Final analysis of the RESONATE-2 study: up to 10 years of follow-up of first-line ibrutinib treatment for CLL/SLL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: With up to 10 years of follow-up, we report results from the final analysis of RESONATE- 2, a phase 3 study of first-line ibrutinib vs chlorambucil for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL). Patients aged ≥65 years with previously untreated CLL/SLL without del(17p) were randomly assigned to receive either single-agent ibrutinib (420 mg/d; n = 136) or chlorambucil (0.5-0.8 mg/kg; ≤12 cycles; n = 133). With a median follow-up of 9.6 years in the ibrutinib arm, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.9 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.0 to not estimable [NE]) vs 1.3 years (95% CI, 0.9-1.6) for the chlorambucil arm. Among patients with unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain variable (uIGHV), del (11q), mutated TP53, or complex karyotype, the median PFS was 8.4 years (95% CI, 6.8 to NE) with ibrutinib and 0.7 years (95% CI, 0.4-1.2) with chlorambucil. Median overall survival (OS) with ibrutinib was not reached. The most common adverse events (AEs) of any grade included diarrhea (52%), fatigue (41%), cough (39%), nausea (32%), arthralgia (31%), peripheral edema (31%), and hypertension (30%). During the entire study period, 34 of 136 patients (25%) had an ibrutinib dose reduction due to AEs; these AEs improved in 30 of 34 patients (88%). At study completion, 27% of patients remained on first-line ibrutinib treatment. This landmark RESONATE-2 study defines median PFS and demonstrates continued OS benefit of first-line ibrutinib treatment for patients with CLL/SLL, including those with high-risk genomic features. Sustained efficacy and tolerability of ibrutinib reemphasize the favorable benefit-risk profile. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".