Ibrutinib and rituximab versus immunochemotherapy in patients with previously untreated mantle cell lymphoma (ENRICH): a randomised, open-label, phase 2/3 superiority trial

Author(s): David J Lewis MBChB PhD1; Prof Mats Jerkeman MD PhD2; Lexy Sorrell PhD3; Prof David Wright PhD4; Prof Ingrid Glimelius MD PhD5; Christian B Poulsen MD6; Annika Pasanen MD PhD7; Prof Andrew Rawstron PhD8; Karin F Wader MD PhD9; Nick Morley MD10; Catherine Burton MD8; Prof Andrew J Davies BM PhD11; Ingemar Lagerlöf PhD12; Surita Dalal PhD8; Ruth De Tute PhD8; Chris McNamara MD13; Nicola Crosbie RN1; Helle Erbs Toldbod PhD14; Jeanette Sanders PhD3; Prof Victoria Allgar PhD3; Sree Aroori PhD3; Mark Warner MSc3; Claire Scully BA3; Brian Wainman BEng3; Jacob Haaber Christensen MD PhD15; Jon Riise MD PhD16; Kristina Sonnevi PhD17; Mark J Bishton MBChB PhD18; Toby A Eyre MD19; Prof Simon Rule MD PhD20; on behalf of the ENRICH investigators
Source: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(25)01432-1

Dr. Maen Hussein's Thoughts

First-line ibrutinib plus rituximab was superior to immunochemotherapy, with a progression-free survival (PFS) hazard ratio of 0.67 — a new standard of care?

Background

Ibrutinib, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, prolongs progression-free survival when added to immunochemotherapy as first line treatment. The ENRICH trial compared the chemotherapy-free combination of ibrutinib and the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab (ibrutinib–rituximab) with standard immunochemotherapy (R-CHOP [rituximab–cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone] or bendamustine–rituximab) in patients 60 years and older with untreated mantle-cell lymphoma.

Methods

This randomised, open-label, phase 2/3 superiority trial was performed at 66 sites in the UK, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark. Patients 60 years and older with untreated mantle-cell lymphoma (Ann–Arbor stage II–IV disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance-status score of 0–2) were randomly assigned to receive either rituximab plus immunochemotherapy or ibrutinib–rituximab in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by investigator choice of immunochemotherapy. Patients randomly allocated to the ibrutinib–rituximab (intervention) group received 560 mg oral ibrutinib daily in combination with six to eight cycles of 375 mg/m2 intravenous rituximab on day 1 of each cycle in the matched schedule of the pre-randomisation choice of immunochemotherapy (every 21 days for R-CHOP or every 28 days for rituximab–bendamustine). R-CHOP comprised 750 mg/m2 of cyclophosphamide, 50 mg/m2 of doxorubicin, and 1·4 mg/m2 vincristine on day 1 of each 21-day cycle, with 100 mg prednisolone on days 1–5 of each cycle. Rituximab–bendamustine comprised 90 mg/m2 of bendamustine on days 1 and 2 of each cycle, in combination with 375 mg/m2 rituximab on day 1 of each cycle. All responding patients in both groups at the end of induction received maintenance rituximab administered every 8 weeks for 2 years, and patients allocated to the intervention group continued ibrutinib until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary outcome was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, stratified by immunochemotherapy choice and analysed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial was registered with EudraCT (2015–000832–13) and is closed for recruitment.

Findings

Between Feb 15, 2016, and June 30, 2021, 397 patients were randomly allocated to immunochemotherapy (control) or ibrutinib–rituximab (intervention). Of the 397, 107 (27%) were pre-allocated to the immunochemotherapy choice of R-CHOP and 290 (73%) were pre-allocated to rituximab–bendamustine. In total, 198 were allocated to the control group (53 to R-CHOP and 145 to bendamustine–rituximab) and 199 were allocated to intervention. The median age was 74 years (IQR 70–77) for the intervention group and 74 years (70–78) in the control group. 296 patients (75%) were male and 101 patients (25%) were female; ethnicity data were not collected. At a median follow-up of 47·9 months, the median progression-free survival of ibrutinib–rituximab was superior to immunochemotherapy, with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0·69 (95% CI 0·52–0·90); p=0·0034. For those with pre-randomisation choice R-CHOP, the HR was 0·37 (0·22–0·62), and with bendamustine–rituximab, the HR was 0·91 (0·66–1·25). Across induction and maintenance, 67% of patients assigned to ibrutinib–rituximab and 70% of patients receiving immunotherapy reported grade 3 or above adverse events.

