Search

Long-term data of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients with favorable risk who were treated with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) within clinical trials show good efficacy. We here report long-term data collected within the GCLLSG registry. Altogether, 417 CLL patients who received first-line treatment with FCR were analyzed, of which 293 (70.3%) were treated outside of clinical trials. The median observation time from first-line was 95.8 (interquartile range 58.7-126.8) months. Focusing on data of 194 (46.5%) patients who received FCR first-line treatment after 2013 (start of data collection within GCLLSG registry), responses were documented in 85% of the patients, non-responses in 15%, and for 3.6% the assessment was missing. Median event-free survival (EFS, time until disease progression, subsequent treatment, or death) was 60.2 months with a 5-year EFS-rate of 50.6%. Patients with higher-risk disease, characterized by unmutated IGHV (N = 78), had a median EFS of 45.4 months with a 5-year EFS rate of 36.3%, while the median EFS was 77.5 months with a 5-year EFS rate of 60.3% in patients with mutated IGHV (N = 40). Median overall survival was not reached with a 5-year survival rate of 92.7%. In summary, first-line FCR was associated with long EFS, especially in patients exhibiting a mutated IGHV status., (© 2024 The Authors. European Journal of Haematology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The therapy of relapsed or refractory (r/r) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) patients remains a major clinical challenge to date. We conducted a randomized, open-label, parallel-group phase-III trial hypothesizing superior efficacy of rituximab, high-dose cytarabine and dexamethasone with bortezomib (R-HAD + B) versus without (R-HAD) in r/r MCL ineligible for or relapsed after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Primary endpoint was time to treatment failure (TTF), secondary endpoints included response rates, progression free survival, overall survival, and safety. In total, 128 of 175 planned patients were randomized to R-HAD + B (n = 64) or R-HAD (n = 64). Median TTF was 12 vs. 2.6 months (p = 0.045, MIPI-adjusted HR 0.69; 95%CI 0.47-1.02). Overall and complete response rates were 63 vs. 45% (p = 0.049) and 42 vs. 19% (p = 0.0062). A significant treatment effect was seen in the subgroup of patients >65 years (aHR 0.48, 0.29-0.79) and without previous ASCT (aHR 0.52, 0.28-0.96). Toxicity was mostly hematological and attributable to the chemotherapeutic backbone. Grade ≥3 leukocytopenia and lymphocytopenia were more common in R-HAD + B without differences in severe infections between both arms. Bortezomib in combination with chemotherapy can be effective in r/r MCL and should be evaluated further as a therapeutic option, especially if therapy with BTK inhibitors is not an option. Trial registration: NCT01449344., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Adding ibrutinib to standard immunochemotherapy might improve outcomes and challenge autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) in younger (aged 65 years or younger) mantle cell lymphoma patients. This trial aimed to investigate whether the addition of ibrutinib results in a superior clinical outcome compared with the pre-trial immunochemotherapy standard with ASCT or an ibrutinib-containing treatment without ASCT. We also investigated whether standard treatment with ASCT is superior to a treatment adding ibrutinib but without ASCT., Methods: The open-label, randomised, three-arm, parallel-group, superiority TRIANGLE trial was performed in 165 secondary or tertiary clinical centres in 13 European countries and Israel. Patients with previously untreated, stage II-IV mantle cell lymphoma, aged 18-65 years and suitable for ASCT were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to control group A or experimental groups A+I or I, stratified by study group and mantle cell lymphoma international prognostic index risk groups. Treatment in group A consisted of six alternating cycles of R-CHOP (intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m 2 on day 0 or 1, intravenous cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m 2 on day 1, intravenous doxorubicin 50 mg/m 2 on day 1, intravenous vincristine 1·4 mg/m 2 on day 1, and oral prednisone 100 mg on days 1-5) and R-DHAP (or R-DHAOx, intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m 2 on day 0 or 1, intravenous or oral dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1-4, intravenous cytarabine 2 × 2 g/m 2 for 3 h every 12 h on day 2, and intravenous cisplatin 100 mg/m 2 over 24 h on day 1 or alternatively intravenous oxaliplatin 130 mg/m 2 on day 1) followed by ASCT. In group A+I, ibrutinib (560 mg orally each day) was added on days 1-19 of R-CHOP cycles and as fixed-duration maintenance (560 mg orally each day for 2 years) after ASCT. In group I, ibrutinib was given the same way as in group A+I, but ASCT was omitted. Three pairwise one-sided log-rank tests for the primary outcome of failure-free survival were statistically monitored. The primary analysis was done by intention-to-treat. Adverse events were evaluated by treatment period among patients who started the respective treatment. This ongoing trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02858258., Findings: Between July 29, 2016 and Dec 28, 2020, 870 patients (662 men, 208 women) were randomly assigned to group A (n=288), group A+I (n=292), and group I (n=290). After 31 months median follow-up, group A+I was superior to group A with 3-year failure-free survival of 88% (95% CI 84-92) versus 72% (67-79; hazard ratio 0·52 [one-sided 98·3% CI 0-0·86]; one-sided p=0·0008). Superiority of group A over group I was not shown with 3-year failure-free survival 72% (67-79) versus 86% (82-91; hazard ratio 1·77 [one-sided 98·3% CI 0-3·76]; one-sided p=0·9979). The comparison of group A+I versus group I is ongoing. There were no relevant differences in grade 3-5 adverse events during induction or ASCT between patients treated with R-CHOP/R-DHAP or ibrutinib combined with R-CHOP/R-DHAP. During maintenance or follow-up, substantially more grade 3-5 haematological adverse events and infections were reported after ASCT plus ibrutinib (group A+I; haematological: 114 [50%] of 231 patients; infections: 58 [25%] of 231; fatal infections: two [1%] of 231) compared with ibrutinib only (group I; haematological: 74 [28%] of 269; infections: 52 [19%] of 269; fatal infections: two [1%] of 269) or after ASCT (group A; haematological: 51 [21%] of 238; infections: 32 [13%] of 238; fatal infections: three [1%] of 238)., Interpretation: Adding ibrutinib to first-line treatment resulted in superior efficacy in younger mantle cell lymphoma patients with increased toxicity when given after ASCT. Adding ibrutinib during induction and as maintenance should be part of first-line treatment of younger mantle cell lymphoma patients. Whether ASCT adds to an