Venetoclax consolidation in high-risk CLL treated with ibrutinib for ≥1 year achieves a high rate of undetectable MRD

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2414252/v1

Download PDF

Article

Venetoclax consolidation in high-risk CLL treated with ibrutinib for ≥1 year achieves a high rate of undetectable MRD

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2414252/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 03 May, 2023

Read the published version in Leukemia →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Patients receiving ibrutinib for CLL rarely achieve undetectable measurable residual disease (U-MRD), necessitating indefinite therapy, with cumulative risks of treatment discontinuation due to progression or adverse events. This study added venetoclax to ibrutinib for up to 2 years, in patients who had received ibrutinib for ≥ 12 months (mo) and had ≥ 1 high risk feature (TP53 mutation and/or deletion, ATM deletion, complex karyotype or persistently elevated β₂-microglobulin). The primary endpoint was U-MRD with 10^− 4 sensitivity (U-MRD4) in bone marrow (BM) at 12mo. Forty-five patients were treated. On intention-to-treat analysis, 23/42 (55%) patients improved their response to CR (2 pts were in MRD + CR at venetoclax initiation). U-MRD4 at 12mo was 57%. Best rate of U-MRD4 was 33/45 (73%); 23/32 stopped ibrutinib; 9 continued ibrutinib. At a median of 41 months from venetoclax initiation, 5/45 patients have progressed; none have died from CLL or Richter Transformation. In 32 patients with BM U-MRD4, peripheral blood (PB) MRD4 was analyzed every 6 months; 10/32 have had PB MRD re-emergence at a median of 13 months post-venetoclax. In summary, the addition of venetoclax in patients treated with ≥ 12mo of ibrutinib achieved high rate of BM U-MRD4 and may achieve durable treatment-free remission.

Health sciences/Medical research/Drug development

Health sciences/Medical research/Clinical trial design/Clinical trials/Phase II trials

Health sciences/Diseases/Haematological diseases/Haematological cancer/Leukaemia/Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia

Patients receiving the Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) rarely achieve complete remission (CR) with undetectable measurable residual disease at a sensitivity of 10^− 4 (U-MRD4). Therefore, continuous and indefinite maintenance therapy is standard of care. Long-term treatment with ibrutinib, even in the first-line setting, results in a cumulative risk of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events or disease progression,(1, 2) as well as high cost.(3) In one large, real world analysis, the rate of discontinuation due to adverse events was 41% at a median follow-up of 17 months.(4) Adverse effects of particular interest include atrial fibrillation, major hemorrhage and hypertension. Most recently, concern has emerged regarding an increased risk of ventricular arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death (relative risk 8.13 in a meta-analysis, of which, half resulted in sudden cardiac death).(5)

The risk of progression, most commonly associated with mutation at the cysteine residue in codon 481 of BTK that prevents covalent binding of ibrutinib,(6) is highest in patients with complex karyotype and/or TP53 deletion or mutation.(7, 8) Median progression-free survival (PFS) is approximately 26 months in patients with relapsed/refractory disease and del(17p); in first line patients, approximately 60% remain progression-free at 6 years.(9, 10) Some series suggest increased risk in patients with del(11q), which may be more important in heavily pre-treated patients(11) or persistently elevated β₂-microglobulin.(12) There is no plateau on the PFS curve, with a continuous pattern of relapses seen.(8) After failure of ibrutinib, a standard-of-care salvage therapy is treatment with the Bcl-2 inhibitor venetoclax, with or without rituximab. Response rate to venetoclax monotherapy after failure of ibrutinib is approximately 70%, with median PFS of just over 2 years.(13)

Venetoclax is synergistic with ibrutinib,(14) has a largely non-overlapping toxicity profile, and is able to achieve U-MRD alone or combined with CD20 monoclonal antibodies.(15–17) Combining venetoclax with ibrutinib is attractive for multiple reasons: first, the completely distinct mechanisms of action could reduce the risk of on-treatment emergence of resistance through selective pressure, which has been seen in the majority of high risk patients treated with BTK inhibitor or venetoclax monotherapy; second, synergistic CLL cell killing may achieve deep remissions, allowing treatment discontinuation, reducing both risk of toxicity from continued BTK inhibitor therapy and also cumulative financial burden (provided the duration of off-treatment remission exceeds the duration of combined therapy); third, the largely non-overlapping toxicity profiles allows safe combination of the two agents, as has been shown in other studies.(18–21)

We hypothesized that adding venetoclax to ibrutinib in patients at high-risk for CLL progression, who had received ibrutinib therapy for at least 12 months, would achieve U-MRD4 in bone marrow (BM) and be associated with low risk of disease progression. In the early studies of venetoclax therapy, tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) was noted, necessitating gradual dose escalation.(15) Risk for TLS with venetoclax initiation is proportionate to disease bulk at time of therapy initiation. We therefore also hypothesized that TLS risk would be low when utilizing venetoclax as an “add on” to ibrutinib after at least 12 months of ibrutinib therapy, given most patients would have low disease burden, unlike the situation potentially faced if venetoclax is initiated at the time of disease progression on ibrutinib.

