MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pralatrexate Is An Effective Treatment for Heavily Pretreated Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Transformed Mycosis Fungoides (tMF)

2010· article· en· W2591709028 on OpenAlexaff
Francine M. Foss, Sarah McCue Horwitz, Lauren Pinter‐Brown, André Goy, Barbara Pro, Bertrand Coiffier, Leslie Popplewell, Kerry Joanne Savage, Andrei R. Shustov, Jasmine Zain, Tony Koutsoukos, Steven Fruchtman, Owen A. O’Connor

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders research
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMycosis fungoidesMedicineCHOPPrednisoneLymphomaCyclophosphamideRefractory (planetary science)VincristineChemotherapyInternal medicinePeripheral T-cell lymphomaT-cell lymphomaSurgeryGastroenterologyDermatologyT cellImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 1762 Background: Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, which includes mycosis fungoides (MF) and the Sézary Syndrome, is an indolent T-cell lymphoma. Large-cell transformation (tMF) is a well-defined histopathological disease that is distinguished from primarily cutaneous MF by the presence of large cells that exceed 25% of total lymphoid infiltrate (Barberio et al. Br J Dermatol 2007; 157:284-9) and occurs in 11% to 23% of cases. tMF represents a significantly poorer prognostic subset of MF patients with median overall survival of 12 to 22 months from the time of diagnosis of large-cell transformation (Arulogun et al. Blood 2008; 112:3082-7). There is no standard therapy for tMF and most patients are treated with multiagent systemic chemotherapy regimens. Because of its poor outcome similar to that of aggressive peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs), tMF patients were included in PROPEL, the pivotal study that led to the accelerated approval of pralatrexate (FOLOTYN®) in the United States for the treatment of relapsed or refractory PTCL. Methods: Of 109 evaluable patients in the PROPEL trial, 12 patients had histologically confirmed tMF. All patients received pralatrexate at a dose of 30 mg/m2 weekly for 6 weeks in a 7 week cycle. Results: Of the 12 patients with tMF, the median age was 56.5 years. The median number of prior therapies was 6.5 (range 1 to 12), and 5 patients (42%) received ≥5 prior systemic regimens. The majority of patients had received prior multiagent chemotherapy, including cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/vincristine/prednisone (CHOP) or CHOP-based therapy in 67% of patients and other multiagent regimens in 17% of patients. Only 1 of 12 patients had a response to their most recent prior chemotherapy regimen. The objective response rate (ORR) to pralatrexate in this group of refractory tMF using International Workshop Criteria based on investigator assessment, was 58%. Consistent with the overall study population, the ORR by independent central review was 25%. The difference in ORR between independent central review and investigator assessment for tMF is mainly due to challenges with photodocumentation of response assessment of cutaneous lesions. The 12 patients with tMF received a median of 10 doses of pralatrexate and remained on treatment for a median of 89 days. The median response duration was 4.4 months and median PFS was 5.3 months, per investigator assessment. The median survival in this group of patients was 13 months. Mucosal inflammation was reported in 7 patients (58%) including 1 patient with grade 3. Grade 4 adverse events (AEs) were fatigue (1 patient) and thrombocytopenia (1 patient). Overall, patients with tMF were able to tolerate full-dose pralatrexate treatment, with no patients discontinuing due to an AE. Conclusions: Pralatrexate demonstrated significant activity in the 12 refractory tMF patients enrolled in the PROPEL trial with an investigator assessed response rate of 58%. Pralatrexate should be considered as a treatment option for patients with tMF. Disclosures: Foss: Allos Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy, Speaker. Horwitz:Allos Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Pinter-Brown:Allos Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy. Goy:Allos Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria. Pro:Allos Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding. Savage:Allos Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria. Shustov:Allos Therapeutics, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding. Zain:Allos Therapeutics, Inc. : Speakers Bureau. Koutsoukos:Allos Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment. Fruchtman:Allos Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment. O'Connor:Allos Therapeutics, Inc.: 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.353
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations18
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicCutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders researchFrench-language works237,207