Long-term efficacy and safety of first-line ibrutinib treatment for patients with CLL/SLL: 5 years of follow-up from the phase 3 RESONATE-2 study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESONATE-2 is a phase 3 study of first-line ibrutinib versus chlorambucil in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL). Patients aged ≥65 years (n = 269) were randomized 1:1 to once-daily ibrutinib 420 mg continuously or chlorambucil 0.5-0.8 mg/kg for ≤12 cycles. With a median (range) follow-up of 60 months (0.1-66), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) benefits for ibrutinib versus chlorambucil were sustained (PFS estimates at 5 years: 70% vs 12%; HR [95% CI]: 0.146 [0.098-0.218]; OS estimates at 5 years: 83% vs 68%; HR [95% CI]: 0.450 [0.266-0.761]). Ibrutinib benefit was also consistent in patients with high prognostic risk (TP53 mutation, 11q deletion, and/or unmutated IGHV) (PFS: HR [95% CI]: 0.083 [0.047-0.145]; OS: HR [95% CI]: 0.366 [0.181-0.736]). Investigator-assessed overall response rate was 92% with ibrutinib (complete response, 30%; 11% at primary analysis). Common grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) included neutropenia (13%), pneumonia (12%), hypertension (8%), anemia (7%), and hyponatremia (6%); occurrence of most events as well as discontinuations due to AEs decreased over time. Fifty-eight percent of patients continue to receive ibrutinib. Single-agent ibrutinib demonstrated sustained PFS and OS benefit versus chlorambucil and increased depth of response over time.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".