P1065: UPDATED RESULTS FROM AN OPEN-LABEL PHASE 1/2 STUDY OF FAVEZELIMAB IN COMBINATION WITH PEMBROLIZUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH ANTI–PD-1–NAIVE RELAPSED OR REFRACTORY CLASSICAL HODGKIN LYMPHOMA
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Topic: 17. Hodgkin lymphoma - Clinical Background: Programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitors play a key role in treating relapsed or refractory (R/R) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), but improved treatment response remains an important clinical objective. Lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) downregulates T-cell activity and is commonly coexpressed with PD-1 on anergic T cells. Dual PD-1 and LAG-3 blockade has demonstrated antitumor activity, leading to FDA approval for unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Favezelimab (anti–LAG-3) is being investigated in combination with pembrolizumab (anti–PD-1) in a multicohort phase 1/2 efficacy and safety study (NCT03598608) in patients with R/R hematologic malignancies. Initial results demonstrated that pembrolizumab 200 mg and favezelimab 800 mg Q3W exhibited promising antitumor activity and acceptable safety in anti–PD-1–naive patients with R/R cHL (cohort 1; Johnson NA et al. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(16 suppl):7516). Aims: Evaluate efficacy and safety of favezelimab + pembrolizumab in anti-PD-1–naive patients with R/R cHL. Methods: Part 1 was the safety lead-in phase to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) followed by a dose-expansion phase (part 2). Patients in cohort 1 had R/R cHL after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) (or were ineligible for ASCT), or did not respond to salvage chemotherapy, and had no prior anti–PD-1 therapy. Part 1 included patients from all cohorts who received pembrolizumab 200 mg IV Q3W and favezelimab at a starting dose of 200 mg, escalating to 800 mg IV Q3W using a modified toxicity probability interval method. In part 2, patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W plus favezelimab at the established RP2D (800 mg Q3W) for ≤35 cycles (~2 years). Primary end points were safety and RP2D. Objective response rate (ORR) was a secondary end point. Duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were exploratory. Results: Thirty patients were enrolled in cohort 1. Median age was 40.5 years, 53% had an ECOG PS of 0, and 80% had ≤3 prior lines of therapy. At data cutoff (August 31, 2022), 10 patients (33%) had completed 2 years of study treatment, 14 patients (47%) had discontinued (9 progressive disease; 4 adverse events; 1 nonadherence to study drug regimen), and 6 (20%) had treatment ongoing. After a 25.5-month median follow-up (first dose to data cutoff; range, 18.0-37.2), 24 patients had objective response (ORR, 80% [95% CI, 61-92]; 10 [33%] complete responses, 14 [47%] partial responses). 29 patients (97%) had reduction in target lesion size from baseline and 25 (83%) had ≥50% reduction from baseline. Median DOR was 25.6 months (range, 0.0+ to 28.8+); an estimated 54% of responders remained in response ≥15 months. Median PFS was 19.4 months (95% CI, 9.0-28.5); 15-month PFS rate was 53%. Median OS was not reached (95% CI, NR-NR); 15-month OS rate was 93%. Among 26 patients (87%) with treatment related AEs, most common (≥15%) were hypothyroidism (27%); infusion-related reaction (23%); fatigue (20%); pruritus and headache (17% each). Grade 3/4 treatment related AEs occurred in 7 patients (23%). No deaths were treatment related. Of 3 patients who received hematopoietic stem cell transplantation after completion of study treatment, 1 had a grade 3/4 AE unrelated to study treatment (increased blood bilirubin) that resolved. Summary/Conclusion: Favezelimab + pembrolizumab continued to demonstrate sustained antitumor activity and acceptable safety in anti–PD-1–naive patients with R/R cHL. Further studies comparing this combination with pembrolizumab alone would be beneficial. Keywords: Clinical trial, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Immunotherapy
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,002 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».