MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Up to seven years of follow-up in the RESONATE-2 study of first-line ibrutinib treatment for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

2021· article· en· W3171413004 on OpenAlexaff
Paul M. Barr, Carolyn Owen, Tadeusz Robak, Alessandra Tedeschi, Osnat Bairey, Jan A. Burger, Peter Hillmen, Steven Coutré, Stephen Devereux, Sebastian Grosicki, Helen O. McCarthy, Jianyong Li, David Simpson, Fritz Offner, Carol Moreno, Sandra Dai, Anita Szőke, James P. Dean, Thomas J. Kipps, Paolo Ghia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIbrutinibChlorambucilMedicineHazard ratioChronic lymphocytic leukemiaIGHV@Internal medicineOncologyNeutropeniaProgression-free survivalConfidence intervalGastroenterologyLeukemiaChemotherapyCyclophosphamide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

7523 Background: Ibrutinib, a once-daily Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is the only targeted therapy with significant progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) benefit in multiple randomized phase 3 studies versus established therapies in patients (pts) with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL). Extended long-term follow-up data for the RESONATE-2 study of first-line ibrutinib vs chlorambucil in older pts with CLL/SLL are reported. Methods: In the phase 3 RESONATE-2 study, older pts (≥65 years [y]) with previously untreated CLL/SLL and without del(17p) (N=269) were randomly assigned 1:1 to once-daily single-agent ibrutinib 420 mg until disease progression (PD) or unacceptable toxicity (n=136) or chlorambucil 0.5–0.8 mg/kg up to 12 cycles (n=133). Outcomes included PFS, OS, overall response rate (ORR), and safety. Long-term responses were investigator-assessed per 2008 iwCLL criteria. Results: With up to 7y of follow-up (median, 74.9 months; range, 0.1–86.8), significant PFS benefit was sustained for pts treated with ibrutinib vs chlorambucil (hazard ratio [HR] 0.160 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.111–0.230]). At 6.5y, PFS was 61% in pts treated with ibrutinib vs 9% in pts treated with chlorambucil. This PFS benefit was observed across all subgroups, including in ibrutinib-treated pts with high-risk genomic features of unmutated IGHV (HR 0.109 [95% CI: 0.063–0.189]) or del(11q) (HR 0.033 [95% CI: 0.010–0.107]). OS at 6.5y was 78% with ibrutinib treatment. ORR was 92% for ibrutinib-treated pts with complete response (CR/CRi) rate increasing to 34% with this follow-up. Ongoing rates of grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) of interest remained low for hypertension (5–6y interval: 5%, n=4; 6–7y: 4%, n=3) and atrial fibrillation (5–6y: 1%, n=1; 6–7y: 1%, n=1); no grade ≥3 major hemorrhage occurred in 5–7y. Dose reductions due to grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 1% (n=1) of pts during the 5–6y and 6–7y intervals. Across full follow-up, 31 pts had dose reductions due to any-grade AEs of whom 22/31 (71%) had resolution or improvement the AE. Primary reason for discontinuations in 5–7y was PD (5–6y: 5%, n=4; 6–7y: 6%, n=4). Any-grade AEs leading to discontinuations were seen in 3% (n=2) of pts from 5–6y and none in 6–7y. With over 7y of follow-up, 47% of pts remain on single-agent ibrutinib. Conclusions: Extended long-term data from RESONATE-2 demonstrate the sustained PFS and OS benefit of first-line ibrutinib treatment for pts with CLL, including for pts with high-risk genomic features. Responses continue to deepen over time. Rates of grade ≥3 AEs of interest continued to be low at up to 7y follow-up and further discontinuations and dose reductions due to AEs were rare; most AEs leading to dose reduction resolved or improved. Ibrutinib remains well tolerated with no new safety signals observed. Clinical trial information: NCT01722487, NCT01724346.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.335 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207