MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3097857700 · doi:10.1182/blood-2020-142565

Effect of Pembrolizumab (Pembro) Monotherapy Versus Brentuximab Vedotin (BV) on Patients (Pts) with Relapsed/Refractory Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma (R/R cHL): Exploratory Analysis of the Randomized, Phase 3 Keynote-204 Study By Prior Lines of Therapy

2020· article· en· W3097857700 sur OpenAlexaff
John Kuruvilla, Radhakrishnan Ramchandren, Armando Santoro, Ewa Paszkiewicz‐Kozik, Robin Gasiorowski, Nathalie A. Johnson, Laura Maria Fogliatto, Iara Gonçalves, José de Lima Oliveira, Valéria Buccheri, Guilherme Fleury Perini, Neta Goldschmidt, Irina Kryachok, Naohiro Sekiguchi, Jianxin Lin, Akash Nahar, Patricia Marinello, Pier Luigi Zinzani

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensJewish General HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBrentuximab vedotinPembrolizumabMedicineInternal medicineClassical Hodgkin lymphomaRefractory (planetary science)OncologyPhases of clinical researchLymphomaHodgkin lymphomaClinical trialCancerMaterials scienceImmunotherapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: The open-label, international, randomized, phase 3 KEYNOTE-204 (NCT02684292) study showed that in pts with R/R cHL, the PD-1 inhibitor pembro was superior to BV and demonstrated statistically significant, clinically meaningful improvement in PFS, with safety consistent with previous reports. This post hoc exploratory analysis of KEYNOTE-204 evaluated pembro vs BV by number of prior lines of therapy. Methods: Eligible pts were aged ≥18 y, had measurable disease and ECOG PS 0 or 1, and were post−autologous stem cell transplant (auto-SCT) or ineligible for auto-SCT. Pts who were BV-naive or BV-exposed were also eligible. Pts were randomized 1:1 to pembro 200 mg IV Q3W or BV 1.8 mg/kg IV Q3W. Randomization was stratified by status after 1L therapy (primary refractory vs relapsed <12 mo vs relapsed ≥12 mo after end of 1L therapy) and prior auto-SCT (yes vs no). Pts in this exploratory analysis were evaluated by number of prior therapies before enrollment (1 and ≥2 prior therapies). Primary end points were PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR) per International Working Group (IWG) criteria, including clinical and imaging data after auto-SCT or allogeneic SCT (allo-SCT) and OS. Additional end points were PFS excluding clinical and imaging data after auto-SCT or allo-SCT (secondary PFS analysis), ORR and duration of response (DOR) by BICR per IWG, and safety. Results: Of 304 randomized pts, 55 (pembro, 27; BV, 28) received 1 prior therapy and 249 (pembro, 124; BV, 125) received ≥2 prior therapies. For pts with 1 prior therapy, median (range) age was 49 y (22-84) and 22 pts (40.0%) were aged ≥65 y. No pts received prior auto-SCT and 18 (32.7%) had primary refractory disease. Auto-SCT ineligibility was due to chemorefractory disease for 21 pts (38.2%) and reasons not related to chemorefractory disease (eg, age, comorbidities) for 34 pts (61.8%). 23 pts (85.2%) and 25 pts (92.6%) in the pembro and BV groups, respectively, discontinued treatment; the most common reason was progressive disease. Median (range) time from randomization to data cutoff was 24.0 mo (18.7-34.8) for pembro and 23.6 mo (18.2-34.6) for BV. For the primary PFS analysis, median PFS was 16.4 mo for pembro and 8.4 mo for BV (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.031-1.59); 12 mo PFS rates were 58.9% and 37.4%, respectively. For the secondary PFS analysis, median PFS was 11.7 mo for pembro and 8.3 mo for BV (HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.28-1.40). ORR was 66.7% for pembro and 53.6% for BV. Median (range) DOR for pembro was 20.7 mo (2.8-20.7) and 14.1 mo (0.0+ to 21.9) for BV. 7 pts (25.9%) and 9 pts (33.3%) in the pembro and BV groups, respectively, received subsequent auto-SCT; 1 pt in the BV group received subsequent allo-SCT. 21 pts (77.8%) on pembro and 20 (74.1%) on BV experienced a treatment-related adverse event (TRAE); most common were hyperthyroidism (22.2%) for pembro and peripheral neuropathy (22.2%) for BV. 1 (3.7%) and 8 (29.6%) of pts on pembro and BV, respectively, experienced grade 3-5 TRAEs. For pts with ≥2 prior therapies median (range) age was 34 y (18-83) and 27 (10.8%) pts were aged ≥65 y. 112 pts (45.0%) received prior auto-SCT and 105 (42.2%) had primary refractory disease. Median (range) time from randomization to data cutoff was 27.1 mo (18.8-42.0) for pembro and 27.6 (18.2-42.3) for BV. 87 (71.9%) and 121 (96.8%) in the pembro and BV groups discontinued; most common reason was progressive disease. For the primary PFS analysis, median PFS was 