MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405107409 · doi:10.1182/blood-2024-212970

Tafasitamab Plus Lenalidomide and Rituximab for Relapsed or Refractory Follicular Lymphoma: Results from a Phase 3 Study (inMIND)

2024· article· en· W4405107409 on OpenAlexaff
Laurie H. Sehn, Stefano Luminari, Christian W. Scholz, Kai Hübel, Antonio Salar, Shankara Paneesha, Björn E. Wahlin, Panayiotis Panayiotidis, Hui‐Peng Lee, Ana Jiménez Ubieto, Juan‐Manuel Sancho, Tae Min Kim, Eva Domingo‐Doménech, Takahiro Kumode, Christina Poh, Catherine Thiéblemont, Dries Deeren, Edwin de Wit, Michael Arbushites, Marie‐Laure Casadebaig, Marek Trněný

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSpinal Cord Injury BCUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLenalidomideRituximabFollicular lymphomaMedicineRefractory (planetary science)OncologyInternal medicinePhases of clinical researchLymphomaClinical trialMultiple myelomaBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Follicular lymphoma (FL) is characterized by episodes of remission and relapse, with patients (pts) requiring multiple lines of treatment (tx). While chemoimmunotherapy is often used frontline, it yields shorter response duration with successive lines of tx. In the relapsed/refractory (R/R) setting, immunotherapy approaches are preferred but there remains a need to improve durability. Lenalidomide (len) + rituximab (R) is approved after ≥1 prior line of tx and frequently used. Tafasitamab (tafa), a humanized CD19-targeting monoclonal antibody (mAb), induces direct cytotoxicity and enhances NK cell and macrophage immune-mediated mechanisms. Tafa has been previously approved in combination with len for R/R DLBCL based on the L-MIND study. inMIND (NCT04680052) is an international phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo (pbo)-controlled, multicenter trial evaluating efficacy and safety of adding tafa to len+R in pts with R/R FL or marginal zone lymphoma. The trial was powered to assess PFS in pts with FL only and the planned primary analysis is presented here. Methods: Pts ≥18 y with R/R CD19+ and CD20+ FL (grade 1-3A) and ECOG PS ≤2, requiring tx after ≥1 prior systemic therapy including an anti-CD20 mAb, were randomized 1:1 to receive tafa 12 mg/kg iv or pbo on days (D) 1, 8, 15, and 22 of cycles (C) 1-3 and D1 and D15 of C4-12 with standard dosing of len+R for up to twelve 28-day cycles. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS, planned for analysis after 174 events were observed. Additional endpoints included PET-CR rate (FDG-avid population), OS, PFS (by independent review committee [IRC]), ORR, DOR, safety, and TTNT. Results: 548 pts with FL were randomized: tafa, n=273; pbo, n=275. Baseline demographics were similar between arms: median age 64 y (range, 31-88); 55% male; 79% intermediate- or high-risk FLIPI; 83% high tumor burden per GELF criteria. Median number of prior lines of tx was 1 (range, 1-10), 45% had ≥2 prior lines, 32% had disease progression within 24 m (POD24), and 43% were refractory to prior anti-CD20 mAb. At data cutoff, pts in tafa and pbo arms had received a median of 12 and 11 cycles of tx, 19% and 15% were still on tx, 81% and 84% had discontinued tx, primarily due to tx completion (54% and 43%) or disease progression (11% and 31%), respectively. With median follow-up of 14.1 m, addition of tafa to len+R resulted in significantly lower risk of progression, relapse, or death vs pbo (median investigator-assessed PFS, 22.4 m vs 13.9 m; hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI], 0.43 [0.32, 0.58]; P<0.0001). Benefit was confirmed by IRC assessment (median PFS not reached [NR] with tafa vs 16.0 m with pbo; HR [95% CI], 0.41 [0.29, 0.56]; P<0.0001). PFS benefit with tafa was consistent in all prespecified subgroups analyzed including: pts with POD24, pts refractory to prior anti-CD20 mAb, pts receiving multiple prior lines of tx. PET-CR rate (49.4% vs 39.8%; P=0.029) and ORR (83.5% vs 72.4%; P=0.0014) were higher with tafa vs pbo. DOR was improved with tafa vs pbo (median 21.2 m vs 13.6 m; HR [95% CI], 0.47 [0.33, 0.68]; P<0.0001), as was TTNT (median NR vs 28.8 m; HR [95% CI], 0.45 [0.31, 0.64]; P<0.0001). Despite OS data being immature, there was a trend favoring tafa (HR [95% CI], 0.59 [0.31, 1.13]). A similar rate of tx-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (99% vs 99%), grade (gr) 3 or 4 AEs (71% vs 69.5%), and serious AEs (36% vs 32%) were observed with tafa and pbo, respectively. Most common gr 3 or 4 AEs with tafa vs pbo were neutropenia (40% vs 38%), pneumonia (8% vs 5%), thrombocytopenia (6% vs 7%), decreased neutrophils (6% vs 7%), COVID-19 (6% vs 2%), and COVID-19 pneumonia (5% vs 1%). TEAEs leading to discontinuation were reported by 11% and 7% of pts in tafa and pbo arms. In total, 15 pts (5.5%) in the tafa arm and 23 (8.5%) in the pbo arm died during the study, including 5 (2%) vs 17 (6%) due to disease progression and 6 (2%) in each arm due to fatal AEs. Conclusions: Addition of tafa to len+R resulted in significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS, representing a 57% reduction in risk of progression, relapse, or death in pts with R/R FL. Although OS data are immature, a trend in favor of tafa was observed. The safety profile was manageable and consistent with expected toxicities. This study is the first to validate combining two mAbs (anti-CD19 with anti-CD20) in the tx of lymphoma. Tafa+len+R can be administered in community as well as academic settings and represents a potential new standard of care option for pts with R/R FL.

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)0.003
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations17
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→