MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310105226 · doi:10.1182/blood-2022-163257

Initiating First-Line (1L) Ibrutinib (Ibr) in Patients (pts) with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) Improves Overall Survival (OS) Outcomes to Rates Approximating an Age-Matched Population of ≥65 Years

2022· article· en· W4310105226 on OpenAlexaff
Paolo Ghia, Carolyn Owen, Jacqueline C. Barrientos, Paul M. Barr, Anthony R. Mato, Chunxue Shi, Anita Szőke, Chris Abbazio, Gabriel Krigsfeld, Jan A. Burger

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChemoimmunotherapyIbrutinibPopulationFludarabineInternal medicineOncologyHazard ratioClinical trialVenetoclaxChronic lymphocytic leukemiaChemotherapyLeukemiaConfidence intervalCyclophosphamide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: CLL OS rates have improved over the last 20 years (y), starting with the use of chemotherapy and chemoimmunotherapy (CT/CIT), to the introduction of novel agents such as Ibr. Ibr has shown superiority to standard CT/CIT across a range of 1L pt populations with demonstrated OS improvements in multiple pivotal trials. Recently presented 8-y follow-up data from the first pivotal trial for Ibr demonstrated that more than half of 1L unfit pts remain progression-free. The ideal goal of any therapeutic regimen would be to cure patients of their disease, but the first step could be to provide enough effective therapeutic options to allow patients to live with their disease rather than die from it. Given the size of the program and the length of follow-up, Ibr is uniquely positioned to assess whether the initiation of 1L Ibr could essentially remove the survival hazard associated with CLL vs the general population. Aims: 1) To compare pooled OS of previously untreated CLL pts treated with Ibr to that of the available age-matched general population 2) To compare the pooled characteristics and OS results with Ibr vs CT/CIT across three phase 3 trials. Methods: Data were pooled from the RESONATE-2 (NCT01722487), ECOG1912 (NCT02048813), and iLLUMINATE (NCT02264574) clinical studies which evaluated Ibr alone and in combination with other agents in pts with previously untreated CLL/SLL. Individual trial descriptions and key eligibility criteria have been previously published. For the comparison of OS for Ibr-treated pts with that of the available age-matched population, an age-matched approach was applied to pooled Ibr-treated pts to include those who were ≥65 y at the time of initial CLL diagnosis. These pts were then compared to a simulated age-matched OS data cohort from the general population (CDC life table for total US population in 2019). Pooled OS data from Ibr-treated pts from the 3 Ibr studies were compared to OS data from CT/CIT-treated pts. OS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methodology. Results: 603 pts with previously untreated CLL/SLL received Ibr treatment across the 3 pooled studies. Among those treated with Ibr, 58.7% received Ibr + rituximab, 22.6% received single agent Ibr, and 18.7% received Ibr + obinutuzumab; the median age was 63 y (range, 31‒89); among pts with available genetic data, 90% (482/538) were without del(17p)/TP53 mutation; median follow-up was 42 months (mo). To compare Ibr data to an age-matched general population, 201 pts age ≥65 y at initial diagnosis were pooled from the 3 Ibr studies; median time from initial diagnosis to randomization was 20 mo and the median follow-up from initial diagnosis was 7.6 y. OS estimate at 8-y for Ibr-treated pts aged ≥65 y from time of CLL diagnosis was 78% (95% CI, 71‒84) compared to 77% (95% CI, 70‒82) in the age-matched general population [HR, Ibr over general population, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.63‒1.51; p=0.90]; Figure 1. Pooled data from the 603 Ibr-treated pts were also compared to data from pts who received CT/CIT (N=424 pts) across the 3 pooled studies. Among pts who received CT/CIT, 41.3% received fludarabine + cyclophosphamide + rituximab; 31.4% received chlorambucil, and 27.4% received chlorambucil + obinutuzumab; the median age was 66.5 y (range, 28‒90); 91% (308/339) of pts with available genetic data were without del(17p)/TP53 mutation; median follow-up was 42 mo. OS estimates were significantly improved with Ibr: 3- and 5- y rates were 93% (95% CI, 91‒95) and 88% (95% CI, 83‒91), respectively, for pts who received Ibr and 85% (95% CI, 81‒89) and 75% (95% CI, 68‒81), respectively, for pts treated with CT/CIT [HR, Ibr over CT/CIT, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.33‒0.66); p<0.0001]; Figure 2. Conclusion: This pooled analysis suggests that initiating therapy with 1L Ibr improves OS vs traditional CT/CIT regardless of age or fitness. It is also the first demonstration to our knowledge that pts who initiate Ibr over an 8- y follow-up have similar survival estimates as age-matched pts in the general population. Figure 1View largeDownload PPTFigure 1View largeDownload PPT Close modal

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207