Search

In the phase 3 RESONATE study, ibrutinib demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and overall response rate (ORR) compared with ofatumumab in relapsed/refractory CLL patients with high-risk prognostic factors. We report updated results from RESONATE in these traditionally chemotherapy resistant high-risk genomic subgroups at a median follow-up of 19 months. Mutations were detected by Foundation One Heme Panel. Baseline mutations in the ibrutinib arm included TP53 (51%), SF3B1 (31%), NOTCH1 (28%), ATM (19%) and BIRC3 (14%). Median PFS was not reached, with 74% of patients randomized to ibrutinib alive and progression-free at 24 months. The improved efficacy of ibrutinib vs ofatumumab continues in all prognostic subgroups including del17p and del11q. No significant difference within the ibrutinib arm was observed for PFS across most genomic subtypes, although a subset carrying both TP53 mutation and del17p had reduced PFS compared with patients with neither abnormality. Reduced PFS or OS was not evident in patients with only del17p. PFS was significantly better for ibrutinib-treated patients in second-line vs later lines of therapy. The robust clinical activity of ibrutinib continues to show ongoing efficacy and acceptable safety consistent with prior reports, independent of various known high-risk mutations.

Chaitra Ujjani, 1 Anthony Mato, 2 Brian T Hill, 3 John N Allan, 4 Erick Lansigan, 5 Ryan Jacobs, 6 Hande Tuncer, 7 John Pagel, 8 Danielle Brander, 9 Bruce Cheson, 10 Paul Barr, 11 Lindsey E Roeker, 2 Jeffrey Pu, 12 Nirav N Shah, 13 Andre Goy, 14 Stephen J Schuster, 15 Nicole Lamanna, 16 Alison Sehgal, 17 Constantine S Tam, 18 Mazyar Shadman 1 1Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA; 2Division of Hematological Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; 3Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA; 4Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, New York Presbyterian & Weill Cornell, New York, NY, USA; 5Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, USA; 6Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC, USA; 7Lowell General Hospital, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA; 8Center for Blood Disorders and Stem Cell Transplantation, Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA, USA; 9Division of Hematologic Malignancies and Cellular Therapy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; 10Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA; 11Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA; 12Division of Hematology/Oncology, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA; 13Division of Hematology & Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA; 14John Theurer Cancer Center, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ, USA; 15Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 16Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA; 17University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; 18Peter McCallum Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, East Melbourne, VI, AustraliaCorrespondence: Chaitra UjjaniSeattle Cancer Care Alliance, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, 825 Eastlake Ave E, Mail Stop CE3-300, Seattle, WA, USATel +1 206-606-1955Fax +1 206-606-1130Email ujjani@uw.eduIntroduction: Recent randomized trials have demonstrated the efficacy of ibrutinib-based therapy in the treatment of patients with CLL. In Alliance A041202, a higher than expected number of unexplained deaths were reported with front-line ibrutinib in a patient population aged at least 65 years compared to ECOG 1912, which included patients up to 70 years of age.Methods: Therefore, we conducted a retrospective analysis to investigate whether ibrutinib was associated with a greater mortality in older patients outside of a clinical trial setting. This multicenter analysis was performed by investigators at 20 academic and community practices.Results: Amongst the 391 patients included, there was no correlation between age and response rate, PFS, or OS. However, there was a trend to higher rate of deaths in patients > 65-years-old (8.7% vs 3.8%, p=0.097), with an increased number of early deaths (13 vs 4, p=0.3).Conclusion: These data suggest greater intolerance, and possibly mortality, with ibrutinib in an older population. Patients should be educated regarding the potential complications related to ibrutinib and symptoms of concern to report.Keywords: CLL, ibrutinib, elderly