ibrutinib-containing regimen is not yet determined., Funding: Janssen and Leukemia & Lymphoma Society., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MD reports research grants for clinical studies from AbbVie, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead/Kite, Janssen, and Roche; speakers' honoraria from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Gilead/Kite, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, and Roche; travel support from Janssen and Roche; and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead/Kite, Janssen, Lilly/Loxo Oncology, Novartis, and Roche. JDo reports payment for expert testimony (once Advisory Board) from Lilly. EG reports grants from Janssen; honoraria (educational lecture) from Genmab, Gilead, Janssen, and Lilly; support for attending meetings or travel from Janssen and Roche; and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Gilead/Kite and Miltenyi Biotec. MJ reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AbbVie, Gilead/Kite, and Roche; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AbbVie, Gilead/Kite, Janssen, and Pierre Fabre. JW reports grants to his institution from GlaxoSmithKline/Novartis and Roche; honoraria for lectures from AbbVie, Amgen, Gilead, Novartis, Roche, Servier, and Takeda; participation on an Advisory Board from AbbVie, Gilead, Novartis, Roche, and Takeda. MHu reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genmab, Janssen, Merck, Roche, and Takeda; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genmab, Janssen, Merck, Roche, and Takeda. UM reports travel support from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead, Janssen-Cilag, and Roche; Advisory Board role for Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead, Incyte, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda; participation in national Guideline committee for the German-Swiss-Austrian Guideline for Mantle Cell Lymphoma. JR reports participation on an Advisory Board for AstraZeneca. VV reports consulting fees from AbbVie, BeiGene, Gilead, Lilly, and Roche; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Janssen; payment for expert testimony from Gilead and Roche; support for attending meetings or travel from AbbVie and Gilead. MGdS reports a research grant from AstraZeneca; payment for Advisory Boards from AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen-Cilag, Roche, and Takeda; payment or honoraria for educational events from Gilead and Janssen-Cilag; support for attending meetings or travel from AbbVie, Janssen-Cilag, Roche, and Takeda; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Roche; leadership in a scientific society (Sociedade Portuguesa de Hematologia); administration board on a patient advocacy group (Associação Portuguesa Contra a Leucemia). SL reports grants or contracts to her institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Genmab, HUTCHMED, Novartis, and Roche; consulting fees from AbbVie, Genmab, Gilead, Novartis, ORION Pharma, Roche, and Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (sobi); payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Gilead, Incyte, and Novartis; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Incyte. StS reports grants or contracts from any entity from AbbVie, Acerta Pharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Roche, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, and Verastem; consulting fees from AbbVie, Acerta Pharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Roche, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, and Verastem; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AbbVie, Acerta Pharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Roche, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, and Verastem; support for attending meetings or travel from AbbVie, Acerta Pharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Roche, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, and Verastem; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AbbVie, Acerta Pharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Roche, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, and Verastem; receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts, or other services from AbbVie, Acerta Pharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Roche, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, and Verastem. AK reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Novartis, Roche, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (sobi), and Takeda; support for attending meetings or travel from AbbVie, BeiGene, EUSA Pharma, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (sobi), and Takeda. RJ reports travel support for meeting attendance from BeiGene; meeting fee from Janssen. GH reports grants or contracts for clinical research from AbbVie, Gilead/Kite, Incyte, Janssen, MorphoSys, Pfizer, and Roche; consulting fees from AbbVie, ADC Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab, Gilead/Kite, Incyte, Janssen, Lilly, Miltenyi Biotec, Novartis, and Roche; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab, Gilead, Incyte, Janssen, Lilly, and Roche; support for attending meetings or travel from Gilead/Kite and Janssen; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Miltenyi Biotec. CV reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead/Kite, Incyte, Istituto Gentili, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Servier; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, and Roche. TvM reports payment or honoraria for educational lectures from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead/Kite, Janssen, and Lilly; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for GE HealthCare and Gilead/Kite. SW reports payment to his institution from AbbVie, Stemline Therapeutics, and Takeda; payment for expert testimony from Stemline Therapeutics; support for attending meetings or travel from AbbVie and BeiGene; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AbbVie, Astra Zeneca, Roche, and Stemline Therapeutics. PLZ reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Incyte, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (sobi), and Takeda; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Incyte, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (sobi), and Takeda. UN reports consulting fees to his institution from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead, Incyte, Janssen-Cilag, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Takeda; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events to his institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead, Novartis, and Takeda; support for attending meetings or travel from Janssen, Gilead, Roche, and Takeda; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead, Incyte, Janssen-Cilag, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Takeda. CH reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Pfizer; support for attending meetings or travel from AbbVie