Overall Survival Benefit for Patients with Relapsed Hodgkin Lymphoma Treated with Brentuximab Vedotin After Autologous Stem Cell Transplant
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Abstract 3701 Background: Salvage chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in the management of relapsed or refractory Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) results in prolonged disease-free survival in only around 50% of patients (pts). Median survival following relapse from ASCT is estimated at 2.4 years, with poor outcomes in those experiencing relapse or progressive disease within one year from ASCT (Horning 2008 et al). Recently, a pivotal multicenter Phase 2 trial investigated the efficacy of brentuximab vedotin (BV) in pts with recurrent HL following ASCT. The study demonstrated an overall response rate of 75% and median duration of response of 6.7 months. Furthermore, 34% of patients achieved a complete response (CR), with a median progression free survival of 29 months (mos). Whether treatment with BV renders an OS benefit in pts with relapsed or refractory disease after ASCT remains to be determined. Objective: 1) To compare OS in pts with relapsed HL after receiving ASCT in a cohort of 102 HL pts treated with BV, with 756 pts from 6 international centers before the introduction of BV. 2) To evaluate predictors of durable CR in pts treated with BV. Methods: Kaplan-Meier method was used to depict time-to-event outcomes, including OS. The Chi-square test was used to evaluate the association between two categorical variables and log-rank test to compare time-to-event endpoints among pt groups. Based on the univariate proportional hazard model, we examined whether certain variables (sex, stage at diagnosis, number of prior treatments, and time to CR) were predictors of CR duration in pts receiving BV. Results: In the non-randomized comparison between those with relapsed-refractory HL following ASCT who received BV and those who did not, pts were well matched by age, with a relatively higher percentage of females treated on the pivotal study. Dates of progression from ASCT ranged from 1996–2009 in the BV group and 1981–2003 in the international cohort. Median follow-up after ASCT for the censored observations of pts who received BV and those in the international cohort was 49.4 and 58.8 mos. The difference in median OS was statistically significant (p<0.0001) between those receiving BV and those not exposed to the drug (91.49 vs. 27.99 mos). Improvement in OS was irrespective of time to relapse from ASCT, despite previous studies noting a higher risk of recurrence in pts relapsing within 12 mos of ASCT (Sureda 2005 et al). Neither age nor sex was found to impact OS. In the subgroup analysis of pts achieving a CR with BV, univariate analysis of duration of CR and PFS uncovered no significant factors, while only stage of disease at initial diagnosis had a significant effect on OS (P=0.0004). Disease status characterized as relapsed vs. refractory had borderline significance with a positive impact on OS (P=0.0581). No significant associations were noted between the variables and duration of response post BV stratified into periods of less or greater than 12 mos. However, among those pts who experienced a duration of CR greater than 12 mos, 81.8% (n=18) had an initial CR after receiving ≤ 4 doses of BV, compared with 58.3% entering CR after receiving > 4 doses. Conclusions: While the impact of BV on OS can only be determined through a randomized clinical trial, our analysis indicated that treatment with BV in pts with relapsed/refractory HL following ASCT is associated with prolonged OS when compared with historical control patients. Those who achieve a rapid CR with BV may also have a longer duration of response. A randomized clinical trial is ongoing to evaluate prospectively the efficacy of BV following ASCT. Disclosures: Chen: Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Gopal:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ansell:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Savage:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ramchandren:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Speakers Bureau. Forero-Torres:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Moskowitz:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau. Connors:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. de Vos:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau. Engert:Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Millennium: Honoraria, Research Funding. Illidge:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Morschhauser:Takeda: Honoraria. Younes:Seattle Genetics: Honoraria.
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) | 0,000 | 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 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».