Cancer · 2018
Patient-reported outcomes from a phase 3 randomized controlled trial of inotuzumab ozogamicin versus standard therapy for relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Клиническое исследование III фазыСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kantarjian Hagop M, Su Yun, Jabbour Elias J, Bhattacharyya Helen, Yan Eric, Cappelleri Joseph C, Marks David I
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO), an anti-CD22 antibody-calicheamicin conjugate, demonstrated superior clinical activity versus standard-of-care (SOC) chemotherapies for relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia in the phase 3 randomized controlled INO-VATE trial. The authors assessed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from that study.
METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive either InO (1.8 mg/m2 per cycle for ≤6 cycles) or SOC (fludarabine/cytarabine [ara-C]/granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, or ara-C plus mitoxantrone, or high-dose ara-C for ≤4 cycles) and completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire and the EuroQoL 5 Dimensions Questionnaires at baseline, on day 1 of each cycle, and at the end of treatment. Treatment differences in PROs were assessed using longitudinal mixed-effects models with random intercepts and slopes.
RESULTS: Questionnaire completion rates in the InO (n = 164) and SOC (n = 162) arms were 85% and 65%, respectively. Baseline scores were similar between arms. Patients who received InO reported better quality of life (QoL), functioning, and symptom scores (except for constipation and emotional functioning). Least-squares mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) differences in physical, role, and social functioning and in appetite loss were significant (6.9 [95% CI, 1.4-12.3], 11.4 [95% CI, 3.2-19.5], 8.4 [95% CI, 0.7-16.1], and -8.7 [95% CI, -16.0 to -1.4], respectively; all P < .05) and had exceeded the minimally important difference of 5. Mean treatment differences in favor of InO on the EuroQoL visual analog scale and the global health status/QoL, dyspnea, and fatigue scales reached or approached the minimally important difference of 5, although without statistical significance. No dimensions were significantly worse with InO versus SOC.
CONCLUSIONS: The current PRO data support the favorable benefit/risk ratio of InO for the treatment of relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia, with superior clinical efficacy and better QoL. Cancer 2018;124:2151-60. © 2018 American Cancer Society.
METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive either InO (1.8 mg/m2 per cycle for ≤6 cycles) or SOC (fludarabine/cytarabine [ara-C]/granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, or ara-C plus mitoxantrone, or high-dose ara-C for ≤4 cycles) and completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire and the EuroQoL 5 Dimensions Questionnaires at baseline, on day 1 of each cycle, and at the end of treatment. Treatment differences in PROs were assessed using longitudinal mixed-effects models with random intercepts and slopes.
RESULTS: Questionnaire completion rates in the InO (n = 164) and SOC (n = 162) arms were 85% and 65%, respectively. Baseline scores were similar between arms. Patients who received InO reported better quality of life (QoL), functioning, and symptom scores (except for constipation and emotional functioning). Least-squares mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) differences in physical, role, and social functioning and in appetite loss were significant (6.9 [95% CI, 1.4-12.3], 11.4 [95% CI, 3.2-19.5], 8.4 [95% CI, 0.7-16.1], and -8.7 [95% CI, -16.0 to -1.4], respectively; all P < .05) and had exceeded the minimally important difference of 5. Mean treatment differences in favor of InO on the EuroQoL visual analog scale and the global health status/QoL, dyspnea, and fatigue scales reached or approached the minimally important difference of 5, although without statistical significance. No dimensions were significantly worse with InO versus SOC.
CONCLUSIONS: The current PRO data support the favorable benefit/risk ratio of InO for the treatment of relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia, with superior clinical efficacy and better QoL. Cancer 2018;124:2151-60. © 2018 American Cancer Society.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Antibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsDrug Resistance, NeoplasmDyspneaFatigueFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHealth StatusHumansInotuzumab OzogamicinMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPrecursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-LymphomaQuality of LifeSialic Acid Binding Ig-like Lectin 2