and Janssen. MHa reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Falk Foundation, Gilead, Novartis, and Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (sobi); payment for expert testimony from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead, Incyte, Janssen, Novartis, Pizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (sobi). WK reports research grants provided to his institution from Amgen, Janssen, Roche, and Takeda. DG reports support for attending meetings and travel from Janssen. CS reports consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Janssen; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb; support for attending meetings or travel from Gilead/Kite. MU reports institutional funding of the TRIANGLE trial from Janssen. ML reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Janssen, and Lilly; honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Janssen, and Lilly; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board with Acerta. All other authors (MT, OS, LJ, MC, LA, PH, FB, KS, JDi, CP, and EH) declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The addition of rituximab to chemotherapy has substantially improved outcomes for patients with B-cell malignancies. The mechanisms of action of rituximab include activation of natural killer cells. Killer-cell immunoglobulin-like receptors (KIRs) mediate natural killer cell function through interaction with HLA. We evaluated the clinical impact of KIR-HLA genotypes on rituximab-containing therapy., Methods: For this post-hoc analysis, we used data from the RICOVER-60 trial (NCT00052936) as the discovery cohort and the CLL8 trial (NCT00281918) as the validation cohort. RICOVER-60 included patients aged 61-80 years with aggressive B-cell lymphoma treated with CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) with or without rituximab. CLL8 included patients aged 30-81 years with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia treated with chemotherapy (fludarabine and cyclophosphamide; FC) with or without rituximab. We evaluated the KIR and HLA-C status of 519 patients with available blood samples in the RICOVER-60 trial and the KIR2DS1 and HLA-C status of 549 patients with available blood samples in the CLL8 trial, and evaluated their associations with event-free survival (RICOVER-60), progression-free survival, and overall survival (RICOVER-60 and CLL8)., Findings: In the RICOVER-60 trial, 201 (39%) patients were positive for KIR2DS1, 79 (15%) were homozygous for HLA-C2, and 36 (7%) were positive for KIR2DS1 and homozygous for HLA-C2. In the CLL8 trial, 206 (38%) patients were positive for KIR2DS1, 75 (14%) were homozygous for HLA-C2, and 26 (5%) were positive for KIR2DS1 and homozygous for HLA-C2. In the RICOVER-60 trial, both KIR2DS1 and HLA-C status were identified as independent risk factors for survival. KIR2DS1 positivity, homozygosity for HLA-C2, and subsequent KIR2DS1-HLA-C status were associated with adverse clinical outcome in patients receiving rituximab-containing therapy (event-free survival for patients with KIR2DS1-HLA-C2/C2 vs all other patients, HR 2·6 [95% CI 1·4-4·7], p=0·0015; progression-free survival, 2·7 [1·5-5·1], p=0·0013; overall survival, 2·8 [1·5-5·4], p=0·0016) but not in patients receiving CHOP chemotherapy only (event-free survival, 0·9 [0·5-1·7], p=0·85; progression-free survival, 1·1 [0·6-2·0], p=0·81; overall survival, 1·2 [0·6-2·4], p=0·53). A significant interaction between KIR2DS1-HLA-C status and rituximab was observed (p=0·018 for event-free survival and p=0·034 for progression-free survival). In contrast to all other patients, those positive for KIR2DS1 and homozygous for HLA-C2 did not benefit from adding rituximab to CHOP chemotherapy (event-free survival, 1·9 [0·8-4·6], p=0·16; progression-free survival, 1·4 [0·6-3·4], p=0·48; overall survival, 1·6 [0·6-4·3], p=0·33). In the CLL8 trial, KIR2DS1-HLA-C status was confirmed as a predictive marker for benefit from rituximab therapy (p=0·024 for the interaction of KIR2DS1-HLA-C status and rituximab regarding progression-free survival). In contrast to all other patients, those positive for KIR2DS1 and homozygous for HLA-C2 did not benefit from adding rituximab to FC chemotherapy (progression-free survival, 2·1 [0·9-4·9], p=0·094; overall survival, 2·6 [0·5-12·7], p=0·21)., Interpretation: Assessment of KIR2DS1 and HLA-C genotype might identify patients who would not benefit from rituximab, thereby allowing alternative therapies to be given. Further validation of these findings in prospective clinical trials is needed., Funding: F Hoffman La Roche., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests DK-M reports personal fees, grants, and non-financial support from Novartis, ViiV Healthcare, and Gilead. SS reports personal fees, grants, and non-financial support from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Janssen, Novartis, and Sunesis. KF reports personal fees from AbbVie and Roche, outside the submitted work. VP reports non-financial support from Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Roche. JTB reports personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme and Incyte Pharmaceutical, and non-financial support from Gilead. LTh reports grants from the non-profit Wilhelm Sander Foundation, personal fees from EUSA Pharma and AstraZeneca, and non-financial support from AbbVie, EUSA Pharma, and Janssen. MB reports grants from the non-profit Deutsche José-Carreras Leukaemie Stiftung. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Six cycles of R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) are the standard treatment for aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. In the FLYER trial, we assessed whether four cycles of CHOP plus six applications of rituximab are non-inferior to six cycles of R-CHOP in a population of patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma with favourable prognosis., Methods: This two-arm, open-label, international, multicentre, prospective, randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial was done at 138 clinical sites in Denmark, Israel, Italy, Norway, and Germany. We enrolled patients aged 18-60 years, with stage I-II disease, normal serum lactate dehydrogenase concentration, ECOG performance status 0-1, and without bulky disease (maximal tumour diameter <7·5 cm). Randomisation was computer-based and done centrally in a 1:1 ratio using the Pocock minimisation algorithm after stratification for centres, stage (I vs II), and extralymphatic sites (no vs yes). Patients were assigned to receive either six cycles of R-CHOP or four cycles of R-CHOP plus two doses of rituximab. CHOP comprised cyclophosphamide (750 mg/m 2 ), doxorubicin (50 mg/m 2 ), and vincristine (1·4 mg/m 2 , with a maximum total dose of 2 mg), all administered intravenously on day 1, plus oral prednisone or prednisolone at the discretion of the investigator (100 mg) administered on days 1-5. Rituximab was given at a dose of 375 mg/m 2 of body surface area. Cycles were repeated every 21 days. No radiotherapy was planned except for testicular lymphoma treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival after 3 years. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of assigned treatment. A non-inferiority margin of -5·5% was chosen. The trial, which is completed, was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00278421., Findings: Between Dec 2, 2005, and Oct 7, 2016, 592 patients were enrolled, of whom 295 patients were randomly assigned to receive six cycles of R-CHOP and 297 were assigned to receive four cycles of R-CHOP plus two doses of rituximab. Four patients in the four-cycles group withdrew informed consent before the start of treatment, so 588 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. After a median follow-up of 66 months (IQR 42-100), 3-year progression-free survival of patients who had four cycles of R-CHOP plus two doses of rituximab was 96% (95% CI 94-99), which was 3% better (lower limit of the one-sided 95% CI for the difference was 0%) than six cycles of R-CHOP, demonstrating the non-inferiority of the four-cycles regimen. 294 haematological and 1036 non-haematological adverse events were documented in the four-cycles group compared with 426 haematological and 1280 non-haematological adverse events in the six-cycles group. Two patients, both in the six-cycles group, died during study therapy., Interpretation: In young patients with aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma and favourable prognosis, four cycles of R-CHOP is non-inferior to six cycles of R-CHOP, with relevant reduction of toxic effects. Thus, chemotherapy can be reduced without compromising outcomes in this population., Funding: Deutsche Krebshilfe., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) has become a gold-standard chemoimmunotherapy regimen for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. However, the question remains of how to treat treatment-naive patients with IGHV-unmutated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. We therefore aimed to develop and validate a gene expression signature to identify which of these patients are likely to achieve durable remissions with FCR chemoimmunotherapy., Methods: We did a retrospective cohort study in two cohorts of treatment-naive patients (aged ≥18 years) with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. The discovery and training cohort consisted of peripheral blood samples collected from patients treated at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX, USA), who fulfilled the diagnostic criteria of the International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, had received at least three cycles of FCR chemoimmunotherapy, and had been treated between Oct 10, 2000, and Oct 26, 2006 (ie, the MDACC cohort). We did transcriptional profiling on samples obtained from the MDACC cohort to identify genes associated with time to progression. We did univariate Cox proportional hazards analyses and used significant genes to cluster IGHV-unmutated samples into two groups (intermediate prognosis and unfavourable prognosis). After using cross-validation to assess robustness, we applied the Lasso method to standardise the gene expression values to find a minimum gene signature. We validated this signature in an external cohort of treatment-naive patients with IGHV-unmutated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia enrolled on the CLL8 trial of the German Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia Study Group who were treated between July 21, 2003, and April 4, 2006 (ie, the CLL8 cohort)., Findings: The MDACC cohort consisted of 101 patients and the CLL8 cohort consisted of 109 patients. Using the MDACC cohort, we identified and developed a 17-gene expression signature that distinguished IGHV-unmutated patients who were likely to achieve a long-term remission following front-line FCR chemoimmunotherapy from those who might benefit from alternative front-line regimens (hazard ratio 3·83, 95% CI 1·94-7·59; p<0·0001). We validated this gene signature in the CLL8 cohort; patients with an unfavourable prognosis versus those with an intermediate prognosis had a cause-specific hazard ratio of 1·90 (95% CI 1·18-3·06; p=0·008). Median time to progression was 39 months (IQR 22-69) for those with an unfavourable prognosis compared with 59 months (28-84) for those with an intermediate prognosis., Interpretation: We have developed a robust, reproducible 17-gene signature that identifies a subset of treatment-naive patients with IGHV-unmutated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia who might substantially benefit from treatment with FCR chemoimmunotherapy. We recommend testing the value of this gene signature in a prospective study that compares FCR treatment with newer alternative therapies as part of a randomised clinical trial., Funding: Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia Global Research Foundation and the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: A randomized, double-blind, phase III study of idelalisib (IDELA) plus rituximab versus placebo plus rituximab in patients with relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) was terminated early because of superior efficacy of the IDELA-plus-rituximab (IDELA/R) arm. Patients in either arm could then enroll in an extension study to receive IDELA monotherapy. Here, we report the long-term efficacy and safety data for IDELA-treated patients across the primary and extension studies., Patients and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to receive rituximab in combination with either IDELA 150 mg twice daily (IDELA/R; n = 110) or placebo (placebo/R; n = 110). Key end points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety., Results: The long-term efficacy and safety of treatment with IDELA was assessed in 110 patients who received at least one dose of IDELA in the primary study, 75 of whom enrolled in the extension study. The IDELA/R-to-IDELA group had a median PFS of 20.3 months (95% CI, 17.3 to 26.3 months) after a median follow-up time of 18 months (range, 0.3 to 67.6 months). The ORR was 85.5% (94 of 110 patients; n = 1 complete response). The median OS was 40.6 months (95% CI, 28.5 to 57.3 months) and 34.6 months (95% CI, 16.0 months to not reached) for patients randomly assigned to the IDELA/R and placebo/R groups, respectively. Prolonged exposure to IDELA increased the incidence of all-grade, grade 2, and grade 3 or greater diarrhea (46.4%, 17.3%, and 16.4%, respectively), all-grade and grade 3 or greater colitis (10.9% and 8.2%, respectively) and all-grade and grade 3 or greater pneumonitis (10.0% and 6.4%, respectively) but did not increase the incidence of elevated hepatic aminotransferases., Conclusion: IDELA improved PFS and OS compared with rituximab alone in patients with relapsed CLL. Long-term IDELA was effective and had an expected safety profile. No new IDELA-related adverse events were identified with longer exposure.

