Hematologic Malignancies

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) occurs when malignant cells rapidly break down. This may lead to hyperuricemia, hyperkalemia, hyperphosphatemia, and/or hypocalcemia. Rasburicase reduces uric acid in cancer patients undergoing anti-cancer therapy. However, caution is required as rasburicase is contraindicated for patients with glucose- 6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency due to the increased risk of hemolysis. G6PD deficiency is more prevalent among African Americans (AA), affecting approximately 12% of this population. The FDA recommends testing for G6PD deficiency in higher risk groups before administering rasburicase.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted at the Louis Stokes Cleveland VAMC from February 1, 2018, to January 31, 2023 addressing appropriate use of rasburicase and incidence of G6PD deficiency and hemolysis. Appropriate use was defined by: TLS (2 or more: uric acid ≥ 8 or 25% increase; K+ ≥ 6.0 or 25% increase; Phos > 4.5mg/dL, or 25% increase; or calcium < 7, or 25% decrease, from baseline) or at high risk for TLS (CLL: venetoclax use w/lymph node > 10cm or WBC > 25k and elevated uric acid; AML: WBC > 100k; ALL: WBC > 100k and LDH 2x ULN; Burkitt lymphoma: LDH 2x ULN).

RESULTS

50 patients were identified who received rasburicase. 21/50 (42%) did not meet criteria for appropriate use. 44/50 (88%) underwent G6PD testing. The average time from G6PD testing order to obtaining the results was 3.4 days; 18/50 patients (36%) had G6PD resulted prior to rasburicase administration, and 26 patients (52%) received rasburicase prior to G6PD results. Overall, 13/50 (26%) were AA. Of the AA pts, 12/13 (92%) were tested for G6PD. Of these 12, 1/12 was found to be G6PD deficient and this patient experienced G6PD deficiency-induced hemolysis after rasburicase. None of the non-AA pts (0/31) tested were found to be G6PD deficient.

IMPLICATIONS

There was a high (42%) level of inappropriate use of rasburicase. G6PD deficiency was uncommon and only found in the AA population. To reduce inappropriate use, rasburicase orders will be restricted to medical oncology. G6PD testing will be limited to AA pts, with pathology to develop a rapid turnaround time for results prior to rasburicase administration to prevent hemolysis.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) occurs when malignant cells rapidly break down. This may lead to hyperuricemia, hyperkalemia, hyperphosphatemia, and/or hypocalcemia. Rasburicase reduces uric acid in cancer patients undergoing anti-cancer therapy. However, caution is required as rasburicase is contraindicated for patients with glucose- 6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency due to the increased risk of hemolysis. G6PD deficiency is more prevalent among African Americans (AA), affecting approximately 12% of this population. The FDA recommends testing for G6PD deficiency in higher risk groups before administering rasburicase.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted at the Louis Stokes Cleveland VAMC from February 1, 2018, to January 31, 2023 addressing appropriate use of rasburicase and incidence of G6PD deficiency and hemolysis. Appropriate use was defined by: TLS (2 or more: uric acid ≥ 8 or 25% increase; K+ ≥ 6.0 or 25% increase; Phos > 4.5mg/dL, or 25% increase; or calcium < 7, or 25% decrease, from baseline) or at high risk for TLS (CLL: venetoclax use w/lymph node > 10cm or WBC > 25k and elevated uric acid; AML: WBC > 100k; ALL: WBC > 100k and LDH 2x ULN; Burkitt lymphoma: LDH 2x ULN).

RESULTS

50 patients were identified who received rasburicase. 21/50 (42%) did not meet criteria for appropriate use. 44/50 (88%) underwent G6PD testing. The average time from G6PD testing order to obtaining the results was 3.4 days; 18/50 patients (36%) had G6PD resulted prior to rasburicase administration, and 26 patients (52%) received rasburicase prior to G6PD results. Overall, 13/50 (26%) were AA. Of the AA pts, 12/13 (92%) were tested for G6PD. Of these 12, 1/12 was found to be G6PD deficient and this patient experienced G6PD deficiency-induced hemolysis after rasburicase. None of the non-AA pts (0/31) tested were found to be G6PD deficient.

IMPLICATIONS

There was a high (42%) level of inappropriate use of rasburicase. G6PD deficiency was uncommon and only found in the AA population. To reduce inappropriate use, rasburicase orders will be restricted to medical oncology. G6PD testing will be limited to AA pts, with pathology to develop a rapid turnaround time for results prior to rasburicase administration to prevent hemolysis.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) occurs when malignant cells rapidly break down. This may lead to hyperuricemia, hyperkalemia, hyperphosphatemia, and/or hypocalcemia. Rasburicase reduces uric acid in cancer patients undergoing anti-cancer therapy. However, caution is required as rasburicase is contraindicated for patients with glucose- 6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency due to the increased risk of hemolysis. G6PD deficiency is more prevalent among African Americans (AA), affecting approximately 12% of this population. The FDA recommends testing for G6PD deficiency in higher risk groups before administering rasburicase.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted at the Louis Stokes Cleveland VAMC from February 1, 2018, to January 31, 2023 addressing appropriate use of rasburicase and incidence of G6PD deficiency and hemolysis. Appropriate use was defined by: TLS (2 or more: uric acid ≥ 8 or 25% increase; K+ ≥ 6.0 or 25% increase; Phos > 4.5mg/dL, or 25% increase; or calcium < 7, or 25% decrease, from baseline) or at high risk for TLS (CLL: venetoclax use w/lymph node > 10cm or WBC > 25k and elevated uric acid; AML: WBC > 100k; ALL: WBC > 100k and LDH 2x ULN; Burkitt lymphoma: LDH 2x ULN).

RESULTS

50 patients were identified who received rasburicase. 21/50 (42%) did not meet criteria for appropriate use. 44/50 (88%) underwent G6PD testing. The average time from G6PD testing order to obtaining the results was 3.4 days; 18/50 patients (36%) had G6PD resulted prior to rasburicase administration, and 26 patients (52%) received rasburicase prior to G6PD results. Overall, 13/50 (26%) were AA. Of the AA pts, 12/13 (92%) were tested for G6PD. Of these 12, 1/12 was found to be G6PD deficient and this patient experienced G6PD deficiency-induced hemolysis after rasburicase. None of the non-AA pts (0/31) tested were found to be G6PD deficient.

IMPLICATIONS

There was a high (42%) level of inappropriate use of rasburicase. G6PD deficiency was uncommon and only found in the AA population. To reduce inappropriate use, rasburicase orders will be restricted to medical oncology. G6PD testing will be limited to AA pts, with pathology to develop a rapid turnaround time for results prior to rasburicase administration to prevent hemolysis.

BACKGROUND

Multiple myeloma, an incurable plasma cell malignancy, has an average age of diagnosis over 65 years. For transplant-eligible patients, high-dose melphalan 200 mg/m2 (MEL200), followed by autologous stem cell rescue (ASCR) is the standard in consolidation therapy. Most clinical trials evaluating MEL200 with ASCR excluded patients over 65 due to concerns for toxicity and treatment-related mortality, leading to use of reduced dose melphalan 140 mg/m2 (MEL140) in clinical practice for older patients. As this dose has limited studies surrounding its reduction, the purpose of this study was to compare outcomes and toxicities of MEL140 in patients over the age of 65 to MEL200 in patients 65 and under.

METHODS

This single-center institutional review board approved retrospective study was conducted at VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System. All multiple myeloma patients greater than 18 years of age who received melphalan with ASCR from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2021, were included. Patients were divided into two arms: age < 65 treated with MEL200 and age >65 treated with MEL140. The primary endpoint was oneyear progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints were one-year overall survival (OS), treatment related mortality, time to neutrophil engraftment, and toxicities including febrile neutropenia, diarrhea, mucositis, infection, and intensive care unit transfers.

RESULTS

A total of 222 patients were included, 114 patients in the MEL200 arm and 108 patients in the MEL140 arm. The primary endpoint of one-year PFS had no significant difference, with 103 (90.4%) patients in the MEL200 group compared to 99 (91.7%) patients in the MEL140 group (p=0.732). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in the secondary endpoint of one-year OS with 112 (98.3%) patients in the MEL200 group compared to 106 (98.2%) in the MEL140 group (p=0.956). Toxicities were similar; however, grade 3 mucositis was higher in the MEL200 arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found no difference in oneyear PFS or one-year OS when comparing MEL140 to MEL200 with minimal differences in regimen-related toxicities. Although not powered to detect statistical difference, results suggests that dose reduction with MEL140 in patients >65 years does not impact one-year PFS when compared to patients <65 receiving standard MEL200.

BACKGROUND

Multiple myeloma, an incurable plasma cell malignancy, has an average age of diagnosis over 65 years. For transplant-eligible patients, high-dose melphalan 200 mg/m2 (MEL200), followed by autologous stem cell rescue (ASCR) is the standard in consolidation therapy. Most clinical trials evaluating MEL200 with ASCR excluded patients over 65 due to concerns for toxicity and treatment-related mortality, leading to use of reduced dose melphalan 140 mg/m2 (MEL140) in clinical practice for older patients. As this dose has limited studies surrounding its reduction, the purpose of this study was to compare outcomes and toxicities of MEL140 in patients over the age of 65 to MEL200 in patients 65 and under.

METHODS

This single-center institutional review board approved retrospective study was conducted at VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System. All multiple myeloma patients greater than 18 years of age who received melphalan with ASCR from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2021, were included. Patients were divided into two arms: age < 65 treated with MEL200 and age >65 treated with MEL140. The primary endpoint was oneyear progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints were one-year overall survival (OS), treatment related mortality, time to neutrophil engraftment, and toxicities including febrile neutropenia, diarrhea, mucositis, infection, and intensive care unit transfers.

RESULTS

A total of 222 patients were included, 114 patients in the MEL200 arm and 108 patients in the MEL140 arm. The primary endpoint of one-year PFS had no significant difference, with 103 (90.4%) patients in the MEL200 group compared to 99 (91.7%) patients in the MEL140 group (p=0.732). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in the secondary endpoint of one-year OS with 112 (98.3%) patients in the MEL200 group compared to 106 (98.2%) in the MEL140 group (p=0.956). Toxicities were similar; however, grade 3 mucositis was higher in the MEL200 arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found no difference in oneyear PFS or one-year OS when comparing MEL140 to MEL200 with minimal differences in regimen-related toxicities. Although not powered to detect statistical difference, results suggests that dose reduction with MEL140 in patients >65 years does not impact one-year PFS when compared to patients <65 receiving standard MEL200.

BACKGROUND

Multiple myeloma, an incurable plasma cell malignancy, has an average age of diagnosis over 65 years. For transplant-eligible patients, high-dose melphalan 200 mg/m2 (MEL200), followed by autologous stem cell rescue (ASCR) is the standard in consolidation therapy. Most clinical trials evaluating MEL200 with ASCR excluded patients over 65 due to concerns for toxicity and treatment-related mortality, leading to use of reduced dose melphalan 140 mg/m2 (MEL140) in clinical practice for older patients. As this dose has limited studies surrounding its reduction, the purpose of this study was to compare outcomes and toxicities of MEL140 in patients over the age of 65 to MEL200 in patients 65 and under.

METHODS

This single-center institutional review board approved retrospective study was conducted at VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System. All multiple myeloma patients greater than 18 years of age who received melphalan with ASCR from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2021, were included. Patients were divided into two arms: age < 65 treated with MEL200 and age >65 treated with MEL140. The primary endpoint was oneyear progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints were one-year overall survival (OS), treatment related mortality, time to neutrophil engraftment, and toxicities including febrile neutropenia, diarrhea, mucositis, infection, and intensive care unit transfers.

RESULTS

A total of 222 patients were included, 114 patients in the MEL200 arm and 108 patients in the MEL140 arm. The primary endpoint of one-year PFS had no significant difference, with 103 (90.4%) patients in the MEL200 group compared to 99 (91.7%) patients in the MEL140 group (p=0.732). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in the secondary endpoint of one-year OS with 112 (98.3%) patients in the MEL200 group compared to 106 (98.2%) in the MEL140 group (p=0.956). Toxicities were similar; however, grade 3 mucositis was higher in the MEL200 arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found no difference in oneyear PFS or one-year OS when comparing MEL140 to MEL200 with minimal differences in regimen-related toxicities. Although not powered to detect statistical difference, results suggests that dose reduction with MEL140 in patients >65 years does not impact one-year PFS when compared to patients <65 receiving standard MEL200.

A new interim analysis of a large randomized, phase 3 trial provides more evidence that a combination of ibrutinib and rituximab is a better option for younger patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) than the once-standard combination of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR).

The analysis of the open-label FLAIR trial, published in The Lancet Oncology, tracked 771 patients with CLL for a median follow-up of 53 months (interquartile ratio, 41-61 months) and found that median progression-free survival was not reached with ibrutinib/rituximab versus 67 months with FCR (hazard ratio, 0.44, P < .0001).

“This paper is another confirmation to say that Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors are more powerful than even our strongest chemoimmunotherapy. That’s very reassuring,” said hematologist/oncologist Jan A. Burger, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in an interview. He did not take part in the analysis but is familiar with its findings.

There are caveats to the study. More patients in the ibrutinib/rituximab arm died of cardiac events, possibly reflecting a known risk of those drugs. And for unclear reasons, there was no difference in overall survival – a secondary endpoint – between the groups. The study authors speculate that this may be because some patients on FCR progressed and turned to effective second-line drugs.

Still, the findings are consistent with the landmark E1912 trial, the authors wrote, and adds “to a body of evidence that suggests that the use of ibrutinib-based regimens should be considered for patients with previously untreated CLL, especially those with IGHV-unmutated CLL.”

The study, partially funded by industry, was led by Peter Hillmen, PhD, of Leeds (England) Cancer Center.

According to Dr. Burger, FCR was the standard treatment for younger, fitter patients with CLL about 10-15 years ago. Then Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib entered the picture. But, as the new report notes, initial studies focused on older patients who weren’t considered fit enough to tolerate FCR.

The new study, like the E1912 trial, aimed to compare ibrutinib-rituximab versus FCR in younger, fitter patients.

From 2014 to 2018, researchers assigned 771 patients (median age, 62 years; IQR 56-67; 73% male; 95% White; 66% with World Health Organization performance status, 0) to FCR (n = 385) or ibrutinib/rituximab (n = 386).

Nearly three-quarters (74%) in the FCR group received six cycles of therapy, and 97% of those in the ibrutinib-rituximab group received six cycles of rituximab. Those in the ibrutinib-rituximab group also received daily doses of ibrutinib. Doses could be modified. The data cutoff was May 24, 2021.

Notably, there was no improvement in overall survival in the ibrutinib/rituximab group: 92.1% of patients lived 4 years versus 93.5% in the FCR group. This contrasts with an improvement in overall survival in the earlier E1912 study in the ibrutinib/rituximab group.

However, the study authors noted that overall survival in the FCR group is higher than in earlier studies, perhaps reflecting the wider availability of targeted therapy. The final study analysis will offer more insight into overall survival.

In an interview, hematologist David A. Bond, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, who is familiar with the study findings, said “the lack of an improvement in overall survival could be due to differences in available treatments at relapse, as the FLAIR study was conducted more recently than the prior E1912 study.” He added that “the younger ages in the E1912 study may have led to less risk for cardiovascular events or deaths for the patients treated with ibrutinib in the E1912 study.”

The previous E1912 trial showed a larger effect for ibrutinib/rituximab versus FCR on progression-free survival (HR, 0.37, P < .001 for E1912 and HR, 0.44, P< .0001 for the FLAIR trial). However, the study authors noted that FLAIR trial had older subjects (mean age, 62 vs 56.7 in the E1912 trial.)

As for grade 3 or 4 adverse events, leukopenia was most common in the FCR group (n = 203, 54%), compared with the ibrutinib/rituximab group (n = 55, 14%). Serious adverse events were reported in 205 (53%) of patients in the ibrutinib/rituximab group versus 203 (54%) patients in the FCR group.

All-cause infections, myelodysplastic syndrome, acute myeloid leukemia, Richter’s transformation, and other diagnosed cancers were rare but more common in the FCR group. Deaths from COVID-19 were the same at 3 in each group; 2 of 29 deaths in the FCR group and 3 of 30 deaths in the ibrutinib/rituximab group were considered to be likely linked to treatment.

Sudden unexplained or cardiac deaths were more common in the ibrutinib-rituximab group (n = 8, 2%) vs. the FCR group (n = 2, less than 1%).

Dr. Bond said “one of the takeaways for practicing hematologists from the FLAIR study is that cardiovascular complications and sudden cardiac death are clearly an issue for older patients with hypertension treated with ibrutinib. Patients should be monitored for signs or symptoms of cardiovascular disease and have close management of blood pressure.” 

Dr. Burger also noted that cardiac problems are a known risk of ibrutinib. “Fortunately, we have second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors that could be chosen for patients when we are worried about side effects.”

