The presence of TP53 aberrations ( TP53ab) and/or unmutated IGHV genes (U-CLL) helps select initial treatment for CLL patients (Hallek 2018 & Walewska 2022). However, many other biomarkers identified ...in recent years have failed to impact clinical decisions due to their coexistence with poor-risk indicators and uncertainty in their predictive abilities, often without suitable validation in long-term Phase II/III trials with comprehensive molecular analysis. We evaluated the clinical significance of two biomarkers, DNA methylation-based epitype (DME) and telomere length (TL), in (immuno-)chemotherapy clinical trials using samples from UKCLL4 (n=304) and ARCTIC/ADMIRE (ARC/ADM) (n=215). To our knowledge, DME and TL have not been assessed in a single study. Therefore, we utilized previously published DME (Wojdacz, 2019) and TL data (Strefford, 2015 & Norris, 2019), supplemented with new MMQ-PCR data (n=60). TL cut-offs of short (TL-S, <2.92kb), intermediate (TL-I, 2.92-3.57kb), and long (TL-L, >3.57kb) and DME classifications of n-CLL (naive B-cell-like), i-CLL (intermediate B-cell-like) and m-CLL (memory B-cell-like) were employed. 73% of m-CLL and 50% of n-CLL patients harboured TL-L and TL-S, respectively (p<0.001, Figure 1). Additionally, n-CLL and TL-S were associated with poor-risk indicators, such as TP53ab and del(11q) (p<0.05, Figure 1). We then assessed the impact of 10 clinico-biological features, including DME, TL, age and treatment arm, on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in CLL4 and ARC/ADM cohorts using univariate analysis (UA). The n-CLL group exhibited the shortest PFS and OS in the ARC/ADM cohort (PFS hazard ratio (HR):4.47, 95% confidence interval (CI):2.56-7.82 & OS HR:3.95, CI:1.66-9.35, p<0.01), greater than the presence of TP53ab (PFS HR:4.39, CI:2.69-7.17 & OS HR:3.77, CI:1.94-7.33, p<0.001). In CLL4, whilst TP53ab was the strongest predictor of PFS and OS (PFS HR:3.61, CI:2.39-5.44 & OS HR: 3.66, CI:2.4-5.57, p<0.001), both n-CLL (PFS HR:1.96, CI:1.32-2.9 & OS HR:2.8, CI:1.81-4.34, p<0.001) and TL-S (PFS HR:2.36, CI:1.7-3.29 & OS HR:2.66, CI:1.87-3.76, p<0.001) were in the top five predictors of PFS and OS along with U-CLL and biallelic ATM inactivation ( biATM). Next, we performed Kaplan-Meier subgroup analysis, investigating DME in TL subgroups and vice versa. Examination of both biomarkers in the opposing subgroups in the ARC/ADM cohort, showed that TL could further stratify the i-CLL subgroup, with TL-L predicting longer PFS (median:6.12 years) compared to TL-S (HR:5.78, CI:2.34-14.33, median:3.8 years, p<0.001) or TL-I (HR:3.29, CI:1.4-7.76, median:4.35 years, p<0.01). As this pairwise analysis suggested that DME and TL may differentially contribute to outcome, we performed a multivariate cox regression, whilst controlling for confounding variables such as TP53ab and U-CLL. Covariates that were significant in UA were included in a stepwise backwards elimination process until a final model was reached. The CLL4 models were based on 246 subjects with 221 PFS and 205 OS events, ARC/ADM models were based on 138 and 176 subjects with 86 and 45 events for PFS and OS, respectively. For PFS models, TL-S emerged as significant (CLL4 HR:2.14, CI:1.39-3.3, p<0.001 & ARC/ADM HR:2.18, CI:1.17-4.05, p<0.01) with a HR lower than TP53ab (CLL4 HR:3.38, CI:2.13-5.37 & ARC/ADM HR:4.94, CI:2.58-9.48, p<0.001). DME emerged as significant for PFS in the CLL4 cohort (n-CLL HR:2.35, CI:1.37-4.05, p<0.01), along with SF3B1 mutation and treatment arm (Figure 2). In ARC/ADM, U-CLL, TP53ab, TL-S, del11q and biATM emerged as significant predictors of PFS (Figure 2). For OS, in both cohorts, TP53ab (CLL4 HR:2.77, CI:1.74-4.4, p<0.001 & ARC/ADM HR:3.28, CI:1.64-6.55, p<0.001) and DME (CLL4 HR:2.07, CI:1.15-3.73, p<0.05 & ARC/ADM, HR:3.4, CI:1.14-10.12, p<0.05) were found to predict shorter survival (Figure 2). Currently, we are integrating additional IGHV/IGLV data into our analysis, including the presence of IGLV3-21R110. In conclusion, by assessing the individual contribution of DME and TL to disease survival, we found that both variables offer valuable independent prognostic information when included in statistical models with poor-risk genomic lesions. TL and DME could help identify IGHV-mutated patients destined to respond poorly to (immuno-)chemotherapy, that might be more favourably treated with targeted agents.
▪
Background: Acalabrutinib is a highly selective, covalent irreversible Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor with minimal activity against other kinases. Acalabrutinib has demonstrated durable responses ...as a single agent or combined with O in treatment-naïve (TN) CLL. Here, interim results are presented for the multicenter, open-label Phase 3 ELEVATE-TN study (NCT02475681), which evaluated the efficacy and safety of acalabrutinib + O vs acalabrutinib alone vs O + Clb in pts with TN CLL.
Methods: Eligible pts had TN CLL requiring treatment per iwCLL criteria and were aged ≥65 y or <65 y with coexisting conditions (CIRS score >6, creatinine clearance <70 mL/min). Pts were randomized 1:1:1 to receive oral acalabrutinib (100 mg twice daily continuously) alone or combined with intravenous O (1000 mg on Days 1, 2 split 100/900, 8, and 15 of Cycle 2, and Day 1 of subsequent 28-day cycles for a total of 6 cycles), or O plus oral Clb (0.5 mg/kg on Days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle for 6 cycles). Pts were stratified by del(17p) status, ECOG status (≤1 vs 2), and geographic region. The primary endpoint was independent review committee (IRC)-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) with acalabrutinib + O vs O + Clb. Key secondary endpoints included IRC-assessed PFS with acalabrutinib vs O + Clb, IRC-assessed overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety. Minimal residual disease (MRD) in peripheral blood or bone marrow was assessed in pts with investigator-assessed complete response (CR)/CR with incomplete marrow recovery (CRi). Crossover to acalabrutinib monotherapy was allowed for pts in the O + Clb arm with IRC-confirmed progression.
Results: From 9/14/2015-2/8/2017, 535 pts were randomized to the acalabrutinib + O (n=179), acalabrutinib (n= 179), or O + Clb (n=177) arms. The median age was 70 y (range, 41-91); 69% had high- and 12% had very high-risk CLL IPI scores.
At a median follow-up of 28 mo, acalabrutinib + O significantly prolonged PFS vs O + Clb (median not reached NR vs 22.6 mo; HR 0.10, 95% CI 0.06-0.18, P<0.0001), reducing the risk of progression or death by 90% (Figure). Acalabrutinib (median NR) also prolonged PFS vs O + Clb (HR 0.20, 95% CI 0.13-0.31, P<0.0001). Estimated 30-mo PFS rates with acalabrutinib + O, acalabrutinib, and O + Clb were 90%, 82%, and 34%, respectively. PFS improvement with acalabrutinib + O or acalabrutinib vs O + Clb was consistent across subgroups examined including del(17p) (HR 95% CI; 0.13 0.04-0.46; 0.20 0.06-0.64). Median OS was not reached in any arm; (HR 95% CI; acalabrutinib + O vs O + Clb, 0.47 0.21-1.06, P=0.0577; acalabrutinib vs O + Clb, 0.60 0.28-1.27, P=0.1556). In the acalabrutinib + O, acalabrutinib, and O + Clb arms, the estimated 30-mo OS rates were 95%, 94%, and 90%, respectively. Five pts (3%) in the acalabrutinib + O arm, 11 pts (6%) in the acalabrutinib arm, and 55 pts (31%) in the O + Clb arm had received a next therapy; 45 pts (25%) in the O + Clb arm crossed over to the acalabrutinib monotherapy arm.
IRC-assessed ORR was higher with acalabrutinib + O (94%; 95% CI, 89.3%-96.5%) vs O + Clb (79%; 95% CI, 71.9%-83.9%; P<0.0001); the ORR with acalabrutinib monotherapy was 85%. CR rates were higher with acalabrutinib + O (13%) vs O + Clb (5%); there was 1 CR in the acalabrutinib monotherapy arm. MRD data will be presented.
The median treatment duration was 27.7 mo for acalabrutinib + O (range, 2.3-40.3) and acalabrutinib (range, 0.3-40.2) and 5.6 mo (range, 0.9-7.4) for O + Clb. Common adverse events (AEs) are shown in the Table. AEs were similar between the acalabrutinib-containing arms. Infusion reactions were less frequent with acalabrutinib + O (13%) than with O + Clb (40%). AEs led to treatment discontinuation in 20 pts (11%) on acalabrutinib + O, 16 pts (9%) on acalabrutinib, and 25 pts (14%) on O + Clb. With >2 y of follow-up, 79.3% of pts in both the acalabrutinib-containing arms remain on single-agent acalabrutinib.
AEs of interest (acalabrutinib + O or acalabrutinib vs O + Clb) were atrial fibrillation (any grade: 3% or 4% vs 1%), bleeding (any grade/Grade ≥3: 43%/2% or 39%/2% vs 12%/0%), and hypertension (Grade ≥3: 3% or 2% vs 3%).
Conclusions: Acalabrutinib + O and acalabrutinib monotherapy significantly improved PFS vs O + Clb, with tolerable safety in pts with TN CLL. Despite cross over for disease progression in the O + Clb arm, a trend toward improved OS was observed in both acalabrutinib arms, though longer follow-up is needed.
Display omitted
Sharman:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Banerji:CIHR: Research Funding; LLSC: Research Funding; Research Manitoba: Research Funding; CCMF: Research Funding; CancerCare Manitoba/University of Manitoba: Employment; CAPhO: Honoraria; BIOGEN: Other: Licensing fee; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute: Other: Licencing fee; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Licensing fee, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Herishanu:Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Munir:Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Other: TBC; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alexion: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria. Walewska:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel grant, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel grant, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Other: Travel grant; Novartis: Other: travel grant. Follows:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Karlsson:Skane University Hospital: Employment. Ghia:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; ArQule: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Dynamo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Corbett:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tauranga Hospital: Employment; Pathlab Waikato: Equity Ownership. Walker:Peninsula Health (public hospital): Employment; Alfred health (public hospital): Employment; Roche: Other: Travel grant. Jurczak:Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Loxo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celtrion: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding. Salles:Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis, Servier, AbbVie, Karyopharm, Kite, MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Roche, Janssen, Gilead, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Autolus: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Educational events. Janssens:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; idem consultancy: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Cymbalista:AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Sunesis: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Wierda:Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Cyclcel: Research Funding; KITE pharma: Research Funding; Loxo Oncology Inc.: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma Inc: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Miragen: Research Funding; Oncternal Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; GSK/Novartis: Research Funding. Coutre:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or a
Venetoclax is licensed to treat relapsed or refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL). As part of the Single Technology Appraisal (STA) ID944, the National Institute for Health and Care ...Excellence (NICE) invited AbbVie, the manufacturer, to submit evidence on the use of venetoclax, within its licensed indication. The Evidence Review Group (ERG), Warwick Evidence, was asked to provide an independent and critical review of the submitted evidence. Evidence came from three single-arm trials in CLL patients with or without 17p deletion del(17p)/TP53 chromosomal abnormalities. The anticipated licensed indication specified that venetoclax-eligible del(17p)/TP53 patients should have not responded to, or be deemed unsuitable for, B-cell receptor inhibitor (BCRi) therapy, and that non-del(17p)/TP53 patients should have not responded to both chemoimmunotherapy and BCRi therapy. The three trials were heterogeneous in terms of both del(17p)/TP53 status and previous exposure to BCRi therapy. The M13-982 study investigated 158 R/R CLL patients with the 17p deletion, but only a small number had received previous BCRi therapy; the M12-175 study investigated 67 patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma, some with the 17p deletion, but very few previously treated with BCRi therapy; and the M14-032 study included 105 patients previously treated with BCRi therapy (either idelalisib or ibrutinib), some of whom had unknown mutation status. The ERG concluded that the study populations did not directly conform to those specified in the licensed indication or in the NICE scope. Outcomes reported included overall response rate (ORR), duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS); adverse events were reported for the pooled population of all three studies, as well as separately for each study. The median PFS was 41.4 and 27.2 months among patients in the M12-175 and M13-982 trials, respectively, whereas the median PFS was not reached in the M14-032 trial. Some results were designated academic in confidence and cannot be reported here. The submission provided a de novo partitioned survival cost-effectiveness model with three health states: pre-progression, post-progression and dead. Transition probabilities between health states were estimated using Weibull models for PFS and OS. The ERG judged the model structure to be appropriate. Venetoclax was compared with best supportive care (BSC) in patients with or without del(17p)/TP53 mutation status, and with palliative care (PC). To populate the del(17p)/TP53 venetoclax arm, the submission pooled del(17p)/TP53 patients from all three studies and fitted Weibull models for PFS and OS. PFS and OS models for non-del(17p)/TP53 venetoclax patients were obtained by applying hazard ratios (HRs) to the del(17p)/TP53 OS and PFS models, derived using Cox’s regression analysis comparing del(17p)/TP53 and non-del(17p)/TP53 patients pooled from the M14-032 and M12-175 studies. The ERG expressed reservations about the company’s pooling procedure, but acknowledged its expedience given the small evidence base. For the BSC comparator arm, the submission used the rituximab + placebo arm from a randomised controlled trial comparing idelalisib + rituximab versus placebo + rituximab (‘study 116’). Weibull regression data for OS and PFS were taken from the idelalisib STA (ID764) submitted by Gilead to NICE. The ERG considered the use of the study 116 rituximab arm to be inconsistent with the licensed indication for venetoclax because these patients had neither not responded to nor were inappropriate for BCRi therapy, being eligible to be randomised to idelalisib. Another difficulty was the requirement for a technical correction in survival analysis because of considerable switching from rituximab to idelalisib. The ERG considered that post-progression survival of patients from the idelalisib arm of study 116 provided a more appropriate representation of BSC since these patients had not responded to BCRi therapy, consistent with venetoclax’s licensed indication. For PC, the company submission used data from the UK CLL Forum. The company’s base-case analysis indicated that venetoclax was clinically effective, but the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for del(17p)/TP53 (£39,940/quality-adjusted life-year QALY gained) and non-del(17p)/TP53 (£47,370/QALY gained) patients were well above the NICE threshold of £20,000–30,000/QALY. The ERG identified two errors in the implementation of the company’s parametric models—one related to the implementation of HRs, and the other to the derivation of the Weibull shape parameters obtained from the Gilead idelalisib submission. The ERG made plausible adjustments to the company’s base-case and corrected errors, resulting in a reduced estimate of the cost effectiveness of venetoclax in non-del(17p)/TP53 and del(17p)/TP53 indications; in the ERG’s preferred base case, using post-progression survival of patients in the idelalisib arm of study 116 as the BSC comparator, deterministic ICERs were higher than the company’s base-case for both indications: £57,476/QALY gained for del(17p)/TP53 and £77,779/QALY gained for non-del(17p)/TP53. The NICE Appraisal Committee’s preliminary recommendation was that venetoclax used within its licensed indication should not be recommended for use in the National Health Service (NHS). In response to the preliminary recommendation, the company submitted new analyses; however, at a subsequent appraisal committee meeting, the original recommendation was upheld and the committee concluded there were large uncertainties around the clinical effectiveness of venetoclax and BSC, and that under the committee’s preferred assumptions, the ICERs were higher than those generally considered cost effective, even when end-of-life criteria were taken into account. The company submitted further evidence, and the final guidance recommended venetoclax for use with the Cancer Drugs Fund for the two populations in this technology appraisal.
Improved classification of rare lymphoid neoplasms would be aided by a deeper understanding of their underlying molecular features and is important for diagnosis, prognosis and therapy. Tumor ...entities classified within the WHO category of splenic B cell lymphomas and leukemias often exhibit heterogenous, transecting features, and include hairy cell leukemia (HCL), splenic diffuse red pulp lymphoma (SDRPL), splenic marginal zone lymphoma (SMZL), and the newly described WHO entity, splenic B cell lymphoma/leukemia with prominent nucleoli (SBLPN); the latter including patients formerly classified as HCL-variant (HCL-V). Genome-wide epigenetic information provides a tumor cell fingerprint combining cell-of-origin and tumor-specific events. Here we used DNA methylation to perform an unbiased molecular subclassification and to explore novel biological aspects of these patients. Samples from patients with a pathological diagnosis of HCL, HCL-V, SDRPL and SMZL (made prior to the 5 th WHO revision and ICC classifications) were obtained from 19 institutions across 9 countries, totaling 367 patients. Cells were FACS-purified where necessary and DNA was analyzed by 450/850K Illumina DNA methylation arrays. Genetic mutations were assessed by whole-exome or targeted sequencing, IGHV-D-J sequences by Sanger sequencing, and copy number alterations (CNAs) by Illumina arrays. The 1000 most variable CpG methylation sites were used for k-means clustering. Recursive feature elimination/random forest algorithms were used to develop a classifier for DNA methylation-based subgroups with 98% accuracy. Unsupervised clustering of 197 patients diagnosed with HCL, HCL-V or SDRPL revealed 5 distinct DNA methylation (M) subgroups ( Figure 1). Subgroup assignment was stable throughout longitudinal sampling (including pre/post-treatment) and consistent between splenic, bone marrow and PBMC derived cells. A subgroup with universally clonal BRAF-V600E mutations and majority diagnosed as HCL was termed the M-HCL subgroup ( Table 1). Four other groups termed M-SBLPN1-4 contained all HCL-V and SDRPL diagnosed samples and were devoid of BRAF-V600E mutations. M-SBLPN1 comprised MAP2K1 mutations (91%) and was enriched for CREBBP, ARIDIA and TERT-promoter mutations. These patients displayed an HCL-like immunophenotype (64.3% CD25+) with 1/3 diagnosed as HCL. M-SBLPN2 exhibited the highest prevalence of TP53 mutations and concomitant genomic instability. Patients in M-SBLPN1,2 were enriched in unmutated IGHV4-34 rearrangements. M-SBLPN3,4 subgroups displayed an immunophenotype more dissimilar to HCL, mutated IGHV genes, and enrichment of IGLL5, SYK and BIRC3 mutations. M-SBLPN4 contained the most SDRPL samples, suggesting it may represent the SDRPL entity retained by the WHO. We next uncovered that 29/170 SMZL patients displayed DNA methylation patterns mapping to M-SBLPN2-4. These patients were phenotypically and molecularly similar to SBLPN (70% displaying villous morphology and depleted in IGHV1-2*04, NOTCH2, KLF2 mutations), likely representing SMZL patients suggested for reassignment to SBLPN in the updated WHO classification. To elucidate molecular pathways governing the biology of M-SBLPN subgroups, transcription factor motif enrichment analysis in hypomethylated genomic regions revealed selective activation of AP-1 in M-HCL along with ETS in M-SBLPN1,2. Both transcription factors are downstream of MAPK signaling, consistent with activating BRAF and MAP2K1 mutations in these subgroups. However, we observed strong ETS enrichment in the absence of MAP2K1 in M-SBLPN along with mutual exclusivity of MAP2K1 and TP53 mutations, suggesting TP53 mutations are driving ETS activation. Although lymphoid neoplasms rarely exhibit TERT promoter mutations, 83% of M-SBLPN1 patients showed the c.-124C>T mutation commonly observed in other cancers producing an ETS binding site and ectopic TERT activation. ETS activation and gain of an ETS site by mutation implies oncogenesis involves aberrant TERT activation in this subgroup. In summary, we have developed a DNA methylation-based classifier that resolves 4 SBLPN subgroups with distinct molecular features, and reclassifies a subset of SMZL and HCL patients, adding further information to the updated WHO/ICC entities. We reveal distinct biological pathways operating in M-SBLPN subgroups that may aid targeted therapy approaches.
•One-third of patients with CLL relapsing on ibrutinib do not carry BTK/PLCG2 mutations, even with a 0.1% sensitivity.•Additional mechanisms, such as del(8p), EGR2 and NF-κB pathway mutations, may be ...cooperating in determining progression on ibrutinib.
Display omitted
Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) progressing on ibrutinib constitute an unmet need. Though Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) and PLCG2 mutations are associated with ibrutinib resistance, their frequency and relevance to progression are not fully understood. In this multicenter retrospective observational study, we analyzed 98 patients with CLL on ibrutinib (49 relapsing after an initial response and 49 still responding after ≥1 year of continuous treatment) using a next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel (1% sensitivity) comprising 13 CLL-relevant genes including BTK and PLCG2. BTK hotspot mutations were validated by droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) (0.1% sensitivity). By integrating NGS and ddPCR results, 32 of 49 relapsing cases (65%) carried at least 1 hotspot BTK and/or PLCG2 mutation(s); in 6 of 32, BTK mutations were only detected by ddPCR (variant allele frequency VAF 0.1% to 1.2%). BTK/PLCG2 mutations were also identified in 6 of 49 responding patients (12%; 5/6 VAF <10%), of whom 2 progressed later. Among the relapsing patients, the BTK-mutated (BTKmut) group was enriched for EGR2 mutations, whereas BTK-wildtype (BTKwt) cases more frequently displayed BIRC3 and NFKBIE mutations. Using an extended capture-based panel, only BRAF and IKZF3 mutations showed a predominance in relapsing cases, who were enriched for del(8p) (n = 11; 3 BTKwt). Finally, no difference in TP53 mutation burden was observed between BTKmut and BTKwt relapsing cases, and ibrutinib treatment did not favor selection of TP53-aberrant clones. In conclusion, we show that BTK/PLCG2 mutations were absent in a substantial fraction (35%) of a real-world cohort failing ibrutinib, and propose additional mechanisms contributing to resistance.
Introduction:
The most effective chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in previously untreated CLL is the combination of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR). Ibrutinib (I), the first irreversible ...inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase approved for CLL, has improved outcomes in numerous clinical trials compared to different CIT.
Methods:
FLAIR (ISRCTN01844152) is an ongoing, phase III, multicentre, randomised, controlled, open, parallel group trial for previously untreated CLL requiring therapy according to the IWCLL 2008 guidelines. Patients over 75 years or with >20% 17p-deleted cells were excluded. Participants were randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive 6 cycles of FCR (oral fludarabine 24mg/m 2/day for 5 days, oral cyclophosphamide 150mg/m 2/day for 5 days with IV rituximab 375 mg/m 2 on day 1/2 of cycle 1; 500 mg/m 2 on day 1 of cycles 2-6) every 28-days or IR (Ibrutinib 420mg/day plus rituximab 6 doses as for FCR) given for up to 6 years with stratification by disease stage, age, gender and centre. The primary endpoint was to assess whether IR was superior to FCR in terms of investigator-assessed PFS. Secondary endpoints included overall survival,; attainment of undetectable MRD; response to therapy; safety and toxicity; health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. A formal interim analysis was planned when 191 events were observed in both arms or 109 events in the FCR arm alone with a p-value of 0.005 leading to reporting of the trial. Here we report the results of this planned interim analysis.
Results:
A total of 771 patients were randomised (385 to FCR and 386 to IR) from 113 UK Centres between 9/19/2014 and 7/19/2018. The data was locked on 5/24/2021. 73.3% were male, median age was 62 years (33.6% >65yo) and 45.1% were Binet Stage C. IGHV data was available for 728 (94.4%) patients with 53.2% IGHV unmutated (≥98% homology to germline), 40.5% IGHV mutated and 6.3% Subset 2. Hierarchical FISH testing revealed 0.4% 17p del, 15.4% 11q del, 12.3% trisomy 12, 29.7% normal and 35% 13q del; with 7.1% failed. The arms were well-balanced for disease variables with no significance differences. Median follow-up was 52.7 months. IR had a superior PFS compared to FCR (Median PFS not reached for IR versus 67 months for FCR; HR: 0.44; p<0.001; see Figure). The PFS was significantly better for IR in patients with IGHV unmutated CLL (HR: 0.41; p<0.001), but not for patients with IGHV mutated CLL at this follow-up (HR: 0.66; p=0.179). There was no difference in overall survival between the two arms (HR: 1.01; p=0.956) with a total of 29 deaths in FCR arm (including 4 from CLL, 3 Richter's RT, 3 AML/MDS, 3 COVID-19 and 2 cardiac/sudden) and 30 in the IR arm (including 3 CLL, 1 RT, 0 AML/MDS, 3 COVID-19 and 8 cardiac/sudden). Second line treatment was initiated for 59 patients after FCR (including 38 BTKi, 7 venetoclax+R venR, 4 BendamustineR BR and 3 CHOP-R RT) and 21 after IR (including 7 FCR, 5 venR, 1 BR, 1 CHOP-R RT, 1 ABVD Hodgkin's). Overall, 88.1% of patients have received targeted therapies for CLL progression after FCR. The overall survival with FCR in FLAIR is significantly improved compared to FCR in previous NCRI trials (ADMIRE and ARCTIC) which had the same inclusion criteria, the same Centres and an identical FCR schedule, but were conducted prior to widespread availability of targeted therapies in the relapse (recruited between 2009 and 2012). The 4 year overall survival for FCR in FLAIR was 94.5% compared to 84.2% for FCR between 2009 and 2012. SAEs were reported in 53.7% of patients on FCR and 53.4% on IR. Notable differences for SAEs by organ class for FCR vs IR: infections in 33.6% of patients vs 27.1%; blood and lymphatic in 19.8% vs 10.7%; and cardiac in 1.1% vs 8.3%. With current follow-up, there were 10 sudden or cardiac deaths: 8 IR and 2 FCR. Further analysis indicated that 7 of the 8 cardiac or sudden deaths in the IR arm had a history of hypertension or cardiac disease (further detailed in additional abstract; Munir et al.). Neither of the sudden deaths in the FCR arm had a prior cardiac or hypertensive history or were on cardiac or anti-hypertensive treatment. There were 6 cases of secondary MDS/AML in the FCR arm and 1 in the IR arm.
Conclusion:
Ibrutinib plus rituximab resulted in a superior PFS compared to FCR. There was no difference in overall survival, most likely due to effective second-line targeted therapy in patients progressing after FCR.
Display omitted
Hillmen: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; SOBI: Honoraria; BeiGene: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria. Bloor: Novartis: Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria. Broom: AbbVie: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag Ltd: Honoraria; Takeda UK Ltd: Honoraria; Celgene Ltd: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Furtado: Abbvie: Other: Conference support. Morley: Kite: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie; Takeda: Other: Conference support; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Conference support. Cwynarski: Adienne, Takeda, Roche, Autolus, KITE, Gilead, Celgene, Atara, Janssenen: Other. Paneesha: Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria. Howard: Roche: Current Employment. Cairns: Merck Sharpe and Dohme: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene / BMS: Other: travel support, Research Funding. Patten: NOVARTIS: Honoraria; ROCHE: Research Funding; JANSSEN: Honoraria; ASTRA ZENECA: Honoraria; ABBVIE: Honoraria; GILEAD SCIENCES: Honoraria, Research Funding. Munir: F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy; Alexion: Honoraria.
Introduction:
Ibrutinib (Ibr) is the first approved irreversible BTK inhibitor. Cardiovascular (CV) adverse events, include hypertension (HT) and atrial fibrillation (AF). Ventricular ...tachyarrhythmias and sudden death have been reported possibly due to off target kinase inhibition. Several randomised Phase III trials have reported low numbers of cardiac deaths, sudden/unexplained deaths, and/or ventricular arrhythmias with Ibr including 9 deaths in RESONATE-2 Trial, 11 unexplained or unwitnessed deaths in Alliance Trial A041202 (med age 71; Ibr (n=7 4%), Ibr+ritux (IR; 4 2%), one death in the IR arm of ECOG1912 Trial (mean age 56.7) and 3 unexplained plus 5 cardiac deaths with BR + Ibr in the HELIOS trial (med age 64).
Methods:
FLAIR, a phase III, multicentre, randomised, controlled, open, trial recruiting 771 pts with untreated CLL requiring therapy. Pts were ≤75 years, considered fit for FCR and were randomized to IR or FCR. Pts with inadequately controlled symptomatic cardiac failure or unstable angina were excluded. We conducted ad hoc evaluations of the potential association of sudden or cardiac deaths with prior medical history or therapies for cardiac disorders (AF, Ischaemic heart disease, MI or angina) and HT via univariate analyses. We used Fisher's Exact test and estimated relative risk (RR) and associated confidence intervals under a normal approximation.
Results:
In FLAIR, 384 and 378 pts were treated with IR and FCR, respectively, median 52.7 months FU and treatment durations of 47.2 and 4.7 months. Median age 62. 84/384 (22%) IR pts had pre-existing HT and 17/384 (4%) a prior history of a cardiac disorder. 74/378 (20%) FCR pts had HT and 18/378 (5%) a cardiac disorder. To date 10 pts had a sudden or cardiac death: 2 (0.5%) FCR and 8 (2%) IR - median 33 mo (range: 13-48) from initiating IR to death. 9/10 pts were male aged 54 to 73 years at randomisation. 7/ 8 IR pts experiencing a sudden or cardiac death, had a prior history of HT and/or cardiac disorder (RR 23.6 vs pts with no HT/CV history, 95%CI 2.9-195; Fisher's Exact P=0.0003; Table 1). Hypertensive cardiomyopathy and/or coronary artery disease was found at post mortem of all 3 IR pts having a PM. The risk of sudden or cardiac death with IR was 0.3% (1/291) in pts without pre-existing risk.
The number of pts taking anti-hypertensives at trial entry (some taking more than one class) was: ACE inhibitors (ACEi) 47 IR, 37 FCR; Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB's) 15 IR, 17 FCR; Ca channel blockers 30 IR, 34 FCR; B-blockers 24 IR, 20 FCR; Diuretics 13 IR, 16 FCR; and alpha blockers 7 IR, 5 FCR. Overall, 291/384 (76%) IR and 296/378 (78%) FCR were taking no HT or cardiac medications at trial entry.
The use of ACEi at study entry was associated with an increased risk of sudden or cardiac death with IR: 7/47 (15%) pts on ACEi at trial entry had a sudden or cardiac death compared to 1/336 (0.3%) not taking ACEi (RR 50.2, 95%CI 6.3-399; P < 0.0001; Table 1). 2/7 pts had discontinued ACEi and switched to ARB's due to cough sometime prior to death. In contrast 0/37 FCR pts with a history of HTN/CV taking ACEi experienced a sudden or cardiac death. In the IR arm, none of the 46 pts receiving cardiac medication but not ACEi had a sudden or cardiac death suggesting that the risk was not simply a prior history of HT or cardiac disorder. 3/11 (27%) IR pts taking an ACEi plus a beta blocker at study entry had a sudden or cardiac death vs 4/32 (12.5%) pts on ACEi without a beta blocker.
Factors potentially confounding the interpretation: 1) analyses did not take into account severity of underlying HT/CV risk, as it is possible that pts on ACEi had more severe underlying CV disease than others; and 2) analyses did not adjust for changes in HT/CV medications during the course of the study. However, the lack of any such signal in pts with a prior cardiovascular/HT history on therapies other than ACEi suggests a potential association with the medication itself.
Conclusion:
Sudden or cardiac deaths seen on IR in FLAIR were observed predominantly among male pts with a prior history of HT or cardiac disease. The prior use of ACEi was correlated with the risk of sudden or cardiac death in IR pts. In contrast, pts treated with IR who were not on ACEi (regardless of medical history) had a very low rate of cardiac or sudden death. Whilst these findings need confirming in other Ibr trials we believe that caution should be taken when concurrently administering ibrutinib and ACE inhibitors in pts with a medical history of HT or CV disease.
Display omitted
Munir: F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy; Alexion: Honoraria. Bloor: Novartis: Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria. Broom: AbbVie: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag Ltd: Honoraria; Takeda UK Ltd: Honoraria; Celgene Ltd: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Furtado: Abbvie: Other: Conference support. Morley: Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Conference support; AbbVie; Takeda: Other: Conference support; Janssen: Honoraria; Kite: Honoraria. Cwynarski: Atara: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Other; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Other, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Other, Speakers Bureau. Gatto: Roche: Consultancy. Paneesha: AbbVie: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Fox: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Howard: Roche: Current Employment. Cairns: Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Merck Sharpe and Dohme: Research Funding; Celgene / BMS: Other: travel support, Research Funding. Patten: NOVARTIS: Honoraria; ASTRA ZENECA: Honoraria; ABBVIE: Honoraria; JANSSEN: Honoraria; GILEAD SCIENCES: Honoraria, Research Funding; ROCHE: Research Funding. Hillmen: BeiGene: Honoraria; SOBI: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Gilead: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
), which permits ...any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
PDF
