CLL

The Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib has been linked to an almost 20-fold increased risk of major bleeding in blood cancer patients taking concomitant antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy in a clinical setting.

Caution should be used when weighing the risks and benefits of ibrutinib for patients already taking antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy, or both, wrote Paul R. Kunk, MD, of University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and his colleagues. Their report is in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

Ibrutinib had been associated with an increased risk of bleeding, albeit low, in the clinical trial setting but the authors suggested that this rate could be higher in everyday clinical practice.

“Much of the information [from clinical trials] on the bleeding risk with ibrutinib, included pooled analyses, was from patients exclusively treated in clinical trials with specific exclusion criteria. These criteria have generally excluded patients with significant comorbidities. However, these patients are seen in clinical practice,” the researchers wrote.

They conducted a review of patients attending their center and associated regional clinics between January 2012 and May 2016. They identified 70 patients, average age 72, who were taking ibrutinib for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (64%) and mantle cell lymphoma (27%), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (4%), lymphoblastic lymphoma (3%), and Waldenström macroglobulinemia (1%).

The analysis showed that bleeding of any grade occurred in 56% of patients, mostly grade 1-2 bruising and epistaxis. However, major bleeding, defined as grade 3, occurred in 13 patients (19%), a figure that the authors noted was greater than the rate of around 7% reported by clinical trials.

Of these patients, seven were taking combined antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy, four were taking antiplatelets alone, one was taking an anticoagulant agent alone, and one was taking only ibrutinib.

Univariate analysis showed that the factors associated with an increased risk of major bleeding included antiplatelet or anticoagulant medication, the combination of the two medications or interacting medications, anemia (hemoglobin less than 12 g/dL) and an elevated international normalized ratio (greater than 1.5).

However, in a multivariate analysis, only combined antiplatelet and anticoagulant use (hazard ratio, 20.0; 95% confidence interval, 2.1-200.0; P less than .01) and an elevated INR (HR, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.1-19.6; P less than .01) remained statistically significant.

The researchers said the risk of major bleeding in patients taking both antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy was “unacceptably high” and “medications other than ibrutinib should be considered” in this patient population.

Overall, they said their findings confirmed “the increasingly recognized risk of major bleeding complications with ibrutinib compared with what was originally reported in the clinical trial setting.

“As ibrutinib increases in use, it is paramount to increase awareness of the known adverse events. This is especially important given the association of ibrutinib use with atrial fibrillation,” they wrote.

They noted that their trial was limited by the relatively small population size. Their finding that platelet count was not associated with bleeding risk was also “counterintuitive,” they noted.

SOURCE: Kunk PR et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2018 Jul 15. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2018.07.287.

The Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib has been linked to an almost 20-fold increased risk of major bleeding in blood cancer patients taking concomitant antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy in a clinical setting.

Caution should be used when weighing the risks and benefits of ibrutinib for patients already taking antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy, or both, wrote Paul R. Kunk, MD, of University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and his colleagues. Their report is in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

Ibrutinib had been associated with an increased risk of bleeding, albeit low, in the clinical trial setting but the authors suggested that this rate could be higher in everyday clinical practice.

“Much of the information [from clinical trials] on the bleeding risk with ibrutinib, included pooled analyses, was from patients exclusively treated in clinical trials with specific exclusion criteria. These criteria have generally excluded patients with significant comorbidities. However, these patients are seen in clinical practice,” the researchers wrote.

They conducted a review of patients attending their center and associated regional clinics between January 2012 and May 2016. They identified 70 patients, average age 72, who were taking ibrutinib for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (64%) and mantle cell lymphoma (27%), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (4%), lymphoblastic lymphoma (3%), and Waldenström macroglobulinemia (1%).

The analysis showed that bleeding of any grade occurred in 56% of patients, mostly grade 1-2 bruising and epistaxis. However, major bleeding, defined as grade 3, occurred in 13 patients (19%), a figure that the authors noted was greater than the rate of around 7% reported by clinical trials.

Of these patients, seven were taking combined antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy, four were taking antiplatelets alone, one was taking an anticoagulant agent alone, and one was taking only ibrutinib.

Univariate analysis showed that the factors associated with an increased risk of major bleeding included antiplatelet or anticoagulant medication, the combination of the two medications or interacting medications, anemia (hemoglobin less than 12 g/dL) and an elevated international normalized ratio (greater than 1.5).

However, in a multivariate analysis, only combined antiplatelet and anticoagulant use (hazard ratio, 20.0; 95% confidence interval, 2.1-200.0; P less than .01) and an elevated INR (HR, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.1-19.6; P less than .01) remained statistically significant.

The researchers said the risk of major bleeding in patients taking both antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy was “unacceptably high” and “medications other than ibrutinib should be considered” in this patient population.

Overall, they said their findings confirmed “the increasingly recognized risk of major bleeding complications with ibrutinib compared with what was originally reported in the clinical trial setting.

“As ibrutinib increases in use, it is paramount to increase awareness of the known adverse events. This is especially important given the association of ibrutinib use with atrial fibrillation,” they wrote.

They noted that their trial was limited by the relatively small population size. Their finding that platelet count was not associated with bleeding risk was also “counterintuitive,” they noted.

SOURCE: Kunk PR et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2018 Jul 15. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2018.07.287.

The Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib has been linked to an almost 20-fold increased risk of major bleeding in blood cancer patients taking concomitant antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy in a clinical setting.

Caution should be used when weighing the risks and benefits of ibrutinib for patients already taking antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy, or both, wrote Paul R. Kunk, MD, of University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and his colleagues. Their report is in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

Ibrutinib had been associated with an increased risk of bleeding, albeit low, in the clinical trial setting but the authors suggested that this rate could be higher in everyday clinical practice.

“Much of the information [from clinical trials] on the bleeding risk with ibrutinib, included pooled analyses, was from patients exclusively treated in clinical trials with specific exclusion criteria. These criteria have generally excluded patients with significant comorbidities. However, these patients are seen in clinical practice,” the researchers wrote.

They conducted a review of patients attending their center and associated regional clinics between January 2012 and May 2016. They identified 70 patients, average age 72, who were taking ibrutinib for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (64%) and mantle cell lymphoma (27%), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (4%), lymphoblastic lymphoma (3%), and Waldenström macroglobulinemia (1%).

The analysis showed that bleeding of any grade occurred in 56% of patients, mostly grade 1-2 bruising and epistaxis. However, major bleeding, defined as grade 3, occurred in 13 patients (19%), a figure that the authors noted was greater than the rate of around 7% reported by clinical trials.

Of these patients, seven were taking combined antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy, four were taking antiplatelets alone, one was taking an anticoagulant agent alone, and one was taking only ibrutinib.

Univariate analysis showed that the factors associated with an increased risk of major bleeding included antiplatelet or anticoagulant medication, the combination of the two medications or interacting medications, anemia (hemoglobin less than 12 g/dL) and an elevated international normalized ratio (greater than 1.5).

However, in a multivariate analysis, only combined antiplatelet and anticoagulant use (hazard ratio, 20.0; 95% confidence interval, 2.1-200.0; P less than .01) and an elevated INR (HR, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.1-19.6; P less than .01) remained statistically significant.

The researchers said the risk of major bleeding in patients taking both antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy was “unacceptably high” and “medications other than ibrutinib should be considered” in this patient population.

Overall, they said their findings confirmed “the increasingly recognized risk of major bleeding complications with ibrutinib compared with what was originally reported in the clinical trial setting.

“As ibrutinib increases in use, it is paramount to increase awareness of the known adverse events. This is especially important given the association of ibrutinib use with atrial fibrillation,” they wrote.

They noted that their trial was limited by the relatively small population size. Their finding that platelet count was not associated with bleeding risk was also “counterintuitive,” they noted.

SOURCE: Kunk PR et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2018 Jul 15. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2018.07.287.

Fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab are recommended as initial therapy for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia who do not have TP53 disruption, according to new guidelines from the British Society for Haematology.

The guidelines update the 2012 recommendations on chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) to include “significant” developments in treatment. They were published in the British Journal of Haematology.