Background: Richter transformation usually presents as an aggressive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, occurs in up to 10% of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, has no approved therapies, and is associated with a poor prognosis. Pirtobrutinib has shown promising efficacy and tolerability in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell malignancies, including those who progress on covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors. This study aims to report the safety and activity of pirtobrutinib monotherapy in a subgroup of patients with Richter transformation from the multicentre, open-label, phase 1/2 BRUIN study., Methods: This analysis included adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed Richter transformation, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-2, and no limit of previous therapies, with patients receiving first-line treatment added in a protocol amendment (version 9.0, Dec 15, 2021). Pirtobrutinib 200 mg was administered orally once a day in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint of phase 1 of the BRUIN trial as a whole, which has been previously reported, was to establish the recommended phase 2 dose for pirtobrutinib monotherapy and the phase 2 primary endpoint was overall response rate. Safety and activity were measured in all patients who received at least one dose of pirtobrutinib monotherapy. This BRUIN phase 1/2 trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov and is closed to enrolment (NCT03740529)., Findings: Between Dec 26, 2019, and July 22, 2022, 82 patients were enrolled, of whom five were enrolled during phase 1 and 77 during phase 2. All but one patient received a starting dose of 200 mg pirtobrutinib once a day as the recommended phase 2 dose. The remaining patient received 150 mg pirtobrutinib once a day, which was not escalated to 200 mg. The median age of patients was 67 years (IQR 59-72). 55 (67%) of 82 patients were male and 27 (33%) were female. Most patients were White (65 [79%] of 82). 74 (90%) of 82 patients received at least one previous Richter transformation-directed therapy. Most patients (61 [74%] of 82) had received previous covalent BTK inhibitor therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia or Richter transformation. The overall response rate was 50·0% (95% CI 38·7-61·3). 11 (13%) of 82 patients had a complete response and 30 (37%) of 82 patients had a partial response. Eight patients with ongoing response electively discontinued pirtobrutinib to undergo stem-cell transplantation. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse event was neutropenia (n=19). There were no treatment-related deaths., Interpretation: Pirtobrutinib shows promising safety and activity among patients with Richter transformation, most of whom received previous Richter transformation-directed therapy, including covalent BTK inhibitors. These data suggest that further investigation is warranted of pirtobrutinib as a treatment option for patients with relapsed or refractory Richter transformation after treatment with a covalent BTK inhibitor., Funding: Loxo Oncology., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests WGW reports research funding from Numab Therapeutics, Loxo Oncology–Lilly, Janssens Biotech, NIH P30 CA016672/MDACC Cancer Center Support Grant, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, Cyclacel, Nurix Therapeutics, Juno Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb (Juno & Celgene), AstraZeneca–Acerta Pharma Miragen, Oncternal Therapeutics, Janssens Biotech, Accutar Biotechnology, Sunesis, KITE Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Genentech, Pharmacyclics, GlaxoSmithKline–Novartis; consultancy fees from AbbVie, Cyclacel Nurix Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb (Juno & Celgene), AstraZeneca–Acerta Pharma; a non-relevant financial relationship with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network; support from the National Institutes of Health and National Cancer Institute under award number P30 CA016672; and use of MDACC Cancer Center Support Grant shared resources. NNS reports consultancy fees from Umoja, Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb–Juno, LOXO Oncology–Lilly, TG therapeutic, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Gilead–Kite, Incyte, AbbVie, Lilly Oncology, and Miltenyi Biotec; research funding from Miltenyi Biotec and Lilly Oncology; having stock options in a privately-held company with Tundra Therapeutics; and travel support from Epizyme and Miltenyi Biotec. CYC reports consultancy fees, honoraria, and having an advisory role for Roche, Janssen, Gilead, AstraZenecca, Eli Lilly, BeiGene, AbbVie, Menarini, Daizai, and Genmab, and research funding from Roche, MSD, Eli Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, and AbbVie. DL reports consultancy fees from Kite, BeiGene, Roche, Eli Lilly, and Janssen and membership on an entity's board of directors or advisory committees with Kite, BeiGene, Roche, Eli Lilly, and Janssen. MSH reports consultancy fees and honoraria from Pharmacyclics. CCC reports consultancy fees from LOXO Oncology–Eli Lilly, BeiGene, AstraZeneca, Genentech, AbbVie, Octapharma, Allogene, Janssen, TG Therapeutics, MEI Pharma, and Mingsight; honoraria from LOXO Oncology–Eli Lilly, BeiGene, AstraZeneca, Genentech, AbbVie; research funding paid to an institution from LOXO Oncology–Eli Lilly, AbbVie, and CarnaBio; membership on an entity's board of directors or advisory committees with BeiGene, AstraZeneca, Genentech, and AbbVie; being an equity holder in a publicly-traded company with Bluebird Bio, Geron, and Pfizer; and receiving travel support from LOXO Oncology–Eli Lilly. NL reports consultancy fees from Genentech, Pharmacyclics, BeiGene, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Janssen, and research funding from Genentech, TG Therapeutics, BeiGene, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, MingSight, LOXO Oncology–Eli Lilly, Oncternal, and Octapharma. SM reports consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Juno–Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVie, Genentech, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, BeiGene; membership on a board of directors or advisory committee with AstraZeneca, Juno–Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Loxo Oncology, and BeiGene; research funding from AstraZeneca, Juno–Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVie, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly–Loxo Oncology, BeiGene; and speakers bureau with AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly–Loxo Oncology, and BeiGene. DJ reports research funding from Seagen, Trillium Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, MEI Pharma, Loxo Oncology, Debio Pharma, ATARA Biotherapeutics, AstraZeneca and membership on a board of directors or advisory committees with Affimed and Daiichi Sankyo. TM reports consultancy fees from BeiGene, Alexion, Sobi, Roche, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and AbbVie; honoraria from BeiGene, Alexion, Sobi, Roche, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and AbbVie; membership on a board of directors or advisory committees on BeiGene, Alexion, Sobi, Roche, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Abbvie; research Funding from Janssen, AbbVie; and speakers bureau for BeiGene, Alexion, Sobi, Roche, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and AbbVie. YW reports research funding from Incyte, InnoCare, LOXO Oncology, Eli Lilly, MorphoSys, Novartis, Genentech, Genmab, and AbbVie; membership on an advisory board with Eli Lilly, LOXO Oncology, TG Therapeutics, Incyte, InnoCare, Kite, Jansen, BeiGene, AstraZeneca, and Genmab; consultancy fees from Innocare and AbbVie; and honoraria from Kite. TAE reports membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees from Loxo Oncology, Incyte, BeiGene, AstraZeneca, KITE, AbbVie, Roche, Gilead, Secura Bio; speakers bureau from Loxo Oncology, Eli Lilly, Incyte, BeiGene, AstraZeneca, KITE, AbbVie, Loxo Oncology, Roche, Medscape, Janssen, Gilead, PeerView; research funding from BeiGene and AstraZeneca; consultancy fees from Eli Lilly, Incyte, Beigene, Autolus, AstraZeneca, KITE, AbbVie, Loxo Oncology, Roche, Janssen, and Gilead; and honoraria from Eli Lilly, BeiGene, AstraZeneca, KITE, AbbVie, Loxo Oncology, Roche, Janssen, and Gilead. JMR reports consultancy fees from Pharmacyclics, Jannsen, Genentech, GenMab, AstraZeneca, Morphosys, ADC Therapeutics, Epizyme, BeiGene, and AbbVie; research funding from Pharmacyclics, Velosbio, Loxo Oncology, Acerta, Oncternal Pharmaceuticals, Epizyme, and AbbVie; and honoraria from SeaGen. MM reports consultancy from Bayer, ADC therapeutics, Epizyme, Genentech, F Hoffmann-La Roche, and Incyte; research funding from BeiGene, Janssen, F Hoffmann-La Roche– Genentech, Celgene–Bristol Myers Squibb, and Incyte; and speakers bureau with ADC therapeutics, BeiGene, and Kite–Gilead. CT reports honoraria from Loxo Oncolgy. WJ reports consultancy fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, SOBI, and Takeda and research funding from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Roche, SOBIm, and Takeda. KI reports honoraria from Eli Lilly, SymBio Pharmaceuticals, Meiji Seika, Nihon Kayaku, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Genmab, MSD, Pfizer, AbbVie, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharma, and Kyowa Kirin; consultancy fees from Takeda, AstraZeneca, Genmab, AbbVie, Otsuka, Eisai, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Nippon Shinyaku, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, and Zenyaku Kogyo; and research funding from AstraZeneca, Genmab, MSD, Pfizer, AbbVie, Otsuka, Eisai, Regeneron, Loxo Oncology, BeiGene, Daiichi Sankyo, Yakult, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte, Astellas Amgen, Chugai Pharma, Kyowa Kirin. AA reports membership on a board of directors or advisory committees with Genentech, Eli Lilly and Company, Amgen, TG Therapeutics, Incyte, BeiGene, Epizyme, Janssen, and SeaGen; research funding from Eli Lilly, Incyte, and BeiGene; and honoraria from Dr Reddy. MP reports consulting fees from Kura, Accutar, Mitsubishi; participating on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board with lema, Nurix, Daiichi, Kura, and Janssen; leadership with ION Pharma; honoraria from Janssen Oncology; and participating in a consulting or advisory role with Olema Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo–UCB Japan, Kura Oncology, Accutar Biotech, and Kura. JFS reports honoraria from Hoffmann-La Roche, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, and BeiGene; consultancy fees from Hoffmann-La Roche, TG Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb; participating on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board with Genor Bio, Hoffmann-La Roche, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, and BeiGene; speakers bureau with Hoffmann-La Roche, AbbVie, and BeiGene; and research funding from F Hoffmann-La Roche and AbbVie. JAW reports consultancy from Newave, Loxo Oncology, BeiGene, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Janssen, and Pharmacyclics and research funding from Schrodinger, Morphosys, Karyopharm, Janssen, and Pharmacyclics. PAT reports consultancy and honoraria from AbbVie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Ascentage AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech, Genmab, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Pharmacyclics; speakers bureau from AbbVie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Merck; research funding from AbbVie, Pharmacyclics, Genentech, Lilly, and Adaptive Biotechnologies; and travel support from Merck. PA is a current employee of and equity holder in Eli Lilly. CH reports being an equity holder in Eli Lilly and Foundation Medicine and travel support from Eli Lilly. SCM reports current employment with, being an equity holder in, and travel support from Eli Lilly. NM reports being a current equity holder in Eli Lilly and current employment with Loxo Oncology. BN, CW, BCN, and DET reports current employment with and current equity holder in Eli Lilly. ASR reports current employment with and being equity holder in Eli Lilly and consultancy work with Telios Pharma. HL reports current employment with Loxo Oncology. LER reports serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Ascentage, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, Pharmacyclics, Pfizer, and TG Therapeutics; membership of a data safety monitoring committee for Ascentage; serving as a CME speaker for DAVA, Curio, Medscape, and PeerView; holding minority ownership interest in Abbott Laboratories; having received travel support from LOXO Oncology; and having received research funding (paid to the institution) from Adaptive Biotechnologies, AstraZeneca, Genentech, AbbVie, Pfizer, Loxo Oncology, Aptose Biosciences, Dren Bio, and Qilu Puget Sound Biotherapeutics. PG reports consultancy, fees, honoraria, and research funding from Janssen, Eli Lilly–Loxo Oncology, MSD, Roche, AbbVie, BMS, BeiGene, and AstraZeneca., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Abstract: In the phase 2 clinical trial (AIM) of venetoclax-ibrutinib, 24 patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL; 23 with relapsed/refractory [R/R] disease) received ibrutinib 560 mg and venetoclax 400 mg both once daily. High complete remission (CR) and measurable residual disease negative (MRD-negative) CR rates were previously reported. With median survivor follow-up now exceeding 7 years, we report long-term results. Treatment was initially continuous, with elective treatment interruption (ETI) allowed after protocol amendment for patients in MRD-negative CR. For R/R MCL, the estimated 7-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 30% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14-49; median, 28 months; 95% CI, 13-82) and overall survival (OS) was 43% (95% CI, 23-62; median, 32 months; 95% CI, 15 to not evaluable). Eight patients in MRD-negative CR entered ETI for a median of 58 months (95% CI, 37-79), with 4 experiencing disease recurrence. Two of 3 reattained CR on retreatment. Time-to-treatment failure (TTF), which excluded progression in ETI for those reattaining response, was 39% overall and 68% at 7 years for responders. Beyond 56 weeks, grade ≥3 and serious adverse events were uncommon. Newly emergent or increasing cardiovascular toxicity were not observed beyond 56 weeks. We demonstrate long-term durable responses and acceptable toxicity profile of venetoclax-ibrutinib in R/R MCL and show feasibility of treatment interruption while maintaining ongoing disease control. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02471391., (© 2024 American Society of Hematology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Aim ASPEN is a randomized, open-label, Phase III study comparing zanubrutinib and ibrutinib in patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM). Materials & methods: Patient-reported outcomes were exploratory end points assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-5L VAS scores. Results: Overall, 201 patients (102 zanubrutinib; 99 ibrutinib) were enrolled. Clinically meaningful differences were observed in diarrhea and nausea/vomiting in both the intent-to-treat population and in patients attaining very good partial response (VGPR) in earlier cycles of treatment, as well as in long-term physical functioning and fatigue in patients achieving VGPR. Conclusion: Treatment with zanubrutinib was associated with greater improvements in health-related quality of life compared with ibrutinib in patients with WM and MYD88 mutations. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03053440 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Abstract: First-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, ibrutinib, has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular toxicities. Zanubrutinib is a more selective, next-generation BTK inhibitor. In this analysis, incidence rates of atrial fibrillation, symptomatic (grade ≥2) ventricular arrhythmia, and hypertension were evaluated in a pooled analysis of 10 clinical studies with zanubrutinib monotherapy in patients (N = 1550) with B-cell malignancies and a pooled analysis of head-to-head studies comparing zanubrutinib with ibrutinib (ASPEN cohort 1; ALPINE). Among the 10 studies, most patients (median age, 67 years) were male (66.3%) and had CLL/SLL (60.5%). Overall incidence and exposure-adjusted incidence rates (EAIR) for atrial fibrillation, symptomatic ventricular arrhythmia, and hypertension were lower with zanubrutinib than ibrutinib. Despite a similar prevalence of preexisting cardiovascular events in ASPEN and ALPINE, atrial fibrillation/flutter incidence rates (6.1% vs 15.6%) and EAIR (0.2 vs 0.64 persons per 100 person-months; P < .0001) were lower with zanubrutinib than with ibrutinib. Symptomatic ventricular arrhythmia incidence was low for both zanubrutinib (0.7%) and ibrutinib (1.7%) with numerically lower EAIR (0.02 vs 0.06 persons per 100 person-months, respectively) for zanubrutinib. The hypertension EAIR was lower with zanubrutinib than ibrutinib in ASPEN but similar between treatment arms in ALPINE. The higher hypertension EAIR in ALPINE was inconsistent with other zanubrutinib studies. However, fewer discontinuations (1 vs 14) and deaths (0 vs 6) due to cardiac disorders occurred with zanubrutinib versus ibrutinib in ALPINE. These data support zanubrutinib as a treatment option with improved cardiovascular tolerability compared with ibrutinib for patients with B-cell malignancies in need of BTK inhibitors. These trials were registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as # NCT03053440, NCT03336333, NCT03734016, NCT04170283, NCT03206918, NCT03206970, NCT03332173, NCT03846427, NCT02343120, and NCT03189524., (© 2024 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)

