All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit the Lymphoma Coalition.

The Lymphoma Hub uses cookies on this website. They help us give you the best online experience. By continuing to use our website without changing your cookie settings, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our updated Cookie Policy

Introducing

Now you can personalise
your Lymphoma Hub experience!

Bookmark content to read later

Select your specific areas of interest

View content recommended for you

Find out more
  TRANSLATE

The Lymphoma 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 Lymphoma Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The Lymphoma Hub 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.

Steering CommitteeAbout UsNewsletterContact
LOADING
You're logged in! Click here any time to manage your account or log out.
LOADING
You're logged in! Click here any time to manage your account or log out.

The Lymphoma & CLL Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Beigene and Roche, and supported through educational grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals, Lilly, Pfizer, and Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company and Janssen Biotech, Inc., administered by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC View funders.

2019-07-02T23:00:00.000Z

Venetoclax in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)

Featured
Jul 2, 2019
Share:

Bookmark this article

During the 24th European Hematology Society (EHA) meeting and the 15th International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma (ICML), two abstracts from the CLL14 trial were presented, comparing obinutuzumab + chlorambucil (ClbG) to obinutuzumab + venetoclax (VenG) in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).1,2 Additionally, a study was recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, investigating the combination of ibrutinib + venetoclax in high-risk and older patients with CLL.3 This article looks at the use of venetoclax in CLL, analyzing the potential impact of these recent updates.

The CLL14 trial

  • Patients with untreated, active CLL and coexisting medical conditions (N = 432) were randomized 1:1, following chromosome analysis (N = 397), to either:1
  • ClbG (6 cycles) followed by chlorambucil (6 cycles); n = 197
  • VenG (6 cycles) followed by venetoclax (6 cycles); n = 200
  • Patient characteristics are shown in Table 1
  • Genetic testing was conducted by next-generation sequencing for common mutations such as TP53, NOTCH1, SF3B1, ATM, MYD88, FBXW7, POT1 AND XPO12
  • Primary endpoint: progression-free survival (PFS)1
  • Secondary endpoints included; response, minimal residual disease (MRD) and overall survival (OS)1
Table 1. Patient characteristics in the CLL14 trial1

 

ClbG (n = 197)

VenG (n = 200)

 

CKT

NCKT

CKT

NCKT

n

30 (15.2%)

167 (84.8%)

34 (17.0%)

166 (83.0%)

Median age

74

71

68.5

72

Age ≥75 years

15 (50%)

56 (33.5%)

8 (23.5%)

55 (33.1%)

Del(17p)

8 (27.6%)

5 (3.1%)

11 (33.3%)

5 (3.1%)

IGHV­-mutated

11 (37.9%)

67 (41.4%)

10 (33.3%)

60 (38.5%)

TP53-mutated

8 (27.6%)

10 (6.1%)

9 (26.5%)

12 (7.4%)

The first abstract was presented by Othman Al-Sawaf, at EHA, and Kirsten Fischer at ICML, and featured a prospective analysis from the CLL14 trial comparing responses to ClbG and VenG in patients with complex karyotype (CKT) or a non-complex karyotype (NCKT).1 In this study, a CKT was defined as the presence of three or more chromosomal abnormalities. Having a CKT is an adverse prognostic factor and affects approximately 10–30% of patients with CLL.1 The second abstract, presented by Stephan Stilgenbauer at EHA, and Eugen Tausch at ICML, investigated the results of the CLL14 trial based on genetic subgroup.2

Responses rates by karyotype, and MRD rates in peripheral blood and bone marrow (BM), are shown in Table 2, with PFS rates by genomic aberrations in Table 3 and Table 4.