Anna H. Schuh, MD, of the department of oncology at the University of Oxford (England), and her coauthors noted that, while these guidelines apply to treatments available outside clinical trials, wherever possible patients with CLL should be treated within the clinical trial setting.

While recommending fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab as first-line therapy, the guideline authors acknowledged that the combination of bendamustine and rituximab is an acceptable alternative for patients who could not take the triple therapy because of comorbidities such as advanced age, renal impairment, or issues with marrow capacity.

Similarly, less-fit patients could also be considered for chlorambucil-obinutuzumab or chlorambucil-ofatumumab combinations.

All patients diagnosed with CLL should be tested for TP53 deletions and mutations before each line of therapy, the guideline committee recommended. TP53 disruption makes chemoimmunotherapy ineffective because of either a deletion of chromosome 17p or a mutation in the TP53 gene. However, there is compelling evidence for the efficacy of ibrutinib in these patients, or idelalisib and rituximab for those with cardiac disease or receiving vitamin K antagonists.

With respect to maintenance therapy, the guidelines noted that this was not routinely recommended in CLL as “it is unclear to what extent the progression-free survival benefit is offset by long-term toxicity.”

Patients who are refractory to chemoimmunotherapy, who have relapsed, or who cannot be retreated with chemoimmunotherapy should be treated with idelalisib with rituximab or ibrutinib monotherapy, the guidelines suggested.

“Deciding whether ibrutinib or idelalisib with rituximab is most appropriate for an individual patient depends on a range of factors, including toxicity profile and convenience of delivery,” the authors wrote. However, they noted that the value of adding bendamustine to either option was unclear as research had not shown significant, associated gains in median progression-free survival.

Allogeneic stem cell transplantation should be considered as a treatment option for patients who have either failed chemotherapy, have a TP53 disruption and have not responded to B-cell receptor signaling pathway inhibitors such as ibrutinib, or have a Richter transformation.

The guidelines also addressed the issue of autoimmune cytopenias, which occur in 5%-10% of patients with CLL and can actually precede the diagnosis of CLL in about 9% of cases.

In patients where autoimmune cytopenia is the dominant clinical feature, they should be treated with corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin, or rituximab. However, for patients where the cytopenia is triggered by CLL therapy, the guidelines recommended halting treatment and beginning immunosuppression.

The guideline development was supported by the British Society for Haematology. The UK CLL Forum is a registered charity that receives funding from a number of pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Schuh AH et al. Br J Haematol. 2018 Jul 15. doi: 10.1111/bjh.15460.

Fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab are recommended as initial therapy for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia who do not have TP53 disruption, according to new guidelines from the British Society for Haematology.

The guidelines update the 2012 recommendations on chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) to include “significant” developments in treatment. They were published in the British Journal of Haematology.

Anna H. Schuh, MD, of the department of oncology at the University of Oxford (England), and her coauthors noted that, while these guidelines apply to treatments available outside clinical trials, wherever possible patients with CLL should be treated within the clinical trial setting.

While recommending fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab as first-line therapy, the guideline authors acknowledged that the combination of bendamustine and rituximab is an acceptable alternative for patients who could not take the triple therapy because of comorbidities such as advanced age, renal impairment, or issues with marrow capacity.

Similarly, less-fit patients could also be considered for chlorambucil-obinutuzumab or chlorambucil-ofatumumab combinations.

All patients diagnosed with CLL should be tested for TP53 deletions and mutations before each line of therapy, the guideline committee recommended. TP53 disruption makes chemoimmunotherapy ineffective because of either a deletion of chromosome 17p or a mutation in the TP53 gene. However, there is compelling evidence for the efficacy of ibrutinib in these patients, or idelalisib and rituximab for those with cardiac disease or receiving vitamin K antagonists.

With respect to maintenance therapy, the guidelines noted that this was not routinely recommended in CLL as “it is unclear to what extent the progression-free survival benefit is offset by long-term toxicity.”

Patients who are refractory to chemoimmunotherapy, who have relapsed, or who cannot be retreated with chemoimmunotherapy should be treated with idelalisib with rituximab or ibrutinib monotherapy, the guidelines suggested.

“Deciding whether ibrutinib or idelalisib with rituximab is most appropriate for an individual patient depends on a range of factors, including toxicity profile and convenience of delivery,” the authors wrote. However, they noted that the value of adding bendamustine to either option was unclear as research had not shown significant, associated gains in median progression-free survival.

Allogeneic stem cell transplantation should be considered as a treatment option for patients who have either failed chemotherapy, have a TP53 disruption and have not responded to B-cell receptor signaling pathway inhibitors such as ibrutinib, or have a Richter transformation.

The guidelines also addressed the issue of autoimmune cytopenias, which occur in 5%-10% of patients with CLL and can actually precede the diagnosis of CLL in about 9% of cases.

In patients where autoimmune cytopenia is the dominant clinical feature, they should be treated with corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin, or rituximab. However, for patients where the cytopenia is triggered by CLL therapy, the guidelines recommended halting treatment and beginning immunosuppression.

The guideline development was supported by the British Society for Haematology. The UK CLL Forum is a registered charity that receives funding from a number of pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Schuh AH et al. Br J Haematol. 2018 Jul 15. doi: 10.1111/bjh.15460.

Fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab are recommended as initial therapy for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia who do not have TP53 disruption, according to new guidelines from the British Society for Haematology.

The guidelines update the 2012 recommendations on chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) to include “significant” developments in treatment. They were published in the British Journal of Haematology.

Anna H. Schuh, MD, of the department of oncology at the University of Oxford (England), and her coauthors noted that, while these guidelines apply to treatments available outside clinical trials, wherever possible patients with CLL should be treated within the clinical trial setting.

While recommending fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab as first-line therapy, the guideline authors acknowledged that the combination of bendamustine and rituximab is an acceptable alternative for patients who could not take the triple therapy because of comorbidities such as advanced age, renal impairment, or issues with marrow capacity.

Similarly, less-fit patients could also be considered for chlorambucil-obinutuzumab or chlorambucil-ofatumumab combinations.

All patients diagnosed with CLL should be tested for TP53 deletions and mutations before each line of therapy, the guideline committee recommended. TP53 disruption makes chemoimmunotherapy ineffective because of either a deletion of chromosome 17p or a mutation in the TP53 gene. However, there is compelling evidence for the efficacy of ibrutinib in these patients, or idelalisib and rituximab for those with cardiac disease or receiving vitamin K antagonists.

With respect to maintenance therapy, the guidelines noted that this was not routinely recommended in CLL as “it is unclear to what extent the progression-free survival benefit is offset by long-term toxicity.”

Patients who are refractory to chemoimmunotherapy, who have relapsed, or who cannot be retreated with chemoimmunotherapy should be treated with idelalisib with rituximab or ibrutinib monotherapy, the guidelines suggested.

“Deciding whether ibrutinib or idelalisib with rituximab is most appropriate for an individual patient depends on a range of factors, including toxicity profile and convenience of delivery,” the authors wrote. However, they noted that the value of adding bendamustine to either option was unclear as research had not shown significant, associated gains in median progression-free survival.

Allogeneic stem cell transplantation should be considered as a treatment option for patients who have either failed chemotherapy, have a TP53 disruption and have not responded to B-cell receptor signaling pathway inhibitors such as ibrutinib, or have a Richter transformation.

The guidelines also addressed the issue of autoimmune cytopenias, which occur in 5%-10% of patients with CLL and can actually precede the diagnosis of CLL in about 9% of cases.

In patients where autoimmune cytopenia is the dominant clinical feature, they should be treated with corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin, or rituximab. However, for patients where the cytopenia is triggered by CLL therapy, the guidelines recommended halting treatment and beginning immunosuppression.

The guideline development was supported by the British Society for Haematology. The UK CLL Forum is a registered charity that receives funding from a number of pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Schuh AH et al. Br J Haematol. 2018 Jul 15. doi: 10.1111/bjh.15460.

Treatment with isavuconazole resolved or substantially improved invasive fungal disease among seven of eight patients receiving concomitant ibrutinib, according to the results of a small two-center study.

The combination “was well-tolerated overall,” wrote Kaelyn C. Cummins of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, together with her associates there and at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Their letter to the editor was published in Leukemia & Lymphoma.