We designed a phase II, investigator-initiated, response-adapted clinical trial with the addition of venetoclax to ibrutinib in patients with one or more high-risk features for disease progression who had received at least 1 year of ibrutinib, regardless of line of treatment. There was no stipulated maximum duration of ibrutinib therapy. Patients had detectable disease (defined as ≥ 0.01% MRD assessed by flow cytometry in BM; measurable disease by CT was not required) at the time of study entry and did not meet IWCLL criteria for progression. High-risk features were defined as the presence of at least one of: del(17p) or TP53 mutation, complex karyotype, del(11q); or β₂-microglobulin above the upper limit of normal at the time of study screening. Patients could satisfy genomic eligibility criteria if detected within the 3 months prior to starting ibrutinib or at any time during ibrutinib therapy. This provision was utilized to account for the fact that some patients were expected to have a low frequency of CLL cells present in BM at the time of study screening, which could lead to false negative testing for the relevant genomic aberrations. Ibrutinib was continued at the previously tolerated dose (140-420mg once daily) and standard TLS risk-adjusted initiation and escalation of venetoclax was performed to the target dose of 400mg once daily. Treatment with combined ibrutinib and venetoclax continued for a maximum duration of twenty-four 28-day cycles, or approximately 2 years (Fig. 1). Full inclusion and exclusion criteria are outlined in the data supplement.

Patients had BM evaluation for MRD by flow cytometry (sensitivity 10^− 4) performed prior to treatment and every 6 cycles of venetoclax. At the initiation of the study, this was performed utilizing the standardized 4-color flow cytometry method of Rawstron et al.,(22), which was upgraded to an in-house 10-color method on January 8, 2020. The 10-color flow cytometry assay was extensively cross-validated with the standardized 4-color assay and demonstrated at least equivalent sensitivity of 0.01%. Details of the in-house flow cytometry assay are provided in the supplementary methods. Patients also had a pre-treatment computed tomography (CT) scan of neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis for evaluation of nodal disease and re-staging CT every 6 cycles of treatment until achievement of CR. All scans were read by a single, expert radiologist (NG) and responses were assigned according to IWCLL 2008 criteria.(23) Patients in CR with BM U-MRD4 on two consecutive evaluations, 6 cycles apart, stopped venetoclax, but could continue ibrutinib at physician discretion. Patients who were BM MRD4-positive post-24 cycles of treatment continued ibrutinib maintenance (Fig. 1).

The primary endpoint for the study was BM U-MRD4 after 12 cycles of therapy. For the purposes of sample size calculation, the assumption was that after 12 cycles of ibrutinib plus venetoclax, at least 25% of patients would achieve BM U-MRD4. To ensure patient safety, the probability of toxicity (defined as grade ≥ 3 non-hematologic adverse events) was monitored using a Bayesian monitoring rule.(24) The detailed statistical plan is provided in the supplementary appendix.

Adverse events were assessed from time of initiation of venetoclax until completion of venetoclax therapy according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.03). Dose modification of ibrutinib and/or venetoclax were allowed, with guidelines provided in the protocol as per the U.S. Prescribing Information.

The study was approved by the M.D. Anderson Institutional Review Board and conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki.

Pre-treatment patient characteristics of the 45 enrolled patients are shown in Table 1. All patients had completed venetoclax therapy as of the final data cutoff for this analysis (August 22, 2022). The median number of prior therapies was 1 (range 0–3); 22/45 patients were receiving ibrutinib as initial therapy. Median duration of ibrutinib therapy prior to venetoclax was 32 months (range, 12–73). Sixty-three percent of patients had del(17p) and/or mutated TP53. Thirty-one percent of patients with stimulated karyotype result available had complex karyotype. Median pre-venetoclax MRD percentage in BM was 7.3% (range 0.03 to 70.1%). No patients were high-risk for venetoclax-associated TLS, 5/45 were medium-risk and 40/45 were low-risk. Pre-treatment disease response status is detailed in Table 2.

Table 1

Pre-treatment patient characteristics. ^*41 of 45 patients had at least one lymph node > 1.5cm in maximum diameter.
Characteristic, N = 45 unless stated	n (%) unless stated
Age, years, median (range)	68.5 (51–80)
Absolute lymphocyte count prior to venetoclax, x10⁹/L, median (range)	2.3 (0.9–60.2)
No prior therapies, median (range)	1 (0–3)
Median % CLL cells in BM prior to venetoclax, by 4 color flow cytometry (range)	7.3 (0.03–70.1)
Largest lymph node (max diameter) pre-venetoclax in cm, median (range)	2.2 (unmeasurable to 9.1)^*
Median duration of ibrutinib therapy pre-venetoclax, months (range)	32 (12–73)
Pre-venetoclax ibrutinib daily dose
140mg	13 (29)
280mg	11 (24)
420mg	21 (47)
FISH
Del(17p)	19 (42)
Del(11q)	18 (40)
Other	8 (18)
Complex karyotype (n = 36)	11 (31)
Either del(17p) or TP53-mutated (n = 41)	26 (63)
Unmutated IGHV (n = 37)	30 (81)
NGS (n = 37)
TP53-mutated	18 (49)
BIRC3-mutated	6 (16)
NOTCH1-mutated	5 (14)
SF3B1-mutated	4 (11)
BTK-mutated	1 (5)
TLS risk category
Low	40 (89)
Medium	5 (11)

Table 2

Pre-treatment response category. * Note – all 14 patients with absolute lymphocyte count > 4 x 10⁹/L also had at least one lymph node > 1.5cm in maximum diameter.
Response category	Number of patients
CR, MRD+	3
PR, MRD+
Absolute lymphocyte count > 4 x 10⁹/L + lymph node enlargement > 1.5cm (+/- splenomegaly)	14^*
Lymph node enlargement > 1.5cm (+/- splenomegaly)	27
Bone marrow involvement (> 30% lymphocytes or B lymphoid nodules) +/- splenomegaly	1
Splenomegaly only	0

