Search

Background: In the primary analysis report of the GAIA/CLL13 trial, we found that venetoclax-obinutuzumab and venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib improved undetectable measurable residual disease (MRD) rates and progression-free survival compared with chemoimmunotherapy in patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. However, to our knowledge, no data on direct comparisons of different venetoclax-based combinations are available., Methods: GAIA/CLL13 is an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study conducted at 159 sites in ten countries in Europe and the Middle East. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, with a life expectancy of at least 6 months, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology group performance status of 0-2, a cumulative illness rating scale score of 6 or lower or a single score of 4 or lower, and no TP53 aberrations. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1), with a computer-generated list stratified by age, Binet stage, and regional study group, to either chemoimmunotherapy, venetoclax-rituximab, venetoclax-obinutuzumab, or venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib. All treatments were administered in 28-day cycles. Patients in the chemoimmunotherapy group received six cycles of treatment, with patients older than 65 years receiving intravenous bendamustine (90 mg/m 2 , days 1-2), whereas patients aged 65 years or younger received intravenous fludarabine (25 mg/m 2 , days 1-3) and intravenous cyclophosphamide (250 mg/m 2 , days 1-3). Intravenous rituximab (375 mg/m 2 , day 1 of cycle 1; 500 mg/m 2 , day 1 of cycles 2-6) was added to chemotherapy. In the experimental groups, patients received daily venetoclax (400 mg orally) for ten cycles after a 5-week ramp-up phase starting on day 22 of cycle 1. In the venetoclax-rituximab group, intravenous rituximab (375 mg/m 2 , day 1 of cycle 1; 500 mg/m 2 , day 1 of cycles 2-6) was added. In the obinutuzumab-containing groups, obinutuzumab was added (cycle 1: 100 mg on day 1, 900 mg on day 2, and 1000 mg on days 8 and 15; cycles 2-6: 1000 mg on day 1). In the venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib group, daily ibrutinib (420 mg orally, from day 1 of cycle 1) was added until undetectable MRD was reached in two consecutive measurements (3 months apart) or until cycle 36. The planned treatment duration was six cycles in the chemoimmunotherapy group, 12 cycles in the venetoclax-rituximab and the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group and between 12 and 36 cycles in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib group. Coprimary endpoints were the undetectable MRD rate in peripheral blood at month 15 for the comparison of venetoclax-obinutuzumab versus standard chemoimmunotherapy and investigator-assessed progression-free survival for the comparison of venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib versus standard chemoimmunotherapy, both analysed in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all patients randomly assigned to treatment) with a split α of 0·025 for each coprimary endpoint. Both coprimary endpoints have been reported elsewhere. Here we report a post-hoc exploratory analysis of updated progression-free survival results after a 4-year follow-up of our study population. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02950051, recruitment is complete, and all patients are off study treatment., Findings: Between Dec 13, 2016, and Oct 13, 2019, 1080 patients were screened and 926 were randomly assigned to treatment (chemoimmunotherapy group n=229; venetoclax-rituximab group n=237; venetoclax-obinutuzumab group n=229; and venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib group n=231); mean age 60·8 years (SD 10·2), 259 (28%) of 926 patients were female, and 667 (72%) were male (data on race and ethnicity are not reported). At data cutoff for this exploratory follow-up analysis (Jan 31, 2023; median follow-up 50·7 months [IQR 44·6-57·9]), patients in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group had significantly longer progression-free survival than those in the chemoimmunotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·47 [97·5% CI 0·32-0·69], p<0·0001) and the venetoclax-rituximab group (0·57 [0·38-0·84], p=0·0011). The venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib group also had a significantly longer progression-free survival than the chemoimmunotherapy group (0·30 [0·19-0·47]; p<0·0001) and the venetoclax-rituximab group (0·38 [0·24-0·59]; p<0·0001). There was no difference in progression-free survival between the venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib and venetoclax-obinutuzumab groups (0·63 [0·39-1·02]; p=0·031), and the proportional hazards assumption was not met for the comparison between the venetoclax-rituximab group versus the chemoimmunotherapy group (log-rank p=0·10). The estimated 4-year progression-free survival rate was 85·5% (97·5% CI 79·9-91·1; 37 [16%] events) in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib group, 81·8% (75·8-87·8; 55 [24%] events) in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group, 70·1% (63·0-77·3; 84 [35%] events) in the venetoclax-rituximab group, and 62·0% (54·4-69·7; 90 [39%] events) in the chemoimmunotherapy group. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse event was neutropenia (114 [53%] of 216 patients in the chemoimmunotherapy group, 109 [46%] of 237 in the venetoclax-rituximab group, 127 [56%] of 228 in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group, and 112 [48%] of 231 in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib group). Deaths determined to be associated with study treatment by the investigator occurred in three (1%) patients in the chemoimmunotherapy group (n=1 due to each of sepsis, metastatic squamous cell carcinoma, and Richter's syndrome), none in the venetoclax-rituximab and venetoclax-obinutuzumab groups, and four (2%) in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib group (n=1 due to each of acute myeloid leukaemia, fungal encephalitis, small-cell lung cancer, and toxic leukoencephalopathy)., Interpretation: With more than 4 years of follow-up, venetoclax-obinutuzumab and venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib significantly extended progression-free survival compared with both chemoimmunotherapy and venetoclax-rituximab in previously untreated, fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, thereby supporting their use and further evaluation in this patient group, while still considering the higher toxicities observed with the triple combination., Funding: AbbVie, Janssen, and F Hoffmann-La Roche., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MF reports research funding from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Janssen, and Roche, and honoraria from AbbVie. JvT reports honoraria from AbbVie, BeiGene, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Lilly, and Roche; travel grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Roche, Lilly, and Janssen; and has received consulting fees from and participated on advisory boards for AbbVe, BeiGene, Amgen, and AstraZeneca. MG has received honoraria for participation in symposia and advisory boards from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS)/Celgene, GSK, Novartis, Incyte, Janssen-Cilag, Jazz, Roche, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Servier; travel support from AbbVie, BeiGene, Pfizer, and Roche; all fees went to their institution. GJ has received honoraria from Astellas and AbbVie and participated on advisory boards for AbbVie and Servier. M-DL reports travel grants from AbbVie and Janssen. CdC-B reports consulting fees from Janssen, honoraria for lectures from Octapharma, support for attending meetings from AbbVie and Octapharma, and participation on advisory boards for Janssen, BeiGene, and AstraZeneca. CSchn reports speakers fees from AstraZeneca and AbbVie, travel support from AbbVie, and participation on an advisory board for Janssen. RB reports travel support from BeiGene, Janssen, and AbbVie, and honoraria for participation on an advisory board from AbbVie. TN reports honoraria for lectures or presentations and has participated at advisory boards from AbbVie, Roche, AstraZeneca, Gilead, BeiGene, and Janssen. CBP is the chairman of the Danish CLL group. HF reports research funding from Sanofi, Novartis, and Alexion and honoraria for lectures from Sanofi. NK reports research funding from AstraZeneca; honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Kite/Gilead, BMS, and Lilly; and travel support from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Lilly, and Janssen; and participation on advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Janssen. JD reports consulting fees, honoraria, and travel support from AbbVie and Janssen. SB reports honoraria from and participation on speakers bureaus for Roche, Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi; travel support from Janssen, BeiGene, and Roche; and research funding from Janssen and Miltenyi. FS reports speakers fees from AstraZeneca, travel support from Lilly, and research funding from AstraZeneca. A-MF reports research funding and honoraria from AstraZeneca and travel support from AbbVie. KF reports research grants from AbbVie and Roche, honoraria for advisory boards from AstraZeneca, and travel support from Roche. K-AK reports consulting fees, participation on speakers bureaus, and research funding from Roche, AbbVie, and Janssen. MR reports honoraria from Janssen, Roche, and AstraZeneca; consulting fees from Roche, Janssen, AstraZeneca, and AbbVie; research funding from AbbVie and Roche, and travel support from AstraZeneca. MBr reports research funding and consulting fees from Amgen; honoraria for speakers bureaus from Amgen, Becton Dickinson, Janssen, and Pfizer; travel support from Janssen; and participation on advisory boards for Incyte and Amgen. ET reports participation on advisory boards and honoraria from AbbVie, Janssen-Cilag, and BeiGene, AstraZeneca, and Roche; and travel support from AstraZeneca, AbbVie, BeiGene, Janssen. SS reports honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, and Sunesis; research funding from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, and Sunesis; travel support from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis; and speaker fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, and Sunesis. MH reports consulting fees from Roche, Gilead, Janssen, BMS, AbbVie, and AstraZeneca and honoraria from Roche, Gilead, Janssen, BMS, AbbVie, and AstraZeneca. APK reports honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Janssen, LAVA, and Roche/Genentech; travel grants from AbbVie and Janssen; research funding from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Roche/Genentech, AbbVie, and BMS. CUN reports research funding from Octapharma and AstraZeneca; consultancy and speaker fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Genmab, BeiGene, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Takeda, Lilly, and MSD; and participation on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, MSD, Genmab, and Janssen. BE reports consulting fees fromJanssen, AbbVie, Gilead, AstraZeneca, MSD, BeiGene, and Lilly; participation on speakers bureau for Roche, AbbVie, BeiGene, AstraZeneca, and MSD; honoraria from Roche, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, and MSD; research funding from Janssen, Gilead, Roche, AbbVie, BeiGene, and AstraZeneca; and travel support from BeiGene. All other authors 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 introduction of rituximab significantly improved the prognosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), emphasizing the importance of evaluating the long-term consequences of exposure to radiotherapy, alkylating agents and anthracycline-containing (immuno)chemotherapy among DLBCL survivors., Methods: Long-term risk of subsequent malignant neoplasms (SMNs) was examined in a multicenter cohort comprising 2373 5-year DLBCL survivors treated at ages 15-61 years in 1989-2012. Observed SMN numbers were compared with expected cancer incidence to estimate standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and absolute excess risks (AERs/10 000 person-years). Treatment-specific risks were assessed using multivariable Cox regression., Results: After a median follow-up of 13.8 years, 321 survivors developed one or more SMNs (SIR 1.5, 95% CI 1.3-1.8, AER 51.8). SIRs remained increased for at least 20 years after first-line treatment (SIR ≥20-year follow-up 1.5, 95% CI 1.0-2.2, AER 81.8) and were highest among patients ≤40 years at first DLBCL treatment (SIR 2.7, 95% CI 2.0-3.5). Lung (SIR 2.0, 95% CI 1.5-2.7, AER 13.4) and gastrointestinal cancers (SIR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2-2.0, AER 11.8) accounted for the largest excess risks. Treatment with >4500 mg/m 2 cyclophosphamide/>300 mg/m 2 doxorubicin versus ≤2250 mg/m 2 /≤150 mg/m 2 , respectively, was associated with increased solid SMN risk (hazard ratio 1.5, 95% CI 1.0-2.2). Survivors who received rituximab had a lower risk of subdiaphragmatic solid SMNs (hazard ratio 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-1.0) compared with survivors who did not receive rituximab., Conclusion: Five-year DLBCL survivors have an increased risk of SMNs. Risks were higher for survivors ≤40 years at first treatment and survivors treated with >4500 mg/m 2 cyclophosphamide/>300 mg/m 2 doxorubicin, and may be lower for survivors treated in the rituximab era, emphasizing the need for studies with longer follow-up for rituximab-treated patients., Competing Interests: Disclosure MJK has received research support from Kite/Gilead and financial compensation for attending advisory boards and/or presentations from Roche, Kite/Gilead, Novartis, BMS/Celgene, Miltenyi Biotec, Takeda and Adicet Bio. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Polypharmacy is common among patients with a limited life expectancy, even shortly before death. This is partly inevitable, because these patients often have multiple symptoms which need to be alleviated. However, the use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in these patients is also common. Although patients and relatives are often willing to deprescribe medication, physicians are sometimes reluctant due to the lack of evidence on appropriate medication management for patients in the last phase of life. The aim of the AMUSE study is to investigate whether the use of CDSS-OPTIMED, a software program that gives weekly personalized medication recommendations to attending physicians of patients with a limited life expectancy, improves patients' quality of life., Methods: A multicentre stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial will be conducted among patients with a life expectancy of three months or less. The stepped-wedge cluster design, where the clusters are the different study sites, involves sequential crossover of clusters from control to intervention until all clusters are exposed. In total, seven sites (4 hospitals, 2 general practices and 1 hospice from the Netherlands) will participate in this study. During the control period, patients will receive 'care as usual'. During the intervention period, CDSS-OPTIMED will be activated. CDSS-OPTIMED is a validated software program that analyses the use of medication based on a specific set of clinical rules for patients with a limited life expectancy. The software program will provide the attending physicians with weekly personalized medication recommendations. The primary outcome of