Table 2. Response rates and MRD rates in the peripheral blood and BM by karyotype1 (MRD assessed by next generation sequencing)

 

ClbG (n = 197)

VenG (n = 200)

 

CKT

NCKT

CKT

NCKT

Partial response (PR)

40%

50.3%

32.4%

33.5%

Complete response (CR)

10%

27.5%

50%

51.8%

Peripheral blood

MRD-

20.0%

40.1%

79.4%

77.1%

MRD+/-

13.3%

24.0%

5.9%

4.8%

MRD+

33.3%

24.6%

2.9%

3.6%

BM

MRD-

0.0%

22.2%

58.8%

57.8%

MRD+/-

20.0%

25.1%

5.9%

6.6%

MRD+

26.7%

26.3%

14.7%

3.0%

  • In the VenG arm, response rates were comparable between CKT and NCKT
  • This is also true for MRD negativity in the VenG arm in both peripheral blood and BM
  • VenG may overcome the adversity of a complex karyotype

OS:1

  • ClbG: HR: 3.736 (95% CI, 1.357–10.287), P = 0.006
  • VenG:HR: 1.511 (95% CI, 0.496–4.600)
  • No difference in OS between arms, at this early stage
Table 3. PFS by genetic markers1,2

 

HR

HR range (95% CI)

P value

ClbG

ClbG alone1

2.790

1.631–4.772

<0.001

TP53 status1

2.103

0.795–5.567

-

Del(17p) vs del(13q)2

7.41

3.36–16.32

<0.001

Del(11q) vs del(13q)2

3.44

1.80–6.60

<0.001

+12q vs del(13q)2

2.22

1.13–4.35

0.02

VenG

 

 

 

VenG alone1

1.909

0.806–4.520

-

TP53 status1

1.419

0.317–6.353

-

Del(17p) vs del(13q)2

4.19

1.55–11.33

0.005

  • Higher PFS for the VenG arm compared to the ClbG arm
  • ClbG: patients with del(17p), del(11q) and +12q had a shorter PFS
  • VenG: del(17p) remains prognostic, though other genetic subgroups did not affect PFS
Table 4. PFS by presence of genetic abberrations2

 

ClbG

VenG

IGHV: mutated (mut) vs wild type (wt)

HR: 3.45

P < 0.001

HR: 1.16

P = 0.73

Del(17p): present vs absent

HR: 4.64

P < 0.001

HR: 4.42

P = 0.001

TP53: present vs absent

HR: 2.74

P = 0.001

HR: 3.08

P = 0.01

ATM: mut vs wt

HR: 1.77

P = 0.06

HR: 0.61

P = 0.50

NOTCH1: mut vs wt

HR: 1.74

P = 0.03

HR: 1.57

P = 0.28

SF3B1: mut vs wt

HR: 1.52

P = 0.13

HR: 0.79

P = 0.69

BIRC3: mut vs wt

HR: 4.03

P = 0.001

HR: 1.10

P = 0.92

This study found IGHV was a predictive factor for response, as patients without mutated IGHV had better responses, as shown by multivariate analysis:

  • IGHVwt vs IGHVmut: HR: 3.475 (1.963–6.154, P < 0.001)
  • Venetoclax, VenG, is especially efficacious in IGHV unmutated patients

Ibrutinib + venetoclax

Recently, the results of a phase II study (NCT02756897), published in the New England Journal of Medicine, by Nitin Jain and colleagues, reported on the combination of venetoclax with ibrutinib in patients with previously untreated CLL who were high-risk, or older. It was hypothesized that ibrutinib and venetoclax may have a synergistic mechanism of action.3

This study was an open-label, investigator-led study with a median follow-up of 14.8 months (N = 80). The median patient age was 65 (26–83) with 30% of patients over the age of 70. All had one of the following features; del(17p), TP53-mut, del(11q), IGHVwt or were over the age of 65. Overall, 92% had either del(11q), TP53mut or IGHVwt.

Treatment regimen

  • Ibrutinib monotherapy: 420mg once daily, 3 cycles
    • Aim: reduce venetoclax-associated tumor lysis syndrome
  • Venetoclax, once daily, from cycle 4, with a weekly dose escalation to 400mg
  • Combination therapy for 24 cycles
    • If MRD negative at the end of 24 cycles, patients could continue ibrutinib monotherapy until disease progression (PD) or unacceptable toxicity
  • Antiviral prophylaxis was administered to all patients 

