MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908094279 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-184

MURANO Trial Establishes Feasibility of Time-Limited Venetoclax-Rituximab (VenR) Combination Therapy in Relapsed/Refractory (R/R) Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)

2018· article· en· W2908094279 on OpenAlexaff
John F. Seymour, Thomas J. Kipps, Barbara Eichhorst, Peter Hillmen, James D’Rozario, Sarit Assouline, Carolyn Owen, Tadeusz Robak, Javier de la Serna, Ulrich Jaeger, Guillaume Cartron, Marco Montillo, Nicole Lamanna, Maria E. Verdugo, Elizabeth A. Punnoose, Yanwen Jiang, Jue Wang, Michelle Boyer, Kathryn Humphrey, Mehrdad Mobasher, Arnon P. Kater

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVenetoclaxMedicineBendamustineRituximabInternal medicineVenGastroenterologyNeutropeniaMinimal residual diseaseRefractory (planetary science)Chronic lymphocytic leukemiaOncologyLeukemiaChemotherapyLymphoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Venetoclax (Ven) is a highly selective oral inhibitor of BCL2, a key regulator of the intrinsic apoptotic pathway, which is constitutively overexpressed in CLL. Efficacy and safety of VenR given for a fixed duration in R/R CLL was evaluated in the randomized Phase III MURANO study compared with standard bendamustine + rituximab (BR). A first pre-planned analysis, when the majority of patients (pts) were still on study treatment (median follow-up 23.8 mo), established a superior PFS of VenR over BR (Seymour et al. NEJM 2018). With all pts having completed therapy, we analysed long-term outcome with a median follow up of 36.0 mo. Methods Pts were randomized to receive 6 cycles of VenR followed by Ven 400mg once daily for a total of 2 yrs, or 6 cycles of BR. Disease status was assessed by CT scan at screening, Cycle (C) 4 and 2−3 mo after end of combination therapy (EOCT). During Ven single agent and at follow-up visits, response was determined by clinical assessment every 3 mo until 3 yrs of follow-up, then every 6 mo thereafter or until PD. PFS status was based on investigator assessment. Peripheral blood (PB) minimal residual disease (MRD) was analysed centrally by ASO-PCR and/or flow cytometry at C4, EOCT and every 3/6 mo thereafter. All p values are descriptive. Results In total, 389 pts were enrolled in VenR (n=194) or BR (n=195) arms. As of May 8 2018, all pts were off treatment. For BR, 154 (79%) had completed 6 cycles. In the VenR arm, 174 (90%) completed the VenR combination phase and 130 (67%) had completed 2 yrs of Ven. The remainder had PD (11%), died (1%), or withdrew due to AEs (15%) or other reason (6%). Median Ven exposure duration and relative dose intensity were 24.4 (range 0-27.9) mo and 97.4% (26-100%), respectively, overall and 17.7 (0.5-21.9) mo and 99% during Ven single-agent therapy. With a median time off Ven after 2 yrs treatment of 9.9 (1.4-22.5) mo, PFS with VenR remains superior to BR (HR, 0.16 [95% CI 0.12, 0.23]; p<0.0001; median not reached vs 17.0 mo; Figure 1). 3-year PFS estimate was 71.4% (95% CI 64.8%, 78.1%) vs 15.2% (95% CI 9.1%, 21.4%) respectively. Consistent magnitude of treatment effect on PFS with VenR was observed in all clinical and biological subgroups (Figure 2). For pts who completed 2 yrs of Ven (n=130), 6 and 12 mo PFS estimates were 92% (95% CI 87.3, 96.8) and 87% (95% CI 81.1, 93.8), respectively (Figure 3). 16/130 pts developed PD after completion of Ven; of these, 14 were MRD-positive at >1% in PB at Mo 24 (when Ven single agent was scheduled to cease) and 10/16 pts had del(17p)/TP53 mutation at baseline. Clinical and cytogenetic risk factors in pts with and without PD after Mo 24 are in Table 1. In this analysis, OS improvement was seen with VenR over BR (HR, 0.50 [95% CI 0.30, 0.85]; p=0.0093; 3-yr rate: 87.9% vs 79.5%; Figure 4). Subsequent CLL-directed treatment was given after PD in 91 pts in the BR arm. 71/91 (78%) BR arm pts received novel targeted agents, including 45 who had ibrutinib and 7 who had Ven. 27/194 (14%) pts in the VenR arm received subsequent therapy: 13/27 (44%) had novel targeted agents as next treatment, including 8 pts who had ibrutinib and 3 who were re-treated with Ven. See Table 2 for a safety overview for VenR combination and Ven single-agent periods. During Ven single agent: 17/171 pts (10%) had an AE leading to drug withdrawal; 7/171 pts (4%) had an AE leading to dose reduction; 44/171 pts (26%) had a Ven dose interruption due to an AE; 7/171 pts (4%) had a fatal AE (4 other cancers, 2 cardiac, 1 pneumonia). Grade 3-4 AEs occurred in 59/171 pts (35%); the most frequent were neutropenia (20 pts, 12%), anemia (5 pts, 3%), and thrombocytopenia (3 pts, 2%). 12/171 (7%) pts had a grade 3-4 infection in the Ven single-agent phase. The total number of Richter transformation events was 7 with VenR and 6 with BR. Conclusions With all pts off treatment and 3 yrs' median follow-up, continued substantial benefit was observed with VenR, with PFS and OS superior to BR. There were no new safety signals; most pts were able to complete treatment. The rate of CLL progression in the first 12 mo after Ven completion was modest (13%), supporting the feasibility and safety of a time-limited VenR duration. The protocol has been amended to include assessment of response and durability of disease control with VenR reintroduction at PD. This updated analysis of this Phase III global randomized study demonstrates clinically meaningful benefit of the VenR chemotherapy-free regimen with a fixed duration in all pts with R/R CLL. Disclosures Seymour: AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Kipps:Genentech Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Eichhorst:AbbVie, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Mundipharma, Novartis, Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding. Hillmen:Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Assouline:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Owen:Teva: Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; AbbVie: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding. Robak:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy; AbbVie, Inc: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. de la Serna:Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jaeger:Takeda-Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda-Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bioverativ: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Research Funding; AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Cartron:Gilead Sciences: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria. Montillo:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Lamanna:Acerta: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jannsen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.274 · 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.

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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207