P1113: COMPARATIVE EFFICACY OF ZANUBRUTINIB (ZANU) VERSUS RITUXIMAB (RTX) IN RELAPSED MARGINAL ZONE LYMPHOMA (MZL): MATCHING-ADJUSTED INDIRECT COMPARISON (MAIC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Topic: 36. Ethics and health economics Background: ZANU is a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor that has been evaluated for relapsed/refractory MZL in two phase 2, single-arm (MAGNOLIA, n=66, NCT03846427; BGB-3111-AU-003, n=20, NCT02343120). At 28 and 35 months of study follow-up in MAGNOLIA and BGB-3111-AU-003, respectively, median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were not reached. Aims: Here, we conducted an unanchored MAIC to estimate relative treatment effects of ZANU versus RTX, a commonly used treatment for patients with relapsed MZL. Note the comparison was restricted to the relapsed population because RTX refractory patients would not be retreated with RTX. Methods: The MAIC was performed using pooled individual patient-level data from MAGNOLIA and BGB-3111-AU-003. Study level-data of RTX in relapsed patients were used from CHRONOS-3 (Özcan et al., Ann Oncol 2021) which was identified as the most suitable comparator study via a systematic literature review. A logistic propensity score model was used to estimate weights for patients in the ZANU trials such that their weighted mean baseline characteristics matched those of CHRONOS-3. The following characteristics were identified as key prognostic factors and included in the base case propensity score model: prior lines of therapy, MZL subtype, relapse after prior therapy, and age. Sensitivity analyses incorporating additional characteristics were not possible owing to a lack of reporting from CHRONOS-3, but the impact of each covariate in the base model was explored via a leave-one-out analysis. Comparisons were conducted for OS, PFS, and objective response rate (ORR) by independent review committee using weighted statistical models, with relative treatment effects presented as hazard ratios (HRs), odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: After applying weights estimated from the base case propensity score model, the effective sample size (ESS) for ZANU was 39. ZANU significantly reduced the risk of progression (HR 0.29; 95% CI 0.13–0.65, P=0.003) and had a higher probability of response (OR 5.09; 95% CI: 1.84–14.08, P=0.0017) when compared with RTX (Table). OS was comparable for ZANU and RTX, which is consistent with the survival expectancy for indolent lymphomas. The leave-one-out analysis showed that removing any of the characteristics from the propensity score model yielded comparable results. Summary/Conclusion: MAIC results suggest ZANU is associated with improved PFS and ORR compared with RTX in relapsed MZL.Keywords: Marginal zone, Tyrosine kinase inhibitor, Indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, relapsed/refractory
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 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 | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".