Acalabrutinib (Acala) versus idelalisib plus rituximab (IdR) or bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) in relapsed/refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL): ASCEND final results.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
8015 Background: Acala is a next-generation, highly selective, covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for patients (pts) with CLL including those with R/R CLL. The efficacy and safety of acala alone vs IdR or BR were shown in R/R CLL pts in a preplanned interim analysis of ASCEND; final results are reported herein. Methods: In this randomized, multicenter, phase 3, open-label study (NCT02970318), R/R CLL pts were randomized 1:1 to receive oral (PO) acala 100 mg BID or investigator’s (INV) choice of IdR (Id: 150 mg PO BID until progression or toxicity; R: 375 x1 then 500 mg/m2 intravenously [IV] for 8 total infusions) or BR (B: 70 mg/m2 IV and R: 375 x1 then 500 mg/m2 IV for 6 total cycles) until progression or toxicity. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and safety were assessed. Results: 310 pts (acala, n=155; IdR, n=119; BR, n=36) were enrolled (median age: 67 y; del(17p) 16%, del(11q) 27%, Rai stage 3/4 42%). At a median follow-up of 22.0 m, acala significantly prolonged INV-assessed PFS vs IdR/BR (median: not reached vs 16.8 m; hazard ratio: 0.27, P<0.0001); 18-m PFS rates were 82% for acala and 48% for IdR/BR. 18-m OS rate was 88% for both treatment regimens. ORR was 80% with acala vs 84% with IdR/BR (ORR + partial response with lymphocytosis: 92% vs 88%, respectively). Common adverse events (AEs) are listed in the Table. AEs led to drug discontinuation in 16% of acala, 56% of IdR, and 17% of BR pts. AEs of interest included atrial fibrillation (acala 6%, IdR/BR 3%), major hemorrhage (all grade; acala 3%, IdR/BR 3%), grade ≥3 infections (acala 20%, IdR/BR 25%), and second primary malignancies excluding non-melanoma skin cancer (acala 5%, IdR/BR 2%). Conclusions: Final ASCEND results with additional follow-up confirm earlier findings and support the favorable efficacy and safety of acala compared with standard-of-care regimens in R/R CLL pts. Clinical trial information: NCT02970318 . [Table: see text]
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".