Enduring undetectable MRD and updated outcomes in relapsed/refractory CLL after fixed-duration venetoclax-rituximab.

The MURANO trial (A Study to Evaluate the Benefit of Venetoclax Plus Rituximab Compared With Bendamustine Plus Rituximab in Participants With Relapsed or Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia [CLL]; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier #NCT02005471) reported superior progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with venetoclax-rituximab (VenR) vs bendamustine-rituximab (BR) in relapsed/refractory (R/R) CLL. Patients were randomized to 2 years of VenR (n = 194; rituximab for the first 6 months) or 6 months of BR (n = 195). Although undetectable minimal residual disease (uMRD) was achieved more often with VenR, the long-term implications of uMRD with this fixed-duration, chemotherapy-free regimen have not been explored. We report MRD kinetics and updated outcomes with 5 years' follow-up. Survival benefits with VenR vs BR were sustained (median PFS [95% confidence interval]: 53.6 [48.4, 57.0] vs 17.0 [15.5, 21.7] months, respectively, P < .0001; 5-year OS [95% confidence interval]: 82.1% [76.4, 87.8] vs 62.2% [54.8, 69.6], P < .0001). VenR was superior to BR, regardless of cytogenetic category. VenR-treated patients with uMRD at end of treatment (EOT; n = 83) had superior OS vs those with high-MRD+ (n = 12): 3-year post-EOT survival rates were 95.3% vs 72.9% (P = .039). In those with uMRD at EOT, median time to MRD conversion was 19.4 months. Of 47 patients with documented MRD conversion, 19 developed progressive disease (PD); median time from conversion to PD was 25.2 months. A population-based logistic growth model indicated slower MRD median doubling time post-EOT with VenR (93 days) vs BR (53 days; P = 1.2 × 10-7). No new safety signals were identified. Sustained survival, uMRD benefits, and durable responses support 2-year fixed-duration VenR treatment in R/R CLL.

Minimal Residual Disease Dynamics after Venetoclax-Obinutuzumab Treatment: Extended Off-Treatment Follow-up From the Randomized CLL14 Study.

PURPOSE: The CLL14 study has established one-year fixed-duration treatment of venetoclax and obinutuzumab (Ven-Obi) for patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia. With all patients off treatment for at least three years, we report a detailed analysis of minimal residual disease (MRD) kinetics and long-term outcome of patients treated in the CLL14 study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive six cycles of obinutuzumab with 12 cycles of venetoclax or 12 cycles of chlorambucil (Clb-Obi). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end point. Key secondary end points included rates of undetectable MRD and overall survival. To analyze MRD kinetics, a population-based growth model with nonlinear mixed effects approach was developed. RESULTS: Of 432 patients, 216 were assigned to Ven-Obi and 216 to Clb-Obi. Three months after treatment completion, 40% of patients in the Ven-Obi arm (7% in the Clb-Obi arm) had undetectable MRD levels < 10-6 by next-generation sequencing in peripheral blood. Median MRD doubling time was longer after Ven-Obi than Clb-Obi therapy (median 80 v 69 days). At a median follow-up of 52.4 months, a sustained significant PFS improvement was observed in the Ven-Obi arm compared with Clb-Obi (median not reached v 36.4 months; hazard ratio 0.33; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.45; P < .0001). The estimated 4-year PFS rate was 74.0% in the Ven-Obi and 35.4% in the Clb-Obi arm. No difference in overall survival was observed (hazard ratio 0.85; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.35; P = .49). No new safety signals occurred. CONCLUSION: Appearance of MRD after Ven-Obi is significantly slower than that after Clb-Obi with more effective MRD reduction. These findings translate into a superior long-term efficacy with the majority of Ven-Obi-treated patients remaining in remission.

A phase II study to assess the safety and efficacy of the dual mTORC1/2 inhibitor vistusertib in relapsed, refractory DLBCL.

Patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who are unfit for or relapsed postautologous stem-cell transplantation have poor outcomes. Historically, mTORC1 inhibitors have produced responses in approximately 30% of patients in this setting. mTORC1 inhibitor efficacy may be limited by resistance mechanisms including AKT activation by mTORC2. To date, dual mTORC1/2 inhibitors targeting both the TORC1 and TORC2 complexes have not been investigated in DLBCL. This phase II trial investigated the oral dual mTORC1/2 inhibitor vistusertib in an intermittent dosing schedule of 125 mg b.d. for 2 days per week. Thirty patients received vistusertib and six received vistusertib-rituximab for up to six cycles (28-day cycles). Two partial responses were achieved on monotherapy. Durations of response were 57 and 62 days, respectively, for these patients. 19% had stable disease within six cycles. In the monotherapy arm, the median progression-free survival was1.69 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.61-2.14) months and median overall survival was 6.58 (95% CI 3.81-not reached) months, respectively. The median duration of response or stable disease across the trial duration was 153 days (95% CI 112-not reached). Tumour responses according to positron emission tomography/computed tomography versus computed tomography were concordant. There were no differences noted in tumour volume response according to cell of origin by either gene expression profiling or immunohistochemistry. Vistusertib ± rituximab was well tolerated; across 36 patients 86% of adverse events were grade (G) 1-2. Common vistusertib-related adverse events were similar to those described with mTORC1 inhibitors: nausea (47% G1-2), diarrhoea (27% G1-2, 6% G3), fatigue (30% G1-2, 3% G3), mucositis (25% G1-2, 6% G3), vomiting (17% G1-2), and dyspepsia (14% G1-2). Dual mTORC1/2 inhibitors do not clearly confer an advantage over mTORC1 inhibitors in relapsed or refractory DLBCL. Potential resistance mechanisms are discussed within.

