4.7 Article

Aphase 1 study of obinutuzumab induction followed by 2 years of maintenance in patients with relapsed CD20-positive B-cell malignancies

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 119, Issue 22, Pages 5118-5125

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2012-02-408773

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd
  2. Genentech Inc.
  3. Genentech/F. Hoffman-La Roche/Genentech

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This phase 1 study evaluated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of obinutuzumab (GA101), a glycoengineered type II anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody administered as induction followed by 2 years of maintenance. Cohorts of 3 to 6 patients received obinutuzumab (200-2000 mg) intravenously weekly for 4 weeks. Patients with a complete or partial response (or stable disease and clinical benefit) continued to receive obinutuzumab every 3 months, for a maximum of 8 doses. Twenty-two patients with relapsed CD20-positive non-Hodgkin lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukemia with an indication for treatment and no therapy of higher priority were enrolled. Patients received a median of 4 prior regimens; 86% had received at least 1 rituximab-containing regimen. No dose-limiting or unexpected AEs were observed. Infusion-related reactions were most common (all grades, 73%; grade 3/4, 18%), followed by infection (32%), pyrexia (23%), neutropenia (23%), headache (18%), and nausea (18%). At end of induction, 5 (23%) patients achieved partial responses and 12 (54%) had stable disease. Eight patients received maintenance; best overall response was 32% (6 partial responses/1 complete response). Obinutuzumab induction and maintenance therapy was well tolerated with promising efficacy in this heterogeneous, highly pretreated population and warrants further investigation. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT00576758). (Blood. 2012; 119(22): 5118-5125)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available