Although ibrutinib is considered less immunosuppressive than conventional chemotherapy, it has been tied to invasive fungal infections, even in seemingly low-risk patients. The preferred treatment, voriconazole, is a very strong inhibitor of cytochrome P450 systems, of which ibrutinib is a substrate. For this study, the researchers queried the pharmacy databases of their institutions to identify adults who received concomitant isavuconazole (200 mg per day) and ibrutinib between 2015 and 2018. Drug exposures were confirmed by medical record review.

Four patients experienced clinical and radiologic resolution of invasive aspergillosis, fusariosis, mucormycosis, or phaeohyphomycosis. Another three had clinical and radiologic improvement of confirmed or probable aspergillosis or histoplasmosis. One of these patients underwent five debridements for central nervous system invasive aspergillosis but had 8 months of clinical improvement between debridements. This patient’s fungal isolate remained susceptible to isavuconazole throughout treatment. The patient who did not respond at all to isavuconazole had invasive aspergillosis with recurrent brain abscesses. The fungal isolate remained susceptible to isavuconazole, and the patient switched to long-term voriconazole therapy after stopping ibrutinib.

Several adverse events occurred while patients were on concomitant therapy. One patient developed paroxysmal atrial fibrillation that persisted after stopping ibrutinib. Another had worsening of preexisting thrombocytopenia. Among four patients with electrocardiogram data, two had transient QTc prolongation. No patient died within 12 weeks of starting concomitant therapy. Two patients eventually died after their cancer progressed.

The median age of the patients was 60 years (range, 38-76 years). Five were men. Six had chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and two had marginal zone lymphoma. Two CLL patients were on ibrutinib monotherapy, two also received rituximab, one also received umbralisib, and one also received obinutuzumab. One patient with marginal zone lymphoma was on ibrutinib monotherapy, and the other received concomitant rituximab, gemcitabine, dexamethasone, and cisplatin.

Researchers should study the mechanisms by which [Bruton’s tyrosine kinase] inhibitors might increase susceptibility to fungal infections among patients with lymphoma or CLL, said Ms. Cummins and her associates. Because the CYP3A enzyme system also metabolizes PI3K and BCL-2 inhibitors, their results “could be more broadly applicable.”

Ms. Cummins had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Cummins KC et al. Leuk. Lymphoma 2018 Jul 24. doi: 10.1080/10428194.2018.1485913.

Treatment with isavuconazole resolved or substantially improved invasive fungal disease among seven of eight patients receiving concomitant ibrutinib, according to the results of a small two-center study.

The combination “was well-tolerated overall,” wrote Kaelyn C. Cummins of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, together with her associates there and at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Their letter to the editor was published in Leukemia & Lymphoma.

Although ibrutinib is considered less immunosuppressive than conventional chemotherapy, it has been tied to invasive fungal infections, even in seemingly low-risk patients. The preferred treatment, voriconazole, is a very strong inhibitor of cytochrome P450 systems, of which ibrutinib is a substrate. For this study, the researchers queried the pharmacy databases of their institutions to identify adults who received concomitant isavuconazole (200 mg per day) and ibrutinib between 2015 and 2018. Drug exposures were confirmed by medical record review.

Four patients experienced clinical and radiologic resolution of invasive aspergillosis, fusariosis, mucormycosis, or phaeohyphomycosis. Another three had clinical and radiologic improvement of confirmed or probable aspergillosis or histoplasmosis. One of these patients underwent five debridements for central nervous system invasive aspergillosis but had 8 months of clinical improvement between debridements. This patient’s fungal isolate remained susceptible to isavuconazole throughout treatment. The patient who did not respond at all to isavuconazole had invasive aspergillosis with recurrent brain abscesses. The fungal isolate remained susceptible to isavuconazole, and the patient switched to long-term voriconazole therapy after stopping ibrutinib.

Several adverse events occurred while patients were on concomitant therapy. One patient developed paroxysmal atrial fibrillation that persisted after stopping ibrutinib. Another had worsening of preexisting thrombocytopenia. Among four patients with electrocardiogram data, two had transient QTc prolongation. No patient died within 12 weeks of starting concomitant therapy. Two patients eventually died after their cancer progressed.

The median age of the patients was 60 years (range, 38-76 years). Five were men. Six had chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and two had marginal zone lymphoma. Two CLL patients were on ibrutinib monotherapy, two also received rituximab, one also received umbralisib, and one also received obinutuzumab. One patient with marginal zone lymphoma was on ibrutinib monotherapy, and the other received concomitant rituximab, gemcitabine, dexamethasone, and cisplatin.

Researchers should study the mechanisms by which [Bruton’s tyrosine kinase] inhibitors might increase susceptibility to fungal infections among patients with lymphoma or CLL, said Ms. Cummins and her associates. Because the CYP3A enzyme system also metabolizes PI3K and BCL-2 inhibitors, their results “could be more broadly applicable.”

Ms. Cummins had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Cummins KC et al. Leuk. Lymphoma 2018 Jul 24. doi: 10.1080/10428194.2018.1485913.

Treatment with isavuconazole resolved or substantially improved invasive fungal disease among seven of eight patients receiving concomitant ibrutinib, according to the results of a small two-center study.

The combination “was well-tolerated overall,” wrote Kaelyn C. Cummins of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, together with her associates there and at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Their letter to the editor was published in Leukemia & Lymphoma.

Although ibrutinib is considered less immunosuppressive than conventional chemotherapy, it has been tied to invasive fungal infections, even in seemingly low-risk patients. The preferred treatment, voriconazole, is a very strong inhibitor of cytochrome P450 systems, of which ibrutinib is a substrate. For this study, the researchers queried the pharmacy databases of their institutions to identify adults who received concomitant isavuconazole (200 mg per day) and ibrutinib between 2015 and 2018. Drug exposures were confirmed by medical record review.

Four patients experienced clinical and radiologic resolution of invasive aspergillosis, fusariosis, mucormycosis, or phaeohyphomycosis. Another three had clinical and radiologic improvement of confirmed or probable aspergillosis or histoplasmosis. One of these patients underwent five debridements for central nervous system invasive aspergillosis but had 8 months of clinical improvement between debridements. This patient’s fungal isolate remained susceptible to isavuconazole throughout treatment. The patient who did not respond at all to isavuconazole had invasive aspergillosis with recurrent brain abscesses. The fungal isolate remained susceptible to isavuconazole, and the patient switched to long-term voriconazole therapy after stopping ibrutinib.

Several adverse events occurred while patients were on concomitant therapy. One patient developed paroxysmal atrial fibrillation that persisted after stopping ibrutinib. Another had worsening of preexisting thrombocytopenia. Among four patients with electrocardiogram data, two had transient QTc prolongation. No patient died within 12 weeks of starting concomitant therapy. Two patients eventually died after their cancer progressed.

The median age of the patients was 60 years (range, 38-76 years). Five were men. Six had chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and two had marginal zone lymphoma. Two CLL patients were on ibrutinib monotherapy, two also received rituximab, one also received umbralisib, and one also received obinutuzumab. One patient with marginal zone lymphoma was on ibrutinib monotherapy, and the other received concomitant rituximab, gemcitabine, dexamethasone, and cisplatin.

Researchers should study the mechanisms by which [Bruton’s tyrosine kinase] inhibitors might increase susceptibility to fungal infections among patients with lymphoma or CLL, said Ms. Cummins and her associates. Because the CYP3A enzyme system also metabolizes PI3K and BCL-2 inhibitors, their results “could be more broadly applicable.”

Ms. Cummins had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Cummins KC et al. Leuk. Lymphoma 2018 Jul 24. doi: 10.1080/10428194.2018.1485913.

Ibrutinib has a favorable safety profile in the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), according to findings from a pooled analysis.

Susan M. O’Brien, MD, of the University of California, Irvine, and her colleagues reported pooled data from four randomized, controlled trials that included a 756 patients treated with ibrutinib and 749 patients who received a comparator drug. Patients were treated for either CLL/SLL or MCL, and safety was assessed by comparing crude and exposure-adjusted incidence rates of reported adverse events (AEs).

