MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405045778 · doi:10.1182/blood-2024-201624

Safety and Efficacy in Pediatric Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Classic Hodgkin Lymphoma Enrolled on an Intergroup Randomized Phase II Study of the Combinations of Ipilimumab, Nivolumab and Brentuximab Vedotin (E4412)

2024· article· en· W4405045778 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher J. Forlenza, Opeyemi A. Jegede, Stephen M. Ansell, Christian Steidl, Yasodha Natkunam, David W. Scott, Neha Mehta–Shah, Jennifer E. Amengual, Peter D. Cole, Brad S. Kahl, Catherine Diefenbach

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSpinal Cord Injury BC
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrentuximab vedotinMedicineNivolumabInternal medicineOncologyIpilimumabRefractory (planetary science)Hodgkin lymphomaRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectPhases of clinical researchLymphomaClinical trialCancerImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The Phase 1/2 ECOG-ACRIN sponsored intergroup trial E4412 (NCT01896999) investigated brentuximab vedotin (BV) combined with the checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab (N) and ipilimumab (I) in patients with relapsed or refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R HL). Here we present the safety and efficacy results for the cohort of pediatric patients aged 12-17 years. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with the doublet of BV/N or triplet of BV/N/I, with the following dosing: BV 1.8mg/kg every 21 days for up to 16 cycles; Nivolumab 3mg/mg every 21 days for up to 34 cycles; Ipilimumab 1mg/kg every 9 weeks for up to 9 doses. Response evaluation by PET/CT was performed after 4 cycles. Transplant-eligible patients with CR could discontinue protocol therapy to receive a consolidative autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Results: Sixteen pediatric patients with a median age of 16 (range 12-17) were randomized. 75% of patients had received only 1 prior line of treatment with none having previously received BV and only 1 patient with prior ASCT. All patients were treated (8 in each arm) and included in the pediatric safety analysis cohort receiving at least one cycle of therapy. There were four reported grade (gr) 3 or greater toxicities: lymphopenia (gr 3) and neutropenia (gr 3) on the BV/N arm; and neutropenia (gr 4) and rash (gr 3) on the BV/N/I arm. Rash of any grade was more common in patients treated with BV/N/I (n=6) compared to BV/N (n=1). Peripheral sensory neuropathy was reported in 2 patients (BV/N, gr 2, n=2) There were no grade 5 toxicities. Fourteen patients (7 in each arm) were evaluable for response. The CR rate on both the BV/N and BV/N/I arms was 100%. The median survival follow up was 23.7 months (15.7 - 31.7). The 24-month PFS was 57% for BV/N and 100% for BV/N/I. Six patients (2 BV/N; 4 BV/N/I) discontinued protocol therapy to receive a consolidative ASCT. The 24-month PFS for patients consolidated with an ASCT was 100%, with all events occurring in patients randomized to BV/N, but not receiving an ASCT. Conclusion: Pediatric patients receiving both BV/N and BV/N/I had 100% CR rate with limited toxicity. Although this is a small cohort, there have been no progression events observed in patients treated with BV/N/I, including 3 patients treated without a consolidative ASCT.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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