MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2914020209 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-116715

Outcomes for Patients with High-Risk Relapsed or Refractory Indolent B-Cell Lymphoma Treated with Copanlisib in the CHRONOS-1 Study

2018· article· en· W2914020209 on OpenAlexaff
Armando Santoro, Luigina Mollica, Sirpa Leppä, George Follows, Georg Lenz, Won Seog Kim, Arnon Nagler, Maria Dimou, Judit Demeter, Massimo Magagnoli, Liana Rodrigues, Oliver Wirtz, Florian Hiemeyer, Li Liu, Karl Koechert, J. Garcia‐Vargas, Barrett H. Childs, Pier Luigi Zinzani, Martin Dreyling

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineFollicular lymphomaBendamustineRegimenPopulationClinical endpointAdverse effectRituximabPhases of clinical researchOncologySalvage therapyNeutropeniaRefractory (planetary science)LymphomaGastroenterologySurgeryChemotherapyClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Previous studies indicate that follicular lymphoma patients who have progression of disease (POD) within 24 months (ie POD24) of receiving frontline chemoimmunotherapy have worse overall survival and thus constitute a high-risk population (Casulo et al. J Clin Oncol 33:2516-2522, 2015; Jurinovic et al., Blood 128:1112-1120, 2016). We have previously reported in the CHRONOS-1 study in patients with relapsed or refractory indolent B-cell lymphoma that treatment with the pan-class I phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitor copanlisib resulted in durable responses with a manageable safety profile (Dreyling et al., J Clin Oncol 35:3898-3905, 2017). We explore here the outcomes for the subset of patients with rapid POD from the CHRONOS-1 study. Methods: Patients with histologically confirmed indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma and relapsed after, or refractory to, ≥2 prior lines of treatment were eligible. Previous treatment had to include rituximab (R) and an alkylating agent or regimen. Copanlisib was administered at a fixed dose of 60 mg via 1-hour I.V. infusion on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Treatment continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary efficacy endpoint was objective response rate after ≥4 cycles as assessed per independent radiologic review (Cheson et al., JCO 20:579, 2007). Secondary efficacy endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Adverse events (AEs) were reported using MedDRA (version 19.1). This exploratory analysis was based on patient's first-line treatment. Results: A total of 140 patients were treated and evaluable for POD based on first-line treatment; the principal histologies were follicular lymphoma (FL; n=102) and marginal zone lymphoma (n=23). First-line treatments in 140 evaluable patients included: 34% R-CHOP, 23% R-other, 21% R-CVP, 18% chemotherapy, and 2% patients R only. For FL patients, 87 of 102 (85%) received some form of R-chemotherapy as first-line treatment. A total of 93 patients (66.4%) progressed in less than 24 months and were deemed the POD<24 group for this analysis; the remaining 47 patients (33.6%) were classified as POD>24. The median time from 1st line treatment to first POD was 11.0 months in the POD<24 and 35.3 months in the POD>24 group. The median number of lines of prior therapy for both groups was 3. The median time to progression for the most recent line of therapy prior to start of copanlisib treatment was also shorter for the POD<24 group (7.0 months; 65.6% refractory) than for the POD>24 group (15.7 months; 48.9% refractory). At the time of data cutoff (February 2018), the median duration of copanlisib treatment was 6.0 months (range 0.2-44.2) for the POD<24 group and 5.0 months (range 0.4-32.2) for POD>24. Whereas the fraction of patients with complete responses (CR) were identical in both groups (17%) [Table], the ORR was 58.1% in the POD<24 group and 68.1% in the POD>24 group. In FL patients the ORR was similar in both groups, but the percent of patients with CR was higher in the POD<24 group (22.1%) compared to the POD>24 group (17.7%). The overall median DOR was 14.9 months and 14.1 months, respectively. Median PFS was 11.3 months in the POD<24 group and 17.6 months in the POD>24 group; approximately 50% censored events in each group. Median OS was 42.6 months in the POD<24 group but had not yet been reached in the POD>24 group. The median duration of safety follow-up was 6.7 months in the POD<24 group and 6.1 months in the POD>24 group. All-grade treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were similar in both groups, with grade (G) 3/4 events 48.4%/33.3% in the POD<24 group and 66.0%/21.3% in the POD>24 group. Serious AEs considered treatment-related occurred in 29.3% of patients (15.0% G3/7.1% G4). There were 3 treatment-related G5 events, 2 (2.2%) in the POD<24 group and 1 (2.1%) in the POD>24 group. Conclusions: Two-thirds of patients treated with copanlisib in the CHRONOS-1 study were considered high-risk based on POD in less than 24 months after first-line therapy, yet the efficacy of copanlisib in both groups was similar. These results suggest that copanlisib treatment should be explored as treatment for patients failing to achieve durable responses in the first-line setting. Disclosures Leppa: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Follows:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lenz:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene Corp.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Demeter:Amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Aramis Pharma: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Angelini: Consultancy. Rodrigues:Bayer: Employment. Wirtz:Bayer: Employment. Hiemeyer:Bayer: Employment. Liu:Bayer: Employment. Koechert:Bayer: Employment. Garcia-Vargas:Bayer: Employment. Childs:Bayer: Employment. Zinzani:PFIZER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Speakers Bureau; TG Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PFIZER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; SERVIER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dreyling: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, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, 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, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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