He said that chemotherapy remains the preferred – or only – treatment in some parts of the world. And patients may prefer FCR to ibrutinib because of the latter drug’s side effects or a preference for therapy that doesn’t take as long.

The study was funded by Cancer Research UK and Janssen. The study authors reported relationships with companies such as Lilly, Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Gilead, and many others. Dr. Burger reports financial support for clinical trials from Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Biogen, and Janssen. Dr. Bond reported no disclosures.

A new interim analysis of a large randomized, phase 3 trial provides more evidence that a combination of ibrutinib and rituximab is a better option for younger patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) than the once-standard combination of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR).

The analysis of the open-label FLAIR trial, published in The Lancet Oncology, tracked 771 patients with CLL for a median follow-up of 53 months (interquartile ratio, 41-61 months) and found that median progression-free survival was not reached with ibrutinib/rituximab versus 67 months with FCR (hazard ratio, 0.44, P < .0001).

“This paper is another confirmation to say that Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors are more powerful than even our strongest chemoimmunotherapy. That’s very reassuring,” said hematologist/oncologist Jan A. Burger, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in an interview. He did not take part in the analysis but is familiar with its findings.

There are caveats to the study. More patients in the ibrutinib/rituximab arm died of cardiac events, possibly reflecting a known risk of those drugs. And for unclear reasons, there was no difference in overall survival – a secondary endpoint – between the groups. The study authors speculate that this may be because some patients on FCR progressed and turned to effective second-line drugs.

Still, the findings are consistent with the landmark E1912 trial, the authors wrote, and adds “to a body of evidence that suggests that the use of ibrutinib-based regimens should be considered for patients with previously untreated CLL, especially those with IGHV-unmutated CLL.”

The study, partially funded by industry, was led by Peter Hillmen, PhD, of Leeds (England) Cancer Center.

According to Dr. Burger, FCR was the standard treatment for younger, fitter patients with CLL about 10-15 years ago. Then Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib entered the picture. But, as the new report notes, initial studies focused on older patients who weren’t considered fit enough to tolerate FCR.

The new study, like the E1912 trial, aimed to compare ibrutinib-rituximab versus FCR in younger, fitter patients.

From 2014 to 2018, researchers assigned 771 patients (median age, 62 years; IQR 56-67; 73% male; 95% White; 66% with World Health Organization performance status, 0) to FCR (n = 385) or ibrutinib/rituximab (n = 386).

Nearly three-quarters (74%) in the FCR group received six cycles of therapy, and 97% of those in the ibrutinib-rituximab group received six cycles of rituximab. Those in the ibrutinib-rituximab group also received daily doses of ibrutinib. Doses could be modified. The data cutoff was May 24, 2021.

Notably, there was no improvement in overall survival in the ibrutinib/rituximab group: 92.1% of patients lived 4 years versus 93.5% in the FCR group. This contrasts with an improvement in overall survival in the earlier E1912 study in the ibrutinib/rituximab group.

However, the study authors noted that overall survival in the FCR group is higher than in earlier studies, perhaps reflecting the wider availability of targeted therapy. The final study analysis will offer more insight into overall survival.

In an interview, hematologist David A. Bond, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, who is familiar with the study findings, said “the lack of an improvement in overall survival could be due to differences in available treatments at relapse, as the FLAIR study was conducted more recently than the prior E1912 study.” He added that “the younger ages in the E1912 study may have led to less risk for cardiovascular events or deaths for the patients treated with ibrutinib in the E1912 study.”

The previous E1912 trial showed a larger effect for ibrutinib/rituximab versus FCR on progression-free survival (HR, 0.37, P < .001 for E1912 and HR, 0.44, P< .0001 for the FLAIR trial). However, the study authors noted that FLAIR trial had older subjects (mean age, 62 vs 56.7 in the E1912 trial.)

As for grade 3 or 4 adverse events, leukopenia was most common in the FCR group (n = 203, 54%), compared with the ibrutinib/rituximab group (n = 55, 14%). Serious adverse events were reported in 205 (53%) of patients in the ibrutinib/rituximab group versus 203 (54%) patients in the FCR group.

All-cause infections, myelodysplastic syndrome, acute myeloid leukemia, Richter’s transformation, and other diagnosed cancers were rare but more common in the FCR group. Deaths from COVID-19 were the same at 3 in each group; 2 of 29 deaths in the FCR group and 3 of 30 deaths in the ibrutinib/rituximab group were considered to be likely linked to treatment.

Sudden unexplained or cardiac deaths were more common in the ibrutinib-rituximab group (n = 8, 2%) vs. the FCR group (n = 2, less than 1%).

Dr. Bond said “one of the takeaways for practicing hematologists from the FLAIR study is that cardiovascular complications and sudden cardiac death are clearly an issue for older patients with hypertension treated with ibrutinib. Patients should be monitored for signs or symptoms of cardiovascular disease and have close management of blood pressure.” 

Dr. Burger also noted that cardiac problems are a known risk of ibrutinib. “Fortunately, we have second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors that could be chosen for patients when we are worried about side effects.”

He said that chemotherapy remains the preferred – or only – treatment in some parts of the world. And patients may prefer FCR to ibrutinib because of the latter drug’s side effects or a preference for therapy that doesn’t take as long.

The study was funded by Cancer Research UK and Janssen. The study authors reported relationships with companies such as Lilly, Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Gilead, and many others. Dr. Burger reports financial support for clinical trials from Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Biogen, and Janssen. Dr. Bond reported no disclosures.

A new interim analysis of a large randomized, phase 3 trial provides more evidence that a combination of ibrutinib and rituximab is a better option for younger patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) than the once-standard combination of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR).

The analysis of the open-label FLAIR trial, published in The Lancet Oncology, tracked 771 patients with CLL for a median follow-up of 53 months (interquartile ratio, 41-61 months) and found that median progression-free survival was not reached with ibrutinib/rituximab versus 67 months with FCR (hazard ratio, 0.44, P < .0001).

“This paper is another confirmation to say that Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors are more powerful than even our strongest chemoimmunotherapy. That’s very reassuring,” said hematologist/oncologist Jan A. Burger, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in an interview. He did not take part in the analysis but is familiar with its findings.

There are caveats to the study. More patients in the ibrutinib/rituximab arm died of cardiac events, possibly reflecting a known risk of those drugs. And for unclear reasons, there was no difference in overall survival – a secondary endpoint – between the groups. The study authors speculate that this may be because some patients on FCR progressed and turned to effective second-line drugs.

Still, the findings are consistent with the landmark E1912 trial, the authors wrote, and adds “to a body of evidence that suggests that the use of ibrutinib-based regimens should be considered for patients with previously untreated CLL, especially those with IGHV-unmutated CLL.”

The study, partially funded by industry, was led by Peter Hillmen, PhD, of Leeds (England) Cancer Center.

According to Dr. Burger, FCR was the standard treatment for younger, fitter patients with CLL about 10-15 years ago. Then Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib entered the picture. But, as the new report notes, initial studies focused on older patients who weren’t considered fit enough to tolerate FCR.

The new study, like the E1912 trial, aimed to compare ibrutinib-rituximab versus FCR in younger, fitter patients.

From 2014 to 2018, researchers assigned 771 patients (median age, 62 years; IQR 56-67; 73% male; 95% White; 66% with World Health Organization performance status, 0) to FCR (n = 385) or ibrutinib/rituximab (n = 386).

Nearly three-quarters (74%) in the FCR group received six cycles of therapy, and 97% of those in the ibrutinib-rituximab group received six cycles of rituximab. Those in the ibrutinib-rituximab group also received daily doses of ibrutinib. Doses could be modified. The data cutoff was May 24, 2021.

Notably, there was no improvement in overall survival in the ibrutinib/rituximab group: 92.1% of patients lived 4 years versus 93.5% in the FCR group. This contrasts with an improvement in overall survival in the earlier E1912 study in the ibrutinib/rituximab group.

However, the study authors noted that overall survival in the FCR group is higher than in earlier studies, perhaps reflecting the wider availability of targeted therapy. The final study analysis will offer more insight into overall survival.

In an interview, hematologist David A. Bond, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, who is familiar with the study findings, said “the lack of an improvement in overall survival could be due to differences in available treatments at relapse, as the FLAIR study was conducted more recently than the prior E1912 study.” He added that “the younger ages in the E1912 study may have led to less risk for cardiovascular events or deaths for the patients treated with ibrutinib in the E1912 study.”

The previous E1912 trial showed a larger effect for ibrutinib/rituximab versus FCR on progression-free survival (HR, 0.37, P < .001 for E1912 and HR, 0.44, P< .0001 for the FLAIR trial). However, the study authors noted that FLAIR trial had older subjects (mean age, 62 vs 56.7 in the E1912 trial.)

As for grade 3 or 4 adverse events, leukopenia was most common in the FCR group (n = 203, 54%), compared with the ibrutinib/rituximab group (n = 55, 14%). Serious adverse events were reported in 205 (53%) of patients in the ibrutinib/rituximab group versus 203 (54%) patients in the FCR group.

All-cause infections, myelodysplastic syndrome, acute myeloid leukemia, Richter’s transformation, and other diagnosed cancers were rare but more common in the FCR group. Deaths from COVID-19 were the same at 3 in each group; 2 of 29 deaths in the FCR group and 3 of 30 deaths in the ibrutinib/rituximab group were considered to be likely linked to treatment.

Sudden unexplained or cardiac deaths were more common in the ibrutinib-rituximab group (n = 8, 2%) vs. the FCR group (n = 2, less than 1%).

Dr. Bond said “one of the takeaways for practicing hematologists from the FLAIR study is that cardiovascular complications and sudden cardiac death are clearly an issue for older patients with hypertension treated with ibrutinib. Patients should be monitored for signs or symptoms of cardiovascular disease and have close management of blood pressure.” 

Dr. Burger also noted that cardiac problems are a known risk of ibrutinib. “Fortunately, we have second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors that could be chosen for patients when we are worried about side effects.”

He said that chemotherapy remains the preferred – or only – treatment in some parts of the world. And patients may prefer FCR to ibrutinib because of the latter drug’s side effects or a preference for therapy that doesn’t take as long.

The study was funded by Cancer Research UK and Janssen. The study authors reported relationships with companies such as Lilly, Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Gilead, and many others. Dr. Burger reports financial support for clinical trials from Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Biogen, and Janssen. Dr. Bond reported no disclosures.

Patients with cancer are at a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE)—in fact, it’s one of the leading causes of death in patients who receive systemic therapy for cancer. But as cancer treatment has evolved, have the incidence and risk of VTE changed too?

Researchers from Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System in Massachusetts conducted a study with 434,203 veterans to evaluate the pattern of VTE incidence over 16 years, focusing on the types of cancer, treatment, race and ethnicity, and other factors related to cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT).

In contrast with other large population studies, this study found the overall incidence of CAT remained largely stable over time. At 12 months, the incidence was 4.5%, with yearly trends ranging between 4.2% and 4.7%. “As expected,” the researchers say, the subset of patients receiving systemic therapy had a higher incidence of VTE at 12 months (7.7%) than did the overall cohort. The pattern was “particularly pronounced” in gynecologic, testicular, and kidney cancers, where the incidence of VTE was 2 to 3 times higher in the treated cohort compared with the overall cohort. 

Cancer type and diagnosis were the most statistically and clinically significant associations with CAT, with up to a 6-fold difference between cancer subtypes. The patients at the highest risk of VTE were those with pancreatic cancer and acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Most studies have focused only on patients with solid tumors, but these researchers observed novel patterns among patients with hematologic neoplasms. Specifically, a higher incidence of VTE among patients with aggressive vs indolent leukemias and lymphomas. This trend, the researchers say, may be associated in part with catheter-related events.

Furthermore, the type of system treatment was associated with the risk of VTE, the researchers say, although to a lesser extent. Chemotherapy- and immunotherapy-based regimens had the highest risk of VTE, relative to no treatment. Targeted and endocrine therapy also carried a higher risk compared with no treatment but to a lesser degree.

The researchers found significant heterogeneity by race and ethnicity across cancer types. Non-Hispanic Black patients had about 20% higher risk of VTE compared with non-Hispanic White patients. Asian and Pacific Islander patients had about 20% lower risk compared with non-Hispanic White patients.

Male sex was also associated with VTE. However, “interestingly,” the researchers note, neighborhood-level socioeconomic factors and patients’ comorbidities were not associated with CAT but were associated with mortality.

Their results suggest that patient- and treatment-specific factors play a critical role in assessing the risk of CAT, and “ongoing efforts to identify these patterns are of utmost importance for risk stratification and prognostic assessment.”

Patients with cancer are at a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE)—in fact, it’s one of the leading causes of death in patients who receive systemic therapy for cancer. But as cancer treatment has evolved, have the incidence and risk of VTE changed too?

Researchers from Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System in Massachusetts conducted a study with 434,203 veterans to evaluate the pattern of VTE incidence over 16 years, focusing on the types of cancer, treatment, race and ethnicity, and other factors related to cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT).

In contrast with other large population studies, this study found the overall incidence of CAT remained largely stable over time. At 12 months, the incidence was 4.5%, with yearly trends ranging between 4.2% and 4.7%. “As expected,” the researchers say, the subset of patients receiving systemic therapy had a higher incidence of VTE at 12 months (7.7%) than did the overall cohort. The pattern was “particularly pronounced” in gynecologic, testicular, and kidney cancers, where the incidence of VTE was 2 to 3 times higher in the treated cohort compared with the overall cohort. 

Cancer type and diagnosis were the most statistically and clinically significant associations with CAT, with up to a 6-fold difference between cancer subtypes. The patients at the highest risk of VTE were those with pancreatic cancer and acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Most studies have focused only on patients with solid tumors, but these researchers observed novel patterns among patients with hematologic neoplasms. Specifically, a higher incidence of VTE among patients with aggressive vs indolent leukemias and lymphomas. This trend, the researchers say, may be associated in part with catheter-related events.

Furthermore, the type of system treatment was associated with the risk of VTE, the researchers say, although to a lesser extent. Chemotherapy- and immunotherapy-based regimens had the highest risk of VTE, relative to no treatment. Targeted and endocrine therapy also carried a higher risk compared with no treatment but to a lesser degree.

The researchers found significant heterogeneity by race and ethnicity across cancer types. Non-Hispanic Black patients had about 20% higher risk of VTE compared with non-Hispanic White patients. Asian and Pacific Islander patients had about 20% lower risk compared with non-Hispanic White patients.

Male sex was also associated with VTE. However, “interestingly,” the researchers note, neighborhood-level socioeconomic factors and patients’ comorbidities were not associated with CAT but were associated with mortality.

Their results suggest that patient- and treatment-specific factors play a critical role in assessing the risk of CAT, and “ongoing efforts to identify these patterns are of utmost importance for risk stratification and prognostic assessment.”

Patients with cancer are at a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE)—in fact, it’s one of the leading causes of death in patients who receive systemic therapy for cancer. But as cancer treatment has evolved, have the incidence and risk of VTE changed too?

Researchers from Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System in Massachusetts conducted a study with 434,203 veterans to evaluate the pattern of VTE incidence over 16 years, focusing on the types of cancer, treatment, race and ethnicity, and other factors related to cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT).

In contrast with other large population studies, this study found the overall incidence of CAT remained largely stable over time. At 12 months, the incidence was 4.5%, with yearly trends ranging between 4.2% and 4.7%. “As expected,” the researchers say, the subset of patients receiving systemic therapy had a higher incidence of VTE at 12 months (7.7%) than did the overall cohort. The pattern was “particularly pronounced” in gynecologic, testicular, and kidney cancers, where the incidence of VTE was 2 to 3 times higher in the treated cohort compared with the overall cohort. 

Cancer type and diagnosis were the most statistically and clinically significant associations with CAT, with up to a 6-fold difference between cancer subtypes. The patients at the highest risk of VTE were those with pancreatic cancer and acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Most studies have focused only on patients with solid tumors, but these researchers observed novel patterns among patients with hematologic neoplasms. Specifically, a higher incidence of VTE among patients with aggressive vs indolent leukemias and lymphomas. This trend, the researchers say, may be associated in part with catheter-related events.

Furthermore, the type of system treatment was associated with the risk of VTE, the researchers say, although to a lesser extent. Chemotherapy- and immunotherapy-based regimens had the highest risk of VTE, relative to no treatment. Targeted and endocrine therapy also carried a higher risk compared with no treatment but to a lesser degree.

The researchers found significant heterogeneity by race and ethnicity across cancer types. Non-Hispanic Black patients had about 20% higher risk of VTE compared with non-Hispanic White patients. Asian and Pacific Islander patients had about 20% lower risk compared with non-Hispanic White patients.

Male sex was also associated with VTE. However, “interestingly,” the researchers note, neighborhood-level socioeconomic factors and patients’ comorbidities were not associated with CAT but were associated with mortality.

