Skip to main content
. 2018 Jul 5;98(1):131–142. doi: 10.1007/s00277-018-3418-2

Table 5.

Subgroup analysis of objective response rate, full analysis set

Subgroup n/Na ORR (95% CI), %
All evaluable patients in phases 1 + 2 11/45 24 (13–40)
Sex
 Men 8/30 27 (12–46)
 Women 3/15 20 (4–48)
Age group
 < 65 years 6/16 38 (15–65)
 ≥ 65 years 5/29 17 (6–36)
No. of previous anti-tumor regimens
 1 5/19 26 (9–51)
 2 3/9 33 (8–70)
 3 3/10 30 (7–65)
 ≥ 4 0/7 0 (0–41)
Histological classification
 Peripheral T cell lymphoma, NOS 5/22 23 (8–45)
 Angioimmunoblastic T cell lymphoma 6/18 33 (13–59)
Ann Arbor stageb
 Stage I 0/1 0 (0–98)
 Stage II 2/11 18 (2–52)
 Stage III 7/19 37 (16–62)
 Stage IV 2/13 15 (2–45)
ECOG performance status
 0 7/27 26 (11–46)
 1 4/18 22 (6–48)
Target lesion SPD
 < 14 cm2 8/26 31 (14–52)
 ≥ 14 cm2 3/19 16 (3–40)
LDH
 Low/normal 9/25 36 (18–58)
 High 2/20 10 (1–32)

CI confidence interval, ECOG Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, LDH lactate dehydrogenase, NOS not otherwise specified, ORR objective response rate, SPD sum of the products of the largest diameters of target lesions

aNumber of patients with objective responses divided by the total number of patients in the category

bExcept for transformed mycosis fungoides