4.7 Article

Interim Report of A Phase 2 Clinical Trial of Lenalidomide for T-Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

期刊

CANCER
卷 116, 期 19, 页码 4541-4548

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.25377

关键词

T-cell lymphoma; antineoplastic agents; clinical trial; phase 2

类别

资金

  1. Celgene Corporation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Novel therapies are needed to improve outcomes in T-cell lymphomas. The authors report the interim results of a prospective multicenter trial evaluating lenalidomide in T-cell lymphomas. METHODS: Patients with recurrent and refractory T-cell lymphomas other than mycosis fungoides and untreated patients ineligible for combination chemotherapy were prescribed oral lenalidomide (25 mg daily) on Days 1 to 21 of each 28-day cycle until disease progression, death, or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall response rate. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. The 2-stage design allows for up to 40 patients. RESULTS: At the time of this interim analysis, 24 patients were enrolled in this study, and 23 were evaluable for response. The median age was 65 years. The overall response rate was 7 (30%) of 23; all were partial responses. Two patients had stable disease for >= 5 cycles. Responses were seen in anaplastic, angioimmunoblastic, and peripheral T-cell unspecified histologies. Median PFS was 96 days (range, 8-696+ days). Median OS was 241 days (range, 8-696+ days). The most common grade 4 adverse event was thrombocytopenia (33%). The most common grade 3 adverse events were neutropenia (21%), febrile neutropenia (17%), and pain not otherwise specified (17%). Rash correlated with response to therapy (P=.003). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with recurrent and refractory T-cell lymphomas, oral lenalidomide monotherapy has clinical activity, and toxicity is consistent with the known safety profile of lenalidomide. Further study of lenalidomide in these diseases is warranted. Cancer 2010;116:4541-8. (C) 2010 American Cancer Society.

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