Search

Purpose:Venetoclax-based therapy is a standard-of-care option in first-line and relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Patient management following venetoclax discontinuation remains nonstandard and poorly understood.Experimental Design:To address this, we conducted a large international study to identify a cohort of 326 patients who discontinued venetoclax and have been subsequently treated. Coprimary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival for the post-venetoclax treatments stratified by treatment type [Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi), PI3K inhibitor (PI3Ki), and cellular therapies].Results:We identified patients with CLL who discontinued venetoclax in the first-line (4%) and relapsed/refractory settings (96%). Patients received a median of three therapies prior to venetoclax; 40% were BTKi naïve (n = 130), and 81% were idelalisib naïve (n = 263). ORR to BTKi was 84% (n = 44) in BTKi-naïve patients versus 54% (n = 30) in BTKi-exposed patients. We demonstrate therapy selection following venetoclax requires prior novel agent exposure consideration and discontinuation reasons.Conclusions:For BTKi-naïve patients, selection of covalently binding BTKis results in high ORR and durable remissions. For BTKi-exposed patients, covalent BTK inhibition is not effective in the setting of BTKi resistance. PI3Kis following venetoclax do not appear to result in durable remissions. We conclude that BTKi in naïve or previously responsive patients and cellular therapies following venetoclax may be the most effective strategies.See related commentary by Rogers, p. 3501

Supplemental Figure 2: Progression free survival of patients without prior BTKi exposure who had progressed on venetoclax and were then treated with BTKi.

Supplemental Figure 1: Overall survival of entire cohort from initiation of venetoclax.

To report the activity of venetoclax in patients with relapsed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), we identified 81 patients treated with venetoclax monotherapy (n=50, 62%) or in combination with a BTK inhibitor (n=16, 20%), an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (n=11, 14%), or others at 12 US academic medical centers. Patients had high-risk disease features including Ki67 >30% (61%), blastoid/pleomorphic histology (29%), complex karyotype (34%), and TP53 alterations (49%), and received a median of 3 prior treatments including BTK inhibitors in 91%. Venetoclax alone or in combination resulted in an overall response rate (ORR) of 40% and median progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of 3.7 and 12.5 months, respectively. The receipt of ≤ 3 prior treatments was associated with higher odds of response to venetoclax in a univariable analysis. In a multivariable analysis, having a high-risk MIPI score prior to venetoclax and disease relapse or progression within 24 months of diagnosis were associated with inferior OS whereas the use of venetoclax in combination was associated with superior OS. Although most patients (61%) had low risk for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS), 12.3% of patients developed TLS despite the implementation of several mitigation strategies. In conclusion, venetoclax resulted in good ORR but short PFS in high-risk patients with MCL and may have a better role in earlier lines of treatment and/or in combination with other active agents. TLS remains an important risk in patients with MCL who initiate treatment with venetoclax.

This review summarizes the unique presentation and management of the leukemic variant of mantle cell lymphoma (LV-MCL, also referred to as non-nodal MCL) and highlights the biologic and clinical differentiation from classical mantle cell lymphoma (cMCL) in biomarker expression, clinical features, prognosis, disease course, and treatment.Several studies have evaluated the gene expression profile of mantle cell lymphoma, differentiating LV-MCL from cMCL. The typical immunophenotypic profile is CD5-positive, SOX 11-negative, CD23-low, CD200-low, and cyclin D1 overexpressed. LV-MCL commonly has mutated immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region genes. Data on treatment of LV-MCL is limited to retrospective analyses; the ideal treatment for these patients is unknown although many have a clinically indolent, asymptomatic presentation and often may be observed for an extended period without active treatment. LV-MCL is a clinically and biologically distinct entity. Clinically, it must be distinguished from chronic lymphocytic leukemia and cMCL. Future prospective, randomized clinical trials are required to optimize management, define the initial treatment, and appropriately sequence treatment modalities.