<scp>PD‐L1</scp> expression predicts efficacy in the phase <scp>II SPiReL</scp> trial with <scp>MVP‐S</scp>, pembrolizumab, and low‐dose <scp>CPA</scp> in R/R <scp>DLBCL</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL) have limited treatment options. METHODS: R/R DLBCL patients, who were mostly ineligible for ASCT due to age or comorbidities, were treated with maveropepimut-S (MVP-S, previously DPX-Survivac) a survivin directed T cell educating therapy, pembrolizumab, and intermittent low-dose cyclophosphamide. FINDINGS: We identified, using univariate analysis, a subset of patients with enhanced ORR, PFS and DOR. Patients with baseline CD20+/PD-L1 expression had an ORR of 46% (6/13) and the disease control rate was 10/13 (77%). The PFS and OS of the positive CD20+/PD-L1 patients were 7.1 months and 17.4 months, whereas in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population of 25 enrolled patients, the ORR was 28% (7/25), median PFS and OS were 4.2 months and 10.1 months respectively. A total of 6/7 clinical responders occurred in CD20+/PD-L1 patients. The regimen was well-tolerated, requiring only minor dose modifications and one discontinuation. Grade 1 or 2 injection site reactions occurred in 14/25, (56%). Statistically significant associations were also seen between PFS and; injection site reactions; and ELISpot response to survivin peptides, both identifying the mechanistic importance of specific immune responses to survivin. INTERPRETATION: This immunotherapy combination was found to be active and safe in this clinically challenging patient population.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".