CLL

The Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval for zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) to treat patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL).

By giving the nod to these uses of this second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor, the FDA expanded on its previous approvals of this drug in mantle cell and marginal zone lymphoma.

“We have seen striking data from the Brukinsa development program demonstrating significant and consistent efficacy across CLL patient subtypes, including the high-risk del17p/TP53-mutated population, and regardless of treatment setting,” Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said in a press release from drug developer BeiGene.

The FDA’s decision was based on two phase 3 trials – SEQUOIA and ALPINE. The SEQUOIA trial assessed 479 patients with treatment-naive CLL/SLL who either received zanubrutinib until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or bendamustine plus rituximab for six cycles. Median progression-free survival was not reached in the zanubrutinib arm and was 33.7 months in the bendamustine plus rituximab arm (hazard ratio, 0.42).

In a separate, nonrandomized SEQUOIA cohort, investigators assessed zanubrutinib in patients with a 17p deletion and found an overall response rate of 88%. In addition, over the 25-month follow-up, the median duration of response was not reached.

The ALPINE trial included 652 patients with relapsed or refractory CLL/SLL who received either zanubrutinib or ibrutinib. The overall response rate was 80% in the zanubrutinib arm versus 73% in the ibrutinib arm, and the median duration of response was not reached in either arm over the 14-month follow-up period. Median progression-free survival was not reached in the zanubrutinib arm and was 35 months in the ibrutinib group.

Dr. Brown, a lead investigator on both drug trials, suggested that, given the improvements observed in progression-free survival, zanubrutinib could become the standard of care in this setting.

In the ALPINE trial, treatment discontinuation rate was lower among patients receiving zanubrutinib (26%) versus ibrutinib (41.2%), with most discontinuations a result of adverse events or progressive disease.

And across both trials, the most common adverse reactions were decreased neutrophil count (42%), upper respiratory tract infection (39%), decreased platelet count (34%), hemorrhage (30%), and musculoskeletal pain (30%).

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval for zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) to treat patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL).

By giving the nod to these uses of this second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor, the FDA expanded on its previous approvals of this drug in mantle cell and marginal zone lymphoma.

“We have seen striking data from the Brukinsa development program demonstrating significant and consistent efficacy across CLL patient subtypes, including the high-risk del17p/TP53-mutated population, and regardless of treatment setting,” Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said in a press release from drug developer BeiGene.

The FDA’s decision was based on two phase 3 trials – SEQUOIA and ALPINE. The SEQUOIA trial assessed 479 patients with treatment-naive CLL/SLL who either received zanubrutinib until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or bendamustine plus rituximab for six cycles. Median progression-free survival was not reached in the zanubrutinib arm and was 33.7 months in the bendamustine plus rituximab arm (hazard ratio, 0.42).

In a separate, nonrandomized SEQUOIA cohort, investigators assessed zanubrutinib in patients with a 17p deletion and found an overall response rate of 88%. In addition, over the 25-month follow-up, the median duration of response was not reached.

The ALPINE trial included 652 patients with relapsed or refractory CLL/SLL who received either zanubrutinib or ibrutinib. The overall response rate was 80% in the zanubrutinib arm versus 73% in the ibrutinib arm, and the median duration of response was not reached in either arm over the 14-month follow-up period. Median progression-free survival was not reached in the zanubrutinib arm and was 35 months in the ibrutinib group.

Dr. Brown, a lead investigator on both drug trials, suggested that, given the improvements observed in progression-free survival, zanubrutinib could become the standard of care in this setting.

In the ALPINE trial, treatment discontinuation rate was lower among patients receiving zanubrutinib (26%) versus ibrutinib (41.2%), with most discontinuations a result of adverse events or progressive disease.

And across both trials, the most common adverse reactions were decreased neutrophil count (42%), upper respiratory tract infection (39%), decreased platelet count (34%), hemorrhage (30%), and musculoskeletal pain (30%).

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval for zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) to treat patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL).

By giving the nod to these uses of this second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor, the FDA expanded on its previous approvals of this drug in mantle cell and marginal zone lymphoma.

“We have seen striking data from the Brukinsa development program demonstrating significant and consistent efficacy across CLL patient subtypes, including the high-risk del17p/TP53-mutated population, and regardless of treatment setting,” Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said in a press release from drug developer BeiGene.

The FDA’s decision was based on two phase 3 trials – SEQUOIA and ALPINE. The SEQUOIA trial assessed 479 patients with treatment-naive CLL/SLL who either received zanubrutinib until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or bendamustine plus rituximab for six cycles. Median progression-free survival was not reached in the zanubrutinib arm and was 33.7 months in the bendamustine plus rituximab arm (hazard ratio, 0.42).

In a separate, nonrandomized SEQUOIA cohort, investigators assessed zanubrutinib in patients with a 17p deletion and found an overall response rate of 88%. In addition, over the 25-month follow-up, the median duration of response was not reached.

The ALPINE trial included 652 patients with relapsed or refractory CLL/SLL who received either zanubrutinib or ibrutinib. The overall response rate was 80% in the zanubrutinib arm versus 73% in the ibrutinib arm, and the median duration of response was not reached in either arm over the 14-month follow-up period. Median progression-free survival was not reached in the zanubrutinib arm and was 35 months in the ibrutinib group.

Dr. Brown, a lead investigator on both drug trials, suggested that, given the improvements observed in progression-free survival, zanubrutinib could become the standard of care in this setting.

In the ALPINE trial, treatment discontinuation rate was lower among patients receiving zanubrutinib (26%) versus ibrutinib (41.2%), with most discontinuations a result of adverse events or progressive disease.

And across both trials, the most common adverse reactions were decreased neutrophil count (42%), upper respiratory tract infection (39%), decreased platelet count (34%), hemorrhage (30%), and musculoskeletal pain (30%).

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) demonstrated superior efficacy and safety over ibrutinib in patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), according to results of the randomized, phase 3 ALPINE study.

Progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly higher for zanubrutinib versus ibrutinib, according to investigator Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

Cardiac safety was also better with zanubrutinib, the second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor, compared to ibrutinib, the first-in-class Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Dr. Brown noted that ibrutinib has “transformed CLL therapy,” despite toxicity and pharmacokinetics issues which limit its use.

Even in patients with high-risk CLL, there was a clear benefit of zanubrutinib over ibrutinib, according to Dr. Brown, who presented final results of ALPINE in a late-breaking clinical trials session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“I am not aware of a patient population in which I would select ibrutinib as compared to zanubrutinib,” Dr. Brown said in a press briefing on the study at the meeting.

Although not currently indicated in CLL, zanubrutinib received Food and Drug Administration approval for treatment of relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma in late 2019, followed by indications in Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia and relapsed/refractory marginal zone lymphoma in 2021.

But the choice of zanubrutinib over ibrutinib in relapsed/refractory CLL is already supported in current clinical practice guidelines, Dr. Brown said.

The most recent CLL guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), updated Aug 30, describe zanubrutinib as a “preferred” regimen, while ibrutinib falls into the category of an “other recommended regimen.”

The zanubrutinib recommendation is category 1, meaning that it is based on high-level evidence, with uniform consensus that the intervention in appropriate, according to NCCN.
 

Improved safety, efficacy

Side effects have proved to be an Achilles heel for ibrutinib, which first received an FDA approval in CLL in 2014.

Across CLL studies, between 16% and 23% of CLL patients have discontinued ibrutinib treatment because of toxicities, Dr. Brown, the ALPINE investigator, said at the ASH meeting.

In addition, pharmacokinetic data suggest that at certain times between doses, the amount of ibrutinib in a patient’s system may drop below the level needed to effectively inhibit the target protein, Bruton’s tyrosine kinase.

By contrast, zanubrutinib is designed to have greater specificity for that target protein, Dr. Brown said. Furthermore, the pharmacokinetic studies have demonstrated concentrations of drug consistently above the level needed for effective inhibition – an effect that suggests potential for greater efficacy.

In the ALPINE study, 652 patients with relapsed/refractory CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) were randomized to zanubrutinib 160 mg twice daily or ibrutinib once daily.

With a mean follow-up of 29.6 months, zanubrutinib PFS was significantly superior to ibrutinib, according to Dr. Brown, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.65 and 95% confidence interval (CI) between 0.49 and 0.86.

Estimated PFS at 2 years was 79.5% in the zanubrutinib arm and 67.3% for ibrutinib, according to the ALPINE data presented.

However, the difference in PFS in favor of zanubrutinib was even more pronounced in high-risk patients, according to Dr. Brown. Among patients with chromosome 17 deletion or TP53 mutation, the PFS at 2 years was 77.6% for zanubrutinib and just 55.7% for ibrutinib, with an HR of 0.52 and 95% CI of 0.30 to 0.88.

Zanubrutinib’s safety profile was superior to ibrutinib, with serious adverse rates of 42.0% and 50.0%, respectively, and significantly lower cardiac toxicity for zanubrutinib, according to the investigators’ presentation.

Only 5.2% of patients on zanubrutinib had atrial fibrillation/flutter on study, compared to 13.3% for ibrutinib (P = .0004), while rates of serious cardiac adverse events were 1.9% and 7.7% , respectively.
 

Impressive benefit

The PFS benefit of zanubrutinib over ibrutinib was “quite impressive” in ALPINE, and in line with pharmacokinetic differences observed between Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors, said Stefan K. Barta, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

“In the lab, [second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors] do hit the target better, but better doesn’t necessarily translate into good outcomes for patients – that’s a different question,” Dr. Barta said in an interview

However, the safety findings of ALPINE are particularly relevant, according to Dr. Barta, since today, many patients with CLL will receive treatment with Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors indefinitely.

In ALPINE results presented at ASH, zanubrutinib-treated patients had lower rates of atrial fibrillation and serious cardiac events, as well as zero deaths due to cardiac events, compared to six deaths in the ibrutinib group.

“Side effects make a big difference if you are on something for a long time,” Dr. Barta said. “It’s certainly a huge difference already, but then if you get the added bonus of also having an improvement in PFS, that’s a win-win.”

Dr. Brown reported disclosures related to Abbvie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Juno/Celgene, Catapult, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Morphosys AG, Novartis, Pfizer, Rigel, Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, Verastem/Secura Bio, Sun, TG Therapeutics, Invectys, Grifols Worldwide Operations, Hutchmed, iOnctura, and Pharmacyclics.

Zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) demonstrated superior efficacy and safety over ibrutinib in patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), according to results of the randomized, phase 3 ALPINE study.

Progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly higher for zanubrutinib versus ibrutinib, according to investigator Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

Cardiac safety was also better with zanubrutinib, the second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor, compared to ibrutinib, the first-in-class Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Dr. Brown noted that ibrutinib has “transformed CLL therapy,” despite toxicity and pharmacokinetics issues which limit its use.

Even in patients with high-risk CLL, there was a clear benefit of zanubrutinib over ibrutinib, according to Dr. Brown, who presented final results of ALPINE in a late-breaking clinical trials session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“I am not aware of a patient population in which I would select ibrutinib as compared to zanubrutinib,” Dr. Brown said in a press briefing on the study at the meeting.

Although not currently indicated in CLL, zanubrutinib received Food and Drug Administration approval for treatment of relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma in late 2019, followed by indications in Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia and relapsed/refractory marginal zone lymphoma in 2021.

But the choice of zanubrutinib over ibrutinib in relapsed/refractory CLL is already supported in current clinical practice guidelines, Dr. Brown said.

The most recent CLL guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), updated Aug 30, describe zanubrutinib as a “preferred” regimen, while ibrutinib falls into the category of an “other recommended regimen.”

The zanubrutinib recommendation is category 1, meaning that it is based on high-level evidence, with uniform consensus that the intervention in appropriate, according to NCCN.
 

Improved safety, efficacy

Side effects have proved to be an Achilles heel for ibrutinib, which first received an FDA approval in CLL in 2014.

Across CLL studies, between 16% and 23% of CLL patients have discontinued ibrutinib treatment because of toxicities, Dr. Brown, the ALPINE investigator, said at the ASH meeting.

In addition, pharmacokinetic data suggest that at certain times between doses, the amount of ibrutinib in a patient’s system may drop below the level needed to effectively inhibit the target protein, Bruton’s tyrosine kinase.

By contrast, zanubrutinib is designed to have greater specificity for that target protein, Dr. Brown said. Furthermore, the pharmacokinetic studies have demonstrated concentrations of drug consistently above the level needed for effective inhibition – an effect that suggests potential for greater efficacy.

In the ALPINE study, 652 patients with relapsed/refractory CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) were randomized to zanubrutinib 160 mg twice daily or ibrutinib once daily.

With a mean follow-up of 29.6 months, zanubrutinib PFS was significantly superior to ibrutinib, according to Dr. Brown, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.65 and 95% confidence interval (CI) between 0.49 and 0.86.

Estimated PFS at 2 years was 79.5% in the zanubrutinib arm and 67.3% for ibrutinib, according to the ALPINE data presented.

However, the difference in PFS in favor of zanubrutinib was even more pronounced in high-risk patients, according to Dr. Brown. Among patients with chromosome 17 deletion or TP53 mutation, the PFS at 2 years was 77.6% for zanubrutinib and just 55.7% for ibrutinib, with an HR of 0.52 and 95% CI of 0.30 to 0.88.

Zanubrutinib’s safety profile was superior to ibrutinib, with serious adverse rates of 42.0% and 50.0%, respectively, and significantly lower cardiac toxicity for zanubrutinib, according to the investigators’ presentation.

Only 5.2% of patients on zanubrutinib had atrial fibrillation/flutter on study, compared to 13.3% for ibrutinib (P = .0004), while rates of serious cardiac adverse events were 1.9% and 7.7% , respectively.
 

Impressive benefit

The PFS benefit of zanubrutinib over ibrutinib was “quite impressive” in ALPINE, and in line with pharmacokinetic differences observed between Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors, said Stefan K. Barta, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

“In the lab, [second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors] do hit the target better, but better doesn’t necessarily translate into good outcomes for patients – that’s a different question,” Dr. Barta said in an interview

However, the safety findings of ALPINE are particularly relevant, according to Dr. Barta, since today, many patients with CLL will receive treatment with Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors indefinitely.

In ALPINE results presented at ASH, zanubrutinib-treated patients had lower rates of atrial fibrillation and serious cardiac events, as well as zero deaths due to cardiac events, compared to six deaths in the ibrutinib group.

“Side effects make a big difference if you are on something for a long time,” Dr. Barta said. “It’s certainly a huge difference already, but then if you get the added bonus of also having an improvement in PFS, that’s a win-win.”

