MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3095175361 · doi:10.1182/blood-2020-142275

Phase I/II Dose-Escalation Study of Lenalidomide in Combination with R-GDP for Treatment of Transplant-Ineligible Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Followed By Maintenance Lenalidomide

2020· article· en· W3095175361 sur OpenAlexaff
Colin Phipps, Chandramouli Nagarajan, Lawrence Cheng Kiat Ng, Jane L Chua, Yunxin Chen, Shin Yeu Ong, Melinda Si Yun Tan, Nicholas F. Grigoropoulos, Sathish Gopalakrishnan, Heng Joo Ng, William Ying Khee Hwang, Yeow Tee Goh, Yuh Shan Lee

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensNortheast Cancer Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLenalidomideMedicineNeutropeniaGemcitabineInternal medicineRegimenFebrile neutropeniaPhases of clinical researchDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaRituximabRefractory (planetary science)Progressive diseaseSalvage therapyOncologyGastroenterologySurgeryDexamethasoneLymphomaClinical trialChemotherapyMaterials science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction Patients with relapsed/ refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) whom are transplant-ineligible have limited treatment options. To address this specific treatment challenge, we undertook a clinical trial combining lenalidomide and rituximab (R2) with an established salvage regimen for DLBCL in gemcitabine, dexamethasone, cisplatin (GDP). Methods This was a single-center, open-label, phase I/II dose-escalation study of lenalidomide in combination with R-GDP for treatment of transplant-ineligible R/R DLBCL. The study was divided into a phase I dose-escalation study employing a '3+3' design followed by an expansion (phase II) portion with the recommended phase 2 dosing (RP2D), and a maintenance phase using 10 mg daily for 21 out of a 28-day cycle, for up to 1 year. The primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of lenalidomide when combined with RGDP while secondary objectives was to analyze progression-free (PFS) and overall (OS) survival. Dose-escalation included 4 dose levels (DL) of 10 mg, 15 mg, 20 mg, 25 mg, starting at DL1. Lenalidomide was given for 6 cycles during induction therapy on days 1-21 every 28 days for a total of 6 cycles. The expansion phase used lenalidomide at the RP2D. Based on interim PET-CT assessment after cycle 2 (PET-2), patients in CR completed 2 more cycles of R2-GDP followed by two cycles of R2 and then stopped treatment without lenalidomide maintenance; patients with stable disease (SD) or partial remission (PR) completed 2 more cycles of R2-GDP and repeated PET-CT assessment after cycle 4 (PET-4). Based on PET-4, all responding patients (CR or PR) completed a further 2 cycles followed by maintenance with lenalidomide 10mg/day. Patients who failed to achieve at least PR at the point of PET-4 assessment were deemed treatment failure and stopped study treatment. Results The first patient was enrolled in February 2017. At data cut-off (July 20, 2020), 10 patients were enrolled into the dose-escalation study and a further 9 patients in the phase II part using lenalidomide at the RP2D of 15 mg/day (DL2). The MTD of lenalidomide of 15 mg/day was established after 2 of 3 patients at 20 mg/day (DL3) suffered neutropenic sepsis. The median age was 57.5 years (range, 40-76). Seven patients had primary refractory disease after R-CHOP while 13 had relapsed disease. Median time from first diagnosis to trial enrolment was 11.87 months. Median number of prior treatments were 2, including 4 patients who had previously undergone autologous transplant. After a median follow-up of 23.6 months in surviving patients, overall response rate was 68% (CR, N=7; PR, N=6). Median number of lenalidomide cycles completed in the induction phase was 4. Four patients completed less than 3 lenalidomide cycles due to progressive disease (PD). Nine patients died while on follow-up, 7 from PD and 2 infective deaths related to study treatment. The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia and thrombocytopenia with 4 and 11 patients experiencing at least one episode of grade 3 and 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopaenia, respectively. Out of these patients, 2 had neutropenic sepsis. Six patients went on to receive maintenance lenalidomide, completing a median of 5 cycles. Only one patient completed the planned 12 months of lenalidomide maintenance; 2 patients discontinued due to infective complications, one due to neutropenia, one due to patient's decision to stop without any adverse events documented, and one due to PD. For the entire cohort, median PFS and OS were 4.7 months and 26 months, respectively. Patients with primary refractory disease (N=7) had a median PFS of only 2 months. When these patients were excluded, the remaining (N=13) had a median PFS of 21 months. Conclusion In our cohort of transplant ineligible R/R DLBCL patients R2-GDP resulted in an ORR of 68%. Patients with primary refractory disease did not benefit from study treatment. However, for the remaining patients, the median PFS of 21 months compares favorably with other salvage regimens in this population. Lenalidomide at 15 mg/day may safely augment RGDP responses in chemotherapy-sensitive relapsed DLBCL. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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 enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,013

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 ouverte0,0020,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,001

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 Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,262
Écart entre enseignants0,245 · 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

Citations0
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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