Two words: better and safer.
CLL/SLL is usually characterized by consecutive relapses and response to therapy ultimately dictates survival. While ibrutinib, a first-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi), has become standard therapy, it has well-described off-target effects that can limit use. Compared with ibrutinib, zanubrutinib, a next-generation BTKi, provides improved BTK occupancy across disease-relevant tissues with greater kinase selectivity. In a randomized phase 3 study (ALPINE; NCT03734016), zanubrutinib was compared head-to-head with ibrutinib as treatment for R/R CLL/SLL. At predefined response analyses, zanubrutinib demonstrated superior overall response rate (ORR); data from the predefined final PFS analysis are reported here.
Patients (pts) with R/R CLL/SLL who had received ≥1 prior therapy and had measurable disease were randomized 1:1 to receive zanubrutinib or ibrutinib until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Stratification was based on age, refractory status, geographical region, and del(17p)/TP53 mutation status. As the primary endpoint of ORR was superior with zanubrutinib, the key secondary efficacy endpoint of PFS was tested for noninferiority under hierarchical testing when 205 PFS events were observed. If PFS noninferiority between zanubrutinib and ibrutinib was demonstrated, superiority of zanubrutinib vs ibrutinib could be tested and claimed if the 2-sided P-value was <.04996. Other endpoints included overall survival (OS), ORR including PR with lymphocytosis (PR-L) or better, and safety parameters including atrial fibrillation/flutter.
Pts (N=652) from 15 countries were randomized to receive zanubrutinib (n=327) or ibrutinib (n=325). Demographic and disease characteristics were balanced between zanubrutinib and ibrutinib arms (age ≥65 yrs [61.5 vs 61.5%]; male [65.1 vs 71.4%]; unmutated IGHV [73.1 vs 73.5%]; del(17p) [13.8 vs 15.4%]; TP53 mutated without del(17p) [9.2 vs 7.7%]). Across the study population, median age was 67 and 68 yrs, respectively; in both arms, median prior lines of therapy was 1.
As ALPINE is the first study to demonstrate PFS superiority in a head-to-head comparison of BTK inhibitors, zanubrutinib has now proven superiority to ibrutinib in both ORR and PFS in pts with R/R CLL/SLL. Efficacy benefits with zanubrutinib were observed across all major subgroups, including high-risk pts. Zanubrutinib had a favorable safety profile compared with ibrutinib, with a lower rate of treatment discontinuation and fewer cardiac disorder events, including fewer cardiac events leading to death. These data suggest zanubrutinib is more efficacious and better tolerated than ibrutinib as treatment for R/R CLL/SLL.
Compelling study showing Asciminib vs. investigator’s choice TKi. Asciminib was better tolerated and with deeper molecular responses. This may become a preferred option for many new chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients. Cost may be an issue.
This combination had impressive results but led to a high rate of ventricular arrythmias (9%), hence the combination is not recommended. Another study with the combination and rituximab was also suspended, the etiology of the higher rate of Vent arrhythmias is not known. This combination in another lymphoid malignancies did not lead to that rate of toxicity.
Sorafenib did not help in newly diagnosed AML (with FLT-ITD) patients as maintenance therapy. MRD testing can also predict survival outcome.
A small number of patients in this study, but it is an interesting test to predict who can be off therapy in CML. Patients who are high risk probably should to be taken off therapy, but this gives us something to build on.
Final results from the ASPEN study confirm the strong long-term superiority of zanubrutinib over ibrutinib in symptomatic WM. While overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) end-points are still to be reached, demonstrating the good prognosis of this disease, toxicities and response rates are much better with zanubrutinib. This is a cat-1 indication oof NCCN and a compelling option for use in this population.
FCS Hematology Oncology Review creates a platform for our physician network to observe the most recent articles and studies available in the oncology and hematology world. By sharing these articles we are building our wealth of knowledge of new observations and treatments as they come available.