Abstract: The phase 3 ASPEN trial (NCT03053440) compared Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis), zanubrutinib and ibrutinib, in patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM). Post-hoc biomarker analysis was performed using next-generation sequencing on pretreatment bone marrow samples from 98 patients treated with zanubrutinib and 92 patients treated with ibrutinib with mutated (MUT) MYD88 and 20 patients with wild-type (WT) MYD88 treated with zanubrutinib. Of 329 mutations in 52 genes, mutations in CXCR4 (25.7%), TP53 (24.8%), ARID1A (15.7%), and TERT (9.0%) were most common. TP53MUT, ARID1AMUT, and TERTMUT were associated with higher rates of CXCR4MUT (P < .05). Patients with CXCR4MUT (frameshift or nonsense [NS] mutations) had lower very good partial response (VGPR) and complete response rates (CR; 17.0% vs 37.2%, P = .020) and longer time to response (11.1 vs 8.4 months) than patients with CXCR4WT treated with BTKis. CXCR4NS was associated with inferior progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR], 3.39; P = .017) in patients treated with ibrutinib but not in those treated with zanubrutinib (HR, 0.67; P = .598), but VGPR + CR rates were similar between treatment groups (14.3% vs 15.4%). Compared with ibrutinib, patients with CXCR4NS treated with zanubrutinib had a favorable major response rate (MRR; 85.7% vs 53.8%; P = .09) and PFS (HR, 0.30; P = .093). In patients with TP53MUT, significantly lower MRRs were observed for patients treated with ibrutinib (63.6% vs 85.7%; P = .04) but not for those treated with zanubrutinib (80.8% vs 81.9%; P = .978). In TP53MUT, compared with ibrutinib, patients treated with zanubrutinib had higher VGPR and CR (34.6% vs 13.6%; P < .05), numerically improved MRR (80.8% vs 63.6%; P = .11), and longer PFS (not reached vs 44.2 months; HR, 0.66; P = .37). Collectively, patients with WM with CXCR4MUT or TP53MUT had worse prognosis compared with patients with WT alleles, and zanubrutinib led to better clinical outcomes., (© 2024 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)