The comparator drugs included intravenous ofatumumab, oral chlorambucil, intravenous bendamustine plus rituximab, and intravenous temsirolimus.

While adverse event data have been published for each study analyzed, the researchers noted that the pooled analysis allows for an “in-depth assessment of the frequency and severity of both common AEs as well as additional AEs of clinical interest.”

Ibrutinib-treated patients had low rates of treatment discontinuation, compared with comparator-treatment patients (27% vs. 85%), the researchers reported in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia. Most discontinuations were caused by disease progression.

In terms of AEs, the types of events reported were similar among the drugs, with the three most common being infections, gastrointestinal disorders, and general disorders/administration-site conditions.

Diarrhea, muscle spasms, and arthralgia were reported more often among ibrutinib-treated patients. The prevalence of the most common all-grade AEs generally decreased over time with ibrutinib, peaking in the first 3 months of treatment. For serious AEs, only atrial fibrillation was higher with ibrutinib than comparator drugs when adjusted for exposure.

[email protected]

SOURCE: O’Brien SM et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2018 Jun 27. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2018.06.016.

Ibrutinib has a favorable safety profile in the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), according to findings from a pooled analysis.

Susan M. O’Brien, MD, of the University of California, Irvine, and her colleagues reported pooled data from four randomized, controlled trials that included a 756 patients treated with ibrutinib and 749 patients who received a comparator drug. Patients were treated for either CLL/SLL or MCL, and safety was assessed by comparing crude and exposure-adjusted incidence rates of reported adverse events (AEs).

The comparator drugs included intravenous ofatumumab, oral chlorambucil, intravenous bendamustine plus rituximab, and intravenous temsirolimus.

While adverse event data have been published for each study analyzed, the researchers noted that the pooled analysis allows for an “in-depth assessment of the frequency and severity of both common AEs as well as additional AEs of clinical interest.”

Ibrutinib-treated patients had low rates of treatment discontinuation, compared with comparator-treatment patients (27% vs. 85%), the researchers reported in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia. Most discontinuations were caused by disease progression.

In terms of AEs, the types of events reported were similar among the drugs, with the three most common being infections, gastrointestinal disorders, and general disorders/administration-site conditions.

Diarrhea, muscle spasms, and arthralgia were reported more often among ibrutinib-treated patients. The prevalence of the most common all-grade AEs generally decreased over time with ibrutinib, peaking in the first 3 months of treatment. For serious AEs, only atrial fibrillation was higher with ibrutinib than comparator drugs when adjusted for exposure.

[email protected]

SOURCE: O’Brien SM et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2018 Jun 27. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2018.06.016.

Ibrutinib has a favorable safety profile in the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), according to findings from a pooled analysis.

Susan M. O’Brien, MD, of the University of California, Irvine, and her colleagues reported pooled data from four randomized, controlled trials that included a 756 patients treated with ibrutinib and 749 patients who received a comparator drug. Patients were treated for either CLL/SLL or MCL, and safety was assessed by comparing crude and exposure-adjusted incidence rates of reported adverse events (AEs).

The comparator drugs included intravenous ofatumumab, oral chlorambucil, intravenous bendamustine plus rituximab, and intravenous temsirolimus.

While adverse event data have been published for each study analyzed, the researchers noted that the pooled analysis allows for an “in-depth assessment of the frequency and severity of both common AEs as well as additional AEs of clinical interest.”

Ibrutinib-treated patients had low rates of treatment discontinuation, compared with comparator-treatment patients (27% vs. 85%), the researchers reported in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia. Most discontinuations were caused by disease progression.

In terms of AEs, the types of events reported were similar among the drugs, with the three most common being infections, gastrointestinal disorders, and general disorders/administration-site conditions.

Diarrhea, muscle spasms, and arthralgia were reported more often among ibrutinib-treated patients. The prevalence of the most common all-grade AEs generally decreased over time with ibrutinib, peaking in the first 3 months of treatment. For serious AEs, only atrial fibrillation was higher with ibrutinib than comparator drugs when adjusted for exposure.

[email protected]

SOURCE: O’Brien SM et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2018 Jun 27. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2018.06.016.

STOCKHOLM – A chemotherapy-free regimen of ibrutinib plus venetoclax was generally safe and showed promising early efficacy in patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia, investigators reported.

A planned interim analysis performed after the first 15 patients who had received two cycles of ibrutinib plus one of ibrutinib and venetoclax showed no treatment-related deaths or treatment interruptions, and all patients had clinical responses, including 8 with complete clinical remission (CR), reported Carsten U. Niemann, MD, PhD, from Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, and his colleagues.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

The goal of the ongoing VISION/HOVEN 141 study is to evaluate whether minimal residual disease (MRD)–guided therapy with the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib and the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax could lead to MRD negativity and allow select patients to stop treatment, Dr. Niemann said in an interview at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

“It’s a 100% clinical response rate and 53% CR. Obviously these are clinical responses, so we don’t have the CT scans, we don’t have the bone marrow biopsies, but we’re very happy to see even in the relapsed/refractory setting such good response rates,” he said.

The investigators are enrolling patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic leukemia requiring treatment and starting all patients on ibrutinib 420 mg daily for the first 2 cycles, with venetoclax added in a 5-week ramp-up from 20 mg beginning with cycle 3 to a final dose of 400 mg daily for 15 total treatment cycles.

At the end of the induction phase, patients who are determined to be MRD-negative by flow cytometry at cycles 12 and 15, and by bone marrow at cycle 15, are randomized on a 1:2 basis to ibrutinib maintenance until disease progression or intolerable toxicity, or to observation until progression or loss of MRD negativity, at which time they start maintenance with ibrutinib until progression or toxicity, plus 12 months of venetoclax.

All 15 patients who were followed for 3 months had clinical responses, including 8 CRs (53%), 6 partial remissions (40%), and 1 partial remission with lymphocytosis (7%).

Three patients had ibrutinib dose reductions and two had venetoclax dose reductions, but no patients stopped treatment. Three patients had grade 2 adverse events (AEs), three had grade 3 AEs, and two had grade 4 AEs. There were no grade 5 AEs.

Two patients had serious AEs during the first two cycles with ibrutinib alone, one of which was a case of febrile neutropenia and one which was an adenocarcinoma of the lung. There were no serious AEs reported during venetoclax ramp-up. To date, there have been no cases of tumor lysis syndrome, atrial fibrillation, or bleeding events reported.

The results suggest that treatment with ibrutinib and venetoclax ramp-up is manageable in this patient population, and the study is ongoing, with further results expected to be reported at either the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology or the 2019 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Niemann said.

The study is supported by AbbVie and Janssen, which supplied the drugs and had the right to comment on the presentation. Dr. Niemann has previously disclosed consultancy fees from those companies and others.

SOURCE: Niemann CU et al. EHA Congress, Abstract PF346.


 

STOCKHOLM – A chemotherapy-free regimen of ibrutinib plus venetoclax was generally safe and showed promising early efficacy in patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia, investigators reported.

A planned interim analysis performed after the first 15 patients who had received two cycles of ibrutinib plus one of ibrutinib and venetoclax showed no treatment-related deaths or treatment interruptions, and all patients had clinical responses, including 8 with complete clinical remission (CR), reported Carsten U. Niemann, MD, PhD, from Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, and his colleagues.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

The goal of the ongoing VISION/HOVEN 141 study is to evaluate whether minimal residual disease (MRD)–guided therapy with the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib and the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax could lead to MRD negativity and allow select patients to stop treatment, Dr. Niemann said in an interview at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

“It’s a 100% clinical response rate and 53% CR. Obviously these are clinical responses, so we don’t have the CT scans, we don’t have the bone marrow biopsies, but we’re very happy to see even in the relapsed/refractory setting such good response rates,” he said.

The investigators are enrolling patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic leukemia requiring treatment and starting all patients on ibrutinib 420 mg daily for the first 2 cycles, with venetoclax added in a 5-week ramp-up from 20 mg beginning with cycle 3 to a final dose of 400 mg daily for 15 total treatment cycles.

