Ibrutinib Monotherapy Research Articles

Efficacy and Safety of Ibrutinib as Monotherapy or Combination Therapy in Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma (R/R DLBCL): A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a highly heterogeneous disease group. Ibrutinib's monotherapy or combination therapy is effective in relapsed/refractory (R/R) DLBCL. However, the treatment response in R/R DLBCL varies from 15% to 90% with different regimens, and the tolerance remains controversial. The efficacy and safety of ibrutinib monotherapy or combination therapy in patients with R/R DLBCL remain uncertain. The PubMed, CBM, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched from their inception to July 2021. The total complete remission rate (CRR) and overall response rate in R/R DLBCL patients treated with ibrutinib were 26% and 49%, respectively. The CRR of ibrutinib combination therapy was significantly higher than the ibrutinib monotherapy (45% vs. 19%). Moreover, the CRR of patients was 40% in double expressing lymphoma, 35% in central nervous system lymphoma, and 33% in nongerminal center B-cell-like (non-GCB) DLBCL, which was higher than the 8% in those with the GCB subtype. The pooled median PFS and overall survival were 5.57 and 10.17 months, respectively. GCB-DLBCL had the worst overall survival (5.1 months). Nevertheless, we found that combination regimens had no survival advantage compared with monotherapy (P > 0.05), indicating that combination therapy was only a transitional treatment and bridge for chimeric antigen receptor T cells or other treatments. Moreover, 12% of patients on ibrutinib combination therapy had ≥grade 3 adverse events compared with 9% on ibrutinib monotherapy. Ibrutinib monotherapy or combination therapy was safe and effective in treating R/R DLBCL with tolerable adverse reactions.

A Phase II Study Assessing Long-term Response to Ibrutinib Monotherapy in Recurrent or Refractory CNS Lymphoma.

Ibrutinib is a first-in-class inhibitor of Bruton tyrosine kinase. We previously reported the safety and short-term antitumor activity of ibrutinib in 20 patients with relapsed or refractory (r/r) primary central nervous system (CNS) lymphoma (PCNSL) or secondary CNS lymphoma (SCNSL). We enrolled 26 additional patients with r/r PCNSL/SCNSL into the dose-expansion cohort of the trial into a combined cohort of 46 patients (31 with PCNSL and 15 with SCNSL). Patients received ibrutinib at 560 or 840 mg daily in the dose-escalation cohort and ibrutinib at 840 mg daily in the expansion cohort. The median follow-up was 49.9 and 62.1 months for patients with PCNSL and SCNSL, respectively. We sequenced DNA from available tumor biopsies and cerebrospinal fluid collected before and during ibrutinib therapy. Tumor responses were observed in 23/31 (74%) patients with PCNSL and 9/15 (60%) patients with SCNSL, including 12 complete responses in PCNSL and 7 in SCNSL. The median progression-free survival (PFS) for PCNSL was 4.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.8-9.2] with 1-year PFS at 23.7% (95% CI, 12.4%-45.1%). The median duration of response in the 23 PCNSL responders was 5.5 months. The median PFS in SCNSL was 5.3 months (95% CI, 1.3-14.5) with a median duration of response of 8.7 months for the 9 responders. Exploratory biomarker analysis suggests that mutations in TBL1XR1 may be associated with a long-term response to ibrutinib in PCNSL (P = 0.0075). Clearance of ctDNA from cerebrospinal fluid was associated with complete and long-term ibrutinib responses. Our study confirms single-agent activity of ibrutinib in r/r CNS lymphoma and identifies molecular determinants of response based on long-term follow-up.

Ibrutinib as treatment for Bing–Neel syndrome reclassified as glioblastoma: a case report

BackgroundGlioblastoma is a highly malignant disease with limited treatment options. Ibrutinib, a covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is an oral agent with manageable side effects used for hematological diseases including Waldenström macroglobulinemia. We present the case of a 69-year-old Caucasian male patient treated with ibrutinib for suspected Bing–Neel syndrome (BNS), which following a biopsy, was reclassified as glioblastoma.Case presentationIn December 2018, a 69-year-old Caucasian male patient was diagnosed with Waldenström macroglobulinemia. As the patient was asymptomatic, without bone marrow failure or high M-component count, watchful waiting was initiated. Due to increasing neurological symptoms, the patient, based on magnetic resonance imaging, was diagnosed with Bing–Neel syndrome in May 2019. The patient received different treatments before starting ibrutinib monotherapy in August 2019 due to disease progression, both on magnetic resonance imaging and clinically. The patient remained clinically stable for 7 months. In March 2020, the patient developed headaches, and both magnetic resonance imaging and a biopsy revealed glioblastoma IDH-wildtype. Treatment was changed in line with the new diagnosis, but the patient died at the end of 2020.ConclusionWe present a case in which a patient with glioblastoma IDH-wildtype remained clinically stable for 7 months when treated with ibrutinib monotherapy, which is similar to what would be expected for the standard treatment for glioblastoma. To our knowledge, this is the first patient receiving ibrutinib for a glioblastoma IDH-wildtype with a meaningful clinical outcome. Our case may therefore support previous nonclinical findings, indicating a therapeutic value of ibrutinib in patients with glioblastoma and support for further investigation of ibrutinib as a possible treatment for glioblastoma.

Overall survival of patients with CLL treated with ibrutinib in the first line compared to second-line ibrutinib after chemotherapy/chemoimmunotherapy

Objective To evaluate the overall survival (OS) of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) receiving either ibrutinib monotherapy as a first-line (1L) treatment or chemotherapy/chemoimmunotherapy-based (CT/CIT) regimens in 1L followed by ibrutinib in the second line (1L CT/CIT-2L ibrutinib) after disease progression by emulating a randomized trial comparing both treatment sequences. Methods Patient-level data from the RESONATE-2 trial (NCT01722487) and real-world PHEDRA databases were analyzed. Three scenarios were considered using the following data sources: (1) RESONATE-2, (2) combined RESONATE-2/PHEDRA, (3) combined RESONATE-2/PHEDRA for 1L ibrutinib and PHEDRA for 1L CT/CIT-2L ibrutinib. Propensity score-based weights and inverse probability of censoring weighting were used to adjust for baseline (Scenarios 2 and 3) and time-dependent confounding (all scenarios), and to address potential biases. A weighted Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the OS hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for 1L ibrutinib versus 1L CT/CIT-2L ibrutinib. Results Results from Scenario 1 showed a significantly lower risk of death with 1L ibrutinib compared with 1L chlorambucil followed by 2L ibrutinib (HR 0.35 [95% CI 0.20–0.62]). Results from Scenarios 2 and 3 demonstrated a reduced risk of death with 1L ibrutinib compared with 1L CT/CIT-2L ibrutinib (HR 0.35 [0.21–0.61] and 0.64 [0.39–1.04], respectively). Conclusion The analyses consistently showed a reduced risk of death when ibrutinib was used as a 1L treatment in CLL compared with delaying its use until 2L after CT/CIT regimens, which suggests that initiating ibrutinib in 1L is advantageous for improving survival outcomes.

