| 1. |
- Abramson, JS, et al.
(författare)
-
Lisocabtagene maraleucel as second-line therapy for large B-cell lymphoma: primary analysis of the phase 3 TRANSFORM study
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Blood. - : American Society of Hematology. - 1528-0020 .- 0006-4971. ; 141:14, s. 1675-1684
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This global, phase 3 study compared lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) with standard of care (SOC) as second-line therapy for primary refractory or early relapsed (≤12 months) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). Adults eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) were randomized 1:1 to liso-cel (100×106 CAR+ T cells) or SOC (3 cycles of platinum-based immunochemotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and ASCT in responders). The primary end point was event-free survival (EFS) by independent review. A total of 184 patients were randomized. In this primary analysis with a median follow-up of 17.5 months, median EFS was not reached (NR) for liso-cel versus 2.4 months for SOC (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.356; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.243‒0.522). Complete response (CR) rate was 74% for liso-cel versus 43% for SOC (P < .0001) and median progression-free survival (PFS) was NR for liso-cel versus 6.2 months for SOC (HR = 0.400; 95% CI: 0.261‒0.615; P < .0001). Median overall survival was NR for liso-cel versus 29.9 months for SOC (HR = 0.724; 95% CI: 0.443‒1.183; P = .0987). When adjusted for crossover from SOC to liso-cel, median overall survival was NR for liso-cel and SOC (HR = 0.415; 95% CI: 0.251‒0.686). Grade 3 cytokine release syndrome and neurological events occurred in 1% and 4% of patients in the liso-cel arm, respectively (no grade 4/5 events). These data show significant improvements in EFS, CR rate, and PFS for liso-cel over SOC and support liso-cel as a preferred second-line treatment compared with SOC in patients with primary refractory or early relapsed LBCL. (ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT03575351.)
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Olszewski, Adam J., et al.
(författare)
-
Burkitt Lymphoma International Prognostic Index
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. - 0732-183X. ; 39:10, s. 1129-1138
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE: Burkitt lymphoma (BL) has unique biology and clinical course but lacks a standardized prognostic model. We developed and validated a novel prognostic index specific for BL to aid risk stratification, interpretation of clinical trials, and targeted development of novel treatment approaches. METHODS: We derived the BL International Prognostic Index (BL-IPI) from a real-world data set of adult patients with BL treated with immunochemotherapy in the United States between 2009 and 2018, identifying candidate variables that showed the strongest prognostic association with progression-free survival (PFS). The index was validated in an external data set of patients treated in Europe, Canada, and Australia between 2004 and 2019. RESULTS: In the derivation cohort of 633 patients with BL, age ≥ 40 years, performance status ≥ 2, serum lactate dehydrogenase > 3× upper limit of normal, and CNS involvement were selected as equally weighted factors with an independent prognostic value. The resulting BL-IPI identified groups with low (zero risk factors, 18% of patients), intermediate (one factor, 36% of patients), and high risk (≥ 2 factors, 46% of patients) with 3-year PFS estimates of 92%, 72%, and 53%, respectively, and 3-year overall survival estimates of 96%, 76%, and 59%, respectively. The index discriminated outcomes regardless of HIV status, stage, or first-line chemotherapy regimen. Patient characteristics, relative size of the BL-IPI groupings, and outcome discrimination were consistent in the validation cohort of 457 patients, with 3-year PFS estimates of 96%, 82%, and 63% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk BL-IPI, respectively. CONCLUSION: The BL-IPI provides robust discrimination of survival in adult BL, suitable for use as prognostication and stratification in trials. The high-risk group has suboptimal outcomes with standard therapy and should be considered for innovative treatment approaches.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
