Unknown

Dataset Information

0

A Phase 2/3 Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label Study to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Lenalidomide Versus Investigator's Choice in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.


ABSTRACT: Purpose: Randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 2/3 trial investigating lenalidomide versus investigator's choice (IC) in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).Experimental Design: Patients with DLBCL who received ≥2 prior therapies were stratified by DLBCL subtype [germinal center B-cell (GCB) vs. non-GCB; determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC)] and then randomized 1:1 to lenalidomide (25 mg/day, 21 days of 28-day cycle) or IC (gemcitabine, rituximab, etoposide, or oxaliplatin). Crossover to lenalidomide was permitted for IC-treated patients with radiologically confirmed progressive disease. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and subtype analysis [GCB vs. activated B-cell (ABC)] using gene expression profiling (GEP) were exploratory endpoints.Results: Stage 1: 102 DLBCL patients (by IHC: non-GCB, n = 54; GCB, n = 48) received ≥1 dose of lenalidomide or IC. Hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events with lenalidomide versus IC included neutropenia (42.6%; 36.4%), anemia (33.3%; 47.3%), thrombocytopenia (24.1%; 43.6%), and leukopenia (5.6%; 12.7%), respectively. Overall, lenalidomide-treated patients had an ORR of 27.5% versus 11.8% in IC (ORRs were similar regardless of IHC-defined DLBCL subtype). Median PFS was increased in patients receiving lenalidomide (13.6 weeks) versus IC (7.9 weeks; P = 0.041), with greater improvements in non-GCB patients (15.1 vs. 7.1 weeks, respectively; P = 0.021) compared with GCB (10.1 vs. 9.0 weeks, respectively; P = 0.550).Conclusions: The clinical benefit of lenalidomide monotherapy in DLBCL patients was more evident in the non-GCB subtype. Exploratory analyses suggest that this preferential benefit was more pronounced in the GEP-defined ABC population, demonstrating a need for additional studies of lenalidomide in DLBCL using GEP subtyping. Clin Cancer Res; 23(15); 4127-37. ©2017 AACR.

SUBMITTER: Czuczman MS 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8171498 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

altmetric image

Publications

A Phase 2/3 Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label Study to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Lenalidomide Versus Investigator's Choice in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.

Czuczman Myron S MS   Trněný Marek M   Davies Andrew A   Rule Simon S   Linton Kim M KM   Wagner-Johnston Nina N   Gascoyne Randy D RD   Slack Graham W GW   Brousset Pierre P   Eberhard David A DA   Hernandez-Ilizaliturri Francisco J FJ   Salles Gilles G   Witzig Thomas E TE   Zinzani Pier Luigi PL   Wright George W GW   Staudt Louis M LM   Yang Yandan Y   Williams P Mickey PM   Lih Chih-Jian CJ   Russo Jacqueline J   Thakurta Anjan A   Hagner Patrick P   Fustier Pierre P   Song Dale D   Lewis Ian D ID  

Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research 20170405 15


<b>Purpose:</b> Randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 2/3 trial investigating lenalidomide versus investigator's choice (IC) in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).<b>Experimental Design:</b> Patients with DLBCL who received ≥2 prior therapies were stratified by DLBCL subtype [germinal center B-cell (GCB) vs. non-GCB; determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC)] and then randomized 1:1 to lenalidomide (25 mg/day, 21 days of 28-day cycle) or IC (gemcitabine, rituximab, eto  ...[more]

Similar Datasets

| S-EPMC5814930 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC6518882 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC3217400 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC9666115 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC6225348 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC6494247 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC9414300 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC8972094 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC8674688 | biostudies-literature