MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2912934187 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-114484

Results of the Primary Analysis of Complement A+B: A Phase III Study of Ofatumumab in Combination with Bendamustine Versus Bendamustine Alone in Patients with Indolent Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma That Is Unresponsive Following Rituximab or Rituximab-Containing Regimen

2018· article· en· W2912934187 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mathias Rummel, Ann Janssens, David MacDonald, Mary‐Margaret Keating, Jan Maciej Zaucha, Jaclyn Davis, Janet Lasher, Nathalie Lobe, Miguel Izquierdo, Jonathan W. Friedberg

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBendamustineMedicineOfatumumabRituximabRegimenInternal medicinePhases of clinical researchGastroenterologyClinical endpointLymphomaSurgeryChemotherapyClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Despite a variety of treatment options, indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (iNHL) remains a largely incurable disease with patients experiencing multiple relapses. Both rituximab (RTX) and bendamustine (Benda) are used as single agents for the treatment of relapsed/refractory iNHL. When given in combination to patients with relapsed iNHL, high response rates were observed (Rummel, 2016). Ofatumumab (OFA) is a human, anti-CD20 type-I antibody that binds a distinct epitope from RTX. A phase I/II study showed that OFA has activity in patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) who relapsed after RTX-containing therapy (Hagenbeek, 2008). Based on these experiences, COMPLEMENT A+B evaluated if OFA+Benda would improve progression-free survival (PFS) compared to Benda alone in unresponsive or progressive iNHL after RTX or RTX-containing regimen. Methods: This phase III, open-label, randomized, global, multi-center study enrolled adult patients (≥18 years) with CD20+ small lymphocytic, marginal zone, lymphophasmacytic and Grades 1-3A FL who had either stable disease after or disease progression during or within 6 months of RTX or RTX-containing regimen. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive either OFA+Benda or Benda. Benda (90 mg/m2 in OFA+Benda arm and 120 mg/m2 in Bendaarm) was given on Days 1 and 2 every 21 days for up to 8 cycles. OFA (1000 mg) was given on Day 1 of Benda cycles and then every 28 days for a total of 12 doses. The primary endpoint was PFS as assessed by an independent review committee (IRC). Key secondary endpoints included PFS in patients with FL, overall response rates (ORR) and overall survival (OS) in all patients and in patients with FL which were tested hierarchically if the prior endpoint was statistically significant. Results: Overall, 346 patients were enrolled (173 in each arm) in 85 centers across 15 countries. Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 arms. Median (range) age was 62 (21-87) years, majority were males (59%) and 69% had FL. Ann Arbor Stage IVA was common (OFA+Benda: 43%; Benda: 42%). Median duration of follow up was 61.1 months. Median treatment duration was longer in the OFA+Benda arm (OFA+Benda: 260 days; Benda: 135 days). Median (range) number of prior RTX therapy was 1 (1-8). In the OFA+Benda arm, 58% and 65% completed treatment with OFA and Benda, respectively, whereas in the Benda arm, 43% completed treatment. The main reason for premature discontinuation of OFA treatment in OFA+Benda arm was adverse events (AEs), 14%. The main reason for premature treatment discontinuation of Benda was AEs (OFA+Benda: 17%; Benda: 27%). Primary analysis was performed after 217 IRC-assessed PFS events occurred. In the OFA+Benda and Benda arms, 61% and 65% of patients, respectively, had PFS events (Figure 1). Median IRC-assessed PFS was 16.7 months in the OFA+Benda arm and 13.8 months in the Benda arm (hazard ratio [HR]=0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.62, 1.07]; p=0.1390). Similar results were seen in patients with FL where the median IRC-assessed PFS was similar in FL patients - 16.6 months in the OFA+Benda arm and 12.1 months in the Benda arm (HR=0.76, 95% CI [0.55,1.06]; p=0.1076) (Figure 2). IRC-assessed ORR was similar in both arms (OFA+Benda: 73%; Benda: 75%; difference in ORR [95% C]: -1.2% [-10.4%, 8.1]; p=0.8003). Median OS was 58.2 months and 51.8 months in the OFA+Benda and Benda arms, respectively (HR=0.89, 95% CI [0.63, 1.25]; p=0.4968). Frequencies of deaths (OFA+Benda: 38%; Benda: 41%) and on-treatment deaths (OFA+Benda: 7%; Benda: 9%) were similar in both arms. The main cause of death during the study was disease under study (OFA+Benda: 20%; Benda: 15%). Overall, 73% of patients in the OFA+Benda arm and 80% in the Benda arm experienced a ≥ Grade 3 AE. The most common ≥ Grade 3 AEs were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, and leukopenia (Table 1). Conclusions: No significant improvement in PFS was seen with OFA+Benda as compared with Benda alone for patients with RTX-refractory iNHL. The safety profile for OFA was consistent with prior experience. The difference in outcomes compared to those in the GADOLIN trial (Sehn, 2016) could be due to the differences in drug exposure as patients in the GADOLIN study received maintenance anti-CD 20 therapy for up to 2 years; in the patient population as approximately 80% had FL in GADOLIN versus 69% in COMPLEMENT A+B; and in the mechanism of action of type-1 versus type-2 monoclonal antibody. Disclosures Rummel: Mundipharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Symbio: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Honoraria; Eisai: Honoraria. Janssens:Sanofi-Genzyme: Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Ad board, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Ad board, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. MacDonald:Roche Canada: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria. Keating:Bayer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Davis:Novartis: Employment. Lasher:Novartis: Employment. Lobe:Novartis: Employment. Izquierdo:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Friedberg:Bayer: 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 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 score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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