Descriptive Analysis of Dosing and Outcomes for Patients with Ibrutinib-Treated Relapsed or Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in a Canadian Centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Ibrutinib is an approved treatment for relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (cll) and small lymphocytic lymphoma (sll). The effect of ibrutinib dose reduction compared with discontinuation in a population-based setting is unclear. Methods: To examine the patterns of ibrutinib use in a Canadian population-based setting, we analyzed a retrospective cohort of patients with relapsed or refractory cll or sll treated with ibrutinib. Results: The 64 patients diagnosed with cll or sll had a median age of 76.5 years. Most had unmutated ighv (immunoglobulin variable heavy chain). A hematologic response occurred in 39 patients regardless of the ibrutinib dose. The most common toxicities were infection, bruising or bleeding, and musculoskeletal problems, with a median time to first toxicity of 14 days. More than half the cohort experienced a dose reduction, with musculoskeletal problems, cytopenias, and infection being the leading causes; surgery was the most frequent indication for holding treatment. Only 26 of the 64 patients (40.6%) stayed on the recommended maximal dose of ibrutinib. No differences in reported toxicities or hematologic response rates were evident between the patients receiving maximal and submaximal therapy. At the end of the study period, 53 patients from the initial cohort remained on ibrutinib. Conclusions: More than half the study patients received ibrutinib therapy at a submaximal dose without evidence of increased frequency of toxicities or disease progression. The rate of ibrutinib discontinuation was lower in our cohort than has been reported in other settings. Submaximal ibrutinib dosing will have to be further systematically evaluated.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".