MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979509136 · doi:10.1182/blood.v118.21.955.955

Frontline Therapy with Brentuximab Vedotin Combined with ABVD or AVD in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Advanced Stage Hodgkin Lymphoma

2011· article· en· W2979509136 on OpenAlexaff
Anas Younes, Joseph M. Connors, Steven I. Park, Naomi Hunder, Stephen M. Ansell

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrentuximab vedotinABVDMedicineInternal medicineOncologyDacarbazineRegimenChemotherapy regimenHodgkin's lymphomaChemotherapySurgeryLymphomaCD30VincristineCyclophosphamide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 955 Background: Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is a lymphoid neoplasm defined by the presence of CD30-positive Hodgkin Reed-Sternberg (HRS) cells in a background of inflammatory cells. Frontline treatment is generally ABVD alone or in combination with other chemotherapy regimens or radiation. Although a standard ABVD regimen is curative for the majority of patients with advanced stage HL, up to 30% of patients will require a second-line therapy. Brentuximab vedotin (SGN-35) comprises an anti-CD30 antibody conjugated by a protease-cleavable linker to the potent antimicrotubule agent, monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE). In a phase 2 study, an objective response rate of 75% and multiple durable complete remissions (CRs) (34%) were obtained with single-agent brentuximab vedotin in highly treatment-refractory patients with HL. Methods: A phase 1, open-label, multicenter study is being conducted to evaluate the safety of brentuximab vedotin when administered in combination with standard therapy (ABVD) or a modified standard (AVD) (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01060904). Patients received doses of 0.6, 0.9, or 1.2 mg/kg brentuximab vedotin with standard doses of ABVD or 1.2 mg/kg brentuximab vedotin with AVD, depending upon cohort assignment. The combination regimens were administered on Days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle for up to 6 cycles of therapy. Each regimen evaluated a dose limiting toxicity (DLT) period, defined as any Cycle 1 toxicity requiring a delay of ≥7 days in standard ABVD or AVD therapy. Determination of antitumor activity is based on investigator assessment of objective response according to the Revised Response Criteria for Malignant Lymphoma (Cheson 2007). Results: Interim data are presented for the first 31 patients treated. Six patients received 0.6 mg/kg, 13 received 0.9 mg/kg, and 6 received 1.2 mg/kg with ABVD; 6 patients received 1.2 mg/kg with AVD. Baseline characteristics included: Stage IV, 55%; IPI score ≥4, 29%; male, 77%; median age, 35 years (range, 19–59). Combination treatment was generally well tolerated, with no DLT observed up to 1.2 mg/kg in either regimen. Overall, AEs reported in ≥45% of patients, regardless of severity, were nausea and neutropenia (77% each); peripheral sensory neuropathy (48%); and fatigue (45%). Infusion-related reactions occurred in 23% of patients. Grade 3/4 AEs observed in >10% of patients were neutropenia (74%), febrile neutropenia (16%), and anemia (13%). No Grade 5 events were observed. Overall, 6 patients discontinued combination treatment due to an AE. In the ABVD cohorts (n=25), AEs of pulmonary toxicity, dyspnea, and interstitial lung disease that could not be distinguished from bleomycin toxicity led to discontinuation of bleomycin in 7 patients. Five of these 7 patients continued treatment with AVD and brentuximab vedotin. All 10 patients who had a response assessment available after completion of frontline therapy achieved CR. Currently, an expansion cohort of approximately 20 patients is enrolling to explore 1.2 mg/kg brentuximab vedotin combined with AVD therapy. Conclusions: In this interim analysis of 31 patients with newly diagnosed HL, the maximum tolerated dose in combination with ABVD or AVD was not reached; no DLT was observed up to 1.2 mg/kg, the maximum planned dose. Brentuximab vedotin treatment was associated with manageable AEs; the most frequent AEs in the study were nausea and neutropenia. The safety profile observed thus far in this study suggests that brentuximab vedotin has potential for combination therapy with ABVD or AVD. Updated safety and response data will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures: Younes: Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau, Travel Expenses; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi-Aventis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; SBIO: Research Funding; Syndax: Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria; Pharmacyclic: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Brentuximab vedotin (SGN-35) comprises an anti-CD30 antibody conjugated by a protease-cleavable linker to the potent antimicrotubule agent, monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE). It is an investigational agent that is being studied in CD30+ malignancies. Connors:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Park:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Hunder:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ansell:Seattle Genetics, 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 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)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.217
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations45
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207