MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2592898871 · doi:10.1182/blood.v128.22.4162.4162

A Phase I Study of Romidepsin, Gemcitabine, Dexamethasone and Cisplatin Combination Therapy in the Treatment of Peripheral T-Cell and Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Canadian Cancer Trials Group Study LY.15

2016· article· en· W2592898871 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Tony Reiman, Kerry J. Savage, Michael Crump, Matthew C. Cheung, David MacDonald, Rena Buckstein, Stephen Couban, Eugenia Piliotis, Kevin Imrie, David Spaner, Sudeep Shivakumar, John Kuruvilla, Diego Villa, Lois E. Shepherd, Tanya Skamene, Chad Winch, Bingshu E. Chen, Annette E. Hay

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueHistone Deacetylase Inhibitors Research
Établissements canadiensCanadian Partnership Against CancerQueen's UniversityQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreBC Cancer AgencyHealth Sciences CentreSaint John Regional HospitalDalhousie UniversityUniversity of New Brunswick
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRomidepsinGemcitabineMedicineInternal medicineOncologyRegimenDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaChemotherapy regimenLymphomaCancerHistone deacetylase

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: The outcome of peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs) remains poor and improved therapies are needed. Retrospective data suggest that integration of anthracyclines in the primary therapy may not impact outcome, providing the rationale to explore alternative regimens. Histone deacetylase inhibitors appear to have a class effect in PTCLs andromidepsin monotherapy demonstrates activity in a proportion of patients with relapsed/refractory PTCLs and can induce durable remissions. Gemcitabine is reported to be a highly active agent in PTCL, and the GDP (gemcitabine, dexamethasone, cisplatin) regimen has become a standard chemotherapy backbone for relapsed aggressive lymphomas (Crump, JCO 2014). We investigated the feasibility, safety and efficacy of GDP combined with romidepsin in a phase I dose escalation trial. Patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) were also included. Methods: Patients with relapsed/refractory PTCL or DLBCL, PS 0-2, with measurable disease and who had received one or two prior lines of systemic therapy, were treated with standard doses of GDP (gemcitabine, 1000 mg/m2 d1, d8; dexamethasone, 40 mg po d1-4; cisplatin, 75 mg/m2 d1) every 21 days, plus escalating doses of romidepsin (6, 8, 10 and 12 mg/m2) on days 1 and 8 to a maximum of 6 cycles in a standard 3+3 design. After the first 4 patients were enrolled, based on the observed pattern of thrombocytopenia, the treatment schedule was modified so that gemcitabine and romidepsin were given on days 1 and 15 and cycles extended to every 28 days. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were assessed during the first 2 cycles and defined as requiring platelet transfusion for bleeding, grade 3 hematological toxicity lasting >10 days, grade 4 hematological toxicity lasting >7 days, febrile neutropenia, or grade 3-4 non-hematological toxicity attributable to romidepsin. Responses were as per Cheson, JCO 2007 excluding PET scans. Results: 20 eligible patients (PTCL n=10; DLBCL n=10) were enrolled between 10/2013 and 01/2016 and treated with GDP plus romidepsin. The main PTCL subtype was PTCL, not otherwise specified (50%). Median age was 65 years (24-74); 9 were female; ECOG performance status was 0 (n=2), 1 (n=13), or 2 (n=5). Number of prior therapies was 1 (n=17) or 2 (n=3). 17 (85%) patients received >90% of the planned dose each cycle. The median number of cycles was 2 (range, 1-6); one patient is still on therapy. The reasons for treatment discontinuation were lymphoma progression (n=10), toxicity (n=2), proceeding to autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT, n=3), intercurrent illness (n=1), or completion of 6 cycles (n=3). On the 21-day schedule at 6 mg/m2 romidepsin, there were 3 DLTs among four patients (2 with grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia, 1 venous thromboembolic event). On the 28-day schedule, there were no DLTs observed in the three patients treated at each of the 6, 8 or 10 mg/m2 dose levels. At 12 mg/m2 there were 4 observed grade 3 DLTs among six evaluable patients (hypotension, acute kidney injury, anorexia, thrombocytopenia >10 days). Notable toxicities during any cycle were: febrile neutropenia (n=2); grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia (n=9); grade 3-4 neutropenia (n=4); and grade 3-4 anemia (n=4); grade 2 atrial fibrillation (n=2); grade 2 QTc prolongation (n=1); grade 1 sinus tachycardia (n=1); grade 2-3 infections (n=16); grade 1-3 cutaneous toxicity (n=9); grade 1-3 thromboembolic events (n=2); TIA (n=2) or stroke (n=1). One patient died after cycle 1 due to sepsis. 7 other patients have died of progressive lymphoma. The overall response rate was 9/20 (45%), all were partial remissions (PR), 3 had stable disease (SD), 4 had progressive disease (PD), and 4 were not objectively evaluable. Of the responders, 5 had PTCL and 4 had DLBCL. Four patients went on to ASCT. With a median follow-up of 5.8 months, the median duration of response was 2.8 months and median PFS is 2.2 months. For all patients, the 1 year PFS was 6% and 1 year OS was 43% Discussion: Full doses of GDP can be combined with a recommended phase II romidepsin dose of 10 mg/m2 given on a day 1, 15 every 28 days schedule. Thrombocytopenia prohibits this combination on a 21-day schedule. Toxicity is otherwise acceptable and as expected. Further study at the recommended dose and schedule would be required to properly define the activity of this regimen in PTCLs and DLBCL. Disclosures Reiman: Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Buckstein:Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kuruvilla:Merck & Co., Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria. Villa:Lundbeck: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Hay:Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding.

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)0,002
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 enseignants0,047
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,093

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,001

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 Opus0,025
Tête enseignante GPT0,317
Écart entre enseignants0,292 · 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

Citations2
Publié2016
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetHistone Deacetylase Inhibitors ResearchTravaux en français237 207