Genetic instability is a feature of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with adverse prognosis. We hypothesized that chromosomal translocations or complex karyotypes and distinct somatic mutations may impact outcome after first-line chemoimmunotherapy of CLL patients. We performed metaphase karyotyping and next-generation sequencing (NGS) of 85 genes in pretreatment blood samples obtained from 161 patients registered for CLL11, a 3-arm phase 3 trial comparing frontline chlorambucil (Clb) vs Clb plus rituximab (Clb-R) or Clb plus obinutuzumab in CLL patients with significant comorbidity. Chromosomal aberrations as assessed by karyotyping were observed in 68.8% of 154 patients, 31.2% carried translocations, and 19.5% showed complex karyotypes. NGS revealed 198 missense/nonsense mutations and 76 small indels in 76.4% of patients. The most frequently mutated genes were NOTCH1, SF3B1, ATM, TP53, BIRC3, POT1, XPO1, and KRAS Sole chemotherapy, treatment with Clb-R, or genetic lesions in TP53 (9.9% of patients) and KRAS (6.2% of patients) were significantly associated with nonresponse to study therapy. In multivariate models, complex karyotypes and POT1 mutations (8.1% of patients) represented significant prognostic factors for an unfavorable survival, independently of IGHV mutation status, Binet stage, and serum β-2-microglobuline. Patients with the copresence of complex karyotypes and deletions/mutations involving TP53 demonstrated a particularly short survival. In summary, this is the first prospective, controlled study in CLL patients that shows a role of complex karyotype aberrations as an independent prognostic factor for survival after front-line therapy. Moreover, the study identifies mutations in KRAS and POT1 as novel determinants of outcome after chemoimmunotherapy using chlorambucil and anti-CD20 treatment., (© 2016 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Background: Standard treatment for patients with primary CNS lymphoma remains to be defined. Active therapies are often associated with increased risk of haematological or neurological toxicity. In this trial, we addressed the tolerability and efficacy of adding rituximab with or without thiotepa to methotrexate-cytarabine combination therapy (the MATRix regimen), followed by a second randomisation comparing consolidation with whole-brain radiotherapy or autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with primary CNS lymphoma. We report the results of the first randomisation in this Article., Methods: For the international randomised phase 2 International Extranodal Lymphoma Study Group-32 (IELSG32) trial, HIV-negative patients (aged 18-70 years) with newly diagnosed primary CNS lymphoma and measurable disease were enrolled from 53 cancer centres in five European countries (Denmark, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, and the UK) and randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive four courses of methotrexate 3·5 g/m(2) on day 1 plus cytarabine 2 g/m(2) twice daily on days 2 and 3 (group A); or the same combination plus two doses of rituximab 375 mg/m(2) on days -5 and 0 (group B); or the same methotrexate-cytarabine-rituximab combination plus thiotepa 30 mg/m(2) on day 4 (group C), with the three groups repeating treatment every 3 weeks. Patients with responsive or stable disease after the first stage were then randomly allocated between whole-brain radiotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation. A permuted blocks randomised design (block size four) was used for both randomisations, and a computer-generated randomisation list was used within each stratum to preserve allocation concealment. Randomisation was stratified by IELSG risk score (low vs intermediate vs high). No masking after assignment to intervention was used. The primary endpoint of the first randomisation was the complete remission rate, analysed by modified intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01011920., Findings: Between Feb 19, 2010, and Aug 27, 2014, 227 eligible patients were recruited. 219 of these 227 enrolled patients were assessable. At median follow-up of 30 months (IQR 22-38), patients treated with rituximab and thiotepa had a complete remission rate of 49% (95% CI 38-60), compared with 23% (14-31) of those treated with methotrexate-cytarabine alone (hazard ratio 0·46, 95% CI 0·28-0·74) and 30% (21-42) of those treated with methotrexate-cytarabine plus rituximab (0·61, 0·40-0·94). Grade 4 haematological toxicity was more frequent in patients treated with methotrexate-cytarabine plus rituximab and thiotepa, but infective complications were similar in the three groups. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in all three groups were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anaemia, and febrile neutropenia or infections. 13 (6%) patients died of toxicity., Interpretation: With the limitations of a randomised phase 2 study design, the IELSG32 trial provides a high level of evidence supporting the use of MATRix combination as the new standard chemoimmunotherapy for patients aged up to 70 years with newly diagnosed primary CNS lymphoma and as the control group for future randomised trials., Funding: Associazione Italiana del Farmaco, Cancer Research UK, Oncosuisse, and Swiss National Foundation., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Despite promising results with targeted drugs, chemoimmunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide (FC), and rituximab (R) remains the standard therapy for fit patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Herein, we present the long-term follow-up of the randomized CLL8 trial reporting safety and efficacy of FC and FCR treatment of 817 treatment-naïve patients with CLL. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). With a median follow-up of 5.9 years, median PFS were 56.8 and 32.9 months for the FCR and FC group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.69, P < .001). Median overall survival (OS) was not reached for the FCR group and was 86.0 months for the FC group (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.89, P = .001). In patients with mutated IGHV (IGHV MUT), FCR improved PFS and OS compared with FC (PFS: HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.33-0.68, P < .001; OS: HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.34-1.11, P = .1). This improvement remained applicable for all cytogenetic subgroups other than del(17p). Long-term safety analyses showed that FCR had a higher rate of prolonged neutropenia during the first year after treatment (16.6% vs 8.8%; P = .007). Secondary malignancies including Richter's transformation occurred in 13.1% in the FCR group and in 17.4% in the FC group (P = .1). First-line chemoimmunotherapy with FCR induces long-term remissions and highly relevant improvement in OS in specific genetic subgroups of fit patients with CLL, in particular those with IGHV MUT. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00281918., (© 2016 by The American Society of Hematology.)

