본문으로 건너뛰기
← 뒤로

Efficacy of Pirtobrutinib Monotherapy in Treatment-Naïve Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

메타분석 1/5 보강
Cancers 📖 저널 OA 100% 2021: 20/20 OA 2022: 79/79 OA 2023: 89/89 OA 2024: 156/156 OA 2025: 683/683 OA 2026: 512/512 OA 2021~2026 2026 Vol.18(4) OA
Retraction 확인
출처

Eyre TA, Hess LM, Masoudi E, Jen MH, Abhyankar S, Graham-Clarke PL

📝 환자 설명용 한 줄

[BACKGROUND] There are multiple effective treatment options for patients diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma (hereafter, simply CLL).

🔬 핵심 임상 통계 (초록에서 자동 추출 — 원문 검증 권장)
  • OR 0.50

이 논문을 인용하기

↓ .bib ↓ .ris
APA Eyre TA, Hess LM, et al. (2026). Efficacy of Pirtobrutinib Monotherapy in Treatment-Naïve Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.. Cancers, 18(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18040660
MLA Eyre TA, et al.. "Efficacy of Pirtobrutinib Monotherapy in Treatment-Naïve Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.." Cancers, vol. 18, no. 4, 2026.
PMID 41749915 ↗

Abstract

[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.

🏷️ 키워드 / MeSH 📖 같은 키워드 OA만

🏷️ 같은 키워드 · 무료전문 — 이 논문 MeSH/keyword 기반

🟢 PMC 전문 열기