this study is patients' quality of life two weeks after baseline assessment as measured by the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL questionnaire, quality of life question., Discussion: This will be the first study investigating the effect of weekly personalized medication recommendations to attending physicians on the quality of life of patients with a limited life expectancy. We hypothesize that the CDSS-OPTIMED intervention could lead to improved quality of life in patients with a life expectancy of three months or less., Trial Registration: This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05351281, Registration Date: April 11, 2022)., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)-related symptoms and morbidity related to the advanced age at diagnosis impairs the well-being of older adult patients. Therefore, it is essential to tailor treatment according to geriatric characteristics and aim for an improvement in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as a primary treatment goal. In the HOVON139/GiVe trial, 12 cycles of fixed-duration venetoclax plus obinutuzumab (Ven-O) were shown to be effective and tolerable in FCR (fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, rituximab)-unfit patients with CLL (n = 67). However, prolonged venetoclax exposure as consolidation treatment led to increased toxicity with limited effect on minimal residual disease. To assess the impact of geriatric assessment on treatment outcomes and the patients' HRQoL, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including function, depression, cognition, nutrition, physical performance, muscle parameters, comorbidities, and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer C30 and CLL17 questionnaires were assessed. At baseline, geriatric impairments were present in >90% of patients and ≥2 impairments present in 60% of patients predicted grade ≥3 nonhematological toxicity. During treatment, the number of geriatric impairments diminished significantly and clinically relevant improvements in HRQoL subscales were reached for global health status, physical functioning, role functioning, emotional functioning, fatigue, dyspnea, physical condition or fatigue, and worries or fears related to health and functioning. These improvements were comparable for patients receiving venetoclax consolidation and patients in whom treatment could mostly be discontinued. Collectively, frontline fixed-duration Ven-O improves overall PROs in older, unfit patients with CLL with and without geriatric impairments. This study was registered at EudraCT as 2015-004985-27 and the Netherlands Trial Register as NTR6043., (© 2023 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) have a 29- to 36-fold increased risk of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) compared to healthy adults. Therefore, most guidelines recommend vaccination with the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugated vaccine (PCV13) followed 2 months later by the 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23). Because both CLL as well as immunosuppressive treatment have been identified as major determinants of immunogenicity, we aimed to assess the vaccination schedule in untreated and treated CLL patients. We quantified pneumococcal IgG concentrations against five serotypes shared across both vaccines, and against four serotypes unique to PPSV23, before and eight weeks after vaccination. In this retrospective cohort study, we included 143 CLL patients, either treated (n = 38) or naive to treatment (n = 105). While antibody concentrations increased significantly after vaccination, the overall serologic response was low (10.5%), defined as a ≥4-fold antibody increase against ≥70% of the measured serotypes, and significantly influenced by treatment status and prior lymphocyte number. The serologic protection rate, defined as an antibody concentration of ≥1.3 µg/mL for ≥70% of serotypes, was 13% in untreated and 3% in treated CLL patients. Future research should focus on vaccine regimens with a higher immunogenic potential, such as multi-dose schedules with higher-valent T cell dependent conjugated vaccines.

Management of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is changing due to considerable advances in the therapeutic armamentarium, and new therapies will possibly continue to emerge in the near future. Therefore, the CLL working group of the Dutch-Belgium Haemato-Oncology Cooperative Group for Adults in the Netherlands (HOVON) necessitated revising the Dutch CLL guidelines. The current guideline is based on the expert opinion of the HOVON CLL working group members and focusses on well-designed clinical trials taking into account efficacy with special emphasis on toxicity, treatment duration and treatment intensity. This article provides recommendations on diagnosis, treatment strategies in front-line and relapsed setting and provides supportive care measurements during novel-based therapies as well as for infectious CLL-related complications. The recommendations presented here are intended to provide guidance for the management of CLL patients in the Netherlands, and take into account the availability of treatment strategies at the time of this publication.

