MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Favezelimab (anti–LAG-3) plus pembrolizumab in patients with anti–PD-1–naive relapsed or refractory (R/R) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL): An open-label phase 1/2 study.

2022· article· en· W4281627747 on OpenAlexaff
Nathalie A. Johnson, David Lavie, Peter Borchmann, Gareth P. Gregory, Alex F. Herrera, Leonard Minuk, Vladan Vučinić, Philippe Armand, Abraham Avigdor, Robin Gasiorowski, Yair Herishanu, Colm Keane, John Kuruvilla, John Palcza, Pallavi Pillai, Patricia Marinello, John M. Timmerman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreCancerCare ManitobaJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePembrolizumabRefractory (planetary science)Internal medicineNeutropeniaCohortOncologyCancerToxicityGastroenterologyImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

7516 Background: PD-1 inhibitors are a standard of care in pts with R/R cHL but new approaches are still needed to deepen and lengthen responses. Dual blockade of PD-1 and LAG-3 has demonstrated antitumor activity in preclinical models. The multicohort phase 1/2 MK-4280-003 study (NCT03598608) evaluated the safety and efficacy of favezelimab (MK-4280), a humanized IgG4 LAG-3 inhibitor, plus pembrolizumab (pembro; a PD-1 inhibitor) in pts with R/R hematologic malignancies. This analysis focused on anti–PD-1–naïve pts with R/R cHL (cohort 1). Methods: This study included a safety lead-in phase (part 1) to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) followed by a dose-expansion phase (part 2). Eligible pts in cohort 1 must have R/R cHL after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) or be ineligible for ASCT and have had no prior anti–PD-1 therapy. In part 1, patients from all cohorts received pembro IV 200 mg Q3W and favezelimab IV 200 mg or 800 mg Q3W. Dose escalation followed the mTPI design. In part 2, pts received pembro + favezelimab at the established RP2D for up to 35 cycles. Primary end point was safety. Secondary end point was ORR. DOR, PFS, and OS were exploratory end points. Results: Only 1 dose-limiting toxicity (DLT; autoimmune hepatitis [grade 4]) was identified among the first 6 pts from all cohorts in part 1 at the favezelimab 200 mg dose; thus, the dose was escalated to 800 mg. No DLTs were observed in the 15 additional pts treated at the 800 mg dose. The RP2D for the combination was defined as 800 mg Q3W + pembro 200 mg Q3W. In cohort 1, 30 pts were enrolled; median age was 40 years, 53% had ECOG PS 0, and 80% had ≤3 prior lines of therapy. After a median follow-up of 13.5 mo, ORR for cohort 1 was 73% (95% CI, 54-88; CR, 7 pts [23%]; PR, 15 pts [50%]). 28 of 30 pts (93%) had reduction from baseline in target lesions. Median DOR was not reached (NR; 95% CI, 0+ to 23+ mo); 6 pts (51%) had response ≥12 mo. Median PFS was 19 mo (95% CI, 8-NR); 12-mo PFS rate was 57%. Median OS was NR (95% CI, NR-NR); 12-mo OS rate was 94%. As of the database cutoff (Nov 1, 2021), 9 of 30 pts had discontinued (3 AEs; 6 PD). Treatment-related AEs (TRAE) occurred in 26 pts (87%); most common (≥10%) were hypothyroidism (27%), fatigue (20%), infusion-related reactions (20%), headache (17%), and arthralgia, hyperthyroidism, myalgia, and nausea (10% each); grade 3 or 4 TRAEs occurred in 6 pts (20%). 10% of pts discontinued due to TRAEs. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Conclusions: Favezelimab 800 mg + pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W demonstrated a tolerable safety profile and effective antitumor activity in pts with anti–PD-1–naïve R/R cHL. Further studies will be useful to compare its activity to that of pembrolizumab alone. Clinical trial information: NCT03598608.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→