Background: Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) is characterized by the expansion of CD19 + CD5 + B cells but its origin remains debated. Mutated CLL may originate from post-germinal center B cells and unmutated CLL from CD5 + mature B cell precursors. Irrespective of precursor types, events initiating CLL remain unknown. The cytokines BAFF and APRIL each play a significant role in CLL cell survival and accumulation, but their involvement in disease initiation remains unclear., Methods: We generated novel CLL models lacking BAFF or APRIL. In vivo experiments were conducted to explore the impact of BAFF or APRIL loss on leukemia initiation, progression, and dissemination. Additionally, RNA-seq and quantitative real-time PCR were performed to unveil the transcriptomic signature influenced by BAFF in CLL. The direct role of BAFF in controlling the expression of tumor-promoting genes was further assessed in patient-derived primary CLL cells ex-vivo ., Results: Our findings demonstrate a crucial role for BAFF, but not APRIL, in the initiation and dissemination of CLL cells. In the absence of BAFF or its receptor BAFF-R, the TCL1 transgene only increases CLL cell numbers in the peritoneal cavity, without dissemination into the periphery. While BAFF binding to BAFF-R is dispensable for peritoneal CLL cell survival, it is necessary to activate a tumor-promoting gene program, potentially linked to CLL initiation and progression. This direct role of BAFF in controlling the expression of tumor-promoting genes was confirmed in patient-derived primary CLL cells ex-vivo., Conclusions: Our study, involving both mouse and human CLL cells, suggests that BAFF might initiate CLL through mechanisms independent of cell survival. Combining current CLL therapies with BAFF inhibition could offer a dual benefit by reducing peripheral tumor burden and suppressing transformed CLL cell output., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision., (Copyright © 2024 Ullah, Garcillán, Whitlock, Figgett, Infantino, Eslami, Yang, Rahman, Sheng, Weber, Schneider, Tam and Mackay.)

