Cancers · 2026
Efficacy of Pirtobrutinib Monotherapy in Treatment-Naïve Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Eyre Toby A, Hess Lisa M, Masoudi Ehsan, Jen Min-Hua, Abhyankar Sarang, Graham-Clarke Peita L, Bhandari Naleen Raj, Maguire Peter, Winfree Katherine B, Tracey Marsha, Taipale Kaisa-Leena, Davids Matthew S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There are multiple effective treatment options for patients diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma (hereafter, simply CLL). In 2025, two phase 3 randomized clinical trials of pirtobrutinib, a non-covalent BTK inhibitor, were reported, demonstrating improved outcomes versus comparator therapies in the treatment-naïve setting (NCT05254743 and NCT05023980).
METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify RCTs in the first-line setting for CLL. A Bayesian NMA was performed to compare overall response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) of pirtobrutinib versus treatments recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network in the first-line setting, with a focus on BTKi monotherapy.
RESULTS: Eight unique trials were identified for comparison versus pirtobrutinib. Eligible RCTs formed two disconnected networks (pirtobrutinib, ibrutinib and zanubrutinib were in Network 1; acalabrutinib was in Network 2). Results from Network 1 for ORR showed an odds ratio (OR) = 0.56 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.28, 1.12) for ibrutinib versus pirtobrutinib and OR = 0.50 (95% CrI, 0.20, 1.27) for zanubrutinib versus pirtobrutinib. The PFS of ibrutinib was inferior to pirtobrutinib (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.89, 95% CrI, 1.13, 3.19); the PFS HR comparing zanubrutinib with pirtobrutinib was 1.51 (95% CrI, 0.84, 2.72).
CONCLUSIONS: This NMA shows that pirtobrutinib has better PFS outcomes than ibrutinib. While PFS outcomes suggest that pirtobrutinib is comparable to second-generation covalent BTKi monotherapies, uncertainty exists in the interpretation of the treatment effect, as evidenced by wide credible intervals. These findings suggest the value of pirtobrutinib as a future treatment option for patients in the first-line setting.
METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify RCTs in the first-line setting for CLL. A Bayesian NMA was performed to compare overall response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) of pirtobrutinib versus treatments recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network in the first-line setting, with a focus on BTKi monotherapy.
RESULTS: Eight unique trials were identified for comparison versus pirtobrutinib. Eligible RCTs formed two disconnected networks (pirtobrutinib, ibrutinib and zanubrutinib were in Network 1; acalabrutinib was in Network 2). Results from Network 1 for ORR showed an odds ratio (OR) = 0.56 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.28, 1.12) for ibrutinib versus pirtobrutinib and OR = 0.50 (95% CrI, 0.20, 1.27) for zanubrutinib versus pirtobrutinib. The PFS of ibrutinib was inferior to pirtobrutinib (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.89, 95% CrI, 1.13, 3.19); the PFS HR comparing zanubrutinib with pirtobrutinib was 1.51 (95% CrI, 0.84, 2.72).
CONCLUSIONS: This NMA shows that pirtobrutinib has better PFS outcomes than ibrutinib. While PFS outcomes suggest that pirtobrutinib is comparable to second-generation covalent BTKi monotherapies, uncertainty exists in the interpretation of the treatment effect, as evidenced by wide credible intervals. These findings suggest the value of pirtobrutinib as a future treatment option for patients in the first-line setting.