Oncotarget

Research Papers:

Tazemetostat in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma: a propensity score–matched analysis of E7438-G000-101 trial outcomes

David G. Proudman _, Deepshekhar Gupta, Dave Nellesen, Jay Yang, Beth A. Kamp, Khalid Mamlouk and Bruce D. Cheson

PDF  |  Full Text  |  How to cite  |  Order a Reprint

Oncotarget. 2022; 13:677-683. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.28229

Metrics: PDF 379 views  |   Full Text 1293 views  |   ?  


Abstract

David G. Proudman1, Deepshekhar Gupta1, Dave Nellesen1, Jay Yang2, Beth A. Kamp2, Khalid Mamlouk2 and Bruce D. Cheson3

1 Analysis Group, Inc., Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA

2 Epizyme, Inc., Cambridge, MA 02139, USA

3 Lymphoma Research Foundation, New York, NY 10005, USA

Correspondence to:

David G. Proudman, email: david.proudman@analysisgroup.com

Keywords: tazemetostat; propensity score matching; wild-type EZH2; follicular lymphoma; objective response rate

Received: February 02, 2022     Accepted: April 26, 2022     Published: May 11, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Proudman et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: In the tazemetostat E7438-G000-101 trial of relapsed/refractory (R/R) follicular lymphoma (FL), apparent superior efficacy was suggested for mutant-type (MT) EZH2 versus wild-type (WT) status. However, clinical disparities might have contributed to this conclusion. This study aimed to estimate outcomes after minimizing differences in baseline characteristics.

Methods: Propensity scores for each participant with WT (n = 54) and MT (n = 45) status were generated based on the likelihood of being selected given their baseline characteristics. Participants were matched using a 1:1 nearest-neighbor approach.

Results: The propensity-matched sample included 56 participants (28 WT, 28 MT). Objective response rates (95% confidence interval [CI]) were 35% (22–48) in WT and 69% (55–83) in MT prior to matching and 50% (31–69) in WT and 71% (54–88) in MT after matching. Median progression-free survival values (95% CI) were 11.1 (5.4–16.7) in WT and 13.8 months (11.1–22.1) in MT prior to matching and 14.3 (11.1–∞]) and 14.8 months (10.7–∞]) in WT and MT matched groups, respectively.

Conclusions: This analysis suggests that efficacy outcomes for tazemetostat observed in participants with WT EZH2 R/R FL may have been similar to those in participants with MT had the 2 cohorts been more closely matched.


Creative Commons License All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
PII: 28229