At the end of the induction phase, patients who are determined to be MRD-negative by flow cytometry at cycles 12 and 15, and by bone marrow at cycle 15, are randomized on a 1:2 basis to ibrutinib maintenance until disease progression or intolerable toxicity, or to observation until progression or loss of MRD negativity, at which time they start maintenance with ibrutinib until progression or toxicity, plus 12 months of venetoclax.

All 15 patients who were followed for 3 months had clinical responses, including 8 CRs (53%), 6 partial remissions (40%), and 1 partial remission with lymphocytosis (7%).

Three patients had ibrutinib dose reductions and two had venetoclax dose reductions, but no patients stopped treatment. Three patients had grade 2 adverse events (AEs), three had grade 3 AEs, and two had grade 4 AEs. There were no grade 5 AEs.

Two patients had serious AEs during the first two cycles with ibrutinib alone, one of which was a case of febrile neutropenia and one which was an adenocarcinoma of the lung. There were no serious AEs reported during venetoclax ramp-up. To date, there have been no cases of tumor lysis syndrome, atrial fibrillation, or bleeding events reported.

The results suggest that treatment with ibrutinib and venetoclax ramp-up is manageable in this patient population, and the study is ongoing, with further results expected to be reported at either the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology or the 2019 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Niemann said.

The study is supported by AbbVie and Janssen, which supplied the drugs and had the right to comment on the presentation. Dr. Niemann has previously disclosed consultancy fees from those companies and others.

SOURCE: Niemann CU et al. EHA Congress, Abstract PF346.


 

STOCKHOLM – A chemotherapy-free regimen of ibrutinib plus venetoclax was generally safe and showed promising early efficacy in patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia, investigators reported.

A planned interim analysis performed after the first 15 patients who had received two cycles of ibrutinib plus one of ibrutinib and venetoclax showed no treatment-related deaths or treatment interruptions, and all patients had clinical responses, including 8 with complete clinical remission (CR), reported Carsten U. Niemann, MD, PhD, from Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, and his colleagues.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

The goal of the ongoing VISION/HOVEN 141 study is to evaluate whether minimal residual disease (MRD)–guided therapy with the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib and the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax could lead to MRD negativity and allow select patients to stop treatment, Dr. Niemann said in an interview at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

“It’s a 100% clinical response rate and 53% CR. Obviously these are clinical responses, so we don’t have the CT scans, we don’t have the bone marrow biopsies, but we’re very happy to see even in the relapsed/refractory setting such good response rates,” he said.

The investigators are enrolling patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic leukemia requiring treatment and starting all patients on ibrutinib 420 mg daily for the first 2 cycles, with venetoclax added in a 5-week ramp-up from 20 mg beginning with cycle 3 to a final dose of 400 mg daily for 15 total treatment cycles.

At the end of the induction phase, patients who are determined to be MRD-negative by flow cytometry at cycles 12 and 15, and by bone marrow at cycle 15, are randomized on a 1:2 basis to ibrutinib maintenance until disease progression or intolerable toxicity, or to observation until progression or loss of MRD negativity, at which time they start maintenance with ibrutinib until progression or toxicity, plus 12 months of venetoclax.

All 15 patients who were followed for 3 months had clinical responses, including 8 CRs (53%), 6 partial remissions (40%), and 1 partial remission with lymphocytosis (7%).

Three patients had ibrutinib dose reductions and two had venetoclax dose reductions, but no patients stopped treatment. Three patients had grade 2 adverse events (AEs), three had grade 3 AEs, and two had grade 4 AEs. There were no grade 5 AEs.

Two patients had serious AEs during the first two cycles with ibrutinib alone, one of which was a case of febrile neutropenia and one which was an adenocarcinoma of the lung. There were no serious AEs reported during venetoclax ramp-up. To date, there have been no cases of tumor lysis syndrome, atrial fibrillation, or bleeding events reported.

The results suggest that treatment with ibrutinib and venetoclax ramp-up is manageable in this patient population, and the study is ongoing, with further results expected to be reported at either the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology or the 2019 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Niemann said.

The study is supported by AbbVie and Janssen, which supplied the drugs and had the right to comment on the presentation. Dr. Niemann has previously disclosed consultancy fees from those companies and others.

SOURCE: Niemann CU et al. EHA Congress, Abstract PF346.


 

STOCKHOLM – Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who experience relapse after therapy with a B-cell receptor signaling inhibitor tend to have a swiftly progressive disease course that requires immediate intervention. For these patients, a rapid venetoclax dose-escalation protocol may be a safe way to quickly regain disease control, and possibly bridge to salvage therapies, investigators reported.

Of 15 patients with CLL who relapsed after treatment with a B-cell receptor inhibitor (BCRi), all were able to get to their target dose of venetoclax under close inpatient monitoring at a median of 12 days, compared with the 35 days usually required for venetoclax dose escalation, reported Farrukh T. Awan, MD, of Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center in Columbus, and his colleagues.

Only two patients developed clinical tumor lysis syndrome (TLS), a common occurrence with venetoclax therapy, and this adverse event was manageable, Dr. Awan said at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

“The reason why we have been doing a slow ramp up on venetoclax is the original toxicity issues that we saw early on,” he said in an interview. “But unfortunately, a lot of patients are progressing on these new agents and have very rapid disease progression, and what we have seen is that if you stop the ibrutinib, the disease progresses very quickly, and by the time they can get up to the effective dose of venetoclax, they’re too sick to continue, or they might even die from disease progression.”

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

The incidence of clinical TLS was 13.2%, occurring in two patients, one at the initial 20-mg dose, and one at the 200-mg dose level. Another five patients had asymptomatic TLS. Other treatment-related adverse events were anemia in seven patients, neutropenia in six patients, thrombocytopenia in five patients, and lung infection in one patient.

Twelve patients had a partial response, one had stable disease, and two had progressive disease. The mean time to best response was 71 days.

One-year progression-free survival was 49%, and 1-year overall survival was 68%.

The investigators found that for patients who still have some disease control with a BCRi, it may be possible to keep them on that drug while transitioning to venetoclax. The rapid dose escalation protocol should only be attempted in highly experience comprehensive cancer centers, Dr. Awan said.

“Under very close monitoring in an experienced inpatient setting, where the nurses are very used to doing this on a weekly basis in a very high volume center, I think that our data show that we could do this without affecting toxicity significantly or mortality,” he said.

Venetoclax therapy could buy enough time for patients to bridge to other options, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy or allogeneic stem cell transplant, he noted.

“But if we had waited 4 weeks, most of these patients would not have made it,” he said.

The study was internally funded. Dr. Awan reported research funding from Gilead, Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, and Janssen.

SOURCE: Koenig K et al. EHA Congress, Abstract PF357.

STOCKHOLM – Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who experience relapse after therapy with a B-cell receptor signaling inhibitor tend to have a swiftly progressive disease course that requires immediate intervention. For these patients, a rapid venetoclax dose-escalation protocol may be a safe way to quickly regain disease control, and possibly bridge to salvage therapies, investigators reported.

Of 15 patients with CLL who relapsed after treatment with a B-cell receptor inhibitor (BCRi), all were able to get to their target dose of venetoclax under close inpatient monitoring at a median of 12 days, compared with the 35 days usually required for venetoclax dose escalation, reported Farrukh T. Awan, MD, of Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center in Columbus, and his colleagues.

Only two patients developed clinical tumor lysis syndrome (TLS), a common occurrence with venetoclax therapy, and this adverse event was manageable, Dr. Awan said at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

“The reason why we have been doing a slow ramp up on venetoclax is the original toxicity issues that we saw early on,” he said in an interview. “But unfortunately, a lot of patients are progressing on these new agents and have very rapid disease progression, and what we have seen is that if you stop the ibrutinib, the disease progresses very quickly, and by the time they can get up to the effective dose of venetoclax, they’re too sick to continue, or they might even die from disease progression.”

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

The incidence of clinical TLS was 13.2%, occurring in two patients, one at the initial 20-mg dose, and one at the 200-mg dose level. Another five patients had asymptomatic TLS. Other treatment-related adverse events were anemia in seven patients, neutropenia in six patients, thrombocytopenia in five patients, and lung infection in one patient.

