MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379981406 · doi:10.1002/hon.3163_22

PRIMARY OVERALL SURVIVAL ANALYSIS OF THE PHASE 3 RANDOMIZED ZUMA‐7 STUDY OF AXICABTAGENE CILOLEUCEL VERSUS STANDARD OF CARE IN RELAPSED/REFRACTORY LARGE B‐CELL LYMPHOMA

2023· article· en· W4379981406 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 Schupp, C. To, Frederick L. Locke

Bibliographic record

VenueHematological Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCAR-T cell therapy research
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
FundersHelsingin Yliopisto
KeywordsMedicineRefractory (planetary science)Internal medicineLymphomaGastroenterologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: In ZUMA-7 (NCT03391466), axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) was superior to a chemotherapy-based standard of care (SOC; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.398; p < 0.0001) in the primary analysis of event-free survival (EFS) as second-line therapy in patients with early relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL; Locke et al. NEJM. 2022). In a preplanned interim analysis, median overall survival (OS) was numerically prolonged in the axi-cel arm (Locke et al. TCT 2022. Abstract 1). We now report the primary analysis of OS from 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, prespecified OS sensitivity analyses were conducted to adjust for confounding due to subsequent cellular immunotherapy in the SOC arm. Other endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) per investigator assessment, OS in key subgroups, and safety. Exploratory analyses were conducted to determine the association between OS and axi-cel pharmacokinetics and product features. Results: In total, 359 patients were randomized, 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: 0.726, 95% CI: 0.540–0.977; stratified log-rank 1-sided p = 0.0168 [efficacy boundary, 0.0249]). Median OS was prolonged with axi-cel versus 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 versus 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 showed an even greater OS benefit with axi-cel versus SOC, with stratified HR of 0.608 (95% CI: 0.449–0.824) by Rank-Preserving Structural Failure Time model. PFS by investigator confirmed benefit of axi-cel over SOC (HR: 0.506, 95% CI: 0.383–0.669), with 48-mo PFS estimates of 41.8% versus 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. Improved OS was associated with an increased proportion of a naive T-cell phenotype (CCR7+CD45RA+ T cells, descriptive p < 0.05) in the infused product. Conclusions: Axi-cel as second-line therapy demonstrated a significant improvement in overall survival over chemotherapy-based SOC in patients with early relapsed/refractory LBCL. Keyword: aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma Encore Abstract—previously submitted to ASCO 2023 Conflicts of interests pertinent to the abstract J. R. Westin Consultant or advisory role: ADC Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Gilead, Kite, a Gilead Company, MorphoSys/Incyte, Monte Rosa, Novartis, Umoja Research funding: ADC Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Gilead, Kite, a Gilead Company, MorphoSys/Incyte, Monte Rosa, Novartis O. O. Oluwole Consultant or advisory role: Pfizer, Kite, a Gilead Company, Gilead, AbbVie, Janssen, TG Therapeutics, ADC Therapeutics, Novartis, Epizyme, Curio Science, Nektar Therapeutics, Cargo Therapeutics, and Caribou Biosciences Honoraria: Kite, a Gilead Company, Pfizer, and Gilead Research funding: Kite, a Gilead Company, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, and Allogene M. J. Kersten Consultant or advisory role: Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Kite, a Gilead Company, Miltenyi Biotec, Novartis, Adicet Bio, and Roche Honoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Kite, a Gilead Company, Miltenyi Biotec, Novartis, Adicet Bio, and Roche Research funding: Kite, Roche, Takeda, and Celgene Travel grants: Kite, Miltenyi, Novartis, and Roche D. B. Miklos Consultant or advisory role: Janssen, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Kite, a Gilead Company, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Miltenyi Honoraria: Janssen Research funding: Janssen Other remuneration: patents, royalties, other intellectual property as a cGVHD patent holder for ibrutinib as cGVHD therapy with no compensation; and travel and other support from Janssen M. A. Perales Consultant or advisory role: Cidara Therapeutics, Medigene, Sellas Life Sciences, and NexImmune Stock ownership: NexImmune, Omeros, and OrcaBio Honoraria: Adicet, Allovir, Caribou Biosciences, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Equilium, Exevir, Incyte, Karyopharm, Kite/Gilead, Merck, Miltenyi Biotec, MorphoSys, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis, Omeros, OrcaBio, Syncopation, VectivBio AG, and Vor Biopharma Research funding: Incyte, Kite/Gilead, Miltenyi Biotec, Nektar Therapeutics, and Novartis A. Ghobadi Consultant or advisory role: Amgen, Atara, Bristol Myers Squibb, CRISPR Therapeutics, Kite, and Wugen Inc. Honoraria: Kite, a Gilead Company Research funding: Amgen, Genentech, and Kite A. Sureda Consultant or advisory role: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Genmab, Janssen, Miltenyi, MSD, and Takeda Honoraria: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Genmab, Janssen, Kite, a Gilead Company, Novartis, MSD, and Pierre Fabre, Takeda Research funding: Takeda Travel grants: Kite and Takeda Other remuneration: speakers’ bureau participation for Takeda C. A. Jacobson Consultant or advisory role: Kite, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Instil Bio, ImmPACT Bio, Lonza, Ipsen, Epizyme bluebird bio, and Daiichi Sankyo Honoraria: Kite, a Gilead Company, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Instil Bio, ImmPACT Bio, Lonza, Ipsen, Epizyme, bluebird bio, and Daiichi Sankyo Research funding: Kite and Pfizer U. Farooq Consultant or advisory role: MorphoSys Honoraria: Caribou and Kite, a Gilead Company T. van Meerten Consultant or advisory role: Janssen and Kite Honoraria: Kite, a Gilead Company, Gilead Sciences, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb Research funding: Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb and Genentech M. L. Ulrickson Consultant or advisory role: Gilead Sciences and Stemline M. Elsawy Consultant or advisory role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Kite, a Gilead Company, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer Honoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, Kite, a Gilead Company, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer L. A. Leslie Consultant or advisory role: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eli Lilly, Epizyme, Janssen/J&J, Kite, a Gilead Company, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Seagen, and TG Therapeutics Travel grants: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Epizyme, Kite, a Gilead Company, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Seagen, and TG Therapeutics Other remuneration: speakers' bureau participation for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Epizyme, Kite, a Gilead Company, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Seagen, and TG Therapeutics S. Chaganti Consultant or advisory role: Adicet Bio, Atara Bio, Incyte, Kite, a Gilead Company, and Orion Pharma Honoraria: Adicet Bio, Atara Bio, Incyte, Kite, a Gilead Company, and Orion Pharma Research funding: Atara Bio, Autolus, Genmab, Janssen, Kite, MorphoSys, and Novartis Travel grants: Kite, a Gilead Company, and Takeda Other remuneration: speakers’ bureau participation for Hartley Taylor, Incyte, Kite, a Gilead Company, and Takeda M. Dickinson Consultant or advisory role: Gilead Sciences, MSD, Novartis, and Roche Honoraria: Gilead Sciences, MSD, Novartis, and Roche Research funding: Novartis and Roche Other remuneration: speakers’ bureau participation for Gilead Sciences, MSD, Novartis, and Roche Y. Yang Employment or leadership position: Kite, a Gilead Company M. Schupp Employment or leadership position: Kite, a Gilead Company Stock ownership: Gilead Sciences C. To Employment or leadership position: Kite, a Gilead Company Stock ownership: Gilead Sciences F. L. Locke Consultant or advisory role: Allogene, Amgen, bluebird bio, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Calibr, Cellular Biomedicine Group, Cowen, ecoR1, Emerging Therapy Solutions, Gerson Lehman Group, GammaDelta Therapeutics, Iovance, Janssen, Kite, a Gilead Company, Legend Biotech, Novartis, Umoja, and Wugen Research funding: Allogene, Kite, and Novartis Other remuneration: patents, royalties, other intellectual property from several patents held by the institution in author’s name (unlicensed) in the field of cellular immunotherapy

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHematological OncologySame topicCAR-T cell therapy researchFrench-language works237,207