MRD results

On intent-to-treat analysis, 17/45 patients (38%) post-cycle 6 and 26/45 (57%) post-cycle 12 achieved BM U-MRD4 status. Best cumulative rate of BM U-MRD4 was 33/45 (73%) and 32/45 (71%) had BM U-MRD4 at the completion of venetoclax. Patterns of individual response are shown in Fig. 2A. There was no statistically significant difference in rate of BM U-MRD4 in those patients with TP53 abnormality vs no TP53 abnormality (65.4% vs 78.9%, p = 0.32), complex vs non-complex karyotype (72.7% vs 66.7%, p = 0.61) or treatment-naïve vs relapsed/refractory CLL at the time of ibrutinib initiation (81.8% vs 60.9%, p = 0.12). There was also no difference in U-MRD4 for patients requiring venetoclax dose reduction vs not (60% vs 76%, p = 0.25) or ibrutinib dose reduction (pre-study or during the study) vs not (74% vs 67%, p = 0.64). There was also no difference in U-MRD in patients treated with ibrutinib for < 2.5 years vs > 2.5 years (80% vs 64%, p = 0.24).

As shown in Fig. 2A, the majority of patients who achieved BM U-MRD4 did so within the first 12 months of therapy. Serial BM MRD analysis predicted likelihood of achieving BM U-MRD4 status. At 6 months, patients with detectable MRD at a level of < 1% had an 82% likelihood of achieving BM U-MRD4 (14/17) at the end of therapy, while only 1/9 patients with ≥ 1% MRD achieved BM U-MRD status at the end of therapy. Among 16 evaluable patients who had detectable MRD after cycle 12, 6 (38%) achieved BM U-MRD4 subsequently (although one, who had U-MRD4 after cycle 18 was MRD-positive at 0.014% at cycle 24). The highest MRD level after cycle 6 in these 6 patients who converted from MRD-positive after cycle 12 to U-MRD4 after cycle 24 was 0.08%.

Nodal responses

Two of 45 patients (5%) were in MRD + CR prior to venetoclax. Of the remaining patients, 23/42 (55%) patients improved their response to CR/CRi during venetoclax treatment. All patients had reduction in lymph node size with addition of venetoclax. Median change in the sum of the product diameters of 6 measurable lymph nodes was − 70% (range 1% − 100%), Fig. 2B.

Patient disposition, PFS and survival

Patient status is shown in Fig. 3. Median follow-up is 41 months from the time of venetoclax initiation. Forty-one patients completed venetoclax treatment per protocol. Thirty-two patients achieved BM U-MRD4 status at the completion of planned study treatment. Of these 32 patients, 10 stopped venetoclax prior to C24 per protocol (5 after C12 and 5 after C18), after achieving CR with BM U-MRD on two consecutive response assessments. At completion of venetoclax, 9/32 patients with BM U-MRD4 status continued ibrutinib at physician discretion [6/9 with del(17p)]. Three-year estimated PFS was 95%. At a median follow-up of 41 months, 5 patients have progressed (Fig. 2C): 1 during combined therapy; 3 during ibrutinib maintenance (2 of whom had BM U-MRD4 at completion of venetoclax); and 1 with Richter Transformation during observation after achieving BM U-MRD4 CR. No patient died during venetoclax treatment. Patients continued to be followed for overall survival after completing study therapy. No patient has died from CLL or Richter Transformation. Two patients died after receiving treatment for other primary cancers (metastatic melanoma, AML) and one after coming off protocol to receive acalabrutinib, from unknown causes (the patient was lost to follow-up prior to his death). (Fig. 2C). The patient who developed MDS and subsequently AML had received chemoimmunotherapy on a clinical trial with combined cyclophosphamide, fludarabine, alemtuzumab, and rituximab (CFAR) prior to treatment with ibrutinib. Patient remission status at completion of venetoclax and subsequent disposition is shown in Fig. 3.

Clonal evolution at disease progression and subsequent treatments

Additional genomic abnormalities at disease progression are shown in Table 3.

