A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis to Evaluate the Comparative Efficacy of Interventions for Unfit Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

INTRODUCTION: Rituximab plus fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (RFC) is the standard of care for fit patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL); however, its use is limited in 'unfit' (co-morbid and/or full-dose F-ineligible) patients due to its toxicity profile. We conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to determine the relative efficacy of commercially available interventions for the first-line treatment of unfit CLL patients. METHODS: For inclusion in the NMA, studies had to be linked via common treatment comparators, report progression-free survival (PFS), and/or overall survival (OS), and meet at least one of the five inclusion criteria: median cumulative illness score >6, median creatinine clearance ≤70 mL/min, existing co-morbidities, median age ≥70 years, and no full-dose F in the comparator arm. A manual review, validated by external experts, of all studies that met at least one of these criteria was also performed to confirm that they evaluated first-line therapeutic options for unfit patients with CLL. RESULTS: In unfit patients, the main NMA (five studies for PFS and four for OS) demonstrated clear preference in terms of PFS for obinutuzumab + chlorambucil (G-Clb) versus rituximab + chlorambucil (R-Clb), ofatumumab + chlorambucil (O-Clb), fludarabine and chlorambucil (median hazard ratios [HRs] 0.43, 0.33, 0.20, and 0.19, respectively), and a trend for better efficacy versus rituximab + bendamustine (R-Benda) and RFC-Lite (median HR 0.81 and 0.88, respectively). OS results were generally consistent with PFS data, (median HR 0.48, 0.53, and 0.81, respectively) for G-Clb versus Clb, O-Clb, and R-Clb 0.35 and 0.81 versus F and R-Benda, respectively); however, the OS findings were associated with higher uncertainty. Treatment ranking reflected improved PFS and OS with G-Clb over other treatment strategies (median rank of one for both endpoints). CONCLUSION: G-Clb is likely to show superior efficacy to other treatment options selected in our NMA for unfit treatment-naïve patients with CLL. FUNDING: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd

Rituximab plus bendamustine or chlorambucil for chronic lymphocytic leukemia: primary analysis of the randomized, open-label MABLE study

MABLE investigated the efficacy and safety of rituximab plus bendamustine or rituximab plus chlorambucil in fludarabine-ineligible patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Patients received rituximab plus bendamustine or rituximab plus chlorambucil every four weeks for six cycles. Rituximab plus chlorambucil-treated patients without a complete response after Cycle 6 received chlorambucil monotherapy for at least six additional cycles or until complete response. The primary endpoint was complete response rate (confirmed by bone marrow biopsy) after Cycle 6 in first-line patients. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, overall survival, minimal residual disease, and safety. Overall, 357 patients were randomized (rituximab plus bendamustine, n=178;rituximab plus chlorambucil, n=179;intent-to-treat population), including 241 first-line patients (n=121 and n=120, respectively);355 patients received treatment (n=177 and n=178, respectively;safety population). In first-line patients, complete response rate after Cycle 6 (rituximab plus bendamustine, 24%;rituximab plus chlorambucil, 9%;P=0.002) and median progression-free survival (rituximab plus bendamustine, 40 months;rituximab plus chlorambucil, 30 months;P=0.003) were higher with rituximab plus bendamustine than rituximab plus chlorambucil. Overall response rate and overall survival were not different. In first-line patients with a complete response, minimal residual disease-negativity was higher with rituximab plus bendamustine than rituximab plus chlorambucil (66% vs. 36%). Overall adverse event incidence was similar (rituximab plus bendamustine, 98%;rituximab plus chlorambucil, 97%). Rituximab plus bendamustine may be a valuable first-line option for fludarabine-ineligible patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. clinicaltrials.gov identifier: 0105651

A randomized phase 3 trial of zanubrutinib vs ibrutinib in symptomatic Waldenström macroglobulinemia: the ASPEN study

