First report of the GIMEMA INO-first multicenter observational study analyzing infective and non-infective complications in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated with inotuzumab ozogamicin.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract INTRODUCTION. Based on the results of the phase III study INO-VATE, Inotuzumab ozogamicin (INO) has been approved as single agent for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed/refractory CD22 positive B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) and for adult patients with Philadelphia positive (Ph+) ALL who previously failed the treatment with at least one TKI inhibitor. However, even if INO is extensively used in clinical practice, very few real-life data are available regarding the toxicity profile of this drug. METHODS. We report preliminary data from GIMEMA-INO-FIRST trial, a retrospective, observational clinical-epidemiological study (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT06025682). The study collects data from about 20 Hematologic Centers of the GIMEMA (Gruppo Italiano Malattie EMatologiche dell'Adulto) Group treating B-ALL patients with inotuzumab-ozogamicin (INO) over the last 5 years (2018-2023), according to the authorized indications and not included in interventional clinical trials (randomized or not randomized). The main objective of this study is to analyze, in a real-life setting, the infective and non-infective adverse events (AEs) in patients with B-ALL treated with salvage INO immunotherapy. The AEs have been graded on a scale of 1 to 5 according to the Common Toxicity Criteria for AEs (CTCAE) Version 5.0. RESULTS. A total of 115 patients were enrolled in the study, of whom 98 (males 63%) are currently evaluable for this preliminary analysis. The median age was 57 years (range, 21–80 years), and 78% of patients had a performance status of 0 or 1. The 77% of cases had a relapsed and 23% a refractory B-ALL. The median pre-INO bone marrow (BM) blasts was 35%. Ph-positive ALL cases were 34% (33/98). INO was administered at the standard dose according to the data sheet, and most patients (80%) received two or more cycles (C) of INO. The overall response rate (ORR) to INO therapy was 66%, with a complete response (CR) rate of 63%. Death during INO treatment was only 2% and treatment discontinuation due to toxicity occurred in only 2 cases (2.8%). Of the 98 patients who received INO, 45 (46%) received a subsequent allogeneic transplantation-SCT (donor: sibling 27%, haplo 31%, MUD 42%). A total of 13 Grade > 2 AEs were reported during INO treatment (6 in C1, 5 in C2, 1 in C3, and 1 in C4) that occurred in 8.2% (8/98) of patients. Specifically, the following grade 2 or more AEs were reported: 3 FUO (3/3 grade 2), 3 pancytopenia (2/3 grade 3 and 1/3 grade 4), 2 intestinal mucositis (1/2 grade 2 and 1/2 grade 3), 1 pneumonia (grade 3), 1 pancreatic toxicity (grade 3), 1 hepato-renal syndrome (grade 4), 1 liver toxicity (grade 2), and 1 oral mucositis (grade 2). After SCT, a VOD was reported in 19% of cases (8/45). CONCLUSIONS. These preliminary data, which will undergo thorough analysis in the coming months, showed that significant (grade 2 or higher) infectious and non-infectious AEs were uncommon in patients with relapsed or refractory B-ALL who received INO salvage therapy. These AEs occurred in only 8.2% of patients and resulted in treatment discontinuation in only 2.8% of cases. These findings support the use of INO as a suitable bridging therapy to SCT or to other cellular immunotherapies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".