MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Initial safety run-in results of the phase III POLARGO trial: Polatuzumab vedotin plus rituximab, gemcitabine, and oxaliplatin in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL).

2022· article· en· W4281653962 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew J. Matasar, Corinne Haïoun, Juan‐Manuel Sancho, Andreas Viardot, Antonia Rodríguez Izquierdo, Eva Maria Donato Martín, Alejandro Martı́n, Jose Sandoval‐Sus, Hervé Tilly, Elizabeth Vandenberghe, Jamie Hirata, Priya Choudhry, Yi Meng Chang, Lisa Musick, Andrew McMillan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Research Studies
Canadian institutionsRoche (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOxaliplatinInternal medicineTolerabilityGemcitabineNeutropeniaDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaRituximabClinical endpointAdverse effectGastroenterologyPhases of clinical researchOncologySurgeryLymphomaClinical trialChemotherapyCancerColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

7551 Background: Transplant-ineligible pts with R/R DLBCL have a poor prognosis (Gisselbrecht C, et al. Br J Haematol 2018). Several treatment options are available including platinum-based chemotherapies such as oxaliplatin plus rituximab and gemcitabine (R-GemOx). Adding polatuzumab vedotin to R-GemOx (Pola-R-GemOx) may improve outcomes for pts with a continued unmet medical need. The safety of polatuzumab vedotin and platinum-based therapy combinations must be considered as both are associated with neuropathy. POLARGO (NCT04182204; MO40598) is a Phase III, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of Pola-R-GemOx vs R-GemOx in pts with R/R DLBCL. Methods: Results from the safety run-in stage of POLARGO are presented. The primary endpoint is the safety and tolerability of polatuzumab vedotin (1.8 mg/kg) + R-GemOx (R, 375 mg/m 2 ; Gem, 1000 mg/m 2 ; Ox, 100 mg/m 2 ) given every 21 days for up to 8 cycles. Safety was assessed by the incidence, nature, and severity of adverse events (AEs; NCI CTCAE v5.0), with a focus on peripheral neuropathy (PN). Dose interruptions and reductions were used to assess tolerability. Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor was given as primary prophylaxis with each cycle (C) of therapy; anti-infective prophylaxis for pneumocystis and herpes virus was mandatory. Results: As of October 26, 2021, 15 pts were enrolled and 11 (73%) pts received ≥4 cycles of Pola-R-GemOx. Median age was 76 (range 47–87) years, 10 (67%) pts had an IPI score of 3–5, 7 (47%) had ≥2 prior therapy lines, and 8 (53%) were refractory to last treatment. Grade (Gr) 3–4 AEs were reported in 5 (33%) pts: thrombocytopenia (20%) and neutropenia (13%) were the most common. Two (13%) pts had serious AEs (Gr 3 febrile neutropenia and Gr 3 infection [n = 1 each]). There were no Gr 5 AEs or AEs leading to drug discontinuation. Eight (53%) pts had Gr 1 or 2 PN; there were no cases of Gr >3 PN. Three (20%) pts had drug interruptions due to PN. Two (13%) pts had a dose reduction of polatuzumab vedotin and oxaliplatin due to PN at C5 and C8, respectively; one pt (7%) had a dose reduction of polatuzumab vedotin due to Gr 4 thrombocytopenia at C2. End-of-treatment (EOT) objective response rate was 40% (95% CI: 16–68) and complete response rate was 27% (95% CI: 8–55); 7 (47%) pts had progressive disease at EOT. Ten (67%) pts received subsequent therapies following Pola-R-GemOx, including CAR-T cell therapy (n = 3) and stem-cell transplant (n = 1). Conclusions: In the safety run-in stage, Pola-R-GemOx was safe and tolerable. PN was manageable with dose interruptions and reductions; no cases of Gr ≥3 PN were observed. The toxicity of this combination did not compromise delivery of subsequent treatments. POLARGO is currently enrolling pts to receive Pola-R-GemOx vs R-GemOx; results will be presented at a future meeting. Clinical trial information: NCT04182204.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.376 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicLung Cancer Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207