Their results suggest that patient- and treatment-specific factors play a critical role in assessing the risk of CAT, and “ongoing efforts to identify these patterns are of utmost importance for risk stratification and prognostic assessment.”

Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who harbor a mutation strongly associated with a poor prognosis and who have minimal residual disease (MRD+) following hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) have a reduced risk of relapse with gilteritinib (Xospata) maintenance therapy, results of the MORPHO trial suggest.

The research was presented at the European Hematology Association Hybrid Congress 2023.

For the study, AML patients with the most common form of mutation in the proto-oncogene fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3), known as the internal tandem duplication (ITD), were randomized to 24 months of maintenance therapy with either the FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib or placebo.

The trial did not meet its primary endpoint, as there was no significant difference in relapse-free survival (RFS) between those assigned to the active drug and those given placebo, and there was no difference in overall survival rates.

However, subgroup analysis revealed that FLT3/ITD AML patients who were MRD+ after transplant, which represented approximately half of the participants, experienced a significant 48% improvement in RFS with gilteritinib versus placebo, while no benefit was seen in MRD– patients.

While acknowledging that the trial did not meet its primary endpoint, presenter Mark J. Levis, MD, PhD, program leader, hematologic malignancies and bone marrow transplant program, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, said it was nevertheless “a successful study.”

“We learned how to use these drugs and in whom,” he continued, adding: “No, not everybody needs and should get a FLT3 inhibitor post-transplant, but we can use this [MRD] assay to identify who.”

Consequently, Dr. Levis believes that gilteritinib “should be a standard of care for those who are MRD positive,” although the decision to use it “should be balanced against the potential for toxicity,” compared with not adding an additional treatment after HCT.

He told a press conference that “we’re going to certainly make sure that patients who are MRD positive get [gilteritinib],” although the MRD negative patients “are going to be more questionable,” especially because the assay that they used in the study is not “perfect.”

Dr. Levis also suggested that the trial did not meet its endpoint because of regional differences in the clinical practice, such as in the number of treatment cycles prior to HCT, the time to transplant, and the previous use of a FLT3 inhibitor, all of which may have skewed the findings.

“Everybody in the world is convinced that they’re the best transplanter,” he said, and yet “they all do it differently, and the heterogeneity is astounding.”

He added: “If we’d restricted everybody [to a] pretransplant regimen, I suspect we would have had a different result than what we’re getting here, but this is releasing the drug into the world and saying: ‘Here, transplant however you want, however it’s practiced in the real world. Tell us how this works.’ ”

Approached for comment, Claudio Brunstein, MD, PhD, vice-chair of the department of hematology and oncology in the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, said that while there was “some disappointment” with the results, he was “not surprised” that the trial did not meet its primary endpoint.

He said in an interview that the patient population was not of “high enough risk” to demonstrate an overall difference between gilteritinib and placebo, although he conceded that it is “hard to get to high-risk patients in a timely way” and so conduct a trial with them.

As to the notion that variations in clinical practice could have been responsible, Dr. Brunstein pointed out that it was a randomized trial, so the issue would have applied equally to both sides.

He nevertheless believes that it is “a very important study,” and “just the fact that it was done in the context of a number of drugs coming and being approved by the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] in AML is quite remarkable.”

This is especially the case given that “many centers are already using [gilteritinib] as off-label maintenance therapy.”

Dr. Brunstein added that it is “good news” that the drug was effective in MRD+ patients, as it shows “you can overcome that with maintenance therapy rather than keeping giving more and more chemotherapy, especially as there are patients you’re worried about giving more intensive chemotherapy to make them MRD negative.”

He pointed out, however, that the assay used in the trial was “research grade” and very sensitive to MRD and “is not available everywhere, so there is an adjustment that the community will have to do to in order to apply this data.”

“But for those who are more obviously MRD positive with less sensitive assays, gilteritinib is already something that can be used,” Dr. Brunstein said.

Presenting the findings, Dr. Levis stated: “We all know that patients with FLT3/ITD AML have a high risk of relapse and are routinely referred for transplant. And we know that the detection of measurable residual disease pretransplant is highly predictive of outcome post-transplant.”

He continued that FLT3 inhibitors are “routinely given as post-transplant maintenance ... based on some prior trials, mostly with sorafenib.”

“But uncertainty exists as to the broad applicability of these trials,” Dr. Levis said. Moreover, the use of sorafenib in this context is “off label and can be difficult to tolerate,” and “we know that most patients are cured with allogeneic transplant alone.”

Gilteritinib is already known to be well tolerated as a monotherapy, and was approved by the FDA for the treatment of adult patients with FLT3 mutation–positive relapsed or refractory AML in 2018.

The investigators therefore examined whether it would be beneficial as a post-HCT maintenance therapy in FLT3-ITD AML. Patients were required to be in morphologic remission after one or two courses of induction therapy, with Dr. Levis underlining: “We did not allow patients who had been salvaged onto the study.”

They subsequently had a marrow aspirate sample taken for MRD analysis before undergoing allogeneic transplant, with any conditioning regimen, donor, or graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis allowed.

Between 30 and 90 days later, patients with successful engraftment who were able to take oral medication were then randomized to 24 months of maintenance therapy with either gilteritinib or placebo.

Dr. Levis showed that, among 620 patients screened at 110 centers in 16 countries, 356 were randomized between Aug. 15, 2017, and July 8, 2020. The median age was 53 years, and 49% of gilteritinib patients and 48% of those given placebo were female.

He noted that there was a “fairly even global distribution” of patients from North America, Europe, and the Asia/Pacific region, and that 60% of patients underwent a myeloablative conditioning regimen. Approximately the same proportion had received an FLT3 inhibitor prior to HCT.

MRD positivity, assessed at a cell count of ≥ 10^-6, was observed pre-HCT in 47% of patients in both treatment groups, and in 50% of gilteritinib patients and 51% of placebo patients at both pre- and post-transplant assessments.

The treatment regimen was completed by 52.8% of patients assigned to gilteritinib and 53.9% in the placebo arm. Dr. Levis said that 18.5% and 20.3% of patients, respectively, experienced a grade 3/4 treatment emergent acute GVHD event, while 32.6% and 21.5%, respectively, had a grade ≥ 3 treatment emergent infection.

He noted that “adverse events were clearly more common in the gilteritinib arm and often led to either dose reduction or interruption, or withdrawal of treatment.”

The most common grade ≥ 3 treatment emergent adverse event was a decrease in neutrophil count, seen in 24.7% of gilteritinib patients and 7.9% of those given placebo, followed by reduced platelet count, in 15.2% and 5.6%, respectively, and anemia, in 6.2% and 1.7%, respectively.

Turning to the efficacy outcomes, Dr. Levis reported that the trial did not meet its primary endpoint, with no significant difference in RFS between the gilteritinib and placebo arms, at a hazard ratio of 0.679 (P = .0518). There was also no significant difference in the key secondary objective of overall survival, at a hazard ratio of 0.846 (P = .4394).

However, Dr. Levis noted that there was a “clear difference in the benefit of gilteritinib by region,” and, “at every level,” MRD predicted a benefit from gilteritinib, which he said was a “big surprise” and “really leapt out in the subgroup analysis.”

He explained that the researchers used a modified version of a two-step assay that has been used in previous studies, and was able to detect MRD at a sensitivity of approximately 1x10^-6. “In our study, 98% of participants had samples pre- and post-[transplant].”

Regardless of treatment arm, MRD positivity measured at that sensitivity was associated with a significant reduction in overall survival, at a hazard ratio versus MRD– status of 0.514 (P = .0025).

When stratifying the patients by MRD status, the researchers found that, among MRD+ participants, gilteritinib was associated with a significant improvement in RFS, at a hazard ratio versus placebo of 0.515 (P = .0065), while there was no significant difference in MRD– patients.

Stratifying the patients by their conditioning regimen prior to HCT also revealed differences, with those undergoing myeloablative conditioning having significantly greater overall survival than those who underwent reduced-intensity conditioning, at a hazard ratio for death of 0.529 (P = .0027).

Dr. Levis said there is “no surprise there,” and the result could reflect the selection of fitter, younger patients to undergo the more intensive regimen.

He then showed that MRD+ patients who had undergone myeloablative conditioning had better overall survival with gilteritinib than placebo, at a hazard ratio for death of 0.418 (P = .0087). Again, the difference disappeared when looking at MRD– patients.

“So conditioning doesn’t help you in the setting of MRD,” Dr. Levis said.

Finally, he took a deeper dive into the regional differences in outcomes, noting that patients in the Asia/Pacific region, where gilteritinib showed no benefit over placebo, “were 10 years younger” than those in other regions, “tended to get myeloablative conditioning, and hardly ever used FLT3 inhibitors.”

In contrast, North American patients, who experienced a significant gilteritinib benefit in terms of RFS, underwent HCT an average of 26 days earlier than those elsewhere, and received fewer courses of chemotherapy pre-HCT. Moreover, 93.5% received an FLT3 inhibitor pretransplant.

The study was funded by Astellas Pharma Global Development. Dr. Levis declares relationships with Abbvie, Amgen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Jazz, Menarini, Pfizer, Sumitomo-Dainippon, Syndax, Takeda. Dr. Brunstein declares no relevant relationships.
 

Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who harbor a mutation strongly associated with a poor prognosis and who have minimal residual disease (MRD+) following hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) have a reduced risk of relapse with gilteritinib (Xospata) maintenance therapy, results of the MORPHO trial suggest.

The research was presented at the European Hematology Association Hybrid Congress 2023.

For the study, AML patients with the most common form of mutation in the proto-oncogene fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3), known as the internal tandem duplication (ITD), were randomized to 24 months of maintenance therapy with either the FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib or placebo.

The trial did not meet its primary endpoint, as there was no significant difference in relapse-free survival (RFS) between those assigned to the active drug and those given placebo, and there was no difference in overall survival rates.

However, subgroup analysis revealed that FLT3/ITD AML patients who were MRD+ after transplant, which represented approximately half of the participants, experienced a significant 48% improvement in RFS with gilteritinib versus placebo, while no benefit was seen in MRD– patients.

While acknowledging that the trial did not meet its primary endpoint, presenter Mark J. Levis, MD, PhD, program leader, hematologic malignancies and bone marrow transplant program, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, said it was nevertheless “a successful study.”

“We learned how to use these drugs and in whom,” he continued, adding: “No, not everybody needs and should get a FLT3 inhibitor post-transplant, but we can use this [MRD] assay to identify who.”

Consequently, Dr. Levis believes that gilteritinib “should be a standard of care for those who are MRD positive,” although the decision to use it “should be balanced against the potential for toxicity,” compared with not adding an additional treatment after HCT.

He told a press conference that “we’re going to certainly make sure that patients who are MRD positive get [gilteritinib],” although the MRD negative patients “are going to be more questionable,” especially because the assay that they used in the study is not “perfect.”

Dr. Levis also suggested that the trial did not meet its endpoint because of regional differences in the clinical practice, such as in the number of treatment cycles prior to HCT, the time to transplant, and the previous use of a FLT3 inhibitor, all of which may have skewed the findings.

“Everybody in the world is convinced that they’re the best transplanter,” he said, and yet “they all do it differently, and the heterogeneity is astounding.”

He added: “If we’d restricted everybody [to a] pretransplant regimen, I suspect we would have had a different result than what we’re getting here, but this is releasing the drug into the world and saying: ‘Here, transplant however you want, however it’s practiced in the real world. Tell us how this works.’ ”

Approached for comment, Claudio Brunstein, MD, PhD, vice-chair of the department of hematology and oncology in the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, said that while there was “some disappointment” with the results, he was “not surprised” that the trial did not meet its primary endpoint.

He said in an interview that the patient population was not of “high enough risk” to demonstrate an overall difference between gilteritinib and placebo, although he conceded that it is “hard to get to high-risk patients in a timely way” and so conduct a trial with them.

As to the notion that variations in clinical practice could have been responsible, Dr. Brunstein pointed out that it was a randomized trial, so the issue would have applied equally to both sides.

He nevertheless believes that it is “a very important study,” and “just the fact that it was done in the context of a number of drugs coming and being approved by the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] in AML is quite remarkable.”

This is especially the case given that “many centers are already using [gilteritinib] as off-label maintenance therapy.”

Dr. Brunstein added that it is “good news” that the drug was effective in MRD+ patients, as it shows “you can overcome that with maintenance therapy rather than keeping giving more and more chemotherapy, especially as there are patients you’re worried about giving more intensive chemotherapy to make them MRD negative.”

He pointed out, however, that the assay used in the trial was “research grade” and very sensitive to MRD and “is not available everywhere, so there is an adjustment that the community will have to do to in order to apply this data.”

“But for those who are more obviously MRD positive with less sensitive assays, gilteritinib is already something that can be used,” Dr. Brunstein said.

Presenting the findings, Dr. Levis stated: “We all know that patients with FLT3/ITD AML have a high risk of relapse and are routinely referred for transplant. And we know that the detection of measurable residual disease pretransplant is highly predictive of outcome post-transplant.”

He continued that FLT3 inhibitors are “routinely given as post-transplant maintenance ... based on some prior trials, mostly with sorafenib.”

“But uncertainty exists as to the broad applicability of these trials,” Dr. Levis said. Moreover, the use of sorafenib in this context is “off label and can be difficult to tolerate,” and “we know that most patients are cured with allogeneic transplant alone.”

Gilteritinib is already known to be well tolerated as a monotherapy, and was approved by the FDA for the treatment of adult patients with FLT3 mutation–positive relapsed or refractory AML in 2018.

The investigators therefore examined whether it would be beneficial as a post-HCT maintenance therapy in FLT3-ITD AML. Patients were required to be in morphologic remission after one or two courses of induction therapy, with Dr. Levis underlining: “We did not allow patients who had been salvaged onto the study.”

They subsequently had a marrow aspirate sample taken for MRD analysis before undergoing allogeneic transplant, with any conditioning regimen, donor, or graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis allowed.

Between 30 and 90 days later, patients with successful engraftment who were able to take oral medication were then randomized to 24 months of maintenance therapy with either gilteritinib or placebo.

Dr. Levis showed that, among 620 patients screened at 110 centers in 16 countries, 356 were randomized between Aug. 15, 2017, and July 8, 2020. The median age was 53 years, and 49% of gilteritinib patients and 48% of those given placebo were female.

He noted that there was a “fairly even global distribution” of patients from North America, Europe, and the Asia/Pacific region, and that 60% of patients underwent a myeloablative conditioning regimen. Approximately the same proportion had received an FLT3 inhibitor prior to HCT.

MRD positivity, assessed at a cell count of ≥ 10^-6, was observed pre-HCT in 47% of patients in both treatment groups, and in 50% of gilteritinib patients and 51% of placebo patients at both pre- and post-transplant assessments.

The treatment regimen was completed by 52.8% of patients assigned to gilteritinib and 53.9% in the placebo arm. Dr. Levis said that 18.5% and 20.3% of patients, respectively, experienced a grade 3/4 treatment emergent acute GVHD event, while 32.6% and 21.5%, respectively, had a grade ≥ 3 treatment emergent infection.

He noted that “adverse events were clearly more common in the gilteritinib arm and often led to either dose reduction or interruption, or withdrawal of treatment.”

The most common grade ≥ 3 treatment emergent adverse event was a decrease in neutrophil count, seen in 24.7% of gilteritinib patients and 7.9% of those given placebo, followed by reduced platelet count, in 15.2% and 5.6%, respectively, and anemia, in 6.2% and 1.7%, respectively.

Turning to the efficacy outcomes, Dr. Levis reported that the trial did not meet its primary endpoint, with no significant difference in RFS between the gilteritinib and placebo arms, at a hazard ratio of 0.679 (P = .0518). There was also no significant difference in the key secondary objective of overall survival, at a hazard ratio of 0.846 (P = .4394).

However, Dr. Levis noted that there was a “clear difference in the benefit of gilteritinib by region,” and, “at every level,” MRD predicted a benefit from gilteritinib, which he said was a “big surprise” and “really leapt out in the subgroup analysis.”

He explained that the researchers used a modified version of a two-step assay that has been used in previous studies, and was able to detect MRD at a sensitivity of approximately 1x10^-6. “In our study, 98% of participants had samples pre- and post-[transplant].”

Regardless of treatment arm, MRD positivity measured at that sensitivity was associated with a significant reduction in overall survival, at a hazard ratio versus MRD– status of 0.514 (P = .0025).

When stratifying the patients by MRD status, the researchers found that, among MRD+ participants, gilteritinib was associated with a significant improvement in RFS, at a hazard ratio versus placebo of 0.515 (P = .0065), while there was no significant difference in MRD– patients.

Stratifying the patients by their conditioning regimen prior to HCT also revealed differences, with those undergoing myeloablative conditioning having significantly greater overall survival than those who underwent reduced-intensity conditioning, at a hazard ratio for death of 0.529 (P = .0027).