Dr. Brown reported disclosures related to Abbvie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Juno/Celgene, Catapult, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Morphosys AG, Novartis, Pfizer, Rigel, Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, Verastem/Secura Bio, Sun, TG Therapeutics, Invectys, Grifols Worldwide Operations, Hutchmed, iOnctura, and Pharmacyclics.

Zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) demonstrated superior efficacy and safety over ibrutinib in patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), according to results of the randomized, phase 3 ALPINE study.

Progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly higher for zanubrutinib versus ibrutinib, according to investigator Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

Cardiac safety was also better with zanubrutinib, the second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor, compared to ibrutinib, the first-in-class Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Dr. Brown noted that ibrutinib has “transformed CLL therapy,” despite toxicity and pharmacokinetics issues which limit its use.

Even in patients with high-risk CLL, there was a clear benefit of zanubrutinib over ibrutinib, according to Dr. Brown, who presented final results of ALPINE in a late-breaking clinical trials session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“I am not aware of a patient population in which I would select ibrutinib as compared to zanubrutinib,” Dr. Brown said in a press briefing on the study at the meeting.

Although not currently indicated in CLL, zanubrutinib received Food and Drug Administration approval for treatment of relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma in late 2019, followed by indications in Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia and relapsed/refractory marginal zone lymphoma in 2021.

But the choice of zanubrutinib over ibrutinib in relapsed/refractory CLL is already supported in current clinical practice guidelines, Dr. Brown said.

The most recent CLL guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), updated Aug 30, describe zanubrutinib as a “preferred” regimen, while ibrutinib falls into the category of an “other recommended regimen.”

The zanubrutinib recommendation is category 1, meaning that it is based on high-level evidence, with uniform consensus that the intervention in appropriate, according to NCCN.
 

Improved safety, efficacy

Side effects have proved to be an Achilles heel for ibrutinib, which first received an FDA approval in CLL in 2014.

Across CLL studies, between 16% and 23% of CLL patients have discontinued ibrutinib treatment because of toxicities, Dr. Brown, the ALPINE investigator, said at the ASH meeting.

In addition, pharmacokinetic data suggest that at certain times between doses, the amount of ibrutinib in a patient’s system may drop below the level needed to effectively inhibit the target protein, Bruton’s tyrosine kinase.

By contrast, zanubrutinib is designed to have greater specificity for that target protein, Dr. Brown said. Furthermore, the pharmacokinetic studies have demonstrated concentrations of drug consistently above the level needed for effective inhibition – an effect that suggests potential for greater efficacy.

In the ALPINE study, 652 patients with relapsed/refractory CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) were randomized to zanubrutinib 160 mg twice daily or ibrutinib once daily.

With a mean follow-up of 29.6 months, zanubrutinib PFS was significantly superior to ibrutinib, according to Dr. Brown, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.65 and 95% confidence interval (CI) between 0.49 and 0.86.

Estimated PFS at 2 years was 79.5% in the zanubrutinib arm and 67.3% for ibrutinib, according to the ALPINE data presented.

However, the difference in PFS in favor of zanubrutinib was even more pronounced in high-risk patients, according to Dr. Brown. Among patients with chromosome 17 deletion or TP53 mutation, the PFS at 2 years was 77.6% for zanubrutinib and just 55.7% for ibrutinib, with an HR of 0.52 and 95% CI of 0.30 to 0.88.

Zanubrutinib’s safety profile was superior to ibrutinib, with serious adverse rates of 42.0% and 50.0%, respectively, and significantly lower cardiac toxicity for zanubrutinib, according to the investigators’ presentation.

Only 5.2% of patients on zanubrutinib had atrial fibrillation/flutter on study, compared to 13.3% for ibrutinib (P = .0004), while rates of serious cardiac adverse events were 1.9% and 7.7% , respectively.
 

Impressive benefit

The PFS benefit of zanubrutinib over ibrutinib was “quite impressive” in ALPINE, and in line with pharmacokinetic differences observed between Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors, said Stefan K. Barta, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

“In the lab, [second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors] do hit the target better, but better doesn’t necessarily translate into good outcomes for patients – that’s a different question,” Dr. Barta said in an interview

However, the safety findings of ALPINE are particularly relevant, according to Dr. Barta, since today, many patients with CLL will receive treatment with Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors indefinitely.

In ALPINE results presented at ASH, zanubrutinib-treated patients had lower rates of atrial fibrillation and serious cardiac events, as well as zero deaths due to cardiac events, compared to six deaths in the ibrutinib group.

“Side effects make a big difference if you are on something for a long time,” Dr. Barta said. “It’s certainly a huge difference already, but then if you get the added bonus of also having an improvement in PFS, that’s a win-win.”

Dr. Brown reported disclosures related to Abbvie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Juno/Celgene, Catapult, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Morphosys AG, Novartis, Pfizer, Rigel, Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, Verastem/Secura Bio, Sun, TG Therapeutics, Invectys, Grifols Worldwide Operations, Hutchmed, iOnctura, and Pharmacyclics.

As a severe shortage drags on and prices soar, transplant centers have been struggling to cope with the paucity and price of fludarabine, a chemotherapy drug that has become an essential component of stem-cell transplants for some blood cancers.

At Oregon Health and Science University, for example, an extensive algorithm now offers guidance through a thicket of alternative options, from adjusting doses and using substitutes to delaying treatment. Meanwhile, some institutions have enlisted ethicists and attorneys to guide their decisions on which patients will have to wait for potentially life-saving treatment.

Even as surgeons turn to alternatives, advocates for transplantation in hematology have warned about the potential for harm.

“This continued fludarabine shortage is forcing centers to use non–[Food and Drug Administration] approved lymphodepleting regimens that may negatively impact the success of a possibly lifesaving CAR-T therapy,” Brenda Sandmaier, MD, president of the Transplantation and Cellular Therapy American Society, and Jeffery Auletta, MD, a senior vice president with the National Marrow Donor, said in a June 30 letter to the FDA. The physicians added that they “request the FDA to take immediate action on this critical shortage. Many centers currently have no ability to purchase fludarabine through their suppliers and have no estimated time frame for return of availability. Other centers are limited to mere weeks of supply, with continued uncertainty of future availability.”

In October, less than 4 months after that letter was sent, one of the manufacturers of fludarabine – Areva Pharmaceuticals – marked up the price of fludarabine to $2,736 per vial, 10-20 times that of two other makers of the drug.
 

In new treatment era, fludarabine remains crucial

In 2015, ASH Clinical News – a publication of the American Society of Hematology – invited a pair of hematologists to discuss whether fludarabine is “dead” as a front-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). “Fludarabine is not dead yet, but the data from those and other long-term trials may be the final nail in its coffin,” said Mitchell Smith, MD, PhD, who was then with Cleveland Clinic and now works for George Washington University.

Seven years later, the role of fludarabine as a long-term chemotherapeutic agent in blood cancer has definitely evolved. Just as oncologists predicted back in 2015, “the use of fludarabine declined for the primary management of CLL and other B cell malignancies, due to the development of targeted therapies such as BTK inhibitors, venetoclax, and other agents,” Memorial Sloan Kettering hematologic oncologist Anthony Mato, MD, said in an interview.

But the drug “remains a critical agent for conditioning the immune system for cellular therapies such as allogeneic stem cell transplantation and CAR-T cells,” Dr. Mato said.

Nirav Shah, MD, a hematologic oncologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, explained in an interview that “conditioning” in the stem-cell transplant context refers to “wiping out” the immune system, allowing the donor’s stem cells to avoid rejection. “It’s a commonly used drug,” he said, “and shortage was not really a concern that people faced until this year.”
 

As shortage continues, price hike brings yet another hit

The first reports of fludarabine being in short supply surfaced about a year ago. According to a Nov. 2 update from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, five companies now manufacture fludarabine, and all of them report shortages. Areva, which dramatically raised its price, is accepting direct orders. Leucadia and Teva don’t know when the drug will be available; and Fresenius Kabi and Sagent expect availability in early 2023.

Areva, Leucadia, and Teva didn’t provide reasons for their shortages. Fresenius Kabi blamed increased demand, and Sagent pointed to manufacturing delays. Pfizer, another manufacturer, had a tiny market share and stopped making fludarabine in 2020, according to the pharmacist society.

In a May 12 press release, a company called Lannett announced it would take over U.S. distribution of fludarabine for Areva and suggested that the supply shortage would be lucrative: “While total U.S. sales for the 12 months ended March 2022 of Fludarabine Phosphate for injection, USP, 50 mg/2mL were approximately $4.9 million, according to IQVIA, the current market value is believed to be higher due to the recent market disruptions.”

“We were all shocked and outraged when Areva came out with the new, dramatically higher prices,” Bill Greene, PharmD, chief pharmaceutical officer at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, said in a recent interview.

In a prior interview, conducted during the summer of 2022, Dr. Greene addressed the topic of hematologic drug shortages. Back then he noted that he was seeking emergency supplies of fludarabine, since all five manufacturers reported having no stock available.

Interviewed again in November 2022, Dr. Greene noted that the hospital “had been able to stay ahead of the need and meet the needs of our patients” through arrangements with Teva and Fresenius Kabi. “In cases of patient need, we certainly are willing to pay a higher product price if that’s what it takes to get it – assuming the product is a quality product.”

The Medical College of Wisconsin’s Dr. Shah said insurers may refuse to cover the higher price, sticking medical institutions with the bill.
 

Alternatives abound, but do they suffice?

There is some good news on the fludarabine shortage front. Areva recently alerted providers that it was releasing fludarabine from non-FDA-approved suppliers with the agency’s permission, and Accord Healthcare said it received permission to sell fludarabine that was marketed in Canada.

Another option – oral fludarabine instead of the standard IV version – remains unavailable in the United States. According to the June letter to the FDA from the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy and National Marrow Donor Program, it “might be an appropriate alternative” and is available in Europe, Canada and Australia.

The letter warns that “transplant centers have also been forced to move away from fludarabine-based regimens and use alternative drugs such as cladribine or clofarabine, which are both significantly less studied and rely on single-center experience or limited phase II data. ... The limited availability of fludarabine is leading to the use of alternative regimens that are known to be more toxic or understudied alternatives with unknown long-term clinical effects or harms to patients.”

In a November 2022 report published in Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, Dr. Shah and colleagues noted that institutions are adopting strategies such as “(1) pharmacy dose banding and rounding down to save vials, even if a >5% reduction was required; (2) administering all dosing of fludarabine based not on actual body weight but on adjusted body weight; and (3) switching the billing of fludarabine from single-dose vials to billing by dose delivery.”

If the shortage continues, “it becomes necessary for centers to establish algorithms for management now,” they wrote. “Substitution of such agents as bendamustine and cladribine can be considered ... [and] another acceptable solution could be the substitution of clofarabine for fludarabine.”

Still, there are many unanswered questions. “The challenge is that these alternative regimens have not been extensively studied in a large population,” Dr. Shah said. “You have to be more mindful of potential side effects and risks, and the biggest concern is efficacy. Is changing the drug going to be detrimental to a patient’s outcome? To be honest, we don’t know the answer to that.”

Dr. Mato disclosed ties with TG Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Acerta, Adaptive Biotechnologies, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BioPharma, BMS, Curio, Dava, DTRM, Genentech, Genmab, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, LOXO, Medscape, Nurix, Octapharma, PER, PerView, and Pfizer. Dr. Greene and Dr. Shah have no disclosures.

As a severe shortage drags on and prices soar, transplant centers have been struggling to cope with the paucity and price of fludarabine, a chemotherapy drug that has become an essential component of stem-cell transplants for some blood cancers.

At Oregon Health and Science University, for example, an extensive algorithm now offers guidance through a thicket of alternative options, from adjusting doses and using substitutes to delaying treatment. Meanwhile, some institutions have enlisted ethicists and attorneys to guide their decisions on which patients will have to wait for potentially life-saving treatment.

Even as surgeons turn to alternatives, advocates for transplantation in hematology have warned about the potential for harm.

“This continued fludarabine shortage is forcing centers to use non–[Food and Drug Administration] approved lymphodepleting regimens that may negatively impact the success of a possibly lifesaving CAR-T therapy,” Brenda Sandmaier, MD, president of the Transplantation and Cellular Therapy American Society, and Jeffery Auletta, MD, a senior vice president with the National Marrow Donor, said in a June 30 letter to the FDA. The physicians added that they “request the FDA to take immediate action on this critical shortage. Many centers currently have no ability to purchase fludarabine through their suppliers and have no estimated time frame for return of availability. Other centers are limited to mere weeks of supply, with continued uncertainty of future availability.”

In October, less than 4 months after that letter was sent, one of the manufacturers of fludarabine – Areva Pharmaceuticals – marked up the price of fludarabine to $2,736 per vial, 10-20 times that of two other makers of the drug.
 

In new treatment era, fludarabine remains crucial

In 2015, ASH Clinical News – a publication of the American Society of Hematology – invited a pair of hematologists to discuss whether fludarabine is “dead” as a front-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). “Fludarabine is not dead yet, but the data from those and other long-term trials may be the final nail in its coffin,” said Mitchell Smith, MD, PhD, who was then with Cleveland Clinic and now works for George Washington University.

Seven years later, the role of fludarabine as a long-term chemotherapeutic agent in blood cancer has definitely evolved. Just as oncologists predicted back in 2015, “the use of fludarabine declined for the primary management of CLL and other B cell malignancies, due to the development of targeted therapies such as BTK inhibitors, venetoclax, and other agents,” Memorial Sloan Kettering hematologic oncologist Anthony Mato, MD, said in an interview.

But the drug “remains a critical agent for conditioning the immune system for cellular therapies such as allogeneic stem cell transplantation and CAR-T cells,” Dr. Mato said.

Nirav Shah, MD, a hematologic oncologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, explained in an interview that “conditioning” in the stem-cell transplant context refers to “wiping out” the immune system, allowing the donor’s stem cells to avoid rejection. “It’s a commonly used drug,” he said, “and shortage was not really a concern that people faced until this year.”
 

As shortage continues, price hike brings yet another hit

The first reports of fludarabine being in short supply surfaced about a year ago. According to a Nov. 2 update from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, five companies now manufacture fludarabine, and all of them report shortages. Areva, which dramatically raised its price, is accepting direct orders. Leucadia and Teva don’t know when the drug will be available; and Fresenius Kabi and Sagent expect availability in early 2023.

Areva, Leucadia, and Teva didn’t provide reasons for their shortages. Fresenius Kabi blamed increased demand, and Sagent pointed to manufacturing delays. Pfizer, another manufacturer, had a tiny market share and stopped making fludarabine in 2020, according to the pharmacist society.

