MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rituximab, Fludarabine, and Cyclophosphamide (R-FC) Prolongs Progression Free Survival in Relapsed or Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) Compared with FC Alone: Final Results from the International Randomized Phase III REACH Trial

2008· article· en· W2556217933 on OpenAlex
Tadeusz Robak, Moiseev Si, Anna Dmoszyńska, Philippe Solal‐Céligny, Krzysztof Warzocha, Javier Loscertales, John Catalano, B. V. Аfanasiev, Loree Larratt, Christian H. Geisler, Marco Montillo, Peter Ganly, Caroline Dartigeas, András Rosta, Ann Janssens, Myriam Mendila, Jörg Maurer, Michael Wenger

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFludarabineMedicineRituximabInternal medicineTolerabilityClinical endpointRegimenProgression-free survivalGastroenterologyRefractory (planetary science)CyclophosphamideSurgeryRandomized controlled trialOncologyChemotherapyAdverse effectLymphoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The addition of rituximab to a variety of chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of patients with CLL has yielded promising results in phase II trials. The R-FC regimen demonstrated particularly high rates of overall response (ORR), complete remission (CR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in relapsed/refractory CLL (Wierda, et al, JCO 2005). REACH was an open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase III study to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of R-FC versus FC in relapsed or refractory patients with CD20 positive CLL. The primary endpoint of the study was progression free survival. Five hundred and fifty two patients from 17 countries were randomized (1:1) to receive either R-FC or FC. Rituximab was administered IV before the FC infusion for a total of 6 treatment cycles at intervals of 28 days (Cycle 1: 375 mg/m2 IV; Cycles 2–6: 500 mg/m2 IV). Fludarabine (25 mg/m2 IV/day) and cyclophosphamide (250 mg/m2 IV/day) were administered over 3 days for 6 cycles. Baseline demographics, disease characteristics, and prognostic factors were well balanced between the two arms. Median age was 63 years. All Binet stages were represented (A 10%, B 59%, C 31%). A median of one prior treatment had been administered, consisting of single-agent alkylator therapy (66%), purine-analogs (16%), or combination treatments (CHOP, COP, F-containing, 18%). Patients with prior FC combination treatment or prior rituximab were not eligible. Median observation time was 25 months. The primary endpoint PFS was significantly prolonged by median 10 months in the R-FC arm (30.6 months) compared to FC (20.6 months, p =0.0002, Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.65 [95% CI 0.51; 0.82]). Secondary endpoints EFS, TTNT, DR showed similar results. ORR were higher for R-FC vs. FC (70% vs. 58%, p=0.0034), due to superior CR rates (24% vs. 13%, p=0.0007). Multiple subgroups were analyzed applying a Cox-regression model: all Binet stages experienced similar incremental benefits in PFS (HR Binet A 0.75, B 0.65, C 0.61). Mutational status and cytogenetic subgroups remained prognostic and benefited from the addition of rituximab to FC (HR IgVH unmutated 0.62, mutated 0.7; del17p pos 0.75, neg 0.63; del13q pos 0.56, neg 0.77). Median overall survival was not reached for R-FC and was 53 months for FC, (p=0.29, HR 0.83). Of 47 patients that relapsed and were treated in the R-FC arm, 30% received rituximab again. Sixty-nine patients were treated at relapse in the FC arm, and 49% received rituximab. Grade 3/4 Adverse Events were higher in the R-FC arm (80%) vs. FC (74%), but serious adverse events were similar (50% vs. 48%, respectively). Grade 3/4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were only marginally increased for R-FC (42% and 15%) vs. FC (40% and 12%, respectively), the same was seen for thrombocytopenia (R-FC 11% vs. FC 9%). Grade 3/4 infections (R-FC 18%, FC 19%) were similar, and there was no difference in bacterial, viral, or fungal infections between the two arms. Grade 3/4 anemia was slightly increased in the FC arm (R-FC 2%, FC 5%). Slightly higher Fatal Adverse Events were seen with R-FC (13%) vs. FC (10%). Fatal SAEs were mainly due to infections, secondary neoplasms, and cardiac disorders. Summary and conclusion: In this large randomized trial in relapsed or refractory CLL, with 10 months improvement in PFS and a doubling of CR rates, R-FC was statistically significant and clinically meaningful superior to FC in the primary analysis. Improvement in PFS was seen across most subgroups, including all Binet stages. Fatal AEs were relatively high in both arms. However, overall, the addition of rituximab to FC in REACH showed a very favorable risk-benefit profile and did not reveal any new or unexpected safety signals.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it