Dr. Levis said there is “no surprise there,” and the result could reflect the selection of fitter, younger patients to undergo the more intensive regimen.

He then showed that MRD+ patients who had undergone myeloablative conditioning had better overall survival with gilteritinib than placebo, at a hazard ratio for death of 0.418 (P = .0087). Again, the difference disappeared when looking at MRD– patients.

“So conditioning doesn’t help you in the setting of MRD,” Dr. Levis said.

Finally, he took a deeper dive into the regional differences in outcomes, noting that patients in the Asia/Pacific region, where gilteritinib showed no benefit over placebo, “were 10 years younger” than those in other regions, “tended to get myeloablative conditioning, and hardly ever used FLT3 inhibitors.”

In contrast, North American patients, who experienced a significant gilteritinib benefit in terms of RFS, underwent HCT an average of 26 days earlier than those elsewhere, and received fewer courses of chemotherapy pre-HCT. Moreover, 93.5% received an FLT3 inhibitor pretransplant.

The study was funded by Astellas Pharma Global Development. Dr. Levis declares relationships with Abbvie, Amgen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Jazz, Menarini, Pfizer, Sumitomo-Dainippon, Syndax, Takeda. Dr. Brunstein declares no relevant relationships.
 

Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who harbor a mutation strongly associated with a poor prognosis and who have minimal residual disease (MRD+) following hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) have a reduced risk of relapse with gilteritinib (Xospata) maintenance therapy, results of the MORPHO trial suggest.

The research was presented at the European Hematology Association Hybrid Congress 2023.

For the study, AML patients with the most common form of mutation in the proto-oncogene fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3), known as the internal tandem duplication (ITD), were randomized to 24 months of maintenance therapy with either the FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib or placebo.

The trial did not meet its primary endpoint, as there was no significant difference in relapse-free survival (RFS) between those assigned to the active drug and those given placebo, and there was no difference in overall survival rates.

However, subgroup analysis revealed that FLT3/ITD AML patients who were MRD+ after transplant, which represented approximately half of the participants, experienced a significant 48% improvement in RFS with gilteritinib versus placebo, while no benefit was seen in MRD– patients.

While acknowledging that the trial did not meet its primary endpoint, presenter Mark J. Levis, MD, PhD, program leader, hematologic malignancies and bone marrow transplant program, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, said it was nevertheless “a successful study.”

“We learned how to use these drugs and in whom,” he continued, adding: “No, not everybody needs and should get a FLT3 inhibitor post-transplant, but we can use this [MRD] assay to identify who.”

Consequently, Dr. Levis believes that gilteritinib “should be a standard of care for those who are MRD positive,” although the decision to use it “should be balanced against the potential for toxicity,” compared with not adding an additional treatment after HCT.

He told a press conference that “we’re going to certainly make sure that patients who are MRD positive get [gilteritinib],” although the MRD negative patients “are going to be more questionable,” especially because the assay that they used in the study is not “perfect.”

Dr. Levis also suggested that the trial did not meet its endpoint because of regional differences in the clinical practice, such as in the number of treatment cycles prior to HCT, the time to transplant, and the previous use of a FLT3 inhibitor, all of which may have skewed the findings.

“Everybody in the world is convinced that they’re the best transplanter,” he said, and yet “they all do it differently, and the heterogeneity is astounding.”

He added: “If we’d restricted everybody [to a] pretransplant regimen, I suspect we would have had a different result than what we’re getting here, but this is releasing the drug into the world and saying: ‘Here, transplant however you want, however it’s practiced in the real world. Tell us how this works.’ ”

Approached for comment, Claudio Brunstein, MD, PhD, vice-chair of the department of hematology and oncology in the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, said that while there was “some disappointment” with the results, he was “not surprised” that the trial did not meet its primary endpoint.

He said in an interview that the patient population was not of “high enough risk” to demonstrate an overall difference between gilteritinib and placebo, although he conceded that it is “hard to get to high-risk patients in a timely way” and so conduct a trial with them.

As to the notion that variations in clinical practice could have been responsible, Dr. Brunstein pointed out that it was a randomized trial, so the issue would have applied equally to both sides.

He nevertheless believes that it is “a very important study,” and “just the fact that it was done in the context of a number of drugs coming and being approved by the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] in AML is quite remarkable.”

This is especially the case given that “many centers are already using [gilteritinib] as off-label maintenance therapy.”

Dr. Brunstein added that it is “good news” that the drug was effective in MRD+ patients, as it shows “you can overcome that with maintenance therapy rather than keeping giving more and more chemotherapy, especially as there are patients you’re worried about giving more intensive chemotherapy to make them MRD negative.”

He pointed out, however, that the assay used in the trial was “research grade” and very sensitive to MRD and “is not available everywhere, so there is an adjustment that the community will have to do to in order to apply this data.”

“But for those who are more obviously MRD positive with less sensitive assays, gilteritinib is already something that can be used,” Dr. Brunstein said.

Presenting the findings, Dr. Levis stated: “We all know that patients with FLT3/ITD AML have a high risk of relapse and are routinely referred for transplant. And we know that the detection of measurable residual disease pretransplant is highly predictive of outcome post-transplant.”

He continued that FLT3 inhibitors are “routinely given as post-transplant maintenance ... based on some prior trials, mostly with sorafenib.”

“But uncertainty exists as to the broad applicability of these trials,” Dr. Levis said. Moreover, the use of sorafenib in this context is “off label and can be difficult to tolerate,” and “we know that most patients are cured with allogeneic transplant alone.”

Gilteritinib is already known to be well tolerated as a monotherapy, and was approved by the FDA for the treatment of adult patients with FLT3 mutation–positive relapsed or refractory AML in 2018.

The investigators therefore examined whether it would be beneficial as a post-HCT maintenance therapy in FLT3-ITD AML. Patients were required to be in morphologic remission after one or two courses of induction therapy, with Dr. Levis underlining: “We did not allow patients who had been salvaged onto the study.”

They subsequently had a marrow aspirate sample taken for MRD analysis before undergoing allogeneic transplant, with any conditioning regimen, donor, or graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis allowed.

Between 30 and 90 days later, patients with successful engraftment who were able to take oral medication were then randomized to 24 months of maintenance therapy with either gilteritinib or placebo.

Dr. Levis showed that, among 620 patients screened at 110 centers in 16 countries, 356 were randomized between Aug. 15, 2017, and July 8, 2020. The median age was 53 years, and 49% of gilteritinib patients and 48% of those given placebo were female.

He noted that there was a “fairly even global distribution” of patients from North America, Europe, and the Asia/Pacific region, and that 60% of patients underwent a myeloablative conditioning regimen. Approximately the same proportion had received an FLT3 inhibitor prior to HCT.

MRD positivity, assessed at a cell count of ≥ 10^-6, was observed pre-HCT in 47% of patients in both treatment groups, and in 50% of gilteritinib patients and 51% of placebo patients at both pre- and post-transplant assessments.

The treatment regimen was completed by 52.8% of patients assigned to gilteritinib and 53.9% in the placebo arm. Dr. Levis said that 18.5% and 20.3% of patients, respectively, experienced a grade 3/4 treatment emergent acute GVHD event, while 32.6% and 21.5%, respectively, had a grade ≥ 3 treatment emergent infection.

He noted that “adverse events were clearly more common in the gilteritinib arm and often led to either dose reduction or interruption, or withdrawal of treatment.”

The most common grade ≥ 3 treatment emergent adverse event was a decrease in neutrophil count, seen in 24.7% of gilteritinib patients and 7.9% of those given placebo, followed by reduced platelet count, in 15.2% and 5.6%, respectively, and anemia, in 6.2% and 1.7%, respectively.

Turning to the efficacy outcomes, Dr. Levis reported that the trial did not meet its primary endpoint, with no significant difference in RFS between the gilteritinib and placebo arms, at a hazard ratio of 0.679 (P = .0518). There was also no significant difference in the key secondary objective of overall survival, at a hazard ratio of 0.846 (P = .4394).

However, Dr. Levis noted that there was a “clear difference in the benefit of gilteritinib by region,” and, “at every level,” MRD predicted a benefit from gilteritinib, which he said was a “big surprise” and “really leapt out in the subgroup analysis.”

He explained that the researchers used a modified version of a two-step assay that has been used in previous studies, and was able to detect MRD at a sensitivity of approximately 1x10^-6. “In our study, 98% of participants had samples pre- and post-[transplant].”

Regardless of treatment arm, MRD positivity measured at that sensitivity was associated with a significant reduction in overall survival, at a hazard ratio versus MRD– status of 0.514 (P = .0025).

When stratifying the patients by MRD status, the researchers found that, among MRD+ participants, gilteritinib was associated with a significant improvement in RFS, at a hazard ratio versus placebo of 0.515 (P = .0065), while there was no significant difference in MRD– patients.

Stratifying the patients by their conditioning regimen prior to HCT also revealed differences, with those undergoing myeloablative conditioning having significantly greater overall survival than those who underwent reduced-intensity conditioning, at a hazard ratio for death of 0.529 (P = .0027).

Dr. Levis said there is “no surprise there,” and the result could reflect the selection of fitter, younger patients to undergo the more intensive regimen.

He then showed that MRD+ patients who had undergone myeloablative conditioning had better overall survival with gilteritinib than placebo, at a hazard ratio for death of 0.418 (P = .0087). Again, the difference disappeared when looking at MRD– patients.

“So conditioning doesn’t help you in the setting of MRD,” Dr. Levis said.

Finally, he took a deeper dive into the regional differences in outcomes, noting that patients in the Asia/Pacific region, where gilteritinib showed no benefit over placebo, “were 10 years younger” than those in other regions, “tended to get myeloablative conditioning, and hardly ever used FLT3 inhibitors.”

In contrast, North American patients, who experienced a significant gilteritinib benefit in terms of RFS, underwent HCT an average of 26 days earlier than those elsewhere, and received fewer courses of chemotherapy pre-HCT. Moreover, 93.5% received an FLT3 inhibitor pretransplant.

The study was funded by Astellas Pharma Global Development. Dr. Levis declares relationships with Abbvie, Amgen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Jazz, Menarini, Pfizer, Sumitomo-Dainippon, Syndax, Takeda. Dr. Brunstein declares no relevant relationships.
 

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) – even those who have multiple comorbidities – experience long-term progression-free survival (PFS) benefits with 1 year of venetoclax plus obinutuzumab versus a chemotherapy-based regimen, a 6-year follow-up analysis from CLL14 showed. The research was presented June 9 at the annual meeting of the European Hematology Association.

Initial results from the trial were shown at the EHA 2019 annual meeting and reported at the time by this news organization.

They revealed that, among more than 430 CLL patients with a median age of over 70 years and multiple comorbidities, the combination of venetoclax, a B-cell lymphoma 2 protein blocker, plus obinutuzumab, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, was associated with a 65% improvement in PFS, compared with chlorambucil, a chemotherapy agent, plus obinutuzumab.

On the strength of these findings, the venetoclax-obinutuzumab combination received Food and Drug Administration approval for previously untreated CLL and small lymphocytic lymphoma in March 2019.

The latest analysis, presented by Othman Al-Sawaf, MD, University Hospital of Cologne (Germany), showed that despite having just 12 cycles of treatment, patients treated with venetoclax-obinutuzumab continued to experience a significant PFS benefit over those given the chemotherapy-based regimen, including in high-risk patients, after more than 6 years of follow-up.

Dr. Al-Sawaf noted that more than 50% of patients given the experimental combination remained without a PFS event at the latest follow-up, and that over 60% had not required a second treatment, equating to a 66% reduction in the likelihood of needing a second treatment versus chlorambucil-obinutuzumab.

Dr. Al-Sawaf said at a press conference that, “clinically, the standard of care for any CLL if it is asymptomatic” is watch and wait, which is “true in the frontline setting, but also in the relapse setting.”

Therefore, these patients “do not need to initiate the next line of treatment, and that’s why time to next treatment is so interesting.”

He added that there also were no new safety signals, with adverse event rates dropping markedly once treatment was over, although there was a suggestion of an increase in second malignancies with venetoclax-obinutuzumab.

“We’ve seen, in many studies now that use fixed-duration approaches, that there is virtually no posttreatment toxicity once patients are able to get off treatment,” Dr. Al-Sawaf said, adding: “This really highlights the benefit” of stopping treatment, “which is a clear advantage compared to having any kind of continuous treatment.”

Approached for comment, William G. Wierda, MD, PhD, professor, department of leukemia, division of cancer medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, emphasized the value of the 6-year follow-up of the study, adding that these are “very impressive data.”

He told this news organization that, in terms of the ongoing PFS improvement, “we wouldn’t expect anything otherwise” with venetoclax-obinutuzumab when compared with the chemotherapy-based regimen, but that the trend for an improvement in overall survival is of particular interest.

This “is a notable feature of the update,” Dr. Wierda said, and “we will continue to watch the long-term overall survival curves with a longer follow-up,” especially as the separation of the curves between the two regimens is “more prominent” than in previous analyses of CLL14.

He also pointed to the low incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events in patients who are in remission, which “support the use of fixed-duration chemo-free” treatments, and the longer follow-up now allowing the contribution of high-risk features to outcomes to be teased out in multivariate analysis.

“The data that we’re looking for in the next update of this is some indication about improved outcomes between patients with a mutated and unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain gene [IgHV], in regard to undetectable MRD [minimal residual disease] status,” Dr. Wierda said.

“We know that mutational status correlates with progression free survival,” he explained. “What we would like to see moving forward is how that is associated with undetectable MRD status at the end of treatment.”

Dr. Wierda said that the next hotly anticipated trial in the field is CLL17, which is comparing ibrutinib monotherapy to fixed-duration venetoclax-obinutuzumab to fixed-duration ibrutinib-venetoclax in patients with previously untreated CLL.

“That’s the next question: Is there any advantage of a BTK [Bruton’s tyrosine kinase] inhibitor with venetoclax over venetoclax plus the CD20 antibody?”

Dr. Al-Sawaf, in presenting the latest analysis, reminded the audience that CLL14 was a randomized phase 3 study focusing on patients with previously untreated CLL and coexisting conditions who were randomized to either venetoclax-obinutuzumab for six cycles, followed by six cycles of venetoclax, or chlorambucil-obinutuzumab for six cycles, followed by chlorambucil for six cycles.

The patients, who were enrolled between 2015 and 2016, were required to have a Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) score > 6 and/or creatinine clearance < 70 mL/min, which Dr. Al-Sawaf explained serves as “indicator of the unfitness of the patients.”

A total of 432 patients took part in the study. The median age across the two treatment groups was 71-72 years, and the median total CIRS score was 8-9. The majority of patients (79%-80%) had Binet stage B or C CLL. An intermediate tumor lysis syndrome risk was identified in 64%-68%.

“We also had a fair share of patients with high-risk disease,” Dr. Al-Sawaf noted, with approximately 60% having an unmutated IGHV status, and 12% having a TP53 mutation, both of which are associated with a poorer prognosis.

He added that the “aim of these long-term observations that we try to do every year is not so much to do the comparisons to chlorambucil-obinutuzumab, which we appreciate is not necessarily a standard of care anymore,” but rather to understand the safety and effectiveness of venetoclax-obinutuzumab “in the long run, given that all patients are off treatment.”

Beginning with the safety data, Dr. Al-Sawaf showed that rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events plummeted after the treatment period, with rates of neutropenia falling from 51.9% with venetoclax-obinutuzumab and 47.2% with chlorambucil-obinutuzumab during treatment to 3.8% and 1.9%, respectively, post treatment.

Similarly, rates of thrombocytopenia decreased from 14.2% on treatment to 0.5% off treatment in patients given venetoclax-obinutuzumab, and from 15.0% to 0.0% in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group.

One note of caution was sounded over the proportion of patients with at least one second primary malignancy following treatment, which was numerically higher with venetoclax-obinutuzumab, at 14.2% versus 8.4% with the chemotherapy-based regimen.

“But this is a rather a heterogeneous pattern of solid organ tumors and melanoma,” Dr. Al-Sawaf said, referring to the additional malignancies in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm. These included lung cancer, prostate cancer and breast cancer.

He said, however, there was no “specific pattern that we can really pinpoint ... and, importantly, the difference is not statistically significant.”

Turning to the efficacy outcomes, Dr. Al-Sawaf showed that, after median follow-up of 76.4 months, the separation in PFS between the two treatment arms continued, with the median PFS 76.2 months with venetoclax-obinutuzumab versus 36.4 months with chlorambucil-obinutuzumab, at a hazard ratio 0.40 (P < .0001).

The 6-year PFS rate in patients treated with venetoclax-obinutuzumab was 53.1% versus 21.7% with the chemotherapy-based regimen. Looking at the high-risk groups, Dr. Al-Sawaf reported that there was a similar pattern of benefit with venetoclax-obinutuzumab.

Among patients with a TP53 mutation, the median PFS was 51.9 months with the combination versus 20.8 months in those given chlorambucil-obinutuzumab, while the corresponding durations in patients with unmutated IGHV were 64.8 months and 26.9 months, respectively.

