Author: admin

Patients with treatment-naïve chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic leukemia (SLL) who received pirtobrutinib (Jaypirca; Eli Lilly) monotherapy showed an 80% reduction in progression-free survival (PFS) compared with patients receiving bendamustine plus rituximab (BendaR) in the phase 3 BRUIN CLL-313 (NCT05023980) trial.¹

Wojciech Jurczak, MD, PhD, head of the department of oncology at Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology in Warsaw, Poland, presented the data during a late-breaking abstract session at the 67th American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting and Exposition.

As targeted therapies have become the standard in CLL, these new data provide insights into pirtobrutinib monotherapy’s potential in the first-line setting, which historically has not included non-covalent BTK inhibitors.² Following its initial accelerated approval in 2023 for patients with CLL or SLL who had received at least 2 prior therapies, including a BTK inhibitor and a BCL-2 inhibitor, pirtobrutinib was recently granted full approval for patients with CLL or SLL in the relapsed/refractory setting who had previously received a covalent BTK inhibitor.³ The former approval was based on findings from the BRUIN (NCT03740529) and the latter based on the BRUIN-CLL-321 (NCT04666038).

“While covalent BTK inhibitors have significantly improved outcomes for untreated patients with CLL, at the time of the study design, there were no phase 3 data yet assessing non-covalent BTK inhibitors, especially in the treatment-naïve setting,” Jurczak said during his presentation of the data. He noted that findings from the head-to-head trial BRUIN CLL-314 (NCT05254743), also presented at ASH this year, demonstrated pirtobrutinib’s superiority to the first-generation BTK inhibitor ibrutinib in the first-line setting.⁴

In the open-label, global phase 3 BRUIN CLL-313 trial, 282 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either pirtobrutinib (n = 141) or BendaR (n = 141), with the opportunity for patients in the BendaR arm to cross over to the pirtobrutinib arm upon confirmed disease progression.¹ The primary end point was an independent review committee (IRC)–assessed PFS per International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia 2018 criteria. The key secondary end point was overall survival (OS), and additional end points included overall response rate (ORR) and safety measures.

At a median follow-up of 28.1 months, the pirtobrutinib arm showed significantly improved IRC-assessed PFS vs the BendaR arm (HR, 0.199; 95% CI, 0.107-0.367; P < .0001), and investigator-assessed PFS was consistent with these findings (HR, 0.186; 95% CI, 0.093-0.371; P < .0001). For patients on pirtobrutinib, the 24-month PFS rate was 93.4% (95% CI, 87.6-96.5) vs 70.7% (95% CI, 61.5-78.1) in the BendaR arm.

Across prespecified, clinically relevant subgroups, IRC-assessed PFS improvement was consistent. This included among patients with mutated and unmutated IGHV (HR for mutated IGHV, 0.293; 95% CI, 0.094-0.910) and HR for unmutated IGHV, 0.172; 95% CI, 0.083-0.357).

The IRC-assessed ORR with pirtobrutinib was 94.3% (95% CI, 89.1%-97.5%) vs 80.9% (95% CI, 73.4%-87%) with BendaR. While the OS data were not mature yet at the interim analysis, the pirtobrutinib cohort demonstrated a notable favorable trend in OS, with an HR of 0.257 (95% CI, 0.070-0.934; P = .0261) compared with BendaR. This was despite 18 of 34 patients with investigator-assessed progressive disease crossing over, representing an effective crossover rate of 52.9%.

Pirtobrutinib also showed a favorable safety profile relative to BendaR, with 40% incidence of grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse effects (TEAEs) vs 67.4% with BendaR. Notably, median treatment duration was 32.3 months for 140 patients receiving pirtobrutinib and 5.6 months for 132 patients receiving BendaR.

Grade 5 TEAEs occurred in 1 patient in the pirtobrutinib arm and 4 patients in the BendaR arm. No grade 5 TEAEs were considered treatment-related in the pirtobrutinib arm, and 1—tumor lysis syndrome—was considered treatment-related in the BendaR arm. A total of 6 (4.3%) patients discontinued treatment with pirtobrutinib due to TEAEs, compared with 20 (15.2%) in the BendaR cohort.

“To conclude, pirtobrutinib had a superior progression-free survival vs bendamustine plus rituximab patients with treatment-naïve chronic lymphocytic leukemia, with one of the largest treatment effects ever observed for a single-agent BTK inhibitor against this competitor,” Jurczak said. “…These data suggest that pirtobrutinib may be considered a potential new standard of care for patients with untreated CLL, especially for the elderly or frail patients who may only receive one line of therapy.”