Table 3

Patients who developed progressive disease, with genomic characteristics pre- and post-progression (note some pre-treatment testing was unavailable due to low disease burden at the time of starting venetoclax). Abbreviations: CHOP, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone; CR, complete remission; FISH, fluorescent *in situ* hybridization; PR, partial remission; Rx, treatment; TTP, time-to-progression; UIN (unique identification number).
Pt UIN	#Rx prior to ibr	TTP (mo)	Best response and phase of treatment at progression	Pre-venetoclax cytogenetics	Post-venetoclax cytogenetics	Pre-venetoclax molecular	Post-progression molecular	Treatment at progression and response
39	1	18.1	PR, MRD+. Combination therapy	46,XY,del(11)(q13q22) FISH – del(11q)	45 ~ 46,XY,add(7)(q36),add(8)(p21),add(9)(p13),del(11)(q13q22),add(12)(q24.3),del(13)(q12q14),add(16)(q24),-18,-22,+1 ~ 3mar[cp7] FISH – del(11q)	ATM, FAT1, SF3B1, BTK C481R (< 5% VAF)	BTK C481R, ATM, FAT1, SF3B1	Pirtobrutinib – PR
5	2	43	CR, MRD+. Ibrutinib maintenance	46,XY,+12,der(14;17)(q10;q10)[10]/45 ~ 47,idem,+mar[cp5]/46,XY[5] FISH – del(17p)	Not done	BIRC3, TP53	TP53, KLH6, U2AF1	No additional therapy yet
28	0	45.4	PR, U-MRD. Ibrutinib maintenance	45,XY,del(8)(p11.2),add(9)(p13),del(11)(q14q23),-21,-22,+mar[1], 44 ~ 46,XY,del(8)(p11.2),add(9)(p13),+mar[cp3]	46,XY,del(11)(q21q23)[cp3]/92,idemx2,add(2)(p11.1),del(8)(p11.2)x2,add(9)(p13),-12,-12,+4 ~ 7mar[cp2]	Not done	BTK C481S, SETD2, ATM, XPO1	Liso-cabtagene ciloleucel – CR.
14	3	22.6	CR, U-MRD. Ibrutinib maintenance	45,XX,der(4)t(4;15)(q28;q15),del(8)(p21),der(10;14)(q10;q10),-15,der(17;18)(q10;q10),+2mar[2]	Not done. FISH del(17p)	NOTCH1 c.7541_7542del, TP53	BCL2 G101V, BCL2 R107_R110dupRYR, NOTCH1 c.6900del , NOTCH1 c.7541_7542del , TP53	Pirtobrutinib - PR
23	0	39.1	CR, U-MRD. Observation	45,X,-Y,add(1)(p13),add(9)(p13),add(17)(p11.2)[2]/46,XY[18] FISH – del(17p)	Not done FISH – del(17p)	Not done	SF3B1, DNMT3A	R-CHOP + venetoclax for Richter’s Syndrome- CR

Only one patient developed disease progression during combined therapy (patient 39). This patient’s CLL had a BTK C481R mutation detected prior to venetoclax initiation, indicating emergence of an ibrutinib-resistant cell population prior to venetoclax initiation. The BTK C481R mutated cells remained at progression and the CLL developed 11 new karyotypic abnormalities on conventional cytogenetic analysis, without any associated BCL2 mutation identified. Three patients developed disease progression while taking continuous ibrutinib (one MRD-positive, two with U-MRD) after completion of venetoclax (patients 5, 14 and 28): Patient 5, with MRD-positive disease, had difficulty tolerating venetoclax due to neutropenia and thrombocytopenia and required dose reduction to 50mg daily. In addition to CLL, he has clonal cytopenia of uncertain significance, with a U2AF1 mutation present, and this may have contributed to inability to maintain venetoclax dose intensity. The two patients with BM U-MRD4 who progressed on ibrutinib maintenance (14 and 28) had different patterns of resistance: one, who had del(11q) but no TP53 abnormality, had emergence of a CLL clone containing multiple new chromosomal abnormalities, including tetraploidy, as well as a BTK C481S mutation; intriguingly, patient 28, whose CLL had del(17p) and complex karyotype pre-venetoclax, had no identifiable mechanism of resistance to ibrutinib. Her CLL had 2 separate BCL2 mutations at progression (including G101V), despite rapidly achieving BM U-MRD4 (at 6 months) during combination therapy. One patient (patient 39), whose CLL had del(17p) and complex karyotype developed Richter Transformation during observation after achieving BM U-MRD4 status and stopping therapy. He achieved CR, with U-MRD6 by Clonoseq on a clinical trial with venetoclax plus R-CHOP and proceeded with allogeneic stem cell transplant.

MRD-free survival

During follow-up, in patients with BM U-MRD4 at the completion of therapy, PB MRD testing was obtained every 6 months (Fig. 4); 31 of 32 patients who had BM U-MRD4 at the completion of venetoclax have had at least one PB MRD measurement; 10 have had confirmed PB MRD re-emergence, 7/23 patients who were not taking maintenance ibrutinib and 3/9 patients on ibrutinib maintenance, (p = 0.49, Fig. 3B). There was also no difference in MRD-free survival according to remission status (CR/CRi vs no CR/CRi), (p = 0.49, Fig. 4A), previously treatment-naïve vs relapsed/refractory (p = 0.52 Fig. 4C), or TP53 abnormalities (p = 0.66, Fig. 4D). Three patients subsequently developed disease progression, of whom 2 were receiving ibrutinib maintenance per physician discretion at the time of progression.

Adverse event profile

Treatment was well-tolerated. All adverse events (AEs) occurring in ≥ 15% of patients, regardless of attribution, are shown in Table 4. Similar to other previously published studies of combined ibrutinib plus venetoclax, the most common AE was diarrhea in 21 (47% of patients), grade 1–2 in all but 1 patient. No patient developed clinical or biochemical TLS. The most common grade 3–4 AE was neutropenia, seen in 20% of patients. No patient had febrile neutropenia. Eighteen patients experienced a total of 25 SAEs: nine patients had non-melanoma skin cancers diagnosed during the trial; 2 patients developed myelodysplastic syndrome (both with a history of chemotherapy treatment for CLL); 6 developed other solid tumors (see supplementary table); 3 patients developed grade 3 infections (pneumonia, pyelonephritis, skin abscess). There were no opportunistic infections.

