MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Glofitamab monotherapy retreatment in patients with heavily pre-treated relapsed or refractory (R/R) non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL): Results from a phase I/II study.

2024· article· en· W4399481193 on OpenAlexaff
Nancy L. Bartlett, Michael Dickinson, Martin Hutchings, Carmelo Carlo‐Stella, Shang‐Ju Wu, Sirpa Leppä, Marek Trněný, Paolo Corradini, Fritz Offner, Estefania Mulvihill, Alessia Bottos, Saibah Chohan, Pauline Baumlin, James Relf, Linda Lundberg, Emmanuel Bachy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsRoche (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRefractory (planetary science)LymphomaInternal medicineOncologyHodgkin lymphomaPhases of clinical researchChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

7020 Background: Fixed-duration glofitamab, a CD20xCD3 T-cell engaging bispecific antibody with a novel 2:1 configuration, has demonstrated efficacy and manageable safety in a Phase I/II study (NCT03075696) in heavily pre-treated patients (pts) with R/R NHL (Dickinson. N Engl J Med 2022). We report efficacy and safety data for pts with R/R NHL retreated with glofitamab monotherapy after response to initial glofitamab treatment. Methods: Pts who completed initial treatment and achieved complete response (CR), partial response (PR), or stable disease were eligible for retreatment after documented progression. Initial treatment included obinutuzumab pre-treatment (Gpt) 7 days before the first glofitamab dose, then glofitamab intravenously at either a fixed dose of 0.015–25mg (14- or 21-day cycles) or step-up dosing (2.5mg, then 10mg in Cycle [C] 1, followed by a target dose of 16 or 30mg [C2 onward, 21- day cycles]) for up to 12 cycles. Retreatment was administered at the escalation dose received or at the highest glofitamab dose cleared in the study at time of retreatment, with Gpt 7 days before the first glofitamab dose. As with initial treatment, retreatment was permitted for 12 cycles or until progression or unacceptable toxicity, whichever occurred first. Results: As of Sept 4, 2023, 13 pts (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [DLBCL], n=4; follicular lymphoma [FL], n=4; mantle cell lymphoma [MCL], n=2; transformed FL [trFL], n=2; high grade B-cell lymphoma, n=1) had received glofitamab retreatment (retreatment dose: 10mg, n=1; 10/16mg, n=1; 2.5/10/30mg, n=11). Median age was 63.0 years (range: 44–81). With initial treatment, 9 pts had CR and 4 pts had PR (best response by investigator). Median time from end of initial treatment to initiation of retreatment was 13.0 months (range: 4.1–27.4). Median number of retreatment cycles received was 5 (range: 2–12). During retreatment, 9 pts (69.2%) responded: CR, 38.5% (FL, n=2; trFL, n=1; MCL, n=2); PR, 30.8% (FL, n=1; trFL, n=1; DLBCL, n=2). Of the 5 pts with CR at retreatment, 3 pts had CR and 2 pts had PR with initial treatment. Of the 4 pts with PR at retreatment, 3 pts had CR and 1 pt had PR with initial treatment. Median retreatment follow-up time was 25.9 months and 5 pts had responses ongoing at data cut-off (FL, n=2; MCL, n=2; trFL, n=1). The safety profile for glofitamab retreatment was consistent with prior reports of glofitamab monotherapy in R/R NHL (Hutchings. J Clin Oncol 2021). Cytokine release syndrome occurred in 7 pts (53.8%; all Grade 1/2). Exploratory data on B-cell pharmacodynamics, CD20 expression, and T-cell status before retreatment will be presented. Conclusions: Glofitamab monotherapy retreatment was efficacious in heavily pre-treated pts with R/R NHL who responded to initial glofitamab treatment before subsequent progression. The safety profile was consistent with that of initial treatment. Clinical trial information: NCT03075696 .

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.381 · 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 designNon-randomized 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→