2019
DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2019.0002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia/Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma, Version 2.2019

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
85
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 85 publications
(92 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
6
85
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition, data for some variables were incomplete, principally the cytogenetic and IGHV mutational status data, as these tests were not routinely performed in Israel at the time of this study. Cytogenetic data are now more widely measured, as ibrutinib is the preferred first‐line treatment for patients with del(17p) …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, data for some variables were incomplete, principally the cytogenetic and IGHV mutational status data, as these tests were not routinely performed in Israel at the time of this study. Cytogenetic data are now more widely measured, as ibrutinib is the preferred first‐line treatment for patients with del(17p) …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to most practice guidelines today, TP53 disruption remains the lone predictive biomarker in CLL [38][39][40][41] and should be analyzed prior to treatment initiation in all patients owing to the large body of evidence demonstrating that patients either do not respond to initial chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) or experience relapse soon after remission [42] (Table 2). The most comprehensive data addressing the predictive capacity of TP53 disruption comes from an analysis of the CLL-8 trial [43], a phase 3, randomized (1:1) study comparing treatment with fl a phase and cyclophosphamide (FC) or FC with rituximab (FCR) in 817 previously untreated patients in which Stilgenbauer et al, showed that patients with TP53 disruption experienced poorer clinical responses, minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, progression-free survival (PFS) and OS after treatment with FC and FCR [44] and that anti-CD20 therapy added no OS benefit.…”
Section: Tp53 Disruptionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…48,49 This is true for patients treated with chemo(immuno)therapy or venetoclax plus rituximab. 48,49 This is true for patients treated with chemo(immuno)therapy or venetoclax plus rituximab.…”
Section: Treatment-related Biomarkersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Achieving undetectable MRD after receipt of therapy correlates with longer PFS and overall survival, and is considered as an endpoint in clinical trials (but not yet in daily practice). 48,49 This is true for patients treated with chemo(immuno)therapy or venetoclax plus rituximab. 10,39,40 However, the percentage of patients obtaining a complete response (a necessary condition to achieve undetectable MRD) on receipt of treatment with ibrutinib alone is small.…”
Section: Treatment-related Biomarkersmentioning
confidence: 99%