For transplant-eligible patients with Mantle Cell Lymphoma, Obinutuzumab showed superior efficacy compared to Rituximab. These patients are uncommon, but the results of this study show that in this context O seems to beat R in every aspect, including a 5-yr PFS of 82.8 vs 66.6%, which is striking. I would consider this option for the appropriate patient.
Obinutuzumab (O) and rituximab (R) are 2 CD antibodies that have never been compared in a prospective randomized trial of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). Herein, we report the long-term outcome of the LyMa-101 trial, in which newly diagnosed patients with MCL were treated with chemotherapy plus O before transplantation, followed by O maintenance (O group). We then compared these patients with those treated with the same treatment design with R instead of O (R group). A propensity score matching (PSM) was used to compare the 2 populations (O vs R groups) in terms of measurable residual disease (MRD) at the end of induction (EOI), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). In LyMa-101, the estimated 5-year PFS and OS after inclusion (n = 85) were 83.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 73.5-89.8) and 86.9% (95% CI, 77.6-92.5), respectively. At EOI, patients treated in the O group had more frequent bone marrow MRD negativity than those treated in the R group (83.1% vs 63.4%; χ2, P = .007). PSM resulted in 2 sets of 82 patients with comparable characteristics at inclusion. From treatment initiation, the O group had a longer estimated 5-year PFS (P = .029; 82.8% vs 66.6%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.99; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.05-3.76) and OS (P = .039; 86.4% vs 71.4%; HR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.01-4.16) compared with the R group. Causes of death were comparable in the 2 groups, the most common cause being lymphoma. O before transplantation and in maintenance provides better disease control and enhances PFS and OS compared with R in transplant-eligible patients with MCL. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00921414 and NCT02896582.
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.
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.
There are too many options for DLBCL now with monoclonal antibodies, bispecific and CAR-T therapy, but in frail patients, this might be an option. Tafatistamab with lenalidomide had higher ORR (55vs 50) and CR( 37 vs 27%) but this is comparing different trials, and this trial had mostly elderly pts, I do feel tafatistamab is fairly well tolerated though. But when in doubt this seems to be a fair option.
Speaking of tafatistamab, it seems it is fairly tolerable in first line with almost 75% CR added to RCHOP, adding lenolidomie 86% CR, but this is a phase 1b. Awaiting phase 3 data, we may have another first line option or may the first line option.
CAR-T for second line is better than standard of care, the question is: how about compared to BITE therapy? Future is exciting for those patients.
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.