BackgroundPatients with relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who have clinically significant coexisting medical conditions are less able to undergo standard chemotherapy. Effective therapies with acceptable side-effect profiles are needed for this patient population.MethodsIn this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, we assessed the efficacy and safety of idelalisib, an oral inhibitor of the delta isoform of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase, in combination with rituximab versus rituximab plus placebo. We randomly assigned 220 patients with decreased renal function, previous therapy-induced myelosuppression, or major coexisting illnesses to receive rituximab and either idelalisib (at a dose of 150 mg) or placebo twice daily. The primary end point was progression-free survival. At the first prespecified interim analysis, the study was stopped early on the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board owing to overwhelming efficacy.ResultsThe median progression-free survival was 5.5 months in the placebo group and was not reached in the idelalisib group (hazard ratio for progression or death in the idelalisib group, 0.15; P

Simple Summary: Venetoclax has proven a viable option for treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), with high response rates and a generally manageable safety profile. Management considerations associated with venetoclax initiation include the risk of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS), which requires close attention and prompt management. Administration of venetoclax in a safe manner through a slow ramping up of the dose over a 5-week period, along with proper assessment, preparation, and initiation, are essential and have been successful in reducing the risk of TLS in patients with CLL. This review summarizes hypothetical patient case scenarios and emphasizes the importance of a collaborative team effort, with perspectives from highly respected clinicians in the field offering invaluable insight for optimal patient care and treatment strategies. Venetoclax, a highly selective, oral B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor, provides a robust targeted-therapy option for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), including patients with high-risk del(17p)/mutated-TP53 and immunoglobulin heavy variable region unmutated CLL and those refractory to chemoimmunotherapy across all age groups. Due to the potent pro-apoptotic effect of venetoclax, treatment initiation carries a risk of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS). Prompt and appropriate management is needed to limit clinical TLS, which may entail serious adverse events and death. Venetoclax ramp-up involves gradual, stepwise increases in daily venetoclax dosing from 20 mg to 400 mg (target dose) over 5 weeks; adherence to on-label scheduling provides a tumor debulking phase, reducing the risk of TLS. The key components of safe venetoclax therapy involve assessment (radiographic evaluation and baseline blood chemistry), preparation (adequate hydration), and initiation (blood chemistry monitoring). In addition to summarizing the evidence for venetoclax's efficacy and safety, this review uses hypothetical patient scenarios based on risk level for TLS (high, medium, low) to share the authors' clinical experience with venetoclax initiation and present global approaches utilized in various treatment settings. These hypothetical scenarios highlight the importance of a multidisciplinary approach and shared decision-making, outlining best practices for venetoclax initiation and overall optimal treatment strategies in patients with CLL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data on long-term outcomes and biological drivers associated with depth of remission after BCL2 inhibition by venetoclax in the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) are limited. In this open-label parallel-group phase-3 study, 432 patients with previously untreated CLL were randomized (1:1) to receive either 1-year venetoclax-obinutuzumab (Ven-Obi, 216 patients) or chlorambucil-Obi (Clb-Obi, 216 patients) therapy (NCT02242942). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included minimal residual disease (MRD) and overall survival. RNA sequencing of CD19-enriched blood was conducted for exploratory post-hoc analyses. After a median follow-up of 65.4 months, PFS is significantly superior for Ven-Obi compared to Clb-Obi (Hazard ratio [HR] 0.35 [95% CI 0.26–0.46], p < 0.0001). At 5 years after randomization, the estimated PFS rate is 62.6% after Ven-Obi and 27.0% after Clb-Obi. In both arms, MRD status at the end of therapy is associated with longer PFS. MRD + (≥ 10−4) status is associated with increased expression of multi-drug resistance gene ABCB1 (MDR1), whereas MRD6 (< 10−6) is associated with BCL2L11 (BIM) expression. Inflammatory response pathways are enriched in MRD+ patient solely in the Ven-Obi arm. These data indicate sustained long-term efficacy of fixed-duration Ven-Obi in patients with previously untreated CLL. The distinct transcriptomic profile of MRD+ status suggests possible biological vulnerabilities. The CLL14 study (NCT02242942) explored the activity of obinutuzumab (anti-CD20) plus venetoclax (Bcl2 inhibitor) versus obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil in patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Here the authors report the 5-year long-term results of the clinical trial and transcriptional profiles associated with response to therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients with pre-existing comorbidities and immunosuppression are at greater risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe manifestations of COVID-19. This also includes cancer patients, who are shown to have a poor prognosis after infection. Here, we describe the case of a 72-year old male patient with B-cell depletion after maintenance treatment with rituximab for non-Hodgkin-lymphoma who had a prolonged COVID-19 course and initial false negative test results. Our