Introduction: Acalabrutinib (A) and ibrutinib (I) are both highly effective Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) approved for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and given as continuous treatments until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Venetoclax is a BH3 mimetic compound and B-cell lymphoma-2 inhibitor prescribed in combination with obinutuzumab (V+O) for a fixed (12-cycle) duration in treatment-naïve CLL patients. Although the ELEVATE-RR study demonstrated an improved safety profile of A compared with I in a head-to-head clinical trial, this study did not include treatment-naïve CLL patients (Byrd et al. J Clin Oncol. 2021). This MAIC builds upon the published analysis by Davids et al (Leuk Lymphoma. 2021) in treatment-naïve patients with CLL (which demonstrated a favorable safety profile for A-based therapy compared with other targeted therapies without compromising efficacy) by including longer follow-up data for A and the comparators. Methods: Individual patient data for A ± obinutuzumab (A+O) from ELEVATE-TN (47 months median follow-up) (Sharman et al. ASCO 2021) were weighted to match the aggregate baseline characteristics of the I monotherapy arm from the ALLIANCE trial (Woyach et al. NEJM. 2018) (I + rituximab was not included as this treatment is not approved for CLL) and the V+O arm from the CLL-14 trial (Al-Sawaf et al. Lancet Oncol 2020). These baseline characteristics, TP53 mutation, serum β 2 microglobulin, ECOG, IGHV status, del(11q), CrCl, Rai stage or CLL-IPI, are potential prognostic variables (PV). Pseudo-individual patient data were generated from the digitized Kaplan-Meier curves published in the aforementioned comparator trials. An unanchored MAIC was conducted to adjust for these PVs between trials. The PVs selected were based on literature, clinical judgement, and demonstrated statistically significant association with progression-free survival (PFS) in univariate and multivariate regression analysis (Ahn et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020; Eichorst and Hallek. Hematol Am Soc Hematol Educ Prog. 2016). After matching, a weighted Cox proportional hazard model was used to analyze PFS and overall survival (OS) while a weighted logistic regression model was used for comparative safety analysis (grade ≥3 adverse events [AEs]). Two-sided p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: This MAIC included 47-month data from ELEVATE-TN, 38-month data from ALLIANCE, and 40-month data from CLL-14 as opposed to 28-month data from ELEVATE-TN, 29-month data from RESONATE-2, and 29-month data from CLL-14 included in the previously published analysis. In the A vs I comparison, the PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83 [95% CI 0.50, 1.37]) and OS (HR 0.69 [95% CI 0.37, 1.29]) numerically favored A but the difference was not significant. The A vs V+O comparison did not show significant differences in PFS (HR 0.96 [95% CI 0.56, 1.65] and OS (HR 0.99 [95% CI 0.51, 1.91]). For A+O vs I, significant differences in PFS (HR 0.48 [95% CI 0.27, 0.88]) and OS (HR 0.41 [95% CI 0.18, 0.91]) were observed. Similarly, for A+O vs V+O, significant differences were observed for PFS (HR 0.38 [95% CI 0.20, 0.73]) and OS (HR 0.43 [95% CI 0.19, 0.99]). Significant differences in rate of grade ≥3 AEs in favor of A and A+O were observed vs I for atrial fibrillation, hypertension, decreased neutrophil count, and decreased platelet count. Compared with V+O, patients treated with A had significantly lower rates of febrile neutropenia, leukopenia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, non-melanoma skin cancer, and secondary primary malignancies, excluding non-melanoma skin cancer. For A+O vs V+O, significantly lower rates of infusion-related reaction, neutropenia, and non-melanoma skin cancer were observed among patients treated with A+O. Conclusions: Based on these MAIC results, A and A+O are associated with a favorable safety profile vs both I and V+O while, with longer follow-up, these MAIC results demonstrate that A+O is associated with a significant efficacy benefit vs both I and V+O. A limitation of this MAIC is not including all potential PVs as a trade-off to conserve the effective sample size. Our findings are consistent with the results of ELEVATE-RR comparing A with I in the relapsed population and also provide insight into comparisons of A-based therapy with V+O as we await more definitive prospective data on this question from a phase 3 trial. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Davids: Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Eli Lilly and Company: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Emeribe: AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Gaitonde: AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Research Funding. Cai: AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Google: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Celgene Corporation: Ended employment in the past 24 months.