Twelve patients had a partial response, one had stable disease, and two had progressive disease. The mean time to best response was 71 days.

One-year progression-free survival was 49%, and 1-year overall survival was 68%.

The investigators found that for patients who still have some disease control with a BCRi, it may be possible to keep them on that drug while transitioning to venetoclax. The rapid dose escalation protocol should only be attempted in highly experience comprehensive cancer centers, Dr. Awan said.

“Under very close monitoring in an experienced inpatient setting, where the nurses are very used to doing this on a weekly basis in a very high volume center, I think that our data show that we could do this without affecting toxicity significantly or mortality,” he said.

Venetoclax therapy could buy enough time for patients to bridge to other options, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy or allogeneic stem cell transplant, he noted.

“But if we had waited 4 weeks, most of these patients would not have made it,” he said.

The study was internally funded. Dr. Awan reported research funding from Gilead, Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, and Janssen.

SOURCE: Koenig K et al. EHA Congress, Abstract PF357.

STOCKHOLM – Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who experience relapse after therapy with a B-cell receptor signaling inhibitor tend to have a swiftly progressive disease course that requires immediate intervention. For these patients, a rapid venetoclax dose-escalation protocol may be a safe way to quickly regain disease control, and possibly bridge to salvage therapies, investigators reported.

Of 15 patients with CLL who relapsed after treatment with a B-cell receptor inhibitor (BCRi), all were able to get to their target dose of venetoclax under close inpatient monitoring at a median of 12 days, compared with the 35 days usually required for venetoclax dose escalation, reported Farrukh T. Awan, MD, of Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center in Columbus, and his colleagues.

Only two patients developed clinical tumor lysis syndrome (TLS), a common occurrence with venetoclax therapy, and this adverse event was manageable, Dr. Awan said at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

“The reason why we have been doing a slow ramp up on venetoclax is the original toxicity issues that we saw early on,” he said in an interview. “But unfortunately, a lot of patients are progressing on these new agents and have very rapid disease progression, and what we have seen is that if you stop the ibrutinib, the disease progresses very quickly, and by the time they can get up to the effective dose of venetoclax, they’re too sick to continue, or they might even die from disease progression.”

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

The incidence of clinical TLS was 13.2%, occurring in two patients, one at the initial 20-mg dose, and one at the 200-mg dose level. Another five patients had asymptomatic TLS. Other treatment-related adverse events were anemia in seven patients, neutropenia in six patients, thrombocytopenia in five patients, and lung infection in one patient.

Twelve patients had a partial response, one had stable disease, and two had progressive disease. The mean time to best response was 71 days.

One-year progression-free survival was 49%, and 1-year overall survival was 68%.

The investigators found that for patients who still have some disease control with a BCRi, it may be possible to keep them on that drug while transitioning to venetoclax. The rapid dose escalation protocol should only be attempted in highly experience comprehensive cancer centers, Dr. Awan said.

“Under very close monitoring in an experienced inpatient setting, where the nurses are very used to doing this on a weekly basis in a very high volume center, I think that our data show that we could do this without affecting toxicity significantly or mortality,” he said.

Venetoclax therapy could buy enough time for patients to bridge to other options, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy or allogeneic stem cell transplant, he noted.

“But if we had waited 4 weeks, most of these patients would not have made it,” he said.

The study was internally funded. Dr. Awan reported research funding from Gilead, Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, and Janssen.

SOURCE: Koenig K et al. EHA Congress, Abstract PF357.

CHICAGO – Chemoimmunotherapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia is on the way out, but there’s one scenario where it still plays a key role, according to one leukemia expert.

That scenario is not in relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), where the use of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) may be hard to justify today. Data supporting use of FCR in relapsed CLL show a median progression-free survival (PFS) of about 21 months, Susan M. O’Brien, MD, of the University of California, Irvine, said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. There is also data for bendamustine-rituximab retreatment showing a median event-free survival of about 15 months, she added.

By contrast, the 5-year follow-up data for the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib in the relapsed/refractory setting shows a median PFS of 52 months, which is “extraordinary,” given that the patients had a median of four prior regimens, Dr. O’Brien said.

Similarly, recently published results from the randomized, phase 3 MURANO study of venetoclax plus rituximab in relapsed/refractory CLL showed that median PFS was not reached at a median follow-up of 23.8 months, versus a median of 17 months for the bendamustine-rituximab comparison arm (N Engl J Med. 2018;378[12]:1107-20).

“Thanks to the MURANO study, we likely will have an expanded label for venetoclax that includes the combination of venetoclax and rituximab,” Dr. O’Brien said. “I think it’s quite clear that either of these is dramatically better than what you get with retreatment with chemotherapy, so I personally don’t think there is a role for chemoimmunotherapy in the relapsed patient.”

On June 8, 2018, the Food and Drug Administration granted regular approval for venetoclax for patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma, with or without 17p deletion, who have received at least one prior therapy. The FDA also approved its use in combination with rituximab.*

But frontline CLL treatment is currently a little bit more complicated, Dr. O’Brien said.

Recent studies show favorable long-term outcomes with FCR frontline therapy in the immunoglobulin heavy chain variable gene (IgHV) –mutated subgroup of patients, she noted.

The longest follow-up comes from a study from investigators at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, published in 2016. In that study, the 12.8-year PFS was 53.9% for IgHV-mutated patients, versus just 8.7% for patients with unmutated IgHV. Of the IgHV-mutated group, more than half achieved minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity after treatment (Blood. 2016 Jan 21; 127[3]: 303-9).

“I’m going to go out on a limb and I’m going to suggest that I think there is a cure fraction here,” Dr. O’Brien said. “On the other hand, if there’s not a cure fraction and they’re going to relapse after 17 years, that’s a pretty attractive endpoint, even if it’s not a cure fraction.”

Clinical practice guidelines now recognize IgHV mutation status as an important marker that should be obtained when deciding on treatment, Dr. O’Brien noted.

For unmutated patients, the RESONATE-2 trial showed that ibrutinib was superior to chlorambucil in older patients, many of whom had comorbid conditions. In the 3-year update, median PFS was approximately 15 months for chlorambucil, while for ibrutinib the median PFS was “nowhere near” being reached, Dr. O’Brien said.

Those data may not be so relevant for fit, unmutated patients, and two randomized trials comparing FCR with bendamustine and rituximab have yet to report data. However, one recent cross-trial comparison found fairly overlapping survival curves for the two chemoimmunotherapy approaches.

Dr. O’Brien said she would put older patients with comorbidities on ibrutinib if a clinical trial was not available, and for fit, unmutated patients, while more data are needed, she would also use ibrutinib. However, patient preference sometimes tips the scale in favor of FCR.

“The discussions sometimes are quite long about whether the patient should opt to take ibrutinib or FCR,” Dr. O’Brien said. “The last patient I had that discussion with elected to take FCR. When I asked him why, he said because he liked the idea of being finished in six cycles, off all therapy, and hopefully in remission.”

While Dr. O’Brien said she views chemoimmunotherapy as still relevant in IgHV-mutated patients, eventually it will go away, she concluded. Toward that end, there is considerable interest in venetoclax plus ibrutinib, a combination that, in early reports, has yielded very encouraging MRD results in first-line CLL.

“We have no long-term data, but very, very exciting MRD negativity data,” Dr. O’Brien said.

Dr. O’Brien reported relationships with Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics, Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, and others.

*This story was updated 6/25/2018.

CHICAGO – Chemoimmunotherapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia is on the way out, but there’s one scenario where it still plays a key role, according to one leukemia expert.

That scenario is not in relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), where the use of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) may be hard to justify today. Data supporting use of FCR in relapsed CLL show a median progression-free survival (PFS) of about 21 months, Susan M. O’Brien, MD, of the University of California, Irvine, said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. There is also data for bendamustine-rituximab retreatment showing a median event-free survival of about 15 months, she added.

By contrast, the 5-year follow-up data for the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib in the relapsed/refractory setting shows a median PFS of 52 months, which is “extraordinary,” given that the patients had a median of four prior regimens, Dr. O’Brien said.

