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.
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 moreThe 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.
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.
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.
|
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.
|
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% |
|
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 |
|
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:
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.
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% |
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.
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
Your opinion matters
Subscribe to get the best content related to lymphoma & CLL delivered to your inbox