MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Efficacy and safety of first-line ibrutinib plus venetoclax in patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who were older or had <i>TP53</i> mutations in the SYMPATICO study.

2025· article· en· W4410820514 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Wang, Marc Hoffmann, Tomasz Wróbel, Marek Trněný, David Belada, Fatih Demırkan, Panayiotis Panayiotidis, Wojciech Jurczak, Pier Luigi Zinzani, Mary‐Margaret Keating, Sung-Soo Yoon, Miklós Egyed, Constantine S. Tam, Nathalie Johnson, Edith Szafer‐Glusman, Jennifer Lin, James Dean, Jutta K. Neuenburg, Gottfried von Keudell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIbrutinibVenetoclaxMantle cell lymphomaMedicineOncologyInternal medicineLymphomaCancer researchChronic lymphocytic leukemiaLeukemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

7017 Background: The phase 3 SYMPATICO study evaluated ibrutinib (Ibr) combined with venetoclax (Ven) in 3 cohorts of patients (pts) with MCL: an open-label safety run-in phase to evaluate concurrent initiation of Ibr+Ven in relapsed/refractory (R/R) MCL; a randomized phase to evaluate Ibr+Ven vs Ibr+placebo (Pbo) in R/R MCL; and an open-label cohort to evaluate first-line Ibr+Ven in treatment-naive (TN) MCL. Primary analysis of the randomized phase showed superior PFS with Ibr+Ven vs Ibr+Pbo in pts with R/R MCL (Wang M et al, Lancet Oncol , in press). Here, we report efficacy and safety of Ibr+Ven in pts with TN MCL in older pts (≥65 y) or younger pts with a TP53 mutation ( TP53 mut) (≥18 y) who are in need of novel and better tolerated treatment options. Methods: Older pts (≥65 y) or pts with a TP53 mut with TN MCL received 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. Primary endpoint was complete response (CR) rate assessed by investigator per Lugano. Key secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), PFS, OS, and time to next treatment. Subgroup analyses were performed according to TP53 mut status and age. Results: In total, 78 TN MCL pts were enrolled. At baseline, 83% of pts were ≥65 y, 97% had ECOG PS of 0–1, 45% had high-risk simplified MIPI score, 31% had bulky disease (≥5 cm), 78% had bone marrow involvement, 46% had splenomegaly, and 37% had TP53 mut. Median time on study was 40.5 mo (range, 0.6+–46.9). CR rate was 69% (95% CI, 58–79), and ORR was 95% (95% CI, 87–99). Median DOR was 37.1 mo (95% CI, 30.3–NE). Median PFS was 40.2 mo, and 3-y OS was 79%. CR rate was 76% in pts ≥65 y without TP53 mut, 44% in pts ≥65 y with TP53 mut, and 73% in pts <65 y with TP53 mut; median PFS was 40.2, 22.0, and 15.4 mo, and 3-y OS was 85%, 66%, and 73%, respectively (Table). Median duration of treatment was 24.0 mo (range, 0.3–46.9). Most common AEs were diarrhea (49%), fatigue (37%), neutropenia (35%), and COVID-19 (32%). Most common grade ≥3 AE was neutropenia (29%). Conclusions: First-line Ibr+Ven showed promising efficacy with high CR rates and durable remissions in pts with TN MCL with and without TP53 mut. Safety was acceptable and trended better in younger pts. Ibr+Ven may be an option for older pts with TN MCL or pts of any age with TP53 mut. Clinical trial information: NCT03112174 . Outcomes (95% CI) Without TP53 mutn=44 With TP53 mut n=29 ≥65 y without TP53 mutn=42 ≥65 y with TP53 mutn=18 <65 y without TP53 mutn=2 <65 y with TP53 mutn=11 TotalN=78 CR rate, % 77(62–89) 55(36–74) 76(61–88) 44(22–69) 100(16–100) 73(39–94) 69(58–79) ORR, % 98(88–100) 90(73–98) 98(87–100) 89(65–99) 100(16–100) 91(59–100) 95(87–99) Median PFS, mo 40.2 (37.2–NE) 22.0(9.2–NE) 40.2(37.2–NE) 22.0(11.3–NE) NR(11.1–NE) 15.4(8.2–NE) 40.2(29.4–NE) 3-y OS, % 86(71–93) 68(47–82) 85(70–93) 66(39–83) 100(100–100) 73(37–90) 79(68–86)

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.418
Teacher spread0.371 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research→French-language works237,207→