Ibrutinib followed by ofatumumab consolidation in previously untreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL): GELLC-7 trial from the Spanish group of CLL (GELLC)

BTK inhibitors have been concurrently administered with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). However, the optimal regimen for combining these two drugs remains pending. This multi-center phase 2 study aimed to analyze whether consolidation with ofatumumab improved the response in patients with CLL receiving front-line treatment with ibrutinib. Patients received 12 cycles of ibrutinib monotherapy. Those who achieved CR after this induction were maintained on ibrutinib. Conversely, those who did not attain CR continued with ibrutinib in addition to a consolidation, which involved 7 doses of ofatumumab. The primary objective was the complete response (CR) rate at cycle 20. This study is registered within the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2016-004937-26). Between September 8, 2017, and May 21, 2018, 84 patients (median age, 69 years) were included. After completion of 12 cycles of ibrutinib (n=80), 4 patients (5%) were in CR, 67 (84%) in partial response (PR), and 6 patients (7%) had a PR with lymphocytosis (PRL). After consolidation with ofatumumab, 20 patients improved the response from PR to CR and 6 patients with PRL obtained a PR. Seventy-one patients (85%) completed 20 cycles of treatment, with a CR rate of 24/71 (34%). According to the intention-to-treat analysis at cycle 20, the ORR was 69/84 (82.2%), with a CRR of 24/84 (28.6%). Progression-free survival and overall survival at 48-months were 89.9% (CI: 82.4-95.5) and 92.2% (CI: 85.3-97.1), respectively. These findings underscore the potential for a consolidation strategy in CLL, wherein the addition of a mAb in patients with low tumor burden might enhance the quality of the response. The study was funded by Janssen that also supplied ibrutinib, whereas ofatumumab was supplied by Novartis.

Combination of Ibrutinib and Venetoclax in the Therapy of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: A Review of the Latest Data from Clinical Studies

New Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors caused drastic modifications in the therapy of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Ibrutinib, the first in its class BTK inhibitor, showed high efficacy in many clinical studies. However, the treatment with BTK inhibitors as monotherapy must not be discontinued. Ibrutinib monotherapy inevitably leads to BTK inhibitor resistance and severe adverse events, which often results in treatment failure. Inhibitor BCL-2 venetoclax combined with BTK inhibitor can increase the therapy efficacy due to the synergetic effect of these agents on different CLL cell populations. Combined therapy potentially providing fixed-duration treatment can yield deeper responses. The present review focuses on ibrutinib and venetoclax combination, summarizes the latest data from clinical studies, and deals with feasibility of combined therapy in terms of its efficacy and safety profile.

Network meta-analysis of novel targeted therapies for relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The recent development of new antileukemic therapies (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, Bruton tyrosine kinase inhbitors, phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitors, and B-cell lymyphoma-2 antagonists) improved the progression-free survival (PFS) compared with selected standard regimens in clinical trials for patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Unfortunately, the relative efficacy of all possible therapeutic options remains unknown because there is no direct evidence for all possible comparisons. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of novel agents, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy using a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). Systematic literature review with Bayesian NMA. An extensive systematic literature review of randomized clinical trials for relapsed/refractory CLL was performed. We searched for articles indexed in medical databases (MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library) and gray literature that could be further implemented into the Bayesian NMA. The systematic search identified 15 randomized trials that formed networks comparing PFS, overall survival (OS), overall response rates, and serious adverse events. Our study showed that all regimens containing novel agents significantly prolonged PFS compared with standard chemoimmunotherapy and immunotherapy. Among targeted drugs, venetoclax (VEN) + rituximab (RTX) had comparable efficacy in terms of PFS to zanubrutinib (ZAN) [hazard ratio (95% credible interval), 1.10 (0.59-2.08)], acalabrutinib (ACA) [0.78 (0.47-1.30)], ibrutinib (IBR) monotherapy [0.72 (0.41-1.27)], and other IBR-based regimens. ZAN was superior to IBR monotherapy [0.65 (0.49-0.86)] but not to ACA [0.71 (0.49-1.02)]. There were no significant differences in OS in any of the above comparisons. All novel therapies have better efficacy than chemoimmunotherapy and immunotherapy regimens. Among novel agents, the relative efficacy of VEN + RTX was similar to all BTKi, while ZAN was superior to IBR and comparable to ACA. PROSPERO CRD42022304330.

Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Therapy Guided by Measurable Residual Disease

BackgroundThe combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax has been shown to improve outcomes in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) as compared with chemoimmunotherapy. Whether ibrutinib–venetoclax and personalization of treatment duration according to measurable residual disease (MRD) is more effective than fludarabine–cyclophosphamide–rituximab (FCR) is unclear.MethodsIn this phase 3, multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label platform trial involving patients with untreated CLL, we compared ibrutinib–venetoclax and ibrutinib monotherapy with FCR. In the ibrutinib–venetoclax group, after 2 months of ibrutinib, venetoclax was added for up to 6 years of therapy. The duration of ibrutinib–venetoclax therapy was defined by MRD assessed in peripheral blood and bone marrow and was double the time taken to achieve undetectable MRD. The primary end point was progression-free survival in the ibrutinib–venetoclax group as compared with the FCR group, results that are reported here. Key secondary end points were overall survival, response, MRD, and safety.ResultsA total of 523 patients were randomly assigned to the ibrutinib–venetoclax group or the FCR group. At a median of 43.7 months, disease progression or death had occurred in 12 patients in the ibrutinib–venetoclax group and 75 patients in the FCR group (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07 to 0.24; P<0.001). Death occurred in 9 patients in the ibrutinib–venetoclax group and 25 patients in the FCR group (hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.67). At 3 years, 58.0% of the patients in the ibrutinib–venetoclax group had stopped therapy owing to undetectable MRD. After 5 years of ibrutinib–venetoclax therapy, 65.9% of the patients had undetectable MRD in the bone marrow and 92.7% had undetectable MRD in the peripheral blood. The risk of infection was similar in the ibrutinib–venetoclax group and the FCR group. The percentage of patients with cardiac serious adverse events was higher in the ibrutinib–venetoclax group than in the FCR group (10.7% vs. 0.4%).ConclusionsMRD-directed ibrutinib–venetoclax improved progression-free survival as compared with FCR, and results for overall survival also favored ibrutinib–venetoclax. (Funded by Cancer Research UK and others; FLAIR ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN01844152; EudraCT number, 2013-001944-76.)

