Polatuzumab vedotin or pinatuzumab vedotin plus rituximab in patients with relapsed or refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma: final results from a phase 2 randomised study (ROMULUS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) polatuzumab vedotin (pola) and pinatuzumab vedotin (pina) showed clinical activity and tolerability in phase 1 trials. The aim of this multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study was to compare rituximab plus pola (R-pola) or pina (R-pina) in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma. METHODS: rituximab plus 2·4 mg/kg ADCs) every 21 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity up to 1 year. Treatment allocations were not masked to the investigator, patients or sponsor after the patients were enrolled and randomly assigned. The primary objectives were safety and tolerability, and antitumour response. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01691898, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: 81 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and 42 with follicular lymphoma were recruited between Sept 27, 2012, and Oct 10, 2013, and were assigned to treatment. 81 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and 41 patients with follicular lymphoma were eligible for analysis. Of the 42 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma who received R-pina, 25 (60%, 95% CI 43-74) achieved an objective response and 11 (26%, 95% CI 14-42) achieved a complete response. Of the 39 patients in this cohort who received R-pola, 21 (54%, 95% CI 37-70) achieved an objective response, and eight (21%, 95% CI 9-36) achieved a complete response. Of the 21 patients in the follicular lymphoma cohort who received R-pina, 13 (62%, 95% CI 38-82) achieved an objective response, and one (5%, 95% CI 0·1-24) achieved a complete response. Of the 20 patients in this cohort who received R-pola, 14 (70%, 95% CI 46-88) achieved an objective response, and nine (45%, 95% CI 23-68) achieved a complete response. In the diffuse large B-cell lymphoma cohort, grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 33 (79%) of 42 patients receiving R-pina (most common were neutropenia [29%] and hyperglycaemia [10%]; nine [21%] grade 5 adverse events, five of which were infection-related), and in 30 (77%) of 39 patients receiving R-pola (most common were neutropenia [23%], anaemia [8%] and diarrhoea [8%]; no grade 5 adverse events). In the follicular lymphoma cohort, grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 13 (62%) of 21 patients receiving R-pina (most common were neutropenia [29%] and hyperglycaemia [14%]; no grade 5 adverse events) and in ten (50%) of 20 patients receiving R-pola (most common were neutropenia [15%] and diarrhoea [10%]; one grade 5 adverse event). INTERPRETATION: R-pina and R-pola are potential treatment options in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma. Pola was selected by the study funder for further development in non-Hodgkin lymphoma, partly because of longer durations of response than pina, and an overall benefit-risk favouring R-pola. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".