Patient-reported outcomes from a phase 3 randomized controlled trial of inotuzumab ozogamicin versus standard therapy for relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia

Hagop M. Kantarjian*, Yun Su, Elias J. Jabbour, Helen Bhattacharyya, Eric Yan, Joseph C. Cappelleri, David I. Marks

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2151-2160
Number of pages10
JournalCancer
Volume124
Issue number10
Early online date6 Mar 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 15 May 2018

Keywords

  • acute lymphoblastic leukemia
  • clinical study
  • inotuzumab ozogamicin
  • patient-reported outcomes
  • quality of life

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Patient-reported outcomes from a phase 3 randomized controlled trial of inotuzumab ozogamicin versus standard therapy for relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this