Se trata de la publicación del estudio de fase 3 ASPEN que comparó en pacientes con macro-globulinemia de Waldenström (WM) la eficacia y la seguridad de ibrutinib, un inhibidor de la tirosi-na quinasa Bruton (BTK) de primera generación, familia que ha demostrado ser un tratamiento eficaz en estos pacientes, frente a zanubrutinib, un nuevo inhibidor de BTK de 2ª generación, altamente selectivo. Los pacientes con enfermedad MYD88L265P se asignaron al azar 1:1 al tratamiento con ibrutinib o zanubrutinib. El criterio principal de valoración fue la proporción de pa-cientes que lograron una respuesta completa (RC) o una respuesta parcial muy buena (RPMB) mediante una revisión independiente. Los criterios secundarios clave de valoración incluyeron la tasa de respuesta mayor (RM), la supervivencia libre de progresión (SLP), la duración de la res-puesta (DR), la carga de la enfermedad y la seguridad. Se randomizaron 201 pacientes y 199 recibieron al menos 1 dosis del tratamiento del estudio. Veintinueve (28%) pacientes tratados con zanubrutinib y 19 (19%) pacientes tratados con ibrutinib lograron una RPMB, diferencia que no alcanzó la significación estadística (P = 0,09). Las RM fueron del 77% y del 78%, respectivamen-te. No se alcanzó la mediana de DR y SLP, ya que el 84% y el 85% de los pacientes tratados con ibrutinib y zanubrutinib estaban libres de progresión a los 18 meses. La fibrilación auricular, hema-tomas, diarrea, edema periférico, hemorragia, espasmos musculares y neumonía, así como los eventos adversos que condujeron a interrumpir el tratamiento, fueron menos frecuentes entre los receptores de zanubrutinib. La incidencia de neutropenia fue mayor con zanubrutinib, aunque las tasas de infección de grado ≥3 fueron similares en ambos grupos (1,2 y 1,1 eventos por 100 me-ses-persona). Estos resultados demuestran que zanubrutinib e ibrutinib son altamente efectivos en el tratamiento de la WM, pero zanubrutinib se asoció con menor toxicidad y una tendencia hacia una mejor calidad de respuesta y menos toxicidad, particularmente toxicidad cardiovascular.[EN]Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibition is an effective treatment approach for patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM). The phase 3 ASPEN study compared the efficacy and safety of ibrutinib, a first-generation BTK inhibitor, with zanubrutinib, a novel highly selective BTK inhibitor, in patients with WM. Patients with MYD88L265P disease were randomly assigned 1:1 to treatment with ibrutinib or zanubrutinib. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response (CR) or a very good partial response (VGPR) by independent review. Key secondary end points included major response rate (MRR), progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR), disease burden, and safety. A total of 201 patients were randomized, and 199 received ≥1 dose of study treatment. No patient achieved a CR. Twenty-nine (28%) zanubrutinib patients and 19 (19%) ibrutinib patients achieved a VGPR, a nonstatistically significant difference (P = .09). MRRs were 77% and 78%, respectively. Median DOR and PFS were not reached; 84% and 85% of ibrutinib and zanubrutinib patients were progression free at 18 months. Atrial fibrillation, contusion, diarrhea, peripheral edema, hemorrhage, muscle spasms, and pneumonia, as well as adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation, were less common among zanubrutinib recipients. Incidence of neutropenia was higher with zanubrutinib, although grade ≥3 infection rates were similar in both arms (1.2 and 1.1 events per 100 person-months). These results demonstrate that zanubrutinib and ibrutinib are highly effective in the treatment of WM, but zanubrutinib treatment was associated with a trend toward better response quality and less toxicity, particularly cardiovascular toxicity.BeiGene CoBeiGene C

Response to rituximab induction is a predictive marker in B-cell post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder and allows successful stratification into rituximab or r-chop consolidation in an international, prospective, multicenter Phase II trial

