MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792666902 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1713976

Venetoclax–Rituximab in Relapsed or Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

2018· article· en· W2792666902 on OpenAlexaff
John F. Seymour, Thomas J. Kipps, Barbara Eichhorst, Peter Hillmen, James D’Rozario, Sarit Assouline, Carolyn Owen, John F. Gerecitano, Tadeusz Robak, Javier de la Serna, Ulrich Jaeger, Guillaume Cartron, Marco Montillo, Rod Humerickhouse, Elizabeth A. Punnoose, Yan Li, Michelle Boyer, Kathryn Humphrey, Mehrdad Mobasher, Arnon P. Kater

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryJewish General Hospital
FundersF. Hoffmann-La RocheAbbVie
KeywordsVenetoclaxRituximabBendamustineMedicineInternal medicineChronic lymphocytic leukemiaOncologyProgression-free survivalNeutropeniaLeukemiaGastroenterologyImmunologyLymphomaChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Venetoclax inhibits BCL2, an antiapoptotic protein that is pathologically overexpressed and that is central to the survival of chronic lymphocytic leukemia cells. We evaluated the efficacy of venetoclax in combination with rituximab in patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 389 patients to receive venetoclax for up to 2 years (from day 1 of cycle 1) plus rituximab for the first 6 months (venetoclax-rituximab group) or bendamustine plus rituximab for 6 months (bendamustine-rituximab group). The trial design did not include crossover to venetoclax plus rituximab for patients in the bendamustine-rituximab group in whom progression occurred. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. RESULTS: After a median follow-up period of 23.8 months, the rate of investigator-assessed progression-free survival was significantly higher in the venetoclax-rituximab group (32 events of progression or death in 194 patients) than in the bendamustine-rituximab group (114 events in 195 patients); the 2-year rates of progression-free survival were 84.9% and 36.3%, respectively (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11 to 0.25; P<0.001 by the stratified log-rank test). The benefit was maintained across all clinical and biologic subgroups, including the subgroup of patients with chromosome 17p deletion; the 2-year rate of progression-free survival among patients with chromosome 17p deletion was 81.5% in the venetoclax-rituximab group versus 27.8% in the bendamustine-rituximab group (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.29), and the 2-year rate among those without chromosome 17p deletion was 85.9% versus 41.0% (hazard ratio, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.32). The benefit of venetoclax plus rituximab over bendamustine plus rituximab was confirmed by an independent review committee assessment of progression-free survival and other secondary efficacy end points. The rate of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was higher in the venetoclax-rituximab group than in the bendamustine-rituximab group, but the rates of grade 3 or 4 febrile neutropenia and infections or infestations were lower with venetoclax than with bendamustine. The rate of grade 3 or 4 tumor lysis syndrome in the venetoclax-rituximab group was 3.1% (6 of 194 patients). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia, venetoclax plus rituximab resulted in significantly higher rates of progression-free survival than bendamustine plus rituximab. (Funded by Genentech and AbbVie; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02005471 .).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations909
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207