MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Phase II Trial of Lenalidomide in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Hodgkin Lymphoma

2008· article· en· W2994047002 on OpenAlexaff
John Kuruvilla, Diane Taylor, Lisa Wang, Chantale Blattler, Armand Keating, Michael Crump

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLenalidomideMedicineInternal medicineAutologous stem-cell transplantationRefractory (planetary science)ThalidomideTransplantationRegimenPhases of clinical researchGastroenterologySurgeryOncologyClinical trialMultiple myeloma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Patients (pts) with Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) that has relapsed after or is refractory to primary therapy and subsequent high dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) cannot be cured with conventional treatments. As various cytokines (IL-6,12 and 13), NF-KB and angiogenic factors have been implicated in the pathophysiology of HL, we postulated that lenalidomide, a novel agent with both immunomodulatory and anti-angiogenic properties would have activity in the relapsed (REL) or refractory (REF: defined as progression on or within 3 months of primary therapy) setting. Methods: The treatment regimen consisted of lenalidomide 25 mg PO days 1–21 on a 28 day cycle. CT scans of the chest, abdomen and pelvis were obtained at baseline and were repeated every 2 cycles or earlier at the investigators’ discretion. A Fleming two stage trial design was chosen and a calculated sample size of 30 was determined based on an alpha error < 0.05 and power of 0.80 and a response proportion of 0.20 to consider lenalidomide active. Serum/plasma specimens at baseline and on treatment were collected for cytokine analysis. Data analysis was performed in July 2008 after the first stage (15 patients) were accrued. Responses were categorized by International Workshop Criteria (Cheson JCO 1999) and toxicity was assessed by NCI common toxicity criteria v3.0. Results: 15 pts have been accrued with 14 evaluable patients to date. The median age was 37 (range 18–74) with 7 female pts. ECOG performance status was 0: (2) 1: (9) and 2: (4). The median number of prior chemotherapy regimens was 2 (range 1–4). All pts (except one pt on a pediatric protocol had received ABVD-type primary chemotherapy and 9/15 received prior radiotherapy. 10 pts had undergone prior ASCT with 10 patients having REF and 5 pts with REL disease following primary chemotherapy. 8 pts had disease recurrence within 1 year post ASCT. Of non-ASCT pts, 2 pts were refractory to chemotherapy and 3 pts were ineligible (age and/or comorbidity). The median number of treatment cycles/pt was 3 (range 0–10) with 1 pt enrolled but not starting therapy due to rapid disease progression. Best response was a PR in 2 cases (confirmed by 3rd independent radiologist in 1), and SD in 7 pts. Six pts discontinued therapy because of PD and 5 for toxicity; 4 pts remain on treatment. Median time to progression was 3.2 months and overall survival was 9.1 months. Grade 3–4 toxicities included: neutropenia:4 (1 pt had febrile neutropenia following 1 cycle of treatment), thrombocytopenia:4 and anemia:3. Five pts developed skin rash (2: grade 2) and there was 1 case of erythema multiforme. Conclusions: Preliminary results of this phase II study including heavily pre-treated pts with HL suggest lenalidomide has some evidence of activity. Toxicity is manageable although hematologic side effects are common. These results suggest that lenalidomide warrants further study and the second stage of accrual is ongoing.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations47
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207