawa HospitalRoyal Victoria HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRituximabInternal medicineWaldenstrom macroglobulinemiaGastroenterologyClinical endpointPlaceboRegimenMacroglobulinemiaRandomized controlled trialSurgeryLymphomaPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

8003 Background: Single-agent ibrutinib (ibr) is highly active in relapsed Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia (WM) and is approved in the US and EU for WM. We report the results of a multinational, prospective, randomized trial of ibr/rituximab (IR) vs placebo/rituximab (R) in WM at a preplanned interim analysis. Methods: Pts with confirmed symptomatic WM were randomized to daily ibr (420 mg) or placebo, both with R (375 mg/m2/wk IV for infusions at wks 1-4 and 17-20). Pts treated with a prior R-based regimen required a response (≥MR) to the last R therapy. The primary endpoint was PFS by IRC. We also report response rates, Hb improvement, TTnT, OS, and safety. Results: For 150 randomized pts, median age was 69 y; 38% had a high IPSSWM; 45% were treatment-naïve. MYD88L265P and CXCR4WHIM mutations were found in 85% and 36% of 136 pts with available data. At median follow-up of 26.5 mo, IR prolonged PFS compared with R (median PFS, not reached [NR] vs 20 mo; HR, 0.20; CI: 0.11-0.38, P < 0.0001); 30-mo PFS rates were 82% vs 28%. PFS improved in all relevant subgroups, including treatment-naïve (HR, 0.34; CI: 0.12-0.95), relapsed (HR, 0.17; CI: 0.08-0.36), MYD88L265P/CXCR4WT (HR, 0.17; CI: 0.06-0.49), MYD88L265P/CXCR4WHIM (HR, 0.24; CI: 0.09-0.66), and MYD88WT/CXCR4WT (HR, 0.21; CI: 0.04-1.1). Overall (≥MR) and major (≥PR) response rates by IRC were higher for IR vs R, 92% vs 47% and 72% vs 32% (both P < 0.0001). Improvements in Hb were seen in 73% vs 41% of IR and R patients (P < 0.0001). 75% of IR pts continued on treatment. Median TTnT was NR for IR and 18 mo for R (HR, 0.096; P < 0.0001). The 30-mo OS rates were 94% vs 92% in the 2 arms. With median time on treatment of 25.8 mo for IR, grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 60% vs 61% of pts on each arm. Serious AEs occurred in 43% vs 33% of pts on IR vs R, whereas no fatal AEs occurred with IR and 3 with R. Meaningful reductions in any grade IgM flare (8% vs 47%) and grade ≥3 infusion reactions were observed (1% vs 16%) with IR. Conclusions: The IR combination demonstrated superior efficacy to R, producing significant improvements in PFS for all WM patients regardless of prognostic or genotypic factors with a predictable toxicity profile. IR should be considered a standard therapeutic option for patients with WM. Clinical trial information: NCT02165397.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.396 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207