frontMIND: A phase III, randomized, double-blind study of tafasitamab + lenalidomide + R-CHOP versus R-CHOP alone for newly diagnosed high-intermediate and high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
TPS7590 Background: Up to 40% of patients relapse or are refractory (R/R) to R-CHOP, the current standard of care for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), indicating an unmet need, particularly in patients with high-intermediate and high-risk disease (IPI 3–5). POLARIX (NCT03274492) evaluated a modified regimen substituting polatuzumab vedotin for vincristine (pola-R-CHP), demonstrating modest improvement in PFS with no OS benefit between treatment arms. The addition of lenalidomide (LEN) to R-CHOP improved both PFS and OS in the ECOG-ACRIN E1412 trial but not in the Phase III ROBUST study, in which a lower dose of LEN was used, despite a positive trend toward 2-year PFS in a subgroup analysis. The chemo-free immunotherapy tafasitamab + LEN has received accelerated approval in the United States (2020), and conditional marketing authorization in Europe and Canada (2021) in adult patients with R/R DLBCL ineligible for ASCT based on L-MIND (NCT02399085). The primary analysis of First-MIND (NCT04134936), a Phase Ib randomized safety study of R-CHOP + tafasitamab ± LEN in patients with previously untreated and newly diagnosed DLBCL, demonstrated that adding tafasitamab + LEN does not impair dosing and scheduling of R-CHOP, with toxicities similar to those expected with R-CHOP alone (ASH 2021; #3556). frontMIND (NCT04824092) will investigate the efficacy and safety of R-CHOP + tafasitamab + LEN vs R-CHOP alone in previously untreated patients with high-intermediate and high-risk DLBCL. Methods: frontMIND is a Phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Approximately 880 patients are planned to be randomized at ̃350 centers in North and South America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific. Eligible patients aged 18‒80 years with previously untreated local biopsy-proven, CD20+ DLBCL with IPI score 3–5 (age-adjusted IPI 2–3 if ≤60 years), and ECOG PS 0–2 will be enrolled. Patients with transformed lymphoma (except double or triple hit lymphoma) are excluded. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive six 21-day (D) cycles of either R-CHOP + tafasitamab (12 mg/kg intravenously, D 1, 8, and 15) + LEN (25 mg orally, D1–10) or R-CHOP + tafasitamab and LEN placebos. Patients will be followed for up to 5 years after the end of treatment. The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed PFS. Secondary endpoints include investigator-assessed event-free survival, OS, safety, and tafasitamab serum concentration (trough and Cmax levels). Sensitivity and specificity of minimal residual disease for early detection of disease progression is an exploratory endpoint; further MRD parameters may also be investigated. The study is funded by MorphoSys AG and conducted with the scientific support of members of the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi and the German Lymphoma Alliance. Clinical trial information: NCT04824092.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".