In a May 12 press release, a company called Lannett announced it would take over U.S. distribution of fludarabine for Areva and suggested that the supply shortage would be lucrative: “While total U.S. sales for the 12 months ended March 2022 of Fludarabine Phosphate for injection, USP, 50 mg/2mL were approximately $4.9 million, according to IQVIA, the current market value is believed to be higher due to the recent market disruptions.”

“We were all shocked and outraged when Areva came out with the new, dramatically higher prices,” Bill Greene, PharmD, chief pharmaceutical officer at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, said in a recent interview.

In a prior interview, conducted during the summer of 2022, Dr. Greene addressed the topic of hematologic drug shortages. Back then he noted that he was seeking emergency supplies of fludarabine, since all five manufacturers reported having no stock available.

Interviewed again in November 2022, Dr. Greene noted that the hospital “had been able to stay ahead of the need and meet the needs of our patients” through arrangements with Teva and Fresenius Kabi. “In cases of patient need, we certainly are willing to pay a higher product price if that’s what it takes to get it – assuming the product is a quality product.”

The Medical College of Wisconsin’s Dr. Shah said insurers may refuse to cover the higher price, sticking medical institutions with the bill.
 

Alternatives abound, but do they suffice?

There is some good news on the fludarabine shortage front. Areva recently alerted providers that it was releasing fludarabine from non-FDA-approved suppliers with the agency’s permission, and Accord Healthcare said it received permission to sell fludarabine that was marketed in Canada.

Another option – oral fludarabine instead of the standard IV version – remains unavailable in the United States. According to the June letter to the FDA from the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy and National Marrow Donor Program, it “might be an appropriate alternative” and is available in Europe, Canada and Australia.

The letter warns that “transplant centers have also been forced to move away from fludarabine-based regimens and use alternative drugs such as cladribine or clofarabine, which are both significantly less studied and rely on single-center experience or limited phase II data. ... The limited availability of fludarabine is leading to the use of alternative regimens that are known to be more toxic or understudied alternatives with unknown long-term clinical effects or harms to patients.”

In a November 2022 report published in Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, Dr. Shah and colleagues noted that institutions are adopting strategies such as “(1) pharmacy dose banding and rounding down to save vials, even if a >5% reduction was required; (2) administering all dosing of fludarabine based not on actual body weight but on adjusted body weight; and (3) switching the billing of fludarabine from single-dose vials to billing by dose delivery.”

If the shortage continues, “it becomes necessary for centers to establish algorithms for management now,” they wrote. “Substitution of such agents as bendamustine and cladribine can be considered ... [and] another acceptable solution could be the substitution of clofarabine for fludarabine.”

Still, there are many unanswered questions. “The challenge is that these alternative regimens have not been extensively studied in a large population,” Dr. Shah said. “You have to be more mindful of potential side effects and risks, and the biggest concern is efficacy. Is changing the drug going to be detrimental to a patient’s outcome? To be honest, we don’t know the answer to that.”

Dr. Mato disclosed ties with TG Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Acerta, Adaptive Biotechnologies, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BioPharma, BMS, Curio, Dava, DTRM, Genentech, Genmab, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, LOXO, Medscape, Nurix, Octapharma, PER, PerView, and Pfizer. Dr. Greene and Dr. Shah have no disclosures.

As a severe shortage drags on and prices soar, transplant centers have been struggling to cope with the paucity and price of fludarabine, a chemotherapy drug that has become an essential component of stem-cell transplants for some blood cancers.

At Oregon Health and Science University, for example, an extensive algorithm now offers guidance through a thicket of alternative options, from adjusting doses and using substitutes to delaying treatment. Meanwhile, some institutions have enlisted ethicists and attorneys to guide their decisions on which patients will have to wait for potentially life-saving treatment.

Even as surgeons turn to alternatives, advocates for transplantation in hematology have warned about the potential for harm.

“This continued fludarabine shortage is forcing centers to use non–[Food and Drug Administration] approved lymphodepleting regimens that may negatively impact the success of a possibly lifesaving CAR-T therapy,” Brenda Sandmaier, MD, president of the Transplantation and Cellular Therapy American Society, and Jeffery Auletta, MD, a senior vice president with the National Marrow Donor, said in a June 30 letter to the FDA. The physicians added that they “request the FDA to take immediate action on this critical shortage. Many centers currently have no ability to purchase fludarabine through their suppliers and have no estimated time frame for return of availability. Other centers are limited to mere weeks of supply, with continued uncertainty of future availability.”

In October, less than 4 months after that letter was sent, one of the manufacturers of fludarabine – Areva Pharmaceuticals – marked up the price of fludarabine to $2,736 per vial, 10-20 times that of two other makers of the drug.
 

In new treatment era, fludarabine remains crucial

In 2015, ASH Clinical News – a publication of the American Society of Hematology – invited a pair of hematologists to discuss whether fludarabine is “dead” as a front-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). “Fludarabine is not dead yet, but the data from those and other long-term trials may be the final nail in its coffin,” said Mitchell Smith, MD, PhD, who was then with Cleveland Clinic and now works for George Washington University.

Seven years later, the role of fludarabine as a long-term chemotherapeutic agent in blood cancer has definitely evolved. Just as oncologists predicted back in 2015, “the use of fludarabine declined for the primary management of CLL and other B cell malignancies, due to the development of targeted therapies such as BTK inhibitors, venetoclax, and other agents,” Memorial Sloan Kettering hematologic oncologist Anthony Mato, MD, said in an interview.

But the drug “remains a critical agent for conditioning the immune system for cellular therapies such as allogeneic stem cell transplantation and CAR-T cells,” Dr. Mato said.

Nirav Shah, MD, a hematologic oncologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, explained in an interview that “conditioning” in the stem-cell transplant context refers to “wiping out” the immune system, allowing the donor’s stem cells to avoid rejection. “It’s a commonly used drug,” he said, “and shortage was not really a concern that people faced until this year.”
 

As shortage continues, price hike brings yet another hit

The first reports of fludarabine being in short supply surfaced about a year ago. According to a Nov. 2 update from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, five companies now manufacture fludarabine, and all of them report shortages. Areva, which dramatically raised its price, is accepting direct orders. Leucadia and Teva don’t know when the drug will be available; and Fresenius Kabi and Sagent expect availability in early 2023.

Areva, Leucadia, and Teva didn’t provide reasons for their shortages. Fresenius Kabi blamed increased demand, and Sagent pointed to manufacturing delays. Pfizer, another manufacturer, had a tiny market share and stopped making fludarabine in 2020, according to the pharmacist society.

In a May 12 press release, a company called Lannett announced it would take over U.S. distribution of fludarabine for Areva and suggested that the supply shortage would be lucrative: “While total U.S. sales for the 12 months ended March 2022 of Fludarabine Phosphate for injection, USP, 50 mg/2mL were approximately $4.9 million, according to IQVIA, the current market value is believed to be higher due to the recent market disruptions.”

“We were all shocked and outraged when Areva came out with the new, dramatically higher prices,” Bill Greene, PharmD, chief pharmaceutical officer at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, said in a recent interview.

In a prior interview, conducted during the summer of 2022, Dr. Greene addressed the topic of hematologic drug shortages. Back then he noted that he was seeking emergency supplies of fludarabine, since all five manufacturers reported having no stock available.

Interviewed again in November 2022, Dr. Greene noted that the hospital “had been able to stay ahead of the need and meet the needs of our patients” through arrangements with Teva and Fresenius Kabi. “In cases of patient need, we certainly are willing to pay a higher product price if that’s what it takes to get it – assuming the product is a quality product.”

The Medical College of Wisconsin’s Dr. Shah said insurers may refuse to cover the higher price, sticking medical institutions with the bill.
 

Alternatives abound, but do they suffice?

There is some good news on the fludarabine shortage front. Areva recently alerted providers that it was releasing fludarabine from non-FDA-approved suppliers with the agency’s permission, and Accord Healthcare said it received permission to sell fludarabine that was marketed in Canada.

Another option – oral fludarabine instead of the standard IV version – remains unavailable in the United States. According to the June letter to the FDA from the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy and National Marrow Donor Program, it “might be an appropriate alternative” and is available in Europe, Canada and Australia.

The letter warns that “transplant centers have also been forced to move away from fludarabine-based regimens and use alternative drugs such as cladribine or clofarabine, which are both significantly less studied and rely on single-center experience or limited phase II data. ... The limited availability of fludarabine is leading to the use of alternative regimens that are known to be more toxic or understudied alternatives with unknown long-term clinical effects or harms to patients.”

In a November 2022 report published in Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, Dr. Shah and colleagues noted that institutions are adopting strategies such as “(1) pharmacy dose banding and rounding down to save vials, even if a >5% reduction was required; (2) administering all dosing of fludarabine based not on actual body weight but on adjusted body weight; and (3) switching the billing of fludarabine from single-dose vials to billing by dose delivery.”

If the shortage continues, “it becomes necessary for centers to establish algorithms for management now,” they wrote. “Substitution of such agents as bendamustine and cladribine can be considered ... [and] another acceptable solution could be the substitution of clofarabine for fludarabine.”

Still, there are many unanswered questions. “The challenge is that these alternative regimens have not been extensively studied in a large population,” Dr. Shah said. “You have to be more mindful of potential side effects and risks, and the biggest concern is efficacy. Is changing the drug going to be detrimental to a patient’s outcome? To be honest, we don’t know the answer to that.”

Dr. Mato disclosed ties with TG Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Acerta, Adaptive Biotechnologies, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BioPharma, BMS, Curio, Dava, DTRM, Genentech, Genmab, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, LOXO, Medscape, Nurix, Octapharma, PER, PerView, and Pfizer. Dr. Greene and Dr. Shah have no disclosures.

The Food and Drug Administration approved AstraZeneca’s new tablet formulation of acalabrutinib (Calquence) for all current indications of the capsule version.

These include adult patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, small lymphocytic lymphoma, and relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma.

Approval of the tablet formulation of the selective Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor was based on the ELEVATE-PLUS trials, which showed bioequivalence with the capsule. The tablet had the same efficacy and safety profile with the same dosing strength and schedule, AstraZeneca said in a press release.

The benefit of the tablet formulation is that patients with acid reflux and other problems can take it with proton pump inhibitors, antacids, and H2-receptor antagonists, the company noted.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration approved AstraZeneca’s new tablet formulation of acalabrutinib (Calquence) for all current indications of the capsule version.

These include adult patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, small lymphocytic lymphoma, and relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma.

Approval of the tablet formulation of the selective Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor was based on the ELEVATE-PLUS trials, which showed bioequivalence with the capsule. The tablet had the same efficacy and safety profile with the same dosing strength and schedule, AstraZeneca said in a press release.

The benefit of the tablet formulation is that patients with acid reflux and other problems can take it with proton pump inhibitors, antacids, and H2-receptor antagonists, the company noted.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration approved AstraZeneca’s new tablet formulation of acalabrutinib (Calquence) for all current indications of the capsule version.

These include adult patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, small lymphocytic lymphoma, and relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma.

Approval of the tablet formulation of the selective Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor was based on the ELEVATE-PLUS trials, which showed bioequivalence with the capsule. The tablet had the same efficacy and safety profile with the same dosing strength and schedule, AstraZeneca said in a press release.

The benefit of the tablet formulation is that patients with acid reflux and other problems can take it with proton pump inhibitors, antacids, and H2-receptor antagonists, the company noted.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients undergoing chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy who develop potentially serious neurotoxicity from the therapy show elevated plasma levels of neurofilament light chain (NfL) prior to the treatment, suggesting a possibly important predictor of risk for the side effect.

“This is the first study to show NfL levels are elevated even before CAR T treatment is given,” first author Omar H. Butt, MD, PhD, of the Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University in St. Louis, said in an interview.

“While unlikely to be the sole driver of [the neurotoxicity], neural injury reflected by NfL may aid in identifying a high-risk subset of patients undergoing cellular therapy,” the authors concluded in the study, published in JAMA Oncology.

CAR T-cell therapy has gained favor for virtually revolutionizing the treatment of some leukemias and lymphomas, however, as many as 40%-60% of patients develop the neurotoxicity side effect, called immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), which, though usually low grade, in more severe cases can cause substantial morbidity and even mortality.

Hence, “the early identification of patients at risk for ICANS is critical for preemptive management,” the authors noted.

NfL, an established marker of neuroaxonal injury in neurodegenerative diseases including multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease, has been shown in previous studies to be elevated following the development of ICANS and up to 5 days prior to its peak symptoms.

To further evaluate NfL elevations in relation to ICANS, Dr. Butt and colleagues identified 30 patients undergoing CD19 CART-cell therapy, including 77% for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, at two U.S. centers: Washington University in St. Louis and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

The patients had a median age of 64 and were 40% female.

Among them, four developed low-grade ICANS grade 1-2, and 7 developed ICANS grade 3 or higher.

Of those developing any-grade ICANS, baseline elevations of NfL prior to the CAR T-cell treatment, were significantly higher, compared with those who did not develop ICANs (mean 87.6 pg/mL vs. 29.4 pg/mL, P < .001), with no significant differences between the low-grade (1 and 2) and higher-grade (3 or higher) ICANS groups.

A receiver operating characteristic analysis showed baseline NfL levels significantly predicted the development of ICANS with high accuracy (area under the ROC curve, 0.96), as well as sensitivity (AUROC, 0.91) and specificity (AUROC, 0.95).

Notably, baseline NfL levels were associated with ICANS severity, but did not correlate with other factors including demographic, oncologic history, nononcologic neurologic history, or history of exposure to neurotoxic therapies.

However, Dr. Butt added, “it is important to note that our study was insufficiently powered to examine those relationships in earnest. Therefore, [a correlation between NfL and those factors] remains possible,” he said.

The elevated NfL levels observed prior to the development of ICANS remained high across the study’s seven time points, up to day 30 post infusion.
 

Interest in NfL levels on the rise

NfL assessment is currently only clinically validated in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, where it is used to assess neuroaxonal health and integrity. However, testing is available as interest and evidence of NfL’s potential role in other settings grows.

Meanwhile, Dr. Butt and associates are themselves developing an assay to predict the development of ICANS, which will likely include NfL, if the role is validated in further studies.

“Future studies will explore validating NfL for ICANS and additional indications,” he said.

ICANS symptoms can range from headaches and confusion to seizures or strokes in more severe cases.

The current gold standard for treatment includes early intervention with high-dose steroids and careful monitoring, but there is reluctance to use such therapies because of concerns about their blunting the anticancer effects of the CAR T cells.

Importantly, if validated, elevations in NfL could signal the need for more precautionary measures with CAR T-cell therapy, Dr. Butt noted.