Table 4

Adverse Effects occurring in > 10% of patients, regardless of attribution.
Adverse Events	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Total # of events	% of patients experiencing this AE
Diarrhea	16	4	1		21	46.7
Neutrophil count decreased	2	8	8	1	19	42.2
Bruising	15	2			17	37.8
Upper respiratory infection	1	12			13	28.9
Fatigue	10	2			12	26.7
Arthralgia	11				11	24.4
Nausea	10	1			11	24.4
Platelet count decreased	3	3	5		11	24.4
Rash and non-specific skin eruption	9	1			10	22.2
Creatinine increased	7	2			9	20.0
Mucositis oral	7	1			8	17.8
Atrial fibrillation	3	2	1		6	13.3
Cough	5	1			6	13.3
Hypertension		1	5		6	13.3
Back pain	4		1		5	11.1
Dizziness	4	1			5	11.1
Epistaxis	5				5	11.1
Hyperuricemia	5				5	11.1
Hyponatremia	5				5	11.1

No patient stopped venetoclax treatment due to toxicity. However, 14/45 patients required venetoclax dose reduction (300mg, n = 5, 200mg n = 7, 100mg, n = 1 and 50mg, n = 1), most commonly due to neutropenia (n = 7, or diarrhea, n = 6). Prior to study entry, 24/45 patients had ibrutinib dose reduced to 280mg or 140mg. During the study an additional 6 patients had dose reductions of ibrutinib due to adverse events (30/45 patients total had ibrutinib dose reductions either prior to or during the study) and 5 patients stopped ibrutinib (due to atrial fibrillation, n = 3, non-sustained ventricular tachycardia, n = 1 and unexplained syncope complicated by subdural hematoma, n = 1).

Venetoclax added to ibrutinib in patients with high-risk CLL was well-tolerated and achieved a cumulative BM U-MRD4 rate of 73%, with no significant differences in rate of achievement of BM U-MRD according to presence or absence of TP53 abnormalities, complex karyotype or prior treatment status. This allowed treatment discontinuation in a significant proportion of patients. The high rate of BM U-MRD4 was similar to results from studies utilizing ibrutinib plus venetoclax as initial therapy(18, 20, 25) or for treatment of relapsed/refractory disease,(19) despite the selection of high genomic risk patients in our cohort. In addition to the high rates of U-MRD4 achieved, 55% of patients improved response to CR, with a median 70% reduction in sum product diameters of target lymph node groups, indicating that the benefit of addition of venetoclax extended beyond the bone marrow compartment.

Given the distinct mechanisms of action of ibrutinib and venetoclax, we hypothesized that the likelihood of simultaneous selection of resistance mutations to both agents would be low. Importantly, in our study, only 1 of 45 patients developed progressive disease during combined therapy. In one high risk patient (del(17p) and complex karyotype), BCL2 mutation was detected at progression during ibrutinib maintenance, despite rapid attainment of U-MRD4 at 6 months of combination therapy; in the other 3 cases of disease progression, no patient had BCL2 mutations detected, while one had emergence of BTK C481S as the mechanism of ibrutinib resistance (in addition to > 10 new karyotypic abnormalities). Thus, in high-risk patients, therapy with combined ibrutinib and venetoclax may reduce, but does not eliminate, the risk of selecting treatment-resistant cells. The mechanisms of MRD persistence and resistance to combined BTK and BCL2 inhibition remain to be elucidated.

The optimal duration of combined ibrutinib and venetoclax is unknown. Some studies have used a fixed treatment durations (GLOW(25), CAPTIVATE-FD(26)) while others have utilized an MRD-adapted approach (M.D. Anderson Phase 2(18), CAPTIVATE-MRD(20), HOVON141,(21) CLARITY(19)). We employed an MRD-adapted treatment strategy in the study. The majority of patients who were destined to achieve BM U-MRD did so within 12 cycles; however, of the 16 patients who were MRD-positive after cycle 12, 6/16 achieved U-MRD4 in the 2nd year of therapy. Thus, the MRD-adapted treatment approach offered further potential benefit beyond a 12-month, fixed-duration treatment strategy such as employed in the GLOW trial, in allowing some patients to achieve deeper remissions. This deepening of remissions with a 2nd year of combined ibrutinib and venetoclax has also been reported in the CAPTIVATE-MRD and CLARITY trials. The optimal approach to patients who have U-MRD4 after ibrutinib + venetoclax remains unclear; after a median of 3 years of follow-up, the CAPTIVATE study has shown no PFS benefit for ibrutinib maintenance vs placebo in patients with U-MRD, but these are first line patients with a minority having high risk features.(27) The benefit from continued ibrutinib maintenance may be greater in high risk cohorts such as ours. The majority of patients in our trial who had U-MRD stopped ibrutinib (23/32) and their long-term outcomes (including response to covalent BTKi re-treatment) will be important to monitor. We also continued ibrutinib maintenance in patients who were MRD-positive at the end of therapy, of whom 8/10 remain in ongoing remission and are potentially benefiting from maintenance therapy. The optimal approach to patients who remain MRD + after 2 years of combined ibrutinib + venetoclax is unknown. CLARITY and an M.D. Anderson phase 2 study(28) have explored a 3rd year of combination therapy in patients who remain MRD+. However, the additional benefit in terms of deepening of responses in these data sets appears modest and it is unclear if any improvement in PFS from long-term doublet therapy vs monotherapy with ibrutinib would justify the additional cost and toxicity.

At a median of 13.3 months of post-venetoclax follow up, most patients who attained BM U-MRD have ongoing PB U-MRD. The protocol did allow continuation of ibrutinib according to physician discretion in patients with BM U-MRD at the end of venetoclax therapy. Assignment to ibrutinib maintenance or not in patients with BM U-MRD was non-randomized (unlike in the CAPTIVATE study)(20) and the study was not powered to evaluate differences in PFS according to receipt of ibrutinib maintenance vs no maintenance. Within the limitations of these parameters, there has so far been no significant difference noted in time-to-MRD re-emergence in the group of patients who received ibrutinib maintenance vs no maintenance. No other pre-treatment patient characteristics (notably, number of prior therapies, TP53 abnormality vs not) or IWCLL response category (CR/CRi vs not) were associated with risk of re-emergence of MRD post-venetoclax. There have been too few events to evaluate risk of progression according to pre-treatment patient characteristics.

