MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205275534 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-115160

Disease Burden Subgroup Analysis of Health-Related Quality of Life of Blinatumomab Versus Standard-of-Care Chemotherapy in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Philadelphia Chromosome-Negative B-Cell Precursor Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in a Randomized, Open-Label Phase 3 Study (TOWER)

2018· article· en· W4205275534 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony S. Stein, Zachary Zimmerman, Paul Cannell, Hervé Dombret, Johan Maertens, Max S. Topp, Janet Franklin, Ze Cong, Xinke Zhang, Yan Li, Andre C. Schuh

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlinatumomabMedicineInternal medicineChemotherapyQuality of life (healthcare)LeukemiaOncologyGastroenterologyLymphoblastic Leukemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: In the phase 3 TOWER study, patients with relapsed or refractory (r/r) Philadelphia chromosome-negative (Ph-) B-cell precursor (BCP) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) who received bispecific T-cell engager (BiTE®) antibody construct blinatumomab had improved overall survival (OS; median, 7.7 vs 4.0 months; P=0.01;) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) compared with those who received standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy (Kantarjian H, et al. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:836-847; Topp MS, et al. Blood. 2018;131:2906-2914). In this subgroup analysis of TOWER, we assessed the HRQoL between patients with low versus high baseline disease burden (low versus high bone marrow blast levels) who received blinatumomab or SOC chemotherapy. Methods: Patients (N=405) with r/r Ph- BCP ALL were randomized 2:1 to receive 2 cycles of induction blinatumomab by continuous intravenous infusion (n=271) or SOC (n=134). Those in remission could receive up to 3 consolidation cycles; 12 months of maintenance was allowed for those who received up to 3 consolidation cycles and had bone marrow response. HRQoL was assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30 Questionnaire on days 1 (baseline), 8, and 15; on day 29 of cycle 1; days 1, 15, and 29 of consolidation; and at the safety follow-up. The questionnaire included 1 global health status scale, 5 functioning scales, 3 symptom scales, and 6 single-symptom items. For global health status and functioning scales, a higher score indicates better HRQoL; for symptom scales/items, a lower score indicates better HRQoL. A 10-point change was viewed as the minimum clinically important difference in EORTC QLQ-C30 (Zikos E, et al. EORTC. 2016). HRQoL was assessed in patient subgroups by screening the bone marrow aspirates for low blast levels (<50% blasts) versus high blast levels (≥50% blasts). Although blast count was not a randomization stratification factor in TOWER, baseline HRQoL values were assessed for blinatumomab versus SOC in both subgroups; in the high blasts group, for blinatumomab versus SOC, the only differences were cognitive functioning and constipation scores, which were significantly higher, and for the diarrhea score, which was significantly lower. Between the subgroups, only physical functioning was significantly different (higher in the high blasts group). Analyses included patients with baseline and ≥1 postbaseline result of any multi-item scale or single-item measure. Mean change from baseline in scores for each scale/item were summarized for cycle 1. Time to deterioration (TTD) analyses assessed the treatment effect based on timing from the initiation of treatment to a 10-point deterioration from baseline. Results: In total, 342 patients (blinatumomab, n=247; SOC, n=95) had ≥1 HRQoL result: low blasts, n=87 (blinatumomab, n=64; SOC, n=23); high blasts, n=255 (blinatumomab, n=183; SOC, n=72). The EORTC QLQ-C30 analysis set included all randomized subjects with a nonmissing baseline result and at least 1 nonmissing post-baseline result of any EORTC QLQ-C30 scale/item. There was no statistically significant difference in baseline HRQoL scores between the high and low blasts groups; however, the high blasts group had worse HRQoL overall. Baseline HRQoL scores were also similar between blinatumomab arm and SOC arm for each group. Global health status was improved by blinatumomab regardless of baseline blast level; however, this effect was somewhat greater in the low blasts group. When the function scores worsened, the extent of worsening was almost always smaller for blinatumomab versus SOC, particularly in the high blasts group. Functioning status scores tended to stay the same or worsen with both blinatumomab and SOC regardless of blast level, except emotional scores, which improved with blinatumomab regardless of blast level (Figure 1). Symptom scores generally improved with blinatumomab but not with SOC, particularly in patients with high blasts (Figure 2). TTD analyses showed that hazard ratios favored blinatumomab over SOC, particularly in patients with high blasts (Table). Conclusions: Blinatumomab improved HRQoL in patients with r/r Ph- BCP ALL and delayed the time to clinically meaningful deterioration in HRQoL compared with SOC. The treatment effects of blinatumomab versus SOC on HRQoL were particularly larger among patients with high disease burden. Disclosures Stein: Amgen Inc.: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Zimmerman:Amgen Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Dombret:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Ambit (Daiichi Sankyo): Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Menarini: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cellectis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Shire-Baxalta: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Otsuka: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad (Incyte): Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Topp:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding. Franklin:Amgen Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Cong:Amgen, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhang:Amgen Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schuh:Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy; Amgen Inc.: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Shire: 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia researchFrench-language works237,207