Despite widespread vaccination rates, we are living with high transmission rates of SARS-CoV-2. Although overall hospitalisation rates are falling, the risk of serious infection remains high for patients who are immunocompromised because of haematological malignancies. In light of the ongoing pandemic and the development of multiple agents for treatment, representatives from the Haematology Society of Australia and New Zealand and infectious diseases specialists have collaborated on this consensus position statement regarding COVID-19 management in patients with haematological disorders. It is our recommendation that both patients with haematological malignancies and treating specialists be educated regarding the preventive and treatment options available and that patients continue to receive adequate vaccinations, keeping in mind the suboptimal vaccine responses that occur in haematology patients, in particular, those with B-cell malignancies and on B-cell-targeting or depleting therapy. Patients with haematological malignancies should receive treatment for COVID-19 in accordance with the severity of their symptoms, but even mild infections should prompt early treatment with antiviral agents. The issue of de-isolation following COVID-19 infection and optimal time to treatment for haematological malignancies is discussed but remains an area with evolving data. This position statement is to be used in conjunction with advice from infectious disease, respiratory and intensive care specialists, and current guidelines from the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce and the New Zealand Ministry of Health and Cancer Agency Te Aho o Te Kahu COVID-19 Guidelines., (© 2023 The Authors. Internal Medicine Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Royal Australasian College of Physicians.)

Chemoimmunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) achieves durable remissions, with flattening of the progression-free survival (PFS) curve in patients with mutated immunoglobulin heavy chain variable gene (IGHV-M). We updated long-term follow-up results from the original 300-patient FCR study initiated at MD Anderson in 1999. The current median follow-up is 19.0 years. With this extended follow-up, the median PFS for patients with IGHV-M was 14.6 years vs 4.2 years for patients with unmutated IGHV (IGHV-UM). Disease progression beyond 10 years was uncommon. In total, 16 of 94 (17%) patients in remission at 10 years subsequently progressed with the additional follow-up compared with the patients in our prior report in 2015. Only 4 of 45 patients (9%) with IGHV-M progressed beyond 10 years. Excluding Richter transformation, 96 of 300 patients (32%) developed 106 other malignancies, with 19 of 300 (6.3%) developing therapy-related myeloid neoplasms (tMNs), which were fatal in 16 of 19 (84%). No pretreatment patient characteristics predicted the risk of tMNs. In summary, FCR remains an option for patients with IGHV-M chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), with a significant fraction achieving functional cure of CLL. A risk-benefit assessment is warranted when counseling patients, balancing potential functional cure with the risk of late relapses and serious secondary malignancies., (© 2023 by The American Society of Hematology.)

The phase III ASPEN study demonstrated the comparable efficacy and improved safety of zanubrutinib versus ibrutinib in patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM). Here, we report long-term follow-up outcomes from ASPEN. The primary end point was the sum of very good partial response (VGPR) + complete response (CR) rates; secondary and exploratory end points were also reported. Cohort 1 comprised 201 patients (myeloid differentiation primary response 88-mutant WM: 102 receiving zanubrutinib; 99 receiving ibrutinib); cohort 2 comprised 28 patients (myeloid differentiation primary response 88 wild-type WM: 28 zanubrutinib; 26 efficacy evaluable). At 44.4-month median follow-up, VGPR + CR rates were 36.3% with zanubrutinib versus 25.3% with ibrutinib in cohort 1 and 30.8% with one CR in cohort 2. In patients with CXC motif chemokine receptor 4 mutation, VGPR + CR rates were 21.2% with zanubrutinib versus 10.0% with ibrutinib (cohort 1). Median progression-free survival and overall survival were not reached. Any-grade adverse events (AEs) of diarrhea (34.7% v 22.8%), muscle spasms (28.6% v 11.9%), hypertension (25.5% v 14.9%), atrial fibrillation/flutter (23.5% v 7.9%), and pneumonia (18.4% v 5.0%) were more common with ibrutinib versus zanubrutinib; neutropenia (20.4% v 34.7%) was less common with ibrutinib versus zanubrutinib (cohort 1). Zanubrutinib was associated with lower risk of AE-related treatment discontinuation. Overall, these findings confirm the long-term response quality and tolerability associated with zanubrutinib.

Objective: The purpose of this analysis was to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients treated with zanubrutinib and ibrutinib in the ALPINE trial (NCT03734016)., Methods: HRQoL was measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-5L at baseline, cycle 1, and every third cycle until the end of treatment. Key patient-reported outcome (PRO) endpoints included global health status (GHS), physical and role functioning, as well as symptoms of fatigue, pain, diarrhea, and nausea/vomiting. A mixed model repeated-measure analysis using key PRO endpoints at key clinical cycles (cycles 7 and 13) was performed., Results: 652 patients were randomized to receive zanubrutinib ( n  = 327) or ibrutinib ( n  = 325). By cycle 7, GHS scores improved with zanubrutinib versus ibrutinib, and in cycle 13, GHS scores remained higher in the zanubrutinib arm. The zanubrutinib arm experienced clinically meaningful improvements in physical and role functioning, as well as pain and fatigue symptoms at both cycles. Patients in the zanubrutinib arm reported lower diarrhea scores. Nausea/vomiting scores maintained in both arms. EQ-VAS scores showed greater improvement from baseline at both cycle 7 (7.92 versus 3.44) and cycle 13 (7.75 versus 3.92) of treatment with zanubrutinib compared to ibrutinib, respectively., Conclusions: Patients with R/R CLL/SLL treated with zanubrutinib demonstrated improvement versus ibrutinib in the GHS scale at cycle 7. Other endpoints continued to improve, suggesting treatment with zanubrutinib positively affected HRQoL over time. Given the generally good HRQoL at baseline in both arms, the differences between the arms were not significant.

