MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4239172580 · doi:10.1182/blood.v120.21.798.798

Frontline Therapy with Brentuximab Vedotin Combined with ABVD or AVD in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Advanced Stage Hodgkin Lymphoma

2012· article· en· W4239172580 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen M. Ansell, Joseph M. Connors, Steven I. Park, Megan M. O’Meara, Anas Younes

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrentuximab vedotinABVDMedicineDacarbazineVinblastineInternal medicineOncologyRegimenBleomycinHodgkin's lymphomaLymphomaChemotherapyVincristineCD30

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 798 Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is a lymphoid neoplasm associated with the presence of CD30-positive Hodgkin Reed-Sternberg cells in a background of inflammatory cells. The regimen containing doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) has become a common standard of care for the frontline treatment of HL. However, although ABVD is curative for the majority of patients with advanced stage HL, up to 30% of patients will require a salvage therapy. Brentuximab vedotin (ADCETRIS®) comprises an anti-CD30 monoclonal antibody conjugated by a protease-cleavable linker to a microtubule-disrupting agent, monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE). This phase 1, open-label, multicenter study was conducted to evaluate the safety of brentuximab vedotin when administered in combination with standard therapy (ABVD) or a modified standard (AVD) (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01060904). Patients received doses of 0.6, 0.9, or 1.2 mg/kg brentuximab vedotin with standard doses of ABVD or 1.2 mg/kg brentuximab vedotin with AVD, depending upon cohort assignment. The combination regimens were administered on Days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle for up to 6 cycles of therapy. Each regimen evaluated a dose limiting toxicity (DLT) period, defined as any Cycle 1 toxicity requiring a delay of ≥ 7 days in standard ABVD or AVD therapy. Determination of antitumor activity was based on investigator assessment of objective response according to the Revised Response Criteria for Malignant Lymphoma (Cheson 2007). FDG-PET interpretation for Cycle 2 was performed by a central review per Deauville criteria with uptake above liver background considered positive. Data are presented for the 51 patients treated. Six patients received 0.6 mg/kg, 13 received 0.9 mg/kg, and 6 received 1.2 mg/kg with ABVD; 26 patients received 1.2 mg/kg with AVD. Overall, 37 patients were male (73%) and the median age of all patients was 33 years (range, 18–59). At baseline, 45% of all patients had Stage IV HL, 25% had an IPS score ≥4, and all patients with available ECOG status had a score of 0 or 1. No DLT was observed up to 1.2 mg/kg in either regimen. Common AEs (≥20 patients overall) noted in the ABVD and AVD cohorts, respectively, were nausea (76%, 77%), neutropenia (80%, 69%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (72%, 65%), vomiting (60%, 38%), fatigue (44%, 46%), and constipation (48%, 31%). Common ≥Grade 3 AEs (>10% of patients overall) observed in the ABVD and AVD cohorts, respectively, were neutropenia (80%, 65%), anemia (20%, 12%), febrile neutropenia (20%, 8%), and pulmonary toxicity (24%, 0%). In the ABVD cohorts, 11/25 (44%) patients had AEs of pulmonary toxicity, interstitial lung disease, or pneumonitis that led to discontinuation of bleomycin; 2 of these events led to death. Of these 11 patients, 7 completed treatment with AVD and brentuximab vedotin. In general, these events occurred between Cycles 3 and 6. No pulmonary toxicity was observed in the AVD cohort. The incidence of neuropathy was similar between the ABVD (72%) and AVD (73%) regimens; none of these events were ≥Grade 4 in severity. Overall, 7 patients discontinued brentuximab vedotin due to an AE (5 ABVD patients and 2 AVD patients). At Cycle 2, 48 patients were evaluated by FDG-PET by central review; of these, all 22 ABVD and 24/26 AVD patients were PET negative. Of the 51 patients treated, 4 withdrew consent or were lost to follow-up prior to end of treatment (EOT) assessments. The remaining 47 patients had a 96% objective response rate: 21/22 ABVD patients (95%) and 23/25 AVD patients (92%) achieved CR at the end of frontline therapy, 1 AVD patient had PR (with further workup ongoing), 1 ABVD patient died of AEs (hyponatremia and pulmonary toxicity) prior to EOT, and 1 AVD patient had PD. In patients with newly diagnosed HL, the maximum tolerated dose of brentuximab vedotin combined with ABVD or AVD was not reached; no DLT was observed up to 1.2 mg/kg every 2 weeks, the maximum planned dose. The safety profile observed confirmed that brentuximab vedotin can be safely combined with AVD; however, combination with a bleomycin-containing regimen is not recommended due to the incidence of pulmonary toxicity. The very high CR rate seen in this cohort of advanced-stage HL patients compares favorably with historical controls and warrants comparison with standard therapy. A phase 3 study comparing brentuximab vedotin combined with AVD versus ABVD alone is planned. Disclosures: Ansell: Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Off Label Use: Brentuximab vedotin is indicated for treatment of patients with Hodgkin lymphoma after failure of autologous stem cell transplant or after failure of at least two prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimens in patients who are not ASCT candidates and for the treatment of patients with systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma after failure of at least one prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimen. These indications are based on response rate. There are no data available demonstrating improvement in patient reported outcomes or survival with brentuximab vedotin. Connors:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Park:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding. O'Meara:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Younes:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Gilead: 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 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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations18
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→