Background: Acalabrutinib (Acala) is a next-generation, highly selective, covalent BTK inhibitor (BTKi) approved for the treatment of CLL. The phase 3 ASCEND study demonstrated significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with Acala vs investigator's choice of chemoimmunotherapy (bendamustine + rituximab [BR]) or pi3K inhibitor (idelalisib) + rituximab (IR) in R/R CLL patients (pts) (Ghia et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020). In ELEVATE-RR, Acala demonstrated non-inferior PFS vs a first-generation BTKi (ibrutinib [Ibr]) in R/R CLL pts with high-risk genomics (Byrd et al. J Clin Oncol. 2021). Acala was well tolerated in both trials. Quality-adjusted Time Without Symptoms and Toxicity (Q-TWiST) analysis balances risks (toxicity) and benefits (prolonged survival without symptoms of disease progression or adverse events [AEs]) of oncology treatments. We conducted a Q-TWiST analysis using data from these trials to assess risk-benefit of Acala vs comparators among R/R CLL pts. Methods: Patient survival time with 16 months (ASCEND) and 41 months (ELEVATE-RR) of median follow-up data were partitioned into 3 states: time with toxicity before disease progression (TOX); time without progression or toxicity (TWiST); and time from disease progression until death or end of follow-up (relapse [REL]). Toxicity was defined as grade 3/4 AEs and, for the comparison vs Ibr, an additional definition of toxicity included AEs of any grade with frequency ≥10% (AE ≥10%). Sensitivity analyses with toxicity defined as grade 2-4 AEs will be presented. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed for TOX, PFS, and overall survival (OS). For the TOX curve, event time for each pt was calculated by summing days with AEs (per toxicity definition) before disease progression, with no pt censored. Restricted means were calculated for the longest PFS time among treatment arms. Restricted mean TWiST duration was estimated using the difference between restricted means of PFS and TOX. Restricted mean REL duration was estimated using the difference between restricted means of OS and PFS. Q-TWiST was calculated by summing weighted restricted mean durations of TOX, TWiST, and REL. Utility of 1.0 for TWiST and 0.5 for TOX and REL (Gelber et al. Am Statistician. 1995) were applied. Sensitivity analysis was conducted using utility measures from trial data. Two-sided p<0.05 indicated statistical significance. Results: Among Acala vs IR/BR-treated pts, significantly longer duration of TWiST (mean diff, 3.58 months [95% CI, 2.42, 4.74]) and shorter duration of REL (mean diff, −2.51 months [95% CI, −3.50, −1.60]) and TOX (mean diff, −0.73 months [95% CI, −1.24, −0.24]) were found, indicating Acala vs IR/BR-treated pts had longer time without disease progression and toxicity and shorter time with toxicity. Q-TWiST was significantly different (1.96 months [95% CI, 1.13, 2.81]) between Acala (17.48 months) and IR/BR (15.52 months). In the Acala and Ibr comparison, differences in durations of TWiST and TOX varied based on the toxicity definition while the difference in REL durations remained consistent (mean diff, 0.37 months [95% CI, −1.82, 2.60]; p=0.33]). With the toxicity definition of AE ≥10%, Q-TWiST was significantly different (2.56 months [95% CI, 0.19, 4.83]) for Acala (33.02 months) vs Ibr (30.46 months). When toxicity was defined as grade 3/4 AEs, Q-TWiST had higher estimates for Acala but the difference was not statistically significant (1.28 months [95% CI, −1.34, 3.80]). In the sensitivity analysis, Q-TWiST gains were not statistically significant, most likely because the study was not designed to collect EQ-5D data post-treatment discontinuation. Conclusions: Q-TWiST analyses integrate efficacy, safety, and quality of life into a more appropriate measure useful for detailed benefit-risk assessment of cancer treatment. This analysis demonstrated that Acala treatment is significantly superior to IR/BR treatment. Quality-adjusted survival gains of Acala over Ibr varied by toxicity definition, but was numerically higher for Acala. Overall, Acala demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile vs different comparators in R/R CLL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Seymour: Mei Pharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gaitonde: AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Research Funding. Emeribe: AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Cai: Celgene Corporation: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Google: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Mato: Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; MSKCC: Current Employment; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; Nurix: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy.
