MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4389221065 · doi:10.1182/blood-2023-184933

PET4 Response As an Independent Predictor of Long-Term Outcomes in ECHELON2 (A+CHP Vs. CHOP) in CD30+PTCL

2023· article· en· W4389221065 on OpenAlexaff
Swaminathan P. Iyer, Neha Mehta–Shah, Ranjana H. Advani, Nancy L. Bartlett, Jacob Haaber Christensen, F. Morschhauser, Eva Domingo‐Doménech, Chiara Pagani, Won Seog Kim, Önder Alpdoğan, Cheolwon Suh, Tatyana Feldman, Hervé Tilly, Pier Luigi Zinzani, Alessandro Rambaldi, David Belada, Jiřı́ Mayer, Ilseung Choi, June‐Won Cheong, Shweta Jain, Fenton Keenan, Michelle A. Fanale, Kerry J. Savage, Steven M. Horwitz

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBrentuximab vedotinOncologyInternal medicineProgression-free survivalDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaCHOPPositron emission tomographySurrogate endpointProspective cohort studyChemotherapy regimenChemotherapyNuclear medicineLymphomaCD30

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs) are uncommon, heterogeneous, and often aggressive subtypes of lymphoma characterized by a high risk of progression even after combination chemotherapy. The phase III, ECHELON-2 trial showed that the combination of brentuximab vedotin with chemotherapy (A+CHP) in patients (pts) with CD30-positive PTCLs improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to CHOP. In PTCL, positron emission tomography (PET) is a valuable way to assess disease burden and stage at the time of diagnosis and evaluate treatment response. Prior retrospective studies have shown that interim and end of treatment PET may predict outcomes; however, there are no prospective studies confirming their predictive value. In the ECHELON-2 study, PET4 outcomes were prospectively collected, and the objective of this exploratory analysis is to investigate the potential for interim PET scans to predict treatment response and long-term outcomes. Objective: To evaluate the role of interim 18F-FDG PET imaging (PET4) in predicting end of treatment (EOT) response, progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) in pts (pts) with CD30+PTCL treated with A+CHP or CHOP in the ECHELON-2 trial. Methods: The ECHELON-2 trial included prospective 18F-FDG PET scans and assessment of treatment response including long-term PFS per investigator and OS. PET4 status was based on Deauville score by Independent Review Facility (IRF) assessment using scans at the cycle 4 response assessment. Deauville scores 1-3 are considered negative (PET4neg) and 4-5 positive (PET4pos). EOT response is the best response after completion of study treatment and prior to long term follow up per Cheson 2007 by IRF assessment. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate PFS and OS; p-values are based on stratified log-rank tests. All analyses are exploratory, and p-values are descriptive. Results: In this study, 452 pts were included, with 226 randomized to the A+CHP treatment arm and 226 to the CHOP treatment arm; median follow up was 66.8 months (range 0-90). Of randomized pts, 32 pts in the A+CHP arm and 41 pts in the CHOP arm were not evaluable for PET4. The overall results showed that the PET4neg evaluable subgroup had a higher proportion of pts achieving complete responses (CR) than PET4pos (80% vs. 9%) at EOT (Table 1). In pts assessed for PET4, pts who were PET4neg had improved PFS and OS in both the A+CHP and CHOP treatment arms (Figure 1). For A+CHP pts, those who achieved PET4neg had an improved PFS [HR 0.36, CI-95 (0.19-0.66), p=0.0006] and OS [HR 0.38, CI-95 (0.18-0.78), p=0.0060] compared to those who were PET4pos. Similarly, pts in the CHOP arm who achieved PET4neg had an improved PFS [HR 0.26, CI-95 (0.17-0.41), p<0.0001] and OS [HR 0.24, CI-95 (0.14-0.41), p< 0.0001] compared to those who were PET4pos. Among pts with anaplastic large cell lymphoma (sALCL) (n=316), 19 pts in the A+CHP arm and 32 in the CHOP arm were not evaluable for PET4. The results in this subgroup show that 128/143 (90%) A+CHP pts who had PET4 assessments achieved PET4neg. These pts experienced improved PFS [HR 0.28, CI-95 (0.14-0.60), p=0.0004] and OS [HR 0.38, CI-95 (0.16-0.94), p 0.0292] compared to PET4pos pts. For CHOP pts who had PET4 assessments 98/122 (80%), achieved PET4neg; these pts experienced improved PFS [HR 0.31, CI-95 (0.12-0.55), p<0.0001] and improved OS [HR 0.25, CI-95 (0.12-0.25), p= 0.0002] compared to PET4pos pts. Conclusion: In an exploratory analysis of interim PET imaging as part of the ECHELON-2 study, PET4neg by Deauville was associated with improved PFS and OS in both the A+CHP and CHOP arms. Our findings support the use of PET4 response in PTCL as a predictor of outcomes in both the A+CHP and CHOP pts. These findings emphasize the potential of PET scans to enhance risk stratification, individualize therapy decisions, and improve pt outcomes in the management of PTCLs. Further analysis will be presented at the meeting.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→