First-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia with ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab <i>versus</i> chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab: final analysis of the randomized, phase III iLLUMINATE trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
iLLUMINATE is a randomized, open-label phase III study of ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab (n=113) versus chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (n=116) as first-line therapy for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma. Eligible patients were aged ≥65 years, or <65 years with coexisting conditions. Patients received oral ibrutinib 420 mg once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or six cycles of oral chlorambucil, each in combination with six cycles of intravenous obinutuzumab. After a median follow-up of 45 months (range, 0.2-52), median progression-free survival continued to be significantly longer in the ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab arm than in the chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab arm (median not reached versus 22 months; hazard ratio=0.25; 95% confidence interval: 0.16-0.39; P<0.0001). The best overall rate of undetectable minimal residual disease (<0.01% by flow cytometry) remained higher with ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab (38%) than with chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (25%). With a median treatment duration of 42 months, 13 months longer than the primary analysis, no new safety signals were identified for ibrutinib. As is typical for ibrutinib-based regimens, common grade ≥3 adverse events were most prevalent in the first 6 months of ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab treatment and generally decreased over time, except for hypertension. In this final analysis with up to 52 months of follow-up (median 45 months), ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab showed sustained clinical benefit, in terms of progression- free survival, in first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, including in patients with high-risk features. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02264574.
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) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".