MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Primary overall survival analysis of the phase 3 randomized ZUMA-7 study of axicabtagene ciloleucel versus standard-of-care therapy in relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma.

2023· article· en· W4379662243 on OpenAlexaff
Jason R. Westin, Olalekan O. Oluwole, Marie José Kersten, David B. Miklos, Miguel‐Angel Perales, Armin Ghobadi, Aaron P. Rapoport, Anna Sureda, Caron A. Jacobson, Umar Farooq, Tom van Meerten, Matthew L. Ulrickson, Mahmoud Elsawy, Lori A. Leslie, Sridhar Chaganti, Michael Dickinson, Yin Yang, Marco Andreas Schupp, Christina To, Frederick L. Locke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCAR-T cell therapy research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioInternal medicineInterim analysisRefractory (planetary science)Intention-to-treat analysisCensoring (clinical trials)OncologySurvival analysisCumulative incidenceConfidence intervalProportional hazards modelRandomized controlled trialSurgeryCohort

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LBA107 Background: In ZUMA-7 (NCT03391466), axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) was superior to standard of care (SOC; hazard ratio [HR], 0.398; P<.0001) in the primary analysis of event-free survival as second-line therapy in patients with early relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (R/R LBCL; Locke et al. NEJM. 2022). In a preplanned interim analysis, median overall survival (OS) was not reached in the axi-cel arm and was 25.7 mo in the SOC arm (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.97; Locke et al. TCT 2022. Abstract 1). We now report the primary OS analysis of ZUMA-7. Methods: Study procedures and eligibility were previously reported. The intention-to-treat (ITT) primary OS analysis occurred 5 years after the first patient was randomized (01/25/2018) per protocol. A log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors compared OS between the 2 arms. In addition to the ITT analysis and to account for subsequent treatment with cellular immunotherapy off protocol in the SOC arm, prespecified sensitivity analyses of OS were conducted using the Rank-Preserving Structural Failure Time (RPSFT) and Inverse Probability of Censoring Weights (IPCW) models. Other endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) per investigator assessment, OS in key subgroups, and safety. Results: In total, 359 patients were randomly assigned, 180 to axi-cel and 179 to SOC. As of 01/25/2023, at a median follow-up of 47.2 mo, axi-cel demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in OS over SOC (HR [95% CI], 0.726 [0.540-0.977]; stratified log-rank 1-sided P=0.0168 [efficacy boundary, 0.0249]). Median OS was longer with axi-cel vs SOC (not reached vs 31.1 mo, respectively); 48-mo OS estimates were higher with axi-cel (54.6% vs 46.0%, respectively). OS benefit with axi-cel vs SOC was consistent in prespecified key subgroups, including age ≥65 years, primary refractory, early relapse, high-grade B-cell lymphoma, and high second-line age-adjusted IPI. In the SOC arm, 102 (57%) patients received subsequent cellular immunotherapy off protocol. Prespecified OS sensitivity analyses, conducted to address the confounding effects of treatment-switching in the SOC arm, showed an even greater OS benefit with axi-cel vs SOC, with stratified HR (95% CI) of 0.608 (0.449-0.824) by RPSFT and 0.633 (0.409-0.981) by IPCW. PFS by investigator confirmed benefit of axi-cel over SOC (HR [95% CI], 0.506 [0.383-0.669]), with 48-mo PFS estimates of 41.8% vs 24.4%, respectively. No new cytokine release syndrome or neurologic events and no new treatment-related deaths occurred since the primary EFS analysis. The safety profile of axi-cel remained consistent with prior studies. Conclusions: Axi-cel as second-line therapy demonstrated a significant improvement in overall survival over historical standard of care in patients with early relapsed/refractory LBCL. Clinical trial information: NCT03391466 .

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.355 · 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCAR-T cell therapy researchFrench-language works237,207