MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4417014643 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-2451

Vorinostat for GVHD prophylaxis in children, adolescents, and young adults (AYA) shows low incidence of acute GVHD and relapse with encouraging overall survival after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT): A multisite, nonrandomized clinical trial

2025· article· en· W4417014643 sur OpenAlexaff
Nicolas Parnell, Kristen Votruba, Xiao Cao, Thomas Braun, Tracey Churay, Michelle Rozwadowski, Erik Winnega, Mark Vander Lugt, Gregory A. Yanik, Ghada Abusin, John Magenau, Mary Riwes, Vanessa A. Fabrizio, Carrie L. Kitko, April Rahrig, Jodi Skiles, Julie‐An Talano, Kirsten M. Williams, Pavan Reddy, Sung Won Choi

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Établissements canadiensChildren’s Health Research Institute
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésVorinostatClinical endpointIncidence (geometry)TransplantationCumulative incidenceImmunosuppressionHazard ratioHematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) remains a significant complication following allogeneic HCT. At lower doses, histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibition (vorinostat) has been shown to reduce GVHD through immunomodulation and may potentially offer neuroprotective effects. We conducted a phase I/II prospective, multi-site, open-label clinical trial combining vorinostat with standard immunosuppression for GVHD prevention in children and AYA patients undergoing allogeneic HCT (NCT03842696). Methods: Eligible patients were 3–39 years old, diagnosed with a hematologic malignancy, had Lansky/Karnofsky scores >70% without organ dysfunction, and were undergoing allogenic transplant from either a fully HLA-matched (8/8 allelic match at the HLA-A, -B, -C, and -DRB1 loci) or haploidentical donor. In matched-donor transplants, patients received standard GVHD prophylaxis (tacrolimus and methotrexate) plus vorinostat (60 mg/m2 twice daily) from day -10 through day +30 post-HCT. In haploidentical-donor transplants, patients received post-transplant cyclophosphamide, mycophenolate mofetil, and tacrolimus, with vorinostat (60 mg/m2 twice daily) initiated on day +5 and continued through day +30 post-HCT. The primary endpoint was the incidence of grade 2–4 acute GVHD by day 100 post-HCT. Forty-three patients were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a reduction in grade 2–4 acute GVHD incidence of 50% to 28%, with a Type I error rate of 5%. Secondary endpoints included the incidence of relapse, non-relapse mortality (NRM), and overall survival (OS). Data were analyzed using intention-to-treat analysis. All patients were considered for toxicity through day 180, for acute GVHD through day 100, and secondary endpoints through day 365. Exploratory endpoints included neurocognitive assessments, pharmacokinetic analyses, and laboratory correlatives. Neurocognition was assessed using the NIH toolbox cognitive battery, Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT), and Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI). Scores were standardized based on normative data by age, with outcomes reported as standard scores (mean=100, SD=15). Results: Between 2020–2025, 43 patients were enrolled (median age 19 years [range 3-39]; 27 males and 16 females); with diagnoses of MDS/AML (n=29) or ALL (n=14). Transplants included 25 HLA-matched unrelated donors, 7 HLA-matched related donors, and 11 haploidentical donors. Neutrophil engraftment occurred at a median of 14.5 days with no primary graft failures. No dose-limiting toxicities definitely attributable to the study drug were observed in the phase I or II portions of the study. The cumulative incidence of grade 2–4 acute GVHD was 16.2% [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.07-0.29] and 6.9% [95% CI, 0.02-0.17] for grade 3–4. The cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD requiring systemic immunosuppression was 20.9% [95% CI, 0.10-0.34]. At 1-year post-HCT, 6 patients (14.3% [95% CI, 0.0572-0.266]) experienced relapse and 4 patients (9.3%) died with a 4.6% [95% CI, 0.008- 0.14] 1-year NRM. One-year OS was 90.5% [95% CI, 0.82-0.99]. Baseline neurocognitive assessments showed significant impairments compared to the normative population.Specifically, the overall NIH Toolbox composite score was significantly lower (P<0.001), as were performances on individual subtests of processing speed (P<0.05), attention (P<0.001), and executive functioning (P<0.001). Scores of the WRAT Math subtest were also significantly lower than the normative population (P<0.001). By one-year post-HCT, there were universal upward trends across all cognitive domains. There was no longer significant impairment in overall cognitive functioning among transplant patients compared to normal controls. However, individual impairments persisted on tests of attention (P<0.001) and executive functioning (P<0.01). Conclusions: Vorinostat for GVHD prophylaxis was well-tolerated with a low incidence of acute and chronic GVHD and encouraging 1-year OS in children and AYA patients. No dose-limiting toxicities or SAEs/AEs definitely attributable to vorinostat were observed. If validated in a larger cohort, vorinostat may serve as a promising option for acute GVHD prevention in both HLA-matched and haploidentical donor transplants, without increasing relapse rates . Additionally, our findings highlight significant neurocognitive effects that children and AYA patients bring into allogeneic HCT. Pharmacokinetic and laboratory correlative analyses are ongoing.

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 non randomisé · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,009

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 savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

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 Opus0,007
Tête enseignante GPT0,264
Écart entre enseignants0,257 · 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 non 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

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation→Travaux en français237 207→