Lymphadenopathy as a predictor of progression during venetoclax treatment in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. A campus chronic lymphocytic leukemia study.

Clinical or biological parameters useful to predict progression during treatment in real-life setting with ibrutinib, idelalisib and venetoclax in relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) are still debated. We conducted a multi-center retrospective study on CLL patients treated with ibrutinib and/or idelalisib who were switched to venetoclax for progression or due to adverse events to identify any clinical and/or biological parameters useful to predict progression during treatment with venetoclax. Of all the 128 evaluable patients, 81 had received ibrutinib prior to switching to venetoclax, 35 had received idelalisib and 12 both. When comparing the three subgroups, we did not notice any statistical difference in terms of clinical or biological features. No variable at baseline and at different time points during the follow-up (at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months) was found to predict progression nor to have significance for Progression Free Survival (PFS) in the ibrutinib group and in the idelalisib group and in subgroups according to the line of treatment. Analyzing the data of the venetoclax treatment, after a median follow up of 14.3 months, median PFS was not reached and estimated 3-year PFS was 54%. Of the 128 patients treated with venetoclax, 28 (22%) experienced progressive disease. At multivariate analysis for predictive factors for progression, lymph node diameter >56.5 mm before starting treatment emerged as an independent risk factor for progression. The lymph node predictive role for progression during venetoclax treatment could be a new parameter that deserves to be investigate in future studies.

Comparison of ibrutinib and idelalisib plus rituximab in real-life relapsed/resistant chronic lymphocytic leukemia cases.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the capacity of ibrutinib (IB) and idelalisib-rituximab (IDELA-R) of prolonging overall survival (OS) as in CLL patients, previously treated with chemotherapy only. METHODS: A real-life cohort of 675 cases has been identified and investigated in the database of the groups participating in the study. RESULTS: At an unadjusted univariate analysis, a significant death risk reduction was observed favoring IB (IDELA-R vs IB HR = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.36-0.71) although with some limitations due to the non-randomized and retrospective nature of the study and to the lower number of patients in the IDELA-R group (112 cases) related to the current prescribing practice. To overcome the potential problem of confounding by indication, we adjusted the association between the type of therapy and mortality for all variables significantly associated with OS at Cox univariate analysis. Furthermore, those variables, differently distributed between the two study groups, were introduced into the multivariate Cox model to improve the effectiveness of the analysis. By introducing all these variables into the multiple Cox regression model, we confirmed the protective effect of IB vs IDELA-R (HR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.45-0.98, P = .04) independent of potential confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Although our analysis presents some constraints, that is, the unavailability of additional potential confounders, and the retrospective nature of the study, this observation may be of help for the daily clinical practice, particularly in the absence of randomized trials comparing the two schedules.