4.6 Article

Brentuximab vedotin followed by bendamustine supercharge for refractory or relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma

期刊

BLOOD ADVANCES
卷 3, 期 9, 页码 1546-1552

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2019000123

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We evaluated the impact on progression-free survival (PFS) of achieving a deep metabolic response at 2-deoxy-2[F-18] fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in patients with refractory or relapsed (R/R) classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) following a new salvage regimen named Bv+Bs (brentuximab vedotin + bendamustine supercharge), from 2013 to 2017. In this real-life study, 20 consecutive patients (aged <60 years) with R/R cHL after failure of >= 1 salvage treatments received Bv+Bs regimen consisting of 3-days outpatient IV infusions of 1.8 mg/kg of Bv on day 1 of each 3-week cycle combined in sequence to bendamustine on days 2 and 3 of the treatment cycle at a fixed dose of 120 mg/m(2) per day, for a total of 4 courses. A robust primary prophylaxis approach, including premedication, antimicrobials, stimulating factors, and cytomegalovirus monitoring, was systematically performed. The 20 patients (all evaluable) underwent 4 courses of Bv+Bs with a median dose intensity of 100% for both Bv and Bs. Ten patients (50%) experienced grade >= 3 treatment-related adverse events, without requiring hospitalization. At post-Bv1Bs reevaluation, 80% of patients had deep metabolic responses with Deauville 5-point scale scores <= 2. Thereafter, 14 patients (70%) received autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT; peripheral blood stem cells previously harvested in 12 cases), and 4 patients (10%) received allogeneic HSCT. At a median follow-up of 27 months from Bv+Bs regimen initiation, the 2-year PFS of the entire population was 93.7% (95% confidence interval, 62.7% to 99.6%). Our data suggest that Bv+Bs regimen-driven strategy may be a promising salvage option to improve long-term control of high-risk Hodgkin lymphoma.

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

4.6
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