3 research outputs found
High prognostic value of measurable residual disease detection by flow cytometry in chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients treated with front-line fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab, followed by three years of rituximab maintenance
It has been postulated that monitoring measurable residual disease (MRD) could be used as a surrogate marker of progression-free survival (PFS) in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients after treatment with immunochemotherapy regimens. In this study, we analyzed the outcome of 84 patients at 3 years of follow-up after first-line treatment with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR) induction followed by 36 months of rituximab maintenance thearpy. MRD was assessed by a quantitative four-color flow cytometry panel with a sensitivity level of 10-4. Eighty out of 84 evaluable patients (95.2%) achieved at least a partial response or better at the end of induction. After clinical evaluation, 74 patients went into rituximab maintenance and the primary endpoint was assessed in the final analysis at 3 years of follow-up. Bone marrow (BM) MRD analysis was performed after the last planned induction course and every 6 months in cases with detectable residual disease during the 36 months of maintenance therapy. Thirty-seven patients (44%) did not have detectable residual disease in the BM prior to maintenance therapy. Interestingly, 29 patients with detectable residual disease in the BM after induction no longer had detectable disease in the BM following maintenance therapy. After a median followup of 6.30 years, the median overall survival (OS) and PFS had not been reached in patients with either undetectable or detectable residual disease in the BM, who had achieved a complete response at the time of starting maintenance therapy. Interestingly, univariate analysis showed that after rituximab maintenance OS was not affected by IGHV status (mutated vs. unmutated OS: 85.7% alive at 7.2 years vs. 79.6% alive at 7.3 years, respectively). As per protocol, 15 patients (17.8%), who achieved a complete response and undetectable peripheral blood and BM residual disease after four courses of induction, were allowed to stop fludarabine and cyclophosphamide and complete two additional courses of rituximab and continue with maintenance therapy for 18 cycles. Surprisingly, the outcome in this population was similar to that observed in patients who received the full six cycles of the induction regimen. These data show that, compared to historic controls, patients treated with FCR followed by rituximab maintenance have high-quality responses with fewer relapses and improved OS. The tolerability of this regime is favorable. Furthermore, attaining an early undetectable residual disease status could shorten the duration of chemoimmunotherapy, reducing toxicities and preventing long-term side effects. The analysis of BM MRD after fludarabine-based induction could be a powerful predictor of post-maintenance outcomes in patients with CLL undergoing rituximab maintenance and could be a valuable tool to identify patients at high risk of relapse, influencing further treatment strategies
Recommended from our members
Outcomes in high-risk subgroups after fixed-duration ibrutinib + venetoclax for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL): Up to 5.5 years of follow-up in the phase 2 CAPTIVATE study.
7009
Background: The phase 2 CAPTIVATE study evaluated first-line ibrutinib (Ibr) + venetoclax (Ven) for CLL/SLL in 2 cohorts: minimal residual disease (MRD)-guided randomized discontinuation (MRD cohort) and Fixed Duration (FD cohort). Ibr±Ven retreatment was allowed in patients (pts) who had progressive disease (PD). Here, we report outcomes for pts with high-risk genomic features from the FD cohort and retreatment outcomes in pts from the FD cohort and MRD cohort placebo arm. Methods: Pts aged ≤70 y with previously untreated CLL/SLL without restriction on genomic risk factors received 3 cycles of Ibr, then 12 cycles of Ibr+Ven (Ibr, 420 mg/d orally; Ven, 5-wk ramp up to 400 mg/d orally). On-study retreatment included single-agent Ibr (FD cohort or MRD cohort placebo arm); pts with PD >2 y after end of treatment (EOT) could be retreated with FD Ibr+Ven (FD cohort). Results: In the FD cohort (n=159) with a median follow-up of 61.2 mo (range, 0.8–66.3), 5-y PFS and OS rates (95% CI) were 67% (59–74) and 96% (91–98), respectively. 5-y PFS rates were higher in pts with undetectable MRD at 3 mo after EOT in peripheral blood (83%) or bone marrow (84%) vs those without (48% and 50%, respectively). 5-y PFS rates (95% CI) in pts with genomic risk factors were: del(17p)/mutated TP53 41% (21–59), complex karyotype 57% (37–72), del(11q) 64% (30–85), and unmutated IGHV 68% (50–80) (Table). In total, 18 second malignancies occurred in 13 pts (10 events in 8 pts during FD Ibr+Ven, 6 events in 4 pts after EOT and before retreatment, and 2 events in 2 pts during retreatment). Of 202 pts who completed Ibr+Ven (FD cohort, n=159; MRD cohort placebo arm, n=43), 63 have had PD to date; PD occurred >2 y after EOT in 43/63 pts (68%). 32/63 (51%) pts initiated retreatment with Ibr (n=25) or Ibr+Ven (n=7). With a median time on Ibr retreatment of 21.9 mo (range, 0.03–50.4), ORR was 86% in 22 evaluable pts (best response: 1 CR; 1 nodular PR; 17 PR; 2 SD; 1 PD [Richter transformation]). With a median time on Ibr+Ven retreatment of 13.8 mo (range, 3.7–15.1), ORR was 71% in 7 evaluable pts (best response: 1 CR; 4 PR; 1 PR with lymphocytosis; 1 SD). Conclusions: With up to 5.5 y of follow-up, FD Ibr+Ven continues to provide clinically meaningful PFS in pts with high-risk genomic features, as well as in the overall population. Ibr-based retreatment provides promising responses in pts needing subsequent therapy after the all-oral FD regimen of Ibr+Ven. Clinical trial information: NCT02910583 . [Table: see text
Randomized comparison of liposomal amphotericin B versus placebo to prevent invasive mycoses in acute lymphoblastic leukaemia
This study was funded by Gilead Sciences, Inc. M. B., W. G. and M. J. H.
are employees of Gilead Sciences. All other authors or their institutions
have received compensation for study participation from Gilead Sciences
International Ltd