SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Biotech / Medical : Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (MLNM)

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Ian@SI who wrote (2566)12/7/2005 12:30:01 AM
From: Ian@SI  Read Replies (1) of 3044
 
[3336] An Outpatient Salvage Approach for Advanced Lymphoma Incorporating Stratification and Dose-Escalation. Session Type: Poster Session 587-III

Andrew Spencer, Andrew Grigg, John Catalano, Michael Leahy, Craig Underhill, Chris Arthur, James DRozario, Ray Lowenthal, Kerry Taylor Clinical Haematology & BMT, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Haematology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Haematology, Frankston Hospital, Frankston, Victoria, Australia; Haematology, Fremantle Hospital, Fremantle, Western Australia, Australia; Oncology, Border Medical Oncology, Albury, NSW, Australia; Haematology, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Haematology, Canberra Hospital, Canberra, ACT, Australia; Oncology, Royal Hobart Hospital, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia; Haematology, Mater Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

We have previously demonstrated significant anti-lymphoma activity using an outpatient-based salvage approach comprising vinorelbine and gemcitabine with an overall response (CR + PR) rate of 55%. We now report the results of a planned interim analysis of a similar outpatient approach for both non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) and Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) but incorporating patient stratification and treatment escalation. Patients were stratified into Group 1 (G1 - good risk - first relapse following durable first remission - follicular NHL>12 months, all other NHL sub-types and HL>6 months); Group 2 (G2 - poor risk – primary refractory, second or subsequent relapse, or non-durable first remission); or Group 3 (G3 - post-transplant – relapse following any form of stem cell transplant therapy). Two chemotherapy regimens were evaluated. VGF (vinorelbine 25mg/sqm days 1 and 8, gemcitabine 1000mg/sqm days 1 and 8, pegfilgrastim 6mg SC day 9); F-GIV (same as VGF but with ifosfamide 3000mg/sqm day 1 with mesna uroepithelial protection). G1 and G3 commenced therapy with VGF and G2 with F-GIV. Following 2 cycles of therapy all patients were restaged. Any patients demonstrating disease progression were removed from trial. Responsive patients (>50% reduction in all previous sites of disease and gallium and/or FDG-PET negativity where baseline positivity was demonstrated) received 2 further cycles of the same therapy, the remainder 'escalated' therapy with F-GIV (G1 and G3) or IVAC (G2) (inpatient treatment with ifosfamide, VP-16 and Ara-C). A planned total of 90 patients were accrued between December 2002 and December 2004. Here we report on the first 88 patients (G1 = 26, G2 = 50, G3 = 12) with a median age of 57 years (range, 17-78). Diagnoses at entry were HL, n = 16 (nodular sclerosing = 13, mixed cellularity = 3) and NHL, n = 72 (diffuse large cell = 41, follicular = 16, others = 15). So far G1 and G2 have received 79 and 138 cycles of VGF and F-GIV, respectively, with grades 3/4 neutropenia or thrombocytopenia occurring in 24% and 18% (VGF) and 62% and 49% (F-GIV) of patients, respectively. Significant non-haematological toxicities were uncommon. Febrile neutropenia, hospital admission, treatment delay or dose-reductions occurred with 4%, 19%, 4%, 1% and 17%, 34%, 9%, 9% of VGF and F-GIV cycles, respectively. The 12 post-transplant patients (G3) have received 28 and 8 cycles of VGF and F-GIV, respectively, with no unexpected toxicities. Based on published standardised response criteria overall response (CR + Cru + PR) on an intention-to-treat basis after 2 to 4 cycles of treatment is 54% (CR 29%) (77% and 42% for G1 and G2, respectively). Diffuse large cell NHL patients have demonstrated response rates of 67% and 17% for G1 and G2 patients, respectively. Based on this planned interim analysis we conclude that both VGF and F-GIV can be safely administered on an outpatient basis and show activity against advanced lymphoma.
Abstract #3336 appears in Blood, Volume 106, issue 11, November 16, 2005
Keywords: Gemcitabine|Relapse|Diffuse large B cell lymphoma

Monday, December 12, 2005 10:30 AM

Poster Session: Lymphoma: Chemotherapy, excluding Pre-Clinical Models (10:30 AM-6:30 PM)
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext