The lym Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the lym Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The lym and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.
The Lymphoma & CLL Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Beigene, Johnson & Johnson and Roche, and supported through educational grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte, Lilly, and Pfizer. View funders.
Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients
Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.
Find out moreCreate an account and access these new features:
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View lym content recommended for you
On 28 January 2016, John C. Byrd (Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ohio, US) and colleagues, published in Blood a multicenter phase 1/2 study (NCT02029443)1 demonstrating the efficacy and safety profile of acalabrutinib in patients with relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Acalabrutinib is a second-generation highly selective Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor designed to improve on the safety and efficacy of ibrutinib which was the first inhibitor of BTK approved for the treatment of CLL. Although ibrutinib has demonstrated considerable efficacy in the treatment of CLL, it is also associated with toxicities which can limit its continuous use.2,3
Table 1. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics
ANC, absolute neutrophil count; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group *derived at screening |
|
Characteristic |
N = 134 |
Median age (range), years |
66 (42–85) |
Age, n (%) ≥ 65 years ≥ 75 years |
77 (57) 27 (20) |
Male sex, n (%) |
99 (74) |
Diagnosis of CLL, n (%) |
132 (99) |
ECOG performance status, n (%) 0 1 2 |
48 (36) 82 (61) 4 (3) |
Bulky lymph nodes, n = 133, n (%), cm in diameter ≥ 5 ≥ 10 |
52 (39) 10 (8) |
Rai risk classification, n (%)* Low Intermediate High Missing |
0 38 (28) 65 (49) 31 (23) |
Median prior therapies, (range) |
2 (1–13) |
Cytopenia at baseline, n (%) ANC, ≤ 1500 µL Hemoglobin, ≤ 11.0 g/dL Platelet count, ≤ 100 000/ µL |
92 (69) 28 (21) 43 (32) 65 (49) |
Prognostic factor, n/N (%) Unmutated IGHV Chromosome 17p13.1 deletion Chromosome 11q22.3 deletion Complex karyotype, ≤ 3 abnormalities B2-microglobulin, > 3.5 mg/L |
81/111 (73) 27/116 (23) 21/116 (18) 20/57 (35) 76/101 (75) |
Table 2. Best response to acalabrutinib
CR, complete response; PD, progressive disease; PR, partial response; PRL, partial response with lymphocytosis † Patients did not have on-treatment assessments |
||
|
N = 134 |
|
|
n/n |
% (95% CI) or n (%) |
ORR: CR + PR + PRL |
|
94 (89–97) |
ORR: CR + PR |
|
88 (81–93) |
Best response CR PR PRL Stable disease PD Unknown† |
|
6 (4) 112 (84) 8 (6) 2 (1) 2 (1) 4 (3) |
ORR by high-risk subgroup: CR + PR + PRL Chromosome 17p13.1 deletion Chromosome 11q22.3 deletion Unmutated IGHV Complex karyotype, ≥ 3 abnormalities |
25/27 20/21 77/81 18/20 |
93 (76– 99) 95 (76 – 100) 95 (88 – 99) 90 (68–99) |
The updated results of the expanded cohort confirmed the efficacy, durability of response and long-term safety of acalabrutinib in patients with R/R CLL or SLL. Treatment with acalabrutinib resulted in a high ORR, regardless of genomic characteristics. AEs were generally mild-to-moderate. The authors’ noted that the favorable AE profile of acalabrutinib supports the combination with other therapeutics for the treatment of CLL.
Currently, there is a randomized phase III trial ongoing to compare acalabrutinib to ibrutinib in high-risk relapsed CLL (NCT02477696).
References
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:
The content was clear and easy to understand
The content addressed the learning objectives
The content was relevant to my practice
I will change my clinical practice as a result of this content