MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2584246182 · doi:10.1182/blood.v128.22.1108.1108

Pembrolizumab in Patients with Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma after Brentuximab Vedotin Failure: Long-Term Efficacy from the Phase 1b Keynote-013 Study

2016· article· en· W2584246182 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Philippe Armand, Margaret A. Shipp, Vincent Ribrag, Jean‐Marie Michot, Pier Luigi Zinzani, John Kuruvilla, Ying Zhu, Alejandro D. Ricart, Arun Balakumaran, Craig H. Moskowitz

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBrentuximab vedotinPembrolizumabMedicineOncologyInternal medicineCohortTransplantationPhases of clinical researchAutologous stem-cell transplantationLymphomaClinical trialCancerImmunotherapyHodgkin lymphoma

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) who progress after brentuximab vedotin (BV) have a poor prognosis. cHL frequently harbors genetic alterations at the 9p24.1 locus, resulting in the overexpression of the PD-L1 and PD-L2 immune checkpoint ligands. Pembrolizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that blocks the interaction between the PD-1 receptor and PD-L1/PD-L2, and can restore antitumor immune activity in several different tumors. Based on its likely genetically driven dependence on PD-1, cHL was included as an independent expansion cohort in the KEYNOTE-013 study (NCT01953692), a multicenter, multicohort phase 1b trial of pembrolizumab in patients with hematologic malignancies. Updated results from this cohort, including long-term efficacy, are presented. Methods: Key eligibility criteria for the cHL cohort of KEYNOTE-013 included relapse after or ineligibility for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), and relapse after or refractory to BV treatment. Pembrolizumab was administered intravenously at a dose of 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks for up to 2 years or until confirmed progression or unacceptable toxicity. Response was assessed at week 12 and every 8 weeks thereafter according to the International Harmonization Project 2007 criteria. The primary end points were safety and complete remission (CR) rate (CRR); secondary end points included overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR). Patients who achieved a CR could opt to stop treatment after 24 weeks provided that they received at least 2 doses after CR. This report includes CRR, ORR, and DOR by blinded independent central review (BICR). Results: At the time of data cutoff on June 3, 2016, 31 patients were enrolled, and all were evaluable for analysis. Median follow-up duration was 24.9 months (range, 7.0-29.7 months). The median number of prior lines of therapy was 5 (range, 2-15), 74% of patients had failed prior ASCT, and by design 100% had failed prior BV. Per investigator review, ORR was 65%, and CRR was 19%. Per BICR, ORR was 58% (18/31), with 6 patients (19%) achieving CR and 12 (39%) partial remission; 7 patients (23%) had stable disease as their best response. Median DOR was not reached, with a range of 0.0+ to 21.4+ months (95% CI, 3.7 months to not reached) (Figure). An analysis with hierarchical mutually exclusive categories of refractory disease (RD; defined as no response to ≥1 prior line of therapy) or relapse after ≥3 prior lines of therapy (Re ≥3) was conducted. Per BICR, the ORR was 56% in RD (n = 27 patients) and 75% in Re ≥3 (n = 4). As of the data cutoff date, 3 patients (10%) remained on treatment, 5 (16%) completed 2 years of treatment, and 23 (74%) discontinued treatment: 3 (10%) for toxicity, 14 (45%) for progressive disease, 3 (10%) per physician decision (all ultimately underwent allogeneic SCT), 1 in CR (underwent allogeneic SCT), 1 for clinical progression, and 1 who withdrew consent. Per BICR, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 11.4 months; 6-month and 12-month PFS rates were 66% and 48%, respectively. Median overall survival (OS) was not reached; 6-month and 12-month OS rates were 100% and 87%, respectively. Conclusions: With nearly 2.5 years of median follow-up, the present results demonstrate that a subset of heavily pretreated patients who failed BV therapy can achieve a long-term response with single-agent pembrolizumab, without consolidative therapy. PD-1 blockade may offer a new treatment paradigm for patients with relapsed/refractory cHL, supporting the hypothesis that this tumor has a genetic dependence on the PD-1 pathway. Figure Figure. Disclosures Armand: BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sequenta: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Infinity: Consultancy; Merck & Co., Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sigma Tau: Research Funding; Tensha: Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding. Shipp:Cell Signaling: Honoraria; Bayer: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck, Gilead, Takeda: Other: Scientific Advisory Board. Ribrag:Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ArgenX: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmamar: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Esai: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Michot:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Zinzani:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kuruvilla:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Roche Canada: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria. Zhu:Merck: Employment. Ricart:Merck & Co.: Employment; Pfizer: Equity Ownership. Balakumaran:Merck & Co.: Employment, Other: stock, stock options. Moskowitz:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy.

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)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai non randomisé · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,018

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,008
Tête enseignante GPT0,244
Écart entre enseignants0,236 · 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'étudeEssai non randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

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

En bref

Citations32
Publié2016
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentTravaux en français237 207