Single‐agent ibrutinib versus chemoimmunotherapy regimens for treatment‐naïve patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia: A cross‐trial comparison of phase 3 studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) and targeted therapy with single-agent ibrutinib are both recommended first-line treatments for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), although their outcomes have not been directly compared. Using ibrutinib data from the RESONATE-2 (PCYC-1115/1116) study conducted in patients ≥65 years without del(17p), we performed a cross-trial comparison with CIT data from published phase 3 studies in first-line treatment of CLL. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety data for ibrutinib (median follow-up 35.7 months) were evaluated alongside available CIT data. CIT regimens included: fludarabine + cyclophosphamide + rituximab (CLL8, CLL10), bendamustine + rituximab (CLL10), obinutuzumab + chlorambucil and rituximab + chlorambucil (CLL11), and ofatumumab + chlorambucil (COMPLEMENT-1). Median age across studies was 61-74 years, with older populations receiving ibrutinib, obinutuzumab + chlorambucil, or rituximab + chlorambucil. Median follow-up varied across studies/regimens (range 14.5-37.4 months). Among all patients, PFS appeared longer with ibrutinib relative to CIT and OS appeared comparable. Relative to CIT studies that similarly excluded patients with del(17p) (CLL10) or enrolled older/less-fit patients (CLL11), PFS appeared favorable for ibrutinib in high-risk subgroups, including advanced disease, bulky lymph nodes, unmutated IGHV status, and presence of del(11q). Grade ≥ 3 infections ranged from 9% (ofatumumab + chlorambucil) to 40% (fludarabine + cyclophosphamide + rituximab), and was 25% with ibrutinib. Grade ≥ 3 neutropenia was 12% for ibrutinib and 26%-84% for CIT. Although definitive conclusions cannot be made due to inherent limitations of cross-trial comparisons, this report suggests that ibrutinib has a favorable benefit/risk profile and may potentially eliminate the need for chemotherapy in some patients. Randomized, comparative studies are needed to support these findings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".