The efficacy and safety of anti-CD20 antibody for the treatment of B-ALL: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several clinical trials with anti-CD20 antibodies have successfully treated Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia. Nevertheless, systematic comparisons between different anti-CD20 antibody trials are rare, and a comprehensive evaluation of their efficacy and safety has yet to be performed. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of anti-CD20 antibodies in the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and to guide clinical decision-making regarding the use of anti-CD20 antibody therapy. According to the PRISMA guidelines, Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for clinical trials conducted up to November 1, 2024, for the evaluation of anti-CD20 antibodies (rituximab, obinutuzumab, and ofatumumab) and corresponding controls. After screening the literature and extracting data, study quality was assessed using the Cochrane ROB 2 tool (RCTs) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (cohorts). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² test. Based on the results of the heterogeneity test, meta-analysis was performed in RevMan 5.4 software with either a random-effects model or a fixed-effects model. We combined data from eight studies ( n = 1330 patients, including two RCTs and six cohorts). Meta-analysis showed that anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies significantly improved overall survival (OR = 1.89, 95% CI: 1.21–2.95, p = 0.005) and event-free survival [OR = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.32–2.14, p < 0.0001] after >1-year follow-up, and increased complete remission rates ( p < 0.05). No significant differences were observed in common adverse events between groups. Subgroup analyses by study type did not alter these conclusions. Overall, anti-CD20 antibody therapy was more efficacious than the corresponding control and did not increase the incidence of grade 3–4 adverse events. Ofatumumab may be a more effective anti-CD20 antibody for the treatment of ALL.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".