Trial reportAmerican journal of hematology2016
A phase II randomized trial comparing standard and low dose rituximab combined with alemtuzumab as initial treatment of progressive chronic lymphocytic leukemia in older patients: a trial of the ECOG-ACRIN cancer research group (E1908).
Trial report in American journal of hematology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of high-frequency low-dose rituximab and acalabrutinib in chronic lymphocytic leukemia.HemaSphere · 2026Article
- FcγR-Mediated Trogocytosis 2.0: Revisiting History Gives Rise to a Unifying Hypothesis.Antibodies (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Six-packed antibodies punch better.Haematologica · 2019Article
- Maxed out macs: physiologic cell clearance as a function of macrophage phagocytic capacity.The FEBS journal · 2017Review
- Antibodies That Efficiently Form Hexamers upon Antigen Binding Can Induce Complement-Dependent Cytotoxicity under Complement-Limiting Conditions.Journal of immunology (Baltimore, Md. : 1950) · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 11 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL) patients requiring initial therapy are often older and frailer and unsuitable candidates for standard chemoimmunotherapy regimens. Shorter duration combination monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy using alemtuzumab and rituximab has been shown to be effective and tolerable treatment for CLL. Standard dose anti-CD20 mAb therapy causes loss of CD20 expression by surviving CLL cells, which can be minimized by decreasing the mAb dose. We report a randomized phase II clinical trial enrolling older (≥ 65 years) patients (median age 76 years, n = 31) with treatment naïve progressive CLL. Patients received 8-12 weeks of standard subcutaneous alemtuzumab with either intravenous standard (375 mg/m(2) weekly)(n = 16) or low dose (20 mg/m(2) 3x week)(n = 15) rituximab. This study was closed before full accrual because the manufacturer withdrew alemtuzumab for treatment of CLL. The overall response rate was 90% with an 45% complete response rate, median progression-free survival of 17.9 months and no significant differences in outcome between the low and standard dose rituximab arms. The major toxicities were cytopenia and infection with one treatment fatality caused by progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy but no other opportunistic infections. Combination mAb therapy was effective and tolerable treatment for older and frailer patients with progressive CLL, achieving a high rate of complete remissions. These data support the role of mAb in therapy for less fit CLL patients and the further study of low dose higher frequency anti-CD20 mAb therapy as a potentially more effective use of anti-CD20 mAb in the treatment of CLL.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.