MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Safety and efficacy of tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) plus pembrolizumab (pembro) in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (r/r DLBCL): Updated analysis of the phase 1b PORTIA study.

2021· article· en· W3167481271 on OpenAlexaff
Ulrich Jäger, Nina Worel, Joseph P. McGuirk, Peter A. Riedell, Isabelle Fleury, Peter Borchmann, Yan Du, Ahmed M. Abdelhady, Xia Han, Marcela Martínez-Prieto, Edmund K. Waller

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCAR-T cell therapy research
Canadian institutionsHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineRefractory (planetary science)NeutropeniaPhases of clinical researchSurgeryGastroenterologyClinical trialOncologyToxicity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e19537 Background: Tisa-cel showed durable responses and manageable safety in pts with r/r DLBCL in the phase 2 JULIET trial. High baseline programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) expression associated with higher probability of no response (Schuster et al. NEJM 2019). Here we report an updated analysis of PORTIA, a phase 1b, multicenter, open-label study of tisa-cel plus pembro in pts with r/r DLBCL. Methods: Eligible pts (≥18 y) had r/r DLBCL after ≥2 lines of therapy and relapsed after or were not candidates for autologous stem cell transplant (autoSCT). Patients received a single tisa-cel infusion on Day 1 and were enrolled in 1 of 3 cohorts that initiated pembro (200 mg q 21 days, for up to 6 doses) on either Days +15, +8, or –1. Primary endpoints were incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and overall response rate (ORR; complete response [CR] and partial response [PR]). Secondary endpoints included duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, safety, and cellular kinetics. Results: As of November 9, 2020, 15 pts were enrolled and 12 received tisa-cel (n = 4 pts for each Days +15, +8, and –1 cohorts; median follow-up, 4 mo). At study entry, the median age among treated pts was 62 y (range, 35-79), 100% had an International Prognostic Index score ≥2, 67% had ≥3 prior lines of therapy, 58% had stage IV disease, 58% had lactate dehydrogenase > ULN, and 42% had prior autoSCT. All 12 pts had ≥1 AE. Grade ≥3 AEs suspected to be related to tisa-cel and/or pembro were neutropenia (n = 4); neutrophil count decreased (n = 3); febrile neutropenia, lymphocyte count decreased, malnutrition (each n = 2); anemia, leukopenia, diarrhea, white blood count decreased, liver function tests increased, thrombocytopenia, hepatitis, and cytokine release syndrome (CRS; each n = 1). No neurotoxicity or DLTs were observed. Among the Day +15, +8, and –1 cohorts (each n = 4), the ORR was 50% (2/4; CR n = 0, PR n = 2), 25% (1/4; CR n = 1, PR n = 0), and 25% (1/4; CR n = 1, PR n = 0; longer follow-up is needed for n = 2 pts), respectively. Tisa-cel exposure and peak expansion were consistent with JULIET, with a trend toward delayed expansion in the Day –1 cohort (n = 4). There was no sign of secondary expansion following pembro administration regardless of the number of doses. Compared with JULIET, lower CRS severity and frequency and lower cytokine profiles were observed for all 3 cohorts. Conclusions: The combination of tisa-cel plus pembro was feasible and showed manageable safety. The lack of improved efficacy in PORTIA with the addition of pembro compared with tisa-cel alone may be related to more pts with ≥3 prior lines of therapy (67% vs 51%, respectively), and/or pts with more advanced disease in PORTIA. Additional studies with larger patient cohorts are needed to determine the value of adding PD-1 inhibitors to CAR-T cell therapy in pts with r/r DLBCL. Clinical trial information: NCT03630159.

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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.369 · 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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCAR-T cell therapy researchFrench-language works237,207