“Our data suggests patients with high NfL levels at baseline would benefit most from perhaps closer monitoring with frequent checks and possible early intervention at the first sign of symptoms, a period of time when it may be hard to distinguish ICANS from other causes of confusion, such as delirium,” he explained.
 

Limitations: Validation, preventive measures needed

Commenting on the study, Sattva S. Neelapu, MD, a professor and deputy chair of the department of lymphoma and myeloma at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, agreed that the findings have potentially important implications.

“I think this is a very intriguing and novel finding that needs to be investigated further prospectively in a larger cohort and across different CAR T products in patients with lymphoma, leukemia, and myeloma,” Dr. Neelapu said in an interview.

The NfL elevations observed even before CAR T-cell therapy among those who went on to develop ICANS are notable, he added.

“This is the surprising finding in the study,” Dr. Neelapu said. “It raises the question whether neurologic injury is caused by prior therapies that these patients received or whether it is an age-related phenomenon, as we do see higher incidence and severity of ICANS in older patients or some other mechanisms.”

A key caveat, however, is that even if a risk is identified, options to prevent ICANS are currently limited, Dr. Neelapu noted.

“I think it is too early to implement this into clinical practice,” he said. In addition to needing further validation, “assessing NfL levels would be useful when there is an effective prophylactic or therapeutic strategy – both of which also need to be investigated.”

Dr. Butt and colleagues are developing a clinical assay for ICANS and reported a provisional patent pending on the use of plasma NfL as a predictive biomarker for ICANS. The study received support from the Washington University in St. Louis, the Paula and Rodger O. Riney Fund, the Daniel J. Brennan MD Fund, the Fred Simmons and Olga Mohan Fund; the National Cancer Institute, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Neelapu reported conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

Patients undergoing chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy who develop potentially serious neurotoxicity from the therapy show elevated plasma levels of neurofilament light chain (NfL) prior to the treatment, suggesting a possibly important predictor of risk for the side effect.

“This is the first study to show NfL levels are elevated even before CAR T treatment is given,” first author Omar H. Butt, MD, PhD, of the Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University in St. Louis, said in an interview.

“While unlikely to be the sole driver of [the neurotoxicity], neural injury reflected by NfL may aid in identifying a high-risk subset of patients undergoing cellular therapy,” the authors concluded in the study, published in JAMA Oncology.

CAR T-cell therapy has gained favor for virtually revolutionizing the treatment of some leukemias and lymphomas, however, as many as 40%-60% of patients develop the neurotoxicity side effect, called immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), which, though usually low grade, in more severe cases can cause substantial morbidity and even mortality.

Hence, “the early identification of patients at risk for ICANS is critical for preemptive management,” the authors noted.

NfL, an established marker of neuroaxonal injury in neurodegenerative diseases including multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease, has been shown in previous studies to be elevated following the development of ICANS and up to 5 days prior to its peak symptoms.

To further evaluate NfL elevations in relation to ICANS, Dr. Butt and colleagues identified 30 patients undergoing CD19 CART-cell therapy, including 77% for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, at two U.S. centers: Washington University in St. Louis and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

The patients had a median age of 64 and were 40% female.

Among them, four developed low-grade ICANS grade 1-2, and 7 developed ICANS grade 3 or higher.

Of those developing any-grade ICANS, baseline elevations of NfL prior to the CAR T-cell treatment, were significantly higher, compared with those who did not develop ICANs (mean 87.6 pg/mL vs. 29.4 pg/mL, P < .001), with no significant differences between the low-grade (1 and 2) and higher-grade (3 or higher) ICANS groups.

A receiver operating characteristic analysis showed baseline NfL levels significantly predicted the development of ICANS with high accuracy (area under the ROC curve, 0.96), as well as sensitivity (AUROC, 0.91) and specificity (AUROC, 0.95).

Notably, baseline NfL levels were associated with ICANS severity, but did not correlate with other factors including demographic, oncologic history, nononcologic neurologic history, or history of exposure to neurotoxic therapies.

However, Dr. Butt added, “it is important to note that our study was insufficiently powered to examine those relationships in earnest. Therefore, [a correlation between NfL and those factors] remains possible,” he said.

The elevated NfL levels observed prior to the development of ICANS remained high across the study’s seven time points, up to day 30 post infusion.
 

Interest in NfL levels on the rise

NfL assessment is currently only clinically validated in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, where it is used to assess neuroaxonal health and integrity. However, testing is available as interest and evidence of NfL’s potential role in other settings grows.

Meanwhile, Dr. Butt and associates are themselves developing an assay to predict the development of ICANS, which will likely include NfL, if the role is validated in further studies.

“Future studies will explore validating NfL for ICANS and additional indications,” he said.

ICANS symptoms can range from headaches and confusion to seizures or strokes in more severe cases.

The current gold standard for treatment includes early intervention with high-dose steroids and careful monitoring, but there is reluctance to use such therapies because of concerns about their blunting the anticancer effects of the CAR T cells.

Importantly, if validated, elevations in NfL could signal the need for more precautionary measures with CAR T-cell therapy, Dr. Butt noted.

“Our data suggests patients with high NfL levels at baseline would benefit most from perhaps closer monitoring with frequent checks and possible early intervention at the first sign of symptoms, a period of time when it may be hard to distinguish ICANS from other causes of confusion, such as delirium,” he explained.
 

Limitations: Validation, preventive measures needed

Commenting on the study, Sattva S. Neelapu, MD, a professor and deputy chair of the department of lymphoma and myeloma at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, agreed that the findings have potentially important implications.

“I think this is a very intriguing and novel finding that needs to be investigated further prospectively in a larger cohort and across different CAR T products in patients with lymphoma, leukemia, and myeloma,” Dr. Neelapu said in an interview.

The NfL elevations observed even before CAR T-cell therapy among those who went on to develop ICANS are notable, he added.

“This is the surprising finding in the study,” Dr. Neelapu said. “It raises the question whether neurologic injury is caused by prior therapies that these patients received or whether it is an age-related phenomenon, as we do see higher incidence and severity of ICANS in older patients or some other mechanisms.”

A key caveat, however, is that even if a risk is identified, options to prevent ICANS are currently limited, Dr. Neelapu noted.

“I think it is too early to implement this into clinical practice,” he said. In addition to needing further validation, “assessing NfL levels would be useful when there is an effective prophylactic or therapeutic strategy – both of which also need to be investigated.”

Dr. Butt and colleagues are developing a clinical assay for ICANS and reported a provisional patent pending on the use of plasma NfL as a predictive biomarker for ICANS. The study received support from the Washington University in St. Louis, the Paula and Rodger O. Riney Fund, the Daniel J. Brennan MD Fund, the Fred Simmons and Olga Mohan Fund; the National Cancer Institute, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Neelapu reported conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

Patients undergoing chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy who develop potentially serious neurotoxicity from the therapy show elevated plasma levels of neurofilament light chain (NfL) prior to the treatment, suggesting a possibly important predictor of risk for the side effect.

“This is the first study to show NfL levels are elevated even before CAR T treatment is given,” first author Omar H. Butt, MD, PhD, of the Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University in St. Louis, said in an interview.

“While unlikely to be the sole driver of [the neurotoxicity], neural injury reflected by NfL may aid in identifying a high-risk subset of patients undergoing cellular therapy,” the authors concluded in the study, published in JAMA Oncology.

CAR T-cell therapy has gained favor for virtually revolutionizing the treatment of some leukemias and lymphomas, however, as many as 40%-60% of patients develop the neurotoxicity side effect, called immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), which, though usually low grade, in more severe cases can cause substantial morbidity and even mortality.

Hence, “the early identification of patients at risk for ICANS is critical for preemptive management,” the authors noted.

NfL, an established marker of neuroaxonal injury in neurodegenerative diseases including multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease, has been shown in previous studies to be elevated following the development of ICANS and up to 5 days prior to its peak symptoms.

To further evaluate NfL elevations in relation to ICANS, Dr. Butt and colleagues identified 30 patients undergoing CD19 CART-cell therapy, including 77% for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, at two U.S. centers: Washington University in St. Louis and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

The patients had a median age of 64 and were 40% female.

Among them, four developed low-grade ICANS grade 1-2, and 7 developed ICANS grade 3 or higher.

Of those developing any-grade ICANS, baseline elevations of NfL prior to the CAR T-cell treatment, were significantly higher, compared with those who did not develop ICANs (mean 87.6 pg/mL vs. 29.4 pg/mL, P < .001), with no significant differences between the low-grade (1 and 2) and higher-grade (3 or higher) ICANS groups.

A receiver operating characteristic analysis showed baseline NfL levels significantly predicted the development of ICANS with high accuracy (area under the ROC curve, 0.96), as well as sensitivity (AUROC, 0.91) and specificity (AUROC, 0.95).

Notably, baseline NfL levels were associated with ICANS severity, but did not correlate with other factors including demographic, oncologic history, nononcologic neurologic history, or history of exposure to neurotoxic therapies.

However, Dr. Butt added, “it is important to note that our study was insufficiently powered to examine those relationships in earnest. Therefore, [a correlation between NfL and those factors] remains possible,” he said.

The elevated NfL levels observed prior to the development of ICANS remained high across the study’s seven time points, up to day 30 post infusion.
 

Interest in NfL levels on the rise

NfL assessment is currently only clinically validated in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, where it is used to assess neuroaxonal health and integrity. However, testing is available as interest and evidence of NfL’s potential role in other settings grows.

Meanwhile, Dr. Butt and associates are themselves developing an assay to predict the development of ICANS, which will likely include NfL, if the role is validated in further studies.

“Future studies will explore validating NfL for ICANS and additional indications,” he said.

ICANS symptoms can range from headaches and confusion to seizures or strokes in more severe cases.

The current gold standard for treatment includes early intervention with high-dose steroids and careful monitoring, but there is reluctance to use such therapies because of concerns about their blunting the anticancer effects of the CAR T cells.

Importantly, if validated, elevations in NfL could signal the need for more precautionary measures with CAR T-cell therapy, Dr. Butt noted.

“Our data suggests patients with high NfL levels at baseline would benefit most from perhaps closer monitoring with frequent checks and possible early intervention at the first sign of symptoms, a period of time when it may be hard to distinguish ICANS from other causes of confusion, such as delirium,” he explained.
 

Limitations: Validation, preventive measures needed

Commenting on the study, Sattva S. Neelapu, MD, a professor and deputy chair of the department of lymphoma and myeloma at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, agreed that the findings have potentially important implications.

“I think this is a very intriguing and novel finding that needs to be investigated further prospectively in a larger cohort and across different CAR T products in patients with lymphoma, leukemia, and myeloma,” Dr. Neelapu said in an interview.

The NfL elevations observed even before CAR T-cell therapy among those who went on to develop ICANS are notable, he added.

“This is the surprising finding in the study,” Dr. Neelapu said. “It raises the question whether neurologic injury is caused by prior therapies that these patients received or whether it is an age-related phenomenon, as we do see higher incidence and severity of ICANS in older patients or some other mechanisms.”

A key caveat, however, is that even if a risk is identified, options to prevent ICANS are currently limited, Dr. Neelapu noted.

“I think it is too early to implement this into clinical practice,” he said. In addition to needing further validation, “assessing NfL levels would be useful when there is an effective prophylactic or therapeutic strategy – both of which also need to be investigated.”

Dr. Butt and colleagues are developing a clinical assay for ICANS and reported a provisional patent pending on the use of plasma NfL as a predictive biomarker for ICANS. The study received support from the Washington University in St. Louis, the Paula and Rodger O. Riney Fund, the Daniel J. Brennan MD Fund, the Fred Simmons and Olga Mohan Fund; the National Cancer Institute, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Neelapu reported conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

An international team of researchers have developed a “molecular map” of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and used it to refine genetic subtypes and variations that appear to be linked to clinical outcomes.

Released in a report in Nature Genetics, the map has doubled the number of genetic traits linked the disease from around 100 to 202, lead author Binyamin A. Knisbacher, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard Medical Schoo, Boston, said in an interview.

“It also delineated the molecular landscape of the two immunoglobulin gene (IGHV) subtypes, refined CLL subtyping, and built richer genetic prognostic models,” he said.

According to Dr. Knisbacher, CLL “has been at the forefront of genomic discovery,” and research has shown that there’s a wide variety of somatic mutations that drive CLL initiation across the patient population. However, as many as 10% of cases don’t appear to be driven by any known genetic variation, he said, and there’s a need to identify more subtypes and “build richer prognostic models of patient survival” based on genetics and multiomics such as genomics, transcriptomics, and epigenomics.

For the new study, researchers analyzed RNA and DNA from 1,095 patients with CLL and 54 patients with monoclonal B cell lymphocytosis and built what they say is the largest CLL dataset in existence. It’s twice the size of previous datasets, Dr. Knisbacher said.

“We found that RNA expression data was extremely informative for characterizing CLL,” Dr. Knisbacher said. “The RNA expression subtypes refined the ‘classic’ two IGHV subtypes. It is well documented that patients with U-CLL (IGHV-unmutated CLL) have substantially worse clinical outcome in comparison to M-CLL patients (IGHV-mutated CLLs). We found that M-CLLs that have RNA expression profiles similar to U-CLLs have worse survival than M-CLLs with a typical expression profile. Failure-free survival was 50% shorter – 5.3 versus 10.7 years median failure-free survival.”

In addition, he said, “U-CLLs with expression similar to M-CLLs had better survival than U-CLLs with an RNA expression profile typical to U-CLLs.”

The researchers have made their molecular map publicly available at https://cllmap.org/. Researchers can use it “to discover more about each subtype of CLL, and these future studies can help to improve clinical prognosis for the benefit of the patient,” Dr. Knisbacher said.

The study authors added that “this molecular foundation may allow for better prediction of response to therapy or provide the basis for rational combination of novel agents.”

Lee Greenberger, PhD, chief science officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, said in an interview that the study “provides foundational data further subtyping CLL patients and outcomes. It identifies new targets for therapy or diagnostic predictions in the future. This type of foundational work has proven invaluable in the development of new medicines for cancer in general.”

While there are many medications that have improved therapeutic outcomes in CLL, he added, “cures – or life-long disease control –remain elusive for many patients. Therefore, new molecular insights are needed that could personalize therapies or even lead to entirely new therapies.”

In addition, he said, although prevention of CLL still remains elusive, “it is conceivable that some of the mutations found in this paper occur early in the CLL trajectory, perhaps even before the disease is presented clinically.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Broad/IBM Cancer Resistance Research Project. Dr. Knisbacher and several other authors disclose that they are inventors on a patent related to CLL. Several authors report various relationships with industry. Dr. Greenberger has no disclosures.
 

