Final report of a phase 2 clinical trial of lenalidomide monotherapy for patients with T‐cell lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with T-cell lymphomas face a poorer prognosis compared with patients with B-cell lymphomas. New therapeutic approaches need to be developed to improve outcomes for these patients. METHODS: Forty patients with recurrent and refractory T-cell lymphomas other than mycosis fungoides and patients with untreated T-cell lymphoma who were not candidates for combination chemotherapy were prescribed oral lenalidomide at a dose of 25 mg daily on days 1 to 21 of each 28-day cycle, with standardized dose reductions for toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR), and secondary endpoints were complete and partial response rates, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. The authors also determined duration of response (DoR). RESULTS: A total of 40 patients were enrolled in the current study; 1 patient was subsequently deemed ineligible. The ORR was 10 of 39 patients (26%); 3 patients (8%) achieved complete responses and 7 patients achieved partial responses. Three patients had stable disease for ≥5 cycles. The median OS was 12 months (range <1 month to ≥69 months), the median PFS was 4 months (range, <1 month to ≥50 months), and the median DoR was 13 months (range 2 months to ≥37 months), including 5 responses that lasted >1 year. Toxicity was in keeping with the known safety profile of lenalidomide. Among the patients who had recurrent/refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma (29 patients), the ORR was 24%, the median OS was 12 months, the median PFS was 4 months, and the median DoR was 5 months (range, 2 months to ≥37 months). CONCLUSIONS: In the current study, the use of oral lenalidomide monotherapy demonstrated clinically relevant efficacy among patients with systemic T-cell lymphomas. It appears to have excellent potential as an agent in combination therapy for patients with T-cell lymphoma.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".