← 返回

阿基仑赛对比历史治疗用于亚裔复发/难治性弥漫大 B 细胞淋巴瘤的疗效:ZUMA-1 与 REAL-TREND 的匹配调整间接比较

英文原题:Efficacy of Axicabtagene Ciloleucel Compared to Historical Treatments for Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma of Asian Descent: A Matching Adjusted Indirect Comparison of ZUMA-1 vs REAL-TREND.

查看英文原题

Efficacy of Axicabtagene Ciloleucel Compared to Historical Treatments for Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma of Asian Descent: A Matching Adjusted Indirect Comparison of ZUMA-1 vs REAL-TREND.

PubMed 2025/05/01(内容时间) Hematol Oncol Q1 · IF 4.1(JCR 2025)

分数与星级只用于站内排序 —— 不代表疗效、安全性或个人适用性。

中文摘要

为更好了解阿基仑赛(axi-cel)相较于历史标准治疗(SoC)在亚洲血统难治性弥漫性大B细胞淋巴瘤(DLBCL)患者中的比较疗效,我们对关键性ZUMA-1试验(NCT02348216)与亚洲REAL-TREND队列开展匹配调整间接治疗比较(MAIC)。ZUMA-1个体患者数据(IPD;输注患者n=101)采用60个月数据截止点;REAL-TREND队列数据由汇总数据及从数字化曲线推算的伪IPD组成。结局指标为REAL-TREND报告的总生存期(OS)、完全缓解(CR)和总缓解率(ORR)。MAIC权重依据年龄60岁、性别、接受四线及以上治疗(4L+)患者比例、国际预后指数(IPI;0–1、2、3或4–5分)及对干细胞移植难治等变量计算。敏感性分析考察了意向治疗人群、替代变量匹配方法和中心评审应答评估的使用。

ZUMA-1与REAL-TREND的部分基线特征相似,如年龄和IPI评分;但关键差异包括4L+患者比例(69%比9%)、ECOG体能状态评分0–1的比例(100%比59%)以及难治类型。MAIC模型按既往治疗线数和难治情况进行匹配,并通过IPI纳入ECOG体能状态评分差异。ZUMA-1加权后的有效样本量为31.1。估算OS风险比为0.27(95%置信区间[CI] 0.15–0.50),敏感性分析结果相近。ORR和CR的效应均显著(ORR比值比20.76;95% CI 7.18–60.02;CR比值比15.25;95% CI 6.84–33.98)。axi-cel相较历史SoC的比较疗效,与仅限西方人群的研究结果相似。提供亚洲血统人群的结局数据,有助于改进经济学模型,为报销决策和扩大治疗可及性提供支持。

展开英文摘要原文

To better understand the comparative effectiveness of axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) to historical standard of care (SoC) for the treatment of refractory diffused large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) among patients of Asian descent, we conducted a matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison (MAIC) of the pivotal ZUMA-1 trial (NCT02348216) and the Asia-based REAL-TREND cohort. The individual patient data (IPD) from ZUMA-1 (n = 101 infused patients) used the 60-month data-cut, while the REAL-TREND cohort data consisted of aggregate data and pseudo-IPD derived from digitized curves. The outcomes were overall survival (OS), complete response (CR) and overall response rate (ORR), as reported in REAL-TREND. The MAIC weights were derived using age 60, sex, proportion of fourth line or higher (4L+) patients, international prognostic index (IPI; 0-1 vs. 2 vs. 3 vs. 4-5), and refractory to SCT. Sensitivity analyses explored the use of the intention to treat population, alternative variable alignment and use of central review assessed response.

Some baseline characteristics were similar across ZUMA-1 and REAL-TREND, such as age and IPI scores, but key differences included proportion of 4L + patients (69% vs. 9%), of ECOG performance score 0-1 (100% vs. 59%), and type of refractoriness. The MAIC models aligned on prior lines and refractoriness, while differences in ECOG performance scores were captured through IPI. The resulting effective sample size for ZUMA-1 was 31. 1. The estimated hazard ratio for OS was 0. 27 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.

15-0. 50) and sensitivity analyses led to similar estimates. Strong effects were estimated for both ORR (odds ratio: 20. 76; 95% CI: 7. 18-60. 02) and CR (odds ratio: 15. 25; 95% CI: 6. 84-33. 98). The comparative efficacy of axi-cel relative to historical SoC was similar to that observed in studies restricted to Western settings. By providing outcomes data within a population of Asian-descent, we can provide better economic modeling to support reimbursements and improved access.

论文信息

作者
Locke FL、Ball G、Ray MD、Li T、Limbrick-Oldfield EH、Popoff E、Kanters S
第一作者单位
H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, USA.United States
通讯作者单位
RainCity Analytics, Vancouver, Canada.Canada
文献类型
对照研究 · 多中心研究 · 读者来信
期刊
Hematological oncology2025 May
原文标识
PubMed 40347097 · DOI 10.1002/hon.70100