References

1. Jurczak W, Kwiatek M, Czyz J, et al. Pirtobrutinib vs bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) in patients with CLL/SLL: first results from a randomized phase III study examining a non-covalent BTK inhibitor in untreated patients. Presented at: 67^th American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting & Exposition, December 6-9, 2025; Orlando, FL. Abstract LBA-3.

2. Targeted therapy drugs for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). American Cancer Society. Accessed December 12, 2025. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/chronic-lymphocytic-leukemia/treating/targeted-therapy.html

3. Steinzor P. FDA grants full approval to pirtobrutinib for CLL/SLL. AJMC. December 3, 2025. Accessed December 12, 2025. https://www.ajmc.com/view/fda-grants-full-approval-to-pirtobrutinib-for-cll-sll

4. Woyach J, Qui L, Grosicki S, et al. Pirtobrutinib vs ibrutinib in treatment-naïve and relapsed/refractory CLL/SLL: results from the first randomized phase III study comparing a non-covalent and covalent BTK inhibitor. Presented at: 67^th American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting & Exposition, December 6-9, 2025; Orlando, FL. Poster 683.

When you roll out chilled sugar cookie dough or top your green bean casserole with crunchy onions this holiday season, you might not consider how much AI went into the recipe — it might be more than you think.

AI involvement in food related activities is becoming increasingly common, according to Stacy Bevan, professional practice associate professor of dietetics at Utah State University. One study reported 74% of people aged 18-24 use AI-powered tools for meal planning, recipe suggestions and grocery shopping. And increasingly, AI is prompted to create the recipes themselves.

But can AI whip up a decent dinner plan? Recently published research from a team in USU’s Department of Nutrition, Dietetics and Food Science tried to find out, pitting human-authored recipes and text against an AI chef. The researchers created two sets of recipe blogs, one authored by students in a food literacy course and another with AI mimicking the students’ style. Researchers then surveyed people’s reactions to the recipe package.

Results showed a growing tolerance for AI-assisted recipe curation, with some important limits, Bevan said. Parts of the process still require a human touch — and a tongue, according to the survey.

AI-generated recipes were rated similarly to the human-written content on several metrics — perceived ease of preparation, use of common ingredients, and time requirements. There was a slight difference in the way participants rated the budget friendliness of recipes, with AI splurging on ingredients more than human authors.

But when people found out who was in the kitchen, the written comments about the experience revealed nuanced reactions. About 43% of participants said that knowing a recipe was AI-generated wouldn’t impact their willingness to try it, but there was serious pause among many based on practical and philosophical concerns.

The most prevalent was that AI wouldn’t have the ability to taste or optimize recipes, perceptions that the recipes might be a bland average of all options and questions about copyright. Many participants in the survey said they preferred human-authored content because AI felt less personal and took away from the “humanness” of working with food and serving a meal.

Many said that they could tell when the text was AI-produced. Some participants said they were fine with AI-generated content as long as the use of AI was disclosed.

“It makes sense that some AI-generated recipes turn out well as they are based on information from existing recipes,” said Katie Kraus, lead author on the research. “But using AI-generated recipes for more complicated dishes is a gamble.”

In a well-written recipe, the narrative and the technical accuracy are important, Bevan said. The narrative around the more technical parts of the process can increase confidence that there is personal experience behind it. It allows readers to know that someone has tested things out and that there is real evidence that it can turn out well, she said. We tend to want to build on other people’s real experience in the kitchen.

Then again, many cooks just jump straight to the recipe.

“My students tell me that they don’t read the narrative anymore,” Bevan said. “The quality of the recipe is more important than the writing these days. Many people, including me, rely more on how many people have reviewed the recipe and how they rate it, or read through a few of the reviews to know people’s real experience.”

The assistance of AI in the kitchen still has tremendous potential. It already does some tasks really well, Bevan said — creating a prep schedule for a big holiday meal, budgeting ingredients on a shopping list and reducing food waste by suggesting meals that use foods already on hand.

And it can be a crack search engine for a good human-written recipe, evaluating thousands and leading you to one that fits your parameters and has high ratings.

But AI can’t replace professional expertise, Bevan said. There are instances where AI has listed inappropriate foods for specific dietary restrictions like diabetic or renal diets. Or given straight up bad advice, like adding non-food items to a recipe.

