A Phase 2, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Rituximab + Galiximab Vs Rituximab + Placebo In Advanced Follicular Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Abstract 428 Background: Galiximab is a primatized chimeric monoclonal antibody directed against CD80, an immunoregulatory protein normally expressed on antigen presenting cells and T cells, as well as in B-cell NHL, Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and certain leukemias. Galiximab directly mediates antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity against tumor cells in vitro. In ex vivo assays, galiximab can act on non-malignant cells to modulate immune signaling within the tumor microenvironment. Methods: Subjects with relapsed or refractory, Grade I-IIIa, follicular NHL in relapse following treatment with at least 1 chemotherapy regimen, and who were not refractory to rituximab were randomized to rituximab (375 mg/m2) plus galiximab (500 mg/m2; R+G) or rituximab plus placebo (R+P) and treated on Days 1, 8, 15, and 22. Randomization and primary efficacy analyses were stratified by age (≤60 vs >60), rituximab exposure (rituximab naïve vs non-naïve), and baseline tumor bulk (diameter of largest lesion ≤7 cm vs >7 cm). Primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) was analyzed using a stratified log-rank test. Results: This study, originally planned as a Phase 3 confirmatory study, was terminated early due to changes in standard of care and converted to a Phase 2 study. Therefore, interpretation of p-values was focused on assessing the potential of these data to support subsequent Phase 2 and Phase 3 studies. At study termination, 337 subjects were randomized (175 R+G and 162 R+P) with median follow-up of 13.8 months. Demographics and disease characteristics were well balanced across the 2 treatment groups (Table 1). The addition of galiximab to rituximab reduced the hazard for disease progression or death by 26% (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.738; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.543, 1.002]; p = 0.050) compared to the R+P group. Kaplan-Meier median PFS was 12.0 months (95% CI [9.0, 14.7]) for R+G and 9.0 months (95% CI [8.9, 10.5]) for R+P. Overall response rate was 51% for R+G vs 48% for R+P (p = 0.455) and complete response was 20% for R+G and 15% for R+P (p = 0.251). Consistency in treatment effect was seen across patient subgroups (Figure 1). A trend toward a larger PFS effect was observed in patients who were rituximab-naïve, had bulky tumor (largest lesion >7 cm), had lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) >1 × upper limit of normal, or had bone marrow involvement at study entry. There were 10 deaths in R+G vs 17 deaths in R+P; HR = 0.549 based on a stratified log-rank analysis (95% CI [0.248, 1.217]; p = 0.135). No substantial difference was observed between groups for Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) or serious AEs, and there were no treatment-related deaths in either group. Incidence of AEs was ≥3% higher in the R+G vs R+P group for the following: pyrexia (18% vs 11%), headache (13% vs 7%), cough (10% vs 6%), upper respiratory infection (8% vs 4%), insomnia (8% vs 4%), neutropenia (6% vs 3%), muscle spasms (5% vs <1%), and oropharyngeal pain (4% vs 1%). Anti-galiximab antibodies were not detected in 169 subjects treated with galiximab who were tested while on study. Conclusions: Galiximab in combination with rituximab demonstrated a trend toward an improved PFS compared with rituximab alone and was well tolerated in subjects with relapsed or refractory follicular NHL. Disclosure: McKinney: Biogen Idec: Employment. Ruffner:Biogen Idec: Employment. Wilson:Biogen Idec: Employment. Whiteley:Biogen Idec: Employment.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".