MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Phase Ib/IIa Trial of the Combination of Romidepsin, Lenalidomide and Carfilzomib in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Lymphoma Shows Complete Responses in Relapsed and Refractory B- and T-Cell Lymphomas

2017· article· en· W4205450923 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Neha Mehta–Shah, Alison J. Moskowitz, Matthew A. Lunning, Peggy Lynch, Mark Scheuerman, Veenna Minnal, Natasha Galasso, Anita Kumar, John F. Gerecitano, Andrew D. Zelenetz, Paul A. Hamlin, Ariela Noy, Matthew J. Matasar, Maria Lia Palomba, Anas Younes, Wendy Schaffer, Ravinder K. Grewal, Jürgen Rademaker, Craig S. Sauter, Parastoo B. Dahi, Patricia L. Myskowski, Meenal Kheterpal, Ahmet Doǧan, Melissa Pulitzer, Lakeisha Lubin, Laura H. Tang, Nivetha Ganesan, Ai Ni, Steven M. Horwitz

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Degradation and Inhibitors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarfilzomibLenalidomideRefractory (planetary science)MedicineRomidepsinLymphomaInternal medicineOncologyMultiple myelomaMaterials scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Epigenetic manipulation and immunomodulation are therapeutic strategies in hematologic malignancies. In our previous study, the combination of romidepsin and lenalidomide showed a 51% overall response rate (ORR), 23% complete response (CR) rate in patients with relapsed/ refractory B-cell (BCL) and T-cell (TCL) lymphoma. Given the potential synergy of proteasome inhibitors with histone deacetylase inhibitors and lenalidomide, we conducted a phase Ib/IIa study evaluating the safety and toxicity of romidepsin and lenalidomide with carfilzomib in patients with relapsed/refractory lymphoma. Here we report the completed phase II results. Methods: Romidepsin and carfilzomib were given IV on days 1, 8 and lenalidomide was given orally on days 1-14 of a 21-day cycle. A standard 3+3 dose escalation was followed: The starting dose was romidepsin 8 mg/m2,lenalidomide 15 mg, carfilzomib 36mg/m2. Tumor response was based on disease-specific criteria.Patients could be treated until progression, intolerance, or response adequate to allow allogeneic transplantation. Results: 24 of the 27 patients treated as part of the study were evaluable for determination of the maximum tolerated dose. Additionally, one was evaluable for efficacy and 2 were evaluable for toxicity only. 16 patients were treated for TCL: PTCL-NOS-7, AITL-5, MF-2, transformed MF-1, extra-nodal NK/T-cell lymphoma-1. 11 patients were treated for BCL: DLBCL (7) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) (2), follicular lymphoma (FL) (2). Of note, one of the aforementioned AITL patients had concurrent DLBCL and was evaluated for efficacy in both B-cell and T-cell cohorts. Dose level 2 (romidepsin 8 mg/m2,lenalidomide 15 mg, carfilzomib 45mg/m2) exceeded the MTD with 2/6 DLTs: 1 grade 3 thrombocytopenia resulting in treatment delay and 1 grade 4 thrombocytopenia. There were no DLTs among 6 patients treated in dose level 1 (romidepsin 8 mg/m2,lenalidomide 15 mg, carfilzomib 36mg/m2) and dose level 1 was deemed the MTD. Overall, grade 3-4 toxicities in >10% patients included neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. 16 treatment related serious adverse events were seen in 9 patients and included: anemia-1, vomiting/diarrhea-1, dyspenea-1, edema-1, febrile neutropenia-1, fever-2, generalized weakness-1, heart failure-1, hypotension-1, infection-2, gastrointestinal bleed-1, and DVT-1. Of the 11 TCL evaluable for response at the MTD, ORR was 45.5% (5/11, 95% CI: 23.4 to 83.3%). The complete response (CR) rate was 36.4% (4/11, 95% CI: 10.9 to 69.2%) and the partial response (PR) rate was 9% (1/11, 95% CI: 2.3 to 51.8%). The median event free survival (EFS) for patients with TCL was 13.6 w (95% CI: 5.7-74.6). Among all patients with TCL (N=16), the ORR was 50% (8/16). CRs were seen in 4/5 AITL and 1/7 PTCL-NOS; PRs were seen in PTCL-NOS-1, AITL-1, and transformed MF-1. Of the 8 BCL evaluable for response at MTD, the ORR was 50% (4/8, 95% CI: 0-41%) with 3 PRs and 1 CR. The median EFS for patients with BCL was 19.8 w (95% CI: 5.4-NR). Among all patients with BCL evaluable for response (n=10), PRs were seen in 4 patients with DLBCL and 1 patient with MCL. One patient with concurrent DLBCL and AITL achieved a CR. The median EFS for all patients treated at the MTD was 14.5 w (95% CI: 5.7 to NR). The median time to best response was 5.7 w. The median duration of response was 38.7 w (95% CI: 9.7 to NR). 3 patients with TCL and 1 with MCL underwent allogeneic transplantation following response to this therapy and were censored at time of transplant. Sustained complete responses were seen in 2 additional patients with TCL: one remained in CR for 11.7 months and another remains on treatment at 17 months. The median duration of follow up was 56.0 w (range 2.4 to 102.1 w). Conclusions: The MTD dose for phase 2 study was identified as romidepsin 8mg/m2, lenalidomide 15mg and carfilzomib 36mg/m2. No unexpected toxicities have emerged. At this dose, the overall response rate for BCL and TCL was 50%. Responses were seen across various BCL and TCL histologies. In particular, in AITL, the regimen has shown responses in all 5 patients. Given the promising overall and complete response rates, the regimen warrants further study. Disclosures Mehta-Shah: Celgene: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Research Funding. Moskowitz: Bristol Myers-Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Lunning: Onyx: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy. Kumar: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Gerecitano: Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aratana: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mass Medical International: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orexo: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Samus Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Royal Bank of Canada: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Arcus Medica: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Zelenetz: Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Hamlin: Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Portola: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: research support; Incyte: Other: research support; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Geneitcs: Other: research support; Novartis: Other: research support. Noy: Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Younes: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Third-party medical writing assistance, under the direction of Anas Younes, was provided by Scott Malkin of Gardiner-Caldwell Communications, and was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.; Curis: Research Funding; Takeda Millenium: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Dogan: Roche Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Peer Review Institute: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Horwitz: Mundipharma: Consultancy; Aileron Therapeutics: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; HUYA: Consultancy; Infinity/Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa-Hakka-Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Consultancy, Research Funding.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.357
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicProtein Degradation and InhibitorsFrench-language works237,207