Safe and Effective Treatment of Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma (PTCL) and Low Baseline Platelet Counts with Belinostat
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) is a heterogeneous group of non-Hodgkin lymphomas associated with a poor prognosis for most subtypes. Anthracycline-based therapies such as cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) are commonly used for frontline treatment of PTCL; however, durable remissions are uncommon with these regimens. Patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) PTCL and platelet counts <100,000/µL typically have poorer outcomes, and often are not eligible to participate in clinical trials or require dose reductions to safely administer many of the currently approved agents in this setting. Thus, it is important to identify appropriate treatment strategies for these patients, particularly in the salvage setting. Belinostat (Beleodaq) is a potent, pan-histone deacetylase inhibitor that was recently approved in the United States for the treatment of patients with R/R PTCL. Approval was based on results from the pivotal Phase 2 BELIEF study of belinostat in R/R PTCL (N = 129 enrolled, N = 120 evaluable), which demonstrated durable clinical benefit (objective response rate [ORR] 25.8%) and tolerability. This analysis presents BELIEF study data for the subgroup of patients who had thrombocytopenia (<100,000/µL) at study entry (n = 24 enrolled, n = 20 evaluable). Methods: Patients with R/R PTCL received belinostat as a 1000 mg/m2 intravenous infusion on Days 1-5 of 21-day cycles. The primary endpoint of the study was ORR (complete response [CR] + partial response [PR]) determined by an Independent Review Committee. For this subset analysis, efficacy and safety data for the 20 evaluable patients with low baseline platelet counts were examined and compared to the overall study population. Results : For both the low baseline platelet count (<100,000/µL) subgroup (n = 20 evaluable) and the overall evaluable study population, a median of 2.0 treatment cycles and 10.0 belinostat doses were administered, with a relative dose intensity of 98.5% and 98.3%, respectively. Baseline bone marrow involvement was present for 50% of patients with low baseline platelet counts and 29% of the overall population. For 2/20 patients, the belinostat dose was reduced for low platelets. The ORR in the low baseline platelet count subgroup was 15%, with 2 PRs and 1 CR. The median duration of response by International Working Group criteria was 4.1 months, with a median overall survival of 4.3 months and median progression-free survival of 1.3 months, based on a median follow-up of 11.2 months (Table). The majority of Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) reported in >5% of the evaluable patients with low baseline platelet counts were largely hematologic, including anemia (5.4% overall and 10.0% low platelet group), thrombocytopenia (4.7% and 15.0%), leukopenia (2.3% and 10.0%), and neutropenia (4.7% and 10.0%). Platelet counts tended to increase over time on study for the low baseline platelet subgroup (Figure). Conclusions: Complete and partial responses were seen with belinostat overall and in the subgroup of patients with low baseline platelet counts. Patients with baseline platelet counts <100,000/µL tolerated belinostat at a high dose intensity that was similar to that of patients with baseline platelet counts ≥100,000/µL, did not experience a higher proportion of AEs, and benefited from belinostat treatment. Thus, belinostat is suitable for use in patients with R/R PTCL and low baseline platelet counts, and may also be useful in developing new treatment regimens in combination with other cytotoxic agents. Table Summary of IRC Assessment of Efficacy Endpoints by Baseline Platelet Count E ndpoint All Evaluable Patients(N = 120) Platelets ≥100,000/µL(N = 100) Platelets <100,000/µL(N = 20) ORR (CPRG), n (%) 31 (25.8) 28 (28.0) 3 (15.0) Median DoR, months (95% CI) 13.6 (4.5-29.4) 13.6 (5.6-29.4) 4.1 (2.2-9.8) Median PFS, months (95% CI) 1.6 (1.4-2.7) 1.8 (1.5-2.8) 1.3 (1.1-1.5) Median OS, months (95% CI) 7.9 (6.1-13.9) 9.2 (6.4-17.7) 4.3 (2.4-7.9) Median TTR, weeks (95% CI) 5.6 (4.3-50.4) 5.6 (4.3-50.4) 6.4 (4.3-12.7) Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval; CPRG = Central Pathology Review Group; DoR = duration of response; IRC = Independent Review Committee; ORR = objective response rate; OS = overall survival; PFS = progression-free survival; TTR = time to response Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Horwitz: Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Kiowa-Kirin: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Jannsen: Consultancy. Bhat:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Choi:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Allen:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Employment.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».