Radiofrequency-induced Thermo-chemotherapy Effect Versus a Second Course of Bacillus Calmette-Guérin or Institutional Standard in Patients with Recurrence of Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer Following Induction or Maintenance Bacillus Calmette-Guérin Therapy (HYMN): A Phase III, Open-label, Randomised Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: There is no effective intravesical second-line therapy for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) when bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) fails. OBJECTIVE: To compare disease-free survival time (DFS) between radiofrequency-induced thermo-chemotherapy effect (RITE) and institutional standard second-line therapy (control) in NMIBC patients with recurrence following induction/maintenance BCG. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: Open-label, phase III randomised controlled trial accrued across 14 centres between May 2010 and July 2013 (HYMN [ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01094964]). INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to RITE (60min, 40mg mitomycin-C, 42±2°C) or control following stratification for carcinoma in situ (CIS) status (present/absent), therapy history (failure of previous induction/maintenance BCG), and treatment centre. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Primary outcome measures were DFS and complete response (CR) at 3 mo for the CIS at randomisation subgroup. Analysis was based on intention-to-treat. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 104 patients were randomised (48 RITE: 56 control). Median follow-up for the 31 patients without a DFS event was 36 mo. There was no significant difference in DFS between treatment arms (hazard ratio [HR] 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-2.10, p=0.23) or in 3-mo CR rate in CIS patients (n=71; RITE: 30% vs control: 47%, p=0.15). There was no significant difference in DFS between treatment arms in non-CIS patients (n=33; RITE: 53% vs control: 24% at 24 mo, HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22-1.17, p=0.11). DFS was significantly lower in RITE than in control in CIS with/without papillary patients (n=71; HR 2.06, 95% CI 1.17-3.62, p=0.01; treatment-subgroup interaction p=0.007). Disease progression was observed in four patients in each treatment arm. Adverse events and health-related quality of life between treatment arms were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: DFS was similar between RITE and control. RITE may be a second-line therapy for non-CIS recurrence following BCG failure; however, confirmatory trials are needed. RITE patients with CIS with/without papillary had lower DFS than control. HYMN highlights the importance of the control arm when evaluating novel therapies. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study did not show a difference in bladder cancer outcomes between microwave-heated chemotherapy and standard of care treatment. Papillary bladder lesions may benefit from microwave-heated chemotherapy treatment; however, more research is needed. Both treatments are similarly well tolerated.

Ruxolitinib vs best available therapy for ET intolerant or resistant to hydroxycarbamide.

Treatments for high-risk essential thrombocythemia (ET) address thrombocytosis, disease-related symptoms, as well as risks of thrombosis, hemorrhage, transformation to myelofibrosis, and leukemia. Patients resistant/intolerant to hydroxycarbamide (HC) have a poor outlook. MAJIC (ISRCTN61925716) is a randomized phase 2 trial of ruxolitinib (JAK1/2 inhibitor) vs best available therapy (BAT) in ET and polycythemia vera patients resistant or intolerant to HC. Here, findings of MAJIC-ET are reported, where the modified intention-to-treat population included 58 and 52 patients randomized to receive ruxolitinib or BAT, respectively. There was no evidence of improvement in complete response within 1 year reported in 27 (46.6%) patients treated with ruxolitinib vs 23 (44.2%) with BAT (P = .40). At 2 years, rates of thrombosis, hemorrhage, and transformation were not significantly different; however, some disease-related symptoms improved in patients receiving ruxolitinib relative to BAT. Molecular responses were uncommon; there were 2 complete molecular responses (CMR) and 1 partial molecular response in CALR-positive ruxolitinib-treated patients. Transformation to myelofibrosis occurred in 1 CMR patient, presumably because of the emergence of a different clone, raising questions about the relevance of CMR in ET patients. Grade 3 and 4 anemia occurred in 19% and 0% of ruxolitinib vs 0% (both grades) in the BAT arm, and grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia in 5.2% and 1.7% of ruxolitinib vs 0% (both grades) of BAT-treated patients. Rates of discontinuation or treatment switching did not differ between the 2 trial arms. The MAJIC-ET trial suggests that ruxolitinib is not superior to current second-line treatments for ET. This trial was registered at www.isrctn.com as #ISRCTN61925716.