Phase 3 study (inMIND) of tafasitamab plus lenalidomide and rituximab for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma: Clinical characteristics and outcomes of high-risk patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: Despite initial response to first-line therapy, most patients (pts) with follicular lymphoma (FL) experience relapse requiring multiple lines of therapy. A need exists for treatments that are effective in all pts including those with high-risk disease. Tafasitamab (tafa) is a humanized CD19-targeting monoclonal antibody (mAb) recently approved in combination with lenalidomide (len) + rituximab (R) for adults with relapsed or refractory FL (R/R FL) in the US. inMIND (NCT04680052), an international, phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo (pbo)-controlled trial, evaluated the efficacy and safety of adding tafa to len+R in pts with R/R FL or marginal zone lymphoma. Tafa added to len+R resulted in significant improvement in PFS with a 57% reduction in the risk of progression or death and a manageable safety profile in pts with R/R FL; benefit was observed regardless of refractoriness to prior anti-CD20 mAb therapy or POD24 status (Sehn LH, et al. Blood. 2024;144[Suppl 2]:LBA1). This post hoc analysis evaluates efficacy outcomes in additional subgroups of pts with high-risk FL from inMIND. Methods: Pts were aged ≥18 y with R/R CD19+ and CD20+ FL (grade 1-3A) and ECOG PS ≤2, and must have received ≥1 prior systemic therapy including an anti-CD20 mAb. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive tafa 12 mg/kg IV or pbo with standard dosing of len+R for up to 12×28-day cycles. Efficacy outcomes including PFS by investigator (primary endpoint; PFS was confirmed by IRC [data not shown]), PET-CR rate (FDG-avid population), ORR, and TTNT were assessed in pts with bulky disease (≥7 cm diameter), refractory to chemoimmunotherapy (CIT: including anti-CD20+CHOP; anti-CD20+bendamustine; anti-CD20+CVP) eg, SD or PD or achieving a response lasting <6 months in at least 1 prior line, and by high FLIPI score 3-5 or low/intermediate FLIPI score 0-2 (data not shown) and FL grade 3A or FL grade 1/2 (data not shown). Results: 548 pts with R/R FL were randomized in inMIND to the tafa arm (n=273) or pbo arm (n=275); overall, baseline characteristics were well balanced between treatment arms (Sehn LH, et al. Blood. 2024;144[Suppl 2]:LBA1). Of the pts enrolled in the study, 454 (83%) met ≥1 GELF criterion, 207 (38%) had bulky disease, 185 (34%) were CIT refractory, 287 (52%) had FLIPI score 3-5, and 138 (25%) had FL grade 3A disease; these characteristics were similar in the tafa and pbo arms. In pts with bulky disease, median investigator-assessed PFS was improved with addition of tafa vs pbo (22.3 months vs 13.0 months; hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI] 0.46 [0.28, 0.74]). PET-CR rate (51.1% vs 32.0%; odds ratio [OR] [95% CI] 2.2 [1.20, 3.86]), ORR (83.7% vs 66.1%; OR [95% CI] 2.3 [1.20, 4.57]), and median TTNT (not reached [NR] vs NR; HR [95% CI] 0.30 [0.16, 0.56]; Kaplan-Meier [K-M] estimate of TTNT at 2 years: 79% vs 50%) were also improved in pts with bulky disease with addition of tafa vs pbo. Among CIT-refractory pts, median investigator-assessed PFS was 14.8 months vs 8.3 months with addition of tafa vs pbo (HR [95%CI] 0.42 [0.27, 0.65]). Improvements were also observed with addition of tafa vs pbo in PET-CR rate (44.0% vs 20.7%; OR [95% CI] 3.2 [1.57, 6.47]), ORR (72.6% vs 60.0%; OR [95% CI] 1.8 [0.92, 3.35]), and median TTNT (27.8 months vs 13.4 months; HR [95% CI] 0.53 [0.33, 0.85]; K-M estimate of TTNT at 2 years: 58% vs 33%) in CIT refractory pts. Addition of tafa to len+R improved investigator-assessed PFS in pts with high FLIPI score 3-5: median PFS was 19.2 months with tafa vs 11.2 months with pbo (HR [95% CI] 0.43 [0.30, 0.62]); higher PET-CR rate (48.4% vs 33.8%; OR [95% CI] 1.9 [1.14, 3.12]), ORR (81.0% vs 70.0%; OR [95% CI] 1.9 [1.09, 3.42]), and median TTNT (NR vs 19.5 months; HR [95% CI] 0.50 [0.32, 0.76]; K-M estimate of TTNT at 2 years: 68% vs 49%) were also observed with addition of tafa vs pbo. Similarly, investigator-assessed PFS was improved with addition of tafa vs pbo in pts with FL grade 3A: median PFS was 24.0 months vs 13.9 months (HR [95% CI] 0.32 [0.17, 0.61]); addition of tafa vs pbo also resulted in higher PET-CR rate (56.3% vs 38.5%; OR [95% CI] 2.0 [0.98, 3.93]), ORR (83.6% vs 73.2%; OR [95% CI] 2.0 [0.84, 4.75]), and median TTNT (NR vs 17.9 months; HR [95% CI] 0.27 [0.12, 0.59]; K-M estimate of TTNT at 2 years: 85% vs 49%). Conclusions: This analysis of pts with R/R FL enrolled in the inMIND study confirms that addition of tafa to len+R improved all efficacy outcomes assessed in pts with high-risk disease.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".