MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980125828 · doi:10.1182/blood.v128.22.615.615

Obinutuzumab plus Bendamustine Followed by Obinutuzumab Maintenance Prolongs Overall Survival Compared with Bendamustine Alone in Patients with Rituximab-Refractory Indolent Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: Updated Results of the GADOLIN Study

2016· article· en· W2980125828 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce D. Cheson, Marek Trněný, Kamal Bouabdallah, Greg Dueck, John G. Gribben, Pieternella J. Lugtenburg, Oliver W. Press, Gilles Salles, Günter Fingerle‐Rowson, Federico Mattiello, Elisabeth Wassner-Fritsch, Laurie H. Sehn

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObinutuzumabBendamustineRituximabInternal medicineNeutropeniaRefractory (planetary science)Clinical endpointAdverse effectSurgeryGastroenterologyOncologyClinical trialLymphomaChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Treatment options for patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL) are limited. GADOLIN (NCT01059630) is an open-label, randomized, Phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and safety of obinutuzumab (GA101; GAZYVA/GAZYVARO; G) plus bendamustine (B) induction, followed by G maintenance (G-B arm), with B induction (standard of care) in rituximab-refractory iNHL pts. In the primary analysis, which involved all pts enrolled as of September 1, 2014 (n=396; median observation time, 21.0 months [mo]), median Independent Review Committee (IRC)-assessed progression-free survival (PFS; primary endpoint) was longer in the G-B arm (194 pts; median not reached) than in the B arm (202 pts; 14.9 mo), with a 45% reduction in risk of progression or death (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.40, 0.74; p=0.0001). Investigator (INV)-assessed PFS was also significantly longer in the G-B arm, but overall survival (OS) data were immature. Safety profiles were comparable. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, and infusion-related reactions (IRRs). Seventeen additional pts were enrolled after the data cut-off for the primary analysis. Here, we report updated time-to-event and safety results from a planned analysis of all pts (n=413) using a data cut-off of April 1, 2016. Methods: Enrolled pts were aged ≥18 years (yrs) with documented rituximab-refractory iNHL and an ECOG performance status of 0-2. Pts received either G 1000mg i.v. (days [D] 1, 8, and 15 of cycle [C] 1, and D1 of C2-6) plus B 90mg/m2/day i.v. (D1 and 2 of C1-6), or B monotherapy (120mg/m2/day i.v., D1 and 2 of C1-6); each cycle was 28 days. Following induction, pts in the G-B arm without evidence of progression received G maintenance (1000mg i.v. every 2 mo for 2 yrs or until disease progression, whichever occurred first). In the current analysis, assessments included INV-assessed PFS, OS, time to new anti-lymphoma treatment (TTNT), and safety. Efficacy assessment was performed on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety analysis included all pts who received any study treatment, excluding 2 pts who crossed over to G-B during maintenance. Results: Of 413 iNHL pts in the ITT population (G-B, 204; B, 209), 335 (G-B, 164; B, 171) had FL. Baseline characteristics of the ITT population were balanced between arms. Median number of prior regimens was 2 in both arms (pts with ≤2 prior regimens: G-B, 80.4%; B, 77.5%). Most pts were refractory to their last regimen (G-B, 92.2%; B, 92.3%). After 31.8 mo median follow-up, median INV-assessed PFS was 25.8 mo in the G-B arm and 14.1 mo in the B arm; HR was 0.57 (95% CI 0.44, 0.73; p<0.0001), i.e. a 43% reduction in risk of progression or death for G-B relative to B. Fewer pts died in the G-B arm (25.5%) than the B arm (34.9%), with a HR for OS of 0.67 (95% CI 0.47, 0.96; p=0.0269; risk reduction, 33%; Figure 1A); median OS was not reached for either arm. Results for FL pts were consistent with those for ITT pts (median PFS: 25.3 vs. 14.0 mo [HR 0.52; 95% CI 0.39, 0.69; p<0.0001]; median OS: not reached vs. 53.9 mo [HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.39, 0.86; p=0.0061; Figure 1B]). Median TTNT was also longer in the G-B arm than in the B arm (ITT pts: 40.8 vs. 19.4 mo, respectively [HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.45, 0.77]; FL pts: 33.6 vs. 18.0 mo, respectively [HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.43, 0.75]). The overall safety profile of G-B remained consistent with results of the primary analysis. In the ITT population, there were more grade ≥3 AEs with G-B than with B (72.5% vs. 65.5%, respectively), notably neutropenia (34.8% vs. 27.1%) and IRRs (9.3% vs. 3.5%); grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia (10.8% vs. 15.8%) and anemia (7.4% vs. 10.8%) were less frequent in the G-B arm, while grade ≥3 infections (22.5 % vs. 19.2%) and secondary malignancies (5.9% vs. 5.4%) were reported with a similar incidence. Serious AEs were more frequent in the G-B arm (43.6% vs. 36.9%), but the incidence of grade 5 (fatal) AEs was similar (7.8% vs. 6.4%). Safety results in FL pts were comparable with those in all iNHL pts. Conclusions: Updated analysis of the GADOLIN study with ~10 mo additional follow-up confirms the previously reported PFS benefit of G-B over B in pts with rituximab-refractory iNHL, and demonstrates a significant improvement in OS in the G-B arm. No new safety signals were detected. Figure 1. OS results: A) ITT population; B) FL pts Figure 1. OS results: A) ITT population; B) FL pts Disclosures Cheson: Roche-Genentech: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Teva: Research Funding. Trněný:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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, Research Funding. Dueck:Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Lundbeck: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lugtenburg:Celgene: Consultancy; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Salles:Mundipharma: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Fingerle-Rowson:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mattiello:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment. Wassner-Fritsch:elisabeth.wassner_fritsch@roche.com: Employment. Sehn:Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Lundbeck: Consultancy.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations49
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207