MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3097857700 · doi:10.1182/blood-2020-142565

Effect of Pembrolizumab (Pembro) Monotherapy Versus Brentuximab Vedotin (BV) on Patients (Pts) with Relapsed/Refractory Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma (R/R cHL): Exploratory Analysis of the Randomized, Phase 3 Keynote-204 Study By Prior Lines of Therapy

2020· article· en· W3097857700 on OpenAlexaff
John Kuruvilla, Radhakrishnan Ramchandren, Armando Santoro, Ewa Paszkiewicz‐Kozik, Robin Gasiorowski, Nathalie A. Johnson, Laura Maria Fogliatto, Iara Gonçalves, José de Lima Oliveira, Valéria Buccheri, Guilherme Fleury Perini, Neta Goldschmidt, Irina Kryachok, Naohiro Sekiguchi, Jianxin Lin, Akash Nahar, Patricia Marinello, Pier Luigi Zinzani

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrentuximab vedotinPembrolizumabMedicineInternal medicineClassical Hodgkin lymphomaRefractory (planetary science)OncologyPhases of clinical researchLymphomaHodgkin lymphomaClinical trialCancerMaterials scienceImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The open-label, international, randomized, phase 3 KEYNOTE-204 (NCT02684292) study showed that in pts with R/R cHL, the PD-1 inhibitor pembro was superior to BV and demonstrated statistically significant, clinically meaningful improvement in PFS, with safety consistent with previous reports. This post hoc exploratory analysis of KEYNOTE-204 evaluated pembro vs BV by number of prior lines of therapy. Methods: Eligible pts were aged ≥18 y, had measurable disease and ECOG PS 0 or 1, and were post−autologous stem cell transplant (auto-SCT) or ineligible for auto-SCT. Pts who were BV-naive or BV-exposed were also eligible. Pts were randomized 1:1 to pembro 200 mg IV Q3W or BV 1.8 mg/kg IV Q3W. Randomization was stratified by status after 1L therapy (primary refractory vs relapsed <12 mo vs relapsed ≥12 mo after end of 1L therapy) and prior auto-SCT (yes vs no). Pts in this exploratory analysis were evaluated by number of prior therapies before enrollment (1 and ≥2 prior therapies). Primary end points were PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR) per International Working Group (IWG) criteria, including clinical and imaging data after auto-SCT or allogeneic SCT (allo-SCT) and OS. Additional end points were PFS excluding clinical and imaging data after auto-SCT or allo-SCT (secondary PFS analysis), ORR and duration of response (DOR) by BICR per IWG, and safety. Results: Of 304 randomized pts, 55 (pembro, 27; BV, 28) received 1 prior therapy and 249 (pembro, 124; BV, 125) received ≥2 prior therapies. For pts with 1 prior therapy, median (range) age was 49 y (22-84) and 22 pts (40.0%) were aged ≥65 y. No pts received prior auto-SCT and 18 (32.7%) had primary refractory disease. Auto-SCT ineligibility was due to chemorefractory disease for 21 pts (38.2%) and reasons not related to chemorefractory disease (eg, age, comorbidities) for 34 pts (61.8%). 23 pts (85.2%) and 25 pts (92.6%) in the pembro and BV groups, respectively, discontinued treatment; the most common reason was progressive disease. Median (range) time from randomization to data cutoff was 24.0 mo (18.7-34.8) for pembro and 23.6 mo (18.2-34.6) for BV. For the primary PFS analysis, median PFS was 16.4 mo for pembro and 8.4 mo for BV (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.031-1.59); 12 mo PFS rates were 58.9% and 37.4%, respectively. For the secondary PFS analysis, median PFS was 11.7 mo for pembro and 8.3 mo for BV (HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.28-1.40). ORR was 66.7% for pembro and 53.6% for BV. Median (range) DOR for pembro was 20.7 mo (2.8-20.7) and 14.1 mo (0.0+ to 21.9) for BV. 7 pts (25.9%) and 9 pts (33.3%) in the pembro and BV groups, respectively, received subsequent auto-SCT; 1 pt in the BV group received subsequent allo-SCT. 21 pts (77.8%) on pembro and 20 (74.1%) on BV experienced a treatment-related adverse event (TRAE); most common were hyperthyroidism (22.2%) for pembro and peripheral neuropathy (22.2%) for BV. 1 (3.7%) and 8 (29.6%) of pts on pembro and BV, respectively, experienced grade 3-5 TRAEs. For pts with ≥2 prior therapies median (range) age was 34 y (18-83) and 27 (10.8%) pts were aged ≥65 y. 112 pts (45.0%) received prior auto-SCT and 105 (42.2%) had primary refractory disease. Median (range) time from randomization to data cutoff was 27.1 mo (18.8-42.0) for pembro and 27.6 (18.2-42.3) for BV. 87 (71.9%) and 121 (96.8%) in the pembro and BV groups discontinued; most common reason was progressive disease. For the primary PFS analysis, median PFS was 12.6 mo for pembro and 8.2 mo for BV (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.47-0.92); 12-mo PFS rates were 52.8% and 35.3%, respectively. For the secondary PFS analysis, median PFS was 12.6 mo for pembro and 8.2 mo for BV (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.45-0.88). ORR for pembro was 65.3% and 54.4% for BV. Median (range) DOR for pembro was 20.5 mo (0.0+ to 33.2+) and 11.2 mo (0.0+ to 33.9+) for BV. 23 (19.0%) and 25 (20.0%) pts in the pembro and BV groups, respectively, received subsequent auto-SCT; 14 (11.6 %) and 12 (9.6%) received subsequent allo-SCT. 89 pts (73.6%) on pembro and 97 (77.6%) on BV experienced a TRAE; most common were hypothyroidism (14.9%) for pembro and peripheral neuropathy (17.6%) for BV. 23.1% and 24.0% of pts on pembro and BV, respectively, experienced grade 3-5 TRAEs. Conclusion: In pts with R/R cHL, pembro monotherapy resulted in an improvement in PFS and ORR vs BV in pts regardless of number of prior therapies. In particular, these data suggest that pembro monotherapy may be a promising option as 2L+ therapy for pts with R/R cHL ineligible for auto-SCT. Disclosures Kuruvilla: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Antengene: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Ramchandren:Seattle Genetics, Sandoz-Novartis, Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Merck, Seattle Genetics, Janssen, Genentech: Research Funding. Santoro:Arqule, Sanofi: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb, SERVIER, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, MSD, Sanofi, ArQule: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb, Servier, Gilead, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb, SERVIER, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, MSD, Sanofi, ArQule: Consultancy; Takeda, Roche, Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, AstraZeneca, ArQule, Lilly, Sandoz, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Servier, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, MSD: Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb, SERVIER, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, MSD, Sanofi, ArQule: Consultancy; Takeda, Roche, Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, AstraZeneca, ArQule, Lilly, Sandoz, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Servier, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, MSD: Speakers Bureau. Paszkiewicz-Kozik:Roche, Takeda, Celgene: Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses. Gasiorowski:MSD, Takeda, Novartis, AbbVie: Honoraria. Johnson:Roche/Genentech, Merck: Honoraria; Roche/Genentech, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding. Goncalves:Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, Bayer, Novartis, Merck, Bayer, Celgene, GSK, BMS: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Perini:Janssen, Takeda: Honoraria; AbbVie, Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Goldschmidt:Abbvie Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kryachok:Janssen, Bayer, Karyopharm, MSD, AbbVie, Acerta, Debiopharm: Research Funding; Takeda, Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda, MSD, AbbVie, Roche: Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses. Sekiguchi:Ono, A2 Healthcare, Astellas, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Otsuka, Pfizer, PPD-SNBL, Sumitomo Dainippon, Daiichi Sankyo, and Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Lin:Merck & Co., Inc.: Current Employment. Nahar:Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp., a subsididary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenlworth, NJ, USA: Current Employment. Marinello:Merck & Co., Inc.: Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA: Current Employment; Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA: Other: Stock ownership. Zinzani:Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics, Inc.: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kirin Kyowa: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Eusapharma: Consultanc

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designRandomized 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 venueBlood→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→