Tazemetostat for relapsed/refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma with EZH2 mutation in Japan: 3-year follow-up for a phase II study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previously, we reported the efficacy and safety of tazemetostat in Japanese patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (FL) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) harboring the EZH2 mutation in a multicenter, open-label, phase II study. Here, we present a follow-up analysis of tazemetostat at a long-term median follow-up of 35.0 months. Twenty patients were enrolled: 17 in the FL cohort and three in the DLBCL cohort. In the FL cohort, the objective response rate was 70.6%, consistent with the primary analysis, and the median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached. The 24-month and 36-month PFS rates were 72.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 41.5%-88.6%) and 64.1% (95% CI 33.7%-83.4%), respectively. The median duration of treatment was 30.2 months. After the primary analysis at a median follow-up of 12.9 months, grade 1-2 urinary tract infection, peripheral motor neuropathy, and hypogammaglobulinemia newly emerged, but the incidence of adverse events (AEs) did not increase notably during this follow-up period. No unexpected grade ≥ 3 treatment-related AEs were reported. Long-term oral monotherapy with tazemetostat showed favorable efficacy and safety profiles, indicating that it may be a useful third-line or later treatment option for patients with relapsed/refractory FL harboring the EZH2 mutation. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03456726.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Non-randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".