Objective: Zanubrutinib is a highly selective, next-generation Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor. In the phase 3 SEQUOIA trial (NCT03336333), treatment with zanubrutinib resulted in significantly improved progression-free survival compared to bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) in adult patients with treatment-naïve chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) without del(17p). The current analysis compared the effects of zanubrutinib versus BR on patients' health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL)., Methods: In the SEQUOIA trial, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed at baseline and every 12 weeks (3 cycles) using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-5L. Descriptive analyses were performed on all the questionnaires' scales and a mixed model for repeated measures was performed using the key QLQ-C30 endpoints of global health status/QoL (GHS/QoL), physical and role functioning, and symptoms of fatigue, pain, diarrhea, and nausea/vomiting at weeks 12 and 24., Results: Compared with BR-treated patients, those in the zanubrutinib arm experienced greater improvements in HRQoL outcomes at both weeks 12 and 24. By week 24, mean change differences (95% confidence interval) between the arms were significant for GHS/QoL (4.9 [0.9, 9.0]), physical functioning (3.8 [0.8, 6.7]), diarrhea (-6.2 [-10.0, -2.5]), fatigue (-4.5 [-8.9, -0.1]), and nausea/vomiting (-4.5 [-8.9, -0.1]); role functioning (4.8 [-0.2, 9.7]) was marginally better in the zanubrutinib arm and there were no differences in pain symptoms (-0.4 [-4.3, 5.1]) between the arms., Conclusions: During the first 24 weeks of treatment, zanubrutinib was associated with better HRQoL outcomes in patients with treatment-naive CLL/SLL without del(17p) compared to BR., Trial Registration: The SEQUOIA trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov as SEQUOIA trial (NCT03336333).

Background: This systematic review aimed to characterise the cognitive outcomes of patients who received chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy., Methods: A systematic search of the literature was performed using PubMed, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, EMBASE, Medline, and CINAHL (February 2023). Risk of bias was assessed using the JBI Checklist for Case Reports and the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Non-randomised Studies., Results: Twenty-two studies met inclusion criteria with a total of 1104 participants. There was considerable methodological heterogeneity with differing study designs (e.g., cohort studies, clinical trials, case studies, a qualitative interview, and a focus group), measures of cognition (e.g., self-report, neuropsychological measures, clinician assessed/neurological examinations), and longest follow-up time points (i.e., five days to five years)., Discussion: Results of the studies were heterogenous with studies demonstrating stable, improved, or reduced cognition across differing time points. Overall, cognitive symptoms are common particularly in the acute stage (<2 weeks) post-infusion. Most deficits that arise in the acute stage resolve within one to two weeks, however, there is a subset of patients who continue to experience and self-report persistent deficits in the subacute and chronic stages. Future studies are needed to comprehensively analyse cognition using a combination of self-report and psychometric measures following chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in the acute, subacute, and chronic settings., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest TO has received support from the National Health and Medical Research Council, The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and Monash University. He has been supported by research grants and consultancies to his institution from Eisai, UCB Pharma, Praxis Precision Medicines, BioGen and Supernus. CM has received conference travel support and/or speaker fees from Merck, Novartis, and Biogen. He has received research support from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Multiple Sclerosis Research Australia, The University of Melbourne, The Royal Melbourne Hospital Neuroscience Foundation, and Dementia Australia. MM has served on advisory board for Merck, has received speaker honoraria from Merck, Biogen and Novartis. Her institution receives funding from Merck, Australian National Health Medical Research Council, Brain Foundation, Charles and Sylvia Viertel Foundation, and MS Research Australia. RA and CK have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Cytarabine-containing chemoimmunotherapy followed by autologous transplantation and rituximab maintenance achieves durable remissions for most patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). However, patients with TP53 -mutated disease have poor outcomes with standard approaches. We previously reported that allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT) achieved durable remissions in MCL, however follow-up among patients with TP53 -mutated disease was limited. Here we report extended follow-up of the overall cohort ( n =  36) and TP53- mutated subset (n =  13) (median follow-up 10.8 and 4.2 years, respectively). Estimated overall survival was 56% at 10 years for the overall cohort and 59% at 4 years for the TP53- mutated subset. Among patients with TP53- mutated disease, no relapses occurred beyond 6 months post-transplant. Survival after post-alloSCT disease relapse was poor (median 2.1 years). These data confirm that alloSCT can be curative in MCL, including patients with TP53 -mutated disease, and should be considered for earlier utilization in this subgroup for whom conventional chemoimmunotherapy is ineffective.

We evaluated immune cell subsets in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who received first-line therapy with 3 cycles of ibrutinib then 13 cycles of ibrutinib plus venetoclax in the minimal residual disease (MRD) cohort of the CAPTIVATE study (NCT02910583). Patients with Confirmed undetectable MRD (uMRD) were randomly assigned to placebo or ibrutinib groups; patients without Confirmed uMRD were randomly assigned to ibrutinib or ibrutinib plus venetoclax groups. We compared immune cell subsets in samples collected at 7 time points with age-matched healthy donors. CLL cells decreased within 3 cycles after venetoclax initiation; from cycle 16 onward, levels were similar to healthy donor levels (HDL; ≤0.8 cells per μL) in patients with Confirmed uMRD and slightly above HDL in patients without Confirmed uMRD. By 4 months after cycle 16, normal B cells had recovered to HDL in patients randomly assigned to placebo. Regardless of randomized treatment, abnormal counts of T cells, classical monocytes, and conventional dendritic cells recovered to HDL within 6 months (median change from baseline -49%, +101%, and +91%, respectively); plasmacytoid dendritic cells recovered by cycle 20 (+598%). Infections generally decreased over time regardless of randomized treatment and were numerically lowest in patients randomly assigned to placebo within 12 months after cycle 16. Sustained elimination of CLL cells and recovery of normal B cells were confirmed in samples from patients treated with fixed-duration ibrutinib plus venetoclax in the GLOW study (NCT03462719). These results demonstrate promising evidence of restoration of normal blood immune composition with ibrutinib plus venetoclax., (© 2023 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)

