MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417012355 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-4239

Multicenter real-world experience of belumosudil treatment in heavily pretreated patients with steroid-refractory chronic graft-versus-host disease: Clinical outcomes and risk factor analysis for failure-free survival.

2025· article· en· W4417012355 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sergio Rodríguez‐Rodríguez, Rebeca Bailén, Keven Vachon, Brittany Salter, Christopher Lemieux, Kareem Jamani, Mohamed Elemary, Jonas Mattsson, Kylie Lepic, Amani Ahmed, Jennifer White, Felipe Peña-Muñóz, Juan Alberto Martín González, José Antonio Pérez‐Simón, Matthias Fante, Daniel Wolff, Mi Kwon, Dennis Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontUniversity Health NetworkSaskatchewan Cancer AgencyPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of CalgaryMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoHamilton Health SciencesUniversité de MontréalUniversité LavalBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical endpointAdverse effectRetrospective cohort studyClinical trialCohortRisk factorRandomized controlled trialCohort studyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Belumosudil (BEL), a selective Rho-associated coiled-coil kinase 2 (ROCK2) inhibitor, has shown significant clinical activity to improve overall response rate (ORR) and failure-free survival (FFS) in patients (pts) with steroid-refractory chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGvHD) in the randomized phase 2 Rockstar study. Over the last 2 years, multiple real-world experience (RWE) studies repeatedly reported improved ORR, although the studies were limited by relatively small number of pts in each individual studies. The present study expanded the cohort to 216 pts through international, multicentre collaboration, and presents preliminary data on ORR, FFS and clinical significant adverse events (AEs) following BEL treatment. Patients and methods This retrospective study evaluated the efficacy of BEL treatment of 216 pts in Canada, Spain and Germany from March 2023 to July 2025. Baseline characteristics, prior cGvHD treatments history, and details of BEL treatment were captured retrospectively, along with ORR, complete response (CR) rates, clinical benefit (defined as CR or partial response plus stable disease with significant steroid dose reduction), and significant AEs. The primary endpoint was FFS, defined as the time from initiation of BEL to subsequent GVHD therapy due to inadequate response or toxicity, disease relapse, or death. Results Two hundred and sixteen pts with cGvHD who received BEL as third line therapy or beyond were included, of whom 191 were evaluated for their response to BEL. At the time of BEL starts, 165 (80.1%) out of 206 pts showed severe grade cGvHD; a median of 3 involved organs (range 1-7), and a median of 4 prior lines of therapy (range 2-14). The median interval from onset of cGvHD to BEL therapy was 46.1 months (range 0.4-303). One hundred and twenty-seven pts (58.8%) received BEL as a monotherapy, while 89 (41.2%) received a BEL combination: 61 with ruxolitinib (BEL-RUX) (28.2%), 15 with RUX and extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) (6.9%), and 13 with ECP only (6.0%). The majority (n=187; 90.8%) initiated BEL at a dose of 200 mg daily and corticosteroids (CS) were used in 60.2% (n=130). With a median follow-up of 10.4 months (95% CI [8.7–11.9 months]) after BEL initiation, the ORR was 45.0% (n=86/191) at 3 months and 43% (n=41/96) at 6 months, while the CR rate was 4.2% (n=8/191) and 5% (n=5/96), respectively. A clinical benefit was found for 50.3% (n=97/193) and 49% (n=47/96) of patients at 3 and 6 months. The CS dose was significantly reduced over the course of BEL treatment from a baseline of 0.12 ± 0.02 mg/kg/day (mean ± S.E.), to 0.09 ± 0.01, 0.08 ± 0.01, and 0.04 ± 0.01 at 3, 6 and 12 months (p < 0.001, generalized linear model). The 6 and 12 months' FFS rates were 80.9% [74.5–85.8] and 66.8% [58.9–73.5] respectively. A total of 77 pts (35.6%) failed BEL therapy: switched to the next line therapy due to inadequate response (n=56, 25.9%) or intolerance to BEL (n=13; 6.0%), non-relapse mortality (n=5; 2.3%), or disease relapse (n=3; 1.4%). Among the 13 pts who discontinued BEL due to intolerance, none experienced grade 4 AEs; 5 experienced grade 3 AEs (AST/ALT elevation, bowel perforation, severe fatigue with daily living limitation, recurrent lung infections, and retinal detachment). The remaining 8 pts experienced grade 2 AEs, including nausea and decreased oral intake (n=2), bilirubin elevation and muscle cramps, muscle weakness of the limbs, limb edema, fatigue and muscle cramps, dyspepsia, and malaise. When comparing characteristics between the BEL monotherapy group (n=127) and the combined BEL-RUX group (n=61), patients in the BEL group had fewer cases of overlap syndrome (22% vs. 42%, p=0.009) and less frequent exposure to RUX treatment (58% vs. 93%, p<0.001), while most of the BEL-RUX group had previously failed RUX therapy. However, although the BEL-RUX group had a higher rate of prior RUX therapy failure with a higher rate of overlap syndrome, no significant difference in FFS was observed between the two groups: the 12-month FFS rate was similar (71.2% for BEL vs. 66.2% for BEL-RUX), after adjustment for overlap cGvHD and prior RUX exposure. Conclusion The present study confirms therapeutic efficacy with impressive FFS at 6 and 12 months and an excellent safety profile for heavily pretreated patients with SR-cGVHD. Combination therapy of BEL with RUX seems promising for patients with prior RUX therapy or those presenting with overlap syndrome.

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)0.001
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.301 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation→French-language works237,207→