Trial reportBlood advances2025
Ibrutinib plus rituximab vs ibrutinib monotherapy in patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia: a pooled analysis.
Trial report in Blood advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this 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.
Phase 2 Study of Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (Btk) Inhibitor, Ibrutinib (PCI-32765), in Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia
iNNOVATE Study: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo- Controlled, Phase 3 Study of Ibrutinib or Placebo in Combination With Rituximab in Subjects With Waldenström's Macroglobulinemia
Phase II Study of Ibrutinib in Patients With Symptomatic, Previously Untreated Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia, and Impact on Tumor Genomic Evolution Using Whole Genome Sequencing
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractIbrutinib (I) and ibrutinib plus rituximab (I+R) are highly efficacious in treating Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM). However, the benefit of adding rituximab remains unclear, and a prospective trial to compare these two regimens has not been undertaken. Therefore, we performed a pooled analysis of prospective studies to compare their effectiveness. Patient-level demographic, response, and survival data were pooled from three prospective studies (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01614821, NCT02604511, NCT02165397). We included patients treated with I+R or I, excluding those without MYD88 mutations. Among 174 patients (58 I+R, 116 I), very good partial response (VGPR) rates were comparable across treatment groups (38% I+R vs 28% I; P = .21). The 48-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 74% with I+R vs 61% with I (P = .22). The 48-month overall survival rate was 94% vs 89% (P = .45). In patients with CXCR4 mutations, I+R trended toward higher VGPR (27% vs 11%; P = .10), and had a superior 48-month PFS rate (72% vs 43%; P = .03). CXCR4 mutations were associated with inferior VGPR (42% vs 17%; P = .001) and 48-month PFS in the I arm (43% vs 72%; P = .002). In the I+R arm, CXCR4 mutations were associated with numerically inferior VGPR (47% vs 27%; P = .12), but the 48-month PFS rate was not impacted (74% vs 72%; P = .96). I+R significantly improved PFS over I in patients with CXCR4-mutated WM, along with a nonsignificant increase in VGPR in this subgroup. These results support routine CXCR4 testing in patients with WM, and clinical trials of rituximab with covalent or noncovalent Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
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.