A phase 1 study of blinatumomab/lenalidomide in relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphoma: toxicity, efficacy, and correlative analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Despite a recent increase in therapeutic options, patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R B-NHL) eventually require novel therapies. We conducted a phase 1 trial of blinatumomab and lenalidomide in R/R B-NHL. Three dose levels representing 2 schedules were explored. The primary end points were adverse events (AEs) and determining the maximum tolerated dose (MTD)/recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Thirty-five patients were enrolled, and 34 patients initiated treatment with a median number of prior regimens of 3 (range, 2-8). There were no dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) in the first 2 dose levels. Dose level 3, 20 mg of lenalidomide daily on days 1 to 21 and days 29 to 49 of a 56-day induction cycle plus blinatumomab 9 μg/d continuous IV infusion (CIVI) on days 1 to 7, 28 μg/d CIVI on days 8 to 14, and 112 μg/d CIVI on days 15 to 56 was determined to be the MTD/RP2D. The most common grade ≥2 AE was neurotoxicity in 11 of 34 patients (32%), with 4 of 16 patients (25%) at the RP2D. At the RP2D, there was 1 DLT, a patient with grade 2 tremor and word-finding difficulty. For all patients completing induction, the overall response rate was 80% (95% confidence interval, 56-94) with a complete response rate of 70%, and 8 of 34 patients (24%) had durable remissions lasting >2 years. GranB+ CD56bright CD16dim CD11b+ natural killer cells and memory regulatory T cells in the peripheral blood at baseline were predictive of response. Concomitant administration of lenalidomide appeared to reduce blinatumomab-mediated T-cell exhaustion. In conclusion, encouraging activity was seen with blinatumomab and lenalidomide in heavily pretreated R/R B-NHL (NCI Protocol no. 9924).
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 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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".