Tailor: Interventional Study Evaluating Physician's Choice of Ibrutinib Monotherapy or Ibrutinib-Venetoclax Combination Using Dose Modifications and Alternate Dosing Approaches in Patients with Untreated Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

Background: Ibrutinib is a first-in-class Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) that has changed the treatment paradigm for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with durable responses and improved overall survival (OS). In the pivotal Phase 3 GLOW and Phase 2 CAPTIVATE trials, fixed-duration combination of ibrutinib-venetoclax (I+V) resulted in deep and sustained clinical responses, and a broadly manageable safety profile in patients with CLL. Several factors including genetic features, disease status, comorbidities, patient preferences, and safety profiles contribute to selection of the optimal therapeutic option for patients with CLL in the first-line setting. Adverse events (AEs), such as atrial fibrillation, bleeding, and hypertension, have been seen with the BTKi therapeutic class.Long-term clinical and real-world experience with ibrutinib has led to specific guidance regarding AE management, which has been included in the updated ibrutinib prescribing information (US PI, May 2022; EU SmPC, April 2023). Retrospective evidence, including post-hoc analyses of clinical trial data, demonstrates that dose reduction of ibrutinib mitigates recurrence or worsening of AEs while preserving efficacy. Thus, these findings together support the rationale to prospectively evaluate the impact of regimen and dosing flexibility of ibrutinib in patients with untreated CLL. Aim: The key objective of the TAILOR study (NCT05963074) is to assess the efficacy and safety of I+V and ibrutinib monotherapy regimens with both a proactive and reactive dose adjustment in patients with untreated CLL. Methods: TAILOR is a phase 2, two-arm, four-cohort interventional study designed to provide physicians the choice of ibrutinib monotherapy or I+V combination therapy for previously untreated patients with CLL and prospectively evaluate proactive and reactive dose adjustment approaches. Eligible patients will have previously untreated active CLL, needing therapy as per iwCLL 2018 criteria. Key exclusion criteria include significant active or history of cardiovascular disease, uncontrolled hypertension, and ECOG performance status &amp;gt; 2. Patients will be randomized after selection of regimen: I+V fixed-duration regimen (2 cohorts, 80 patients in each cohort) or ibrutinib monotherapy (2 cohorts, 80 patients in each cohort), as per physician's choice. Patients in the I+V arm will receive ibrutinib 420 mg QD as lead-in for 3 cycles plus 12 cycles of either ibrutinib 420 mg QD (Cohort 1a) or 280 mg QD (Cohort 1b) in combination with venetoclax, which will be initiated in cycle 4 with dose ramp-up per label over 5 weeks (20, 50, 100, 200, and 400 mg/day) and continued at 400 mg/day dose from cycle 5 onward. In addition, patients with deletion 17p and/or mutated TP53 will receive optional ibrutinib maintenance. Patients in the ibrutinib monotherapy arm will receive ibrutinib 420 mg QD (Cohort 2a) or 420 mg QD for 3 cycles, then 280 mg QD (Cohort 2b) until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity ( Figure). All cohorts will follow the dose modification guidance as per protocol based on the US PI/ EU SmPC. The primary endpoint is best overall response rate as assessed by investigators and compared with historic controls. Secondary endpoints include: complete response rate, duration of response, PFS, and OS; undetectable minimal residual disease rate (I+V cohorts only); safety (AEs, discontinuation due to AEs, adherence rates); and patient reported outcomes. The study is currently recruiting patients.

A Real-World Evidence Study of the Temporal Evolution in Treatment Patterns and Outcomes for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

CONCLUSIONS Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is the most common lymphoproliferative disorder in North America. Treatment of CLL is currently indicated only for patients with disease-related symptoms or organ compromise, such as cytopenias, with no evidence of survival benefit for the treatment of asymptomatic patients. Patients with CLL are not cured with conventional therapy and typically require repeated treatments over their lifetime. Median overall survival (OS) is difficult to estimate given recent advances in therapy options but is dependent upon disease features, patient characteristics, and treatment choice. Since the recent introduction of targeted therapy for CLL, there has been limited Canadian data on the evolution of management approaches in a real-world setting. Data are needed to improve the current understanding of the treatment landscape of CLL. This retrospective observational cohort study used real-world, population-level data to describe the baseline characteristics, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, and healthcare resource use of individuals diagnosed with CLL in Alberta, Canada. The study cohort included all individuals in Alberta over 18 diagnosed with CLL between 2010-2020 and who subsequently initiated systemic therapy. Data were collected through electronic health records and administrative databases. OS was defined as the date of diagnosis to death from any cause or last known contact with the health care system. A total of 890 individuals diagnosed with CLL between 2010-2020 who initiated first-line (1L) systemic therapy were included in the analyses. The mean age at initiation of 1L therapy was 69 years, and 68% were male. Among individuals who initiated 1L therapy in 2020+, the primary form of 1L systemic therapy was ibrutinib monotherapy (IBR) (29%), followed by bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) (21%). A considerable number of individuals did not initiate subsequent lines of therapy, with a drop of approximately 40-45% between each successive line. The treatment landscape changed over time, particularly with respect to decreased use of 1L fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR; 40% in 2010-2013 vs. 9% in 2020+) and increased use of 1L IBR (6% in 2014-2017 vs. 29% in 2020+). Individuals treated at an academic centre were more likely to receive 1L IBR than those treated at a community centre. The median duration of 1L therapy was considerably longer for patients treated with targeted therapy (IBR: 9.8 months) compared to chemoimmunotherapy (BR: 5.6 months, FCR: 5.6 months). The majority of individuals did not initiate therapy immediately after diagnosis, with a median time from diagnosis to initiation of 1L therapy of 24 months (recognizing that the population described includes only those who initiated 1L therapy such that time to first therapy would be much longer for the entire CLL population). The time to next line of therapy (from the start of each line to the start of the subsequent line) was 17 months from 1L to second-line (2L), 14 months from 2L to third-line (3L), and 12 months from 3L to fourth-line. Median OS from initiation of 1L was 104 months, 2L was 70 months, and 3L was 64 months. On average, individuals had 39 healthcare encounters within the first year of initiating 1L systemic therapy, with an average of one hospitalization, six ambulatory care encounters, 25 non-cancer practitioner encounters, and seven cancer physician visits. The mean number of healthcare encounters within the first year of front-line therapy tended to decrease over time, which may be attributable to the changing treatment landscape. These findings highlight the rapid changes in CLL therapy that have occurred over the last decade. Our results demonstrate the significantly smaller cohorts of real-world patients receiving 2L or later therapies compared to 1L and highlight declining survival with subsequent lines of therapy, and a decreasing trend of healthcare resource use over time.

