MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2983593617 · doi:10.1182/blood-2019-126997

The Use of CEP (Lomustine, Etoposide and Prednisone), an All-Oral Palliative Chemotherapy Regimen, in Aggressive Lymphomas

2019· article· en· W2983593617 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Lakshman Vasanthamohan, Brent Parker, Joy Mangel, Selay Lam, Kang Howson‐Jan, Chai W. Phua

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLomustineMedicineInternal medicinePrednisoneEtoposideRegimenChemotherapy regimenVincristineOncologyAggressive lymphomaGastroenterologyTolerabilityChemotherapySurgeryAdverse effectLymphomaRituximabCyclophosphamide

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: There is no current standard of care therapy for the management of patients with aggressive lymphomas in the relapsed or refractory (R/R) setting who are not candidates for intensive salvage chemotherapy and/or autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). The combination of lomustine (CCNU), etoposide and prednisone (CEP) is an oral chemotherapeutic regimen that is modified from CCEP used in Hodgkin Lymphoma (CCNU, chlorambucil, etoposide and prednisone). CEP consists of alternating A & B cycles as follows (Figure 1): 'A' cycles contain lomustine 80 mg/m2 on day 1 as well as etoposide 100 mg/m2 and prednisone 100 mg on days 1-7. 'B' cycles contain only the etoposide and prednisone. Cycles are given every 21 days apart. To date there has been no published data on CEP's efficacy and tolerability in aggressive R/R lymphoma. In this study, we describe our institutional experience with CEP at the London Regional Cancer Program (LRCP) in London, Ontario for patients with R/R aggressive lymphomas unable to tolerate intensive chemotherapy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of patients who received CEP at LRCP between January 2014 and May 2018 for R/R aggressive lymphomas. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse effects related to CEP. Kaplan-Meier survival curves modeled PFS and OS. We also performed univariate and multivariate analyses to assess whether pre-specified variables (age, IPI score at diagnosis, LDH at time of treatment, and the number of prior lines of therapy) were independently associated with response to CEP (using linear regression) or progression-free survival (using the Cox proportional hazards model). IPI score (0-2 vs. 3-5) and the number of prior lines (1-2 vs. ≥ 3) were analyzed as binary variables due to the overall sample size. Results: 46 patients received CEP at LRCP during the study period. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma was the most common diagnosis (70%) with Hodgkin lymphoma (6.5%) and peripheral T-cell lymphoma (6.5%) being the next most common. The median age of patients starting CEP was 76, with the median number of prior therapies being 2 (range 1-6). The primary outcome was ORR, which was 41% in our population, with a median time to response of 23 days. The median PFS was 2 months while the median OS was 4 months (Figure 2). The 2-year PFS and OS were both 8.7%. The median CEP treatment period was 1.5 full cycles while the longest CEP treatment period was 21 consecutive cycles. Univariate analysis revealed that lower IPI score (p=0.037) was significantly associated with ORR, while lower LDH (p=0.029) was significantly associated with PFS. Multivariate analyses revealed no factors associated with ORR, while lower LDH (p=0.017) and lower IPI (p=0.037) were associated with PFS. Toxicities were manageable with 48% with cytopenias of any grade and the most common grade 3-4 toxicity was febrile neutropenia in 13%. Conclusions: CEP is a safe, and convenient, all-oral palliative regimen for R/R aggressive lymphoma who are not eligible for intensive salvage chemotherapy or ASCT. The median OS in our population is comparable to pooled clinical trial and academic center data from non-transplant eligible patients with R/R DLBCL (Crump et al, Blood, 2017). Some patients even in spite of low performance statuses were able to tolerate many cycles of CEP with a long period of disease control, suggesting it is a reasonable treatment option for frail patients to balance disease control with an acceptable side-effect profile. Disclosures Lam: AstraZeneca: 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; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Education Grant; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Phua:Amgen: 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; Teva: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda/Shire: 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; NovoNordisk: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Octapharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bioverativ: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alexion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: 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; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

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)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,006

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
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)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,034
Tête enseignante GPT0,285
Écart entre enseignants0,251 · 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'étudeObservationnel
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

Citations4
Publié2019
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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