↓ Skip to main content

Venetoclax–Rituximab in Relapsed or Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
698 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
581 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Venetoclax–Rituximab in Relapsed or Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, March 2018
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa1713976
Pubmed ID
Authors

John F Seymour, Thomas J Kipps, Barbara Eichhorst, Peter Hillmen, James D'Rozario, Sarit Assouline, Carolyn Owen, John Gerecitano, Tadeusz Robak, Javier De la Serna, Ulrich Jaeger, Guillaume Cartron, Marco Montillo, Rod Humerickhouse, Elizabeth A Punnoose, Yan Li, Michelle Boyer, Kathryn Humphrey, Mehrdad Mobasher, Arnon P Kater

Abstract

Background Venetoclax inhibits BCL2, an antiapoptotic protein that is pathologically overexpressed and that is central to the survival of chronic lymphocytic leukemia cells. We evaluated the efficacy of venetoclax in combination with rituximab in patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Methods In this randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 389 patients to receive venetoclax for up to 2 years (from day 1 of cycle 1) plus rituximab for the first 6 months (venetoclax-rituximab group) or bendamustine plus rituximab for 6 months (bendamustine-rituximab group). The trial design did not include crossover to venetoclax plus rituximab for patients in the bendamustine-rituximab group in whom progression occurred. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Results After a median follow-up period of 23.8 months, the rate of investigator-assessed progression-free survival was significantly higher in the venetoclax-rituximab group (32 events of progression or death in 194 patients) than in the bendamustine-rituximab group (114 events in 195 patients); the 2-year rates of progression-free survival were 84.9% and 36.3%, respectively (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11 to 0.25; P<0.001 by the stratified log-rank test). The benefit was maintained across all clinical and biologic subgroups, including the subgroup of patients with chromosome 17p deletion; the 2-year rate of progression-free survival among patients with chromosome 17p deletion was 81.5% in the venetoclax-rituximab group versus 27.8% in the bendamustine-rituximab group (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.29), and the 2-year rate among those without chromosome 17p deletion was 85.9% versus 41.0% (hazard ratio, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.32). The benefit of venetoclax plus rituximab over bendamustine plus rituximab was confirmed by an independent review committee assessment of progression-free survival and other secondary efficacy end points. The rate of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was higher in the venetoclax-rituximab group than in the bendamustine-rituximab group, but the rates of grade 3 or 4 febrile neutropenia and infections or infestations were lower with venetoclax than with bendamustine. The rate of grade 3 or 4 tumor lysis syndrome in the venetoclax-rituximab group was 3.1% (6 of 194 patients). Conclusions Among patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia, venetoclax plus rituximab resulted in significantly higher rates of progression-free survival than bendamustine plus rituximab. (Funded by Genentech and AbbVie; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02005471 .).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 168 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 581 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 581 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 76 13%
Other 71 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 59 10%
Student > Bachelor 48 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 47 8%
Other 98 17%
Unknown 182 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 217 37%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 68 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 33 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 12 2%
Other 31 5%
Unknown 194 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 275. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 April 2024.
All research outputs
#132,206
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#3,017
of 32,765 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,172
of 351,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#74
of 266 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,765 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 122.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 351,332 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 266 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.