In recent years, Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors have provided significant advances in the treatment of patients with B-cell malignancies. Ibrutinib was the first BTK inhibitor to be approved, and it changed the standard-of-care treatment for diseases such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia, mantle cell lymphoma, marginal zone lymphoma, and Waldenström macroglobulinemia, improving efficacy outcomes and safety compared to chemotherapy. In this article, we review the development of zanubrutinib, a next-generation BTK inhibitor, from molecular design to patient-related outcomes. We start this journey by providing insights into the discovery of BTK and the physiologic, genetic, and molecular characterization of patients lacking this kinase, together with the brief treatment landscape in the era of chemo-immunotherapies. Zanubrutinib was originally developed by applying a structure-activity strategy to enhance the specificity as well as enzymatic and pharmacokinetic properties. Preclinical studies confirmed greater specificity and better bioavailability of zanubrutinib compared with that of ibrutinib, which supported the initiation of clinical trials in humans. Preliminary clinical results indicated activity in B-cell malignancies together with an improved safety profile, in line with less off-target effects described in the preclinical studies. The clinical program of zanubrutinib has since expanded significantly, with ongoing studies in a wide range of hemato-oncological diseases and in combination with many other therapies. Zanubrutinib currently is approved for various B-cell malignancies in multiple countries. This story highlights the importance of multidisciplinary collaborative research, from bench to bedside, and provides an example of how the commitment to finding improved treatment options should always run parallel to patient care., (© 2023. Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: We previously reported results of a pooled analysis of two zanubrutinib studies in relapsed or refractory (R/R) MCL showing better survival outcomes when zanubrutinib is used in second-line versus later-line. Here, we present an updated pooled analysis with a longer follow-up of 35.2 months., Methods: Data were pooled from two studies-BGB-3111-AU-003 (NCT02343120) and BGB-3111-206 (NCT03206970) of zanubrutinib in R/R MCL. The patients were divided into two groups based on the treatment line of zanubrutinib: the second-line and the later-line group. The inverse propensity score weighting method was used to balance the baseline covariates between the groups. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), PFS, and OS rates, objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), and safety., Results: Among 112 pooled patients, 41 (36.6%) patients received zanubrutinib as second-line and 71 (63.4%) patients as later-line therapy. After weighting, OS was significantly improved in the second-line versus later-line group (HR, 0.459 [95% CI: 0.215, 0.98]; p = 0.044) with median OS not estimable in both groups. The PFS was similar between the two groups (HR, 0.78 [95% CI: 0.443, 1.373]; p = 0.389) but with numerically longer median PFS in the second-line versus later-line group (27.8 vs. 22.1 months). ORR was numerically higher in the second-line versus later-line (88.6% vs. 85.7%), and DOR was similar between the two groups (25.2 vs. 25.1 months). Zanubrutinib showed a similar safety profile in both groups., Conclusion: Zanubrutinib in second-line treatment was associated with significantly improved OS compared with later-line treatment of R/R MCL., (© 2023 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) is the most common haematological malignancy in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ). Considerable changes to diagnostic and management algorithms have occurred within the last decade. The availability of next-generation sequencing and measurable residual disease assessment by flow cytometry allow for advanced prognostication and response assessments. Novel therapies, including inhibitors of Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTKi) and B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL2) inhibitors, have transformed the treatment landscape for both treatment-naïve and relapsed/refractory disease, particularly for patients with high-risk genetic aberrations. Recommendations regarding appropriate supportive management continue to evolve, and special considerations are required for patients with CLL with respect to the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The unique funding and treatment environments in Australasia highlight the need for specific local guidance with respect to the investigation and management of CLL. This consensus practice statement was developed by a broadly representative group of ANZ experts in CLL with endorsement by peak haematology bodies, with a view to providing this standardised guidance., (© 2023 The Authors. Internal Medicine Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Royal Australasian College of Physicians.)

Purpose: Pirtobrutinib is a highly selective, noncovalent (reversible) Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi). We report the safety and efficacy of pirtobrutinib in patients with covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (cBTKi) pretreated mantle-cell lymphoma (MCL), a population with poor prognosis., Methods: Patients with cBTKi pretreated relapsed/refractory (R/R) MCL received pirtobrutinib monotherapy in a multicenter phase I/II trial (BRUIN; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03740529). Efficacy was assessed in the first 90 consecutively enrolled patients who met criteria for inclusion in the primary efficacy cohort. The primary end point was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary end points included duration of response (DOR) and safety., Results: The median patient age was 70 years (range, 46-87), the median prior lines of therapy was 3 (range, 1-8), 82.2% had discontinued a prior cBTKi because of disease progression, and 77.8% had intermediate- or high-risk simplified MCL International Prognostic Index score. The ORR was 57.8% (95% CI, 46.9 to 68.1), including 20.0% complete responses (n = 18). At a median follow-up of 12 months, the median DOR was 21.6 months (95% CI, 7.5 to not reached). The 6- and 12-month estimated DOR rates were 73.6% and 57.1%, respectively. In the MCL safety cohort (n = 164), the most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were fatigue (29.9%), diarrhea (21.3%), and dyspnea (16.5%). Grade ≥3 TEAEs of hemorrhage (3.7%) and atrial fibrillation/flutter (1.2%) were less common. Only 3% of patients discontinued pirtobrutinib because of a treatment-related adverse event., Conclusion: Pirtobrutinib is a first-in-class novel noncovalent (reversible) BTKi and the first BTKi of any kind to demonstrate durable efficacy after prior cBTKi therapy in heavily pretreated R/R MCL. Pirtobrutinib was well tolerated with low rates of treatment discontinuation because of toxicity.

