Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2440/114013
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Type: Journal article
Title: 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
Author: Czuczman, M.
Trněný, M.
Davies, A.
Rule, S.
Linton, K.
Wagner-Johnston, N.
Gascoyne, R.
Slack, G.
Brousset, P.
Eberhard, D.
Hernandez-Ilizaliturri, F.
Salles, G.
Witzig, T.
Zinzani, P.
Wright, G.
Staudt, L.
Yang, Y.
Williams, P.
Lih, C.
Russo, J.
et al.
Citation: Clinical Cancer Research, 2017; 23(15):4127-4137
Publisher: AACR Publications
Issue Date: 2017
ISSN: 1078-0432
1557-3265
Statement of
Responsibility: 
Myron S. Czuczman, Marek Trněný, Andrew Davies, Simon Rule, Kim M. Linton ... Ian D. Lewis ... et al.
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.
Keywords: Thalidomide
Rights: © 2017, American Association for Cancer Research
RMID: 0030071719
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-2818
Appears in Collections:Medicine publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.