12.6 mo for pembro and 8.2 mo for BV (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.47-0.92); 12-mo PFS rates were 52.8% and 35.3%, respectively. For the secondary PFS analysis, median PFS was 12.6 mo for pembro and 8.2 mo for BV (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.45-0.88). ORR for pembro was 65.3% and 54.4% for BV. Median (range) DOR for pembro was 20.5 mo (0.0+ to 33.2+) and 11.2 mo (0.0+ to 33.9+) for BV. 23 (19.0%) and 25 (20.0%) pts in the pembro and BV groups, respectively, received subsequent auto-SCT; 14 (11.6 %) and 12 (9.6%) received subsequent allo-SCT. 89 pts (73.6%) on pembro and 97 (77.6%) on BV experienced a TRAE; most common were hypothyroidism (14.9%) for pembro and peripheral neuropathy (17.6%) for BV. 23.1% and 24.0% of pts on pembro and BV, respectively, experienced grade 3-5 TRAEs. Conclusion: In pts with R/R cHL, pembro monotherapy resulted in an improvement in PFS and ORR vs BV in pts regardless of number of prior therapies. In particular, these data suggest that pembro monotherapy may be a promising option as 2L+ therapy for pts with R/R cHL ineligible for auto-SCT. Disclosures Kuruvilla: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Antengene: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Ramchandren:Seattle Genetics, Sandoz-Novartis, Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Merck, Seattle Genetics, Janssen, Genentech: Research Funding. Santoro:Arqule, Sanofi: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb, SERVIER, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, MSD, Sanofi, ArQule: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb, Servier, Gilead, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb, SERVIER, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, MSD, Sanofi, ArQule: Consultancy; Takeda, Roche, Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, AstraZeneca, ArQule, Lilly, Sandoz, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Servier, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, MSD: Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb, SERVIER, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, MSD, Sanofi, ArQule: Consultancy; Takeda, Roche, Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, AstraZeneca, ArQule, Lilly, Sandoz, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Servier, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, MSD: Speakers Bureau. Paszkiewicz-Kozik:Roche, Takeda, Celgene: Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses. Gasiorowski:MSD, Takeda, Novartis, AbbVie: Honoraria. Johnson:Roche/Genentech, Merck: Honoraria; Roche/Genentech, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding. Goncalves:Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, Bayer, Novartis, Merck, Bayer, Celgene, GSK, BMS: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Perini:Janssen, Takeda: Honoraria; AbbVie, Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Goldschmidt:Abbvie Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kryachok:Janssen, Bayer, Karyopharm, MSD, AbbVie, Acerta, Debiopharm: Research Funding; Takeda, Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda, MSD, AbbVie, Roche: Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses. Sekiguchi:Ono, A2 Healthcare, Astellas, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Otsuka, Pfizer, PPD-SNBL, Sumitomo Dainippon, Daiichi Sankyo, and Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Lin:Merck & Co., Inc.: Current Employment. Nahar:Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp., a subsididary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenlworth, NJ, USA: Current Employment. Marinello:Merck & Co., Inc.: Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA: Current Employment; Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA: Other: Stock ownership. Zinzani:Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics, Inc.: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kirin Kyowa: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Eusapharma: Consultanc

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)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,004
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,013

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,002
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
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 Opus0,014
Tête enseignante GPT0,274
Écart entre enseignants0,260 · 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 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

Citations4
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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