ReviewJournal of hematology2019
Efficacy of Ibrutinib-Based Regimen in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of hematology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current Immunotherapy Approaches in Non-Hodgkin Lymphomas.Vaccines · 2020Review
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ibrutinib has shown to have better efficacy than standard chemoimmunotherapy in del17 positive chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients; however its role in del17 negative patients is less clear. We aim to evaluate the efficacy of ibrutinib-based regimens in CLL. Seven databases were searched in accordance with PRISMA statement guidelines using the following keywords: chronic lymphocytic leukemia, CLL, Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, BTK inhibitor, ibrutinib, and PCI-32765. Data from only prospective clinical trials was included. In a phase 3 trial (n = 136), the overall response rate (ORR) with ibrutinib was 92% whereas 18% patients had a complete response (CR). Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) at 2 years were 89% and 95% respectively. Phase 3 trial (n = 195) with single agent ibrutinib showed ORR of 63%. PFS at 6 months and OS at 12 months were 88% and 90% respectively. In a phase 2 trial of relapsed and/or refractory (R/R) or high risk treatment naive (TN) patients, combination of ibrutinib and rituximab (n = 104) achieved an ORR of 100% (CR 28%) as compared to ORR 98% (CR 21%) with ibrutinib monotherapy (n = 102) with no significant difference in PFS. Combination of ibrutinib and ublituximab (n = 64) had an ORR of 78% (CR 7%) in a phase 3 study. In del17p negative R/R patients, combination of bendamustine/rituximab (BR) and ibrutinib (n = 289) achieved an ORR of 83% (CR/CRi 10%) and the 18 month PFS was 79%. In a phase 2 trial treated with ibrutinib (n = 145), patients with del17p R/R disease achieved an ORR of 64% and the 24 month PFS and OS was 63% and 75% respectively. In TN del17p patients (n = 35), ORR was 97% (CR-0) and the 24 month PFS and OS were 82% and 84% respectively with single agent ibrutinib. Ibrutinib is the treatment of choice for patients with del17p mutation and has good efficacy in RR/TN patients without del17p mutation. Ibrutinib is being evaluated in combination with rituximab for del17p mutations. Future prospects include combination of ibrutinib with frontline chemotherapy and other novel agents for TN and RR del17p negative patients.
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.