MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Durable Complete Responses Following Therapy with Epratuzumab Plus Rituximab: Final Efficacy Results of a Multicenter Study in Recurrent Indolent Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL).

2007· article· en· W2558410094 on OpenAlexaff
John P. Leonard, Stephen J. Schuster, Christos Emmanouilides, Félix Couture, Nick Teoh, William A. Wegener, David M. Goldenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRituximabMedicineFollicular lymphomaInternal medicineRegimenLymphomaGastroenterologyRefractory (planetary science)OncologyChemotherapy regimenChemotherapySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND: Epratuzumab, an anti-CD22 humanized monoclonal antibody, has shown clinical activity as a single-agent (Leonard et al, J Clin Oncol.2003; 21:3051–3059) and in combination with rituximab in relapsed/refractory B-cell NHL (Leonard et al, J Clin Oncol.2005; 23:5044–5051). To evaluate this combination regimen in a larger cohort of patients and to evaluate long-term efficacy, we conducted an international multicenter, open-label, single-arm study in patients with recurrent indolent NHL. METHODS: Forty-nine patients (23F/26M, median age: 61, elevated LDH: 25%, bone marrow involvement: 49%) with chemotherapy-relapsed or refractory follicular NHL (n=41) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (n=7) (as well as one enrolled patient with histological evidence of follicular and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma) were evaluated. Thirty-five (71%) were rituximab-naive, with the remainder having previously received and responded to then relapsed from rituximab (single agent or with chemotherapy). Patients received 360 mg/m2 IV of epratuzumab, followed by 375 mg/m2 IV of rituximab, weekly for 4 consecutive weeks. RESULTS: As preliminarily reported (Emmanouilides et al, Blood2003; 102/11:69a), the combination therapy was well tolerated, without notable additive toxicity over that expected with single-agent rituximab. Twenty-two of the 41 (54%, 95% CI: 37% – 69%) follicular NHL (FL) patients achieved an objective response (OR) using IWG response criteria, including 10 (24%) patients with complete responses (CR), half of whom remained in remission at the last evaluation with a median duration of follow-up of 44.3 months (range: 18.2 – 52.4 months). The median duration of response (DR) was 13.4 months (95% CI: 8.4 – 28.2 months) and the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 10.2 months (95% CI: 6.3 – 13.6 months), with a Kaplan-Meier estimated median DR of 33.4 months (range: 11.2 – 47.9 months) and an estimated median PFS of 35.1 months (range: 12.9 – 52.4 months) for the 10 patients who achieved CR. Importantly, 4/7 SLL patients (57%) experienced OR, including 2 CR, 1 CRu and 1 PR. Furthermore, while the rituximab-naive FL and SLL patients (n=34) showed an OR of 50% (26% CR/CRu, 24% PR), those patients who had responded to prior rituximab (n=14) had an OR of 64% (29% CR, 36% PR). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this study confirms that the combination of epratuzumab and rituximab, in addition to being well tolerated, demonstrates promising anti-lymphoma activity for indolent NHL, and can result in durable complete remissions in a subset of patients. Further evaluation of this combination regimen as initial therapy for indolent NHL is planned (CALGB 50701), and in diffuse large B cell lymphoma (CHOP + epratuzumab + rituximab) is ongoing (NCCTG N0489).

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)0.005
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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.273 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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