An international team of researchers have developed a “molecular map” of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and used it to refine genetic subtypes and variations that appear to be linked to clinical outcomes.

Released in a report in Nature Genetics, the map has doubled the number of genetic traits linked the disease from around 100 to 202, lead author Binyamin A. Knisbacher, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard Medical Schoo, Boston, said in an interview.

“It also delineated the molecular landscape of the two immunoglobulin gene (IGHV) subtypes, refined CLL subtyping, and built richer genetic prognostic models,” he said.

According to Dr. Knisbacher, CLL “has been at the forefront of genomic discovery,” and research has shown that there’s a wide variety of somatic mutations that drive CLL initiation across the patient population. However, as many as 10% of cases don’t appear to be driven by any known genetic variation, he said, and there’s a need to identify more subtypes and “build richer prognostic models of patient survival” based on genetics and multiomics such as genomics, transcriptomics, and epigenomics.

For the new study, researchers analyzed RNA and DNA from 1,095 patients with CLL and 54 patients with monoclonal B cell lymphocytosis and built what they say is the largest CLL dataset in existence. It’s twice the size of previous datasets, Dr. Knisbacher said.

“We found that RNA expression data was extremely informative for characterizing CLL,” Dr. Knisbacher said. “The RNA expression subtypes refined the ‘classic’ two IGHV subtypes. It is well documented that patients with U-CLL (IGHV-unmutated CLL) have substantially worse clinical outcome in comparison to M-CLL patients (IGHV-mutated CLLs). We found that M-CLLs that have RNA expression profiles similar to U-CLLs have worse survival than M-CLLs with a typical expression profile. Failure-free survival was 50% shorter – 5.3 versus 10.7 years median failure-free survival.”

In addition, he said, “U-CLLs with expression similar to M-CLLs had better survival than U-CLLs with an RNA expression profile typical to U-CLLs.”

The researchers have made their molecular map publicly available at https://cllmap.org/. Researchers can use it “to discover more about each subtype of CLL, and these future studies can help to improve clinical prognosis for the benefit of the patient,” Dr. Knisbacher said.

The study authors added that “this molecular foundation may allow for better prediction of response to therapy or provide the basis for rational combination of novel agents.”

Lee Greenberger, PhD, chief science officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, said in an interview that the study “provides foundational data further subtyping CLL patients and outcomes. It identifies new targets for therapy or diagnostic predictions in the future. This type of foundational work has proven invaluable in the development of new medicines for cancer in general.”

While there are many medications that have improved therapeutic outcomes in CLL, he added, “cures – or life-long disease control –remain elusive for many patients. Therefore, new molecular insights are needed that could personalize therapies or even lead to entirely new therapies.”

In addition, he said, although prevention of CLL still remains elusive, “it is conceivable that some of the mutations found in this paper occur early in the CLL trajectory, perhaps even before the disease is presented clinically.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Broad/IBM Cancer Resistance Research Project. Dr. Knisbacher and several other authors disclose that they are inventors on a patent related to CLL. Several authors report various relationships with industry. Dr. Greenberger has no disclosures.
 

An international team of researchers have developed a “molecular map” of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and used it to refine genetic subtypes and variations that appear to be linked to clinical outcomes.

Released in a report in Nature Genetics, the map has doubled the number of genetic traits linked the disease from around 100 to 202, lead author Binyamin A. Knisbacher, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard Medical Schoo, Boston, said in an interview.

“It also delineated the molecular landscape of the two immunoglobulin gene (IGHV) subtypes, refined CLL subtyping, and built richer genetic prognostic models,” he said.

According to Dr. Knisbacher, CLL “has been at the forefront of genomic discovery,” and research has shown that there’s a wide variety of somatic mutations that drive CLL initiation across the patient population. However, as many as 10% of cases don’t appear to be driven by any known genetic variation, he said, and there’s a need to identify more subtypes and “build richer prognostic models of patient survival” based on genetics and multiomics such as genomics, transcriptomics, and epigenomics.

For the new study, researchers analyzed RNA and DNA from 1,095 patients with CLL and 54 patients with monoclonal B cell lymphocytosis and built what they say is the largest CLL dataset in existence. It’s twice the size of previous datasets, Dr. Knisbacher said.

“We found that RNA expression data was extremely informative for characterizing CLL,” Dr. Knisbacher said. “The RNA expression subtypes refined the ‘classic’ two IGHV subtypes. It is well documented that patients with U-CLL (IGHV-unmutated CLL) have substantially worse clinical outcome in comparison to M-CLL patients (IGHV-mutated CLLs). We found that M-CLLs that have RNA expression profiles similar to U-CLLs have worse survival than M-CLLs with a typical expression profile. Failure-free survival was 50% shorter – 5.3 versus 10.7 years median failure-free survival.”

In addition, he said, “U-CLLs with expression similar to M-CLLs had better survival than U-CLLs with an RNA expression profile typical to U-CLLs.”

The researchers have made their molecular map publicly available at https://cllmap.org/. Researchers can use it “to discover more about each subtype of CLL, and these future studies can help to improve clinical prognosis for the benefit of the patient,” Dr. Knisbacher said.

The study authors added that “this molecular foundation may allow for better prediction of response to therapy or provide the basis for rational combination of novel agents.”

Lee Greenberger, PhD, chief science officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, said in an interview that the study “provides foundational data further subtyping CLL patients and outcomes. It identifies new targets for therapy or diagnostic predictions in the future. This type of foundational work has proven invaluable in the development of new medicines for cancer in general.”

While there are many medications that have improved therapeutic outcomes in CLL, he added, “cures – or life-long disease control –remain elusive for many patients. Therefore, new molecular insights are needed that could personalize therapies or even lead to entirely new therapies.”

In addition, he said, although prevention of CLL still remains elusive, “it is conceivable that some of the mutations found in this paper occur early in the CLL trajectory, perhaps even before the disease is presented clinically.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Broad/IBM Cancer Resistance Research Project. Dr. Knisbacher and several other authors disclose that they are inventors on a patent related to CLL. Several authors report various relationships with industry. Dr. Greenberger has no disclosures.
 

Ibrutinib (Imbruvica) is now available for use in children aged 1-12 years who have chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD), which can develop after stem cell transplantation for treatment of a blood cancer.

Specifically, the indication is for pediatric patients with cGVHD who have already been treated with one or more lines of systemic therapy. The manufacturers have also launched a new oral suspension formulation, in addition to capsules and tablets, which were already available.

Ibrutinib is already approved for use in adults with cGVHD.

The drug is also approved for use in several blood cancers, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia, mantle cell lymphoma, and Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia. All these approvals are for adult patients.

This is the first pediatric indication for the product and is “incredibly meaningful,” said Gauri Sunkersett, DO, associate medical director at AbbVie, which markets the drug together with Jansen. “As a pediatric oncologist, when my patients describe the physical pain they experience from simply hugging their parents, due to their cGVHD, the importance of researching alternative treatment options in this patient population is further validated.”

These children have already been through a lot, having been diagnosed with a leukemia or lymphoma and then undergoing chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy for a stem cell transplant. Just over half (52%-65%) of children who receive allogeneic transplants go on to develop cGVHD, in which the donor bone marrow or stem cells attack the recipient.

“Imagine going through a transplant and then being told you have a moderate to severe chronic disease that can sometimes also be life-threatening,” commented Paul A. Carpenter, MD, attending physician at Seattle Children’s Hospital. “If these children were between 1 and 12 and didn’t respond to steroid treatment, we didn’t have any rigorously studied treatment options – until now.”

The new indication was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on the basis of results from the iMAGINE trial, for which Dr. Carpenter was a principal investigator.

The phase 1/2 iMAGINE trial was an open-label, multicenter, single-arm trial conducted with 47 patients (mean age, 13 years; range, 1-19 years) with relapsed/refractory cGVHD who had received at least one prior systemic therapy. Ibrutinib was given at a dose of 420 mg orally once daily to patients aged 12 and older and at a dose of 240 mg/m2 orally once daily to patients who were younger than 12 years.

The overall response rate through week 25 was 60% (confidence interval, 95%, 44%-74%). The median duration of response was 5.3 months (95% CI, 2.8-8.8).

The safety profile was consistent with the established profile for ibrutinib. Observed adverse events in pediatric patients were consistent with those observed in adult patients with moderate to severe cGVHD, the companies noted.

The FDA noted that the most common (≥ 20%) adverse reactions, including laboratory abnormalities, were anemia, musculoskeletal pain, pyrexia, diarrhea, pneumonia, abdominal pain, stomatitis, thrombocytopenia, and headache.

Full prescribing information for ibrutinib is available here.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Ibrutinib (Imbruvica) is now available for use in children aged 1-12 years who have chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD), which can develop after stem cell transplantation for treatment of a blood cancer.

Specifically, the indication is for pediatric patients with cGVHD who have already been treated with one or more lines of systemic therapy. The manufacturers have also launched a new oral suspension formulation, in addition to capsules and tablets, which were already available.

Ibrutinib is already approved for use in adults with cGVHD.

The drug is also approved for use in several blood cancers, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia, mantle cell lymphoma, and Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia. All these approvals are for adult patients.

This is the first pediatric indication for the product and is “incredibly meaningful,” said Gauri Sunkersett, DO, associate medical director at AbbVie, which markets the drug together with Jansen. “As a pediatric oncologist, when my patients describe the physical pain they experience from simply hugging their parents, due to their cGVHD, the importance of researching alternative treatment options in this patient population is further validated.”

These children have already been through a lot, having been diagnosed with a leukemia or lymphoma and then undergoing chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy for a stem cell transplant. Just over half (52%-65%) of children who receive allogeneic transplants go on to develop cGVHD, in which the donor bone marrow or stem cells attack the recipient.

“Imagine going through a transplant and then being told you have a moderate to severe chronic disease that can sometimes also be life-threatening,” commented Paul A. Carpenter, MD, attending physician at Seattle Children’s Hospital. “If these children were between 1 and 12 and didn’t respond to steroid treatment, we didn’t have any rigorously studied treatment options – until now.”

The new indication was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on the basis of results from the iMAGINE trial, for which Dr. Carpenter was a principal investigator.

The phase 1/2 iMAGINE trial was an open-label, multicenter, single-arm trial conducted with 47 patients (mean age, 13 years; range, 1-19 years) with relapsed/refractory cGVHD who had received at least one prior systemic therapy. Ibrutinib was given at a dose of 420 mg orally once daily to patients aged 12 and older and at a dose of 240 mg/m2 orally once daily to patients who were younger than 12 years.

The overall response rate through week 25 was 60% (confidence interval, 95%, 44%-74%). The median duration of response was 5.3 months (95% CI, 2.8-8.8).

The safety profile was consistent with the established profile for ibrutinib. Observed adverse events in pediatric patients were consistent with those observed in adult patients with moderate to severe cGVHD, the companies noted.

The FDA noted that the most common (≥ 20%) adverse reactions, including laboratory abnormalities, were anemia, musculoskeletal pain, pyrexia, diarrhea, pneumonia, abdominal pain, stomatitis, thrombocytopenia, and headache.

Full prescribing information for ibrutinib is available here.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Ibrutinib (Imbruvica) is now available for use in children aged 1-12 years who have chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD), which can develop after stem cell transplantation for treatment of a blood cancer.

Specifically, the indication is for pediatric patients with cGVHD who have already been treated with one or more lines of systemic therapy. The manufacturers have also launched a new oral suspension formulation, in addition to capsules and tablets, which were already available.

Ibrutinib is already approved for use in adults with cGVHD.

The drug is also approved for use in several blood cancers, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia, mantle cell lymphoma, and Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia. All these approvals are for adult patients.

This is the first pediatric indication for the product and is “incredibly meaningful,” said Gauri Sunkersett, DO, associate medical director at AbbVie, which markets the drug together with Jansen. “As a pediatric oncologist, when my patients describe the physical pain they experience from simply hugging their parents, due to their cGVHD, the importance of researching alternative treatment options in this patient population is further validated.”

These children have already been through a lot, having been diagnosed with a leukemia or lymphoma and then undergoing chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy for a stem cell transplant. Just over half (52%-65%) of children who receive allogeneic transplants go on to develop cGVHD, in which the donor bone marrow or stem cells attack the recipient.

“Imagine going through a transplant and then being told you have a moderate to severe chronic disease that can sometimes also be life-threatening,” commented Paul A. Carpenter, MD, attending physician at Seattle Children’s Hospital. “If these children were between 1 and 12 and didn’t respond to steroid treatment, we didn’t have any rigorously studied treatment options – until now.”

The new indication was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on the basis of results from the iMAGINE trial, for which Dr. Carpenter was a principal investigator.

The phase 1/2 iMAGINE trial was an open-label, multicenter, single-arm trial conducted with 47 patients (mean age, 13 years; range, 1-19 years) with relapsed/refractory cGVHD who had received at least one prior systemic therapy. Ibrutinib was given at a dose of 420 mg orally once daily to patients aged 12 and older and at a dose of 240 mg/m2 orally once daily to patients who were younger than 12 years.

The overall response rate through week 25 was 60% (confidence interval, 95%, 44%-74%). The median duration of response was 5.3 months (95% CI, 2.8-8.8).

The safety profile was consistent with the established profile for ibrutinib. Observed adverse events in pediatric patients were consistent with those observed in adult patients with moderate to severe cGVHD, the companies noted.

The FDA noted that the most common (≥ 20%) adverse reactions, including laboratory abnormalities, were anemia, musculoskeletal pain, pyrexia, diarrhea, pneumonia, abdominal pain, stomatitis, thrombocytopenia, and headache.

Full prescribing information for ibrutinib is available here.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two new studies offer insights into leukemia survival rates in the United States. From 2000 to 2014, a drop in mortality among children spurred a rise in 5-year leukemia survival rates among patients aged 0-24. But adolescents and young adults who survive 5 years after diagnosis face an ongoing higher risk of death, recent research revealed, and their long-term survival is lower compared to that of the general population.

“Outcomes are improving. However, additional efforts, support, and resources are needed to further improve short- and long-term survival for acute leukemia survivors. Targeted efforts focused on populations that face greater disparities in their survival are needed to move the needle faster,” Michael Roth, MD, codirector of the Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology Program at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, said in an interview.

In one study, released in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, an international team of researchers tracked survival outcomes from various types of leukemia in 61 nations. The study focused on the years 2000-2014 and followed patients aged 0-24.