Our study was not intended to directly answer the question of whether combination therapy is superior to the current paradigm of sequential monotherapy, which requires a randomized study to answer. While we await results from studies such as CLL17, a critical question which must be answered from this and other studies which utilize time limited combined BTK inhibitor plus venetoclax, will be the degree to which the disease remains sensitive to one or both agents at progression. Analysis of data from MURANO(29) and a multi-center retrospective analysis(30), demonstrated that patients with disease progression after time-limited venetoclax treatment have a 72.2–79.5% overall response rate to re-treatment, with the majority of responses being durable. Additionally, emerging data from the fixed-duration cohort of CAPTIVATE show 7/9 patients who progressed within 2 years of completing combined treatment responded to ibrutinib re-treatment, with 2/9 having stable disease.(31) This is in contrast to those with disease progression occurring during BTK inhibitor therapy, in which case the disease is resistant by definition. It will be important, as data mature, when comparing time-limited venetoclax-based combination approaches to standard continuous BTK inhibitor-based therapy, that time-to-therapeutic failure (i.e. resistance to re-treatment), rather than just time-to-next therapy, is considered for the time-limited approach. No data yet exist for BTK inhibitor plus venetoclax re-treatment after prior treatment with limited duration BTK inhibitor plus venetoclax, but we hope that this will emerge over the coming years.

Our study has several limitations. Our cohort is somewhat heterogenous, including both frontline and relapsed/refractory patients and patients who had received ibrutinib for various periods of time. The latter feature was by design, as we wanted to capture all patients with high risk CLL who could benefit from therapy, especially since the risk of progression during ibrutinib monotherapy persists indefinitely, with no plateau. The similarity of the U-MRD rates in our study to studies that have started venetoclax after shorter periods of ibrutinib (2–3 months) is encouraging. Once regulatory approval is obtained for ibrutinib + venetoclax combination, our data could provide justification for addition of venetoclax in high risk patients already taking a BTK inhibitor who desire time-limited therapy. We would not advocate prolonged BTK inhibitor use prior to initiation of venetoclax in BTK inhibitor naïve patients who require therapy, as the safety and efficacy of commencing venetoclax after a 3 month ibrutinib monotherapy phase has been repeatedly demonstrated. We included patients with del(11q) as a high-risk group (who represented approximately 1/3 of the patient). At the time of study, the impact of del(11q) on PFS was unclear, with the longest follow-up, from the PCYC-1103 suggesting inferior outcomes.(11) However, larger cohorts have subsequently demonstrated that del(11q) is not a high-risk feature in ibrutinib-treated patients. Given the favorable data in our study for patients with TP53 mutation or deletion and the unmet need that these patients represent, the study has recently been amended to treat an additional 45 patients who have received either ibrutinib or acalabrutinib for at least 12 months and have either TP53 abnormal disease or complex karyotype.

In summary, our data show a high rate of achievement of BM U-MRD4, very low risk of on-treatment disease progression and durable off-treatment remissions in high-risk patients with the addition of venetoclax to ibrutinib. An MRD-directed treatment approach allowed early treatment discontinuation in patients with rapid achievement of BM U-MRD4 status and continuation of BTK inhibitor maintenance in those with persistently detectable MRD. This approach may benefit patients by limiting duration of exposure to drug and risk of adverse effects in rapid responders and improving remission durability in sub-optimal responders who remain MRD-positive by utilizing maintenance ibrutinib.

Acknowledgements.

This study was conducted by M.D. Anderson Cancer Center as a investigator-initiated study. Funding and study drug were provided by AbbVie. M.D. Anderson Cancer Center is also supported by NCI Support Grant P30 CA016672. The design of the study, acquisition and interpretation of data and writing of the study was performed entirely by the authors. AbbVie had no role in the conduct or analysis of the study or the writing of the paper.

We would like to thank our fantastic research nurses, Yan Wang, CJ Wei and Ana Ayala for their tireless work in running this study.

Author contributions:

PAT designed and wrote the study, provided clinical care to patients, analyzed data and wrote the paper; MJK, AF, NJ, YW, CW, AA, TMK, PB, NP and NJS provided clinical care to patients and revised the work critically for important intellectual content; SW and JLJ performed flow cytometry and revised the work critically for important intellectual content; CBP provided the statistical design for the stud and revised the work critically for important intellectual content; NG evaluated imaging studies and revised the work critically for important intellectual content; WGW provided important intellectual input into study design, provided clinical care to patients and revised the work critically for important intellectual content; all authors reviewed the final version and approved it for publication.

