Front-line Treatment for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in 2025: Finite Duration Versus Continuous Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is an indolent lymphoproliferative disorder and is the most common hematologic malignancy in Western populations. In Canada, an estimated 2,000 or more new cases are diagnosed each year. Improvements in diagnostic techniques, enhanced prognostication methods, and the development of targeted treatments have revolutionized the management of CLL over the past decade. Despite an ever-expanding therapeutic landscape (Figure 1), the decision to initiate treatment continues to be guided by the International Workshop on CLL criteria. For patients who require treatment, we now have a choice of two treatment approaches based on current Health Canada approvals: fixed‑duration therapy (e.g., chemoimmunotherapy, venetoclax‑obinutuzumab [VO], or ibrutinib‑venetoclax [IV]) versus continuous treatment until disease progression or toxicity (i.e., Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors [BTKi]). In this review, we will summarize the evidence for these two approaches and provide our views on factors that may influence treatment selection.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".