“Age-standardized 5-year net survival in children, adolescents, and young adults for all leukemias combined during 2010-14 varied widely, ranging from 46% in Mexico to more than 85% in Canada, Cyprus, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, and Australia,” the researchers wrote. “Throughout 2000-14, survival from all leukemias combined remained consistently higher for children than adolescents and young adults, and minimal improvement was seen for adolescents and young adults in most countries.”

The U.S. data came from 41 states that cover 86% of the nation’s population, lead author Naomi Ssenyonga, a research fellow at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said in an interview.

The 5-year survival rate for acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL) rose from 80% during 2000-2004 to 86% during 2010-2014. Survival in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) was lower than for other subtypes: 66% in 2010-2014 vs. 57% in 2000-2004.

In regard to all leukemias, “we noted a steady increase in the U.S. of 6 percentage points in 5-year survival, up from 77% for patients diagnosed during 2000-2004 to 83% for those diagnosed during 2010-2014,” Ms. Ssenyonga said. “The gains were largely driven by the improvements seen among children.”

Why haven’t adolescents and young adults gained as much ground in survival?

“They often have unique clinical needs,” Ms. Ssenyonga said. “Over the past few years, adolescents and young adults with leukemia in some parts of the world, including the U.S., have increasingly been treated under pediatric protocols. This has led to higher survival. However, this approach has not been adopted consistently, and survival for adolescents and young adults with leukemia is still generally lower than survival for children.”

Gwen Nichols, MD, chief medical officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, agreed that pediatric treatment protocols hold promise as treatments for young adults. However, “because we arbitrarily set an age cutoff for being an adult, many of these patients are treated by an adult [nonpediatric] hematologist/oncologist, and some patients in the 20-39 age group do not receive the more intensive treatment regimens given to children,” she said in an interview.

In another study, published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, & Prevention, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center’s Dr. Roth and colleagues tracked 1,938 patients with ALL and 2,350 with AML who were diagnosed at ages 15-39 from 1980 to 2009. All lived at least 5 years after diagnosis. In both groups, about 58% were White, and most of the rest were Hispanic. The median age of diagnosis for ALL was 23 (range: 15-39) and 28 years for AML (range: 15-39).

“For ALL, 10-year survival for those diagnosed in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s was 83%, 88%, and 88%, respectively,” the researchers reported. “Ten-year survival for AML was 82%, 90%, and 90% for those diagnosed in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, respectively.”

“Early mortality within 10 years of diagnosis was mostly secondary to leukemia progressing or recurring. We believe that later mortality is secondary to the development of late side effects from their cancer treatment,” Dr. Roth said.

He noted that many adolescents and young adults with ALL or AML receive stem-cell transplants. “This treatment approach is effective. However, it is associated with short- and long-term toxicity that impacts patients’ health for many years after treatment.”

Indeed, up to 80% of acute leukemia survivors have significant health complications after therapy, said the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society’s Dr. Nichols, who wasn’t surprised by the findings. According to the society, “even when treatments are effective, more than 70% of childhood cancer survivors have a chronic health condition and 42% have a severe, disabling or life-threatening condition 30 years after diagnosis.”

“It would be interesting to understand the male predominance better,” she added, noting that the study found that male patients had worse long-term survival than females (survival time ratio: 0.61, 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.82). “While it is tempting to suggest it is due to difference in cardiac disease, I am not aware of data to support why there is this survival difference.”

What’s next? “In ALL, we now have a number of new modalities to treat high-risk and relapsed disease such as antibodies and CAR-T,” Dr. Nichols said. “We anticipate that 5-year survival can improve utilizing these modalities due to getting more patients into remission, hopefully while reducing chemotherapeutic toxicity.”

Dr. Nichol’s also highlighted the society’s new genomic-led Pediatric Acute Leukemia (PedAL) Master Clinical Trial, which began enrolling children with acute leukemia in the United States and Canada this year, in an effort to transform medicine’s traditional high-level chemotherapy strategy to their care. The project was launched in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute, Children’s Oncology Group, and the European Pediatric Acute Leukemia Foundation.

As part of the screening process, the biology of each child’s cancer will be identified, and families will be encouraged to enroll them in appropriate targeted therapy trials.

“Until we are able to decrease the toxicity of leukemia regimens, we won’t see a dramatic shift in late effects and thus in morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Nichols said. “The trial is an effort to test newer, less toxic regimens to begin to change that cycle.”

The 5-year survival study was funded by Children with Cancer UK, Institut National du Cancer, La Ligue Contre le Cancer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Swiss Re, Swiss Cancer Research foundation, Swiss Cancer League, Rossy Family Foundation, National Cancer Institute, and the American Cancer Society. One author reports a grant from Macmillan Cancer Support, consultancy fees from Pfizer, and unsolicited small gifts from Moondance Cancer Initiative for philanthropic work. The other authors report no disclosures.

The long-term survival study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Archer Foundation and LyondellBasell Industries. Dr. Roth reports no disclosures; other authors report various disclosures. Dr. Nichols reports no disclosures.

Two new studies offer insights into leukemia survival rates in the United States. From 2000 to 2014, a drop in mortality among children spurred a rise in 5-year leukemia survival rates among patients aged 0-24. But adolescents and young adults who survive 5 years after diagnosis face an ongoing higher risk of death, recent research revealed, and their long-term survival is lower compared to that of the general population.

“Outcomes are improving. However, additional efforts, support, and resources are needed to further improve short- and long-term survival for acute leukemia survivors. Targeted efforts focused on populations that face greater disparities in their survival are needed to move the needle faster,” Michael Roth, MD, codirector of the Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology Program at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, said in an interview.

In one study, released in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, an international team of researchers tracked survival outcomes from various types of leukemia in 61 nations. The study focused on the years 2000-2014 and followed patients aged 0-24.

“Age-standardized 5-year net survival in children, adolescents, and young adults for all leukemias combined during 2010-14 varied widely, ranging from 46% in Mexico to more than 85% in Canada, Cyprus, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, and Australia,” the researchers wrote. “Throughout 2000-14, survival from all leukemias combined remained consistently higher for children than adolescents and young adults, and minimal improvement was seen for adolescents and young adults in most countries.”

The U.S. data came from 41 states that cover 86% of the nation’s population, lead author Naomi Ssenyonga, a research fellow at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said in an interview.

The 5-year survival rate for acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL) rose from 80% during 2000-2004 to 86% during 2010-2014. Survival in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) was lower than for other subtypes: 66% in 2010-2014 vs. 57% in 2000-2004.

In regard to all leukemias, “we noted a steady increase in the U.S. of 6 percentage points in 5-year survival, up from 77% for patients diagnosed during 2000-2004 to 83% for those diagnosed during 2010-2014,” Ms. Ssenyonga said. “The gains were largely driven by the improvements seen among children.”

Why haven’t adolescents and young adults gained as much ground in survival?

“They often have unique clinical needs,” Ms. Ssenyonga said. “Over the past few years, adolescents and young adults with leukemia in some parts of the world, including the U.S., have increasingly been treated under pediatric protocols. This has led to higher survival. However, this approach has not been adopted consistently, and survival for adolescents and young adults with leukemia is still generally lower than survival for children.”

Gwen Nichols, MD, chief medical officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, agreed that pediatric treatment protocols hold promise as treatments for young adults. However, “because we arbitrarily set an age cutoff for being an adult, many of these patients are treated by an adult [nonpediatric] hematologist/oncologist, and some patients in the 20-39 age group do not receive the more intensive treatment regimens given to children,” she said in an interview.

In another study, published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, & Prevention, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center’s Dr. Roth and colleagues tracked 1,938 patients with ALL and 2,350 with AML who were diagnosed at ages 15-39 from 1980 to 2009. All lived at least 5 years after diagnosis. In both groups, about 58% were White, and most of the rest were Hispanic. The median age of diagnosis for ALL was 23 (range: 15-39) and 28 years for AML (range: 15-39).

“For ALL, 10-year survival for those diagnosed in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s was 83%, 88%, and 88%, respectively,” the researchers reported. “Ten-year survival for AML was 82%, 90%, and 90% for those diagnosed in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, respectively.”

“Early mortality within 10 years of diagnosis was mostly secondary to leukemia progressing or recurring. We believe that later mortality is secondary to the development of late side effects from their cancer treatment,” Dr. Roth said.

He noted that many adolescents and young adults with ALL or AML receive stem-cell transplants. “This treatment approach is effective. However, it is associated with short- and long-term toxicity that impacts patients’ health for many years after treatment.”

Indeed, up to 80% of acute leukemia survivors have significant health complications after therapy, said the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society’s Dr. Nichols, who wasn’t surprised by the findings. According to the society, “even when treatments are effective, more than 70% of childhood cancer survivors have a chronic health condition and 42% have a severe, disabling or life-threatening condition 30 years after diagnosis.”

“It would be interesting to understand the male predominance better,” she added, noting that the study found that male patients had worse long-term survival than females (survival time ratio: 0.61, 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.82). “While it is tempting to suggest it is due to difference in cardiac disease, I am not aware of data to support why there is this survival difference.”

What’s next? “In ALL, we now have a number of new modalities to treat high-risk and relapsed disease such as antibodies and CAR-T,” Dr. Nichols said. “We anticipate that 5-year survival can improve utilizing these modalities due to getting more patients into remission, hopefully while reducing chemotherapeutic toxicity.”

Dr. Nichol’s also highlighted the society’s new genomic-led Pediatric Acute Leukemia (PedAL) Master Clinical Trial, which began enrolling children with acute leukemia in the United States and Canada this year, in an effort to transform medicine’s traditional high-level chemotherapy strategy to their care. The project was launched in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute, Children’s Oncology Group, and the European Pediatric Acute Leukemia Foundation.

As part of the screening process, the biology of each child’s cancer will be identified, and families will be encouraged to enroll them in appropriate targeted therapy trials.

“Until we are able to decrease the toxicity of leukemia regimens, we won’t see a dramatic shift in late effects and thus in morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Nichols said. “The trial is an effort to test newer, less toxic regimens to begin to change that cycle.”

The 5-year survival study was funded by Children with Cancer UK, Institut National du Cancer, La Ligue Contre le Cancer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Swiss Re, Swiss Cancer Research foundation, Swiss Cancer League, Rossy Family Foundation, National Cancer Institute, and the American Cancer Society. One author reports a grant from Macmillan Cancer Support, consultancy fees from Pfizer, and unsolicited small gifts from Moondance Cancer Initiative for philanthropic work. The other authors report no disclosures.

The long-term survival study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Archer Foundation and LyondellBasell Industries. Dr. Roth reports no disclosures; other authors report various disclosures. Dr. Nichols reports no disclosures.

Two new studies offer insights into leukemia survival rates in the United States. From 2000 to 2014, a drop in mortality among children spurred a rise in 5-year leukemia survival rates among patients aged 0-24. But adolescents and young adults who survive 5 years after diagnosis face an ongoing higher risk of death, recent research revealed, and their long-term survival is lower compared to that of the general population.

“Outcomes are improving. However, additional efforts, support, and resources are needed to further improve short- and long-term survival for acute leukemia survivors. Targeted efforts focused on populations that face greater disparities in their survival are needed to move the needle faster,” Michael Roth, MD, codirector of the Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology Program at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, said in an interview.

In one study, released in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, an international team of researchers tracked survival outcomes from various types of leukemia in 61 nations. The study focused on the years 2000-2014 and followed patients aged 0-24.

“Age-standardized 5-year net survival in children, adolescents, and young adults for all leukemias combined during 2010-14 varied widely, ranging from 46% in Mexico to more than 85% in Canada, Cyprus, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, and Australia,” the researchers wrote. “Throughout 2000-14, survival from all leukemias combined remained consistently higher for children than adolescents and young adults, and minimal improvement was seen for adolescents and young adults in most countries.”

The U.S. data came from 41 states that cover 86% of the nation’s population, lead author Naomi Ssenyonga, a research fellow at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said in an interview.

The 5-year survival rate for acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL) rose from 80% during 2000-2004 to 86% during 2010-2014. Survival in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) was lower than for other subtypes: 66% in 2010-2014 vs. 57% in 2000-2004.

In regard to all leukemias, “we noted a steady increase in the U.S. of 6 percentage points in 5-year survival, up from 77% for patients diagnosed during 2000-2004 to 83% for those diagnosed during 2010-2014,” Ms. Ssenyonga said. “The gains were largely driven by the improvements seen among children.”

Why haven’t adolescents and young adults gained as much ground in survival?

“They often have unique clinical needs,” Ms. Ssenyonga said. “Over the past few years, adolescents and young adults with leukemia in some parts of the world, including the U.S., have increasingly been treated under pediatric protocols. This has led to higher survival. However, this approach has not been adopted consistently, and survival for adolescents and young adults with leukemia is still generally lower than survival for children.”

Gwen Nichols, MD, chief medical officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, agreed that pediatric treatment protocols hold promise as treatments for young adults. However, “because we arbitrarily set an age cutoff for being an adult, many of these patients are treated by an adult [nonpediatric] hematologist/oncologist, and some patients in the 20-39 age group do not receive the more intensive treatment regimens given to children,” she said in an interview.

In another study, published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, & Prevention, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center’s Dr. Roth and colleagues tracked 1,938 patients with ALL and 2,350 with AML who were diagnosed at ages 15-39 from 1980 to 2009. All lived at least 5 years after diagnosis. In both groups, about 58% were White, and most of the rest were Hispanic. The median age of diagnosis for ALL was 23 (range: 15-39) and 28 years for AML (range: 15-39).

“For ALL, 10-year survival for those diagnosed in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s was 83%, 88%, and 88%, respectively,” the researchers reported. “Ten-year survival for AML was 82%, 90%, and 90% for those diagnosed in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, respectively.”

“Early mortality within 10 years of diagnosis was mostly secondary to leukemia progressing or recurring. We believe that later mortality is secondary to the development of late side effects from their cancer treatment,” Dr. Roth said.

He noted that many adolescents and young adults with ALL or AML receive stem-cell transplants. “This treatment approach is effective. However, it is associated with short- and long-term toxicity that impacts patients’ health for many years after treatment.”

Indeed, up to 80% of acute leukemia survivors have significant health complications after therapy, said the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society’s Dr. Nichols, who wasn’t surprised by the findings. According to the society, “even when treatments are effective, more than 70% of childhood cancer survivors have a chronic health condition and 42% have a severe, disabling or life-threatening condition 30 years after diagnosis.”

“It would be interesting to understand the male predominance better,” she added, noting that the study found that male patients had worse long-term survival than females (survival time ratio: 0.61, 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.82). “While it is tempting to suggest it is due to difference in cardiac disease, I am not aware of data to support why there is this survival difference.”

