MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Comparison of Single Agent GA101 In Japanese and European Patients with Relapsed/Refractory B-Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (B-NHL) – Results From Two Phase I Studies

2010· article· en· W2550640392 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michinori Ogura, Franck Morschhauser, Kensei Tobinai, Guillaume Cartron, Kiyohiko Hatake, Michael Wenger, Joe Birkett, Naoko Oya, Kiyomi Nishima, Gilles Salles

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRituximabMedicineTolerabilityInternal medicineLymphomaRefractory (planetary science)NeutropeniaClinical trialOncologyPhases of clinical researchDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaGastroenterologyAdverse effectChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 4921 Background: Most studies regarding the chimeric anti-CD20-antibody rituximab have reported no ethnic differences including response or safety in B-NHL. GA101 is the first type II, glycoengineered and humanized anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody to enter clinical trials. Results in B-NHL patients have previously been reported from three phase I studies, conducted in Europe, Canada and Japan (Salles 2008, 2010, Sehn 2009, Tobinai 2010), and all have demonstrated good tolerability along with promising activity, with a safety profile largely similar to rituximab when compared to historical rituximab data. Here we report a comparison of the phase I studies BO20999 and JO21900, conducted in Europe and Japan, respectively, to analyze any potential ethnic differences in safety/efficacy. Both studies were conducted in patients with relapsed/refractory B-NHL, with the majority of patients being of indolent histology and both studies used identical drug administration and response assessment schedules. Methods: In both studies GA101 was administered IV as monotherapy (as an absolutely flat dose) on days 1, 8 and 22, and then every 3 wks, for a total of 9 infusions. The dose was escalated using a 3+3 design, with study JO21900 starting at a higher dose of 200/400mg (with doses up to 2,000mg, a dose level judged safe and well tolerated in BO20999 (doses ranging from 50-2, 000mg). Patient and disease characteristics, prior treatments, response rates and safety parameters from both studies were compared. Given the small sample sizes, heterogeneity, the dose-escalation design and the cross-trial comparison, no formal statistical analysis was applied. Results: Patient age and other baseline parameters were substantially similar between the two studies (Table 1). The safety profiles in both studies were comparable, with the most common AEs being infusion-related reactions (86% BO20999; 100% JO21900) of grade 1–2 mainly associated with the first infusion and decreasing with subsequent infusions. Incidence of SAEs were similar (BO20999 [n=4], JO21900 [n=2]). Importantly, no dose-limiting toxicities and no dose reductions were observed in either study. No patients with aggressive histology were enrolled into study JO21900, and Japanese patients were less heavily pretreated (median of 1 vs 4 prior treatments for European patients) and no Japanese patient had received prior autologous stem cell transplant. End of treatment response rates were slightly higher in Japanese study than those in the European study (Table 1). GA101 plasma drug concentrations in both studies were comparable, with the observation of a large inter-patient variability, however, a dose-dependent increase in mean plasma concentrations, increasing with dose, was observed in both studies. Conclusion: These clinical, safety and pharmacokinetic results from two phase I studies suggest that there appears to be no apparent differences between Japanese and European patients with respect to the safety or efficacy of GA101 monotherapy in indolent B-NHL patients, although analyses on larger datasets would be required to confirm these initial results. The slightly higher response rates observed in Japanese patients may be attributable to the small sample size, and a less heavily pre-treated population that comprised of patients solely of indolent histology only. Disclosures: Morschhauser: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cartron: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hatake: Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.: Honoraria, Research Funding. Wenger: Roche: Employment. Birkett: Roche: Employment. Oya: Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.: Employment. Nishima: Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.: Employment. Salles: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→