inMIND: A phase 3 study of tafasitamab plus lenalidomide and rituximab versus placebo plus lenalidomide and rituximab for relapsed/refractory follicular or marginal zone lymphoma.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
TPS7583 Background: Most patients with the indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) subtypes follicular (FL) or marginal zone (MZL) respond to first-line treatment but relapse is common, and there is no single standard treatment for patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (R/R) FL or MZL. Tafasitamab (TAFA) is an Fc-engineered humanized monoclonal antibody (mAb) against CD19 which is broadly expressed in FL and MZL, and regulates B-cell proliferation via B-cell receptor signaling. In preclinical studies, TAFA has shown activity against NHL cell lines in combination with rituximab (anti-CD20 mAb) and lenalidomide (LEN). Monotherapy with TAFA has shown promising clinical activity in a phase 2a study in pts with R/R NHL (NCT01685008), with an ORR of 29% (n/N = 10/34) in pts with FL and 33% (n/N = 3/9) in pts with MZL. In an ongoing phase 2, single-arm study (L-MIND, NCT02399085), TAFA + LEN followed by TAFA alone demonstrated an ORR of 57.5% (n/N = 46/80) in pts with R/R diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (FDA approved indication). These preclinical and clinical observations from phase 2 trials suggest a potential clinical benefit of TAFA + LEN and rituximab for pts with R/R FL or MZL. Methods: This phase 3 double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study is designed to investigate whether TAFA + LEN and rituximab provides improved clinical benefit compared with LEN and rituximab in pts with R/R FL or R/R MZL. Pts will be randomized 1:1 to receive TAFA (12 mg/kg IV on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of a 28-day cycle [cycles 1–3], then days 1 and 15 [cycles 4–12]) + LEN (20 mg PO QD, days 1–21/cycle for 12 cycles) and rituximab (375 mg/m2 IV on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of cycle 1, then day 1 of cycles 2–5), or placebo (0.9% saline solution IV) + LEN and rituximab. Stratified randomization will be performed separately for pts with R/R FL and R/R MZL. The primary study endpoint is PFS (investigator assessed [INV] by Lugano 2014 criteria) for pts with FL. Key secondary endpoints are PFS (INV) in overall population (FL and MZL), PET-CR rate (INV) at end of treatment (90 days after last treatment) and OS in pts with FL. Inclusion criteria include age ≥18 y, histologically confirmed FL (grade 1, 2, or 3a) or MZL (nodal, splenic, or extranodal), documented R/R disease, ≥1 prior systemic anti-CD20 therapy (including pts with anti-CD20 refractory disease), ECOG PS ≤2, adequate systemic organ function, and high tumor burden (per GELF criteria). Exclusion criteria include prior rituximab + LEN treatment, history of radiotherapy for other diseases (≥25% of bone marrow), nonhematologic malignancy, congestive heart failure (LVEF < 50%), active systemic infection, known CNS lymphoma, or severe immunocompromised state. inMIND (NCT04680052, EudraCT2020-004407-13) is currently enrolling pts; planned enrollment is 528 pts with R/R FL and 60–90 pts with R/R MZL across North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. Clinical trial information: NCT04680052 / EudraCT2020-004407-13.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".