ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026
Measurable residual disease-guided combination of ibrutinib plus venetoclax versus FCR in previously untreated patients with intermediate-risk chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: a phase 2, randomised trial (ERADIC) from the FILO group.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04010968 (Evaluation of Risk-Adapted and MRD-Driven Strategy for Untreated Fit Patients With Intermediate Risk Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia), which is 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.
Evaluation of Risk-Adapted and MRD-Driven Strategy for Untreated Fit Patients With Intermediate Risk Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: a Randomized Phase II Trial Comparing FCR and a Chemo-free Combination of Venetoclax and Ibrutinib. A FILO Study
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
42 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: For chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) and intermediate risk factors (unmutated Methods: The ERADIC randomised, phase 2 trial (NCT04010968), conducted at 35 French hospitals, recruited previously untreated, fit adults with intermediate-risk CLL. Randomisation was 1:1 to: 6x4-weekly cycles of FCR (Months 1-6); or ibrutinib 420 mg/day from Month 1 plus venetoclax (ramp-up to 400 mg/day from Month 4) for a duration depending on the bone marrow measurable residual disease level at Month 9 (if undetectable at a threshold of <0·01% [BM uMRD4] to Month 15; otherwise to Month 27). Primary outcome was the BM uMRD4 rate at Month 27, by assessment oligocentrally (intent-to-treat, worst-case scenario method). Findings: Between 27 September 2019 and 31 January 2021, 120 patients were enrolled (73% male). At Month 27, the BM uMRD4 rate was 37% (22/59; 95% confidence interval [CI] 25, 51) with IV versus 13% (8/61; 95% CI 6, 24) with FCR. The high amount of missing BM MRD data, along with imbalance in missing data between arms, meant that no confirmatory statistics were performed. Best rate of BM uMRD4 plus peripheral blood uMRD5 was 47% (22/47) with IV versus 19% (8/43) with FCR (p = 0·0090). With median 43 months' follow-up, progression-free survival was longer with IV versus FCR (estimated hazard ratio 0·35, 95% CI 0·16, 0·80, p = 0·012). By Month 27, six deaths had occurred (FCR: acute myeloid leukaemia, septic shock, myelodysplastic syndrome; IV: 2 sudden deaths, COVID-19). By the time of follow-up, the most common serious grade 3/4 events were infections and haematological toxicities with FCR, and infections and cardiovascular/metabolic toxicities with IV. Interpretation: Due to the high amount of missing BM MRD data at Month 27, the primary outcome statistical analysis was not deemed feasible. The outcomes reported are secondary and exploratory, and were not been powered for in the study design. A patient profile suitable for an MRD-guided, fixed-duration IV regimen requires consideration of potential toxicities. Funding: Abbvie and Janssen France.
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.