What’s next? “In ALL, we now have a number of new modalities to treat high-risk and relapsed disease such as antibodies and CAR-T,” Dr. Nichols said. “We anticipate that 5-year survival can improve utilizing these modalities due to getting more patients into remission, hopefully while reducing chemotherapeutic toxicity.”

Dr. Nichol’s also highlighted the society’s new genomic-led Pediatric Acute Leukemia (PedAL) Master Clinical Trial, which began enrolling children with acute leukemia in the United States and Canada this year, in an effort to transform medicine’s traditional high-level chemotherapy strategy to their care. The project was launched in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute, Children’s Oncology Group, and the European Pediatric Acute Leukemia Foundation.

As part of the screening process, the biology of each child’s cancer will be identified, and families will be encouraged to enroll them in appropriate targeted therapy trials.

“Until we are able to decrease the toxicity of leukemia regimens, we won’t see a dramatic shift in late effects and thus in morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Nichols said. “The trial is an effort to test newer, less toxic regimens to begin to change that cycle.”

The 5-year survival study was funded by Children with Cancer UK, Institut National du Cancer, La Ligue Contre le Cancer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Swiss Re, Swiss Cancer Research foundation, Swiss Cancer League, Rossy Family Foundation, National Cancer Institute, and the American Cancer Society. One author reports a grant from Macmillan Cancer Support, consultancy fees from Pfizer, and unsolicited small gifts from Moondance Cancer Initiative for philanthropic work. The other authors report no disclosures.

The long-term survival study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Archer Foundation and LyondellBasell Industries. Dr. Roth reports no disclosures; other authors report various disclosures. Dr. Nichols reports no disclosures.

Despite some gains, new research shows ongoing gender imbalances in hematology and oncology, as reflected in the predominantly male presenters at board review lecture series – where early career faculty are also underrepresented.

“Our study provides the first analysis of gender and early-career faculty disparities in speakers at hematology and medical oncology board review meetings,” the authors reported in research published in Blood Advances.

“We covered six major board reviews over the last 5 years that are either conducted yearly or every other year, [and] the general trend across all meetings showed skewness toward men speakers,” the authors reported.

Recent data from 2021 suggests a closing of the gender gap in oncology, with women making up 44.6% of oncologists in training. However, they still only represented 35.2% of practicing oncologists and are underrepresented in leadership positions in academic oncology, the authors reported.

With speaking roles at academic meetings potentially marking a key step in career advancement and improved opportunities, the authors sought to investigate the balance of gender, as well as early-career faculty among speakers at prominent hematology and/or oncology board review lecture series taking place in the United States between 2017 and 2021.

The five institutions and one society presenting the board review lecture series included Baylor College of Medicine/MD Anderson Cancer Center, both in Houston; Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston; George Washington University, Washington; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; and the hematology board review series from the American Society of Hematology.

During the period in question, among 1,224 board review lectures presented, women constituted only 37.7% of the speakers. In lectures presented by American Board of Internal Medicine–certified speakers (n = 1,016, 83%), women were found to have made up fewer than 50% of speakers in five of six courses.

Men were also more likely to be recurrent speakers; across all courses, 13 men but only 2 women conducted 10 or more lectures. And while 35 men gave six or more lectures across all courses, only 12 women did so.

The lecture topics with the lowest rates of women presenters included malignant hematology (24.8%), solid tumors (38.9%), and benign hematology lectures (44.1%).

courtesy Dr. Al Hadidi

“We suspected [the imbalance in malignant hematology] since multiple recurrent roles were concentrated in the malignant hematology,” senior author Samer Al Hadidi, MD, of the Myeloma Center, Winthrop P. Rockefeller Cancer Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AK, said in an interview.

He noted that “there are no regulations that such courses need to follow to ensure certain proportions of women and junior faculty are involved.”
 

Early-career faculty

In terms of early-career representation, more than 50% of lectures were given by faculty who had received their initial certifications more than 15 years earlier. The median time from initial certification was 12.5 years for hematology and 14 years for medical oncology.

The findings that more than half of the board review lectures were presented by faculty with more than 15 years’ experience since initial certification “reflects a lack of appropriate involvement of early-career faculty, who arguably may have more recent experience with board certification,” the authors wrote.

While being underrepresented in such roles is detrimental, there are no regulations that such courses follow to ensure certain proportions of women and junior faculty are involved, Dr. Al Hadidi noted.
 

Equal representation remains elusive

The study does suggest some notable gains. In a previous study of 181 academic conferences in the United States and Canada between 2007 and 2017, the rate of women speakers was only 15%, compared with 37.7% in the new study.

And an overall trend analysis in the study shows an approximately 10% increase in representation of women in all of the board reviews. However, only the ASH hematology board review achieved more than 50% women in their two courses.

“Overall, the proportion of women speakers is improving over the years, though it remains suboptimal,” Dr. Al Hadidi said.

The authors noted that oncology is clearly not the only specialty with gender disparities. They documented a lack of women speakers at conferences involving otolaryngology head and neck meetings, radiation oncology, emergency medicine, and research conferences.

They pointed to the work of ASH’s Women in Hematology Working Group as an important example of the needed effort to improve the balance of women hematologists.

courtesy Penn Medicine

Ariela Marshall, MD, director of women’s thrombosis and hemostasis at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia and a leader of ASH’s Women in Hematology Working Group, agreed that more efforts are needed to address both gender disparities as well as those of early career speakers. She asserted that the two disparities appear to be connected.

“If you broke down gender representation over time and the faculty/time since initial certification, the findings may mirror the percent of women in hematology-oncology at that given point in time,” Dr. Marshall said in an interview.

“If an institution is truly committed to taking action on gender equity, it needs to look at gender and experience equity of speakers,” she said. “Perhaps it’s the time to say ‘Dr. X has been doing this review course for 15 years. Let’s give someone else a chance.’

“This is not even just from a gender equity perspective but from a career development perspective overall,” she added. “Junior faculty need these speaking engagements a lot more than senior faculty.”

Meanwhile, the higher number of female trainees is a trend that ideally will be sustained as those trainees move into positions of leadership, Dr. Marshall noted.

“We do see that over time, we have achieved gender equity in the percent of women matriculating to medical school. And my hope is that, 20 years down the line, we will see the effects of this reflected in increased equity in leadership positions such as division/department chair, dean, and hospital CEO,” she said. “However, we have a lot of work to do because there are still huge inequities in the culture of medicine (institutional and more broadly), including gender-based discrimination, maternal discrimination, and high attrition rates for women physicians, compared to male physicians.

“It’s not enough to simply say ‘well, we have fixed the problem because our incoming medical student classes are now equitable in gender distribution,’ ”

The authors and Dr. Marshall had no disclosures to report.

Despite some gains, new research shows ongoing gender imbalances in hematology and oncology, as reflected in the predominantly male presenters at board review lecture series – where early career faculty are also underrepresented.

“Our study provides the first analysis of gender and early-career faculty disparities in speakers at hematology and medical oncology board review meetings,” the authors reported in research published in Blood Advances.

“We covered six major board reviews over the last 5 years that are either conducted yearly or every other year, [and] the general trend across all meetings showed skewness toward men speakers,” the authors reported.

Recent data from 2021 suggests a closing of the gender gap in oncology, with women making up 44.6% of oncologists in training. However, they still only represented 35.2% of practicing oncologists and are underrepresented in leadership positions in academic oncology, the authors reported.

With speaking roles at academic meetings potentially marking a key step in career advancement and improved opportunities, the authors sought to investigate the balance of gender, as well as early-career faculty among speakers at prominent hematology and/or oncology board review lecture series taking place in the United States between 2017 and 2021.

The five institutions and one society presenting the board review lecture series included Baylor College of Medicine/MD Anderson Cancer Center, both in Houston; Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston; George Washington University, Washington; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; and the hematology board review series from the American Society of Hematology.

During the period in question, among 1,224 board review lectures presented, women constituted only 37.7% of the speakers. In lectures presented by American Board of Internal Medicine–certified speakers (n = 1,016, 83%), women were found to have made up fewer than 50% of speakers in five of six courses.

Men were also more likely to be recurrent speakers; across all courses, 13 men but only 2 women conducted 10 or more lectures. And while 35 men gave six or more lectures across all courses, only 12 women did so.

The lecture topics with the lowest rates of women presenters included malignant hematology (24.8%), solid tumors (38.9%), and benign hematology lectures (44.1%).

courtesy Dr. Al Hadidi

“We suspected [the imbalance in malignant hematology] since multiple recurrent roles were concentrated in the malignant hematology,” senior author Samer Al Hadidi, MD, of the Myeloma Center, Winthrop P. Rockefeller Cancer Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AK, said in an interview.

He noted that “there are no regulations that such courses need to follow to ensure certain proportions of women and junior faculty are involved.”
 

Early-career faculty

In terms of early-career representation, more than 50% of lectures were given by faculty who had received their initial certifications more than 15 years earlier. The median time from initial certification was 12.5 years for hematology and 14 years for medical oncology.

The findings that more than half of the board review lectures were presented by faculty with more than 15 years’ experience since initial certification “reflects a lack of appropriate involvement of early-career faculty, who arguably may have more recent experience with board certification,” the authors wrote.

While being underrepresented in such roles is detrimental, there are no regulations that such courses follow to ensure certain proportions of women and junior faculty are involved, Dr. Al Hadidi noted.
 

Equal representation remains elusive

The study does suggest some notable gains. In a previous study of 181 academic conferences in the United States and Canada between 2007 and 2017, the rate of women speakers was only 15%, compared with 37.7% in the new study.

And an overall trend analysis in the study shows an approximately 10% increase in representation of women in all of the board reviews. However, only the ASH hematology board review achieved more than 50% women in their two courses.

“Overall, the proportion of women speakers is improving over the years, though it remains suboptimal,” Dr. Al Hadidi said.

The authors noted that oncology is clearly not the only specialty with gender disparities. They documented a lack of women speakers at conferences involving otolaryngology head and neck meetings, radiation oncology, emergency medicine, and research conferences.

They pointed to the work of ASH’s Women in Hematology Working Group as an important example of the needed effort to improve the balance of women hematologists.

courtesy Penn Medicine

Ariela Marshall, MD, director of women’s thrombosis and hemostasis at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia and a leader of ASH’s Women in Hematology Working Group, agreed that more efforts are needed to address both gender disparities as well as those of early career speakers. She asserted that the two disparities appear to be connected.

“If you broke down gender representation over time and the faculty/time since initial certification, the findings may mirror the percent of women in hematology-oncology at that given point in time,” Dr. Marshall said in an interview.

“If an institution is truly committed to taking action on gender equity, it needs to look at gender and experience equity of speakers,” she said. “Perhaps it’s the time to say ‘Dr. X has been doing this review course for 15 years. Let’s give someone else a chance.’

“This is not even just from a gender equity perspective but from a career development perspective overall,” she added. “Junior faculty need these speaking engagements a lot more than senior faculty.”

Meanwhile, the higher number of female trainees is a trend that ideally will be sustained as those trainees move into positions of leadership, Dr. Marshall noted.

“We do see that over time, we have achieved gender equity in the percent of women matriculating to medical school. And my hope is that, 20 years down the line, we will see the effects of this reflected in increased equity in leadership positions such as division/department chair, dean, and hospital CEO,” she said. “However, we have a lot of work to do because there are still huge inequities in the culture of medicine (institutional and more broadly), including gender-based discrimination, maternal discrimination, and high attrition rates for women physicians, compared to male physicians.

“It’s not enough to simply say ‘well, we have fixed the problem because our incoming medical student classes are now equitable in gender distribution,’ ”

The authors and Dr. Marshall had no disclosures to report.

Despite some gains, new research shows ongoing gender imbalances in hematology and oncology, as reflected in the predominantly male presenters at board review lecture series – where early career faculty are also underrepresented.

“Our study provides the first analysis of gender and early-career faculty disparities in speakers at hematology and medical oncology board review meetings,” the authors reported in research published in Blood Advances.

“We covered six major board reviews over the last 5 years that are either conducted yearly or every other year, [and] the general trend across all meetings showed skewness toward men speakers,” the authors reported.

Recent data from 2021 suggests a closing of the gender gap in oncology, with women making up 44.6% of oncologists in training. However, they still only represented 35.2% of practicing oncologists and are underrepresented in leadership positions in academic oncology, the authors reported.

With speaking roles at academic meetings potentially marking a key step in career advancement and improved opportunities, the authors sought to investigate the balance of gender, as well as early-career faculty among speakers at prominent hematology and/or oncology board review lecture series taking place in the United States between 2017 and 2021.

The five institutions and one society presenting the board review lecture series included Baylor College of Medicine/MD Anderson Cancer Center, both in Houston; Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston; George Washington University, Washington; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; and the hematology board review series from the American Society of Hematology.

During the period in question, among 1,224 board review lectures presented, women constituted only 37.7% of the speakers. In lectures presented by American Board of Internal Medicine–certified speakers (n = 1,016, 83%), women were found to have made up fewer than 50% of speakers in five of six courses.

Men were also more likely to be recurrent speakers; across all courses, 13 men but only 2 women conducted 10 or more lectures. And while 35 men gave six or more lectures across all courses, only 12 women did so.

The lecture topics with the lowest rates of women presenters included malignant hematology (24.8%), solid tumors (38.9%), and benign hematology lectures (44.1%).

courtesy Dr. Al Hadidi

“We suspected [the imbalance in malignant hematology] since multiple recurrent roles were concentrated in the malignant hematology,” senior author Samer Al Hadidi, MD, of the Myeloma Center, Winthrop P. Rockefeller Cancer Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AK, said in an interview.

He noted that “there are no regulations that such courses need to follow to ensure certain proportions of women and junior faculty are involved.”
 

Early-career faculty

In terms of early-career representation, more than 50% of lectures were given by faculty who had received their initial certifications more than 15 years earlier. The median time from initial certification was 12.5 years for hematology and 14 years for medical oncology.

The findings that more than half of the board review lectures were presented by faculty with more than 15 years’ experience since initial certification “reflects a lack of appropriate involvement of early-career faculty, who arguably may have more recent experience with board certification,” the authors wrote.

While being underrepresented in such roles is detrimental, there are no regulations that such courses follow to ensure certain proportions of women and junior faculty are involved, Dr. Al Hadidi noted.
 

Equal representation remains elusive

The study does suggest some notable gains. In a previous study of 181 academic conferences in the United States and Canada between 2007 and 2017, the rate of women speakers was only 15%, compared with 37.7% in the new study.

And an overall trend analysis in the study shows an approximately 10% increase in representation of women in all of the board reviews. However, only the ASH hematology board review achieved more than 50% women in their two courses.