Multivariate analysis demonstrated that IGHV status was an independent predictor of PFS in patients treated with venetoclax-obinutuzumab, as was the presence of a TP53 mutation, and lymph node size ≥ 5 cm.

There was no significant difference in overall survival between the two treatment groups, although there was a numerical difference in 6-year overall survival rates, at 78.7% with the experimental combination versus 69.2% with chlorambucil-obinutuzumab.

Patients with a minimal residual disease (MRD) count ≥ 10-4 had a shorter overall survival than did those with MRD < 10-4.

“We are currently working up to understand which group of patients experiences these tremendous long term remissions,” Dr. Al-Sawaf said, “and we will keep you posted on this.”

He also showed that the time to next treatment (TTNT), defined as time to death or next anti-leukemic treatment, was significantly longer with venetoclax-obinutuzumab, with the median not reached before the current data lock versus 52.9 months with the chemotherapy-based regimen.

This equated to a hazard ratio in favor of the experimental combination of 0.44 (P < .0001), and a 6-year TTNT rate of 65.2% versus 37.1% for chlorambucil-obinutuzumab.

That second treatment was a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor in 59.0% of cases in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm and 53.4% in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group.

Dr. Al-Sawaf noted, however, that 23.1% and 30.1%, respectively, of patients were given a chemotherapy or chemo-immunotherapy regimen, “which we nowadays would not necessarily consider a standard of care.”

“This ultimately reflects, as in many global clinical studies, the disparities that we still have across the world in terms of access to state-of-the-art therapies.”

The study was sponsored by Hoffmann–La Roche, and conducted in collaboration with AbbVie, and the German CLL Study Group. Dr. Al-Sawaf disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Adaptive, Ascentage, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, and Roche.

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) – even those who have multiple comorbidities – experience long-term progression-free survival (PFS) benefits with 1 year of venetoclax plus obinutuzumab versus a chemotherapy-based regimen, a 6-year follow-up analysis from CLL14 showed. The research was presented June 9 at the annual meeting of the European Hematology Association.

Initial results from the trial were shown at the EHA 2019 annual meeting and reported at the time by this news organization.

They revealed that, among more than 430 CLL patients with a median age of over 70 years and multiple comorbidities, the combination of venetoclax, a B-cell lymphoma 2 protein blocker, plus obinutuzumab, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, was associated with a 65% improvement in PFS, compared with chlorambucil, a chemotherapy agent, plus obinutuzumab.

On the strength of these findings, the venetoclax-obinutuzumab combination received Food and Drug Administration approval for previously untreated CLL and small lymphocytic lymphoma in March 2019.

The latest analysis, presented by Othman Al-Sawaf, MD, University Hospital of Cologne (Germany), showed that despite having just 12 cycles of treatment, patients treated with venetoclax-obinutuzumab continued to experience a significant PFS benefit over those given the chemotherapy-based regimen, including in high-risk patients, after more than 6 years of follow-up.

Dr. Al-Sawaf noted that more than 50% of patients given the experimental combination remained without a PFS event at the latest follow-up, and that over 60% had not required a second treatment, equating to a 66% reduction in the likelihood of needing a second treatment versus chlorambucil-obinutuzumab.

Dr. Al-Sawaf said at a press conference that, “clinically, the standard of care for any CLL if it is asymptomatic” is watch and wait, which is “true in the frontline setting, but also in the relapse setting.”

Therefore, these patients “do not need to initiate the next line of treatment, and that’s why time to next treatment is so interesting.”

He added that there also were no new safety signals, with adverse event rates dropping markedly once treatment was over, although there was a suggestion of an increase in second malignancies with venetoclax-obinutuzumab.

“We’ve seen, in many studies now that use fixed-duration approaches, that there is virtually no posttreatment toxicity once patients are able to get off treatment,” Dr. Al-Sawaf said, adding: “This really highlights the benefit” of stopping treatment, “which is a clear advantage compared to having any kind of continuous treatment.”

Approached for comment, William G. Wierda, MD, PhD, professor, department of leukemia, division of cancer medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, emphasized the value of the 6-year follow-up of the study, adding that these are “very impressive data.”

He told this news organization that, in terms of the ongoing PFS improvement, “we wouldn’t expect anything otherwise” with venetoclax-obinutuzumab when compared with the chemotherapy-based regimen, but that the trend for an improvement in overall survival is of particular interest.

This “is a notable feature of the update,” Dr. Wierda said, and “we will continue to watch the long-term overall survival curves with a longer follow-up,” especially as the separation of the curves between the two regimens is “more prominent” than in previous analyses of CLL14.

He also pointed to the low incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events in patients who are in remission, which “support the use of fixed-duration chemo-free” treatments, and the longer follow-up now allowing the contribution of high-risk features to outcomes to be teased out in multivariate analysis.

“The data that we’re looking for in the next update of this is some indication about improved outcomes between patients with a mutated and unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain gene [IgHV], in regard to undetectable MRD [minimal residual disease] status,” Dr. Wierda said.

“We know that mutational status correlates with progression free survival,” he explained. “What we would like to see moving forward is how that is associated with undetectable MRD status at the end of treatment.”

Dr. Wierda said that the next hotly anticipated trial in the field is CLL17, which is comparing ibrutinib monotherapy to fixed-duration venetoclax-obinutuzumab to fixed-duration ibrutinib-venetoclax in patients with previously untreated CLL.

“That’s the next question: Is there any advantage of a BTK [Bruton’s tyrosine kinase] inhibitor with venetoclax over venetoclax plus the CD20 antibody?”

Dr. Al-Sawaf, in presenting the latest analysis, reminded the audience that CLL14 was a randomized phase 3 study focusing on patients with previously untreated CLL and coexisting conditions who were randomized to either venetoclax-obinutuzumab for six cycles, followed by six cycles of venetoclax, or chlorambucil-obinutuzumab for six cycles, followed by chlorambucil for six cycles.

The patients, who were enrolled between 2015 and 2016, were required to have a Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) score > 6 and/or creatinine clearance < 70 mL/min, which Dr. Al-Sawaf explained serves as “indicator of the unfitness of the patients.”

A total of 432 patients took part in the study. The median age across the two treatment groups was 71-72 years, and the median total CIRS score was 8-9. The majority of patients (79%-80%) had Binet stage B or C CLL. An intermediate tumor lysis syndrome risk was identified in 64%-68%.

“We also had a fair share of patients with high-risk disease,” Dr. Al-Sawaf noted, with approximately 60% having an unmutated IGHV status, and 12% having a TP53 mutation, both of which are associated with a poorer prognosis.

He added that the “aim of these long-term observations that we try to do every year is not so much to do the comparisons to chlorambucil-obinutuzumab, which we appreciate is not necessarily a standard of care anymore,” but rather to understand the safety and effectiveness of venetoclax-obinutuzumab “in the long run, given that all patients are off treatment.”

Beginning with the safety data, Dr. Al-Sawaf showed that rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events plummeted after the treatment period, with rates of neutropenia falling from 51.9% with venetoclax-obinutuzumab and 47.2% with chlorambucil-obinutuzumab during treatment to 3.8% and 1.9%, respectively, post treatment.

Similarly, rates of thrombocytopenia decreased from 14.2% on treatment to 0.5% off treatment in patients given venetoclax-obinutuzumab, and from 15.0% to 0.0% in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group.

One note of caution was sounded over the proportion of patients with at least one second primary malignancy following treatment, which was numerically higher with venetoclax-obinutuzumab, at 14.2% versus 8.4% with the chemotherapy-based regimen.

“But this is a rather a heterogeneous pattern of solid organ tumors and melanoma,” Dr. Al-Sawaf said, referring to the additional malignancies in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm. These included lung cancer, prostate cancer and breast cancer.

He said, however, there was no “specific pattern that we can really pinpoint ... and, importantly, the difference is not statistically significant.”

Turning to the efficacy outcomes, Dr. Al-Sawaf showed that, after median follow-up of 76.4 months, the separation in PFS between the two treatment arms continued, with the median PFS 76.2 months with venetoclax-obinutuzumab versus 36.4 months with chlorambucil-obinutuzumab, at a hazard ratio 0.40 (P < .0001).

The 6-year PFS rate in patients treated with venetoclax-obinutuzumab was 53.1% versus 21.7% with the chemotherapy-based regimen. Looking at the high-risk groups, Dr. Al-Sawaf reported that there was a similar pattern of benefit with venetoclax-obinutuzumab.

Among patients with a TP53 mutation, the median PFS was 51.9 months with the combination versus 20.8 months in those given chlorambucil-obinutuzumab, while the corresponding durations in patients with unmutated IGHV were 64.8 months and 26.9 months, respectively.

Multivariate analysis demonstrated that IGHV status was an independent predictor of PFS in patients treated with venetoclax-obinutuzumab, as was the presence of a TP53 mutation, and lymph node size ≥ 5 cm.

There was no significant difference in overall survival between the two treatment groups, although there was a numerical difference in 6-year overall survival rates, at 78.7% with the experimental combination versus 69.2% with chlorambucil-obinutuzumab.

Patients with a minimal residual disease (MRD) count ≥ 10-4 had a shorter overall survival than did those with MRD < 10-4.

“We are currently working up to understand which group of patients experiences these tremendous long term remissions,” Dr. Al-Sawaf said, “and we will keep you posted on this.”

He also showed that the time to next treatment (TTNT), defined as time to death or next anti-leukemic treatment, was significantly longer with venetoclax-obinutuzumab, with the median not reached before the current data lock versus 52.9 months with the chemotherapy-based regimen.

This equated to a hazard ratio in favor of the experimental combination of 0.44 (P < .0001), and a 6-year TTNT rate of 65.2% versus 37.1% for chlorambucil-obinutuzumab.

That second treatment was a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor in 59.0% of cases in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm and 53.4% in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group.

Dr. Al-Sawaf noted, however, that 23.1% and 30.1%, respectively, of patients were given a chemotherapy or chemo-immunotherapy regimen, “which we nowadays would not necessarily consider a standard of care.”

“This ultimately reflects, as in many global clinical studies, the disparities that we still have across the world in terms of access to state-of-the-art therapies.”

The study was sponsored by Hoffmann–La Roche, and conducted in collaboration with AbbVie, and the German CLL Study Group. Dr. Al-Sawaf disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Adaptive, Ascentage, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, and Roche.

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) – even those who have multiple comorbidities – experience long-term progression-free survival (PFS) benefits with 1 year of venetoclax plus obinutuzumab versus a chemotherapy-based regimen, a 6-year follow-up analysis from CLL14 showed. The research was presented June 9 at the annual meeting of the European Hematology Association.

Initial results from the trial were shown at the EHA 2019 annual meeting and reported at the time by this news organization.

They revealed that, among more than 430 CLL patients with a median age of over 70 years and multiple comorbidities, the combination of venetoclax, a B-cell lymphoma 2 protein blocker, plus obinutuzumab, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, was associated with a 65% improvement in PFS, compared with chlorambucil, a chemotherapy agent, plus obinutuzumab.

On the strength of these findings, the venetoclax-obinutuzumab combination received Food and Drug Administration approval for previously untreated CLL and small lymphocytic lymphoma in March 2019.

The latest analysis, presented by Othman Al-Sawaf, MD, University Hospital of Cologne (Germany), showed that despite having just 12 cycles of treatment, patients treated with venetoclax-obinutuzumab continued to experience a significant PFS benefit over those given the chemotherapy-based regimen, including in high-risk patients, after more than 6 years of follow-up.

Dr. Al-Sawaf noted that more than 50% of patients given the experimental combination remained without a PFS event at the latest follow-up, and that over 60% had not required a second treatment, equating to a 66% reduction in the likelihood of needing a second treatment versus chlorambucil-obinutuzumab.

Dr. Al-Sawaf said at a press conference that, “clinically, the standard of care for any CLL if it is asymptomatic” is watch and wait, which is “true in the frontline setting, but also in the relapse setting.”

Therefore, these patients “do not need to initiate the next line of treatment, and that’s why time to next treatment is so interesting.”

He added that there also were no new safety signals, with adverse event rates dropping markedly once treatment was over, although there was a suggestion of an increase in second malignancies with venetoclax-obinutuzumab.

“We’ve seen, in many studies now that use fixed-duration approaches, that there is virtually no posttreatment toxicity once patients are able to get off treatment,” Dr. Al-Sawaf said, adding: “This really highlights the benefit” of stopping treatment, “which is a clear advantage compared to having any kind of continuous treatment.”

Approached for comment, William G. Wierda, MD, PhD, professor, department of leukemia, division of cancer medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, emphasized the value of the 6-year follow-up of the study, adding that these are “very impressive data.”

He told this news organization that, in terms of the ongoing PFS improvement, “we wouldn’t expect anything otherwise” with venetoclax-obinutuzumab when compared with the chemotherapy-based regimen, but that the trend for an improvement in overall survival is of particular interest.

This “is a notable feature of the update,” Dr. Wierda said, and “we will continue to watch the long-term overall survival curves with a longer follow-up,” especially as the separation of the curves between the two regimens is “more prominent” than in previous analyses of CLL14.

He also pointed to the low incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events in patients who are in remission, which “support the use of fixed-duration chemo-free” treatments, and the longer follow-up now allowing the contribution of high-risk features to outcomes to be teased out in multivariate analysis.

“The data that we’re looking for in the next update of this is some indication about improved outcomes between patients with a mutated and unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain gene [IgHV], in regard to undetectable MRD [minimal residual disease] status,” Dr. Wierda said.

“We know that mutational status correlates with progression free survival,” he explained. “What we would like to see moving forward is how that is associated with undetectable MRD status at the end of treatment.”

Dr. Wierda said that the next hotly anticipated trial in the field is CLL17, which is comparing ibrutinib monotherapy to fixed-duration venetoclax-obinutuzumab to fixed-duration ibrutinib-venetoclax in patients with previously untreated CLL.

“That’s the next question: Is there any advantage of a BTK [Bruton’s tyrosine kinase] inhibitor with venetoclax over venetoclax plus the CD20 antibody?”

Dr. Al-Sawaf, in presenting the latest analysis, reminded the audience that CLL14 was a randomized phase 3 study focusing on patients with previously untreated CLL and coexisting conditions who were randomized to either venetoclax-obinutuzumab for six cycles, followed by six cycles of venetoclax, or chlorambucil-obinutuzumab for six cycles, followed by chlorambucil for six cycles.

The patients, who were enrolled between 2015 and 2016, were required to have a Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) score > 6 and/or creatinine clearance < 70 mL/min, which Dr. Al-Sawaf explained serves as “indicator of the unfitness of the patients.”

A total of 432 patients took part in the study. The median age across the two treatment groups was 71-72 years, and the median total CIRS score was 8-9. The majority of patients (79%-80%) had Binet stage B or C CLL. An intermediate tumor lysis syndrome risk was identified in 64%-68%.

“We also had a fair share of patients with high-risk disease,” Dr. Al-Sawaf noted, with approximately 60% having an unmutated IGHV status, and 12% having a TP53 mutation, both of which are associated with a poorer prognosis.

He added that the “aim of these long-term observations that we try to do every year is not so much to do the comparisons to chlorambucil-obinutuzumab, which we appreciate is not necessarily a standard of care anymore,” but rather to understand the safety and effectiveness of venetoclax-obinutuzumab “in the long run, given that all patients are off treatment.”

Beginning with the safety data, Dr. Al-Sawaf showed that rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events plummeted after the treatment period, with rates of neutropenia falling from 51.9% with venetoclax-obinutuzumab and 47.2% with chlorambucil-obinutuzumab during treatment to 3.8% and 1.9%, respectively, post treatment.

Similarly, rates of thrombocytopenia decreased from 14.2% on treatment to 0.5% off treatment in patients given venetoclax-obinutuzumab, and from 15.0% to 0.0% in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group.

One note of caution was sounded over the proportion of patients with at least one second primary malignancy following treatment, which was numerically higher with venetoclax-obinutuzumab, at 14.2% versus 8.4% with the chemotherapy-based regimen.

“But this is a rather a heterogeneous pattern of solid organ tumors and melanoma,” Dr. Al-Sawaf said, referring to the additional malignancies in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm. These included lung cancer, prostate cancer and breast cancer.

He said, however, there was no “specific pattern that we can really pinpoint ... and, importantly, the difference is not statistically significant.”

Turning to the efficacy outcomes, Dr. Al-Sawaf showed that, after median follow-up of 76.4 months, the separation in PFS between the two treatment arms continued, with the median PFS 76.2 months with venetoclax-obinutuzumab versus 36.4 months with chlorambucil-obinutuzumab, at a hazard ratio 0.40 (P < .0001).

The 6-year PFS rate in patients treated with venetoclax-obinutuzumab was 53.1% versus 21.7% with the chemotherapy-based regimen. Looking at the high-risk groups, Dr. Al-Sawaf reported that there was a similar pattern of benefit with venetoclax-obinutuzumab.

