Table 2.

Summary of disease responses (efficacy analysis set)

IRC-assessed by PET and/or CT (n = 66) IRC-assessed by CT only (n = 66) Investigator-assessed by PET and/or CT (n = 66) 
ORR, % (95% CI)  68.2 (55.6-79.1) 66.7 (54.0-77.8) 75.8 (63.6-85.5) 
Best overall response, n (%)    
CR 17 (25.8) 16 (24.2) 19 (28.8) 
PR 28 (42.4) 28 (42.4) 31 (47.0) 
Stable disease 13 (19.7) 16 (24.2) 10 (15.2) 
Progressive disease 6 (9.1) 5 (7.8) 5 (7.8) 
Nonprogressive disease  1 (1.5) 
Discontinued study before first assessment, n (%) 1 (1.5) 1 (1.5) 1 (1.5) 
Median time to response, mo (range) 2.8 (1.7-11.1) 3.0 (1.8-22.2) 2.8 (1.7-16.6) 
IRC-assessed by PET and/or CT (n = 66) IRC-assessed by CT only (n = 66) Investigator-assessed by PET and/or CT (n = 66) 
ORR, % (95% CI)  68.2 (55.6-79.1) 66.7 (54.0-77.8) 75.8 (63.6-85.5) 
Best overall response, n (%)    
CR 17 (25.8) 16 (24.2) 19 (28.8) 
PR 28 (42.4) 28 (42.4) 31 (47.0) 
Stable disease 13 (19.7) 16 (24.2) 10 (15.2) 
Progressive disease 6 (9.1) 5 (7.8) 5 (7.8) 
Nonprogressive disease  1 (1.5) 
Discontinued study before first assessment, n (%) 1 (1.5) 1 (1.5) 1 (1.5) 
Median time to response, mo (range) 2.8 (1.7-11.1) 3.0 (1.8-22.2) 2.8 (1.7-16.6) 

Two patients were excluded from the efficacy analysis set because central review determined their diagnosis as diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

95% CIs were calculated using 2-sided Clopper-Pearson methodology.

One patient with FDG-avid disease who missed the PET scan at cycle 3 and was assessed as nonprogressive disease (CT scan showed stable disease).

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal