MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

S821 NIVOLUMAB PLUS DOXORUBICIN, VINBLASTINE AND DACARBAZINE FOR NEWLY DIAGNOSED ADVANCED‐STAGE CLASSICAL HODGKIN LYMPHOMA: 2‐YEAR EXTENDED FOLLOW‐UP FROM COHORT D OF THE PHASE 2 CHECKMATE 205 STUDY

2019· article· en· W2953069975 on OpenAlexaff
Eva Domingo‐Doménech, Radhakrishnan Ramchandren, A. Rueda, Marek Trněný, Tatyana Feldman, H.J. Lee, Mariano Provencio, C. Sillaber, Jonathon B. Cohen, Kerry J. Savage, Wolfgang Willenbacher, Anne Sumbul, Marco Sacchi, Philippe Armand, S. Ansell

Bibliographic record

VenueHemaSphere · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSpinal Cord Injury BCUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDacarbazineNivolumabMedicineVinblastineInternal medicineOncologyStage (stratigraphy)CohortChemotherapyCancerImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Up to 30% of newly diagnosed patients (pts) with advanced‐stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) are not cured by multi‐agent chemotherapy. High expression of the programmed death‐1 (PD‐1) ligands in these pts, associated with frequent genetic alterations at chromosome 9p24.1 in Hodgkin Reed‐Sternberg cells, supports the investigation of front‐line PD‐1 blockade in cHL (Roemer MG et al. J Clin Oncol 2016). Promising activity and acceptable safety was previously reported in newly diagnosed pts with advanced‐stage cHL treated with nivolumab, an anti–PD‐1 immune checkpoint inhibitor monoclonal antibody, followed by nivolumab plus doxorubicin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (N‐AVD) at a 9‐month follow‐up of Cohort D of the CheckMate 205 study (NCT02181738; Ramchandren R et al. EHA 2018). Aims: To further characterize the efficacy, including post hoc Deauville assessment, and safety of nivolumab followed by N‐AVD in pts with newly diagnosed advanced‐stage cHL with 2‐year extended follow‐up of CheckMate 205 Cohort D. Methods: Pts ≥ 18 years of age with newly diagnosed advanced‐stage cHL (stage IIB with unfavorable risk factors, III, or IV) received 4 doses of nivolumab monotherapy (240 mg IV every 2 weeks) followed by N‐AVD combination therapy for 6 cycles (12 doses). Primary endpoint was safety; secondary endpoints included complete remission (CR) rate per independent review committee (IRC) at end of study therapy (EOT) using 2007 International Working Group criteria. Complete metabolic response (CMR) was defined as a Deauville score of ≤ 3 (PET negative). Overall survival (OS) and modified progression‐free survival (PFS) were exploratory endpoints; PFS was assessed in a post hoc analysis. Results: Fifty‐one pts were treated (median age 37 years); minimum follow‐up was 24.4 months at data cutoff. Other baseline characteristics have been previously described (Ramchandren R et al. EHA 2018). Monotherapy was completed by 49/51 (96%) pts, combination therapy by 45/50 (90%); 48 pts entered follow‐up. After 2 combination cycles, CR rate was 51% per IRC (71% CMR) and 71% per investigator; at EOT, CR rate was 69% (75% CMR) per IRC and 80% per investigator. At 21 months, modified PFS rate per investigator was 80% (95% CI, 66–89) and PFS rate per investigator was 83% (95% CI, 69–91; Figure). Overall, 30 (59%) pts experienced grade 3–4 TRAEs, most commonly neutropenia in 21 (41%). The most common grade 3–4 immune‐mediated AE was hepatitis (2 pts, 4%). No grade 5 TRAEs occurred ≤ 30 days from last dose; 2 deaths were reported during the extended follow‐up: 1 pt (age 68 years) died 38 days after last dose due to study drug toxicity; another (age 85 years) died 451 days after last dose due to disease progression. Summary/Conclusion: With extended follow‐up, nivolumab followed by N‐AVD demonstrated a 21‐month PFS rate of 83% per investigator, a high metabolic response rate with 75% CMR at EOT per IRC, with no new safety signals. Incorporation of Deauville assessment improved the concordance of CR between IRC‐ and investigator‐assessed responses. Nivolumab followed by N‐AVD provides a promising alternative treatment option in newly diagnosed advanced‐stage cHL. image

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 score0.235
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHemaSphereSame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207