ArticleTherapeutic advances in medical oncology2024
Network meta-analysis of novel targeted therapies for relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
Article in Therapeutic advances in medical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Venetoclax Plus Rituximab for Relapse/Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Treatments Available in Brazil.Oncology and therapy · 2026Pooled it
- A Meta-analysis Investigating Response Rates with Continuous Bruton Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Monotherapies in the Treatment of B Cell Lymphomas.Oncology and therapy · 2026Article
- Efficacy of zanubrutinib versus acalabrutinib for relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (R/R CLL): a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC).Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2025Article
- EUROCOVER-CLL: Reimbursement and accessibility of new treatments in relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Comparative safety of novel targeted therapies in relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a network meta-analysis.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The recent development of new antileukemic therapies (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, Bruton tyrosine kinase inhbitors, phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitors, and B-cell lymyphoma-2 antagonists) improved the progression-free survival (PFS) compared with selected standard regimens in clinical trials for patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Unfortunately, the relative efficacy of all possible therapeutic options remains unknown because there is no direct evidence for all possible comparisons. Objectives: We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of novel agents, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy using a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). Design: Systematic literature review with Bayesian NMA. Methods: An extensive systematic literature review of randomized clinical trials for relapsed/refractory CLL was performed. We searched for articles indexed in medical databases (MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library) and gray literature that could be further implemented into the Bayesian NMA. Results: The systematic search identified 15 randomized trials that formed networks comparing PFS, overall survival (OS), overall response rates, and serious adverse events. Our study showed that all regimens containing novel agents significantly prolonged PFS compared with standard chemoimmunotherapy and immunotherapy. Among targeted drugs, venetoclax (VEN) + rituximab (RTX) had comparable efficacy in terms of PFS to zanubrutinib (ZAN) [hazard ratio (95% credible interval), 1.10 (0.59-2.08)], acalabrutinib (ACA) [0.78 (0.47-1.30)], ibrutinib (IBR) monotherapy [0.72 (0.41-1.27)], and other IBR-based regimens. ZAN was superior to IBR monotherapy [0.65 (0.49-0.86)] but not to ACA [0.71 (0.49-1.02)]. There were no significant differences in OS in any of the above comparisons. Conclusion: All novel therapies have better efficacy than chemoimmunotherapy and immunotherapy regimens. Among novel agents, the relative efficacy of VEN + RTX was similar to all BTKi, while ZAN was superior to IBR and comparable to ACA. Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42022304330.
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.