ROSEWOOD: A Phase II Randomized Study of Zanubrutinib Plus Obinutuzumab Versus Obinutuzumab Monotherapy in Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Follicular Lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The combination of zanubrutinib plus obinutuzumab (ZO) was found to be well tolerated with an early signal of efficacy in a phase Ib study. ROSEWOOD is a phase II, randomized study that assessed the efficacy and safety of ZO versus obinutuzumab in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) follicular lymphoma (FL). METHODS: Patients with R/R FL who had received ≥2 lines of therapy, including an anti-CD20 antibody and an alkylating agent, were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive ZO or obinutuzumab (O). The primary end point was overall response rate (ORR) by independent central review (ICR). Secondary end points included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: < .001). The most common adverse events with ZO were thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, diarrhea, and fatigue; incidences of atrial fibrillation and major hemorrhage were 3% and 1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The combination of ZO met its primary end point of a superior ORR versus O, and demonstrated meaningful activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with R/R FL. ZO had a favorable benefit-risk profile compared with O, and represents a potential combination therapy for patients with R/R FL.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".