Interim report of a phase 2 clinical trial of lenalidomide for T‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Novel therapies are needed to improve outcomes in T-cell lymphomas. The authors report the interim results of a prospective multicenter trial evaluating lenalidomide in T-cell lymphomas. METHODS: Patients with recurrent and refractory T-cell lymphomas other than mycosis fungoides and untreated patients ineligible for combination chemotherapy were prescribed oral lenalidomide (25 mg daily) on Days 1 to 21 of each 28-day cycle until disease progression, death, or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall response rate. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. The 2-stage design allows for up to 40 patients. RESULTS: At the time of this interim analysis, 24 patients were enrolled in this study, and 23 were evaluable for response. The median age was 65 years. The overall response rate was 7 (30%) of 23; all were partial responses. Two patients had stable disease for ≥5 cycles. Responses were seen in anaplastic, angioimmunoblastic, and peripheral T-cell unspecified histologies. Median PFS was 96 days (range, 8-696+ days). Median OS was 241 days (range, 8-696+ days). The most common grade 4 adverse event was thrombocytopenia (33%). The most common grade 3 adverse events were neutropenia (21%), febrile neutropenia (17%), and pain not otherwise specified (17%). Rash correlated with response to therapy (P=.003). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with recurrent and refractory T-cell lymphomas, oral lenalidomide monotherapy has clinical activity, and toxicity is consistent with the known safety profile of lenalidomide. Further study of lenalidomide in these diseases is warranted.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".