Sustained Overall Survival Benefit of Obinutuzumab Plus Bendamustine Followed By Obinutuzumab Maintenance Compared with Bendamustine Alone in Patients with Rituximab-Refractory Indolent Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: Final Results of the Gadolin Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: For patients (pts) with relapsed indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL) who develop resistance to rituximab, treatment options are limited and the prognosis is poor. The open-label, randomized, Phase III GADOLIN (NCT01059630) study compared the efficacy and safety of obinutuzumab (GA101; G) plus bendamustine (B) induction, followed by G maintenance (G-B arm), with B induction (B arm; standard of care) in rituximab-refractory iNHL. The primary analysis in 396 pts (data cutoff: September 1, 2014; median observation time, 21.0 months) showed that Independent Review Committee (IRC)-assessed progression-free survival (PFS; primary endpoint) was significantly longer with G-B (median not reached [NR]) vs B (14.9 months), corresponding to a 45% reduction in risk of progression or death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40, 0.74; p=0.0001; Sehn et al. Lancet Oncol 2016). The safety profile of G-B was manageable. Here, we report the final analysis of efficacy and safety for GADOLIN (when safety follow-up for all pts had been completed [2 years' safety follow-up from last dose]; data cutoff: November 30, 2018). Methods: Enrolled pts were aged ≥18 years with documented rituximab-refractory iNHL and an ECOG performance status of 0-2. Pts received either G 1000mg intravenously (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) in 28-day cycles. Following induction, pts in the G-B arm without evidence of progression received G maintenance (1000mg i.v. every 2 months for 2 years or until disease progression). Final analysis endpoints included investigator (INV)-assessed PFS, overall survival (OS), time to new anti-lymphoma treatment (TTNT), and safety. The safety population included pts who received ≥1 dose of study treatment, excluding two pts crossing 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 follicular lymphoma (FL). Median (range) observation time was 57.5 (0.4-97.6) months for the G-B arm and 47.9 (0-100.9) months for the B arm (i.e. 27.6 and 35.6 months additional follow-up since the primary analysis). Median INV-assessed PFS was 25.8 months for the G-B arm vs 14.1 months for the B arm (HR, 0.57; 95% CI: 0.45, 0.73; p<0.0001) in all iNHL pts (Figure 1A). Overall, fewer iNHL pts died in the G-B (84/204; 41.2%) than in the B (100/203; 49.3%) arm; median OS was 88.3 vs 65.6 months (HR, 0.77; 95% CI: 0.57, 1.03; p=0.0810; 23% risk reduction [Figure 1A]). Median TTNT was also longer with G-B vs B (38.2 vs 18.9 months, respectively [HR, 0.60; 95% CI: 0.47, 0.76]). Results for FL pts were as follows: median PFS, 24.1 vs 13.7 months (HR, 0.51; 95% CI: 0.39, 0.67; p<0.0001 [Figure 1B]); median OS, NR vs 60.3 months (HR, 0.71; 95% CI: 0.51, 0.98; p=0.0343); median TTNT, 33.6 vs 18.0 months (HR, 0.56; 95% CI: 0.43, 0.73). In the safety population (N=407; G-B, 204; B, 203), 149/204 (73.0%) of pts in the G-B arm and 134/203 (66.0%) in the B arm experienced grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs). Compared with B, grade ≥3 neutropenia (37.3% vs 30.0%) and grade ≥3 infusion-related reactions (11.3% vs 5.4%) were more frequent with G-B, and grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia (10.8% vs 15.8%) and anemia (7.4% vs 10.8%) were less frequent. The incidences of grade ≥3 infections (22.5% vs 19.2%) and grade ≥3 second malignancies (7.8% vs 5.9%) were similar between arms. The proportion of pts with serious AEs was 91/204 (44.6%) in the G-B arm and 76/203 (37.4%) in the B arm; fatal AEs were reported in 20/204 (9.8%) and 15/203 (7.4%) of pts, respectively. The most frequent AEs leading to death in the G-B vs B arms were infections (six vs seven pts, respectively) and second malignancies (eight vs four pts, respectively). Safety results in FL pts were comparable with all iNHL pts. Conclusions: Final analysis of the GADOLIN study showed that G-B was associated with a 43% reduction in the risk of progression or death compared with B in pts with rituximab-refractory iNHL and a 49% reduction in pts with FL, with a sustained and clinically relevant OS benefit in pts with FL. There were no new safety signals with longer follow-up. Acknowledgments: The GADOLIN study was sponsored by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Third party medical writing assistance, under the direction of Laurie Sehn, was provided by Louise Profit of Gardiner-Caldwell Communications and was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Disclosures Sehn: TEVA Pharmaceuticals Industries: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Consultancy, Honoraria; TEVA Pharmaceuticals Industries: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Apobiologix: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Ortho: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Ortho: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria. Trněný:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bouabdallah:Roche: 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, Speakers Bureau. Dueck:Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding. Gribben:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta/Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Lugtenburg:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genmab: Honoraria. Salles:Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Roche, Janssen, Gilead, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis, Servier, AbbVie, Karyopharm, Kite, MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Autolus: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Educational events; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events. Knapp:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment. Nielsen:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment, Equity Ownership. Liu:Roche Pharma Development, Shanghai, China: Employment. Cheson:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Symbios: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Epizyme: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Consultancy, 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".