Quantitative MYD88 L265P Analysis Represents a Powerful Tool for Assessing Disease Response and Evaluating Clinical Trial Performance in Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia

Serum IgM measurements represent the current standard for assessing changes in disease burden in Waldenström's Macroglobulinemia (WM). Many agents used to treat WM can significantly affect serum IgM levels without impacting the underlying burden of clonal lymphoplasmacytic cells thereby producing discordant findings. Such agents can raise (CD20-directed monoclonal antibodies, IMiDs), or lower (BTK-, proteasome-, MTOR- inhibitors) serum IgM levels, and impact categorical response assessment. Somatic mutations in MYD88 are found in 95-97% of WM patients, and support tumor growth through activation of multiple pro-survival pathways that include HCK/BTK, SYK and ERK. Nearly all MYD88 mutations in WM are of the L265P variant. Previous studies by us and others have shown that serial quantitative measurements of both bone marrow (BM) and peripheral blood (PB) MYD88 L265P (c.978 T&amp;gt;C) by allele-specific PCR can be used to assess changes in underlying BM disease burden (Blood 121:2051-2058; Leukemia 28:1698-1704). However, the utility of using quantitative allele-specific MYD88 L265P (qMYD88 L265P) analysis has not been studied in prospective clinical trials. As such, we performed a comprehensive study of qMYD88 L265P response assessment utilizing BM and PB CD19-selected tissue across 5 prospective clinical studies in WM: Ixazomib, Dexamethasone and Rituximab (IDR; NCT02400437) Ibrutinib monotherapy (IBR; NCT02604511); Venetoclax monotherapy (VEN; NCT02677324); Ibrutinib plus Ulocuplomab (IBR/ULO; NCT03225716); and Ibrutinib plus Venetoclax (IBR/VEN; NCT04273139). Changes in MYD88 L265P ΔCt were assessed as reported above with ΔCt = Mutant Ct - Wild-type Ct, and higher ΔCt values indicating a lower mutant allele burden, with each ΔCt unit reduction representing a 50% decrease in mutant MYD88 L265P burden. Changes in MYD88 L265P ΔCt were compared to changes in underlying BM disease burden and categorical response assessment using the current (IWWM-11) response criteria (Semin Hematol. 60:97-106). Across all five trials, BM (r=0.52; p&amp;lt;0.001) and PB (r=0.43; p&amp;lt;0.001) MYD88 L265P ΔCt changes from baseline were highly correlated at best response with corresponding changes in underlying BM disease burden determined by repeat BM biopsies. As shown in Fig. 1, comparing changes from baseline in BM MYD88 L265P ΔCt assessments across studies showed marked differences, with greatest reductions observed in patients treated with IBR/VEN, IDR, and VEN alone, than for those treated with IBR alone or IBR/ULO. Similar findings were also observed for corresponding PB MYD88 L265P ΔCt assessments from baseline, with changes in PB MYD88 L265P ΔCt strongly correlating with those of BM MYD88 L265P ΔCt findings across all 5 clinical trials (r=0.67; p&amp;lt;0.001), thereby signifying the ability to use PB MYD88 L265P ΔCt assessments to evaluate treatment responses. We next compared findings from BM and PB MYD88 L265P ΔCt to changes from baseline in serum IgM levels across all 5 trials. At best response, major categorical responses denoted by &amp;gt;50% reduction in serum IgM using IWWM-11 criteria showed commensurate decreases in BM and PB MYD88 L265P ΔCt from baseline in patients receiving IBR/VEN, IDR and VEN alone ( Fig. 2). In contrast, minimal changes in BM and PB MYD88 L265P ΔCt from baseline were observed at best response for most major responders on IBR or IBR/ULO, including individuals who achieved very good partial responses denoted by &amp;gt;90% decrease in IgM by IWWM-11 criteria. In this first prospective evaluation of BM and PB qMYD88 L265P response assessment, we show that both BM and PB L265P qMYD88 analysis can provide more accurate assessment of treatment related changes in disease burden over the current standard of IgM response assessment alone, and can be used to more robustly evaluate clinical trial performance byidentifying treatments or regimens that produce more meaningful tumor reductions in WM patients.

Establishment of the Bcwm.2 Cell Line As a BTK-Inhibitor Resistant, BCL2 Inhibitor Sensitive in Vitro and In Vivo Study Model for Waldenström's Macroglobulinemia

Background: Waldenström's macroglobulinemia (WM) is an indolent B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder characterized by bone marrow (BM) infiltration with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma and monoclonal immunoglobulin M (IgM) production. Mutations in MYD88 are present in 95-97% of WM patients. Deletions involving chromosome 6q (del6q) are found in up to 50% of WM patients, and include genes that regulate MYD88, BCL2 and apoptotic signaling. Cell lines can play a pivotal role as disease models, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of WM biology and advancing therapeutic strategies. The availability of cell lines for the study of WM remains limited, and none demonstrate del6q. Patient and Methods: We developed and characterized a novel cell line (BCWM.2) from long-term cultures of CD19 + selected BM lymphoplasmacytic cells from a symptomatic, treatment naive WM patient who then received ibrutinib monotherapy on a clinical trial. The patient attained a major response to treatment, and after 2 years progressed. The patient underwent serial bone marrow biopsies, and extensive genomic and transcriptome analysis of his tumor during the study, and the corresponding cell line established at baseline. An in vivo xenograft mouse model of BCWM.2 was also established in NOD SCID mice, and the origin of the xenografted tumor was confirmed by genomic sequencing and immunohistochemistry. Results: BCWM.2 cells exhibited morphologic and immunophenotypic characteristics resembling lymphoplasmacytic cells and demonstrated robust propagation when co-cultured with HS-5 stromal cells in IMDM medium supplemented with 20% FBS. Flow cytometric analysis revealed that BCWM.2 exhibited an immunophenotype consistent with the source WM patient. Whole genome sequencing demonstrated that both BCWM.2 cells and original patient WM cells carried somatic activating mutation in MYD88 (S243N) and shared trisomy in chromosomes 3 and 12, heterozygous deletion of 6q, and amplification of 6p. Notably, a novel mutation in the SRC family member LYN (I297N; T&amp;gt;A), a component of BCR, was identified in BCWM.2 but not the original patient tumor. The I297N mutation found in the regulatory hinge region is predicted to cause activation of LYN. At time of progression on ibrutinib, the dominant clone that emerged in the patient's tumor also carried the I297N mutation. Additionally, mutated genes in BCWM.2 included histone deacetylase HDAC5, tumor suppressor RUNX3, B-cell transcriptional activator SPI1, and AKAP9 (A-Kinase Anchoring Protein 9). Transcriptome analysis showed shared expression patterns between BCWM.2 and patient tumor samples, including diminished gene expression of chromosome 6q. Drug response testing revealed that BCWM.2 cells did not respond to the BTK-inhibitors ibrutinib, zanubrutinib or pirtobrutinib but were sensitive to the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax. Furthermore, BCWM.2 cells readily engrafted in NOD-SCID mice by direct subcutaneous injection of 2 x 10^6 cells/mouse. Tumor growth (~500 mm^3) was observed in the mice four weeks post-inoculation. Importantly, follow-up evaluations demonstrated serial increases in human IgM levels in the mouse sera post-engraftment. Moreover, BCWM.2 engraftment was confirmed by immunohistochemistry with tumors exhibiting intermediate lymphoid cell morphology with plasmacytoid differentiation, CD20 and MUM1 expression, clonality for lambda light chain and IgM heavy chain, 60% KI67 staining. Whole exome sequencing of engrafted tumors further confirmed the presence of the MYD88 S243N and LYN I297N mutations detected in the cell line and the patient at the time of ibrutinib progression. Conclusions: BCWM.2 represents a novel, BTK-inhibitor resistant, BCL2 inhibitor sensitive WM cell line that demonstrates MYD88 (S243N) and LYN (I297N) somatic activating mutations, and deletions of 6q. BCWM.2 thereby provides an important new disease appropriate cell model for the in vitro and in vivo study of WM, including the development of targeted therapies for this disease.