case highlights the diagnostic pitfalls in diagnosing COVID-19 in B-cell depleted patients and discuss the role of B-cell depletion in the course and treatment of COVID-19. Furthermore, we investigated peripheral blood monocytes and SARS-CoV-2 specific T cells in our patient. In conclusion, our case report can help physicians to avoid diagnostic pitfalls for COVID-19 in hemato-oncological patients under chemoimmunotherapy and tries to explain the role of B-cell depletion and SARS-CoV-2 specific T cells in this context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Clinical management of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) in patients aged ≥80 years is based on limited evidence due to the lack of published information. Therefore, we analysed CLL patients aged ≥80 years using data from seven phase III clinical trials of the German CLL Study Group. Among 3552 participants, 152 were ≥80 years old at initiation of first‐line study treatment. Median age was 82 years (range 80–90). Concomitant diseases were present in 99% of the patients, with a median cumulative illness rating scale score of 8 (0–18). Chemoimmunotherapy with chlorambucil‐obinutuzumab (CLB‐OB) or chlorambucil‐rituximab (CLB‐R) was administered to 61 (40%) and 56 (37%) patients. The remaining patients received CLB (n = 19) or fludarabine (F, n = 10), F/cyclophosphamide (FC, n = 1), FC/rituximab (FCR, n = 2) or bendamustine/rituximab (BR, n = 3). Rates of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and infections were 35% and 13%. Overall response rate was 77% with 13% complete remissions. Median progression‐free survival and treatment‐free survival were 17·2 and 32·3 months, respectively. Median overall survival was 48·3 months; adverse events (22%) and progressive CLL (16·4%) were the most frequent causes of death. These findings suggest that anti‐leukaemic treatment including chemoimmunotherapy is feasible and efficacious in ≥80‐year‐old CLL patients. However, this group of patients lives for a shorter time than age‐matched controls of the general population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last few years, dramatic changes have occurred in the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The current standard for young and fit patients with CLL remains chemoimmunotherapy, namely the fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) regimen. However, novel oral therapies are presently being introduced and represent a considerable breakthrough concerning effectiveness and safety profile. In particular, the very high-risk group of CLL patients, defined by the genetic aberration del(17p) and/or TP53 mutation, benefit from the new agents. These genetic abnormalities are the most relevant negative prognostic markers in the context of chemoimmunotherapy. New targeted therapies allow different approaches to improve outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose A phase I/ II trial to assess safety and efficacy of the combination bendamustine, rituximab, and lenalidomide ( BRL) in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia ( CLL). Patients and Methods Seventeen relapsed or refractory (R/R) and five previously untreated ( FL) CLL patients were enrolled in the trial. In the R/R cohort, four different dose levels of lenalidomide (maximum 15 mg/d) were used. In the FL cohort, lenalidomide was dose escalated from 5 mg/d to 15 mg/d. Bendamustine was used at doses of 50 or 90 mg/m2 for R/R or FL treatment, respectively. 375 mg/m2 Rituximab were used for the first and 500 mg/m2 for subsequent treatment courses. Treatment consisted of up to six courses of 28 d. Results The maximal tolerable dose of lenalidomide was 5 mg/d. The response rate was 47.1% in R/R and 60% in FL patients. Median progression-free survival was 8.0 months. Median overall survival was 22.9 and 12.3 months, respectively, in R/R and FL patients. Grade 3/4 hematological toxicity was observed in 71.4%, and severe infections in 47.6% of patients. Due to high toxicity and low response rate of BRL, the trial was closed prematurely. Conclusion BRL was associated with a high toxicity rate, a high number of treatment interruptions, and a low remission rate. Therefore, BRL cannot be considered an appropriate treatment option for patients with CLL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) carrying deletion of 17p (17p−) or mutations of TP53 have a uniquely poor prognosis related to increased propensities to progress to symptomatic disease, poor responses to chemo(immuno)therapy and high rates of Richter transformation. Both traditional fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR)-based chemoimmunotherapy and alemtuzumab-based regimens are inadequate in controlling 17p− CLL durably, and allogeneic stem cell transplant holds the only prospect for long-term survival. Recent advances in targeted therapies have resulted in novel agents such as B-cell receptor pathway and BCL2 antagonists yielding high response rates in 17p− CLL, but these patients continue to relapse at an increased rate when compared to patients without 17p−. In this review, we discuss the current evidence base for making therapeutic decisions in this difficult disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mutations in TP53, NOTCH1, and SF3B1 were analyzed in the CLL8 study evaluating firstline therapy with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (FC) or FC with rituximab (FCR) among patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). TP53, N0TCH1, and SF3B1 were mutated in 11.5%, 10.0%, and 18.4% of patients, respectively. NOTCH1mut and SF3B1mut virtually showed mutual exclusivity (0.6% concurrence), but TP53mut was frequently found in NOTCHI1mut (16.1%) and in SF3B1mut (14.0%) patients. There were few significant associations with clinical and laboratory characteristics, but genetic mariners had a strong influence on response and survival. In multivariable analyses, an independent prognostic impact was found for FCR, thymidine kinase (TK) ≥10 U/L, unmutated IGHV, 11q deletion, 17p deletion, TP53mut and SF3B1mut on progression-free survival; and for FCR, age ≥65 years. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥1, β2-microglobulin ≥3.5 mg/L, TK ≥10 U/L, unmutated IGHV, 17p deletion, and TP53mut on overall survival. Notably, predictive marker analysis identified an interaction of N0TCH1 mutational status and treatment in that rituximab failed to improve response and survival in patients with N0TCH1mut. In conclusion, TP53 and SF3B1 mutations appear among the strongest prognostic markers in CLL patients receiving current-standard first-iine therapy. N0TCH1mut was identified as a predictive marker for decreased benefit from the addition of rituximab to FC. This study is registered at www.clinicaitrials.gov as #NCT00281918. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite some considerable progress in the therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) owing to fludarabine-based regimens and rituximab, no curative treatment is available so far. We conducted an explorative phase II study in patients with CLL, prolymphocytic leukaemia (PLL) and leukaemic lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma (LL) with the combination of fludarabine, epirubicin and rituximab (FER) to improve the complete remission (CR) rate and progression-free survival (PFS). Fludarabine 25 mg/m2 was administered i.v. on days 1-5 and epirubicin 25 mg/m2 i.v. on days 4 and 5, and rituximab was added at a dose of 375 mg/m2 i.v. day 1 in the first cycle and at a dose of 500 mg/m2 in all consecutive cycles. Patients exhibiting responsive disease after FER were eligible to receive maintenance therapy of up to 12 cycles of rituximab 375 mg/m2 bimonthly. Forty-four patients (38 CLL, 4 PLL and 2 LL) with a median age of 65 yrs (43-84 yrs) were evaluable. Seventeen patients with CLL had stage Binet C, 14 Binet B and seven symptomatic or rapid progressive stage Binet A. Cytogenetic features showed normal karyotype in nine cases, an isolated deletion (del) 13q in 12 patients, trisomy 12 in 7, del 11 in two and del 17p in 4. Half of the patients (48%) had mutated IgVH genes. Treatment with FER achieved an overall response rate of 95%, including 63% CRs and 32% PRs. Haematological toxicity was considerable. After a median follow-up period of 34 months (range: 8-84 months), median PFS was 61 months and overall survival was yet not reached. All patients with PLL and LL achieved CR. The data support the high efficacy of the combination of rituximab with chemotherapy (FE) and are suggestive of possible benefit with rituximab maintenance therapy for PFS and DFS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article the authors discuss the function of p53 suppressor gene in treating cancer. They state that one of the important functions of p53 mutant is their ability to intervene with cell cycle arrest by a dominant negative mechanism. They also focus on the study of E. J. Schlette on the high p53 expression in most TP53 mutant cancer cells in which they established fludarabine, cyclophsphamide, rituximab (FCR) as the most effective medicine for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

Updated results of the CLL8 trial confirm that the addition of rituximab to chemotherapy with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (FC) leads to a prolongation of progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in first-line treatment of physically fit patients. After a median observation time of 47 months, median PFS was 57.9 months for patients treated with FC and rituximab (FCR) and 32.9 months for patients treated with FC alone (hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.465-0.673; p < 0.001). A total of 232 patients were treated for relapse, among them 91 of 408 (22%) initially treated with FCR and 141 of 409 (35%) initially treated with FC. The drugs most frequently used either alone or in combination were rituximab (52% of all second-line therapies), fludarabine (21%), bendamustine (21%) and alemtuzumab (12%). The regimens chosen for second-line treatment after FC or FCR were heterogeneous, which underlines a need for further trials in order to define treatment recommendations for patients with relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study comparing the benefit of the type 2 glycoengineered antibody obinutuzumab (GA101) with that of rituximab, each combined with chlorambucil, in treating patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Topics addressed include the creatinine clearance of study patients having a median age of 73 years and increased response rates and longer progression-free survival among those receiving combination treatment compared with chlorambucil monotherapy.

The CLL3 trial was designed to study intensive treatment including autologous stem cell transplantation (autoSCT) as part of first-line therapy in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Here, we present the long-term outcome of the trial with particular focus on the impact of genomic risk factors, and we provide a retrospective comparison with patients from the fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab (FCR) arm of the German CLL Study Group (GCLLSG) CLL8 trial. After a median observation time of 8.7 years (0.3- 12.3 years), median progression-free survival (PFS), time to retreatment, and overall survival (OS) of 169 évaluable patients, including 38 patients who did not proceed to autoSCT, was 5.7, 7.3, and 11.3 years, respectively. PFS and OS were significantly reduced in the presence of 17p- and of an unfavorable immunoglobulin heavy variable chain mutational status, but not of 11q-. Five-year nonrelapse mortality was 6.5%. When 110 CLL3 patients were compared with 126 matched patients from the FCR arm of the CLL8 trial, 4-year time to retreatment (75% vs 77%) and OS (86% vs 90%) was similar despite a significant benefit for autoSCT in terms of PFS. In summary, early treatment intensification including autoSCT can provide very effective disease control in poor-risk CLL, although its clinical benefit in the FCR era remains uncertain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]