MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4380079804 · doi:10.1002/hon.3164_441

CCTG LY18‐A phase I master protocol of novel combination therapy for patients with relapsed or refractory lymphoma ‐ the RGDP‐Venetoclax substudy

2023· article· en· W4380079804 sur OpenAlexafffundabout
Sarit Assouline, Diego Villa, Annette E. Hay, Nathalie A. Johnson, Michael Crump, Robert Kridel, Anca Prica, A. Shamy, Alina S. Gerrie, Kerry J. Savage, Jacqueline Kelly, Lois E. Shepherd, B. Chen, John Kuruvilla, Farheen Manji

Notice bibliographique

RevueHematological Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensUniversity Health NetworkQueen's UniversitySpinal Cord Injury BCUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesLoxo OncologyAbbVie CanadaNational Institutes of HealthPharmacyclicsNational Comprehensive Cancer NetworkBreast Cancer Research FoundationTG TherapeuticsRegeneron PharmaceuticalsGenentechCelgeneGilead Sciences
Mots-clésMedicineSalvage therapyInternal medicineGemcitabineRituximabOncologyFollicular lymphomaLymphomaRefractory (planetary science)GastroenterologyCancerChemotherapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Therapies for relapsed/refractory (r/r) large B cell lymphomas are expanding. Chemo-immunotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) remains an important therapeutic option with survival benefit. About 50% of patients (pts) have an adequate response to salvage therapy which is required to proceed to ASCT. Novel salvage regimens may increase response and transplantation rate. Methods: LY.18 is a Canadian Cancer Trials Group Phase I platform trial of novel salvage regimens for patients with r/r large B cell lymphoma. RGDP (rituximab, gemcitabine, dexamethasone, cisplatin) plus venetoclax (RGDP-V) was evaluated in adult pts with diffuse large B cell lymphoma, primary mediastinal B cell lymphoma, transformed follicular lymphoma, or high-grade B cell lymphoma after one prior line of therapy. RGDP was administered at standard doses (Crump, JCO, 2014) for up to 3 cycles pre-transplant. V was administered at increasing dose levels (200–800 mg) according to a 3+3 design, with dose limiting toxicity (DLT) assessed in cycle one. The recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) was the primary outcome. Pts with a partial or complete response (PR or CR) could proceed to ASCT. Response was assessed using both the Lugano criteria and RECIL. Results: Since Sept 2020, 18 pts have been treated at 5 dose levels. Severe myelotoxicity was noted in the first dose level with 2 DLTs observed in the first 4 pts. The trial was amended to mandate G-CSF days 9 to 14 with each cycle of therapy (Table 1). Median age was 59, 4 pts were ≥65 years, 8 were female, median ECOG was 1 (range 0 to 3). Two of 3 pts experienced a DLT at the 800 mg dose. The recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) is RGDP-V 400 mg days 4 to 10 of cycle 1, and days 1 to 10 of cycles 2 and 3. There were 7 serious adverse events in 5 pts, including febrile neutropenia (n = 3); grade 2 bacteremia (n = 1); and grade 3 abdominal pain, C2 fracture from fall, and supraventricular tachycardia (n = 1 each), all unrelated. There were 4 deaths on trial; 3 disease related, 1 from transplant-related complications. All grade treatment emergent adverse events occurring in at least 20% of patients were tinnitus, abdominal pain, constipation, diarrhea, dyspepsia, fatigue, pain, headache, and back pain. Grade 3 or greater anemia was seen in 33%, neutropenia in 78%, and thrombocytopenia in 61% of pts. The ORR in 16 evaluable pts was 75% (12/16) (95% CI: 51.7%–92.4%) by both Lugano criteria and RECIL; 2 pts were in CR by Lugano criteria and 3 pts by RECIL. Responses were seen across all dose levels. Stem cell collection >2.0 × 106 CD34+cells/kg was achieved in 9 of 10 pts in whom it was attempted. All 10 pts were successfully transplanted. 4 pts received CART therapy, 1 following progression post ASCT. Conclusion: RGDP-V 400 mg is safe and feasible with encouraging early response rates. Neutropenia was a key toxicity and can be mitigated with prophylactic G-CSF. LY.18 will expand to include 6 more patients at the RP2D. The research was funded by: AbbVie Corporation, Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd Keywords: Aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Combination Therapies Conflicts of interests pertinent to the abstract. S. Assouline Consultant or advisory role: Abbvie, BMS, AstraZeneca, Janssen, BeiGene, Pfizer, Roche Research funding: Novartis Canada D. Villa Honoraria: Janssen, BeiGene, AstraZeneca, Abbvie, BMS/Celgene, Kite/Gilead, Merck, Roche, ONO Pharmaceuticals, Zetagen Research funding: Roche, AstraZeneca A. Hay Research funding: AbbVie, Janssen, Merck, Seattle Genetics, Roche, Karyopharm M. Crump Honoraria: Kyte/Gilead and Novartis Research funding: Roche and Epizyme (Institution) R. Kridel Research funding: Abbvie, Acerta Educational grants: Eisai A. Shamy Consultant or advisory role: Abbvie, BMS, BeiGene, Tahoe, Roche Honoraria: Abbvie, BMS, BeiGene, Tahoe, Roche A. Gerrie Honoraria: Abbvie, Astrazeneca, Janssen, Beigene K. Savage Consultant or advisory role: Seagen Honoraria: BMS, Merck, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Abbvie Research funding: BMS(self), Roche(Institution) Other remuneration: Regeneron(DSMC), Beigen (Steering Committee) L. Shepherd Research funding: AbbVie, Janssen, Merck, Seattle Genetics, Roche, Karyopharm J. Kuruvilla Consultant or advisory role: Abbvie, Antengene, BMS, Gilead, Karopharym, Merck, Roche and Settale Genetics Honoraria: Abbvie, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Gilead, Incyte, Janssen, Karyopharm, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Seattle Genetics Research funding: Roche, Astra Zeneca and Merck Other remuneration: DSMB for Karyopharm

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: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,143
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,383

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
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 recherche0,0000,000
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 Opus0,091
Tête enseignante GPT0,384
Écart entre enseignants0,293 · 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'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

Citations1
Publié2023
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHematological OncologyMême sujetLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentTravaux en français237 207