Ibrutinib, Fludarabine, Cyclophosphamide and Obinutuzumab (iFCG) for Firstline Treatment of Patients with CLL with Mutated IGHV and without Del(17p)/ TP53 Mutation: Six-Year Follow-up Analyses

Background Patients (pts) with IGHV-mutated ( IGHV-M) CLL have favorable long-term outcomes after receiving first-line FCR (fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab). We designed an investigator-initiated, phase II trial with ibrutinib, fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and obinutuzumab (iFCG) for previously untreated pts with IGHV-M CLL (NCT02629809), and we report here an updated analysis with a median follow-up of 72 months. Methods Inclusion criteria included diagnosis of previously untreated CLL/SLL needing treatment per iwCLL criteria, age ≥18, IGHV-M, absence of both del(17p) and TP53 mutation. Pts received 3 courses of iFCG. Pts achieving CR/CRi with undetectable MRD (U-MRD) in bone marrow (BM) (4-color flow-cytometry, sensitivity 10 -4) after 3 courses of iFCG received ibrutinib with obinutuzumab (iG) for 3 cycles, followed by ibrutinib monotherapy for 6 months. All other pts received iG for 9 cycles (C4-12). Pts with U-MRD (CR/CRi or PR) at end of Cycle 12 stopped all therapy, including ibrutinib. Response assessment was per 2008 iwCLL criteria with BM and CT scans every 3 months during the first year. After completion of all therapy, pts were followed by clinical examination, blood counts and peripheral blood MRD every 6 months. Results Between March 2016 and August 2018, 45 pts initiated treatment. Data cutoff was July 15, 2023. Baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. All pts per study inclusion criterion had IGHV-M; however, 1 enrolled pt was later reclassified as IGHV-unmutated. A total of 69% pts had del(13q). After three cycles of iFCG, 39/45 (87%) pts achieved marrow U-MRD. Responses improved with continued therapy with 40/45 (89%) and 41/45 (91%) achieving marrow U-MRD after Cycles 6 and 12, respectively. Overall, 44/45 (98%) pts achieved marrow U-MRD as best response at any time during the study. Median follow-up duration is 72 months. 41/45 pts completed 12 cycles of treatment (4 pts came off study prior to Cycle 12). All 41 pts achieved marrow U-MRD and per protocol, discontinued ibrutinib. After a median follow-up of 61 mos post-discontinuing ibrutinib, 8 pts had MRD recurrence (defined as 2 consecutive values of ≥0.01% in peripheral blood by flow cytometry) at a median of 32 mos (range, 20-67 mos) after stopping all therapy. Of the 8 pts with MRD recurrence, 2 pts had clinical relapse (described below); remaining 6 pts are being monitored with no clinical progression or active therapy. The 6-year PFS and OS are 92.2% (95% CI= 77.7-97.4) and 97.7% (95% CI= 84.9-99.6), respectively. Two pts had clinical progression: one pt had IGHV 3-21; MRD recurred 28 mos after discontinuing ibrutinib, with clinical relapse 59 mos after discontinuing ibrutinib; this pt is now in remission with venetoclax-based therapy; the second pt with clinical relapse had IGHV-unmutated CLL, MRD recurred 24 mos after discontinuing ibrutinib, with clinical relapse 48 mos after discontinuing ibrutinib; this pt has not yet required therapy for relapse. No pt had progression to Richter transformation. One pt developed therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome; this pt is being monitored for 58+ months without any active therapy for MDS with normal blood counts. One pt died from congestive heart failure during month 9 of the study. Conclusions iFCG regimen with only three cycles of combination chemotherapy achieves U-MRD rates of 98% in bone marrow on an intent-to-treat analysis and a 6-year PFS of 92% in IGHV-M CLL. These results are favorable compared to the 5-year PFS of approximately 65% with FCR (CLL10 trial) for the same genomic subgroup. Additionally, these results also appear favorable to the current targeted therapy regimens (such as BTKi, BCL2i+CD20 antibody) for IGHV-M CLL. With the caveat that the role of chemoimmunotherapy in CLL has significantly declined, the iFCG regimen provides for a very high rate of durable remissions among a chemo-sensitive subgroup of pts with CLL.

Second Line Treatment with Bruton Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor (BTKi) or Bcl-2 Inhibitor (Bcl-2i) in Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL): Primary Analysis of the Czech Study Group for CLL (CSCLL)

