MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2157591656 · doi:10.1200/jco.2009.26.8748

Radioimmunotherapy of Lymphoma: A Treatment Approach Ahead of Its Time or Past Its Sell-By Date?

2010· article· en· W2157591656 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tim Illidge

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRadioimmunotherapyIbritumomab tiuxetanMedicineRituximabLymphomaOncologyClinical trialNon-Hodgkin's lymphomaCD20Internal medicineMonoclonal antibodyImmunologyAntibody

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) registration of rituximab (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody [mAb]) in 1997 was a landmark event, not only because that is when the first antibody for the treatment of cancer was licensed but also because a new era of targeted therapies in the treatment of B-cell malignancies had begun. Although responses with single-agent rituximab were rather modest, the addition of rituximab to chemotherapy (Rchemo) as immunochemotherapy has resulted in impressive improvements in response rates and outcome in patients with a range of B-cell malignances. In contrast, radioimmunotherapy (RIT) is the administration of mAb or mAb-derived constructs that are chemically conjugated to therapeutic radioisotopes targeted to tumors. A wide variety of different mAbs, delivery schedules, radioisotopes, and doses of radioactivity have been tested in RIT, resulting in impressive responses in the treatment of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). For more than a decade, targeting the CD20 antigen has dominated clinical RIT of lymphoma, and a number of pivotal clinical studies ultimately led to FDA approval of two radioimmunconjugates, iodine-131 (I)tositumomab (Bexxar; GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, NC) and yttrium-90 (Y) –ibritumomab tiuxetan (Zevalin; Cell Therapeutics Inc, Seattle, WA). Y–ibritumomab tiuxetan was subsequently approved within the European Union in 2004, and in September 2009, it was approved by FDA as a first-line treatment for NHL. The recent approval by the FDA, applauded in the national press by the US Society of Nuclear Medicine, received little or no attention in the clinical community. Despite the fact that both drugs clearly have unique non–cross-reactive mechanisms of action with proven high clinical efficacy in patients resistant to both chemotherapy and rituximab and are arguably the most active drug approaches ever developed for NHL, this treatment modality has failed to be widely adopted by the hemato-oncology community. So what progress has been made with RIT and why is this “designer” targeted therapy so underused? During the last decade, the defining features of RIT using the two licensed radioimmunoconjugates applied to indolent lymphomas have emerged. These features include high response rates, durable remissions, and safe, predictable, and manageable toxicity. Both Itositumomab and Y–ibritumomab have demonstrated high clinical efficacy in heavily pretreated populations, including patients with disease refractory to both chemotherapy and rituximab underlying their unique mechanisms of action of RIT. An analysis of the long-term follow-up of patients who were heavily pretreated for indolent lymphoma with I-tositumomab demonstrated overall response rates (ORRs) of 47% to 68% and complete response (CR) rates of 20% to 38%. At the time of publication, with a median follow-up of 5.3 years, the 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 17%, and 81 (32%) of 250 patients had a time to progression of 1 year. For the durable response population, the median duration of response was 45.8 months and, impressively, the median duration of response had not been reached at 5 years for those who had achieved a CR. Interestingly, many of the patients who enjoyed these long durable responses had poor prognostic characteristics, including bone marrow involvement (41%), bulky disease 5 cm (49%), and transformed histology (23%). Forty-three percent of the patients had been treated with more than four prior therapies, and 36% had not responded to their most recent therapy. These durable responses have also been observed after Y–ibritumomab tiuxetan, with about 70% of patients who achieve a CR remaining in remission for years. RIT has also shown highly promising results in the first-line treatment of previously untreated follicular lymphoma as a single treatment or as consolidation therapy after initial chemotherapy. For 76 patients treated with I-tositumomab after a median follow-up of 5.1 years, the actuarial 5-year PFS for all patients was 59%, with a median PFS of 6.1 years. Hematologic toxicity was moderate, with no patients requiring transfusion or granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. Initial US-based phase II studies using RIT as consolidation therapy demonstrated high rates of conversion from partial response (PR) to CR, leading to impressive overall CR rates and PFS. However, these highly encouraging data from phase II studies have been insufficient to change practice, and the clinical community demanded phase III studies. More recently, results were published on a large, phase III randomized European and Canadian intergroup study (n 414) in previously untreated patients with follicular lymphoma. This study confirmed the high conversion rate from PR to CR (53.3% to 87.4%) seen in the early phase II US studies for patients treated with Y– ibritumomab tiuxetan. This high CR rate was almost identical in all subgroups of pretreatment chemotherapy, despite the difference in CR rate between the initial chemotherapy regimens such as chlorambucil (CR rate, 31%) and CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone; CR rate, 56%). This consistently high CR among all of the groups after Y–ibritumomab tiuxetan suggests that JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY COMMENTS AND CONTROVERSIES VOLUME 28 NUMBER 18 JUNE 2

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,008
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,034

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,004
Communication savante0,0050,013
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0050,013
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0080,004

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,093
Tête enseignante GPT0,432
Écart entre enseignants0,339 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations40
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Clinical OncologyMême sujetLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentTravaux en français237 207