Background: Fixed-duration 12 cycles of venetoclax plus obinutuzumab is established as first-line treatment for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. We aimed to determine the activity and safety of 12 cycles of venetoclax consolidation after fixed-duration venetoclax plus obinutuzumab for previously untreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia who were unfit for fludarabine-based treatment, and whether this could be guided by minimal residual disease status., Methods: We conducted an open-label, randomised, parallel-group, phase 2 trial (HOVON 139/GiVe) at 25 hospitals in the Netherlands. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, had an ECOG performance status of 0-2, and were unfit for fludarabine-based treatment. All patients received two debulking cycles of intravenous obinutuzumab (100 mg on day 1, 900 mg on day 2, and 1000 mg on days 8, 15, and day 1 of cycle two), followed by fixed-duration venetoclax plus obinutuzumab for 12 cycles (six cycles of intravenous obinutuzumab 1000 mg on day 1 and 12 during 28-day cycles of oral venetoclax, starting with a 5-week ramp-up and then 400 mg once daily until completion of cycle 12). Patients were then randomly assigned (1:1) by minimal residual disease status in peripheral blood, to receive either 12 cycles of venetoclax consolidation irrespective of minimal residual disease or venetoclax consolidation only if minimal residual disease was detected at randomisation. The primary endpoint was undetectable minimal residual disease in bone marrow and no progressive disease 3 months after end of consolidation treatment (or corresponding timepoint) by intention-to-treat. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of any study drug. This is the primary endpoint analysis of this trial, which is ongoing and is registered with EudraCT (2015-004985-27)., Findings: Between Oct 28, 2016, and May 31, 2018, 70 patients were enrolled, of whom 67 (47 [70%] men and 20 [30%] women) received fixed-duration treatment and 62 were randomly assigned to receive 12 cycles of venetoclax consolidation (n=32) or minimal residual disease-guided venetoclax consolidation (n=30; one of whom was minimal residual disease positive at randomisation). Median follow-up was 35·2 months (IQR 31·5-41·3). 16 (50% [95% CI 32-68]) of 32 patients in the consolidation group and 16 (53% [34-72]) of 30 in the minimal residual disease-guided consolidation group met the primary endpoint of undetectable minimal residual disease in bone marrow and no progressive disease. 22 (69%) of 32 patients in the venetoclax consolidation group and 11 (37%) of 30 in the minimal residual disease-guided consolidation group had any adverse event (grade 2-4; mainly infections). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were infection (two [6%] of 32 patients in the consolidation group and one [3%] of 30 in the minimal residual disease-guided consolidation group) and neutropenia (two [6%] and two [7%]). There were no treatment-related deaths., Interpretation: Consolidation with venetoclax 12-cycle treatment increases the duration of known side-effects and does not prevent the loss of minimal residual disease response and subsequent risk of disease relapse., Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests APK reports personal fees from AbbVie, LAVA, Genmab, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and research funding from AbbVie, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, and Bristol Myers Squibb. EvdS reports honoraria from Janssen and Amgen; and support for attending meetings from Janssen. JD reports research funding from Roche/Genentech. SK reports personal fees from Janssen, AbbVie, Novartis, Gilead, and Celgene; and research funding from AbbVie, Janssen, AstraZeneca, and Roche/Genentech. M-DL reports personal fees from AbbVie, Janssen, and Roche; and research funding from AbbVie, Janssen, AstraZeneca, and Roche/Genentech. SHT reports personal fees from Roche, Takeda, Incyte, Kite/Gilead, and Celgene. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In recent years, considerable progress has been made in the treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and new potent drugs have become available. Therefore, the CLL working party revised the Dutch guidelines. Not only efficacy but also quality of life and socio-economic impact were taken into account in the formulation of treatment recommendations., Materials and Methods: The working party discussed a set of questions regarding diagnostic tests and treatment and wrote the draft guideline. This was evidence-based whenever possible, but in cases of low evidence, an expert-based recommendation was formulated with input of the entire working party. The draft guideline was sent to all hematologists in the Netherlands for comment and was subsequently approved., Results: Recommendations were formulated on diagnostic tests and work-up before treatment. Also, recommendations were made for treatment with fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab, bendamustine-rituximab, chlorambucil with anti-CD20 antibody, ibrutinib, idelalisib-rituximab, venetoclax, and allogeneic stem cell transplantation., Conclusion: In the revised Dutch CLL guidelines, chemo-immunotherapy is still the cornerstone of CLL treatment with novel targeted drugs for specific risk groups., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)