The BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax has shown activity in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), but its efficacy in combination with other agents in patients with CLL and coexisting conditions ...is not known.
In this open-label, phase 3 trial, we investigated fixed-duration treatment with venetoclax and obinutuzumab in patients with previously untreated CLL and coexisting conditions. Patients with a score of greater than 6 on the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (scores range from 0 to 56, with higher scores indicating more impaired function of organ systems) or a calculated creatinine clearance of less than 70 ml per minute were randomly assigned to receive venetoclax-obinutuzumab or chlorambucil-obinutuzumab. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. The safety of each regimen was also evaluated.
In total, 432 patients (median age, 72 years; median Cumulative Illness Rating Scale score, 8; median creatinine clearance, 66.4 ml per minute) underwent randomization, with 216 assigned to each group. After a median follow-up of 28.1 months, 30 primary end-point events (disease progression or death) had occurred in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group and 77 had occurred in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.23 to 0.53; P<0.001). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the percentage of patients with progression-free survival at 24 months was significantly higher in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group than in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group: 88.2% (95% CI, 83.7 to 92.6) as compared with 64.1% (95% CI, 57.4 to 70.8). This benefit was also observed in patients with
deletion, mutation, or both and in patients with unmutated immunoglobulin heavy-chain genes. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in 52.8% of patients in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group and in 48.1% of patients in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group, and grade 3 or 4 infections occurred in 17.5% and 15.0%, respectively. All-cause mortality was 9.3% in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group and 7.9% in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group. These differences were not significant.
Among patients with untreated CLL and coexisting conditions, venetoclax-obinutuzumab was associated with longer progression-free survival than chlorambucil-obinutuzumab. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche and AbbVie; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02242942.).
Venetoclax plus obinutuzumab has been established as a fixed-duration treatment regimen for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. We compared the long-term efficacy after treatment cessation ...of the combination of venetoclax plus obinutuzumab with chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab in patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia.
CLL14 is a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial done at 196 sites in 21 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, and coexisting conditions with a cumulative illness rating scale greater than 6, a creatinine clearance of 30–69 mL/min, or both. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a web and voicemail system with allocation concealment and based on a computer-generated randomisation schedule with a block size of six and stratified by Binet stage and geographical region. Patients received either venetoclax plus obinutuzumab (oral venetoclax initiated on day 22 of cycle 1 28-day cycles, with a 5-week dose ramp-up 20 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg, and 200 mg, then 400 mg daily for 1 week, thereafter continuing at 400 mg daily until completion of cycle 12; combined with intravenous obinutuzumab for six cycles starting with 100 mg on day 1 and 900 mg on day 2 or 1000 mg on day 1, 1000 mg on days 8 and day 15 of cycle 1, and subsequently 1000 mg on day 1 of cycles 2 through 6) or chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (oral chlorambucil at 0·5 mg/kg bodyweight on days 1 and 15 of each cycle for 12 cycles combined with the same obinutuzumab regimen). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. Patient enrolment is complete, and the study is registered with ClinicalTrails.gov, NCT02242942.
Between Aug 7, 2015, and Aug 4, 2016, 432 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either venetoclax plus obinutuzumab (n=216) or chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (n=216). All patients had been off treatment for at least 24 months at data collection. At a median follow-up of 39·6 months (IQR 36·8–43·0), patients given venetoclax plus obinutuzumab had a significantly longer progression-free survival than did patients given chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (HR 0·31, 95% CI 0·22–0·44; p<0·0001). Median progression-free survival was not reached (95% CI not estimable to not estimable) in the venetoclax plus obinutuzumab group vs 35·6 months (33·7–40·7) in the chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab group. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event in both groups was neutropenia (112 53% of 212 patients in the venetoclax plus obinutuzumab group versus 102 48% of 214 patients in the chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab group). Serious adverse events occurred in 115 (54%) of 212 patients in the venetoclax plus obinutuzumab group and 95 (44%) of 214 patients in the chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab group. Venetoclax or chlorambucil treatment-related deaths were reported in one (1%) of 212 patients in the venetoclax plus obinutuzumab group (n=1 sepsis) and two (1%) of 214 patients in the chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab group (n=1 septic shock, n=1 metastatic skin squamous carcinoma).
2 years after treatment cessation, venetoclax plus obinutuzumab continues to significantly improve progression-survival compared with chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab, thereby providing a limited duration treatment option for patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia.
