MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3096911669 · doi:10.1182/blood-2020-142182

Single Centre, Retrospective Study to Evaluate Treatment Outcomes Following Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor for Chronic Gvhd Treatment Including Ruxolitinib, Ibrutinib and Imatinib

2020· article· en· W3096911669 on OpenAlexaffabout
Swe Mar Linn, Omar Abduljalil, Igor Novitzky‐Basso, Ram Vasudevan Nampoothiri, Ivan Pašić, Zeyad Al‐Shaibani, Wilson Lam, Arjun Law, Fotios V. Michelis, Armin Gerbitz, Auro Viswabandya, Jeffrey H. Lipton, Rajat Kumar, Jonas Mattson, Dennis Dong Hwan Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRuxolitinibIbrutinibInternal medicineTyrosine-kinase inhibitorImatinibOncologyGraft-versus-host diseaseHematopoietic stem cell transplantationJanus kinase inhibitorTransplantationPharmacologyTofacitinibGastroenterologyCancerLeukemiaMyelofibrosisBone marrowChronic lymphocytic leukemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Chronic graft-versus-host-disease (cGVHD) is one of the main causes of morbidity and mortality after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT). Tyrosine kinase inhibitor such as Ruxolitinib, Ibrutinib and Imatinib showed a promising efficacy in cGVHD treatment. Ruxolitinib is a JAK-STAT inhibitor, reducing inflammation and immune pathway. Ibrutinib is a BTK inhibitor, blocking B cell-activating factor (BAFF), while Imatinib inhibits the platelet-derived growth factor receptor pathway activated by cGvHD-induced antibodies. The present retrospective study evaluated the efficacy of 3 TKIs for cGVHD at a single-centre in terms of 1) overall response rate (ORR), 2) clinical benefit (CB), 3) dose reduction of steroid, 4) failure-free survival (FFS) and 5) overall survival (OS). Patients and Methods A total of 43 patients who developed cGVHD after HCT and treated with TKI therapy for cGVHD at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Canada from August 2014 to April 2020 were evaluated in this retrospective study. 16 patients were treated with more than one TKI drug. A total of 62 lines of TKI therapy was evaluated, including Ruxolinitib (n=18), Ibrutinib (n=13) and Imatinib (n=31). The ORRs and CBs were assessed at months 3, 6 and 12, retrospectively. Responses were evaluated according to NIH scoring/staging/response assessment as part of standard clinical practice. CB was assessed considering clinical response as well as steroid dose reduction. For systemic steroid dose reduction, prednisone dose per kg per day was captured prior to Ruxolitinib start, at months 3, 6 and 12. Treatment failure was defined as 1) resistance requiring treatment switch, 2) non-relapse mortality (NRM), 3) relapse, 4) intolerance requiring treatment discontinuation. FFS and OS were calculated from the day of starting TKI therapy for cGVHD treatment. Results The patients and disease characteristics are summarized as follow: median age was 54 years (range 16 -70); 33 patients (53%) presented with classical cGVHD, while 29 patients (47%) with overlap syndrome; 14 (23%) presented with moderate and 48 (77%) with severe grade cGVHD. There was no difference in cGVHD subtype among 3 TKI subgroups (p= 0.478). The median number of organ involvement was 3 (range 1-5), and number of previous lines of therapy was 5 (range 3-9), implying that most of the patients were heavily pretreated for cGVHD. The mean (±S.E.) dosage of TKI treatment was as follows: Ruxolitinib was started at 15±1.1mg as initial dose and 20±0.7, 19±1.5, 22±4.4 mg per day in two divided doses on months 3, 6 and 12, respectively. Ibrutinib dose was 226±37, 256±37, 308±40 and 370±33 mg per day, while Imatinib dose was 106±6, 189±18, 196±16 and 190±19 mg per day prior to TKI starts, at months 3, 6 and 12, respectively. With a median follow up duration of 12 months, 19 (31%), 20 (32%), and 17 patients (27%) responded to TKI therapy at 3, 6, and 12 months without any difference of ORR among the TKIs (p=0.126, 0.554, 0.721 at 3/6/12 months; Figure A). The CBs were achieved in 47 (76%), 34 (55%), and 23 patients (37%) at 3, 6 and 12 months without any difference of CBs among the TKIs (p=0.187, 0.499, 0.750 at 3/6/12 months; Figure B). Prednisone dose (mg/kg/day) was 0.238±0.03 prior to TKI initiation, 0.177±0.03, 0.173 ± 0.03 and 0.110 ± 0.02 at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. No difference was noted in steroid dose among the 3 TKIs at each time point. However, the Ibrutinib group tends to require higher prednisone dose over time than other 2 groups. The FFS at 12 months was higher in Imatinib (71%) or Ruxolitinib groups (67%) than Ibrutinib group (46%; Figure C). The OS rate at 12 months was similar: 100 % in Ruxolitinib and Ibrutinib, and 96% in Imatinib group (Figure D). With regard to those patients treated with TKI for sclerotic GVHD (n= 39), the ORR were 11 (28%), 15 (38%) and 13 (33%) for 3, 6 and 12 months, while CB was noted in 32 (82%), 25 (64%) and 16 patients (41%) at 3, 6 and 12 months respectively. Of interest, Ruxolitinib was as effective as Imatinib in improving PROM score of sclerotic GVHD, while no significant improvement of PROM score was observed in the patients treated with Ibrutinib. Conclusion This retrospective study evaluated the efficacy of TKI drugs for cGVHD treatment in heavily pretreated patients. Ruxolitinib seems as effective as Imatinib to treat sclerotic GVHD. No difference was observed in OS at 12 months; while FFS appears better with Ruxolitinib and Imatinib over Ibrutinib. Figure Disclosures Lipton: Ariad: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: 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 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 score0.002
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
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207