MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Updated Results of a Phase II Randomized Study (ROMULUS) of Polatuzumab Vedotin or Pinatuzumab Vedotin Plus Rituximab in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

2014· article· en· W2404824632 on OpenAlexaff
Franck Morschhauser, Ian W. Flinn, Ranjana H. Advani, Catherine Diefenbach, Kathryn S. Kolibaba, Oliver W. Press, Laurie H. Sehn, Andy I. Chen, Gilles Salles, Hervé Tilly, Bruce D. Cheson, Sarit Assouline, Martin Dreyling, Anton Hagenbeek, Pier Luigi Zinzani, Sreeni Yalamanchili, Dan Lü, Cheryl Jones, Surai Jones, Yu‐Waye Chu, Jeff P. Sharman

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalMcGill UniversitySpinal Cord Injury BC
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineBrentuximab vedotinCohortRituximabRefractory (planetary science)GastroenterologyFollicular lymphomaLymphomaOncologyHodgkin lymphoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Previously reported results from an ongoing study of polatuzumab vedotin (PoV) and pinatuzumab vedotin (PiV), antibody drug conjugates (ADC) containing the anti-mitotic MMAE targeting CD79b (PoV) and CD22 (PiV), showed clinical activity in combination with rituximab (R) in relapsed/refractory (r/r) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and follicular lymphoma (FL). Here we report updated results of ADC + R at the RP2D of 2.4 mg/kg and initial results of PoV + R in r/r FL at the PoV dose of 1.8 mg/kg. Methods: Pts were randomized to receive PoV or PiV + R (ADC 2.4 mg/kg + R 375 mg/m2). In a separate non-randomized cohort (Cohort C), r/r FL pts were treated with PoV (1.8 mg/kg) + R. ADC + R was given every 21 days. Tumor assessments were performed every 3 months. Results: As of 21 February 2014, 59 pts received PoV + R (39 DLBCL; 20 FL), 63 PiV + R (42 DLBCL; 21 FL); 20 r/r FL pts were treated in Cohort C. Median time of follow-up was 10 mo. for PoV + R, 9 mo. for PiV + R, and 5 mo. for Cohort C. Median prior therapies [DLBCL, 3 (1-10); FL, 2 (1-8)] were balanced among the randomized treatment (tx) arms, median prior therapies in Cohort C was 2 (1-13); overall 44% were R refractory. Median tx cycles in DLBCL: 6 PoV (range 1-16) and 7 PiV (1-15); FL: 10 PoV (3-17), 7 PiV (1-14), and 6 Cohort C (2-10). Overall safety profiles of both regimens in the randomized arms receiving 2.4 mg/kg ADC were similar. The most common tx-emergent adverse events (AE) ≥25%: fatigue (55%), diarrhea (43%), nausea (37%), peripheral neuropathy (PN) (39%), neutropenia (27%), constipation (26%), sensory PN (25%), and decreased appetite (25%). Grade ≥ 3 AE >3%: neutropenia (24%), diarrhea (6%), dyspnea (5%), febrile neutropenia (4%), hyperglycemia (4%), fatigue (3%), and thrombocytopenia (3%). Serious AEs were reported in 43% and 36% of PiV and PoV treated pts, respectively. Discontinuation of study treatment for AE was reported in 49% and 41% of PiV and PoV treated pts, respectively. Thirty-five pts discontinued treatment due to PN with a median time to discontinuation of 5.6 mo. PN reversibility was observed following treatment interruptions and ADC dose modifications. Two of 9 Grade 5 AEs (sepsis, urosepsis) were attributed to CD22 ADC; no Grade 5 AEs were attributed to CD79b ADC. In Cohort C the most common tx-emergent AE ≥ 25%: fatigue (55%), nausea (45%), neutropenia (40%), sensory PN (30%), diarrhea (25%), constipation (25%) and pyrexia (25%). Grade ≥ 3 neutropenia was reported in 7 pts; no other Grade ≥ 3 AE was reported in >1 pt. Serious AE were reported in 5 pts. Two pts discontinued study treatment for AE. No Grade 5 AEs were reported. Overall response rate (ORR), complete (CR) and partial (PR) response rates, n (%) [95% CI], and median PFS in DLBCL (95% CI) are shown in the table. Median PFS in the FL cohorts are not reported due to insufficient follow-up duration. Table PoV (CD79b) + R PiV (CD22) + R PoV [1.8 mg/kg] + R (Cohort C) R/R DLBCL ORR CR PR mPFS (mo.) N=39 22 (56%) [41, 71] 6 (15%) [7, 30] 16 (41%) [26, 58] 5.4 (2.8-8.4) N=42 24 (57%) [41, 72] 10 (24%) [12, 39] 14 (33%) [20, 48] 5.2 (4.1-NR) N/A R/R FL ORR CR PR N=20 14 (70%) [47, 86] 8 (40%) [21, 64] 6 (30%) [14, 53] N=21 13 (62%) [40, 80] 2 (10%) [2, 30] 11 (52%) [30, 72] N=16 7 (44%) [20, 70] 0 7 (44%) [20, 70] Pharmacokinetic profiles were similar for both ADCs across DLBCL and FL with no free MMAE accumulation. Pts receiving PoV at 1.8 mg/kg had proportionately lower exposure of antibody conjugated MMAE compared to pts treated at the 2.4 mg/kg dose level. Conclusions: PoV and PiV + R were generally well-tolerated with similar toxicity profiles. Neutropenia, PN, and diarrhea were the principal toxicities. Similar efficacy was observed with both ADCs in heavily pretreated pts with DLBCL. The higher CR rate with PoV + R compared to PiV + R suggests greater clinical activity in r/r FL. Lower overall response rates were observed in r/r FL pts treated with a lower dose of PoV. Results based on longer follow-up to further assess differences in safety and tolerability between the two PoV doses in r/r FL will be presented. Additional data of pts who received crossover ADC + R treatment following documented disease progression on initial ADC + R treatment will also be presented. Combination studies of PoV + R with chemotherapy and with ADC schedules to reduce PN are ongoing or in planning. Disclosures Morschhauser: Genentech/roche: Honoraria, travel grants Other; Celgene: advisory boards, advisory boards Other, Honoraria. Off Label Use: obinutuzumab and lenlidomide in relapsed follicular lymphoma. Flinn:Genentech, inc.: Research Funding. Advani:Genentech, inc.: Research Funding. Diefenbach:Genentech, inc.: Research Funding. Press:Genentech, inc.: Research Funding. Chen:Genentech, inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Salles:Genentech, inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Tilly:Genentech, inc.: Research Funding. Cheson:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Assouline:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Dreyling:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Hagenbeek:millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Zinzani:Genentech, inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yalamanchili:Genentech, inc.: Employment. Lu:Genentech, inc.: Employment. Jones:Genentech, inc.: Employment. Jones:Genentech, inc.: Employment. Chu:Genentech, inc.: Employment. Sharman:Gen: Research Funding.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207