4.6 Article

Results of a multicentre UK-wide retrospective study evaluating the efficacy of brentuximab vedotin in relapsed, refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma in the transplant naive setting

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
卷 179, 期 3, 页码 471-479

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjh.14898

关键词

brentuximab; Hodgkin lymphoma; transplantation

资金

  1. Julian Starmer-Smith lymphoma fund
  2. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre Programme
  3. UCL/UCLH Biomedical Research Centre
  4. National Institute for Health Research [CL-2013-13-009] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) is associated with a poor outcome when standard chemotherapy fails. Brentuximab vedotin (BV) is an anti-CD30 monoclonal antibody-drug conjugate licensed for use at relapse after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) or following two prior therapies in those unsuitable for ASCT. There are limited data assessing the ability of BV to enable curative SCT. We performed a UK-wide retrospective study of 99 SCT-naive relapsed/refractory cHL. All had received 2 prior lines and were deemed fit for transplant but had an insufficient remission to proceed. The median age was 32years. Most had nodular sclerosis subtype, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1 and advanced stage disease. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.6months and median overall survival (OS) was 37.2months. The overall response rate was 56% (29% complete response; 27% partial response). 61% reached SCT: 34% immediately post-BV and 27% following an inadequate BV response but were salvaged and underwent deferred SCT. Patients consolidated with SCT had a superior PFS and OS to those not receiving SCT (P<0.001). BV is an effective, non-toxic bridge to immediate SCT in 34% and deferred SCT in 27%. 39% never reached SCT with a PFS of 3.0months, demonstrating the unmet need to improve outcomes in those unsuitable for SCT post-BV.

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