Similarly, recently published results from the randomized, phase 3 MURANO study of venetoclax plus rituximab in relapsed/refractory CLL showed that median PFS was not reached at a median follow-up of 23.8 months, versus a median of 17 months for the bendamustine-rituximab comparison arm (N Engl J Med. 2018;378[12]:1107-20).

“Thanks to the MURANO study, we likely will have an expanded label for venetoclax that includes the combination of venetoclax and rituximab,” Dr. O’Brien said. “I think it’s quite clear that either of these is dramatically better than what you get with retreatment with chemotherapy, so I personally don’t think there is a role for chemoimmunotherapy in the relapsed patient.”

On June 8, 2018, the Food and Drug Administration granted regular approval for venetoclax for patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma, with or without 17p deletion, who have received at least one prior therapy. The FDA also approved its use in combination with rituximab.*

But frontline CLL treatment is currently a little bit more complicated, Dr. O’Brien said.

Recent studies show favorable long-term outcomes with FCR frontline therapy in the immunoglobulin heavy chain variable gene (IgHV) –mutated subgroup of patients, she noted.

The longest follow-up comes from a study from investigators at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, published in 2016. In that study, the 12.8-year PFS was 53.9% for IgHV-mutated patients, versus just 8.7% for patients with unmutated IgHV. Of the IgHV-mutated group, more than half achieved minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity after treatment (Blood. 2016 Jan 21; 127[3]: 303-9).

“I’m going to go out on a limb and I’m going to suggest that I think there is a cure fraction here,” Dr. O’Brien said. “On the other hand, if there’s not a cure fraction and they’re going to relapse after 17 years, that’s a pretty attractive endpoint, even if it’s not a cure fraction.”

Clinical practice guidelines now recognize IgHV mutation status as an important marker that should be obtained when deciding on treatment, Dr. O’Brien noted.

For unmutated patients, the RESONATE-2 trial showed that ibrutinib was superior to chlorambucil in older patients, many of whom had comorbid conditions. In the 3-year update, median PFS was approximately 15 months for chlorambucil, while for ibrutinib the median PFS was “nowhere near” being reached, Dr. O’Brien said.

Those data may not be so relevant for fit, unmutated patients, and two randomized trials comparing FCR with bendamustine and rituximab have yet to report data. However, one recent cross-trial comparison found fairly overlapping survival curves for the two chemoimmunotherapy approaches.

Dr. O’Brien said she would put older patients with comorbidities on ibrutinib if a clinical trial was not available, and for fit, unmutated patients, while more data are needed, she would also use ibrutinib. However, patient preference sometimes tips the scale in favor of FCR.

“The discussions sometimes are quite long about whether the patient should opt to take ibrutinib or FCR,” Dr. O’Brien said. “The last patient I had that discussion with elected to take FCR. When I asked him why, he said because he liked the idea of being finished in six cycles, off all therapy, and hopefully in remission.”

While Dr. O’Brien said she views chemoimmunotherapy as still relevant in IgHV-mutated patients, eventually it will go away, she concluded. Toward that end, there is considerable interest in venetoclax plus ibrutinib, a combination that, in early reports, has yielded very encouraging MRD results in first-line CLL.

“We have no long-term data, but very, very exciting MRD negativity data,” Dr. O’Brien said.

Dr. O’Brien reported relationships with Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics, Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, and others.

*This story was updated 6/25/2018.

CHICAGO – Chemoimmunotherapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia is on the way out, but there’s one scenario where it still plays a key role, according to one leukemia expert.

That scenario is not in relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), where the use of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) may be hard to justify today. Data supporting use of FCR in relapsed CLL show a median progression-free survival (PFS) of about 21 months, Susan M. O’Brien, MD, of the University of California, Irvine, said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. There is also data for bendamustine-rituximab retreatment showing a median event-free survival of about 15 months, she added.

By contrast, the 5-year follow-up data for the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib in the relapsed/refractory setting shows a median PFS of 52 months, which is “extraordinary,” given that the patients had a median of four prior regimens, Dr. O’Brien said.

Similarly, recently published results from the randomized, phase 3 MURANO study of venetoclax plus rituximab in relapsed/refractory CLL showed that median PFS was not reached at a median follow-up of 23.8 months, versus a median of 17 months for the bendamustine-rituximab comparison arm (N Engl J Med. 2018;378[12]:1107-20).

“Thanks to the MURANO study, we likely will have an expanded label for venetoclax that includes the combination of venetoclax and rituximab,” Dr. O’Brien said. “I think it’s quite clear that either of these is dramatically better than what you get with retreatment with chemotherapy, so I personally don’t think there is a role for chemoimmunotherapy in the relapsed patient.”

On June 8, 2018, the Food and Drug Administration granted regular approval for venetoclax for patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma, with or without 17p deletion, who have received at least one prior therapy. The FDA also approved its use in combination with rituximab.*

But frontline CLL treatment is currently a little bit more complicated, Dr. O’Brien said.

Recent studies show favorable long-term outcomes with FCR frontline therapy in the immunoglobulin heavy chain variable gene (IgHV) –mutated subgroup of patients, she noted.

The longest follow-up comes from a study from investigators at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, published in 2016. In that study, the 12.8-year PFS was 53.9% for IgHV-mutated patients, versus just 8.7% for patients with unmutated IgHV. Of the IgHV-mutated group, more than half achieved minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity after treatment (Blood. 2016 Jan 21; 127[3]: 303-9).

“I’m going to go out on a limb and I’m going to suggest that I think there is a cure fraction here,” Dr. O’Brien said. “On the other hand, if there’s not a cure fraction and they’re going to relapse after 17 years, that’s a pretty attractive endpoint, even if it’s not a cure fraction.”

Clinical practice guidelines now recognize IgHV mutation status as an important marker that should be obtained when deciding on treatment, Dr. O’Brien noted.

For unmutated patients, the RESONATE-2 trial showed that ibrutinib was superior to chlorambucil in older patients, many of whom had comorbid conditions. In the 3-year update, median PFS was approximately 15 months for chlorambucil, while for ibrutinib the median PFS was “nowhere near” being reached, Dr. O’Brien said.

Those data may not be so relevant for fit, unmutated patients, and two randomized trials comparing FCR with bendamustine and rituximab have yet to report data. However, one recent cross-trial comparison found fairly overlapping survival curves for the two chemoimmunotherapy approaches.

Dr. O’Brien said she would put older patients with comorbidities on ibrutinib if a clinical trial was not available, and for fit, unmutated patients, while more data are needed, she would also use ibrutinib. However, patient preference sometimes tips the scale in favor of FCR.

“The discussions sometimes are quite long about whether the patient should opt to take ibrutinib or FCR,” Dr. O’Brien said. “The last patient I had that discussion with elected to take FCR. When I asked him why, he said because he liked the idea of being finished in six cycles, off all therapy, and hopefully in remission.”

While Dr. O’Brien said she views chemoimmunotherapy as still relevant in IgHV-mutated patients, eventually it will go away, she concluded. Toward that end, there is considerable interest in venetoclax plus ibrutinib, a combination that, in early reports, has yielded very encouraging MRD results in first-line CLL.

“We have no long-term data, but very, very exciting MRD negativity data,” Dr. O’Brien said.

Dr. O’Brien reported relationships with Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics, Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, and others.

*This story was updated 6/25/2018.

Venetoclax (Venclexta) has received regular approval from the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), with or without 17p deletion, who have received at least one prior therapy.

The approval was based results from the MURANO trial of 389 patients, which was a randomized, multicenter, open-label trial of venetoclax plus rituximab versus bendamustine plus rituximab.

[email protected]

Venetoclax (Venclexta) has received regular approval from the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), with or without 17p deletion, who have received at least one prior therapy.

The approval was based results from the MURANO trial of 389 patients, which was a randomized, multicenter, open-label trial of venetoclax plus rituximab versus bendamustine plus rituximab.

[email protected]

Venetoclax (Venclexta) has received regular approval from the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), with or without 17p deletion, who have received at least one prior therapy.

The approval was based results from the MURANO trial of 389 patients, which was a randomized, multicenter, open-label trial of venetoclax plus rituximab versus bendamustine plus rituximab.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – The combination of ibrutinib plus venetoclax yielded a high rate of undetectable minimal residual disease (MRD) when used as first-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), according to preliminary results of the CAPTIVATE trial.