Among patients with a TP53 mutation, the median PFS was 51.9 months with the combination versus 20.8 months in those given chlorambucil-obinutuzumab, while the corresponding durations in patients with unmutated IGHV were 64.8 months and 26.9 months, respectively.

Multivariate analysis demonstrated that IGHV status was an independent predictor of PFS in patients treated with venetoclax-obinutuzumab, as was the presence of a TP53 mutation, and lymph node size ≥ 5 cm.

There was no significant difference in overall survival between the two treatment groups, although there was a numerical difference in 6-year overall survival rates, at 78.7% with the experimental combination versus 69.2% with chlorambucil-obinutuzumab.

Patients with a minimal residual disease (MRD) count ≥ 10-4 had a shorter overall survival than did those with MRD < 10-4.

“We are currently working up to understand which group of patients experiences these tremendous long term remissions,” Dr. Al-Sawaf said, “and we will keep you posted on this.”

He also showed that the time to next treatment (TTNT), defined as time to death or next anti-leukemic treatment, was significantly longer with venetoclax-obinutuzumab, with the median not reached before the current data lock versus 52.9 months with the chemotherapy-based regimen.

This equated to a hazard ratio in favor of the experimental combination of 0.44 (P < .0001), and a 6-year TTNT rate of 65.2% versus 37.1% for chlorambucil-obinutuzumab.

That second treatment was a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor in 59.0% of cases in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm and 53.4% in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group.

Dr. Al-Sawaf noted, however, that 23.1% and 30.1%, respectively, of patients were given a chemotherapy or chemo-immunotherapy regimen, “which we nowadays would not necessarily consider a standard of care.”

“This ultimately reflects, as in many global clinical studies, the disparities that we still have across the world in terms of access to state-of-the-art therapies.”

The study was sponsored by Hoffmann–La Roche, and conducted in collaboration with AbbVie, and the German CLL Study Group. Dr. Al-Sawaf disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Adaptive, Ascentage, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, and Roche.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval for glofitamab (Columvi) for use in certain types of lymphoma.

The indication is for use in adult patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) not otherwise specified or with LBCL arising from follicular lymphoma who have received two or more lines of systemic therapy.

The product is a T cell–engaging bispecific antibody developed by Genentech, which has a similar product, mosunetuzumab-axgb (Lunsumio), for the treatment of follicular lymphoma. Lunsumio was approved in December 2022.

These drugs could be considered a first choice in the setting of third-line therapy, suggests an expert writing recently in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Nancy Bartlett, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University in St. Louis, is the author of an editorial that accompanied the publication of results with glofitamab in the pivotal trial that led to its approval.

“Bispecific agents will be an excellent option for the 60% of patients in whom second-line CAR [chimeric antigen receptor] T-cell therapy fails,” she wrote in her editorial.

Dr. Bartlett suggests that these agents may be preferred over CAR T cells. “If longer follow-up confirms that the majority of complete remissions with bispecific agents are durable, on the basis of the advantages of availability (including in the community setting) and more favorable immediate and late toxic-effect profiles, bispecific agents could be considered as the initial choice. ... CAR T-cell therapy could be held in reserve for patients who do not have a complete response or who have a relapse after a complete response.”
 

Most common form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma

DLBCL is the most common form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in the United States, the company noted in a press release. While many people with DLBCL are responsive to treatment, the majority of those who experience relapse or whose condition is refractory to subsequent treatments have poor outcomes.

“Patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma may experience rapid progression of their cancer and often urgently need an effective treatment option that can be administered without delay,” commented Krish Patel, MD, director of the lymphoma program at the Swedish Cancer Institute in Seattle, who is an investigator on the clinical trial that led to the product’s approval. He said that the results from trials suggest that glofitamab gives patients “a chance for complete remission with a fixed-duration immunotherapy and that such remissions can potentially be sustained after the end of their treatment.”

The accelerated approval is based on response rate and durability of response results from the phase 1/2 NP30179 study.

Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial.

This trial involved 132 patients with DLBCL who experienced relapse or whose condition was refractory to prior therapies. About one-third of patients (30%) had received prior CAR T-cell therapy. Additionally, for 83% of patients, the condition was refractory to their most recent therapy.

Glofitamab was given to all patients as a fixed course for 8.5 months.

More than half (56%) achieved an overall response, and 43% achieved a complete response. Over two-thirds (68.5%) of those who responded continued to respond for at least 9 months The median duration of response was 1.5 years.

The most common adverse events were cytokine release syndrome (CRS; 70%), which may be serious or life-threatening; musculoskeletal pain (21%); fatigue (20%); and rash (20%). CRS was generally of low grade (52% of patients experienced grade 1 CRS, and 14% experienced grade 2).

Results from the NP30179 trial were published in December 2022.

The complete response rates seen with glofitamab rivals the durable complete response that has been observed with CAR T-cell therapy, Dr. Bartlett noted in the accompanying editorial. “Although these results are promising, it is still too early to estimate the curative potential of glofitamab.”

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval for glofitamab (Columvi) for use in certain types of lymphoma.

The indication is for use in adult patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) not otherwise specified or with LBCL arising from follicular lymphoma who have received two or more lines of systemic therapy.

The product is a T cell–engaging bispecific antibody developed by Genentech, which has a similar product, mosunetuzumab-axgb (Lunsumio), for the treatment of follicular lymphoma. Lunsumio was approved in December 2022.

These drugs could be considered a first choice in the setting of third-line therapy, suggests an expert writing recently in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Nancy Bartlett, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University in St. Louis, is the author of an editorial that accompanied the publication of results with glofitamab in the pivotal trial that led to its approval.

“Bispecific agents will be an excellent option for the 60% of patients in whom second-line CAR [chimeric antigen receptor] T-cell therapy fails,” she wrote in her editorial.

Dr. Bartlett suggests that these agents may be preferred over CAR T cells. “If longer follow-up confirms that the majority of complete remissions with bispecific agents are durable, on the basis of the advantages of availability (including in the community setting) and more favorable immediate and late toxic-effect profiles, bispecific agents could be considered as the initial choice. ... CAR T-cell therapy could be held in reserve for patients who do not have a complete response or who have a relapse after a complete response.”
 

Most common form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma

DLBCL is the most common form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in the United States, the company noted in a press release. While many people with DLBCL are responsive to treatment, the majority of those who experience relapse or whose condition is refractory to subsequent treatments have poor outcomes.

“Patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma may experience rapid progression of their cancer and often urgently need an effective treatment option that can be administered without delay,” commented Krish Patel, MD, director of the lymphoma program at the Swedish Cancer Institute in Seattle, who is an investigator on the clinical trial that led to the product’s approval. He said that the results from trials suggest that glofitamab gives patients “a chance for complete remission with a fixed-duration immunotherapy and that such remissions can potentially be sustained after the end of their treatment.”

The accelerated approval is based on response rate and durability of response results from the phase 1/2 NP30179 study.

Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial.

This trial involved 132 patients with DLBCL who experienced relapse or whose condition was refractory to prior therapies. About one-third of patients (30%) had received prior CAR T-cell therapy. Additionally, for 83% of patients, the condition was refractory to their most recent therapy.

Glofitamab was given to all patients as a fixed course for 8.5 months.

More than half (56%) achieved an overall response, and 43% achieved a complete response. Over two-thirds (68.5%) of those who responded continued to respond for at least 9 months The median duration of response was 1.5 years.

The most common adverse events were cytokine release syndrome (CRS; 70%), which may be serious or life-threatening; musculoskeletal pain (21%); fatigue (20%); and rash (20%). CRS was generally of low grade (52% of patients experienced grade 1 CRS, and 14% experienced grade 2).

Results from the NP30179 trial were published in December 2022.

The complete response rates seen with glofitamab rivals the durable complete response that has been observed with CAR T-cell therapy, Dr. Bartlett noted in the accompanying editorial. “Although these results are promising, it is still too early to estimate the curative potential of glofitamab.”

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval for glofitamab (Columvi) for use in certain types of lymphoma.

The indication is for use in adult patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) not otherwise specified or with LBCL arising from follicular lymphoma who have received two or more lines of systemic therapy.

The product is a T cell–engaging bispecific antibody developed by Genentech, which has a similar product, mosunetuzumab-axgb (Lunsumio), for the treatment of follicular lymphoma. Lunsumio was approved in December 2022.

These drugs could be considered a first choice in the setting of third-line therapy, suggests an expert writing recently in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Nancy Bartlett, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University in St. Louis, is the author of an editorial that accompanied the publication of results with glofitamab in the pivotal trial that led to its approval.

“Bispecific agents will be an excellent option for the 60% of patients in whom second-line CAR [chimeric antigen receptor] T-cell therapy fails,” she wrote in her editorial.

Dr. Bartlett suggests that these agents may be preferred over CAR T cells. “If longer follow-up confirms that the majority of complete remissions with bispecific agents are durable, on the basis of the advantages of availability (including in the community setting) and more favorable immediate and late toxic-effect profiles, bispecific agents could be considered as the initial choice. ... CAR T-cell therapy could be held in reserve for patients who do not have a complete response or who have a relapse after a complete response.”
 

Most common form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma

DLBCL is the most common form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in the United States, the company noted in a press release. While many people with DLBCL are responsive to treatment, the majority of those who experience relapse or whose condition is refractory to subsequent treatments have poor outcomes.

“Patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma may experience rapid progression of their cancer and often urgently need an effective treatment option that can be administered without delay,” commented Krish Patel, MD, director of the lymphoma program at the Swedish Cancer Institute in Seattle, who is an investigator on the clinical trial that led to the product’s approval. He said that the results from trials suggest that glofitamab gives patients “a chance for complete remission with a fixed-duration immunotherapy and that such remissions can potentially be sustained after the end of their treatment.”

The accelerated approval is based on response rate and durability of response results from the phase 1/2 NP30179 study.

Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial.

This trial involved 132 patients with DLBCL who experienced relapse or whose condition was refractory to prior therapies. About one-third of patients (30%) had received prior CAR T-cell therapy. Additionally, for 83% of patients, the condition was refractory to their most recent therapy.

Glofitamab was given to all patients as a fixed course for 8.5 months.

More than half (56%) achieved an overall response, and 43% achieved a complete response. Over two-thirds (68.5%) of those who responded continued to respond for at least 9 months The median duration of response was 1.5 years.

The most common adverse events were cytokine release syndrome (CRS; 70%), which may be serious or life-threatening; musculoskeletal pain (21%); fatigue (20%); and rash (20%). CRS was generally of low grade (52% of patients experienced grade 1 CRS, and 14% experienced grade 2).

Results from the NP30179 trial were published in December 2022.

The complete response rates seen with glofitamab rivals the durable complete response that has been observed with CAR T-cell therapy, Dr. Bartlett noted in the accompanying editorial. “Although these results are promising, it is still too early to estimate the curative potential of glofitamab.”

High-risk genetic features do not diminish the response to first-line, fixed-dose ibrutinib (Imbruvica) plus venetoclax (Venclexta) for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), according to the latest report from AbbVie’s CAPTIVATE trial.

In the new analysis, published in Clinical Cancer Research, investigators compared outcomes in 66 adults without genetic risk factors to 129 with deletion of 17p, mutated TP53, and/or unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain, all of which are associated with poor outcomes and poor responses to chemoimmunotherapy.

Over 95% of patients responded regardless of risk factors, with complete response in 61% of patients with and 53% of subjects without high-risk features. Progression free-survival (PFS) lasted at least 3 years in 88% of the high-risk group and 92% of low-risk patients, with over 95% of patients in both groups alive at 3 years

“Since high-risk genetic features inform treatment selection, understanding the efficacy of fixed-duration ibrutinib plus venetoclax in patients with high-risk CLL is important to determine how this regimen fits in the first-line treatment algorithm for the disease,” hematologic oncologist John Allan, MD, a CLL specialist at Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York and the lead investigator, said in a press release from American Association for Cancer Research, publisher of CCR.

Although the analysis was not powered to perform statistical comparisons between the two groups, Dr. Allan said the results “support fixed-duration ibrutinib plus venetoclax as a treatment approach for this patient population.”

The press release also noted that the outcomes “compare favorably” to other upfront targeted therapy approaches for CLL.
 

Experts respond

Asked for comment, Thomas LeBlanc, MD, a hematologic oncologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C., said “the advent of some fixed duration regimens with novel therapies has been an exciting thing for patients especially, recognizing that at the start of treatment one already knows the completion date, and one can also thus forgo much of the potentially cumulative physical, psychological, and financial toxicity of an indefinite oral therapy.”

As for the new findings, he said they show “that even in this high-risk population ... we can achieve remarkable remission rates and levels of [minimal residual disease] negativity by combining the two best drug classes to date in CLL: BTK inhibitors and venetoclax.”

Another expert, hematologic oncologist John Byrd, MD, a leukemia specialist at the University of Cincinnati, was more cautious.

“These findings confirm the results of many other prior studies of targeted therapies where high complete response rates with absence of detectable disease is observed,” he said.

However, while “such therapeutic combinations for sure enable treatment discontinuation,” Dr. Byrd noted, they “lack long-term follow-up. Given the added toxicities associated with these combinations and lack of long-term follow up, use of treatments such as those brought forth in the CAPTIVATE trial should be considered only in the context of a well-designed clinical trial.”
 

Study details

The new findings follow previous reports of CAPTIVATE, which found strong first-line response across CLL patients but did not focus as specifically on patients with high-risk genetic features.

Subjects received three 28-day cycles of ibrutinib 420 mg/day followed by twelve 28-day cycles of ibrutinib plus venetoclax, with a 5-week venetoclax ramp-up to 400 mg/day.

Side effects were similar regardless of high-risk features and included, most commonly, diarrhea, neutropenia, nausea, and arthralgia. The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia in 36% of patients in both groups and hypertension in 9% of patients with and 3% of patients without high-risk features.

The study was funded by Pharmacyclics/AbbVie, maker/marketer of both ibrutinib and venetoclax. Investigators had numerous ties to the companies, including Dr. Allan, who reported grants and/or personal fees. Dr. LeBlanc reported speaker/consulting honoraria from AbbVie as well as institutional research funding. Dr. Byrd did not have any connections to the companies.

High-risk genetic features do not diminish the response to first-line, fixed-dose ibrutinib (Imbruvica) plus venetoclax (Venclexta) for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), according to the latest report from AbbVie’s CAPTIVATE trial.

In the new analysis, published in Clinical Cancer Research, investigators compared outcomes in 66 adults without genetic risk factors to 129 with deletion of 17p, mutated TP53, and/or unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain, all of which are associated with poor outcomes and poor responses to chemoimmunotherapy.

Over 95% of patients responded regardless of risk factors, with complete response in 61% of patients with and 53% of subjects without high-risk features. Progression free-survival (PFS) lasted at least 3 years in 88% of the high-risk group and 92% of low-risk patients, with over 95% of patients in both groups alive at 3 years

“Since high-risk genetic features inform treatment selection, understanding the efficacy of fixed-duration ibrutinib plus venetoclax in patients with high-risk CLL is important to determine how this regimen fits in the first-line treatment algorithm for the disease,” hematologic oncologist John Allan, MD, a CLL specialist at Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York and the lead investigator, said in a press release from American Association for Cancer Research, publisher of CCR.

Although the analysis was not powered to perform statistical comparisons between the two groups, Dr. Allan said the results “support fixed-duration ibrutinib plus venetoclax as a treatment approach for this patient population.”

The press release also noted that the outcomes “compare favorably” to other upfront targeted therapy approaches for CLL.
 

Experts respond

Asked for comment, Thomas LeBlanc, MD, a hematologic oncologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C., said “the advent of some fixed duration regimens with novel therapies has been an exciting thing for patients especially, recognizing that at the start of treatment one already knows the completion date, and one can also thus forgo much of the potentially cumulative physical, psychological, and financial toxicity of an indefinite oral therapy.”

As for the new findings, he said they show “that even in this high-risk population ... we can achieve remarkable remission rates and levels of [minimal residual disease] negativity by combining the two best drug classes to date in CLL: BTK inhibitors and venetoclax.”

Another expert, hematologic oncologist John Byrd, MD, a leukemia specialist at the University of Cincinnati, was more cautious.

“These findings confirm the results of many other prior studies of targeted therapies where high complete response rates with absence of detectable disease is observed,” he said.

However, while “such therapeutic combinations for sure enable treatment discontinuation,” Dr. Byrd noted, they “lack long-term follow-up. Given the added toxicities associated with these combinations and lack of long-term follow up, use of treatments such as those brought forth in the CAPTIVATE trial should be considered only in the context of a well-designed clinical trial.”
 

Study details

The new findings follow previous reports of CAPTIVATE, which found strong first-line response across CLL patients but did not focus as specifically on patients with high-risk genetic features.

