MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2979509136 · doi:10.1182/blood.v118.21.955.955

Frontline Therapy with Brentuximab Vedotin Combined with ABVD or AVD in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Advanced Stage Hodgkin Lymphoma

2011· article· en· W2979509136 sur OpenAlexaff
Anas Younes, Joseph M. Connors, Steven I. Park, Naomi Hunder, Stephen M. Ansell

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensBC Cancer Agency
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBrentuximab vedotinABVDMedicineInternal medicineOncologyDacarbazineRegimenChemotherapy regimenHodgkin's lymphomaChemotherapySurgeryLymphomaCD30VincristineCyclophosphamide

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 955 Background: Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is a lymphoid neoplasm defined by the presence of CD30-positive Hodgkin Reed-Sternberg (HRS) cells in a background of inflammatory cells. Frontline treatment is generally ABVD alone or in combination with other chemotherapy regimens or radiation. Although a standard ABVD regimen is curative for the majority of patients with advanced stage HL, up to 30% of patients will require a second-line therapy. Brentuximab vedotin (SGN-35) comprises an anti-CD30 antibody conjugated by a protease-cleavable linker to the potent antimicrotubule agent, monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE). In a phase 2 study, an objective response rate of 75% and multiple durable complete remissions (CRs) (34%) were obtained with single-agent brentuximab vedotin in highly treatment-refractory patients with HL. Methods: A phase 1, open-label, multicenter study is being conducted to evaluate the safety of brentuximab vedotin when administered in combination with standard therapy (ABVD) or a modified standard (AVD) (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01060904). Patients received doses of 0.6, 0.9, or 1.2 mg/kg brentuximab vedotin with standard doses of ABVD or 1.2 mg/kg brentuximab vedotin with AVD, depending upon cohort assignment. The combination regimens were administered on Days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle for up to 6 cycles of therapy. Each regimen evaluated a dose limiting toxicity (DLT) period, defined as any Cycle 1 toxicity requiring a delay of ≥7 days in standard ABVD or AVD therapy. Determination of antitumor activity is based on investigator assessment of objective response according to the Revised Response Criteria for Malignant Lymphoma (Cheson 2007). Results: Interim data are presented for the first 31 patients treated. Six patients received 0.6 mg/kg, 13 received 0.9 mg/kg, and 6 received 1.2 mg/kg with ABVD; 6 patients received 1.2 mg/kg with AVD. Baseline characteristics included: Stage IV, 55%; IPI score ≥4, 29%; male, 77%; median age, 35 years (range, 19–59). Combination treatment was generally well tolerated, with no DLT observed up to 1.2 mg/kg in either regimen. Overall, AEs reported in ≥45% of patients, regardless of severity, were nausea and neutropenia (77% each); peripheral sensory neuropathy (48%); and fatigue (45%). Infusion-related reactions occurred in 23% of patients. Grade 3/4 AEs observed in >10% of patients were neutropenia (74%), febrile neutropenia (16%), and anemia (13%). No Grade 5 events were observed. Overall, 6 patients discontinued combination treatment due to an AE. In the ABVD cohorts (n=25), AEs of pulmonary toxicity, dyspnea, and interstitial lung disease that could not be distinguished from bleomycin toxicity led to discontinuation of bleomycin in 7 patients. Five of these 7 patients continued treatment with AVD and brentuximab vedotin. All 10 patients who had a response assessment available after completion of frontline therapy achieved CR. Currently, an expansion cohort of approximately 20 patients is enrolling to explore 1.2 mg/kg brentuximab vedotin combined with AVD therapy. Conclusions: In this interim analysis of 31 patients with newly diagnosed HL, the maximum tolerated dose in combination with ABVD or AVD was not reached; no DLT was observed up to 1.2 mg/kg, the maximum planned dose. Brentuximab vedotin treatment was associated with manageable AEs; the most frequent AEs in the study were nausea and neutropenia. The safety profile observed thus far in this study suggests that brentuximab vedotin has potential for combination therapy with ABVD or AVD. Updated safety and response data will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures: Younes: Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau, Travel Expenses; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi-Aventis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; SBIO: Research Funding; Syndax: Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria; Pharmacyclic: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Brentuximab vedotin (SGN-35) comprises an anti-CD30 antibody conjugated by a protease-cleavable linker to the potent antimicrotubule agent, monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE). It is an investigational agent that is being studied in CD30+ malignancies. Connors:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Park:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Hunder:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ansell:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: 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)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
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 Opus0,013
Tête enseignante GPT0,217
Écart entre enseignants0,204 · 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

Citations45
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentTravaux en français237 207