“It just doesn’t have enough context,” Bevan said. “But it can look good to an inexperienced eye. It is increasingly important to train dietetic students on how to critically engage with and evaluate this kind of content.”

Experienced cooks will be able to identify errors in the recipe and adjust accordingly. This is what Bevan tells her students in her food literacy courses. Classes like this offer a solid foundation in food and nutrition, as well as basics in the kitchen that allow people to translate knowledge about nutrition into actual healthy eating, she said.

“AI is impacting many areas of our students’ lives and future professions,” Kraus said. “We can help them by paying attention to the changes and teaching them to navigate information from a variety of sources, including AI, to create great recipes, understand what they are eating and be healthy.”

When you roll out chilled sugar cookie dough or top your green bean casserole with crunchy onions this holiday season, you might not consider how much AI went into the recipe — it might be more than you think.

AI involvement in food related activities is becoming increasingly common, according to Stacy Bevan, professional practice associate professor of dietetics at Utah State University. One study reported 74% of people aged 18-24 use AI-powered tools for meal planning, recipe suggestions and grocery shopping. And increasingly, AI is prompted to create the recipes themselves.

But can AI whip up a decent dinner plan? Recently published research from a team in USU’s Department of Nutrition, Dietetics and Food Science tried to find out, pitting human-authored recipes and text against an AI chef. The researchers created two sets of recipe blogs, one authored by students in a food literacy course and another with AI mimicking the students’ style. Researchers then surveyed people’s reactions to the recipe package.

Results showed a growing tolerance for AI-assisted recipe curation, with some important limits, Bevan said. Parts of the process still require a human touch — and a tongue, according to the survey.

AI-generated recipes were rated similarly to the human-written content on several metrics — perceived ease of preparation, use of common ingredients, and time requirements. There was a slight difference in the way participants rated the budget friendliness of recipes, with AI splurging on ingredients more than human authors.

But when people found out who was in the kitchen, the written comments about the experience revealed nuanced reactions. About 43% of participants said that knowing a recipe was AI-generated wouldn’t impact their willingness to try it, but there was serious pause among many based on practical and philosophical concerns.

The most prevalent was that AI wouldn’t have the ability to taste or optimize recipes, perceptions that the recipes might be a bland average of all options and questions about copyright. Many participants in the survey said they preferred human-authored content because AI felt less personal and took away from the “humanness” of working with food and serving a meal.

Many said that they could tell when the text was AI-produced. Some participants said they were fine with AI-generated content as long as the use of AI was disclosed.

“It makes sense that some AI-generated recipes turn out well as they are based on information from existing recipes,” said Katie Kraus, lead author on the research. “But using AI-generated recipes for more complicated dishes is a gamble.”

In a well-written recipe, the narrative and the technical accuracy are important, Bevan said. The narrative around the more technical parts of the process can increase confidence that there is personal experience behind it. It allows readers to know that someone has tested things out and that there is real evidence that it can turn out well, she said. We tend to want to build on other people’s real experience in the kitchen.

Then again, many cooks just jump straight to the recipe.

“My students tell me that they don’t read the narrative anymore,” Bevan said. “The quality of the recipe is more important than the writing these days. Many people, including me, rely more on how many people have reviewed the recipe and how they rate it, or read through a few of the reviews to know people’s real experience.”

The assistance of AI in the kitchen still has tremendous potential. It already does some tasks really well, Bevan said — creating a prep schedule for a big holiday meal, budgeting ingredients on a shopping list and reducing food waste by suggesting meals that use foods already on hand.

And it can be a cracker-jack search engine for a good human-written recipe, evaluating thousands and leading you to one that fits your parameters and has high ratings.

But AI can’t replace professional expertise, Bevan said. There are instances where AI has listed inappropriate foods for specific dietary restrictions like diabetic or renal diets. Or given straight up bad advice, like adding non-food items to a recipe.

“It just doesn’t have enough context,” Bevan said. “But it can look good to an inexperienced eye. It is increasingly important to train dietetic students on how to critically engage with and evaluate this kind of content.”

Experienced cooks will be able to identify errors in the recipe and adjust accordingly. This is what Bevan tells her students in her food literacy courses. Classes like this offer a solid foundation in food and nutrition, as well as basics in the kitchen that allow people to translate knowledge about nutrition into actual healthy eating, she said.

“AI is impacting many areas of our students’ lives and future professions,” Kraus said. “We can help them by paying attention to the changes and teaching them to navigate information from a variety of sources, including AI, to create great recipes, understand what they are eating and be healthy.”