Background: Novel targeted agents, namely Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis), B-cell leukemia/lymphoma-2 inhibitors (BCL-2is), and anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, have advanced chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) treatment beyond traditional chemoimmunotherapy. While 1-year fixed-duration venetoclax-obinutuzumab (VO) is effective, about 25% of patients do not achieve peripheral blood (PB) undetectable minimal residual disease (uMRD). This regimen contains intravenous therapy with obinutuzumab, which presents potential additional toxicities such as infusion reactions and tumor lysis syndrome as well as the potential inconvenience of an intravenous drug. Moreover, patients with higher-risk genomic features such as TP53-aberrant disease or unmutated IGHV have shorter progression-free survival (PFS) than lower-risk cohorts. Whether extending the course of venetoclax beyond 1 year in patients with detectable MRD improves PFS remains unknown. Preclinical data support combining BTKi and BCL-2i, and recent studies with the first-generation BTKi ibrutinib plus venetoclax (IV) have demonstrated deep/durable responses with uMRD rates similar to VO in previously untreated patients with CLL; however, toxicities of this regimen (e.g., cardiac events, neutropenia, etc.) may be challenging, particularly in older patients and those with comorbidities. Acalabrutinib, a highly selective next-generation BTKi, showed an improved safety profile versus ibrutinib in a phase 3 head-to-head trial in relapsed/refractory CLL, and was very effective and well tolerated in a phase 2 study combined with VO. We hypothesize that time-limited doublet therapy with acalabrutinib plus venetoclax (AV) would induce PFS and levels of uMRD similar to those of VO in treatment-naïve (TN) CLL/SLL irrespective of genomic risk features and offer the convenience and favorable tolerability of an all-oral regimen. Moreover, we hypothesize that MRD-guided therapy duration approach will help to define the optimal duration of therapy for both VO and AV. Methods: MAJIC is a phase 3, open-label, randomized, multicenter, global study evaluating AV vs VO in patients aged ≥18 years with TN CLL/SLL. The primary objective of the MAJIC trial is to evaluate investigator-assessed PFS of MRD-guided AV vs MRD-guided VO in a noninferiority design. Key secondary endpoints include uMRD rates at sequential time points, complete and overall response rate, event-free survival, overall survival, quality of life/patient-reported outcomes, and safety. After the screening period, approximately 600 patients will be randomized (1:1, with stratification by age, TP53, and IGHV status) to receive either AV: acalabrutinib (100 mg twice daily with 2 lead-in cycles) then combined with venetoclax introduced at cycle 3 (including dose ramp-up) for 12 cycles, or VO: intravenous obinutuzumab at standard dosing with venetoclax initiated per standard dosing at day 22 cycle 1 (including dose ramp-up) for 6 cycles, followed by 6 cycles of venetoclax monotherapy, for a total of 12 cycles of venetoclax therapy in both arms. Patients with detectable MRD (10 -5 sensitivity by clonoSEQ ® next-generation sequencing) at that time will continue therapy for an additional 12 cycles with either AV (acalabrutinib-containing cohort) or venetoclax monotherapy (for the VO cohort) for a total of 24 months of therapy in both arms, unless they experience progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. All patients will discontinue study therapy after 24 months, regardless of MRD status at that time point. Response assessments including MRD will occur at the end of 12 months of venetoclax (and 24 months if receiving a second year of therapy) in both arms, and patients with PB uMRD by clonoSEQ at 10 -5 sensitivity at that time point will discontinue therapy. Further correlative studies such as association of baseline genetic markers with clinical outcomes and MRD kinetics will be conducted. Key exclusion criteria are clinically significant cardiovascular disease, history of bleeding diathesis, and history of significant cerebrovascular disease/event. Patient enrollment is to begin at the end of 2021. Summary: This trial in progress is to inform the choice of which of these doublet therapy approaches might be most appropriate for patients with previously untreated CLL/SLL without restriction by genetic background or age. Disclosures Davids: Eli Lilly and Company: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Mato: DTRM BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding; Nurix: Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; MSKCC: Current Employment; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB, Research Funding. Hum: AstraZeneca: Current Employment. Wargo: AstraZeneca: Current Employment. Emeribe: AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Shahkarami: Astrazeneca: Current Employment, Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months. Sokolowski: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months. Biondo: Roche: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Genentech, Inc.: Current Employment. Abhyankar: Genentech, Inc: Current Employment; Roche: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Hermann: AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Sharman: AbbVie: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Lilly: Consultancy; Centessa: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: Investigational study
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.