Of the first 30 patients in the trial, 23 (77%) had undetectable blood MRD after just six cycles of combined treatment, said investigator William G. Wierda, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Venetoclax and ibrutinib have “clinically complimentary activity” that provided a rationale for combining the two, Dr. Wierda said at ASCO. Ibrutinib is a BTK inhibitor that has a high rate of response and durable disease control, though continuous treatment is indicated, he said, because most patients achieve partial remissions as best response and continue to have residual disease in blood or bone marrow. Venetoclax, he added, is a BCL-2 inhibitor that produces durable partial remissions, though “residual disease is typically present in the form of persistently enlarged lymph nodes,” he said. “Venetoclax is highly effective at clearing disease from blood and bone marrow.”

The phase 2 CAPTIVATE trial includes a total of 164 patients younger than 70 years of age who receive a 3-cycle ibrutinib lead-in, followed by ibrutinib plus venetoclax for 12 cycles. At that point, patients are randomized according to MRD status. Patients with confirmed undetectable MRD are randomized to further treatment with ibrutinib or placebo, and those with undetectable MRD not confirmed are randomized to ibrutinib versus ibrutinib plus venetoclax.

In addition to early efficacy data, Dr. Wierda also reported some safety data. Compared with the single-agent ibrutinib lead-in period, combined ibrutinib plus venetoclax treatment had more gastrointestinal-associated events and neutropenia. Almost half of patients (45%) have had a treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse event, though just 18 (11%) have had treatment-related adverse events classified as serious, and there have been no adverse event-related deaths on study.

The high activity of ibrutinib plus venetoclax in CAPTIVATE supports further study of the combination, Dr. Wierda said. A randomized, open-label phase 3 trial of ibrutinib plus venetoclax versus chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab as first-line treatment for CLL is currently recruiting.

The study was sponsored by Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie company. Dr. Wierda reported consulting and research funding from Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, and several other companies.

SOURCE: Wierda WG et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract 7502.

CHICAGO – The combination of ibrutinib plus venetoclax yielded a high rate of undetectable minimal residual disease (MRD) when used as first-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), according to preliminary results of the CAPTIVATE trial.

Of the first 30 patients in the trial, 23 (77%) had undetectable blood MRD after just six cycles of combined treatment, said investigator William G. Wierda, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Venetoclax and ibrutinib have “clinically complimentary activity” that provided a rationale for combining the two, Dr. Wierda said at ASCO. Ibrutinib is a BTK inhibitor that has a high rate of response and durable disease control, though continuous treatment is indicated, he said, because most patients achieve partial remissions as best response and continue to have residual disease in blood or bone marrow. Venetoclax, he added, is a BCL-2 inhibitor that produces durable partial remissions, though “residual disease is typically present in the form of persistently enlarged lymph nodes,” he said. “Venetoclax is highly effective at clearing disease from blood and bone marrow.”

The phase 2 CAPTIVATE trial includes a total of 164 patients younger than 70 years of age who receive a 3-cycle ibrutinib lead-in, followed by ibrutinib plus venetoclax for 12 cycles. At that point, patients are randomized according to MRD status. Patients with confirmed undetectable MRD are randomized to further treatment with ibrutinib or placebo, and those with undetectable MRD not confirmed are randomized to ibrutinib versus ibrutinib plus venetoclax.

In addition to early efficacy data, Dr. Wierda also reported some safety data. Compared with the single-agent ibrutinib lead-in period, combined ibrutinib plus venetoclax treatment had more gastrointestinal-associated events and neutropenia. Almost half of patients (45%) have had a treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse event, though just 18 (11%) have had treatment-related adverse events classified as serious, and there have been no adverse event-related deaths on study.

The high activity of ibrutinib plus venetoclax in CAPTIVATE supports further study of the combination, Dr. Wierda said. A randomized, open-label phase 3 trial of ibrutinib plus venetoclax versus chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab as first-line treatment for CLL is currently recruiting.

The study was sponsored by Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie company. Dr. Wierda reported consulting and research funding from Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, and several other companies.

SOURCE: Wierda WG et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract 7502.

CHICAGO – The combination of ibrutinib plus venetoclax yielded a high rate of undetectable minimal residual disease (MRD) when used as first-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), according to preliminary results of the CAPTIVATE trial.

Of the first 30 patients in the trial, 23 (77%) had undetectable blood MRD after just six cycles of combined treatment, said investigator William G. Wierda, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Venetoclax and ibrutinib have “clinically complimentary activity” that provided a rationale for combining the two, Dr. Wierda said at ASCO. Ibrutinib is a BTK inhibitor that has a high rate of response and durable disease control, though continuous treatment is indicated, he said, because most patients achieve partial remissions as best response and continue to have residual disease in blood or bone marrow. Venetoclax, he added, is a BCL-2 inhibitor that produces durable partial remissions, though “residual disease is typically present in the form of persistently enlarged lymph nodes,” he said. “Venetoclax is highly effective at clearing disease from blood and bone marrow.”

The phase 2 CAPTIVATE trial includes a total of 164 patients younger than 70 years of age who receive a 3-cycle ibrutinib lead-in, followed by ibrutinib plus venetoclax for 12 cycles. At that point, patients are randomized according to MRD status. Patients with confirmed undetectable MRD are randomized to further treatment with ibrutinib or placebo, and those with undetectable MRD not confirmed are randomized to ibrutinib versus ibrutinib plus venetoclax.

In addition to early efficacy data, Dr. Wierda also reported some safety data. Compared with the single-agent ibrutinib lead-in period, combined ibrutinib plus venetoclax treatment had more gastrointestinal-associated events and neutropenia. Almost half of patients (45%) have had a treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse event, though just 18 (11%) have had treatment-related adverse events classified as serious, and there have been no adverse event-related deaths on study.

The high activity of ibrutinib plus venetoclax in CAPTIVATE supports further study of the combination, Dr. Wierda said. A randomized, open-label phase 3 trial of ibrutinib plus venetoclax versus chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab as first-line treatment for CLL is currently recruiting.

The study was sponsored by Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie company. Dr. Wierda reported consulting and research funding from Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, and several other companies.

SOURCE: Wierda WG et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract 7502.

Older patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) have an increased odds of experiencing treatment-related toxicities, even when treated with novel agents, according to findings reported in the Journal of Geriatric Oncology.

An analysis of 1,199 patients showed that CLL patients aged 65 years and older had significantly higher odds than younger patients of developing a grade three or four hematologic toxicity (adjusted odds ratio, 1.70; P = .009; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-1.84) or nonhematologic toxicity (OR, 1.47; P = .022; 95% CI, 1.39-1.55).

iStock/Thinkstock.com

SOURCE: Tallarico M et al. J Geriatr Oncol. 2018 Apr 16. pii: S1879-4068(18)30131-0.

Older patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) have an increased odds of experiencing treatment-related toxicities, even when treated with novel agents, according to findings reported in the Journal of Geriatric Oncology.

An analysis of 1,199 patients showed that CLL patients aged 65 years and older had significantly higher odds than younger patients of developing a grade three or four hematologic toxicity (adjusted odds ratio, 1.70; P = .009; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-1.84) or nonhematologic toxicity (OR, 1.47; P = .022; 95% CI, 1.39-1.55).

iStock/Thinkstock.com

SOURCE: Tallarico M et al. J Geriatr Oncol. 2018 Apr 16. pii: S1879-4068(18)30131-0.

Older patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) have an increased odds of experiencing treatment-related toxicities, even when treated with novel agents, according to findings reported in the Journal of Geriatric Oncology.

An analysis of 1,199 patients showed that CLL patients aged 65 years and older had significantly higher odds than younger patients of developing a grade three or four hematologic toxicity (adjusted odds ratio, 1.70; P = .009; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-1.84) or nonhematologic toxicity (OR, 1.47; P = .022; 95% CI, 1.39-1.55).

iStock/Thinkstock.com

SOURCE: Tallarico M et al. J Geriatr Oncol. 2018 Apr 16. pii: S1879-4068(18)30131-0.