4.7 Article

Long-term follow-up of MCL patients treated with single-agent ibrutinib: updated safety and efficacy results

期刊

BLOOD
卷 126, 期 6, 页码 739-745

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2015-03-635326

关键词

-

资金

  1. Pharmacyclics LLC.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ibrutinib, an oral inhibitor of Bruton tyrosine kinase, is approved for patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who have received one prior therapy. We report the updated safety and efficacy results from the multicenter, open-label phase 2 registration trial of Ibrutinib (median 26.7-month follow-up). Patients (N = 111) received oral ibrutinib 560 mg once daily, and those with stable disease or better could enter a long-term extension study. The primary end point was overall response rate (ORR). The median patient age was 68 years (range, 40-84), with a median of 3 prior therapies (range, 1-5). The median treatment duration was 8.3 months; 46% of patients were treated for >12 months, and 22% were treated for >= 2 years. The ORR was 67% (23% complete response), with a median duration of response of 17.5 months. The 24-month progression-free survival and overall survival rates were 31% (95% confidence interval [Cl], 22.3-40.4) and 47% (95% Cl, 37.1-56.9), respectively. The most common adverse events (AEs) in >30% of patients included diarrhea (54%), fatigue (50%), nausea (33%), and dyspnea (32%). The most frequent grade >= 3 infections included pneumonia (8%), urinary tract infection (4%), and cell ulitis (3%). Grade bleeding events in >= 2% of patients were hematuria (2%) and subdural hematoma (2%). Common all-grade hematologic AEs were thrombocytopenia (22%), neutropenia (19%), and anemia (18%). The prevalence of infection, diarrhea, and bleeding was highest for the first 6 months of therapy and less thereafter. With longer follow-up, ibrutinib continues to demonstrate durable responses and favorable safety in relapsed/refractory MCL. The trial is registered to www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT01236391.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据