MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922464087 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-116806

Efficacy and Safety of Venetoclax (Ven) + Rituximab (R) or Ven + Bendamustine (B) + R Randomized Versus B + R in Patients (pts) with Relapsed/Refractory (R/R) Follicular Lymphoma (FL): Final Analysis of Phase II CONTRALTO Study

2018· article· en· W2922464087 on OpenAlexaffabout
Pier Luigi Zinzani, Ian W. Flinn, Sam Yuen, Max S. Topp, Chiara Rusconi, Isabelle Fleury, Christopher Arthur, Barbara Pro, Giuseppe Gritti, Michael Crump, Katell Le Dû, Divya Samineni, Arijit Sinha, Elizabeth A. Punnoose, Edith Szafer‐Glusman, Nathalie Danesi, Adam M. Petrich, Martin Kornacker, Kathryn Humphrey, Mehrdad Mobasher, Wolfgang Hiddemann

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversité de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVenMedicineInternal medicineVenetoclaxBendamustineRituximabGastroenterologyClinical endpointRegimenChronic lymphocytic leukemiaRandomized controlled trialLymphomaLeukemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction FL is characterized by the translocation t(14;18), resulting in constitutive overexpression of the key anti-apoptotic protein BCL2. Ven, a selective, potent oral inhibitor of BCL2, has shown profound efficacy combined with anti-CD20 antibodies in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and is in development for treating other hematologic malignancies, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Preclinical and early clinical data in indolent NHL suggest addition of Ven to R or chemo may improve efficacy. The open-label CONTRALTO study (NCT02187861) assessed efficacy and safety of a chemo-free regimen with Ven+R or randomized Ven + standard chemoimmunotherapy regimen BR vs BR for treatment of R/R FL. Methods Pts ≥18 yrs, with confirmed grade (Gr) 1-3a R/R FL, ≥1 line of prior therapy for lymphoma, and adequate hematologic and organ function with no history of B-refractory disease (chemo arms), were assigned at investigators' discretion to receive Ven+R or be randomized to BR +/- Ven, with stratification by 1 vs 0 GELF criteria and ≥ vs <12-mo duration of response (DOR) to prior treatment. The Ven+R arm comprised Ven 800mg daily for 1 yr + R (wk 1-4, mo 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12). After a safety run-in with Ven 600mg, pts in chemo arms were randomized 1:1 to Ven+BR (Ven 800mg daily for 1 yr+ 6 cycles standard BR) or BR. The primary endpoint was 6-mo (end of induction) complete metabolic response rate (CMR) assessed by Lugano 2014 criteria. Secondary endpoints included 1-yr CMR, progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and exploratory biomarker assessments. Pts were followed 6-monthly for safety and efficacy for up to 2 yrs. The final visit was March 15 2018. Results 163 pts were enrolled; 52 received Ven+R, 9 in the safety run-in, 51 Ven+BR, 51 BR (Table 1). Median lines of prior treatment: 3 (1-6) in both Ven-treated arms and 2 (1-4) in BR arm. Ann Arbor stages III/IV: 88%, 73.5%, and 72.5% of pts in Ven+R, Ven+BR and BR arms, respectively. BCL2 expression by IHC and BCL2 translocations were observed in most pts (88% and 81% respectively); expression of MCL1 (1%) and BCLxL (29%) were low. 44 pts (90%) in Ven+BR arm required dose interruptions/modifications of any therapy compared with 21 (42%) in BR and 30 (58%) in Ven+R; most were of Ven: 20 (38.5%) in Ven+R arm and 43 (88%) in Ven+BR. 17 pts (35%) in Ven+BR arm and 2 (4%) in Ven+R discontinued Ven early. 30 pts (61%) in Ven+BR arm required dose interruption/modification of B versus 20 (40%) in BR; 10 pts (20%) in Ven+BR and 2 (4%) in BR discontinued B. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were the most common Gr 3-4 adverse events (AEs) overall (Table 2B), and led to dose interruptions/modifications. They were highest in Ven+BR arm (59% neutropenia, 45% thrombocytopenia). Serious AEs were seen more frequently with Ven+BR (Table 2A) than Ven+R or BR; most were infection/infestation events: 22% Ven+BR, 11.5% Ven+R, 8% BR. In Ven+R arm, 17% of pts reached CMR at 6 mo; 25% achieved CMR as best overall response (BOR), of whom all achieved minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity at mid-induction. A population of pts who were non-refractory to prior therapy had improved response (54% overall response rate, 35% CMR as BOR). Six-mo CMR rates were 74% and 68% with Ven+BR and BR, respectively, and were equal at 1 yr (Table 3). PFS analysis did not show a difference between these arms (adjusted HR, 0.69; p=0.2088). Although only 61.2% of pts in Ven+BR arm had ≥90% B dose intensity vs 95.8% in BR arm, efficacy in the 2 arms was comparable in CMR and PFS. Of note, pts maintaining all cycles of Ven+BR had a 6-mo CMR of 100%. Efficacy was comparable in biomarker subgroups, and did not identify clear predictors of response. Conclusion Ven+R had an acceptable toxicity in the population studied; this arm included a high number of pts with refractory status and shorter DOR to prior treatments, potentially leading to modest overall efficacy. Improved response rates and MRD negativity, and longer PFS were observed in a subgroup of pts with non-refractory FL, showing efficacy of Ven+R in FL. Addition of Ven to BR at the dose and schedule studied resulted in increased toxicity (Gr 3-4 cytopenias and gastrointestinal events), leading to dose interruptions/discontinuations, with consequent limitation of overall tolerability. However, despite lower dose intensity of BR in Ven+BR arm, efficacy remained the same between the 2 chemo-containing arms, mandating optimal dose delivery for improved efficacy in combination with chemo in future studies. Disclosures Zinzani: Merck: 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; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: 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; MSD: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; PFIZER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; 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; 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; TG Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Flinn:Portola: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; Calithera: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Yuen:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Topp:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding. Rusconi:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria. Fleury:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Lundbeck: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Pro:Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; kiowa: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; portola: Honoraria. Gritti:Autolus: Consultancy. Crump:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; Servier Canada: Consultancy; Jansen-Ortho: Consultancy. Samineni:Genentech Inc: Employment, Other: Ownership interests non-PLC. Sinha:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment. Punnoose:Roche: Equity Ownership; Genentech Inc: Employment. Szafer-Glusman:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment, Other: Ownership interests PLC. Danesi:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment. Petrich:Abbvie: Employment, Other: Ownership interests PLC. Kornacker:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment. Humphrey:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mobasher:Genentech Inc: Employment; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Other: Ownership interests non-PLC. Hiddemann:F. Hoffman-La Roche: Consultancy, 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; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.870

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207