MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4205450923 · doi:10.1182/blood.v130.suppl_1.821.821

A Phase Ib/IIa Trial of the Combination of Romidepsin, Lenalidomide and Carfilzomib in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Lymphoma Shows Complete Responses in Relapsed and Refractory B- and T-Cell Lymphomas

2017· article· en· W4205450923 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Neha Mehta–Shah, Alison J. Moskowitz, Matthew A. Lunning, Peggy Lynch, Mark Scheuerman, Veenna Minnal, Natasha Galasso, Anita Kumar, John F. Gerecitano, Andrew D. Zelenetz, Paul A. Hamlin, Ariela Noy, Matthew J. Matasar, Maria Lia Palomba, Anas Younes, Wendy Schaffer, Ravinder K. Grewal, Jürgen Rademaker, Craig S. Sauter, Parastoo B. Dahi, Patricia L. Myskowski, Meenal Kheterpal, Ahmet Doǧan, Melissa Pulitzer, Lakeisha Lubin, Laura H. Tang, Nivetha Ganesan, Ai Ni, Steven M. Horwitz

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueProtein Degradation and Inhibitors
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCarfilzomibLenalidomideRefractory (planetary science)MedicineRomidepsinLymphomaInternal medicineOncologyMultiple myelomaMaterials scienceChemistry

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Epigenetic manipulation and immunomodulation are therapeutic strategies in hematologic malignancies. In our previous study, the combination of romidepsin and lenalidomide showed a 51% overall response rate (ORR), 23% complete response (CR) rate in patients with relapsed/ refractory B-cell (BCL) and T-cell (TCL) lymphoma. Given the potential synergy of proteasome inhibitors with histone deacetylase inhibitors and lenalidomide, we conducted a phase Ib/IIa study evaluating the safety and toxicity of romidepsin and lenalidomide with carfilzomib in patients with relapsed/refractory lymphoma. Here we report the completed phase II results. Methods: Romidepsin and carfilzomib were given IV on days 1, 8 and lenalidomide was given orally on days 1-14 of a 21-day cycle. A standard 3+3 dose escalation was followed: The starting dose was romidepsin 8 mg/m2,lenalidomide 15 mg, carfilzomib 36mg/m2. Tumor response was based on disease-specific criteria.Patients could be treated until progression, intolerance, or response adequate to allow allogeneic transplantation. Results: 24 of the 27 patients treated as part of the study were evaluable for determination of the maximum tolerated dose. Additionally, one was evaluable for efficacy and 2 were evaluable for toxicity only. 16 patients were treated for TCL: PTCL-NOS-7, AITL-5, MF-2, transformed MF-1, extra-nodal NK/T-cell lymphoma-1. 11 patients were treated for BCL: DLBCL (7) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) (2), follicular lymphoma (FL) (2). Of note, one of the aforementioned AITL patients had concurrent DLBCL and was evaluated for efficacy in both B-cell and T-cell cohorts. Dose level 2 (romidepsin 8 mg/m2,lenalidomide 15 mg, carfilzomib 45mg/m2) exceeded the MTD with 2/6 DLTs: 1 grade 3 thrombocytopenia resulting in treatment delay and 1 grade 4 thrombocytopenia. There were no DLTs among 6 patients treated in dose level 1 (romidepsin 8 mg/m2,lenalidomide 15 mg, carfilzomib 36mg/m2) and dose level 1 was deemed the MTD. Overall, grade 3-4 toxicities in >10% patients included neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. 16 treatment related serious adverse events were seen in 9 patients and included: anemia-1, vomiting/diarrhea-1, dyspenea-1, edema-1, febrile neutropenia-1, fever-2, generalized weakness-1, heart failure-1, hypotension-1, infection-2, gastrointestinal bleed-1, and DVT-1. Of the 11 TCL evaluable for response at the MTD, ORR was 45.5% (5/11, 95% CI: 23.4 to 83.3%). The complete response (CR) rate was 36.4% (4/11, 95% CI: 10.9 to 69.2%) and the partial response (PR) rate was 9% (1/11, 95% CI: 2.3 to 51.8%). The median event free survival (EFS) for patients with TCL was 13.6 w (95% CI: 5.7-74.6). Among all patients with TCL (N=16), the ORR was 50% (8/16). CRs were seen in 4/5 AITL and 1/7 PTCL-NOS; PRs were seen in PTCL-NOS-1, AITL-1, and transformed MF-1. Of the 8 BCL evaluable for response at MTD, the ORR was 50% (4/8, 95% CI: 0-41%) with 3 PRs and 1 CR. The median EFS for patients with BCL was 19.8 w (95% CI: 5.4-NR). Among all patients with BCL evaluable for response (n=10), PRs were seen in 4 patients with DLBCL and 1 patient with MCL. One patient with concurrent DLBCL and AITL achieved a CR. The median EFS for all patients treated at the MTD was 14.5 w (95% CI: 5.7 to NR). The median time to best response was 5.7 w. The median duration of response was 38.7 w (95% CI: 9.7 to NR). 3 patients with TCL and 1 with MCL underwent allogeneic transplantation following response to this therapy and were censored at time of transplant. Sustained complete responses were seen in 2 additional patients with TCL: one remained in CR for 11.7 months and another remains on treatment at 17 months. The median duration of follow up was 56.0 w (range 2.4 to 102.1 w). Conclusions: The MTD dose for phase 2 study was identified as romidepsin 8mg/m2, lenalidomide 15mg and carfilzomib 36mg/m2. No unexpected toxicities have emerged. At this dose, the overall response rate for BCL and TCL was 50%. Responses were seen across various BCL and TCL histologies. In particular, in AITL, the regimen has shown responses in all 5 patients. Given the promising overall and complete response rates, the regimen warrants further study. Disclosures Mehta-Shah: Celgene: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Research Funding. Moskowitz: Bristol Myers-Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Lunning: Onyx: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy. Kumar: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Gerecitano: Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aratana: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mass Medical International: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orexo: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Samus Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Royal Bank of Canada: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Arcus Medica: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Zelenetz: Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Hamlin: Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Portola: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: research support; Incyte: Other: research support; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Geneitcs: Other: research support; Novartis: Other: research support. Noy: Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Younes: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Third-party medical writing assistance, under the direction of Anas Younes, was provided by Scott Malkin of Gardiner-Caldwell Communications, and was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.; Curis: Research Funding; Takeda Millenium: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Dogan: Roche Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Peer Review Institute: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Horwitz: Mundipharma: Consultancy; Aileron Therapeutics: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; HUYA: Consultancy; Infinity/Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa-Hakka-Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Consultancy, 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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,357
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,427

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
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)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,235
Écart entre enseignants0,224 · 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 tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
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

Citations16
Publié2017
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetProtein Degradation and InhibitorsTravaux en français237 207