Lisocabtagene maraleucel as second-line therapy for large B-cell lymphoma: primary analysis of the phase 3 TRANSFORM study.

This global phase 3 study compared lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) with a 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; N = 184) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to liso-cel (100 × 106 chimeric antigen receptor-positive 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).

Health-related quality of life with lisocabtagene maraleucel vs standard of care in relapsed or refractory LBCL.

Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) has shown promising efficacy in clinical trials for patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). We present health-related quality of life (HRQOL) results from the TRANSFORM study, the first comparative analysis of liso-cel vs standard of care (SOC) as second-line therapy in this population. Adults with LBCL refractory or relapsed ≤12 months after first-line therapy and eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation were randomized 1:1 to the liso-cel or SOC arms (3 cycles of immunochemotherapy in which responders proceeded to high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation).

Lisocabtagene maraleucel versus standard of care with salvage chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation as second-line treatment in patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (TRANSFORM): results from an interim analysis of an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

Background: Patients with large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) primary refractory to or relapsed within 12 months of first-line therapy are at high risk for poor outcomes with current standard of care, platinum-based salvage immunochemotherapy and autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel), an autologous, CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, has previously demonstrated efficacy and manageable safety in third-line or later LBCL. In this Article, we report a prespecified interim analysis of liso-cel versus standard of care as second-line treatment for primary refractory or early relapsed (within 12 months after response to initial therapy) LBCL.

A randomized phase 2 trial of azacitidine with or without durvalumab as first-line therapy for higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes.

Azacitidine-mediated hypomethylation promotes tumor cell immune recognition but may increase the expression of inhibitory immune checkpoint molecules. We conducted the first randomized phase 2 study of azacitidine plus the immune checkpoint inhibitor durvalumab vs azacitidine monotherapy as first-line treatment for higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS). In all, 84 patients received 75 mg/m2 subcutaneous azacitidine (days 1-7 every 4 weeks) combined with 1500 mg intravenous durvalumab on day 1 every 4 weeks (Arm A) for at least 6 cycles or 75 mg/m² subcutaneous azacitidine alone (days 1-7 every 4 weeks) for at least 6 cycles (Arm B).

A randomized phase 2 trial of azacitidine with or without durvalumab as first-line therapy for older patients with AML.

Evidence suggests that combining immunotherapy with hypomethylating agents may enhance antitumor activity. This phase 2 study investigated the activity and safety of durvalumab, a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor, combined with azacitidine for patients aged ≥65 years with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), including analyses to identify biomarkers of treatment response. Patients were randomized to first-line therapy with azacitidine 75 mg/m2 on days 1 through 7 with (Arm A, n = 64) or without (Arm B, n = 65) durvalumab 1500 mg on day 1 every 4 weeks.

Critical review of oncology clinical trial design under non-proportional hazards.

In trials of novel immuno-oncology drugs, the proportional hazards (PH) assumption often does not hold for the primary time-to-event (TTE) efficacy endpoint, likely due to the unique mechanism of action of these drugs. In practice, when it is anticipated that PH may not hold for the TTE endpoint with respect to treatment, the sample size is often still calculated under the PH assumption, and the hazard ratio (HR) from the Cox model is still reported as the primary measure of the treatment effect. Sensitivity analyses of the TTE data using methods that are suitable under non-proportional hazards (non-PH) are commonly pre-planned.