Efficacy

  • Responses were measured as complete remission (CR), CR with incomplete blood count recovery (CRi) and remission with undetectable MRD in BM
  • Responses were seen in all subgroups, and increased over time (Table 5)
  • Notably, there were high responses rates in patients over the age of 65
  • Three patients completed 24 cycles, all of whom had CR, or CRi, with undetectable MRD in the BM
Table 5. Responses to venetoclax + ibrutinib therapy

Cycles of combination therapy

CR or CRi

Remission with undetectable MRD in bone marrow

Best response

74% (59/80, 95% CI, 63–83)

-

Whole cohort

6

73% (51/70, 95% CI, 61–83)

40% (28/70, 95% CI, 28–52)

12

88% (29/33, 95% CI, 72–97)

61% (20/33, 95% CI, 42–77)

18

96% (25/26, 95% CI, 80–100)

69% (18/26, 95% CI, 48–86)

Patients over 65 years old

6

74%

44%

12

94%

76%

  • Estimated 1-year PFS: 98% (95% CI, 94–100)
  • Estimated 1-year OS: 99% (95% CI, 96–100)
  • No patient experienced CLL progression
  • One death occurred, with the treating physician and first author agreeing this was not due to ibrutinib treatment
  • No clinical tumor lysis syndrome was seen, though three patients had laboratory evidence
  • In total, 11 patients discontinued treatment at the following stages:
  • Ibrutinib monotherapy; n = 5
  • Combination therapy; n = 6

Safety

  • Toxic adverse events grade ≥3 were seen in 60% of patients
  • Most common non-hematologic events were: easy bruising, arthralgia and diarrhea
  • Hematologic events:
  • Grade 3–4 neutropenia: 48%
  • Grade 3 thrombocytopenia: 2%
  • Dose reductions:
  • Ibrutinib: 44% (35/80)
    • Mainly due to atrial fibrillation (n = 9), neutropenia (n = 5) and rash (n = 5)
  • Venetoclax: 24% (18/75)
    • Predominantly due to neutropenia (n = 12)

Conclusion

The two analyses from the CLL14 trial concluded that a CKT is associated with a shorter PFS and OS, regardless of TP53 status in patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy. However, there was no difference in PFS and OS in patients treated with VenG, regardless of karyotype. The authors concluded that fixed duration VenG treatment can overcome the negative prognostic value of CKT in patients with untreated CLL and the regimen is well-tolerated in patients with comorbidities.1 Additionally, VenG is superior to ClbG in all genetic subgroups, though del(17p) and TP53mut are both adverse prognostic factors for PFS in patients, including those treated with VenG. Venetoclax was found to be particularly effective in patients with unmutated IGHV.2

Furthermore, the addition of venetoclax following ibrutinib monotherapy led to the conversion of partial responses into complete responses, and an increase in patients with undetectable MRD in the BM. No new toxic adverse events were observed, and notably, rates of grade 3–4 neutropenia were comparable between patients <65 and ≥65. These results indicate that combination therapy may present a viable, efficacious, option for older or high-risk patients with previously untreated CLL.3

Based on these studies, venetoclax is emerging as a viable treatment option for previously untreated CLL, including in older patients and those with high-risk features and comorbidities.

Expert Opinion


  1. Al-Sawaf O. et al. High efficacy of venetoclax plus obinutuzumab in patients with complex karyotype (CKT) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL): a prospective analysis from the CLL14 trial. European Hematology Association meeting 2019, Amsterdam, NL. Abstract #S106. 2019 Jun 14.
  2. Stilgenbauer S. et al. Genetic markers and outcome of the CLL14 trial of the GCLLSG comparing front line obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil or venetoclax in patients with comorbidity. European Hematology Association meeting 2019, Amsterdam, NL. Abstract #S105. 2019 Jun 14.
  3. Jain N. et al. Ibrutinib and Venetoclax for First-Line Treatment of CLL. N Eng J Med. 2019 May 30. DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa1900574

Understanding your specialty helps us to deliver the most relevant and engaging content.

Please spare a moment to share yours.

Please select or type your specialty

  Thank you

Your opinion matters

HCPs, what is your preferred format for educational content on the Lymphoma Hub?
46 votes - 77 days left ...

Newsletter

Subscribe to get the best content related to lymphoma & CLL delivered to your inbox