Ibrutinib combined with immunochemotherapy with or without autologous stem-cell transplantation versus immunochemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation in previously untreated patients with mantle cell lymphoma (TRIANGLE): a three-arm, randomised, open-label, phase 3 superiority trial of the European Mantle Cell Lymphoma Network

Background: Adding ibrutinib to standard immunochemotherapy might improve outcomes and challenge autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) in younger (aged 65 years or younger) mantle cell lymphoma patients. This trial aimed to investigate whether the addition of ibrutinib results in a superior clinical outcome compared with the pre-trial immunochemotherapy standard with ASCT or an ibrutinib-containing treatment without ASCT. We also investigated whether standard treatment with ASCT is superior to a treatment adding ibrutinib but without ASCT. Methods: The open-label, randomised, three-arm, parallel-group, superiority TRIANGLE trial was performed in 165 secondary or tertiary clinical centres in 13 European countries and Israel. Patients with previously untreated, stage II-IV mantle cell lymphoma, aged 18-65 years and suitable for ASCT were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to control group A or experimental groups A+I or I, stratified by study group and mantle cell lymphoma international prognostic index risk groups. Treatment in group A consisted of six alternating cycles of R-CHOP (intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m2 on day 0 or 1, intravenous cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2 on day 1, intravenous doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 on day 1, intravenous vincristine 1·4 mg/m2 on day 1, and oral prednisone 100 mg on days 1-5) and R-DHAP (or R-DHAOx, intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m2 on day 0 or 1, intravenous or oral dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1-4, intravenous cytarabine 2 × 2 g/m2 for 3 h every 12 h on day 2, and intravenous cisplatin 100 mg/m2 over 24 h on day 1 or alternatively intravenous oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1) followed by ASCT. In group A+I, ibrutinib (560 mg orally each day) was added on days 1-19 of R-CHOP cycles and as fixed-duration maintenance (560 mg orally each day for 2 years) after ASCT. In group I, ibrutinib was given the same way as in group A+I, but ASCT was omitted. Three pairwise one-sided log-rank tests for the primary outcome of failure-free survival were statistically monitored. The primary analysis was done by intention-to-treat. Adverse events were evaluated by treatment period among patients who started the respective treatment. This ongoing trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02858258. Findings: Between July 29, 2016 and Dec 28, 2020, 870 patients (662 men, 208 women) were randomly assigned to group A (n=288), group A+I (n=292), and group I (n=290). After 31 months median follow-up, group A+I was superior to group A with 3-year failure-free survival of 88% (95% CI 84-92) versus 72% (67-79; hazard ratio 0·52 [one-sided 98·3% CI 0-0·86]; one-sided p=0·0008). Superiority of group A over group I was not shown with 3-year failure-free survival 72% (67-79) versus 86% (82-91; hazard ratio 1·77 [one-sided 98·3% CI 0-3·76]; one-sided p=0·9979). The comparison of group A+I versus group I is ongoing. There were no relevant differences in grade 3-5 adverse events during induction or ASCT between patients treated with R-CHOP/R-DHAP or ibrutinib combined with R-CHOP/R-DHAP. During maintenance or follow-up, substantially more grade 3-5 haematological adverse events and infections were reported after ASCT plus ibrutinib (group A+I; haematological: 114 [50%] of 231 patients; infections: 58 [25%] of 231; fatal infections: two [1%] of 231) compared with ibrutinib only (group I; haematological: 74 [28%] of 269; infections: 52 [19%] of 269; fatal infections: two [1%] of 269) or after ASCT (group A; haematological: 51 [21%] of 238; infections: 32 [13%] of 238; fatal infections: three [1%] of 238). Interpretation: Adding ibrutinib to first-line treatment resulted in superior efficacy in younger mantle cell lymphoma patients with increased toxicity when given after ASCT. Adding ibrutinib during induction and as maintenance should be part of first-line treatment of younger mantle cell lymphoma patients. Whether ASCT adds to an ibrutinib-containing regimen is not yet determined. Funding: Janssen and Leukemia & Lymphoma Society

A Quality Assessment of the ARM-Net Registry Design and Data Collection

Background: Registries are important in rare disease research. The Anorectal Malformation Network (ARM-Net) registry is a well-established European patient registry collecting demographic, clinical, and functional outcome data. We assessed the quality of this registry through review of the structure, data elements, collected data, and user experience. Material and methods: Design and data elements were assessed for completeness, consistency, usefulness, accuracy, validity, and comparability. An intra- and inter-user variability study was conducted through monitoring and re-registration of patients. User experience was assessed via a questionnaire on registration, design of registry, and satisfaction. Results: We evaluated 119 data elements, of which 107 were utilized and comprised 42 string and 65 numeric elements. A minority (37.0%) of the 2278 included records had complete data, though this improved to 83.5% when follow-up elements were excluded. Intra-observer variability demonstrated 11.7% incongruence, while inter-observer variability was 14.7%. Users were predominantly pediatric surgeons and typically registered patients within 11-30 min. Users did not experience any significant difficulties with data entry and were generally satisfied with the registry, but preferred more longitudinal data and patient-reported outcomes. Conclusions: The ARM-Net registry presents one of the largest ARM cohorts. Although its collected data are valuable, they are susceptible to error and user variability. Continuous evaluations are required to maintain relevant and high-quality data and to achieve long-term sustainability. With the recommendations resulting from this study, we call for rare disease patient registries to take example and aim to continuously improve their data quality to enhance the small, but impactful, field of rare disease research. Level of Evidence: V. (c) 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Clinical Differentiation between a Normal Anus, Anterior Anus, Congenital Anal Stenosis, and Perineal Fistula: Definitions and Consequences-The ARM-Net Consortium Consensus

In the past, an anteriorly located anus was often misdiagnosed and treated as an anorectal malformation (ARM) with a perineal fistula (PF). The paper aims to define the criteria for a normal anus, an anterior anus (AA) as an anatomic variant, and milder types of ARM such as congenital anal stenosis (CAS) and PF. An extensive literature search was performed by a working group of the ARM-Net Consortium concerning the subject "Normal Anus, AA, and mild ARM". A consensus on definitions, clinical characteristics, diagnostic management, and treatment modalities was established, and a diagnostic algorithm was proposed. The algorithm enables pediatricians, midwives, gynecologists, and surgeons to make a timely correct diagnosis of any abnormally looking anus and initiate further management if needed. Thus, the routine physical inspection of a newborn should include the inspection of the anus and define its position, relation to the external sphincter, and caliber. A correct diagnosis and use of the presented terminology will avoid misclassifications and allow the initiation of correct management. This will provide a reliable comparison of different therapeutic management and outcomes of these patient cohorts in the future