Subjects received three 28-day cycles of ibrutinib 420 mg/day followed by twelve 28-day cycles of ibrutinib plus venetoclax, with a 5-week venetoclax ramp-up to 400 mg/day.

Side effects were similar regardless of high-risk features and included, most commonly, diarrhea, neutropenia, nausea, and arthralgia. The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia in 36% of patients in both groups and hypertension in 9% of patients with and 3% of patients without high-risk features.

The study was funded by Pharmacyclics/AbbVie, maker/marketer of both ibrutinib and venetoclax. Investigators had numerous ties to the companies, including Dr. Allan, who reported grants and/or personal fees. Dr. LeBlanc reported speaker/consulting honoraria from AbbVie as well as institutional research funding. Dr. Byrd did not have any connections to the companies.

High-risk genetic features do not diminish the response to first-line, fixed-dose ibrutinib (Imbruvica) plus venetoclax (Venclexta) for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), according to the latest report from AbbVie’s CAPTIVATE trial.

In the new analysis, published in Clinical Cancer Research, investigators compared outcomes in 66 adults without genetic risk factors to 129 with deletion of 17p, mutated TP53, and/or unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain, all of which are associated with poor outcomes and poor responses to chemoimmunotherapy.

Over 95% of patients responded regardless of risk factors, with complete response in 61% of patients with and 53% of subjects without high-risk features. Progression free-survival (PFS) lasted at least 3 years in 88% of the high-risk group and 92% of low-risk patients, with over 95% of patients in both groups alive at 3 years

“Since high-risk genetic features inform treatment selection, understanding the efficacy of fixed-duration ibrutinib plus venetoclax in patients with high-risk CLL is important to determine how this regimen fits in the first-line treatment algorithm for the disease,” hematologic oncologist John Allan, MD, a CLL specialist at Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York and the lead investigator, said in a press release from American Association for Cancer Research, publisher of CCR.

Although the analysis was not powered to perform statistical comparisons between the two groups, Dr. Allan said the results “support fixed-duration ibrutinib plus venetoclax as a treatment approach for this patient population.”

The press release also noted that the outcomes “compare favorably” to other upfront targeted therapy approaches for CLL.
 

Experts respond

Asked for comment, Thomas LeBlanc, MD, a hematologic oncologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C., said “the advent of some fixed duration regimens with novel therapies has been an exciting thing for patients especially, recognizing that at the start of treatment one already knows the completion date, and one can also thus forgo much of the potentially cumulative physical, psychological, and financial toxicity of an indefinite oral therapy.”

As for the new findings, he said they show “that even in this high-risk population ... we can achieve remarkable remission rates and levels of [minimal residual disease] negativity by combining the two best drug classes to date in CLL: BTK inhibitors and venetoclax.”

Another expert, hematologic oncologist John Byrd, MD, a leukemia specialist at the University of Cincinnati, was more cautious.

“These findings confirm the results of many other prior studies of targeted therapies where high complete response rates with absence of detectable disease is observed,” he said.

However, while “such therapeutic combinations for sure enable treatment discontinuation,” Dr. Byrd noted, they “lack long-term follow-up. Given the added toxicities associated with these combinations and lack of long-term follow up, use of treatments such as those brought forth in the CAPTIVATE trial should be considered only in the context of a well-designed clinical trial.”
 

Study details

The new findings follow previous reports of CAPTIVATE, which found strong first-line response across CLL patients but did not focus as specifically on patients with high-risk genetic features.

Subjects received three 28-day cycles of ibrutinib 420 mg/day followed by twelve 28-day cycles of ibrutinib plus venetoclax, with a 5-week venetoclax ramp-up to 400 mg/day.

Side effects were similar regardless of high-risk features and included, most commonly, diarrhea, neutropenia, nausea, and arthralgia. The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia in 36% of patients in both groups and hypertension in 9% of patients with and 3% of patients without high-risk features.

The study was funded by Pharmacyclics/AbbVie, maker/marketer of both ibrutinib and venetoclax. Investigators had numerous ties to the companies, including Dr. Allan, who reported grants and/or personal fees. Dr. LeBlanc reported speaker/consulting honoraria from AbbVie as well as institutional research funding. Dr. Byrd did not have any connections to the companies.

Shortages of carboplatin and cisplatin have become widespread among major cancer centers, according to a survey released this week from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

The survey, which included responses from 27 NCCN member institutions, revealed that 93% are experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and that 70% have reported a shortage of cisplatin.

“This is an unacceptable situation,” Robert W. Carlson, MD, NCCN’s chief executive offer, said in the statement released by the network.

“We are hearing from oncologists and pharmacists across the country who have to scramble to find appropriate alternatives for treating their patients with cancer right now,” Dr. Carlson said. And while the survey results show patients are still able to get lifesaving care, “it comes at a burden to our overtaxed medical facilities.”

The NCCN called on the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers to take steps to “help mitigate any impacts” from this cancer drug shortage.

“We need to work together to improve the current situation and prevent it from happening again in the future,” Dr. Carlson stressed.

Carboplatin and cisplatin, which are frequently used together for systemic treatment, are highly effective therapies prescribed to treat many cancer types, including lung, breast, and prostate cancers, as well as leukemias and lymphomas. An estimated 500,000 new patients with cancer receive these agents each year.

The current survey, conducted over the last week of May, found that 100% of responding centers are able to continue to treat patients who need cisplatin without delays.

The same cannot be said for carboplatin: only 64% of centers said they are still able to continue treating all current patients receiving the platinum-based therapy. Among 19 responding centers, 20% reported that they were continuing carboplatin regimens for some but not all patients. And 16% reported treatment delays from having to obtain prior authorization for modified treatment plans, though none reported denials.

“Carboplatin has been in short supply for months but in the last 4 weeks has reached a critical stage,” according to one survey comment. “Without additional inventory many of our sites will be out of drug by early next week.”

In response to the survey question, “Is your center experiencing a shortage of carboplatin,” others made similar comments:

• “Current shipments from established manufacturers have been paused.”
• “The supply of carboplatin available is not meeting our demands.”
• “Without additional supply in early June, we will have to implement several shortage mitigation strategies.”

Survey respondents also addressed whether manufacturers or suppliers have provided any indication of when these drugs will become readily available again. For both drugs, about 60% of respondents said no. And for those who do receive updates, many noted that the “information is tentative and variable.”

Respondents indicated that other cancer agents, including methotrexate (67%) and 5FU (26%), are also in short supply at their centers.

The shortage and the uncertainty as to when it will end are forcing some centers to develop conservation and mitigation strategies.

The NCCN has broadly outlined how the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers can help with prevention and mitigation. The NCCN has called on the federal government and the pharmaceutical industry to work to secure a steady supply of core anticancer drugs and has asked payers to “put patients first and provide flexible and efficient systems of providing coverage for alternative therapies replacing anti-cancer drugs that are unavailable or in shortage.”

Overall, the survey results “demonstrate the widespread impact of the chemotherapy shortage,” said Alyssa Schatz, MSW, senior director of policy and advocacy for NCCN. “We hope that by sharing this survey and calling for united action across the oncology community, we can come together to prevent future drug shortages and ensure quality, effective, equitable, and accessible cancer care for all.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Shortages of carboplatin and cisplatin have become widespread among major cancer centers, according to a survey released this week from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

The survey, which included responses from 27 NCCN member institutions, revealed that 93% are experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and that 70% have reported a shortage of cisplatin.

“This is an unacceptable situation,” Robert W. Carlson, MD, NCCN’s chief executive offer, said in the statement released by the network.

“We are hearing from oncologists and pharmacists across the country who have to scramble to find appropriate alternatives for treating their patients with cancer right now,” Dr. Carlson said. And while the survey results show patients are still able to get lifesaving care, “it comes at a burden to our overtaxed medical facilities.”

The NCCN called on the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers to take steps to “help mitigate any impacts” from this cancer drug shortage.

“We need to work together to improve the current situation and prevent it from happening again in the future,” Dr. Carlson stressed.

Carboplatin and cisplatin, which are frequently used together for systemic treatment, are highly effective therapies prescribed to treat many cancer types, including lung, breast, and prostate cancers, as well as leukemias and lymphomas. An estimated 500,000 new patients with cancer receive these agents each year.

The current survey, conducted over the last week of May, found that 100% of responding centers are able to continue to treat patients who need cisplatin without delays.

The same cannot be said for carboplatin: only 64% of centers said they are still able to continue treating all current patients receiving the platinum-based therapy. Among 19 responding centers, 20% reported that they were continuing carboplatin regimens for some but not all patients. And 16% reported treatment delays from having to obtain prior authorization for modified treatment plans, though none reported denials.

“Carboplatin has been in short supply for months but in the last 4 weeks has reached a critical stage,” according to one survey comment. “Without additional inventory many of our sites will be out of drug by early next week.”

In response to the survey question, “Is your center experiencing a shortage of carboplatin,” others made similar comments:

• “Current shipments from established manufacturers have been paused.”
• “The supply of carboplatin available is not meeting our demands.”
• “Without additional supply in early June, we will have to implement several shortage mitigation strategies.”

Survey respondents also addressed whether manufacturers or suppliers have provided any indication of when these drugs will become readily available again. For both drugs, about 60% of respondents said no. And for those who do receive updates, many noted that the “information is tentative and variable.”

Respondents indicated that other cancer agents, including methotrexate (67%) and 5FU (26%), are also in short supply at their centers.

The shortage and the uncertainty as to when it will end are forcing some centers to develop conservation and mitigation strategies.

The NCCN has broadly outlined how the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers can help with prevention and mitigation. The NCCN has called on the federal government and the pharmaceutical industry to work to secure a steady supply of core anticancer drugs and has asked payers to “put patients first and provide flexible and efficient systems of providing coverage for alternative therapies replacing anti-cancer drugs that are unavailable or in shortage.”

Overall, the survey results “demonstrate the widespread impact of the chemotherapy shortage,” said Alyssa Schatz, MSW, senior director of policy and advocacy for NCCN. “We hope that by sharing this survey and calling for united action across the oncology community, we can come together to prevent future drug shortages and ensure quality, effective, equitable, and accessible cancer care for all.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Shortages of carboplatin and cisplatin have become widespread among major cancer centers, according to a survey released this week from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

The survey, which included responses from 27 NCCN member institutions, revealed that 93% are experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and that 70% have reported a shortage of cisplatin.

“This is an unacceptable situation,” Robert W. Carlson, MD, NCCN’s chief executive offer, said in the statement released by the network.

“We are hearing from oncologists and pharmacists across the country who have to scramble to find appropriate alternatives for treating their patients with cancer right now,” Dr. Carlson said. And while the survey results show patients are still able to get lifesaving care, “it comes at a burden to our overtaxed medical facilities.”

The NCCN called on the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers to take steps to “help mitigate any impacts” from this cancer drug shortage.

“We need to work together to improve the current situation and prevent it from happening again in the future,” Dr. Carlson stressed.

Carboplatin and cisplatin, which are frequently used together for systemic treatment, are highly effective therapies prescribed to treat many cancer types, including lung, breast, and prostate cancers, as well as leukemias and lymphomas. An estimated 500,000 new patients with cancer receive these agents each year.

The current survey, conducted over the last week of May, found that 100% of responding centers are able to continue to treat patients who need cisplatin without delays.

The same cannot be said for carboplatin: only 64% of centers said they are still able to continue treating all current patients receiving the platinum-based therapy. Among 19 responding centers, 20% reported that they were continuing carboplatin regimens for some but not all patients. And 16% reported treatment delays from having to obtain prior authorization for modified treatment plans, though none reported denials.

“Carboplatin has been in short supply for months but in the last 4 weeks has reached a critical stage,” according to one survey comment. “Without additional inventory many of our sites will be out of drug by early next week.”

In response to the survey question, “Is your center experiencing a shortage of carboplatin,” others made similar comments:

• “Current shipments from established manufacturers have been paused.”
• “The supply of carboplatin available is not meeting our demands.”
• “Without additional supply in early June, we will have to implement several shortage mitigation strategies.”

Survey respondents also addressed whether manufacturers or suppliers have provided any indication of when these drugs will become readily available again. For both drugs, about 60% of respondents said no. And for those who do receive updates, many noted that the “information is tentative and variable.”

Respondents indicated that other cancer agents, including methotrexate (67%) and 5FU (26%), are also in short supply at their centers.

The shortage and the uncertainty as to when it will end are forcing some centers to develop conservation and mitigation strategies.

The NCCN has broadly outlined how the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers can help with prevention and mitigation. The NCCN has called on the federal government and the pharmaceutical industry to work to secure a steady supply of core anticancer drugs and has asked payers to “put patients first and provide flexible and efficient systems of providing coverage for alternative therapies replacing anti-cancer drugs that are unavailable or in shortage.”

Overall, the survey results “demonstrate the widespread impact of the chemotherapy shortage,” said Alyssa Schatz, MSW, senior director of policy and advocacy for NCCN. “We hope that by sharing this survey and calling for united action across the oncology community, we can come together to prevent future drug shortages and ensure quality, effective, equitable, and accessible cancer care for all.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel, Bristol-Myers Squibb), showed efficacy in achieving complete responses among patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (r/r CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), after treatment with a Bruton kinase inhibitor (BTKi) and BCL2 inhibitor.

The phase 1/2 TRANSCEND CLL 004 trial represents “the first pivotal multicenter trial to evaluate a CAR T-cell therapy in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma,” first author Tanya Siddiqi, MD, associate professor in the division of lymphoma, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., said in a press statement in connection with her presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The durable complete responses observed with liso-cel in the TRANSCEND CLL 004 trial are remarkable and represent a major step in bringing a personalized, T cell–based treatment approach delivered as a one-time infusion into clinical practice for a complex and historically incurable disease,” she said.

Real-world evidence shows that patients with CLL or SLL who have relapsed or are refractory to treatment with BTKi therapy can have progressively worse outcomes. Moreover, with few other treatment options, research shows that the median time from dual discontinuation of BTKi and venetoclax to subsequent treatment failure or death is just 5.6 months.

“We are seeing a subset of patients now who are progressing on BTK inhibitors and venetoclax, and there is a high, unmet medical need for new, more effective treatments in this patient population,” Dr. Siddiqi said.

With liso-cel showing efficacy in the treatment of large B-cell lymphoma and receiving approval from the Food and Drug Administration for the indication, the multicenter TRANSCEND CLL 004 trial was launched to investigate the therapy’s effects in r/r CLL/SLL.

In a safety set of 117 patients with r/r CLL or SLL who received at least two prior lines of therapy, including a BTKi, patients received a single target dose of either 50 (n=9) or 100 × 106 (n = 87) CAR-positive T cells.

The primary efficacy analysis set included 49 patients who were treated with the target dose of 100 x 10⁶ CAR-positive viable T cells of liso-cel.

With a median on-study follow-up of 21.1 months, the primary endpoint of a complete response (CR) and complete response was achieved among 18.4% (n = 9; P = .0006).

Among patients achieving a complete response, no disease progression or deaths were reported, with a median duration of response that was not reached.

The undetectable minimal residual disease (MRD) rate was 63.3% in blood and 59.2% in bone marrow, which was associated with progression-free survival.

The overall response rate was 42.9%, which was not statistically significant, and the median duration of an objective response was 35.3 months (95% confidence interval, 11.01 to not reached).

The median time to first response was 1.2 months, and the median time to first complete response was 3.0 months.

The results were consistent in the broader safety set of 117 patients, including those who were heavily pretreated with a median of five prior lines of therapy (range, 2-12) and high-risk disease, with a CR rate of 18.4%.

In terms of safety, no new safety signals were observed, and the treatment’s safety profile was manageable, the authors noted.

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS), common with CAR T-cell therapy, occurred in 85% of patients; however, most cases were low grade; 9% of cases were grade 3, and there were no grade 4 or 5 cases.

Neurologic events occurred among 45%, including grade 3 in 17.9% and grade 4 in 0.9%, with no cases of grade 5.

For treatment of the CRS, 69.2% of patients received tocilizumab and/or corticosteroids for the cases of CRS and neurological events.

Of 51 deaths that occurred while on the study, 43 occurred following liso-cel infusion, including 5 caused by treatment-emergent adverse events occurring within 90 days of liso-cel infusion.

One death was determined to be related to liso-cel, involving macrophage activation syndrome–hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis.

“The safety profile was manageable, with low rates of grade 3 or higher CRS and neurotoxicity,” Dr. Siddiqi said.

She noted that, as encouraging as the results are, work should continue regarding further improving survival for patients.

“We need to look at this population more closely to see how we can make it even better for them,” she said in her talk.

For instance, “do we need to add maintenance, or do we need to do something else with CAR T therapy? Because one shot of CAR T is buying them a lot of time – 6 or 12 months of progression-free survival, but maybe we can make it even better.”

Dr. Siddiqi noted that she has “a lot of patients” who received CAR T-cell therapy who have not progressed or relapsed after as long as 4 years.

