A phase 3, randomized study of ofatumumab combined with bendamustine in rituximab‐refractory iNHL (COMPLEMENT A + B study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The standard of care for indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL) is rituximab, an anti-CD20 antibody, with/without chemotherapy. However, multiple relapses are common in these patients. This phase 3, randomized study compared outcomes of a combination of ofatumumab (a second-generation anti-CD20 antibody) and bendamustine, with bendamustine alone in patients unresponsive to prior rituximab-based treatment. Overall, 346 patients were randomized to receive either the combination or bendamustine alone. Bendamustine was given for ≤8 cycles and ofatumumab for ≤12 cycles. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS) after 215 protocol-defined events assessed by independent review committee (IRC). Median IRC-assessed PFS was 16·7 and 13·8 months in the combination and monotherapy arms respectively [hazard ratio (HR) = 0·82; P = 0·1390]. Median overall survival (OS) was 58·2 and 51·8 months in the combination and monotherapy arms respectively (HR = 0·89, P = 0·4968). The safety profile was consistent with previous reports. Overall, 73% and 80% of patients in the combination and monotherapy arms, respectively, experienced a ≥grade 3 adverse event. The study did not meet its primary end-point. No significant improvement in PFS and OS was seen with the combination of ofatumumab and bendamustine as compared with bendamustine alone in rituximab-refractory iNHL (NCT01077518).
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".