4.7 Article

Avadomide monotherapy in relapsed/refractory DLBCL: safety, efficacy, and a predictive gene classifier

期刊

BLOOD
卷 135, 期 13, 页码 996-1007

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood.2019002395

关键词

-

资金

  1. Celgene Corporation, A Bristol-Myers Squibb Company

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Treatment options for relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) are limited, with no standard of care; prognosis is poor, with 4- to 6-month median survival. Avadomide (CC-122) is a cereblon-modulating agent with immunomodulatory and direct antitumor activities. This phase 1 dose-expansion study assessed safety and clinical activity of avadomide monotherapy in patients with de novo R/R DLBCL and transformed lymphoma. Additionally, a novel gene expression classifier, which identifies tumors with a high immune cell infiltration, was shown to enrich for response to avadomide in R/R DLBCL. Ninety-seven patients with R/R DLBCL, including 12 patients with transformed lymphoma, received 3 to 5 mg avadomide administered on continuous or intermittent schedules until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or withdrawal. Eighty-two patients (85%) experienced >= 1 grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), most commonly neutropenia (51%), infections (24%), anemia (12%), and febrile neutropenia (10%). Discontinuations because of AEs occurred in 10% of patients. Introduction of an intermittent 5/7-day schedule improved tolerability and reduced frequency and severity of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and infections. Among 84 patients with de novo R/R DLBCL, overall response rate (ORR) was 29%, including 11% complete response (CR). Responses were cell-of-origin in- dependent. Classifier-positive DLBCL patients (de novo) had an ORR of 44%, median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 6 months, and 16% CR vs an ORR of 19%, mPFS of 1.5 months, and 5% CR in classifier-negative patients (P = .0096). Avadomide is being evaluated in combination with other antilymphoma agents.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据