Trial reportAdvances in therapy2025
Indirect Comparisons of Efficacy of Zanubrutinib Versus Orelabrutinib in Patients with R/R MCL: An Extended Follow-up Analysis.
Trial report in Advances in therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOur previous study has suggested a favorable progression-free survival (PFS) with zanubrutinib over orelabrutinib in patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (R/R MCL). Here, we conducted an updated analysis to indirectly compare the long-term efficacy between zanubrutinib and orelabrutinib in patients with R/R MCL.
methodsIndividual patient data from the zanubrutinib study were adjusted to match the patient population profile of the orelabrutinib study. An unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was performed to adjust for effect modifiers and prognostic variables. The efficacy outcomes included investigator-assessed PFS, overall survival (OS), and overall response rate (ORR). Response evaluations were only computed tomography (CT)-based assessments in the orelabrutinib study, while positron emission tomography (PET)- and CT-based assessment were both performed in the zanubrutinib study. The comparison of PFS assessed by CT between zanubrutinib and orelabrutinib was the primary result.
resultsAfter matching, the baseline characteristics were balanced between zanubrutinib and orelabrutinib, with an effective sample size of 70 in the zanubrutinib study. PFS assessed by CT was significantly longer in the zanubrutinib study vs. the orelabrutinib study (median PFS, not reached vs. 22.0 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34-0.86; P = 0.009). With longer follow-up, OS continued to trend favorably for zanubrutinib, with OS rate at 24 months numerically higher (83.7% vs. 74.3%); no statistical difference was observed (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.36-1.27; P = 0.223). ORR was numerically higher in the zanubrutinib study (85.5% vs. 82.1%; odds ratio 1.28, 95% CI 0.56-2.94; P = 0.556).
conclusionMAIC results demonstrated that zanubrutinib had significantly longer PFS compared with orelabrutinib in the treatment of patients with R/R MCL.
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.