Front-line management of indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma in Australia. Part 2: mantle cell lymphoma and marginal zone lymphoma

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) and the marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) subtypes (nodal MZL, extra-nodal MZL of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT lymphoma) and splenic MZL) are uncommon lymphoma subtypes, accounting for less than 5-10% of all non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The evidence base for therapy is therefore limited and enrolment into clinical trials is preferred. Outcomes for patients with MCL have been steadily improving mainly due to the adoption of more intense strategies in younger patients, the use of rituximab maintenance and the recent introduction of bendamustine in older patients. MZL is a more heterogeneous group of cancer with both nodal, extra-nodal and splenic subtypes. Extranodal MZL may be associated with autoimmune or infectious aetiologies, and can respond to eradication of the causative pathogen. Proton pump inhibitor plus dual antibiotics in Helicobacter pylori positive gastric MALT lymphoma is curative in many patients. Watchful waiting is appropriate in most patients with asymptomatic advanced stage disease, which tends to behave in a particularly indolent manner. Other options for symptomatic disease include splenectomy, chemoimmunotherapy with rituximab and, more recently, targeted therapies

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

Idarubicin dose escalation during consolidation therapy for adult acute myeloid leukemia

Purpose Higher doses of the anthracycline daunorubicin during induction therapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have been shown to improve remission rates and survival. We hypothesized that improvements in outcomes in adult AML may be further achieved by increased anthracycline dose during consolidation therapy. Patients and Methods Patients with AML in complete remission after induction therapy were randomly assigned to receive two cycles of consolidation therapy with cytarabine 100 mg/m daily for 5 days, etoposide 75 mg/m daily for 5 days, and idarubicin 9 mg/m daily for either 2 or 3 days (standard and intensive arms, respectively). The primary end point was leukemia-free survival (LFS). Results Two hundred ninety-three patients 16 to 60 years of age, excluding those with core binding factor AML and acute promyelocytic leukemia, were randomly assigned to treatment groups (146 to the standard arm and 147 to the intensive arm). Both groups were balanced for age, karyotypic risk, and FLT3–internal tandem duplication and NPM1 gene mutations. One hundred twenty patients in the standard arm (82%) and 95 patients in the intensive arm (65%) completed planned consolidation (P, .001). Durations of severe neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were prolonged in the intensive arm, but there were no differences in serious nonhematological toxicities. With a median follow-up of 5.3 years (range, 0.6 to 9.9 years), there was a statistically significant improvement in LFS in the intensive arm compared with the standard arm (3-year LFS, 47% [95% CI, 40% to 56%] v 35% [95% CI, 28% to 44%]; P = .045). At 5 years, the overall survival rate was 57% in the intensive arm and 47% in the standard arm (P = .092). There was no evidence of selective benefit of intensive consolidation within the cytogenetic or FLT3–internal tandem duplication and NPM1 gene mutation subgroups. Conclusion An increased cumulative dose of idarubicin during consolidation therapy for adult AML resulted in improved LFS, without increased nonhematologic toxicity

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

Biomarker analysis of the ASPEN study comparing zanubrutinib with ibrutinib for patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia

The phase 3 ASPEN trial (NCT03053440) compared Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis), zanubrutinib and ibrutinib, in patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM). Post-hoc biomarker analysis was performed using next-generation sequencing on pretreatment bone marrow samples from 98 patients treated with zanubrutinib and 92 patients treated with ibrutinib with mutated (MUT) MYD88 and 20 patients with wild-type (WT) MYD88 treated with zanubrutinib. Of 329 mutations in 52 genes, mutations in CXCR4 (25.7%), TP53 (24.8%), ARID1A (15.7%), and TERT (9.0%) were most common. TP53MUT, ARID1AMUT, and TERTMUTwere associated with higher rates of CXCR4MUT(P < .05). Patients with CXCR4MUT(frameshift or nonsense [NS] mutations) had lower very good partial response (VGPR) and complete response rates (CR; 17.0% vs 37.2%, P = .020) and longer time to response (11.1 vs 8.4 months) than patients with CXCR4WTtreated with BTKis. CXCR4NSwas associated with inferior progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR], 3.39; P = .017) in patients treated with ibrutinib but not in those treated with zanubrutinib (HR, 0.67; P = .598), but VGPR + CR rates were similar between treatment groups (14.3% vs 15.4%). Compared with ibrutinib, patients with CXCR4NStreated with zanubrutinib had a favorable major response rate (MRR; 85.7% vs 53.8%; P = .09) and PFS (HR, 0.30; P = .093). In patients with TP53MUT, significantly lower MRRs were observed for patients treated with ibrutinib (63.6% vs 85.7%; P = .04) but not for those treated with zanubrutinib (80.8% vs 81.9%; P = .978). In TP53MUT, compared with ibrutinib, patients treated with zanubrutinib had higher VGPR and CR (34.6% vs 13.6%; P < .05), numerically improved MRR (80.8% vs 63.6%; P = .11), and longer PFS (not reached vs 44.2 months; HR, 0.66; P = .37). Collectively, patients with WM with CXCR4MUTor TP53MUThad worse prognosis compared with patients with WT alleles, and zanubrutinib led to better clinical outcomes

Front-line management of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in Australia. Part 1: follicular lymphoma

Outcomes with follicular lymphoma (FL) have improved in the modern era and median survival is now beyond 15 years. Therapeutic decisions need to consider this increased survival as well as recent clinical trial data and emerging treatments. In this context, we present here current approaches to front-line management of FL in Australia. Treatment choices depend on the disease stage, tumour burden, the patient's age, symptoms, comorbidities and preferences. Only about 10–15% of patients with FL are diagnosed with early stage disease. For patients with low-grade, early stage disease, radiotherapy (RT) is recommended. The addition of chemotherapy has been shown to increase progression-free survival (PFS) but without demonstrated overall survival advantage. For patients with low-tumour-burden, advanced-stage FL, immediate treatment may not be required and we recommend considering active monitoring. For stage III/IV disease that is symptomatic and/or with high tumour burden, established first-line treatment is chemotherapy in combination with rituximab, often followed by rituximab maintenance. The listing of bendamustine and now obinutuzumab on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme has expanded the first-line treatment options in Australia to include bendamustine in combination with rituximab (without rituximab maintenance permitted) or with obinutuzumab plus 2 years obintuzumab maintenance. In the FL subgroup of the Study group indolent Lymphomas (StiL) trial, therapy with bendamustine plus rituximab significantly increased PFS compared with rituximab in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisolone, without rituximab maintenance. Initial tolerability may be more favourable with bendamustine in combination with anti-CD20 antibody therapy than other therapies overall, but clinical vigilance is still required because of concerns of late infectious toxicities associated with prolonged T-cell depletion