MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2910240398 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-117251

Prolonged Overall Survival (OS) in a Subset of Responders to the Combination of Brentuximab Vedotin (Bv) and Bendamustine (B) in Heavily Treated Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL): Results of an International Multi- Center Phase I/II Experience

2018· article· en· W2910240398 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Ahmed Sawas, John Kuruvilla, Jennifer Kimberly Lue, Changchun Deng, Jennifer E. Amengual, Francesca Montanari, Kerry J. Savage, Hager Elgedawe, Diego Villa, Michael Crump, Joseph M. Connors, Owen A. O’Connor

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensSpinal Cord Injury BCPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineBrentuximab vedotinInternal medicineBendamustineRefractory (planetary science)PopulationGastroenterologyChemotherapyOncologyLymphomaSurgeryHodgkin lymphomaRituximab

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Prognosis for patients who fail to respond to high-dose chemotherapy or progress after high dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) is particularly poor, with a recent study reporting 71% of patients dying in year 1 and 90% by year 2, with a median -progression survival of 1.3 years [1]. In our study of brentuximab vedotin plus bendamustine (BvB) in patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin's lymphoma, we recently reported an overall response rate (ORR) and complete response rate (CR) of 71% and a 32% respectively (N=65) in a heavily treated patient population [2]. Having noted several patients with a progression free survival (PFS) of 1 year or longer, we reviewed all enrolled patients for protracted duration of benefit, raising the question as to whether these patients may have been cured by BvB in the salvage setting. (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01657331). Methods Among 65 enrolled patients we identified 23 with a PFS of more than one year after treatment with BvB. Patients had received Bv on Day 1 with B on Days 1 and 2 of a 3-week cycle for up to 6 cycles. In the Phase 1 study 4 dose levels were evaluated: (1) Bv = 1.2mg/kg; B = 70mg/m2; (2) Bv = 1.2mg/kg; B = 80mg/m2; (3) Bv = 1.8mg/kg; B = 80mg/m2; and (4) Bv = 1.8mg/kg; B = 90. Accrual followed a classic Fibonacci dose escalation, with 3 patients being treated at each dose level. Dose Limiting Toxicity (DLT), defined as any CTC version 4 Grade 3 or 4 toxicity led to expansion of the dose cohort. The recommended phase II dose was Bv 1.8 mg/kg on Day 1 and B 90 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 2. The Phase 2 portion of the study accrued an additional 37 patients. Response was assessed by the investigator per Cheson 2007 after cycles 2 and 6. Patients were followed post completion of therapy every 3 month until disease progression and imaging was conducted every 3- 6 months. Study procedures and follow-up were concluded on June 30th 2018. In addition, plasma and serum biomarkers were prospectively collected for correlation with toxicity and response. Results With a median follow-up of 33 months (range 20-58 month) we identified 23/65 patients (43% male) with a median age of 34 years (range, 18-55) who experienced a PFS of 1 year or more. The median number of prior systemic therapies was 3 (range 1-6); with 11 patients having had prior ASCT and 10 patients receiving prior radiation therapy. Median number of BvB cycles administered was 4 (range 2-6). A best response of CR was documented for 17 patients (74%) and partial response (PR) was documented for 6 patients (26%). Consolidation with HDCT-ASCT was performed in 10 patients, 3 of whom received maintenance Bv post-transplant. The median duration of response (DOR), PFS and OS among this group was 28, 32 and 34 months, respectively. All responses are ongoing with no evidence of relapse. Long term survival with no further therapy after a median of 6 cycles of BvB ( range 2-6) was observed in 13 patients (20% of the treated population) (median post-BvB PFS 36 months, range 20-58). Exploratory analysis of the correlation between disease outcome and changes from baseline in select biomarkers demonstrated a significantly lower mean baseline sCD30 level among long term responders (p=0.01). No correlations were noted between other clinical outcome metrics and sCD30, nor with other biomarkers including TARC, CD163, or galectin. Conclusion In this heavily treated population with HL, the combination of BvB represents an effective and tolerable outpatient salvage regimen with long term response and protracted survival among a subset of patients, and raises the prospect that these patients, with a historically poor outcome may be cured with BvB. We intend to follow these patients to obtain additional information on their longer term outcome. ReferencesZagadailov, E.A., et al., Real-world effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin versus physicians' choice chemotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma following autologous stem cell transplantation in the United Kingdom and Germany. Leuk Lymphoma, 2018. 59(6): p. 1413-1419.O'Connor, O.A., et al., Brentuximab vedotin plus bendamustine in relapsed or refractory Hodgkin's lymphoma: an international, multicentre, single-arm, phase 1-2 trial. Lancet Oncol, 2018. 19(2): p. 257-266. Disclosures Kuruvilla: Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Canada: Research Funding; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria. O'Connor:ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: 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)0,001
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 enseignants0,001
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,004

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

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

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 Opus0,022
Tête enseignante GPT0,300
Écart entre enseignants0,278 · 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

Citations1
Publié2018
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→Travaux en français237 207→