Six-Year Results From RELEVANCE: Lenalidomide Plus Rituximab (R<sup>2</sup>) Versus Rituximab-Chemotherapy Followed by Rituximab Maintenance in Untreated Advanced Follicular Lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. The RELEVANCE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01650701 ) showed that lenalidomide plus rituximab (R2) provided similar efficacy to rituximab plus chemotherapy (R-chemo) in patients with advanced-stage, previously untreated follicular lymphoma (FL). We report the second interim analysis of the RELEVANCE trial after 6 years of follow-up. Patients with previously untreated grade 1-3a FL were assigned 1:1 to R2 or R-chemo, followed by rituximab maintenance. Coprimary end points were complete response (confirmed/unconfirmed) at week 120 and progression-free survival (PFS). At median follow-up of 72 months, 6-year PFS was 60% and 59% for R2 and R-chemo, respectively (hazard ratio = 1.03 [95% CI, 0.84 to 1.27]). Six-year overall survival was estimated to be 89% in both groups. Median PFS and overall survival were not reached in either group. Overall response after progression was 61% and 59%, and 5-year estimated survival rate after progression was 69% and 74% in the R2 and R-chemo groups, respectively. The transformation rate per year in the R2 and R-chemo groups was 0.68% and 0.45%, and secondary primary malignancies occurred in 11% and 13% ( P = .34), respectively. No new safety signals were observed. R2 continues to demonstrate comparable, durable efficacy and safety versus R-chemo in previously untreated patients with FL and provides an acceptable chemo-free alternative.
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 | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".