Interpretation

To our knowledge, this is the first randomised trial in untreated mantle-cell lymphoma to demonstrate significant improvement in progression-free survival for ibrutinib–rituximab compared to immunochemotherapy. This study suggests that ibrutinib–rituximab should be considered a new standard of care option for first-line treatment of older patients with mantle-cell lymphoma.

Funding

Cancer Research UK (C7627/A17938) and Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceuticals.

Author Affiliations

1 Department of Haematology, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, Plymouth, UK; 2 Department of Oncology, Skane University Hospital, Lund, Sweden; 3 Peninsula Medical School, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK; 4 Department of Clinical and Biomedical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, Devon, UK; 5 Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; 6 Zealand University Hospital Roskilde, Roskilde, Denmark; 7 Department of Oncology, Helsinki University Hospital Comprehensive Cancer Center, Helsinki, Finland; 8 Haematological Malignancy Diagnostic Service, Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK; 9 St Olav’s Hospital HF, Trondheim, Norway; 10 Department of Haematology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK; 11 Cancer Sciences Division, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK; 12 Linköping University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden; 13 Department of Haematology, University College London, London, UK; 14 Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; 15 Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; 16 Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; 17 Department of Haematology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm; 18 Academic Unit of Translational Medical Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK; 19 Haematology and Cancer Centre, Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, UK; 20 AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles

Acalabrutinib Plus Bendamustine-Rituximab in Untreated Mantle Cell Lymphoma

The phase III ECHO trial evaluated acalabrutinib + bendamustine-rituximab (A+BR) vs placebo + BR in previously untreated mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) patients ≥65 years, showing a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) (66.4 vs 49.6 months) with A+BR, including in high-risk subgroups. Objective response rate (ORR)/complete response (CR) rates were higher with A+BR (91.0%/66.6% vs 88.0%/53.5%), but overall survival (OS) was not significantly different (HR 0.86). Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were similar between arms (88.9% vs 88.2%), with more COVID-19–related events in the acalabrutinib group, likely reflecting longer exposure. Bottom line: adding acalabrutinib to BR gives us a real PFS advantage in older, untreated MCL, with manageable toxicity, but OS benefit remains elusive—likely due to crossover and effective salvage BTKi at relapse.

Read More »

Acalabrutinib Plus Bendamustine-Rituximab in Untreated Mantle Cell Lymphoma

The ECHO phase III trial evaluated acalabrutinib + bendamustine-rituximab (BR) vs placebo plus BR in untreated mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) patients ineligible for transplant, showing a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) (66.4 vs 49.6 months) with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.73. The combination achieved a higher overall response rate (ORR) (91.0% vs 88.0%) and complete response (CR) rate (66.6% vs 53.5%), supporting its efficacy in this older population. Of note, side effects like pneumonia, atrial fibrillation, and infections were more frequent with acalabrutinib, with serious adverse effects in 69% versus 62% for placebo. This triplet regimen could redefine first-line treatment for our MCL patients, but we’ll need to stay vigilant about managing toxicities, especially in older patients.

Read More »

Efficacy and Safety of Ibrutinib Combined with Standard First-Line Treatment or As Substitute for Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Younger Patients with Mantle Cell Lymphoma: Results from the Randomized Triangle Trial By the European MCL Network

Potentially practice changing trial from the EU on young, transplant eligible patients with MCL were all treated with first line chemo then randomized to Auto-HSCT +/- Ibrutinib.  The addition of Ibrutinib to Auto-HSCT improved DFS compared to Auto-HSCT alone, and more interestingly patients treated Ibrutinib was better than those who had transplant but the data on the Ibrutinib vs traplant + Ibrutinib arms are premature.  The addition of maintenance Rituximab did not seem to change any outcomes.

Read More »