MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2983593617 · doi:10.1182/blood-2019-126997

The Use of CEP (Lomustine, Etoposide and Prednisone), an All-Oral Palliative Chemotherapy Regimen, in Aggressive Lymphomas

2019· article· en· W2983593617 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lakshman Vasanthamohan, Brent Parker, Joy Mangel, Selay Lam, Kang Howson‐Jan, Chai W. Phua

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLomustineMedicineInternal medicinePrednisoneEtoposideRegimenChemotherapy regimenVincristineOncologyAggressive lymphomaGastroenterologyTolerabilityChemotherapySurgeryAdverse effectLymphomaRituximabCyclophosphamide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: There is no current standard of care therapy for the management of patients with aggressive lymphomas in the relapsed or refractory (R/R) setting who are not candidates for intensive salvage chemotherapy and/or autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). The combination of lomustine (CCNU), etoposide and prednisone (CEP) is an oral chemotherapeutic regimen that is modified from CCEP used in Hodgkin Lymphoma (CCNU, chlorambucil, etoposide and prednisone). CEP consists of alternating A & B cycles as follows (Figure 1): 'A' cycles contain lomustine 80 mg/m2 on day 1 as well as etoposide 100 mg/m2 and prednisone 100 mg on days 1-7. 'B' cycles contain only the etoposide and prednisone. Cycles are given every 21 days apart. To date there has been no published data on CEP's efficacy and tolerability in aggressive R/R lymphoma. In this study, we describe our institutional experience with CEP at the London Regional Cancer Program (LRCP) in London, Ontario for patients with R/R aggressive lymphomas unable to tolerate intensive chemotherapy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of patients who received CEP at LRCP between January 2014 and May 2018 for R/R aggressive lymphomas. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse effects related to CEP. Kaplan-Meier survival curves modeled PFS and OS. We also performed univariate and multivariate analyses to assess whether pre-specified variables (age, IPI score at diagnosis, LDH at time of treatment, and the number of prior lines of therapy) were independently associated with response to CEP (using linear regression) or progression-free survival (using the Cox proportional hazards model). IPI score (0-2 vs. 3-5) and the number of prior lines (1-2 vs. ≥ 3) were analyzed as binary variables due to the overall sample size. Results: 46 patients received CEP at LRCP during the study period. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma was the most common diagnosis (70%) with Hodgkin lymphoma (6.5%) and peripheral T-cell lymphoma (6.5%) being the next most common. The median age of patients starting CEP was 76, with the median number of prior therapies being 2 (range 1-6). The primary outcome was ORR, which was 41% in our population, with a median time to response of 23 days. The median PFS was 2 months while the median OS was 4 months (Figure 2). The 2-year PFS and OS were both 8.7%. The median CEP treatment period was 1.5 full cycles while the longest CEP treatment period was 21 consecutive cycles. Univariate analysis revealed that lower IPI score (p=0.037) was significantly associated with ORR, while lower LDH (p=0.029) was significantly associated with PFS. Multivariate analyses revealed no factors associated with ORR, while lower LDH (p=0.017) and lower IPI (p=0.037) were associated with PFS. Toxicities were manageable with 48% with cytopenias of any grade and the most common grade 3-4 toxicity was febrile neutropenia in 13%. Conclusions: CEP is a safe, and convenient, all-oral palliative regimen for R/R aggressive lymphoma who are not eligible for intensive salvage chemotherapy or ASCT. The median OS in our population is comparable to pooled clinical trial and academic center data from non-transplant eligible patients with R/R DLBCL (Crump et al, Blood, 2017). Some patients even in spite of low performance statuses were able to tolerate many cycles of CEP with a long period of disease control, suggesting it is a reasonable treatment option for frail patients to balance disease control with an acceptable side-effect profile. Disclosures Lam: AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Education Grant; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Phua:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda/Shire: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NovoNordisk: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Octapharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bioverativ: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alexion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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