MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Phase I/II study of avadomide (CC-122) in combination with R-CHOP for newly diagnosed DLBCL.

2020· article· en· W3030479973 on OpenAlexaff
Neha Mehta–Shah, Julio C. Chávez, Pau Abrisqueta, Nathalie A. Johnson, Juan Miguel Bergua Burgués, Carlos Grande-García, Douglas A. Stewart, Kieron Dunleavy, Guillermo Rodríguez‐Domínguez, Juan‐Manuel Sancho, James Drew, Chengqing Wu, Patrick R. Hagner, Richard Delarue, Alejandro Martı́n

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Degradation and Inhibitors
Canadian institutionsJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaTolerabilityCHOPPegfilgrastimPhases of clinical researchOncologyGastroenterologyInternational Prognostic IndexLymphomaSurgeryNeutropeniaClinical trialFebrile neutropeniaAdverse effectChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3501 Background: In certain subsets of patients (pts) with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), the failure rate of standard R-CHOP treatment is high. Pts with high-risk disease (International Prognostic score [IPI] 3-5) have a particularly poor prognosis, with 3-y survival rates of ~62% with R-CHOP alone. The cereblon E3 ligase modulator avadomide (CC-122) showed activity in pts with relapsed or refractory DLBCL. We report results of avadomide plus R-CHOP in previously untreated pts with high-risk DLBCL. Methods: CC-122-DLBCL-002 (NCT03283202) is a phase 1/2 study of avadomide plus R-CHOP-21 in pts newly diagnosed with DLBCL not otherwise specified with IPI scores 3-5 who were aged ≥18 y. Pts received standard R-CHOP and escalating doses (1-3 mg) of oral avadomide for up to six 21-d cycles (Table). All pts received pegfilgrastim support. Primary objectives were to assess safety, tolerability, and complete response (CR) rate. Secondary objectives include evaluation of additional efficacy parameters (objective response rate [ORR], progression-free survival [PFS], and overall survival) and biomarkers. Results: As of July 30, 2019, 35 pts were enrolled in the phase 1 part of the study. Median age was 66 y (range, 20-75), 23 pts (66%) were aged > 60 y, 18 (51%) had an IPI score of 3, and 17 (49%) had an IPI score of 4-5. Thirty-two pts (91%) completed 6 cycles of treatment. Median relative total dose intensity of avadomide was 99% and the average relative dose intensity of R-CHOP was 95%. Six pts had dose-limiting toxicities: 1 pt had neutropenia and bacterial hepatic infection; 1 had pneumonia; 1 had febrile neutropenia (FN); 1 had FN and hypotension; 1 had FN due to skin infections; and 1 had sepsis. The recommended phase 2 dose was 3 mg 2/3 wk. Grade 3/4 adverse events in ≥10% of pts were neutropenia (54%), anemia (20%), leukopenia (20%), lymphopenia (14%), hypophosphatemia (14%), and FN (11%). Among 34 efficacy-evaluable pts, the ORR was 88% (n = 30/34), including a CR rate of 79% (n = 27/34) at the end of treatment. With a median follow-up of 10 mo, the 1-y PFS rate was 80% (95% CI, 58-92). Correlative analyses will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: Avadomide plus R-CHOP was well-tolerated with no significant additive toxicities. The promising efficacy in this high-risk pt population warrants further evaluation of immunomodulatory drugs combined with immunochemotherapy for pts with previously untreated DLBCL. Clinical trial information: NCT03283202 . [Table: see text]

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicProtein Degradation and InhibitorsFrench-language works237,207