MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2910240398 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-117251

Prolonged Overall Survival (OS) in a Subset of Responders to the Combination of Brentuximab Vedotin (Bv) and Bendamustine (B) in Heavily Treated Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL): Results of an International Multi- Center Phase I/II Experience

2018· article· en· W2910240398 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ahmed Sawas, John Kuruvilla, Jennifer Kimberly Lue, Changchun Deng, Jennifer E. Amengual, Francesca Montanari, Kerry J. Savage, Hager Elgedawe, Diego Villa, Michael Crump, Joseph M. Connors, Owen A. O’Connor

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSpinal Cord Injury BCPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBrentuximab vedotinInternal medicineBendamustineRefractory (planetary science)PopulationGastroenterologyChemotherapyOncologyLymphomaSurgeryHodgkin lymphomaRituximab

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Prognosis for patients who fail to respond to high-dose chemotherapy or progress after high dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) is particularly poor, with a recent study reporting 71% of patients dying in year 1 and 90% by year 2, with a median -progression survival of 1.3 years [1]. In our study of brentuximab vedotin plus bendamustine (BvB) in patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin's lymphoma, we recently reported an overall response rate (ORR) and complete response rate (CR) of 71% and a 32% respectively (N=65) in a heavily treated patient population [2]. Having noted several patients with a progression free survival (PFS) of 1 year or longer, we reviewed all enrolled patients for protracted duration of benefit, raising the question as to whether these patients may have been cured by BvB in the salvage setting. (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01657331). Methods Among 65 enrolled patients we identified 23 with a PFS of more than one year after treatment with BvB. Patients had received Bv on Day 1 with B on Days 1 and 2 of a 3-week cycle for up to 6 cycles. In the Phase 1 study 4 dose levels were evaluated: (1) Bv = 1.2mg/kg; B = 70mg/m2; (2) Bv = 1.2mg/kg; B = 80mg/m2; (3) Bv = 1.8mg/kg; B = 80mg/m2; and (4) Bv = 1.8mg/kg; B = 90. Accrual followed a classic Fibonacci dose escalation, with 3 patients being treated at each dose level. Dose Limiting Toxicity (DLT), defined as any CTC version 4 Grade 3 or 4 toxicity led to expansion of the dose cohort. The recommended phase II dose was Bv 1.8 mg/kg on Day 1 and B 90 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 2. The Phase 2 portion of the study accrued an additional 37 patients. Response was assessed by the investigator per Cheson 2007 after cycles 2 and 6. Patients were followed post completion of therapy every 3 month until disease progression and imaging was conducted every 3- 6 months. Study procedures and follow-up were concluded on June 30th 2018. In addition, plasma and serum biomarkers were prospectively collected for correlation with toxicity and response. Results With a median follow-up of 33 months (range 20-58 month) we identified 23/65 patients (43% male) with a median age of 34 years (range, 18-55) who experienced a PFS of 1 year or more. The median number of prior systemic therapies was 3 (range 1-6); with 11 patients having had prior ASCT and 10 patients receiving prior radiation therapy. Median number of BvB cycles administered was 4 (range 2-6). A best response of CR was documented for 17 patients (74%) and partial response (PR) was documented for 6 patients (26%). Consolidation with HDCT-ASCT was performed in 10 patients, 3 of whom received maintenance Bv post-transplant. The median duration of response (DOR), PFS and OS among this group was 28, 32 and 34 months, respectively. All responses are ongoing with no evidence of relapse. Long term survival with no further therapy after a median of 6 cycles of BvB ( range 2-6) was observed in 13 patients (20% of the treated population) (median post-BvB PFS 36 months, range 20-58). Exploratory analysis of the correlation between disease outcome and changes from baseline in select biomarkers demonstrated a significantly lower mean baseline sCD30 level among long term responders (p=0.01). No correlations were noted between other clinical outcome metrics and sCD30, nor with other biomarkers including TARC, CD163, or galectin. Conclusion In this heavily treated population with HL, the combination of BvB represents an effective and tolerable outpatient salvage regimen with long term response and protracted survival among a subset of patients, and raises the prospect that these patients, with a historically poor outcome may be cured with BvB. We intend to follow these patients to obtain additional information on their longer term outcome. ReferencesZagadailov, E.A., et al., Real-world effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin versus physicians' choice chemotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma following autologous stem cell transplantation in the United Kingdom and Germany. Leuk Lymphoma, 2018. 59(6): p. 1413-1419.O'Connor, O.A., et al., Brentuximab vedotin plus bendamustine in relapsed or refractory Hodgkin's lymphoma: an international, multicentre, single-arm, phase 1-2 trial. Lancet Oncol, 2018. 19(2): p. 257-266. Disclosures Kuruvilla: Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Canada: Research Funding; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria. O'Connor:ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: 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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.278 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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