“I also have some patients who did relapse at 3 or 3 and 1/2 years, but everybody is so thankful for having that time of several years without any treatment; without the need for continuous therapy or continuous doctors’ visits. It is actually priceless,” she said.
 

Largest data set to date

Commenting on the study, Jakub Svoboda, MD, agreed that the findings suggest an important role of liso-cel among the growing numbers of patients who progress despite standard therapies.

“This is an important study and the [results] are very relevant as there is a growing population of patients with CLL/SLL who stopped responding to both BTKi and venetoclax and have limited options,” Dr. Svoboda, a medical oncologist at Penn Medicine, and associate professor of medicine at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia, said in an interview.

“Many of my CLL/SLL patients benefited from BTK inhibitors and venetoclax for years, but it is clear that these are not curative agents, and ultimately our patients need other effective therapeutic options,” he said. “We have seen reports of smaller single-site studies with different anti-CD19 CAR T-cell products used in CLL/SLL in the past, but this multisite study using liso-cel represents the largest data set in over 100 patients with median follow-up of 21 months.”

Liso-cel, like other CAR T-cell treatments – which are derived from patients’ own cells that are then reengineered and delivered via a one-time infusion – has a 4-1BB costimulatory domain. This has the effect of enhancing the expansion and persistence of the CAR T cells.

Significantly, the study establishes that CAR T-cell manufacturing in CLL/SLL patients is feasible on a large scale, “which is important, considering the unique T-lymphocyte biology in CLL/SLL,” Dr. Svoboda remarked.

In terms of efficacy, “I have been mostly impressed by the high degree of undetectable minimal residual disease and the duration of response in the cohort of patients who previously failed both BTKi and venetoclax,” he added. “While there are a few agents used or being developed for patients failing both BTKi and venetoclax, it appears that CAR T-cell therapy has the unique potential to achieve long-term remissions in a subset of these patients.”

Discussant Carolyn Owen, MD, an associate professor in the division of hematology and hematological malignancies, University of Calgary (Alta.), and hematologist at the Tom Baker Cancer Centre, also in Calgary, also expressed enthusiasm over the encouraging results.

“The results of this study are very exciting,” she said during her discussion in the session.

“What is really important is that, even though this may be a small proportion of all of the patients, if we start offering this therapy a little bit earlier, and don’t wait for people to become completely refractory, we could increase the proportion of patients who are [not relapsing].”

Furthermore, “what’s most groundbreaking about this study is that patients could indeed have a really durable remission,” Dr. Owen added. “Hopefully not relapsing even beyond this 20-month follow up, which we haven’t seen with any of our other therapies.”

The results were also published in The Lancet.

The study was sponsored by Juno Therapeutics. Dr. Siddiqi disclosed relationships with Acerta Pharma, Ascentage Pharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Sanofi, Celgene, Juno Therapeutics, Kite, Oncternal Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, and TG Therapeutics. Dr. Svoboda reported ties with Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Owen disclosed relationships with Janssen, AstraZeneca, Roche Canada, AbbVie, Novartis Canada Pharmaceuticals, BeiGene, Merck, Incyte, and Seagen.

The CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel, Bristol-Myers Squibb), showed efficacy in achieving complete responses among patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (r/r CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), after treatment with a Bruton kinase inhibitor (BTKi) and BCL2 inhibitor.

The phase 1/2 TRANSCEND CLL 004 trial represents “the first pivotal multicenter trial to evaluate a CAR T-cell therapy in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma,” first author Tanya Siddiqi, MD, associate professor in the division of lymphoma, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., said in a press statement in connection with her presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The durable complete responses observed with liso-cel in the TRANSCEND CLL 004 trial are remarkable and represent a major step in bringing a personalized, T cell–based treatment approach delivered as a one-time infusion into clinical practice for a complex and historically incurable disease,” she said.

Real-world evidence shows that patients with CLL or SLL who have relapsed or are refractory to treatment with BTKi therapy can have progressively worse outcomes. Moreover, with few other treatment options, research shows that the median time from dual discontinuation of BTKi and venetoclax to subsequent treatment failure or death is just 5.6 months.

“We are seeing a subset of patients now who are progressing on BTK inhibitors and venetoclax, and there is a high, unmet medical need for new, more effective treatments in this patient population,” Dr. Siddiqi said.

With liso-cel showing efficacy in the treatment of large B-cell lymphoma and receiving approval from the Food and Drug Administration for the indication, the multicenter TRANSCEND CLL 004 trial was launched to investigate the therapy’s effects in r/r CLL/SLL.

In a safety set of 117 patients with r/r CLL or SLL who received at least two prior lines of therapy, including a BTKi, patients received a single target dose of either 50 (n=9) or 100 × 106 (n = 87) CAR-positive T cells.

The primary efficacy analysis set included 49 patients who were treated with the target dose of 100 x 10⁶ CAR-positive viable T cells of liso-cel.

With a median on-study follow-up of 21.1 months, the primary endpoint of a complete response (CR) and complete response was achieved among 18.4% (n = 9; P = .0006).

Among patients achieving a complete response, no disease progression or deaths were reported, with a median duration of response that was not reached.

The undetectable minimal residual disease (MRD) rate was 63.3% in blood and 59.2% in bone marrow, which was associated with progression-free survival.

The overall response rate was 42.9%, which was not statistically significant, and the median duration of an objective response was 35.3 months (95% confidence interval, 11.01 to not reached).

The median time to first response was 1.2 months, and the median time to first complete response was 3.0 months.

The results were consistent in the broader safety set of 117 patients, including those who were heavily pretreated with a median of five prior lines of therapy (range, 2-12) and high-risk disease, with a CR rate of 18.4%.

In terms of safety, no new safety signals were observed, and the treatment’s safety profile was manageable, the authors noted.

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS), common with CAR T-cell therapy, occurred in 85% of patients; however, most cases were low grade; 9% of cases were grade 3, and there were no grade 4 or 5 cases.

Neurologic events occurred among 45%, including grade 3 in 17.9% and grade 4 in 0.9%, with no cases of grade 5.

For treatment of the CRS, 69.2% of patients received tocilizumab and/or corticosteroids for the cases of CRS and neurological events.

Of 51 deaths that occurred while on the study, 43 occurred following liso-cel infusion, including 5 caused by treatment-emergent adverse events occurring within 90 days of liso-cel infusion.

One death was determined to be related to liso-cel, involving macrophage activation syndrome–hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis.

“The safety profile was manageable, with low rates of grade 3 or higher CRS and neurotoxicity,” Dr. Siddiqi said.

She noted that, as encouraging as the results are, work should continue regarding further improving survival for patients.

“We need to look at this population more closely to see how we can make it even better for them,” she said in her talk.

For instance, “do we need to add maintenance, or do we need to do something else with CAR T therapy? Because one shot of CAR T is buying them a lot of time – 6 or 12 months of progression-free survival, but maybe we can make it even better.”

Dr. Siddiqi noted that she has “a lot of patients” who received CAR T-cell therapy who have not progressed or relapsed after as long as 4 years.

“I also have some patients who did relapse at 3 or 3 and 1/2 years, but everybody is so thankful for having that time of several years without any treatment; without the need for continuous therapy or continuous doctors’ visits. It is actually priceless,” she said.
 

Largest data set to date

Commenting on the study, Jakub Svoboda, MD, agreed that the findings suggest an important role of liso-cel among the growing numbers of patients who progress despite standard therapies.

“This is an important study and the [results] are very relevant as there is a growing population of patients with CLL/SLL who stopped responding to both BTKi and venetoclax and have limited options,” Dr. Svoboda, a medical oncologist at Penn Medicine, and associate professor of medicine at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia, said in an interview.

“Many of my CLL/SLL patients benefited from BTK inhibitors and venetoclax for years, but it is clear that these are not curative agents, and ultimately our patients need other effective therapeutic options,” he said. “We have seen reports of smaller single-site studies with different anti-CD19 CAR T-cell products used in CLL/SLL in the past, but this multisite study using liso-cel represents the largest data set in over 100 patients with median follow-up of 21 months.”

Liso-cel, like other CAR T-cell treatments – which are derived from patients’ own cells that are then reengineered and delivered via a one-time infusion – has a 4-1BB costimulatory domain. This has the effect of enhancing the expansion and persistence of the CAR T cells.

Significantly, the study establishes that CAR T-cell manufacturing in CLL/SLL patients is feasible on a large scale, “which is important, considering the unique T-lymphocyte biology in CLL/SLL,” Dr. Svoboda remarked.

In terms of efficacy, “I have been mostly impressed by the high degree of undetectable minimal residual disease and the duration of response in the cohort of patients who previously failed both BTKi and venetoclax,” he added. “While there are a few agents used or being developed for patients failing both BTKi and venetoclax, it appears that CAR T-cell therapy has the unique potential to achieve long-term remissions in a subset of these patients.”

Discussant Carolyn Owen, MD, an associate professor in the division of hematology and hematological malignancies, University of Calgary (Alta.), and hematologist at the Tom Baker Cancer Centre, also in Calgary, also expressed enthusiasm over the encouraging results.

“The results of this study are very exciting,” she said during her discussion in the session.

“What is really important is that, even though this may be a small proportion of all of the patients, if we start offering this therapy a little bit earlier, and don’t wait for people to become completely refractory, we could increase the proportion of patients who are [not relapsing].”

Furthermore, “what’s most groundbreaking about this study is that patients could indeed have a really durable remission,” Dr. Owen added. “Hopefully not relapsing even beyond this 20-month follow up, which we haven’t seen with any of our other therapies.”

The results were also published in The Lancet.

The study was sponsored by Juno Therapeutics. Dr. Siddiqi disclosed relationships with Acerta Pharma, Ascentage Pharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Sanofi, Celgene, Juno Therapeutics, Kite, Oncternal Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, and TG Therapeutics. Dr. Svoboda reported ties with Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Owen disclosed relationships with Janssen, AstraZeneca, Roche Canada, AbbVie, Novartis Canada Pharmaceuticals, BeiGene, Merck, Incyte, and Seagen.

The CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel, Bristol-Myers Squibb), showed efficacy in achieving complete responses among patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (r/r CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), after treatment with a Bruton kinase inhibitor (BTKi) and BCL2 inhibitor.

The phase 1/2 TRANSCEND CLL 004 trial represents “the first pivotal multicenter trial to evaluate a CAR T-cell therapy in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma,” first author Tanya Siddiqi, MD, associate professor in the division of lymphoma, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., said in a press statement in connection with her presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The durable complete responses observed with liso-cel in the TRANSCEND CLL 004 trial are remarkable and represent a major step in bringing a personalized, T cell–based treatment approach delivered as a one-time infusion into clinical practice for a complex and historically incurable disease,” she said.

Real-world evidence shows that patients with CLL or SLL who have relapsed or are refractory to treatment with BTKi therapy can have progressively worse outcomes. Moreover, with few other treatment options, research shows that the median time from dual discontinuation of BTKi and venetoclax to subsequent treatment failure or death is just 5.6 months.

“We are seeing a subset of patients now who are progressing on BTK inhibitors and venetoclax, and there is a high, unmet medical need for new, more effective treatments in this patient population,” Dr. Siddiqi said.

With liso-cel showing efficacy in the treatment of large B-cell lymphoma and receiving approval from the Food and Drug Administration for the indication, the multicenter TRANSCEND CLL 004 trial was launched to investigate the therapy’s effects in r/r CLL/SLL.

In a safety set of 117 patients with r/r CLL or SLL who received at least two prior lines of therapy, including a BTKi, patients received a single target dose of either 50 (n=9) or 100 × 106 (n = 87) CAR-positive T cells.

The primary efficacy analysis set included 49 patients who were treated with the target dose of 100 x 10⁶ CAR-positive viable T cells of liso-cel.

With a median on-study follow-up of 21.1 months, the primary endpoint of a complete response (CR) and complete response was achieved among 18.4% (n = 9; P = .0006).

Among patients achieving a complete response, no disease progression or deaths were reported, with a median duration of response that was not reached.

The undetectable minimal residual disease (MRD) rate was 63.3% in blood and 59.2% in bone marrow, which was associated with progression-free survival.

The overall response rate was 42.9%, which was not statistically significant, and the median duration of an objective response was 35.3 months (95% confidence interval, 11.01 to not reached).

The median time to first response was 1.2 months, and the median time to first complete response was 3.0 months.

The results were consistent in the broader safety set of 117 patients, including those who were heavily pretreated with a median of five prior lines of therapy (range, 2-12) and high-risk disease, with a CR rate of 18.4%.

In terms of safety, no new safety signals were observed, and the treatment’s safety profile was manageable, the authors noted.

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS), common with CAR T-cell therapy, occurred in 85% of patients; however, most cases were low grade; 9% of cases were grade 3, and there were no grade 4 or 5 cases.

Neurologic events occurred among 45%, including grade 3 in 17.9% and grade 4 in 0.9%, with no cases of grade 5.

For treatment of the CRS, 69.2% of patients received tocilizumab and/or corticosteroids for the cases of CRS and neurological events.

Of 51 deaths that occurred while on the study, 43 occurred following liso-cel infusion, including 5 caused by treatment-emergent adverse events occurring within 90 days of liso-cel infusion.

One death was determined to be related to liso-cel, involving macrophage activation syndrome–hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis.

“The safety profile was manageable, with low rates of grade 3 or higher CRS and neurotoxicity,” Dr. Siddiqi said.

She noted that, as encouraging as the results are, work should continue regarding further improving survival for patients.

“We need to look at this population more closely to see how we can make it even better for them,” she said in her talk.

For instance, “do we need to add maintenance, or do we need to do something else with CAR T therapy? Because one shot of CAR T is buying them a lot of time – 6 or 12 months of progression-free survival, but maybe we can make it even better.”

Dr. Siddiqi noted that she has “a lot of patients” who received CAR T-cell therapy who have not progressed or relapsed after as long as 4 years.

“I also have some patients who did relapse at 3 or 3 and 1/2 years, but everybody is so thankful for having that time of several years without any treatment; without the need for continuous therapy or continuous doctors’ visits. It is actually priceless,” she said.
 

Largest data set to date

Commenting on the study, Jakub Svoboda, MD, agreed that the findings suggest an important role of liso-cel among the growing numbers of patients who progress despite standard therapies.

“This is an important study and the [results] are very relevant as there is a growing population of patients with CLL/SLL who stopped responding to both BTKi and venetoclax and have limited options,” Dr. Svoboda, a medical oncologist at Penn Medicine, and associate professor of medicine at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia, said in an interview.

“Many of my CLL/SLL patients benefited from BTK inhibitors and venetoclax for years, but it is clear that these are not curative agents, and ultimately our patients need other effective therapeutic options,” he said. “We have seen reports of smaller single-site studies with different anti-CD19 CAR T-cell products used in CLL/SLL in the past, but this multisite study using liso-cel represents the largest data set in over 100 patients with median follow-up of 21 months.”

Liso-cel, like other CAR T-cell treatments – which are derived from patients’ own cells that are then reengineered and delivered via a one-time infusion – has a 4-1BB costimulatory domain. This has the effect of enhancing the expansion and persistence of the CAR T cells.

Significantly, the study establishes that CAR T-cell manufacturing in CLL/SLL patients is feasible on a large scale, “which is important, considering the unique T-lymphocyte biology in CLL/SLL,” Dr. Svoboda remarked.

In terms of efficacy, “I have been mostly impressed by the high degree of undetectable minimal residual disease and the duration of response in the cohort of patients who previously failed both BTKi and venetoclax,” he added. “While there are a few agents used or being developed for patients failing both BTKi and venetoclax, it appears that CAR T-cell therapy has the unique potential to achieve long-term remissions in a subset of these patients.”

Discussant Carolyn Owen, MD, an associate professor in the division of hematology and hematological malignancies, University of Calgary (Alta.), and hematologist at the Tom Baker Cancer Centre, also in Calgary, also expressed enthusiasm over the encouraging results.

“The results of this study are very exciting,” she said during her discussion in the session.

“What is really important is that, even though this may be a small proportion of all of the patients, if we start offering this therapy a little bit earlier, and don’t wait for people to become completely refractory, we could increase the proportion of patients who are [not relapsing].”

Furthermore, “what’s most groundbreaking about this study is that patients could indeed have a really durable remission,” Dr. Owen added. “Hopefully not relapsing even beyond this 20-month follow up, which we haven’t seen with any of our other therapies.”

The results were also published in The Lancet.

The study was sponsored by Juno Therapeutics. Dr. Siddiqi disclosed relationships with Acerta Pharma, Ascentage Pharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Sanofi, Celgene, Juno Therapeutics, Kite, Oncternal Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, and TG Therapeutics. Dr. Svoboda reported ties with Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Owen disclosed relationships with Janssen, AstraZeneca, Roche Canada, AbbVie, Novartis Canada Pharmaceuticals, BeiGene, Merck, Incyte, and Seagen.