“Overall, the proportion of women speakers is improving over the years, though it remains suboptimal,” Dr. Al Hadidi said.

The authors noted that oncology is clearly not the only specialty with gender disparities. They documented a lack of women speakers at conferences involving otolaryngology head and neck meetings, radiation oncology, emergency medicine, and research conferences.

They pointed to the work of ASH’s Women in Hematology Working Group as an important example of the needed effort to improve the balance of women hematologists.

courtesy Penn Medicine

Ariela Marshall, MD, director of women’s thrombosis and hemostasis at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia and a leader of ASH’s Women in Hematology Working Group, agreed that more efforts are needed to address both gender disparities as well as those of early career speakers. She asserted that the two disparities appear to be connected.

“If you broke down gender representation over time and the faculty/time since initial certification, the findings may mirror the percent of women in hematology-oncology at that given point in time,” Dr. Marshall said in an interview.

“If an institution is truly committed to taking action on gender equity, it needs to look at gender and experience equity of speakers,” she said. “Perhaps it’s the time to say ‘Dr. X has been doing this review course for 15 years. Let’s give someone else a chance.’

“This is not even just from a gender equity perspective but from a career development perspective overall,” she added. “Junior faculty need these speaking engagements a lot more than senior faculty.”

Meanwhile, the higher number of female trainees is a trend that ideally will be sustained as those trainees move into positions of leadership, Dr. Marshall noted.

“We do see that over time, we have achieved gender equity in the percent of women matriculating to medical school. And my hope is that, 20 years down the line, we will see the effects of this reflected in increased equity in leadership positions such as division/department chair, dean, and hospital CEO,” she said. “However, we have a lot of work to do because there are still huge inequities in the culture of medicine (institutional and more broadly), including gender-based discrimination, maternal discrimination, and high attrition rates for women physicians, compared to male physicians.

“It’s not enough to simply say ‘well, we have fixed the problem because our incoming medical student classes are now equitable in gender distribution,’ ”

The authors and Dr. Marshall had no disclosures to report.

The second-generation selective Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) zanubrutinib outperformed the standard treatment bendamustine-rituximab in untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), a new industry-funded phase-3 trial found.

At a median follow-up of 26.2 months, progression to worsening disease or death was much lower in patients with these conditions who took zanubrutinib (Brukinsa), compared with those who took bendamustine-rituximab (hazard ratio. 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.63; P < .00011). The study was published in The Lancet Oncology.

Researchers already knew that ibrutinib, another BTKi, improves progression-free survival, study coauthor Paolo Ghia, MD, PhD, professor of medical oncology at Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, said in an interview. “Now we confirmed that the same advantage can be seen” in zanubrutinib.

According to Dr. Ghia, bendamustine-rituximab has long been a standard treatment in blood cancers and is considered well tolerated and inexpensive. But BTKis such as first-in-line ibrutinib have shown better results, he said, “and progressively, we are going to abandon bendamustine-rituximab.”

However, ibrutinib causes significant adverse effects such as bleeding, worsening hypertension and arrhythmia, he noted. As a result, second-generation BTKi such as zanubrutinib have entered the picture. The Food and Drug Administration approved it in 2019 for mantle cell lymphoma, and it has since been approved for Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia and marginal zone lymphoma.

In 2021, an interim analysis in a trial of the drug in patients with previously treated CLL, compared with ibrutinib, found that “zanubrutinib was shown to have a superior response rate, an improved PFS, and a lower rate of atrial fibrillation/flutter.”

The drug’s manufacturer, BeiGene, launched the new open-label, multicenter study, in a bid for FDA approval of the drug as a frontline treatment for CLL and SLL. More than 150 hospitals in 14 countries participated in the trial from 2017 to 2019.

The subjects were all adults and at least 65 years old or with comorbidities; None had the genetic trait del(17)(p13.1); 241 were assigned to take zanubrutinib and 238 to bendamustine-rituximab. Another group consisted of 111 patients with CLL and del(17)(p13·1). According to the study authors, these patients are especially difficult to treat.

The vast majority of patients were White (92%-95% depending on group) and male (61%-71%); 90%-92% had CLL.

At follow-up, there was no difference in overall survival between the main zanubrutinib and bendamustine-rituximab groups; 29 (12%) of the 241 patients in the zanubrutinib group and 57 (24%) of 238 patients in the bendamustine-rituximab group had progressed or died (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27-0.66; P < .00011). Adverse events leading to discontinuation were more common in the bendamustine-rituximab group (14%) versus zanubrutinib (8%).

In the third group, which only received zanubrutinib, 14% of patients died at median follow-up of 30.5 months; 98% of patients had adverse effects, and 5% discontinued treatment.

The researchers wrote that “zanubrutinib showed superior progression­-free survival versus bendamustine-rituximab in older patients or those with comorbidities with untreated CLL, with a low incidence of cardiac arrhythmia. Similar efficacy was observed in patients with del(17p)­–positive disease.”

The study didn’t examine cost; zanubrutinib is quite expensive.

In an interview, hematologist-oncologist Anthony Mato, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York said the new study is important although not surprising, since other medications in the same class have shown similar results. Zanubrutinib is an alternative to ibrutinib, although the latter remains “an excellent drug,” he said.

“The era of chemotherapy being a first choice is over,” he said. “We’ve had several randomized studies that show targeted therapies are better tolerated and have better outcomes. We now need to look through the choices to decide which one of these good options are the best for our patients.”

In an interview, hematologist-oncologist Joanna Rhodes, MD, of Northwell Health in Hempstead, N.Y., highlighted the side effect profile of zanubrutinib, noting that it is low and resembles that of other BTKis, making it “another excellent treatment option.”

“We are seeing that bruising, upper respiratory tract infections, diarrhea, and arthralgias are the most common side effects,” she said. “Bleeding also is a common side effect, which is consistent across the class of BTKis, with 5% of patients developing a major bleed. Also, 3% of patients treated with zanubrutinib developed atrial fibrillation, which is consistent with data from other trials. Treatment discontinuation rates were low (8%).”

The study was funded by BeiGene. The authors reported multiple disclosures. Dr. Mato reported research or consulting relationships with BeiGene, AstraZeneca, and AbbVie. Dr. Rhodes reported multiple research or consulting relationships with Abbvie, BeiGene, Genentech, and others.

The second-generation selective Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) zanubrutinib outperformed the standard treatment bendamustine-rituximab in untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), a new industry-funded phase-3 trial found.

At a median follow-up of 26.2 months, progression to worsening disease or death was much lower in patients with these conditions who took zanubrutinib (Brukinsa), compared with those who took bendamustine-rituximab (hazard ratio. 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.63; P < .00011). The study was published in The Lancet Oncology.

Researchers already knew that ibrutinib, another BTKi, improves progression-free survival, study coauthor Paolo Ghia, MD, PhD, professor of medical oncology at Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, said in an interview. “Now we confirmed that the same advantage can be seen” in zanubrutinib.

According to Dr. Ghia, bendamustine-rituximab has long been a standard treatment in blood cancers and is considered well tolerated and inexpensive. But BTKis such as first-in-line ibrutinib have shown better results, he said, “and progressively, we are going to abandon bendamustine-rituximab.”

However, ibrutinib causes significant adverse effects such as bleeding, worsening hypertension and arrhythmia, he noted. As a result, second-generation BTKi such as zanubrutinib have entered the picture. The Food and Drug Administration approved it in 2019 for mantle cell lymphoma, and it has since been approved for Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia and marginal zone lymphoma.

In 2021, an interim analysis in a trial of the drug in patients with previously treated CLL, compared with ibrutinib, found that “zanubrutinib was shown to have a superior response rate, an improved PFS, and a lower rate of atrial fibrillation/flutter.”

The drug’s manufacturer, BeiGene, launched the new open-label, multicenter study, in a bid for FDA approval of the drug as a frontline treatment for CLL and SLL. More than 150 hospitals in 14 countries participated in the trial from 2017 to 2019.

The subjects were all adults and at least 65 years old or with comorbidities; None had the genetic trait del(17)(p13.1); 241 were assigned to take zanubrutinib and 238 to bendamustine-rituximab. Another group consisted of 111 patients with CLL and del(17)(p13·1). According to the study authors, these patients are especially difficult to treat.

The vast majority of patients were White (92%-95% depending on group) and male (61%-71%); 90%-92% had CLL.

At follow-up, there was no difference in overall survival between the main zanubrutinib and bendamustine-rituximab groups; 29 (12%) of the 241 patients in the zanubrutinib group and 57 (24%) of 238 patients in the bendamustine-rituximab group had progressed or died (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27-0.66; P < .00011). Adverse events leading to discontinuation were more common in the bendamustine-rituximab group (14%) versus zanubrutinib (8%).

In the third group, which only received zanubrutinib, 14% of patients died at median follow-up of 30.5 months; 98% of patients had adverse effects, and 5% discontinued treatment.

The researchers wrote that “zanubrutinib showed superior progression­-free survival versus bendamustine-rituximab in older patients or those with comorbidities with untreated CLL, with a low incidence of cardiac arrhythmia. Similar efficacy was observed in patients with del(17p)­–positive disease.”

The study didn’t examine cost; zanubrutinib is quite expensive.

In an interview, hematologist-oncologist Anthony Mato, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York said the new study is important although not surprising, since other medications in the same class have shown similar results. Zanubrutinib is an alternative to ibrutinib, although the latter remains “an excellent drug,” he said.

“The era of chemotherapy being a first choice is over,” he said. “We’ve had several randomized studies that show targeted therapies are better tolerated and have better outcomes. We now need to look through the choices to decide which one of these good options are the best for our patients.”

In an interview, hematologist-oncologist Joanna Rhodes, MD, of Northwell Health in Hempstead, N.Y., highlighted the side effect profile of zanubrutinib, noting that it is low and resembles that of other BTKis, making it “another excellent treatment option.”

“We are seeing that bruising, upper respiratory tract infections, diarrhea, and arthralgias are the most common side effects,” she said. “Bleeding also is a common side effect, which is consistent across the class of BTKis, with 5% of patients developing a major bleed. Also, 3% of patients treated with zanubrutinib developed atrial fibrillation, which is consistent with data from other trials. Treatment discontinuation rates were low (8%).”

The study was funded by BeiGene. The authors reported multiple disclosures. Dr. Mato reported research or consulting relationships with BeiGene, AstraZeneca, and AbbVie. Dr. Rhodes reported multiple research or consulting relationships with Abbvie, BeiGene, Genentech, and others.

The second-generation selective Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) zanubrutinib outperformed the standard treatment bendamustine-rituximab in untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), a new industry-funded phase-3 trial found.

At a median follow-up of 26.2 months, progression to worsening disease or death was much lower in patients with these conditions who took zanubrutinib (Brukinsa), compared with those who took bendamustine-rituximab (hazard ratio. 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.63; P < .00011). The study was published in The Lancet Oncology.

Researchers already knew that ibrutinib, another BTKi, improves progression-free survival, study coauthor Paolo Ghia, MD, PhD, professor of medical oncology at Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, said in an interview. “Now we confirmed that the same advantage can be seen” in zanubrutinib.

According to Dr. Ghia, bendamustine-rituximab has long been a standard treatment in blood cancers and is considered well tolerated and inexpensive. But BTKis such as first-in-line ibrutinib have shown better results, he said, “and progressively, we are going to abandon bendamustine-rituximab.”

However, ibrutinib causes significant adverse effects such as bleeding, worsening hypertension and arrhythmia, he noted. As a result, second-generation BTKi such as zanubrutinib have entered the picture. The Food and Drug Administration approved it in 2019 for mantle cell lymphoma, and it has since been approved for Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia and marginal zone lymphoma.

In 2021, an interim analysis in a trial of the drug in patients with previously treated CLL, compared with ibrutinib, found that “zanubrutinib was shown to have a superior response rate, an improved PFS, and a lower rate of atrial fibrillation/flutter.”

The drug’s manufacturer, BeiGene, launched the new open-label, multicenter study, in a bid for FDA approval of the drug as a frontline treatment for CLL and SLL. More than 150 hospitals in 14 countries participated in the trial from 2017 to 2019.

The subjects were all adults and at least 65 years old or with comorbidities; None had the genetic trait del(17)(p13.1); 241 were assigned to take zanubrutinib and 238 to bendamustine-rituximab. Another group consisted of 111 patients with CLL and del(17)(p13·1). According to the study authors, these patients are especially difficult to treat.

The vast majority of patients were White (92%-95% depending on group) and male (61%-71%); 90%-92% had CLL.

At follow-up, there was no difference in overall survival between the main zanubrutinib and bendamustine-rituximab groups; 29 (12%) of the 241 patients in the zanubrutinib group and 57 (24%) of 238 patients in the bendamustine-rituximab group had progressed or died (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27-0.66; P < .00011). Adverse events leading to discontinuation were more common in the bendamustine-rituximab group (14%) versus zanubrutinib (8%).

In the third group, which only received zanubrutinib, 14% of patients died at median follow-up of 30.5 months; 98% of patients had adverse effects, and 5% discontinued treatment.

The researchers wrote that “zanubrutinib showed superior progression­-free survival versus bendamustine-rituximab in older patients or those with comorbidities with untreated CLL, with a low incidence of cardiac arrhythmia. Similar efficacy was observed in patients with del(17p)­–positive disease.”

The study didn’t examine cost; zanubrutinib is quite expensive.

In an interview, hematologist-oncologist Anthony Mato, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York said the new study is important although not surprising, since other medications in the same class have shown similar results. Zanubrutinib is an alternative to ibrutinib, although the latter remains “an excellent drug,” he said.

“The era of chemotherapy being a first choice is over,” he said. “We’ve had several randomized studies that show targeted therapies are better tolerated and have better outcomes. We now need to look through the choices to decide which one of these good options are the best for our patients.”

In an interview, hematologist-oncologist Joanna Rhodes, MD, of Northwell Health in Hempstead, N.Y., highlighted the side effect profile of zanubrutinib, noting that it is low and resembles that of other BTKis, making it “another excellent treatment option.”

“We are seeing that bruising, upper respiratory tract infections, diarrhea, and arthralgias are the most common side effects,” she said. “Bleeding also is a common side effect, which is consistent across the class of BTKis, with 5% of patients developing a major bleed. Also, 3% of patients treated with zanubrutinib developed atrial fibrillation, which is consistent with data from other trials. Treatment discontinuation rates were low (8%).”

The study was funded by BeiGene. The authors reported multiple disclosures. Dr. Mato reported research or consulting relationships with BeiGene, AstraZeneca, and AbbVie. Dr. Rhodes reported multiple research or consulting relationships with Abbvie, BeiGene, Genentech, and others.