Introduction: Venetoclax in combination with rituximab (VenR) along with either ibrutinib or acalabrutinib monotherapy represent the most common regimens currently used for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (RR) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in the Czech Republic. As all of these regimens are approved for identical indications in RR CLL, the selection of the most appropriate treatment depends on the drug toxicity profile and patient´s comorbidities. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of data from the Czech National Registry of CLL patients (CLLEAR). Patients were treated in one of eight Czech hematological centres between December 2015 and June 2023. Only those who received chemoimmunotherapy in the first-line and Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) or Bcl-2 inhibitor (Bcl-2i) in the second-line treatment were included in the study. All patients fulfilled iwCLL diagnostic criteria and had provided informed consent before their data were captured in the CLLEAR. Key CLL-related clinical and laboratory parameters were obtained from the database (Table 1). Ibrutinib and acalabrutinib monotherapy were given at standard doses until disease progression (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. The combination of venetoclax and rituximab (VenR) was administered in the regular dosing schedule for 24 months. Results: Out of 291 patients included in the study, 70.1% (204/291) were treated with ibrutinib, 8.9% (26/291) received acalabrutinib and 20.9% (61/291) VenR. The median age at the start of the second-line treatment was 72.1 and 70.6 years, respectively (BTKi and Bcl-2i). There were no significant differences in sex, clinical stage, CIRS, creatinine clearance and time since diagnosis until the beginning of the second-line treatment. Bendamustine and rituximab followed by fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab were the most common regimens used in the firs-line treatment. Deletion (del) 17p and/or TP53 mutation, and del 11q were more frequent in the BTKi cohort, while unmutated IGVH gene was detected similarly in both groups (Table 1). Median follow-up was longer in BTKi than in Bcl-2i group (19.2 vs. 11.5 months). The overall response rate (ORR) was evaluated in 191 patients treated with BTKi and in 42 patients treated with Bcl-2i for at least six months. The ORR was comparable between the BTKi and Bcl-2i cohort, 90.6% (173/191) vs. 92.9% (39/42) (p = 0.774). More complete remissions (CR) were seen in Bcl-2i group, 12.0% (23/191) vs. 42.9% (18/42) (p&amp;lt;0.001). Median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 37.4 (31.4 - 43.35) months vs. not reached (BTKi vs Bcl-2i), HR 1.07 (95% CI, 0.59 - 1.94) (p = 0.833, Figure 1). Median overall survival (mOS) was 64.3 (37.2 - 91.5) months vs. not reached (BTKi vs Bcl-2i), HR 1.35 (95% CI 0.70 - 2.63) (p=0.371, Figure 1). Similar results were observed in the subgroup with del17p and/or TP53 mutation (mPFS: 35.6 months vs. not reached, HR 1.80, 95% CI, 0.69 - 4.69), as well as in the subgroup with unmutated IGVH gene (mPFS: 35.6 months vs. not reached, HR 1.36, 95% CI, 0.72 - 2.55). At the time of data analysis, hematological toxicity and infectious complications were premature for comparison (data were assessed in 31.3% of BTKi and 57.4% of Bcl-2i patients). Grade III-IV hypertension and other non-hematological toxicity (excluding infections) prevailed in BTKi cohort (19.2% BTKi, 9.6% Bcl-2i). The median treatment duration of BTKi and Bcl-2i was 14.7 (0.7 - 53.4) and 9.7 (0.3 - 25.8) months, respectively. Early discontinuation was observed more frequently post BTKi compared to post Bcl-2i administration, 43.9% (101/230) vs. 26.2% (16/61) (p&amp;lt;0.001). Except for the progression (24.8% BTKi, 18.8% Bcl-2i), the most common causes leading to premature discontinuation were death (23.8% BTKi, 12.5% Bcl-2i), infection (9.99% BTKi, 37.5% Bcl-2i), and non-hematological toxicity (24.8% BTKi, 6.3% Bcl-2i). Conclusion: In terms of high-risk prognostic markers, a higher prevalence of del 17p and/or TP53 mutation, and del 11q were observed in the BTKi cohort. In contrast, frequency of the unmutated IGVH gene was comparable in both groups. Difference in median PFS and OS was not statistically significant within the current follow-up period. However, premature termination of treatment was more commonly seen in BTKi group. To confirm our primary outcomes, longer follow-up is warranted.

Combined Ibrutinib and Venetoclax for First-Line Treatment of Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL): 5-Year Follow-up Data

Background: Ibrutinib (IBR) and venetoclax (VEN) combination is an effective therapy for patients (pts) with CLL. We previously reported results of the first-line cohort of a phase II trial of combined IBR and VEN for high-risk pts with CLL (Jain, NEJM 2019, JAMA Oncology 2021). Here we report updated data for 120 pts (80 pts in the original published cohort and 40 pts in an expansion cohort) with a median follow-up of 61.5 months. Methods: Pts with previously untreated CLL meeting IWCLL treatment criteria were enrolled. All pts had at least one high-risk feature: del(17p), mutated TP53, del(11q), unmutated IGHV, or age ≥65 years. Pts received IBR 420 mg daily for 3 cycles followed by addition of VEN (weekly dose-escalation to 400mg daily). Combined therapy was given for 24 cycles (28 days/cycle). Pts with bone marrow (BM) undetectable MRD (U-MRD) (flow cytometry; sensitivity 10 -4) at 24 cycles of combined therapy discontinued both VEN and IBR; MRD+ pts continued IBR. A trial amendment allowed an additional 12 cycles of combined VEN and IBR for pts who remained BM MRD+ after Cycle 24. Response assessments included BM and CT studies (2008 IWCLL criteria). U-MRD was defined as &amp;lt;0.01%; low MRD+ 0.01% to &amp;lt;1%; high MRD+ ≥1%. Progression-free survival (PFS) was assessed as the time from the start of study drug to CLL progression, Richter transformation, or death from any cause. Blood MRD was monitored every 6 months after active therapy. Results: Between August 2016 and February 2019, a total of 120 pts were enrolled. Median age was 64.5 years (range, 26-88 years). 86% had IGHV-unmutated CLL. 23% had del(17p)/ TP53 mutation. The median follow-up is 61.5 months. Six pts came off study during 1 st 3 cycles of IBR monotherapy; 114 pts initiated VEN. After 12 cycles of the combination, 62/120 (52%) achieved BM U-MRD remission; 43/120 (36%) were BM MRD-positive (low MRD+, n=35; high MRD+, n=8). After 24 cycles of the combination, 77/120 (64%) achieved BM U-MRD remission; 24/120 (20%) were BM MRD+ (low MRD+, n=23; high MRD+, n=1). Overall, 86/120 (72%) achieved BM U-MRD as the best response. One pt had DLBCL transformation and 1 pt had CLL progression during the first 2 year of therapy (details below). The 5-year PFS is 90.1% and 5-year OS is 95.6% (Figure 1). The 5-year PFS for pts with del(17p)/ TP53 mutation (n=27) is 86.1%. Of the 77 pts who were BM U-MRD at the end of cycle 24 of the combination, 73 discontinued all therapy, 4 pts continued IBR per treating physician discretion. Among these 77 pts, with a median follow-up of 40 months post Cycle 24, 22 pts had recurrence of blood MRD (defined as MRD ≥0.01% in 2 consecutive visits). Of the 22 pts with MRD recurrence, 5 pt had CLL progression at a median of 18 months (range, 6-30 months) from MRD recurrence (details below); 16 are being monitored without any active therapy for CLL and without clinical disease progression; 1 pt died from mesothelioma. Among the 55 pts who remain in blood U-MRD remission, 53 remain in long-term follow-up in U-MRD remission; 1 pt had B-PLL transformation and 1 patient died (found unresponsive at home; was off therapy for 2 years). There were 24 pts who were BM MRD+ at the end of cycle 24 of the combination (low MRD+, n=23; high MRD+, n=1). The only pt with high-MRD+ at end of cycle 24 was noted to have Richter transformation at that time. The remaining 23 pts (all low MRD+ in BM, range 0.01-0.95%) continued IBR monotherapy. With a trial amendment, MRD+ pts after Cycle 24 could get 12 additional cycles of VEN; 18/23 pts have resumed VEN. 11/18 (61%) pts achieved U-MRD remission during the third year of combined therapy. Only 2/23 pts are still receiving IBR (remaining pts have d/c IBR; all pts have d/c venetoclax); none of these 23 pts had clinical relapse. A total of 6 pts had CLL progression (1 during the first 2 yr of therapy; remaining 5 during off-therapy phase). 3/6 had evaluation of BTK, PLGG2 and BCL2 mutations at the time of relapse and none were detected. 5 pts have started subsequent therapy (acalabrutinib, n=4; ibrutinib, n=1; all are clinically responding); 1 pt has not yet started therapy. Conclusions: We report long term follow-up of combined IBR and VEN in first-line CLL (n=120) with a 5-year PFS of 90.1%. The 5-year PFS for pts with del(17p)/ TP53 mutation is 86.1%. Retreatment with BTK inhibitor appears effective for pts with disease relapse.

