Trial reportLeukemia2017
Results of the randomized phase IIB ARCTIC trial of low-dose rituximab in previously untreated CLL.
Trial report in Leukemia, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient-reported health-related quality of life in previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: Results from the randomised phase 3 FLAIR trial comparing ibrutinib-rituximab versus fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab.British journal of haematology · 2026Trial
- Obinutuzumab as consolidation after chemo-immunotherapy: Results of the UK National Cancer Research Institute phase II/III GALACTIC trial.British journal of haematology · 2022Trial
- Results of the randomized phase IIB ADMIRE trial of FCR with or without mitoxantrone in previously untreated CLL.Leukemia · 2017Trial
- Review
- Article
- Developing MRD as an early endpoint for accelerated approval in CLL.Seminars in hematology · 2025Review
- From regulation to deregulation of p53 in hematologic malignancies: implications for diagnosis, prognosis and therapy.Biomarker research · 2024Review
- A History of Targeted Therapy Development and Progress in Novel-Novel Combinations for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL).Cancers · 2023Review
- Whole-genome sequencing of chronic lymphocytic leukemia identifies subgroups with distinct biological and clinical features.Nature genetics · 2022Article
- Article
- SAMHD1 Limits the Efficacy of Forodesine in Leukemia by Protecting Cells against the Cytotoxicity of dGTP.Cell reports · 2020Article
- Review
- Clinical significance of DNA methylation in chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients: results from 3 UK clinical trials.Blood advances · 2019Article
- Article
- Methods and role of minimal residual disease after stem cell transplantation.Bone marrow transplantation · 2019Review
- Review
- An increased fraction of circulating miR-363 and miR-16 is particle bound in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia as compared to normal subjects.BMC research notes · 2018Article
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 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
ARCTIC was a multicenter, randomized-controlled, open, phase IIB non-inferiority trial in previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Conventional frontline therapy in fit patients is fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR). The trial hypothesized that including mitoxantrone with low-dose rituximab (FCM-miniR) would be non-inferior to FCR. A total of 200 patients were recruited to assess the primary end point of complete remission (CR) rates according to IWCLL criteria. Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate, minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, safety and cost-effectiveness. The trial closed following a pre-planned interim analysis. At final analysis, CR rates were 76 FCR vs 55% FCM-miniR (adjusted odds ratio: 0.37; 95% confidence interval: 0.19-0.73). MRD-negativity rates were 54 FCR vs 44% FCM-miniR. More participants experienced serious adverse reactions with FCM-miniR (49%) compared to FCR (41%). There are no significant differences between the treatment groups for PFS and OS. FCM-miniR is not expected to be cost-effective over a lifetime horizon. In summary, FCM-miniR is less well tolerated than FCR with an inferior response and MRD-negativity rate and increased toxicity, and will not be taken forward into a confirmatory trial. The trial demonstrated that oral FCR yields high response rates compared to historical series with intravenous chemotherapy.
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.