Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31626339›Full record

Trial reportCancer2020

Blinatumomab compared with standard of care for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed/refractory Philadelphia chromosome-positive B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Alessandro Rambaldi, Josep-Maria Ribera, Hagop M Kantarjian, Hervé Dombret, Oliver G Ottmann, Anthony S Stein, Catherine A Tuglus, Xiaoyue Zhao, Christopher Kim, Giovanni Martinelli

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

51 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. AI-based augmentation of oncology clinical trials.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Alessandro RambaldiDepartment of Oncology and Hematology, University of Milan, Bergamo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3739-7502
Josep-Maria RiberaClinical Hematology Service, Catalan Institute of Oncology, University Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-1042-6024
Hagop M KantarjianDepartment of Leukemia, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.ORCID 0000-0002-1908-3307
Hervé DombretDepartment of Hematology, Hopital Saint-Louis, Paris Diderot University, Paris, France.
Oliver G OttmannDivision of Cancer and Genetics, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Anthony S SteinGehr Family Center for Leukemia Research, City of Hope, Duarte, California.
Catherine A TuglusAmgen, Inc, Thousand Oaks, California.
Xiaoyue ZhaoAmgen, Inc, Thousand Oaks, California.
Christopher KimAmgen, Inc, Thousand Oaks, California.
Giovanni MartinelliScientific Institute of Romagna for the Study and Treatment of Cancer, Meldola, Italy.

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Fabien Delerue · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NIH HHS P30 CA016672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA single-arm, phase 2 trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of blinatumomab, a bispecific T-cell-engaging antibody construct, in patients with relapsed/refractory (r/r) Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), a rare hematologic malignancy with limited treatment options. This study compared outcomes with blinatumomab with those of a historical control treated with the standard of care (SOC).

methodsThe blinatumomab trial enrolled adult patients with Ph+ ALL who were r/r to at least 1 second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (n = 45). Propensity score analysis (PSA) was used to compare outcomes with blinatumomab with those of an external cohort of similar patients receiving SOC chemotherapy (n = 55). The PSA mitigated confounding variables between studies by adjusting for imbalances in the age at diagnosis and start of treatment, sex, duration from diagnosis to most recent treatment, prior allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, prior salvage therapy, and number of salvage therapies. Bayesian data augmentation was applied to improve power to 80% with data from a phase 3 blinatumomab study in r/r Philadelphia chromosome-negative ALL.

resultsIn the PSA, the rate of complete remission or complete remission with partial hematologic recovery was 36% for blinatumomab and 25% for SOC, and this resulted in an odds ratio of 1.54 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-3.89) or 1.70 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.94-2.94) with Bayesian data augmentation. Overall survival favored blinatumomab over SOC, with a hazard ratio of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.57-1.14) or 0.77 (95% CrI, 0.61-0.96) with Bayesian data augmentation.

conclusionsThese results further support blinatumomab as a treatment option for patients with r/r Ph+ ALL.

Indexed as

Hematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationAdolescentAdultAntibodies, BispecificAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsDrug Resistance, NeoplasmFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPhiladelphia ChromosomePrecursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-LymphomaPropensity ScoreSalvage TherapyAntibodies, BispecificblinatumomabblinatumomabPhiladelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemiapropensity score analysisremissionstandard of caresurvival

Identifiers

PMID31626339
PMCPMC7003760

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.