MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

CELESTIMO: A phase III trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of mosunetuzumab plus lenalidomide versus rituximab plus lenalidomide in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who have received ≥ 1 line of systemic therapy.

2022· article· en· W4281629140 on OpenAlexaff
Loretta J. Nastoupil, Franck Morschhauser, Christian W. Scholz, Mark Bishton, Sung-Soo Yoon, Pratyush Giri, Michael C. Wei, Andrea Knapp, Chi‐Chung Li, Alessia Bottos, Haocheng Li, Enkhtsetseg Purev, Nancy L. Bartlett

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsRoche (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLenalidomideMedicineRituximabFollicular lymphomaInternal medicineRefractory (planetary science)Phases of clinical researchOncologyNeutropeniaGastroenterologyLymphomaChemotherapyMultiple myeloma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TPS7588 Background: Despite significant progress with first-line immunochemotherapy, most patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) will eventually relapse with increasing refractoriness and decreasing duration of response to subsequent therapy lines (Rivas-Delgado et al. 2019). Mosunetuzumab (M) is a CD20xCD3 bispecific antibody that engages and redirects T-cells to eliminate malignant B cells (Sun et al. 2015). In an ongoing, pivotal Phase I/II trial of M monotherapy, patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) FL who have received ≥2 prior treatment lines achieve deep and durable responses (NCT02500407; Budde et al. ASH 2021). Preliminary data from a Phase Ib study have suggested favorable safety and promising activity of M in combination with lenalidomide (Len), a potent immunomodulatory agent that has shown additive/synergistic activity with an anti-CD20 antibody in R/R indolent lymphoma (Leonard et al. 2019), in patients with R/R FL who have received ≥1 prior therapy (NCT04246086; Morschhauser et al. ASH 2021). The chemotherapy-free M-Len combination may represent a promising outpatient therapy option for future management of patients with R/R FL. The randomized, multicenter Phase III study has been initiated. Methods: CELESTIMO (NCT04712097) is a randomized, multicenter, open-label Phase III study evaluating the efficacy and safety of M-Len versus rituximab plus Len (R-Len) in patients with previously treated R/R FL. Patients must have histologically documented CD20+ FL (Grades 1–3a) requiring systemic therapy and have received ≥1 prior line of systemic therapy. Patients are randomized (1:1) to receive M-Len (M intravenously [IV] on Days [D] 1, 8 and 15 of Cycle [C] 1 [21-day cycle] and D1 of C2–12 [28-day cycles], plus Len orally [PO] on D1–21 of C2–12) or R-Len (R IV on D1, 8, 15 and 22 of C1 then on D1 of C3, 5, 7, 9, and 11, plus Len PO on D1–21 of C1–12 [all 28-day cycles]), and stratified by disease progression within 24 months of initial treatment (yes/no), number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus ≥2), and refractoriness to anti-CD20 therapy (refractory/non-refractory). The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by independent review committee; secondary endpoints include investigator-assessed PFS, complete and objective response, overall survival, and safety. Biomarkers predictive of response to M-Len and R-Len will also be investigated as exploratory endpoints. The study started recruitment in 2021 and plans to enroll ̃400 patients from approximately 16 countries and 150 sites globally. Clinical trial information: NCT04712097.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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