Lenalidomide treatment and prognostic markers in relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia: data from the prospective, multicenter phase-II CLL-009 trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Efficacy of lenalidomide was investigated in 103 patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) treated on the prospective, multicenter randomized phase-II CLL-009 trial. Interphase cytogenetic and mutational analyses identified TP53 mutations, unmutated IGHV, or del(17p) in 36/96 (37.5%), 68/88 (77.3%) or 22/92 (23.9%) patients. The overall response rate (ORR) was 40.4% (42/104). ORRs were similar irrespective of TP53 mutation (36.1% (13/36) vs 43.3% (26/60) for patients with vs without mutation) or IGHV mutation status (45.0% (9/20) vs 39.1% (27/68)); however, patients with del(17p) had lower ORRs than those without del(17p) (21.7% (5/22) vs 47.1% (33/70); P=0.049). No significant differences in progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) were observed when comparing subgroups defined by the presence or absence of high-risk genetic characteristics. In multivariate analyses, only multiple prior therapies (⩾3 lines) significantly impacted outcomes (median OS: 21.2 months vs not reached; P=0.019). This analysis indicates that lenalidomide is active in patients with relapsed/refractory CLL with unfavorable genetic profiles, including TP53 inactivation or unmutated IGHV. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00963105).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".