Conflict of interest:

PT: Research support from AbbVie, Pharmacyclics, Lilly and Adaptive Biotechnologies; Advisory board/honoraria from Janssen, AbbVie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Beigene, Lilly, Genentech. AF: Research support from Beigene and AstraZeneca; Advisory board/honoraria from Janssen, Beigene and AstraZeneca. NJ: Research support from Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Genentech, AstraZeneca, BMS, Pfizer, Servier, ADC Therapeutics, Cellectis, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Incyte, Precision Biosciences, Aprea Therapeutics, Fate Therapeutics, Kite/Gilead, Mingsight, Takeda, Medisix, Loxo Oncology, Novalgen, Dialectic Therapeutics, Newave, TransThera Sciences, Novartis; Consulting/Honoraria from Pharmacyclics, Janssen, AbbVie, Genentech, AstraZeneca, BMS, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Kite/Gilead, Precision Biosciences, Beigene, Cellectis, TG Therapeutics, MEI Pharma, Ipsen, CareDX. TMK: Consulting: AbbVie, Agios, Daiichi Sankyo, Genetech, Genzyme, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Liverum, Novartis, Pfizer, PinotBio, Pulmotect, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier; Research support: AbbVie, Amgen, Ascentage, Astellas, Astex, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Cellnkos, Cyclacel, Delta-Fly Pharmac, Genetech, Genfleet, Glycomimetics, Iterion, Janssen, Jazz, Pfizer, Pulmotect, Regeneron, SELLAS Life Sciences; Speaker’s Bureau: Biologicx, Cure, Hikma Pharmaceuticals PB: Honoraria: Incyte, BMS, CTI, Sierra, GSK, Morphosys, Blueprint, Cogent, Novartis, Abbvie, Karyopharm, Pharma Essentia; Research support: Incyte, BMS, CTI, Kartos, Morphosys, Blueprint, Cogent, Ionis, Astellas, Pfizer, NS Pharma and Promedior. NP: Board Of Directors/Management: Dan's House of Hope; Consulting: Protagonist Therapeutics, Cimeio Therapeutics AG, Immunogen, Pacylex Pharmaceuticals, MoreHealth, Cellectis, Stemline; Scientific/Advisory Committee Member: Incyte; Speaker/Preceptorship: Medscape, Intellisphere, LLC; Research Support: US Department of Defense (DOD). NJS: Consulting fees from Pfizer Inc., Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi; Research funding from Takeda Oncology, Astellas Pharma Inc., Xencor and Stemline Therapeutics; honoraria from Novartis, Amgen, Astellas Pharma Inc., Sanofi and BeiGene. WGW: Research Support: GSK/Novartis, Abbvie, Genentech, Pharmacyclics LLC, AstraZeneca/Acerta Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Bristol Myers Squibb (Juno & Celgene), KITE Pharma, Sunesis, Miragen, Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc., Cyclacel, Loxo Oncology, Inc./Lilly, Janssen, Xencor

Shanafelt TD, Wang XV, Hanson CA, Paietta EM, O'Brien S, Barrientos JC, et al. Long-term Outcomes for Ibrutinib-Rituximab and Chemoimmunotherapy in CLL: Updated Results of the E1912 Trial. Blood. 2022;140(2):9.
Woyach JA, Ruppert AS, Heerema NA, Zhao W, Booth AM, Ding W, et al. Ibrutinib Regimens versus Chemoimmunotherapy in Older Patients with Untreated CLL. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(26):2517-28.
Shanafelt TD, Borah BJ, Finnes HD, Chaffee KG, Ding W, Leis JF, et al. Impact of Ibrutinib and Idelalisib on the Pharmaceutical Cost of Treating Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia at the Individual and Societal Levels. Journal of Oncology Practice. 2015;11(3):252-8.
Anthony RM, Chadhi N, Meghan CT, Nicole L, Danielle MB, Brian H, et al. Toxicities and outcomes of 616 ibrutinib-treated patients in the United States: a real-world analysis. Haematologica. 2018;103(5):874-9.
Khalid Y, Dasu N, Dasu K, Fradley M, Shah A. VENTRICULAR ARRHYTHMIAS WITH IBRUTINIB USE A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META ANALYSIS. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77(18_Supplement_1):3333-.
Woyach JA, Furman RR, Liu TM, Ozer HG, Zapatka M, Ruppert AS, et al. Resistance mechanisms for the Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(24):2286-94.
Thompson PA, O'Brien SM, Wierda WG, Ferrajoli A, Stingo F, Smith SC, et al. Complex karyotype is a stronger predictor than del(17p) for an inferior outcome in relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients treated with ibrutinib-based regimens. Cancer. 2015.
Woyach JA, Ruppert AS, Guinn D, Lehman A, Blachly JS, Lozanski A, et al. BTK(C481S)-Mediated Resistance to Ibrutinib in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(13):1437-43.
Ahn IE, Tian X, Wiestner A. Ibrutinib for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia with TP53 Alterations. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(5):498-500.
Burger JA, Barr PM, Robak T, Owen C, Ghia P, Tedeschi A, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of first-line ibrutinib treatment for patients with CLL/SLL: 5 years of follow-up from the phase 3 RESONATE-2 study. Leukemia. 2020;34(3):787-98.
Byrd JC, Furman RR, Coutre SE, Flinn IW, Burger JA, Blum K, et al. Ibrutinib Treatment for First-Line and Relapsed/Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: Final Analysis of the Pivotal Phase Ib/II PCYC-1102 Study. Clin Cancer Res. 2020;26(15):3918-27.
Thompson PA, O'Brien SM, Xiao L, Wang X, Burger JA, Jain N, et al. beta -microglobulin normalization within 6 months of ibrutinib-based treatment is associated with superior progression-free survival in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Cancer. 2015.
Jones JA, Mato AR, Wierda WG, Davids MS, Choi M, Cheson BD, et al. Venetoclax for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia progressing after ibrutinib: an interim analysis of a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(1):65-75.
Cervantes-Gomez F, Lamothe B, Woyach JA, Wierda W, Keating MJ, Balakrishnan K, et al. Pharmacological and protein profiling suggest ABT-199 as optimal partner with ibrutinib in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Clin Cancer Res. 2015.
Roberts AW, Davids MS, Pagel JM, Kahl BS, Puvvada SD, Gerecitano JF, et al. Targeting BCL2 with Venetoclax in Relapsed Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(4):311-22.
Seymour JF, Kipps TJ, Eichhorst B, Hillmen P, D'Rozario J, Assouline S, et al. Venetoclax-Rituximab in Relapsed or Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(12):1107-20.
Fischer K, Al-Sawaf O, Bahlo J, Fink AM, Tandon M, Dixon M, et al. Venetoclax and Obinutuzumab in Patients with CLL and Coexisting Conditions. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(23):2225-36.
Jain N, Keating M, Thompson P, Ferrajoli A, Burger J, Borthakur G, et al. Ibrutinib and Venetoclax for First-Line Treatment of CLL. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(22):2095-103.
Hillmen P, Rawstron AC, Brock K, Muñoz-Vicente S, Yates FJ, Bishop R, et al. Ibrutinib Plus Venetoclax in Relapsed/Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: The CLARITY Study. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(30):2722-9.
Wierda WG, Allan JN, Siddiqi T, Kipps TJ, Opat S, Tedeschi A, et al. Ibrutinib Plus Venetoclax for First-Line Treatment of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: Primary Analysis Results From the Minimal Residual Disease Cohort of the Randomized Phase II CAPTIVATE Study. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(34):3853-65.
Niemann CU, Levin M-D, Dubois J, Kersting S, Enggaard L, Veldhuis GJ, et al. Venetoclax and ibrutinib for patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Blood. 2021;137(8):1117-20.
Rawstron AC, Villamor N, Ritgen M, Bottcher S, Ghia P, Zehnder JL, et al. International standardized approach for flow cytometric residual disease monitoring in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Leukemia. 2007;21(5):956-64.
Hallek M, Cheson BD, Catovsky D, Caligaris-Cappio F, Dighiero G, Dohner H, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a report from the International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia updating the National Cancer Institute-Working Group 1996 guidelines. Blood. 2008;111(12):5446-56.
Thall PF, Simon RM, Estey EH. Bayesian sequential monitoring designs for single-arm clinical trials with multiple outcomes. Stat Med. 1995;14(4):357-79.
Kater AP, Owen C, Moreno C, Follows G, Munir T, Levin M-D, et al. Fixed-Duration Ibrutinib-Venetoclax in Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia and Comorbidities. NEJM Evidence. 2022;1(7):EVIDoa2200006.
Tam CS, Allan JN, Siddiqi T, Kipps TJ, Jacobs R, Opat S, et al. Fixed-duration ibrutinib plus venetoclax for first-line treatment of CLL: primary analysis of the CAPTIVATE FD cohort. Blood. 2022;139(22):3278-89.
Ghia P, Allan JN, Siddiqi T, Kipps TJ, Kuss BJ, Opat S, et al. First-Line Treatment with Ibrutinib (Ibr) Plus Venetoclax (Ven) for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL): 2-Year Post-Randomization Disease-Free Survival (DFS) Results from the Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) Cohort of the Phase 2 Captivate Study. Blood. 2021;138(Supplement 1):68-.
Jain N, Keating M, Thompson P, Ferrajoli A, Burger JA, Borthakur G, et al. Ibrutinib Plus Venetoclax for First-line Treatment of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: A Nonrandomized Phase 2 Trial. JAMA Oncol 2021;7(8):1213-9.
Harrup RA, Owen C, D'Rozario J, Robak T, Kater AP, Montillo M, et al. Efficacy of Subsequent Novel Targeted Therapies, Including Repeated Venetoclax-Rituximab (VenR), in Patients (Pts) with Relapsed/Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (R/R CLL) Previously Treated with Fixed-Duration Venr in the Murano Study. Blood. 2020;136(Supplement 1):44-5.
Thompson MC, Harrup RA, Coombs CC, Roeker LE, Pu JJ, Choi MY, et al. Venetoclax retreatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia after a previous venetoclax-based regimen. Blood Adv. 2022;6(15):4553-7.
Wierda WG, Barr PM, Siddiqi T, Allan JN, Kipps TJ, Trentin L, et al. Fixed-duration (FD) ibrutinib (I) + venetoclax (V) for first-line (1L) treatment (tx) of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL): Three-year follow-up from the FD cohort of the phase 2 CAPTIVATE study. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(16_suppl):7519-.

Yes there is potential conflict of interest.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 03 May, 2023

Read the published version in Leukemia →

Editorial decision: revise
23 Feb, 2023
Review #2 received at journal
19 Feb, 2023
Reviewer #2 agreed at journal
31 Jan, 2023
Review #1 received at journal
30 Jan, 2023
Reviewer #1 agreed at journal
12 Jan, 2023
Reviewers invited by journal
06 Jan, 2023
Editor assigned by journal
04 Jan, 2023
Submission checks completed at journal
04 Jan, 2023
First submitted to journal
03 Jan, 2023
Unknown event
03 Jan, 2023

You are reading this latest preprint version

Venetoclax consolidation in high-risk CLL treated with ibrutinib for ≥1 year achieves a high rate of undetectable MRD

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Background

Methods

Results

MRD results

Nodal responses

Patient disposition, PFS and survival

Clonal evolution at disease progression and subsequent treatments

MRD-free survival

Adverse event profile

Discussion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1