Efficacy and Safety of Orelabrutinib for Previously Treated Marginal Zone Lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of orelabrutinib monotherapy in Chinese patients with marginal zone B-cell lymphoma (MZL). Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of MZL patients treated with orelabrutinib monotherapy (n = 30) or rituximab/rituximab plus bendamustine (R/BR) (n = 81) at the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2023. Orelabrutinib monotherapy was assigned to the experimental group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to match 30 MZL patients treated with the R/BR regimen as a control group, comparing the efficacy and safety between the two groups. Results: In both the orelabrutinib group and the control group, patients who developed relapsed or refractory (R/R) disease after non-rituximab/rituximab-based chemotherapy (non-R/R-CT) therapies (including anti-infective treatment and localized radiotherapy) achieved clinical responses. For 17 patients with R/R disease following R/R-CT treatment, no statistically significant differences were observed between the orelabrutinib group and the BR group in disease control rate (DCR) (82.35% vs. 88.23%, P = 1.00), overall response rate (ORR) (64.70% vs. 76.47%, P = 0.70), and complete response (CR) (17.64% vs. 29.41%, P = 0.68). There was no statistically significant difference in 1-year event-free survival (EFS) (86.66% (95% confidence interval (CI): 68.27 - 94.77) vs. 83.33% (95% CI: 64.49 - 92.70), P = 0.66). Hematologic adverse events (66.66% vs. 86.66%, P = 0.10), lymphopenia (6.66% vs. 40.00%, P < 0.01), and grade 3/4 adverse events (10.00% vs. 33.33%, P = 0.03) were all lower in the orelabrutinib group compared to the control group. Neither group had patients who discontinued treatment due to adverse reactions. Conclusion: Orelabrutinib monotherapy in MZL possesses favorable efficacy and safety in our study. Given the limited sample size, further clinical research with larger cohorts and extended follow-up is necessary.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".