Browsing by Author "Zhang, Qingyuan"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Efficacy and safety of standard BEACOPP regimen versus ABVD regimen for treatment of advanced Hodgkin’s lymphoma
    (Wolters Kluwer – Medknow, 2024-08) Lin, Ningjing; He, Chuan; Zhang, Qingyuan; Hong, Xiaonan; Liu, Lihong; Yang, Shune; Su, Hang; Li, Xiaoyi; Dai, Xiangrong; Li, Yujie; Zhu, Jun
    Introduction: The current treatment regimens for Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL) are associated with high incidences of adverse events. Purpose: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of doxorubicin + bleomycin + vincristine + dacarbazine (ABVD) and standard bleomycin + etoposide + doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide + vincristine + procarbazine + prednisone (BEACOPP) chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced stage HL. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, parallel, open, positive control noninferiority trial was conducted from 2016 to 2019 and comprised 93 subjects who were randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the treatment (BEACOPP; n = 44) and control (ABVD; n = 49) groups. Results: The primary efficacy endpoint of this trial was the objective response rate (ORR) after eight cycles of chemotherapy, which was 100.00% (36/36) in the treatment group and 95.74% (45/49) in the control group. The incidence of adverse reactions was 100% in both groups. Significant differences (P < 0.05) in the incidences of grade 3 (39/44 [88.64%] vs. 23/49 [46.94%]) and grade 4 (27/44 [61.36%] vs. 8/49 [16.94%]) adverse events were observed between the treatment and control groups, respectively. However, most of these reactions were manageable, with no serious consequences, and were reversible after discontinuation of the treatment. Conclusion: Both regimens had a similar ORR and were associated with a high number of adverse events. The ABVD regimen was better tolerated and safer than the standard BEACOPP regimen. This study indicates that the standard BEACOPP regimen may be considered as a treatment option for patients with advanced HL.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Polatuzumab vedotin plus bendamustine and rituximab in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: A phase III bridging study in Chinese patients
    (Wolters Kluwer – Medknow, 2024-12) Song, Yuqin; Zhang, Qingyuan; Cai, Qingqing; Song, Yongping; Zhang, Liling; He, Pengcheng; Wang, Li; Hirata, Jamie; Musick, Lisa; Deng, Rong; Liu, Wenxin; Wang, Xin; Zhu, Jun
    Background: Patients with transplant‑ineligible relapsed/refractory diffuse large B‑cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL) have limited treatment options and poor outcomes. Methods: This phase III study (NCT04236141) evaluated the efficacy and safety of polatuzumab vedotin plus bendamustine and rituximab (Pola+BR) versus BR in Chinese patients with transplant‑ineligible R/R DLBCL to support regulatory submission in China. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive Pola+BR or placebo+BR. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) at the end of treatment (EOT) by positron emission tomography–computed tomography. Results: Overall, 42 patients were analyzed (Pola+BR, n = 28; placebo+BR, n = 14). At data cutoff (July 12, 2021; median follow‑up: 7.5 months), CR at EOT was 25.0% (7/28) with Pola+BR and 14.3% (2/14) with placebo+BR, 10.7% difference [95% confidence interval (CI): –19.0, 40.4]. The median investigator‑assessed progression‑free survival was 4.6 (95% CI: 3.1–6.4) months with Pola+BR and 2.0 (95% CI: 1.9–4.6) months with placebo+BR, with a 50% reduction in risk of progression or death (unstratified hazard ratio: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.24–1.05). The median overall survival was 10.6 [95% CI: 5.5–not evaluable (NE)] and 6.5 (95% CI: 6.0–NE) months, with a 45% reduction in risk of death. The incidence of Grade 3–4 adverse events was similar between Pola+BR (20/27 patients, 74.1%) and placebo+BR arms (11/14 patients, 78.6%). Conclusions: Efficacy findings were consistent with results of the GO29365 study (NCT02257567); treatment with Pola+BR led to clinically meaningful improvements in response rates in Chinese patients with transplant‑ineligible R/R DLBCL with no new safety signals.