F Hoffmann-La Roche and AbbVie.
Selinexor combined with dexamethasone has shown activity in patients with heavily pre-treated multiple myeloma. In a phase 1b/2 study, the combination of oral selinexor with bortezomib (a proteasome ...inhibitor) and dexamethasone induced high response rates with low rates of peripheral neuropathy, the main dose-limiting toxicity of bortezomib. We aimed to evaluate the clinical benefit of weekly selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus standard bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma.
This phase 3, randomised, open-label trial was done at 123 sites in 21 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older, who had multiple myeloma, and who had previously been treated with one to three lines of therapy, including proteasome inhibitors, were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive selinexor (100 mg once per week), bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 once per week), and dexamethasone (20 mg twice per week), or bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 twice per week for the first 24 weeks and once per week thereafter) and dexamethasone (20 mg four times per week for the first 24 weeks and twice per week thereafter). Randomisation was done using interactive response technology and stratified by previous proteasome inhibitor therapy, lines of treatment, and multiple myeloma stage. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in the safety population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03110562. The trial is ongoing, with 55 patients remaining on randomised therapy as of Feb 20, 2020.
Of 457 patients screened for eligibility, 402 were randomly allocated—195 (49%) to the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 207 (51%) to the bortezomib and dexamethasone group—and the first dose of study medication was given between June 6, 2017, and Feb 5, 2019. Median follow-up durations were 13·2 months IQR 6·2–19·8 for the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 16·5 months 9·4–19·8 for the bortezomib and dexamethasone group. Median progression-free survival was 13·93 months (95% CI 11·73–not evaluable) with selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 9·46 months (8·11–10·78) with bortezomib and dexamethasone (hazard ratio 0·70 95% CI 0·53–0·93, p=0·0075). The most frequent grade 3–4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (77 39% of 195 patients in the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group vs 35 17% of 204 in the bortezomib and dexamethasone group), fatigue (26 13% vs two 1%), anaemia (31 16% vs 20 10%), and pneumonia (22 11% vs 22 11%). Peripheral neuropathy of grade 2 or above was less frequent with selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (41 21% patients) than with bortezomib and dexamethasone (70 34% patients; odds ratio 0·50 95% CI 0·32–0·79, p=0·0013). 47 (24%) patients in the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 62 (30%) in the bortezomib and dexamethasone group died.
A once-per-week regimen of selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone is a novel, effective, and convenient treatment option for patients with multiple myeloma who have received one to three previous lines of therapy.
Karyopharm Therapeutics.
Summary
The oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib is approved in the United States, European Union and other countries, in combination with oral lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd), for the treatment of ...patients with multiple myeloma who have received at least one prior therapy. Approval was based on the global, randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled Phase III TOURMALINE‐MM1 study of ixazomib‐Rd (IRd) versus placebo‐Rd in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. IRd resulted in a significant improvement in progression‐free survival versus placebo‐Rd (median: 20·6 vs. 14·7 months; hazard ratio 0·74). Common toxicities observed more commonly with IRd versus placebo‐Rd were thrombocytopenia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, constipation, rash, peripheral neuropathy, peripheral oedema and back pain; these were generally grade 1/2 in severity except for thrombocytopenia (19% vs. 9% grade 3/4), which appeared manageable and reversible, with no differences between arms in significant bleeding or dose discontinuations. No cumulative toxicities were observed, indicating the potential feasibility of long‐term IRd treatment. Safety data from TOURMALINE‐MM1 are reviewed and guidance for managing clinically relevant adverse events associated with IRd is provided. Most toxicities were manageable with supportive care and dose delays or reductions as needed. Clinicians should be aware of and understand these potential side effects to optimise and prolong patient benefit.
Summary
The efficacy of bendamustine versus chlorambucil in a phase III trial of previously untreated patients with Binet stage B/C chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) was re‐evaluated after a median ...observation time of 54 months in May 2010. Overall survival (OS) was analysed for the first time. At follow‐up, investigator‐assessed complete response (CR) rate (21·0% vs 10·8%), median progression‐free survival (21·2 vs 8·8 months; P < 0·0001; hazard ratio 2·83) and time to next treatment (31·7 vs 10·1 months; P < 0·0001) were improved for bendamustine over chlorambucil. OS was not different between groups for all patients or those ≤65 years, >65 years, responders and non‐responders. However, patients with objective response or a CR experienced a significantly longer OS than non‐responders or those without a CR. Significantly more patients on chlorambucil progressed to second/further lines of treatment compared with those on bendamustine (78·3% vs 63·6%; P = 0·004). The benefits of bendamustine over chlorambucil were achieved without reducing quality of life. In conclusion, bendamustine is significantly more effective than chlorambucil in previously untreated CLL patients, with the achievement of a CR or objective response appearing to prolong OS. Bendamustine should be considered as a preferred first‐line option over chlorambucil for CLL patients ineligible for fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab.
In this randomized multicenter study of 136 patients, 6 courses of CHOP (cyclo-phosphamide/doxorubicin/vincristine/prednisone) followed by rituximab (CHOP-R) were compared with rituximab-supplemented ...high-dose sequential chemotherapy with autografting (R-HDS) to assess the value of intensified chemo-therapy as a first-line treatment for high-risk follicular lymphoma (FL) after the introduction of monoclonal antibodies. The analysis was intention to treat with event-free survival (EFS) as the primary endpoint. Complete remission (CR) was 62% with CHOP-R and 85% with R-HDS (P < .001). At a median follow-up (MFU) of 51 months, the 4-year EFS was 28% and 61%, respectively (P < .001), with no difference in overall survival (OS). Molecular remission (MR) was achieved in 44% of CHOP-R and 80% of R-HDS patients (P < .001), and was the strongest independent outcome predictor. Patients relapsing after CHOP-R underwent salvage R-HDS in 71% of cases. Salvage R-HDS had an 85% CR rate and a 68% 3-year EFS (MFU, 30 months). We conclude that (1) achieving MR is critical for effective disease control, regardless of which treatment is used; (2) R-HDS ensures superior disease control and molecular outcome than CHOP-R, but no OS improvement; and (3) CHOP-R failures have a good outcome after salvage R-HDS, suggesting that relapsed/refractory FL could be the most appropriate setting for R-HDS–like treatments. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as no. NCT00435955.
We conducted a post hoc analysis of the FOLL12 trial to determine the impact of different initial immunochemotherapy (ICT) regimens on patient outcomes. Patients were selected from the FOLL12 trial, ...which included adults with stage II-IV follicular lymphoma (FL) grade 1-3a and high tumor burden. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either standard ICT followed by rituximab maintenance (RM) or the same ICT followed by a response-adapted approach. ICT consisted of rituximab-bendamustine (RB) or rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (R-CHOP), per physician's decision. A total of 786 patients were included in this analysis, 341 of whom received RB and 445 R-CHOP. RB was more frequently prescribed to older subjects, females, patients without bulky disease, and those with grade 1-2 FL. After a median of 56 months of follow-up, R-CHOP and RB had similar progression-free survival (PFS) (Hazard Ratio for RB 1.11, 95% CI 0.87-1.42, p = 0.392). Standard RM was associated with improved PFS compared to response-adapted management both after R-CHOP and RB. Grade 3-4 hematologic adverse events were more frequent with R-CHOP during induction treatment and more frequent with RB during RM. Grade 3-4 infections were more frequent with RB. RB was also associated with a higher incidence of transformed FL. R-CHOP and RB showed similar activity and efficacy, but with different safety profiles and long-term events, suggesting that the treating physician should carefully select the most appropriate chemotherapy regimen for each patient based on patient's individual characteristics, choices, and risk profile.
The purpose of this phase 2, multicenter study was to determine the activity and safety of nonpegylated liposomal doxorubicin as part of “R‐COMP” combination in patients with diffuse large B‐cell ...lymphoma and coexisting cardiac disorders. The study was conducted using a Bayesian continuing assessment method using complete remission rate and rate of cardiac events as study endpoints. Between November 2009 and October 2011, 50 evaluable patients were enrolled (median age, 76 years). Median baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 60%. Ischemic cardiopathy was the most frequent preexisting cardiac disorder (35%), followed by atrial fibrillation (15%), left ventricular hypertrophy (13%), and baseline LVEF <50% (12%). Based on the intent to treat analysis, overall response rate was 72%, including 28 patients in complete remission (complete remission rate, 56%), and 8 in partial remission (16%). At the end of treatment, grades 3 to 4 cardiac events were observed in 6 patients. No significant modifications from baseline values of LVEF were observed during treatment and follow‐up. Nonpegylated liposomal doxorubicin instead of doxorubicin in the R‐CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) regimen is a feasible option for patients with diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma presenting with concomitant cardiac disorders.
PDF
