MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899509505 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-111178

Ibrutinib Treatment in Waldenström's Macroglobulinemia: Follow-up Efficacy and Safety from the iNNOVATETM Study

2018· article· en· W2899509505 on OpenAlexaff
Christian Buske, Alessandra Tedeschi, Judith Trotman, Ramón García‐Sánz, D. Blair Macdonald, Véronique Leblond, Beatrice Mahé, Charles Herbaux, Constantine S. Tam, M. Lia Palomba, Jeffrey Matous, Chaim Shustik, Eftathios Kastritis, Steven P. Treon, Chih‐Jian Lih, Jianling Li, Zeena Salman, Thorsten Graef, Meletios Α. Dimopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreRoyal Victoria Regional Health CentreOttawa HospitalRoyal Victoria HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIbrutinibWaldenstrom macroglobulinemiaMacroglobulinemiaLymphoplasmacytic LymphomaMedicineInternal medicineOncologyChronic lymphocytic leukemiaLeukemiaLymphomaMultiple myeloma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background : Rituximab (RTX) is commonly used to treat Waldenström's macroglobulinemia (WM). Treatment options are limited for patients (pts) who fail rituximab therapy. Single-agent ibrutinib (ibr) is highly active in WM and is approved in the United States and Europe for WM. In the phase 3 iNNOVATE study, ibr plus RTX resulted in significantly longer PFS and higher response rates vs RTX alone, both among TN and previously treated pts with WM (Dimopoulos MA, et al. N Engl J Med. 2018). Previous reports from the open-label, single-agent substudy showed sustained responses and a manageable toxicity profile in RTX-refractory WM, with a median follow-up of 18.1 mo (Dimopoulos MA, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2016). Follow-up data from both the randomized portion (median follow-up of 30.4 mo) and substudy (median follow-up of 38.7 mo) of iNNOVATE are presented. Methods : Pts had confirmed, symptomatic WM requiring treatment. Pts in the randomized portion (Arms A and B) with prior RTX therapy required a response (≥MR) to their last RTX-based regimen. Pts were randomized to daily 420 mg ibr (Arm A; IR) or placebo (Arm B; R) plus RTX (375 mg/m2/week IV at weeks 1-4 and 17-20). In Arm C, pts who failed to achieve ≥MR or relapsed <12 mo of their last RTX-containing therapy received daily 420 mg ibr until PD/unacceptable toxicity. Endpoints included PFS, response rates, OS, hemoglobin (Hb) improvement, time to next treatment (TTnT), pt-reported outcomes (PROs) and safety. Results : A total of 150 pts were randomized to Arms A and B (n=75/arm; Table 1). Median age was 69 y. High IPSSWM was reported in 38% of pts; 45% of pts were treatment naïve. With prolonged follow-up and a median duration of treatment of 29.5 mo with IR and 15.5 mo with R, investigator-assessed major response rates (≥PR) were 77% with IR vs 33% with R (P<0.0001); ORRs (≥MR) were 95% vs 48% (P<0.0001), respectively. With continued IR treatment, 27% of pts achieved a VGPR compared to only 3% in the R arm. Major responses with IR stayed robust independent of MYD88/CXCR genotype, with time to major response of 1.8, 2.9, and 5.7 mo for MYD88L265P/CXCR4WT, MYD88L265P/CXCR4WHIM, and MYD88WT/CXCR4WT, respectively. Median investigator-assessed PFS was not reached (NR) with IR vs 20.3 mo (95% CI: 11.6-31.3) with R (HR=0.219 [0.122-0.393]; P<0.0001); estimated 30-mo PFS was 79% vs 41%. Importantly, among pts receiving IR, 30-mo PFS estimates did not show any major differences among the different genotypes. The 30-mo OS estimate was 93% with IR vs 90% with R; 31 pts on R crossed over to IR after IRC-confirmed PD. Treatment with IR was ongoing in 73% of pts; the most common reasons for discontinuation of ibr were disease progression and pt withdrawal of consent (9% each); 35% of pts who received R were in response follow-up after the interim analysis. The AE profile in the IR arm was consistent with previous reports. Overall, grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 61% of pts in both arms. Incidence of grade ≥3 AEs was 53% during the first 12 months of treatment in the IR arm and increased 8% with longer follow up. Serious AEs occurred in 43% of IR pts vs 33% of R pts. Similarly, incidence of serious AEs was 39% during the first 12 months of treatment with IR and increased 4% with longer follow up. In Arm C, 31 pts received single-agent ibr (Table 1). Median age was 67 y. Most (71%) pts had ≥3 prior therapies; all patients were RTX-refractory and 90% had prior treatment with cyclophosphamide. High IPSSWM was reported in 42% of pts. With longer follow-up, median investigator-assessed PFS was NR (95% CI: 27.6-NR); estimated 36-mo PFS was 61%. Major response rate by investigator assessment was 77% and ORR was 90%. The estimated 36-mo OS was 84%. Improved Hb level was seen in 71% of pts. Treatment was ongoing in 52% of pts. Median duration of ibr treatment was 37.0 mo, with no major hemorrhagic or atrial fibrillation events reported. Grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 74% of pts and 39% had serious AEs. No fatal AEs were reported. Conclusions : IR showed continued superiority over R, in treatment-naïve and previously treated pts with WM, regardless of genotypic factors. Similarly, in heavily pretreated, RTX-refractory pts with follow-up >3 y, single-agent ibr was highly active and response improved over time. Alone or in combination, ibr had a manageable safety profile and no new safety signals were identified with longer follow-up. Disclosures Buske: Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding. Tedeschi:Gilead: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Trotman:Beigene: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; PCYC: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Jassen: Research Funding. García-Sanz:Spanish Government: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Hospira: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Amgen Inc.: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. MacDonald:Roche: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria. Leblond:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Herbaux:Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Tam:Beigene: Honoraria, Other: Travel funding; Roche: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Travel funding; Gilead: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria, Other: Travel funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Palomba:Seres: Honoraria, Patents & Royalties; Juno: Honoraria, Patents & Royalties; Merck: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Therakos: Consultancy. Matous:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Shustik:Amgen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Kastritis:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Genesis Pharma: Consultancy; Prothena: Consultancy. Treon:Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; BMS: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding. Lih:Abbvie: Employment, Equity Ownership; Abbvie/Pharmacyclics: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Li:Pharmacyclics: Employment; Abbvie: Equity Ownership; BMS: Equity Ownership; Pfizer: Equity Ownership; Abbott: Equity Ownership; Amgen: Equity Ownership; Gilead: Equity Ownership; Biogen: Equity Ownership; Celgene: Equity Ownership; Medivation: Equity Ownership; Merck: Equity Ownership; Exelixis: Equity Ownership; Juno: Equity Ownership; Isis: Equity Ownership; Aduro: Equity Ownership; Merrimack: Equity Ownership. Salman:Pharmacyclics LLC: Employment, Equity Ownership; Abbvie: Equity Ownership. Graef:Abbvie: Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties; Pharmacyclics: Employment, Other: Leadership, Patents & Royalties. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score0.699

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations24
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207