Opinion Statement: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) treatment advances have significantly improved disease-free remission, with greater focus in clinical trials being placed on measurable residual disease (MRD) as a marker of subclinical disease assessment. While this concept is used extensively in other haematological neoplasms, there is yet to be a consensus on the threshold for MRD in MCL that demonstrates prognostic and therapeutic significance, and in this context has yet to reach routine clinical practice. The historical long-term method for MCL MRD assessment has been real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR), targeting the clonal immunoglobulin heavy locus (IGH) rearrangement or the IGH::CCND1 translocation rearrangement. A significant problem at present relates to identifying alternative assays for patients who do not have a suitable molecular target by this method. This article reviews existing techniques used in MRD assessment for MCL and describes novel methods which may overcome existing limitations, including next-generation sequencing modalities. The use of circulating tumour DNA is explored, with techniques such as CAPP-Seq and PhasED-Seq demonstrating promise in B-lymphoproliferative disorders, though application in MCL requires further study. The other aspect of practice using MRD is identifying therapeutic options which can address a subclinical molecular relapse. Developing suitable interventions that can alter the disease trajectory based on longitudinal MRD kinetics are needed to justify its incorporation into standard care., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) have poor outcomes after the failure of covalent Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor treatment, and new therapeutic options are needed. Pirtobrutinib, a highly selective, noncovalent (reversible) BTK inhibitor, was designed to reestablish BTK inhibition., Methods: We conducted a phase 1-2 trial in which patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell cancers received pirtobrutinib. Here, we report efficacy results among patients with CLL or SLL who had previously received a BTK inhibitor as well as safety results among all the patients with CLL or SLL. The primary end point was an overall response (partial response or better) as assessed by independent review. Secondary end points included progression-free survival and safety., Results: A total of 317 patients with CLL or SLL received pirtobrutinib, including 247 who had previously received a BTK inhibitor. Among these 247 patients, the median number of previous lines of therapy was 3 (range, 1 to 11), and 100 patients (40.5%) had also received a B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL2) inhibitor such as venetoclax. The percentage of patients with an overall response to pirtobrutinib was 73.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 67.3 to 78.7), and the percentage was 82.2% (95% CI, 76.8 to 86.7) when partial response with lymphocytosis was included. The median progression-free survival was 19.6 months (95% CI, 16.9 to 22.1). Among all 317 patients with CLL or SLL who received pirtobrutinib, the most common adverse events were infections (in 71.0%), bleeding (in 42.6%), and neutropenia (in 32.5%). At a median duration of treatment of 16.5 months (range, 0.2 to 39.9), some adverse events that are typically associated with BTK inhibitors occurred relatively infrequently, including hypertension (in 14.2% of patients), atrial fibrillation or flutter (in 3.8%), and major hemorrhage (in 2.2%). Only 9 of 317 patients (2.8%) discontinued pirtobrutinib owing to a treatment-related adverse event., Conclusions: In this trial, pirtobrutinib showed efficacy in patients with heavily pretreated CLL or SLL who had received a covalent BTK inhibitor. The most common adverse events were infections, bleeding, and neutropenia. (Funded by Loxo Oncology; BRUIN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03740529.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Patients with lymphoproliferative disorders such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who are resistant to covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (cBTKis), especially if also venetoclax refractory, have an unmet therapeutic need. Pirtobrutinib, a noncovalent BTKi, achieves high response rates in patients who are refractory to cBTKi, regardless of mechanism of cBTKi resistance. This led to recent accelerated US Food and Drug Administration approval in MCL. The toxicity profile in early studies suggests suitability for use in combination approaches. We summarize existing preclinical and clinical data for pirtobrutinib., (© 2023 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) progressing on ibrutinib constitute an unmet need. Though Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) and PLCG2 mutations are associated with ibrutinib resistance, their frequency and relevance to progression are not fully understood. In this multicenter retrospective observational study, we analyzed 98 patients with CLL on ibrutinib (49 relapsing after an initial response and 49 still responding after ≥1 year of continuous treatment) using a next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel (1% sensitivity) comprising 13 CLL-relevant genes including BTK and PLCG2. BTK hotspot mutations were validated by droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) (0.1% sensitivity). By integrating NGS and ddPCR results, 32 of 49 relapsing cases (65%) carried at least 1 hotspot BTK and/or PLCG2 mutation(s); in 6 of 32, BTK mutations were only detected by ddPCR (variant allele frequency [VAF] 0.1% to 1.2%). BTK/PLCG2 mutations were also identified in 6 of 49 responding patients (12%; 5/6 VAF <10%), of whom 2 progressed later. Among the relapsing patients, the BTK-mutated (BTKmut) group was enriched for EGR2 mutations, whereas BTK-wildtype (BTKwt) cases more frequently displayed BIRC3 and NFKBIE mutations. Using an extended capture-based panel, only BRAF and IKZF3 mutations showed a predominance in relapsing cases, who were enriched for del(8p) (n = 11; 3 BTKwt). Finally, no difference in TP53 mutation burden was observed between BTKmut and BTKwt relapsing cases, and ibrutinib treatment did not favor selection of TP53-aberrant clones. In conclusion, we show that BTK/PLCG2 mutations were absent in a substantial fraction (35%) of a real-world cohort failing ibrutinib, and propose additional mechanisms contributing to resistance., (© 2023 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)