MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379979648 · doi:10.1002/hon.3164_263

An open‐label phase 1/2 study of favezelimab plus pembrolizumab in patients with relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma with/without previous anti‐PD‐1 treatment

2023· article· en· W4379979648 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Lavie, Nathalie A. Johnson, Peter Borchmann, Alex F. Herrera, Abraham Avigdor, Robin Gasiorowski, Gareth P. Gregory, Colm Keane, Vladan Vučinić, Mohsen Bazargan, Yair Herishanu, Leonard Minuk, Inna Tzoran, Charalambos Andreadis, Philippe Armand, John Kuruvilla, Pier Luigi Zinzani, Rachel Marceau West, Pallavi Pillai, Patricia Marinello, John M. Timmerman

Bibliographic record

VenueHematological Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of ManitobaCancerCare ManitobaJewish General Hospital
FundersGilead Sciences
KeywordsMedicinePembrolizumabRefractory (planetary science)CohortInternal medicineLymphomaOncologyGastroenterologyCancerSurgeryImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Dual blockade of PD-1 and lymphocyte-activation gene (LAG-3) has shown antitumor activity; however, the activity of the combination for patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) classical Hodgkin’s lymphoma (cHL) is unclear. Initial results of a multicohort phase 1/2 study (NCT03598608) showed that the anti–PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab (200 mg Q3W) combined with the anti–LAG-3 inhibitor favezelimab (800 mg Q3W) showed promising antitumor activity and acceptable safety in pts with R/R cHL who either were anti–PD-1 naive (cohort 1) or had progression after anti–PD-1 therapy (cohort 2) (Johnson NA et al. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(16 suppl):7516; Timmerman J et al. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(16 suppl):7545). Updated data with additional follow-up from both cohorts are presented. Methods: Pts in cohorts 1 and 2 had R/R cHL after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) (or were ineligible for ASCT) or did not respond to salvage chemotherapy and had an ECOG PS of 0 or 1. Pts in cohort 1 had no prior anti–PD-1 therapy; pts in cohort 2 had progression within 12 weeks after ≥2 doses of anti–PD-1 therapy, per Cheson 2007 criteria. Pts received pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W plus favezelimab at the established RP2D (800 mg Q3W) for ≤35 cycles (∼2 years). Primary end points were safety and RP2D. The secondary end point was ORR. DOR, PFS, and OS were exploratory. Results: At the data cutoff (Aug 31, 2022), median follow-up (range) was 25.5 (18.0–37.2) months and 29.3 (9.0–43.4) months in cohort 1 and cohort 2, respectively. Anti–PD-1 was the most recent therapy for 17 pts (50%) in cohort 2. In cohort 1, 47% (14 pts) of pts discontinued treatment, and 74% (25 pts) discontinued treatment in cohort 2. ORR was 80% in cohort 1 (95% CI, 61%–92%, 10 CR, 14 PR) and 29% in cohort 2 (95% CI, 15%–47%, 3 CR, 7 PR). Additional efficacy analyses are included in the Table. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 26 pts (87%) and 28 pts (82%) in cohorts 1 and 2, respectively. The most common treatment-related AEs were hypothyroidism (27%) in cohort 1 and hypothyroidism and nausea (18% each) in cohort 2. Grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 7 pts (23%) in cohort 1 and in 6 pts (18%) in cohort 2. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Conclusion: With additional follow-up, the combination of favezelimab plus pembrolizumab continued to show antitumor activity and manageable safety in anti–PD-1–naive pts with R/R cHL and in pts whose disease progressed after anti–PD-1 therapy. Encore Abstract - previously submitted to EHA 2023 The research was funded by: Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. Keywords: Hodgkin lymphoma, Immunotherapy Conflicts of interests pertinent to the abstract. D. Lavie Consultant or advisory role: AbbVie, Novartis, Takeda N. Johnson Consultant or advisory role: Roche, Merck, AbbVie, Gilead Honoraria: Roche, Merck A. F. Herrera Consultant or advisory role: BMS, Seattle Genetics, Merck, Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Karyopharm Therapeutics, ADC Therapeutics, Takeda, Regeneron, Genmab, Tubulis GmbH, Pfizer, Adicet Bio, Caribou Biosciences, AbbVie Research funding: BMS, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Kite—a Gilead Company, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Gilead Sciences, ADC Therapeutics Educational grants: BMS A. Avigdor Consultant or advisory role: Takeda, Gilead, Novartis, Roche, BMS Educational grants: AbbVie R. Gasiorowski Honoraria: MSD, Otsuka, Novartis, Astellas, Janssen, AbbVie, Antengene G. Gregory Consultant or advisory role: Roche, Novartis, BMS, Janssen Honoraria: Roche, BMS Research funding: BeiGene, Merck, AbbVie, Janssen Educational grants: Roche, Novartis Other remuneration: Speaker Bureau—Roche; Expert Testimony—Janssen C. Keane Consultant or advisory role: Roche, Beigene, MSD V. Vucinic Consultant or advisory role: MSD, BMS Celgene, Novartis, Gilead Kite, Takeda Honoraria: Novartis, Gilead Kite, Takeda, MSD, BMS Celgene, AbbVie, Amgen Educational grants: Sobi, BMS, Celgene Y. Herishanu Honoraria: AbbVie, Janssen, Roche, Medison, Beigene C. Andreadis Research funding: Merck P. Armand Consultant or advisory role: BMS, MSD, ADC Therapeutics, GenMab, Enterome, Tessa Therapeutics, Regeneron, Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca, Xencor, ATB Therapeutics, Foresight Diagnostics Research funding: MSD, BMS, Roche, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Affimed Therapeutics, Genentech, IGM, Kite—a Gilead company J. Kuruvilla Consultant or advisory role: AbbVie, Antengene, BMS, Gilead, Karyopharm, Medison Ventures, Merck, Roche, Seattle Genetics Honoraria: AbbVie, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Gilead, Incyte, Janssen, Karyopharm, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics Research funding: Roche, AstraZeneca, Merck Other remuneration: Officer/Board of Directors—Lymphoma Canada; Data Safety Monitoring Board—Karyopharm P. L. Zinzani Consultant or advisory role: Celltrion, Gilead Sciences, Janssen-Cilag, BMS, SERVIER, Sandoz, MSD, Roche, EUSA Pharma, Kyowa Kirin, Takeda, Secure BIO, TG Therapeutics, Novartis, ADC Therapeutics, Incyte, BeiGene Other remuneration: Speaker Bureau—MSD, EUSA Pharma, Novartis R. Marceau West Employment or leadership position: Merck P. Pillai Employment or leadership position: Merck Sharpe and Dohme Stock ownership: Merck Sharpe and Dohme P. Marinello Employment or leadership position: Merck Stock ownership: Merck J. Timmerman Consultant or advisory role: Kite/Gilead, DAVA Oncology, Oncovalent Therapeutics Honoraria: Kite/Gilead Research funding: BMS, Kite – A Gilead Company, Merck Educational grants: BMS

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.319 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHematological OncologySame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207