Using Peripheral Blood (PB) Measurable Residual Disease (MRD) Levels to Predict

CONCLUSIONS Time-limited treatments for CLL are under investigation but the optimal target for treatment cessation is not fully clear. Bone marrow (BM) measurable residual disease (MRD) is usually the most sensitive measure but would be too invasive to guide treatment in a routine setting. The iwCLL threshold of BM uMRD4 (&amp;lt;0.01%) has been demonstrated to be a powerful indicator of improved outcomes across multiple different trials and the aim of this analysis is to determine the feasibility of using PB MRD analysis to identify patients who have attained BM uMRD4. FLAIR (ISRCTN01844152) is an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial comparing ibrutinib plus rituximab (IR) with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR), subsequently amended to compare ibrutinib plus venetoclax (I+V) and ibrutinib alone (I) with FCR. Paired PB &amp; BM samples were scheduled at: (1) response assessment 9 months after randomization in all arms (n=1086); (2) end of treatment after 72 months in the ibrutinib-containing arms (n=137, most I/I+V participants have not reached this timepoint yet); and (3) confirmation of BM uMRD4 for initiation of planned stopping rules in participants with sustained PB uMRD4 defined as &amp;lt;0.01% PB MRD at 3 timepoints over 6 months (n=188 in the I+V arm). MRD analysis was performed using an ERIC-compliant 8-colour flow cytometry assay targeting acquisition of 2.2 million events (detection limit MRD5/0.001%). As the target could not always be met due to sample/laboratory limitations, stringent uMRD4 assessing 500 thousand leucocytes (detection limit 0.005%) was also evaluated. Table 1 shows the BM vs. PB MRD levels for different treatment arms and timepoints. The greatest discrepancy was observed in participants receiving FCR with a median 0.8log higher disease in the BM vs. PB. Participants receiving ibrutinib monotherapy had similar PB and BM MRD levels while the addition of either rituximab or venetoclax was associated with slightly higher (median &amp;lt;0.1 log) BM vs. PB MRD levels for both IR and I+V arms. The difference did not persist in the IR arm but remained during I+V treatment in some cases, with median &amp;gt;0.59 log higher BM vs. PB MRD levels in 29/182 participants achieving PB uMRD4 but with detectable BM MRD. Table 1 also shows the proportion of cases that attain BM uMRD4 according to different PB MRD thresholds. For participants with rituximab exposure in the past 3 months, BM uMRD4 was attained in 75-88% of participants with PB uMRD5, and only 43-76% of participants with stringent uMRD4. For participants with PB dMRD5 (0.001-0.01% MRD), only 14-52% achieved BM uMRD4. However, participants on I+V with either PB uMRD5 or stringent uMRD4 attained BM uMRD4 in 94-96% of cases. Planned cessation of treatment in the FLAIR trial was guided by sustained PB uMRD4, defined as 3 successive results with &amp;lt;0.01% PB disease over six months with confirmation of BM uMRD4 at the final time point. This strategy in the I+V arm is highly effective in achieving improved progression-free and overall survival compared to FCR [see related abstract]. Sustained PB uMRD4 led to BM assessments in 188 participants of which 173/188 (92%) attained BM uMRD4. High sensitivity PB MRD gave concordant results to BM MRD4 analysis in 91% of participants (172/188), while 9/188 (5%) had PB dMRD5 / BM uMRD4 (7/9 had detectable BM MRD in the range 0.002-0.007% and 2/9 had BM uMRD5/&amp;lt;0.001%) and 7/188 (4%) had PB uMRD5/stringent uMRD4 but with persistent BM dMRD4 (median 0.02% BM MRD, range 0.01-0.055%). PB MRD level correlates closely with BM MRD level but there is lower concordance at the 0.01%/MRD4 threshold after recent cessation of therapeutic antibody. PB uMRD4 is not a suitable target for treatment cessation as the majority of patients with 0.001%-0.01% PB MRD have &amp;gt;0.01% BM disease. For the identification of people attaining BM uMRD4 (&amp;lt;0.01%) on I+V treatment, sustained PB uMRD4 was &amp;gt;90% effective. For translation into MRD-guided treatment in future routine clinical practice, BM assessment may be replaced with PB MRD monitoring if the 0.001%/MRD5 threshold is applied.

Takeaim Lymphoma: An Open-Label, Dose Escalation and Expansion Trial of Emavusertib (CA-4948) in Combination with Ibrutinib in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Hematologic Malignancies