Purpose The Sequential Treatment of CD20-Positive Posttransplant Lymphoproliferative Disorder (PTLD-1) trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01458548) established sequential treatment with four cycles of rituximab followed by four cycles of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) chemotherapy as a standard in the management of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) and identified response to rituximab induction as a prognostic factor for overall survival. We hypothesized that rituximab consolidation might be sufficient treatment for patients with a complete response after rituximab induction. Patients and Methods In this prospective, international, multicenter phase II trial, 152 treatment-naive adult solid organ transplant recipients, with CD20+ PTLD unresponsive to immunosuppression reduction, were treated with four weekly doses of rituximab induction. After restaging, complete responders continued with four courses of rituximab consolidation every 21 days; all others received four courses of rituximab plus CHOP chemotherapy every 21 days. The primary end point was treatment efficacy measured as the response rate in patients who completed therapy and the response duration in those who completed therapy and responded. Secondary end points were frequency of infections, treatment-related mortality, and overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Results One hundred eleven of 126 patients had a complete or partial response (88%; 95% CI, 81% to 93%), of whom 88 had a complete response (70%; 95% CI, 61% to 77%). Median response duration was not reached. The 3-year estimate was 82% (95% CI, 74% to 90%). Median overall survival was 6.6 years (95% CI, 5.5 to 7.6 years). The frequency of grade 3 or 4 infections and of treatment-related mortality was 34% (95% CI, 27% to 42%) and 8% (95% CI, 5% to 14%), respectively. Response to rituximab induction remained a prognostic factor for overall survival despite treatment stratification. Conclusion In B-cell PTLD, treatment stratification into rituximab or rituximab plus CHOP consolidation on the basis of response to rituximab induction is feasible, safe, and effective

SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Patients With Waldenström's Macroglobulinemia: A Multicenter International Cohort Study

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has represented a huge challenge for vulnerable patients affected with hematological malignancies.1,2 So far, heterogeneous series on patients with lymphoma and COVID-19 have been published with mortality rates ranging from 25% to 40%,3–8 with only limited information about specific neoplasms.Peer reviewe

Zanubrutinib Versus Ibrutinib in Symptomatic Waldenström Macroglobulinemia: Final Analysis From the Randomized Phase III ASPEN Study

The phase III ASPEN study demonstrated the comparable efficacy and improved safety of zanubrutinib versus ibrutinib in patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM). Here, we report long-term follow-up outcomes from ASPEN. The primary end point was the sum of very good partial response (VGPR) + complete response (CR) rates; secondary and exploratory end points were also reported. Cohort 1 comprised 201 patients (myeloid differentiation primary response 88-mutant WM: 102 receiving zanubrutinib; 99 receiving ibrutinib); cohort 2 comprised 28 patients (myeloid differentiation primary response 88 wild-type WM: 28 zanubrutinib; 26 efficacy evaluable). At 44.4-month median follow-up, VGPR + CR rates were 36.3% with zanubrutinib versus 25.3% with ibrutinib in cohort 1 and 30.8% with one CR in cohort 2. In patients with CXC motif chemokine receptor 4 mutation, VGPR + CR rates were 21.2% with zanubrutinib versus 10.0% with ibrutinib (cohort 1). Median progression-free survival and overall survival were not reached. Any-grade adverse events (AEs) of diarrhea (34.7% v 22.8%), muscle spasms (28.6% v 11.9%), hypertension (25.5% v 14.9%), atrial fibrillation/flutter (23.5% v 7.9%), and pneumonia (18.4% v 5.0%) were more common with ibrutinib versus zanubrutinib; neutropenia (20.4% v 34.7%) was less common with ibrutinib versus zanubrutinib (cohort 1). Zanubrutinib was associated with lower risk of AE-related treatment discontinuation. Overall, these findings confirm the long-term response quality and tolerability associated with zanubrutinib

CONNAISSANCES ACTUELLES SUR LE 5-FLUOROURACILE (LE PLUS ANCIEN ET LE PLUS UTILISE DES ANTICANCEREUX : INTRODUCTION AU CONCEPT PHARMACOGENETIQUE)

ST QUENTIN EN YVELINES-BU (782972101) / SudocPARIS-BIUM (751062103) / SudocSudocFranceF