MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4389234885 · doi:10.1182/blood-2023-180114

Nivolumab-AVD Is Better Tolerated and Improves Progression-Free Survival Compared to Bv-AVD in Older Patients (Aged ≥60 Years) with Advanced Stage Hodgkin Lymphoma Enrolled on SWOG S1826

2023· article· en· W4389234885 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah C. Rutherford, Hongli Li, Alex F. Herrera, Michael LeBlanc, Sairah Ahmed, Kelly Davison, Carla Casulo, Nancy L. Bartlett, Joseph M. Tuscano, Brian Hess, Pallawi Torka, Pankaj Kumar, Ryan Jacobs, Joo Y. Song, Sharon M. Castellino, Brad S. Kahl, John P. Leonard, Sonali M. Smith, Jonathan W. Friedberg, Andrew M. Evens

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensMcGill University Health Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineInternal medicineClinical endpointNeutropeniaProgression-free survivalRegimenChemotherapy regimenPhases of clinical researchSurrogate endpointOncologySurgeryClinical trialChemotherapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Survival rates in patients (pts) with classic Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) aged ≥60 years (y) are lower than younger pts. The difference is due to comorbidities, impaired performance status, decreased chemotherapy tolerance, and increased treatment-related toxicity and mortality. The frontline regimen Bv-AVD can be challenging to administer in older patients due to toxicities, particularly infection and neuropathy. The PD-1 pathway is central to pathogenesis of HL; PD-1 blockade is effective in HL. The randomized, phase 3 trial, S1826, was conducted by the National Clinical Trials Network to evaluate N-AVD vs Bv-AVD in pts with newly diagnosed advanced stage (AS) HL and enrolled 994 pts; 97 were eligible and aged ≥60y. Methods: In this subset analysis, eligible pts were ≥60y with stage 3-4 HL. Pts were randomized 1:1 to 6 cycles of N-AVD or Bv-AVD. G-CSF neutropenia prophylaxis was optional with N-AVD and required with Bv-AVD. Pre-specified pts could receive radiation therapy (RT) to residual lesions on end of treatment PET. Pts were stratified by age, international prognostic score (IPS), and intent to use RT. Response and progression were assessed by investigators using 2014 Lugano Classification. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), and detailed toxicity and safety events. EFS events were death without progression, progression/relapse, receipt of non-protocol systemic anti-lymphoma therapy without progression, or receipt of RT in a pt not declared eligible for RT at registration or who did not meet protocol-specified criteria for RT. Results: 97 pts aged ≥60y were enrolled from 7/9/19-10/5/22 and were randomized to N-AVD (n=48) or Bv-AVD (n=49). Median age was 66y (range, 60-83y), 62% were male, 86% were white, 3% were black, and 10% were Hispanic. 61% had stage IV disease and 47% had IPS 4-7. 69% of pts on N-AVD and 92% of pts on Bv-AVD received any G-CSF. No pts received RT per protocol. 95 pts were evaluable for safety analysis. While grade (gr) ≥3 hematologic toxicity occurred in 52% of pts on N-AVD and 38% on Bv-AVD (gr 3 neutropenia 48% vs 30%), febrile neutropenia, sepsis, and infections were lower for pts who received N-AVD vs Bv-AVD. (Table) Peripheral neuropathy was much less frequent with N-AVD than Bv-AVD in overall incidence (sensory: 31% vs 66% and motor: 8% vs 15%, respectively) and severity (grades ≥2, sensory: 10% vs 49% and motor: 0% vs 8%, respectively). (Table) The following adverse events, AEs (mainly In this subset analysis, median follow-up 12.1 months, PFS was superior in the N-AVD arm [HR 0.35 (95% CI 0.12-1.02) stratified one-sided logrank p=0.022]; 1-yr PFS was 93% (95% CI 79-98%) for N-AVD and 64% (95% CI 45-77%) for Bv-AVD. (Figure) 1-yr EFS was 93% (95% CI 79-98%) for N-AVD and 57% for Bv-AVD (95% CI 38-72%) [HR 0.19 (95% CI 0.06-0.61) stratified one-sided logrank p=0.0011]. 1-yr OS was 95% (95% CI 83-99%) for N-AVD and 83% (95% CI 67-92%) for Bv-AVD [HR 0.35 (95% CI 0.07-1.75) stratified one-sided logrank p=0.091]. On N-AVD, there were 2 deaths (due to infection/sepsis) and 3 progressions/relapses; on Bv-AVD, there were 7 deaths (5 due to infection/sepsis, 1 to pneumonitis, 1 unknown) and 8 progressions/relapses. Non-relapse mortality was 4% for N-AVD vs 14% for Bv-AVD. Treatment was discontinued early in 5 pts (10%) on N-AVD and 16 pts (33%) on Bv-AVD. N was discontinued early in 7 pts (15%) and Bv in 19 pts (39%). Reasons for discontinuation included (N vs Bv): AE (5 vs 14 pts), death (1 vs 3 pts), and disease progression (0 vs 1 pt). Conclusions: N-AVD improved PFS and EFS, and was better tolerated than Bv-AVD in pts aged ≥60 with AS HL. Substantially more pts discontinued Bv-AVD than N-AVD, primarily due to toxicity. Fewer deaths occurred on N-AVD than Bv-AVD. N-AVD is poised to become a standard of care for older AS HL pts fit for anthracycline-based combination therapy. Funding provided by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health CA180888, CA180819, CA180821, CA180820, CA180863, CA189955 and funding/drug provided by BMS, drug provided by SeaGen for pts enrolled in Canada.

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)0,001
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 randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,005

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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 Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,258
Écart entre enseignants0,248 · 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

Citations28
Publié2023
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentTravaux en français237 207