Background: Emavusertib (CA-4948) is a novel oral inhibitor of interleukin-1 receptor-associated kinase 4 (IRAK4), which is essential for toll-like receptor (TLR) and interleukin-1 receptor (IL-1R) signaling in B cell proliferation. Additional inhibitory activity against FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3) and CDC-like kinases (CLK1/2/4) is also present in emavusertib. IRAK4 forms a Myddosome complex with MYD88 adaptor protein and drives overactivation ofnuclear factor-kappa B (NF-κB), causing inflammation and tumor growth. Emavusertib has been reported to be well tolerated and active as monotherapy in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) (Nowakowski 2020). Preclinical studies demonstrated that tumor resistance and survival via IRAK4 activation could be delayed or reversed. Emavusertib crossed the blood-brain barrier in a murine PDX model of PCNS lymphoma, blocked the activated IRAK4 pathway, and induced tumor response and prolonged survival (von Roemeling 2022). In combination with Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, emavusertib showed in vitro synergy and re-sensitization of resistant cell lines, overcoming BTK resistance (Guidetti 2023a and 2023b). In vivo synergy in B-cell NHL was also demonstrated. Adaptive chemotherapy treatment resistance through IRAK4 upregulation and activation was also described in other disease models (Melgar 2019, Li 2019). This abstract presents preliminary efficacy and safety data of emavusertib + ibrutinib in R/R NHL patients. Aim:Assessment of safety and clinical activity of emavusertib in combination with ibrutinib. Methods: This is an ongoing open-label trial (NCT03328078) of emavusertib as monotherapy and in combination with ibrutinib. Part A1 - completed; dose escalation of emavusertib as monotherapy; the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) is 300 mg BID with continuous oral dosing (Nowakowski 2020). Part A2 - completed; dose escalation of emavusertib in combination with ibrutinib at 420 and 560 mg QD (Joffe 2022). Part B - ongoing; an expansion cohort of PCNSL patients with resistance to prior BTK inhibitors for additional safety and efficacy related to exposure: emavusertib at 100 or 200 mg BID + ibrutinib at 560 mg QD in 28-Day cycles. Results:As of 19 July 2023, 18 heavily pretreated NHL (including five PCNSL) patients received emavusertib at 100, 200, or 300 mg BID in combination with full ibrutinib doses per label. Median age was 63.5 years (range 50-92). Median number of prior lines of anti-cancer therapies was 3 (range 1-10). Eleven of 18 patients failed prior BTK inhibitors. Median treatment duration was 95.5 days (21-587 days), suggesting acceptable safety and tolerability. No DLTs were observed at the 200 mg BID dose level, and two reversible DLTs (stomatitis and syncope) were observed at the 300 mg BID dose level. The preliminary efficacy data of 16 evaluable patients in combination with ibrutinib showed 5 CRs (2 MCL, 3 PCNSL) and 1 PR (1 CLL). All 3 PCNSL patients with CR were previously treated with BTK inhibitors. Conclusion: The combination ofemavusertib plus ibrutinib (ema+ibr) is well tolerated with an acceptable long-term safety profile and promising efficacy, showing several objective responses in heavily pretreated and/or BTK inhibitor resistant patients. Emavusertib may have the potential to overcome BTK inhibitor resistance and the combination of ema+ibr has the potential to show increased anti-cancer activity compared to ibrutinib monotherapy.

Health-related quality of life outcomes associated with zanubrutinib versus ibrutinib monotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma: results from the ALPINE Trial

Objective The purpose of this analysis was to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients treated with zanubrutinib and ibrutinib in the ALPINE trial (NCT03734016). Methods HRQoL was measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-5L at baseline, cycle 1, and every third cycle until the end of treatment. Key patient-reported outcome (PRO) endpoints included global health status (GHS), physical and role functioning, as well as symptoms of fatigue, pain, diarrhea, and nausea/vomiting. A mixed model repeated-measure analysis using key PRO endpoints at key clinical cycles (cycles 7 and 13) was performed. Results 652 patients were randomized to receive zanubrutinib (n = 327) or ibrutinib (n = 325). By cycle 7, GHS scores improved with zanubrutinib versus ibrutinib, and in cycle 13, GHS scores remained higher in the zanubrutinib arm. The zanubrutinib arm experienced clinically meaningful improvements in physical and role functioning, as well as pain and fatigue symptoms at both cycles. Patients in the zanubrutinib arm reported lower diarrhea scores. Nausea/vomiting scores maintained in both arms. EQ-VAS scores showed greater improvement from baseline at both cycle 7 (7.92 versus 3.44) and cycle 13 (7.75 versus 3.92) of treatment with zanubrutinib compared to ibrutinib, respectively. Conclusions Patients with R/R CLL/SLL treated with zanubrutinib demonstrated improvement versus ibrutinib in the GHS scale at cycle 7. Other endpoints continued to improve, suggesting treatment with zanubrutinib positively affected HRQoL over time. Given the generally good HRQoL at baseline in both arms, the differences between the arms were not significant.

Evaluation of Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors monotherapy and combination therapy in lymphocytic leukemia.

BTKi is an effective treatment in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. However, head-to-head clinical trials between BTKi are rare. To explore evidence-based treatmentdecisions, we conducted this network meta-analysis. We searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase and selected articles of BTKi treatment in CLL patients, with English restrictions. Objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival(PFS) and safety were outcomes. Combination therapy and acalabrutinib monotherapy achieved great ORR (greater than 80%). Combination therapy (AO and IR) also performed terrific PFS (> 80%). Compared with ibrutinib monotherapy, zanubrutinib, acalabrutinib and IR showed no significance in overall survival. Diarrhea, hypertension, cardiac events, neutropenia were common adverse events of BTKi therapy. IR had higher incidence of hypertension (0.38, 95% CI 0.28-0.48), and IU was more likely occurred cardiac events. Zanubrutinib monotherapy had lower incidence of total serious adverse reaction (0.42, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.36-0.47),while ibrutinib monotherapy occurred higher adverse reactions of grade ≥ 3 (0.77, 95% CI 0.72-0.82). Although both BTKi monotherapy and combination therapy showed great efficacy, combination therapy did not display priority. Meanwhile, safety of BTKi combination therapy needs to be fully and comprehensively considered.Registration number: CRD42022378732.

Generic ibrutinib a potential cost-effective strategy for the first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia.

Though the chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) management options in India are still limited compared to the novel drug options in resource-rich settings, the availability of less costly generics and the government health insurance scheme has enabled many patients to access the newer drugs in India. The current study compared the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of existing initial management options for the progression-free survival (PFS) time horizon from the patient's perspective. A two-health-state, PFS and progressive disease, Markov model was assumed for three regimens (generics): ibrutinib monotherapy, bendamustine-rituximab (B-R), and rituximab-chlorambucil (RClb) used as the frontline treatment of CLL patients in India. All costs, utilization of services, and consequences data during the PFS period were collected from interviewing patients during follow-up visits. The transition probability (TP) and average PFS information were obtained from landmark published studies. EQ-5D-5L questionnaires were utilized to assess the quality of life (QoL). Quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were measured during the PFS period. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) were studied. Upon analysis, the entire monetary expense during the PFS time was ₹1581964 with ibrutinib, ₹171434 with B-R, and ₹91997 with RClb treatment arm. Pooled PFS and QALY gain was 10.33 and 8.28 years for ibrutinib, 4.08 and 3.53 years for the B-R regimen, and 1.33 and 1.23 years in RClb arms, respectively. Ibrutinib's ICER and ICUR were ₹214587.32 per PFS year gain and ₹282384.86 per QALY gain when assessed against the B-R regimen. Ibrutinib also performed better in ICER and ICUR against the RClb arm with ₹157014.29 per PFS year gain and ₹200413.6 per QALY gain. In conclusion, generic ibrutinib is a cost-effective initial line of management compared to other commonly used treatment regimes in resource-limited settings.