MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficacy and safety of ibrutinib plus venetoclax in patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) and <i>TP53</i> mutations in the SYMPATICO study.

2024· article· en· W4400109243 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Wang, Wojciech Jurczak, Marek Trněný, David Belada, Tomasz Wróbel, Nilanjan Ghosh, Mary‐Margaret Keating, Tom van Meerten, Rubén Fernández-Álvarez, Gottfried von Keudell, Catherine Thiéblemont, Frédéric Peyrade, Marc André, Marc Hoffmann, Maoko Naganuma, Edith Szafer‐Glusman, Jennifer Lin, James P. Dean, Jutta K. Neuenburg, Constantine S. Tam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVenVenetoclaxIbrutinibMantle cell lymphomaInternal medicineHazard ratioPopulationPhases of clinical researchBendamustineNeutropeniaGastroenterologyOncologyRituximabToxicityLymphomaConfidence intervalLeukemiaChronic lymphocytic leukemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

7007 Background: TP53 mutations confer high risk of early progressive disease (PD) and poor outcomes with standard chemoimmunotherapy in patients (pts) with MCL. To date, data on novel treatment options for these pts are limited to small single-arm analyses. The phase 3 SYMPATICO study is evaluating ibrutinib (Ibr) + venetoclax (Ven) in 3 cohorts of pts with MCL. Primary analysis of the randomized phase showed superior PFS with Ibr+Ven vs Ibr+placebo (Pbo) in pts with relapsed/refractory (R/R) MCL (Wang M et al, ASH 2023) with similar hazard ratios for pts with and without TP53mutations (0.57 [95% CI, 0.33–0.97] and 0.52 [95% CI, 0.32–0.82], respectively). Here, we report efficacy and safety of Ibr+Ven in pts with TP53 mutations across cohorts. Methods: The SYMPATICO cohorts are: open-label safety run-in phase to evaluate concurrent initiation of Ibr+Ven in R/R MCL (n=21); randomized phase to evaluate Ibr+Ven (n=134) vs Ibr+Pbo (n=133) in R/R MCL; and open-label cohort to evaluate first-line (1L) Ibr+Ven (n=78). Data were pooled across cohorts for pts with TP53mutations treated with oral Ibr 560 mg once daily and Ven (5-wk ramp-up to 400 mg once daily) for 2 y, then single-agent Ibr 560 mg until PD or unacceptable toxicity. Response was assessed by investigators per Lugano criteria. Results: In total, 74 pts with TP53 mutations received Ibr+Ven in the safety run-in phase (n=5), the randomized phase (n=40), and the 1L cohort (n=29). At baseline, median age was 67 y, 96% of pts had ECOG PS of 0–1, 43% had high-risk simplified MIPI score, 36% had bulky disease ≥5 cm, 64% had bone marrow involvement, and 39% had splenomegaly. With a median time on study of 40.1 mo (range, 0.6+ to 60.7), median PFS was 20.9 mo vs not reached (NR) in pts without TP53 mutations. ORR was 84%, and the CR rate was 57%. Median OS was 47.1 mo. Outcomes were generally comparable in 1L and R/R MCL (Table). Median duration of treatment was 15.9 mo (range, 0.3–58.9); at data cutoff, treatment was ongoing with Ibr in 24% of pts and with Ven in 4%. The most frequent grade ≥3 AEs (in ≥10% of pts) were neutropenia (32%), anemia (15%), and thrombocytopenia (15%). Conclusions: Ibr+Ven demonstrated promising efficacy with high CR rates and durable remissions in high-risk pts with MCL and TP53mutations in SYMPATICO (n=74; 29 1L and 45 R/R), the largest single-study cohort of such pts reported to date. Clinical trial information: NCT03112174 . [Table: see text]

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.369 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207