Triple therapy for CLL, AVO, is highly active and has very high MRD-negative rates compared to other studies using Ven+Obi or BTKi therapy alone. The battle between indefinite BTKi therapy vs more intense combination therapy will continue as we don’t know if one paradigm is better from a bigger picture.
The AMPLIFY trial recently established fixed-duration acalabrutinib, venetoclax, and obinutuzumab (AVO) as a new standard-of-care option for patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with wild-type TP53; however, due to the chemoimmunotherapy control arm, AMPLIFY excluded patients with high-risk TP53 aberration, for whom current standards of care are continuous Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy or alternatively fixed-duration venetoclax-based doublets. AVO has not previously been evaluated in patients with CLL with TP53 aberration.
This investigator-sponsored, multicenter, phase II study enrolled patients with treatment-naïve CLL enriched for high-risk CLL, defined by TP53 aberration (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03580928). Patients received acalabrutinib, obinutuzumab, and then venetoclax, with each treatment introduced sequentially and in combination, with the duration guided by measurable residual disease (MRD). Patients who achieved undetectable MRD (uMRD) after either 15 or 24 cycles could discontinue treatment. The primary end point was complete remission (CR) with bone marrow uMRD (BM-uMRD) at the start of cycle 16.
Seventy-two patients were accrued, including 45 patients with TP53 aberration. The CR with BM-uMRD rates at the start of cycle 16 were 42% in patients with TP53 aberration and 42% in all-comers, and the BM-uMRD rates were 71% and 78%, respectively. Hematologic toxicities were mainly low grade, and cardiovascular toxicities and bleeding complications were infrequent. After a median follow-up of 55.2 months, 10 patients had progressed, including four with transformation, and three patients died. Four-year progression-free survival and overall survival for patients with or without TP53 aberration were 70%/96% and 88%/100%, respectively.
AVO was highly active and well tolerated in patients with previously untreated high-risk CLL, supporting its use as a new standard-of-care treatment option.
It does not seem that all NPM1 mutations are created equally. Type A and B mutations had favorable outcomes and type D mutations do much worse, something to consider when risk stratifying in patients with AML.
Ibrutinib delays disease progression for asymptomatic patients but has no overall survival (OS) benefit; hence, still watch and wait in those patients.
This study was done with and without obinutuzumab, both arms beat obinutuzumab and chlorambucil. There were more deaths in the obinutuzumab arm even though it was superior because of COVID, so it is immunosuppressive.
This study compared double induction vs. standard induction and a reduced dose of daunorubicin 90mg/m2 vs. 60mg/m2. The reduced dose was just as efficacious and double inductions do not seem to be beneficial. Probably less is more in this setting and once you get the CR, one can move forward with consolidation and start planning for transplant.
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.
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.
