Advertisement


Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, on CLL/SLL: New Findings on Zanubrutinib vs Ibrutinib for Relapsed or Refractory Disease

2022 ASH Annual Meeting and Exposition

Advertisement

Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, discusses phase III findings of the ALPINE study, which showed that zanubrutinib is more efficacious and better tolerated than ibrutinib as a treatment for patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL). In this first head-to-head comparison of the two BTK inhibitors, the superior progression-free survival of zanubrutinib was observed across all major subgroups, including high-risk patients (Abstract LBA-6).



Transcript

Disclaimer: This video transcript has not been proofread or edited and may contain errors.
The Alpine study is a randomized phase-three trial comparing zanubrutinib to ibrutinib in relapsed/refractory CLL patients. As a reminder, ibrutinib is our first-in-class BTK inhibitor, which has been transformative for CLL therapy but has significant adverse events. Zanubrutinib is a next-generation drug, which is more specific for BTK and also maintains drug levels throughout the dosing interval, potentially allowing greater BTK occupancy. Alpine was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of zanubrutinib in comparison to ibrutinib. The population was an all-comer relapsed/refractory population with a median of one prior therapy, which was chemoimmunotherapy by and large. The randomization was stratified by age, geographic area relapsed/refractory disease, and deletion 17p or TP53 aberrancy. The findings that I presented at ASH this year demonstrated that zanubrutinib has a superior progression-free survival compared to ibrutinib in this setting with a hazard ratio of 0.65 and a two-year landmark of 79% progression-free survival for zanubrutinib versus 67% for ibrutinib, so a 12% improvement. This was seen across all subgroups of disease, but in particular, the high-risk deletion 17p/TP53 aberrant patients had a 22% improvement in their two-year landmark PFS. The median PFS with ibrutinib was reached at 36 months, but not reached with zanubrutinib. In addition to this, zanubrutinib continues to have a higher overall response rate than ibrutinib, which was actually the primary endpoint of the study, but PFS was a key secondary endpoint that we reported here. It was event-driven after 205 events. In terms of safety, zanubrutinib was also safer than ibrutinib. There were fewer drug discontinuations, fewer drug holds, fewer drug interruptions for toxicity. Perhaps most importantly, the cardiac safety was significantly improved with fewer cardiac serious adverse events. Only one drug discontinuation for a cardiac adverse event with zanubrutinib versus 14 for ibrutinib, and perhaps most notably, no cardiac death with zanubrutinib versus six with ibrutinib. In terms of other toxicities, the most common toxicity was neutropenia, which was 23% grade three or higher with zanubrutinib versus 22% with ibrutinib, so pretty comparable, although there were fewer associated infections with zanubrutinib at 9% versus 13% with ibrutinib. COVID-19 was the next most common adverse event and the most common adverse event leading to death at about 4% in zanubrutinib and 5% in ibrutinib. Hypertension was balanced between the arms. So in summary, the Alpine study demonstrated that zanubrutinib has a superior progression-free survival to ibrutinib in relapsed/refractory CLL patients and is also better tolerated with a particularly better cardiac profile, which is one of our key points we worry about with BTK inhibitors. The results of this study are potentially practice-changing, demonstrating that zanubrutinib is a new standard of care for CLL. Are there any follow-up studies you want to mention? Although this was the final analysis of progression-free survival, there will be ongoing analysis and we'll certainly be interested in more mature data as this is about 30 month follow up. We're also interested in studies that are evaluating combination of zanubrutinib and venetoclax, or zanubrutinib and other Bcl-2 inhibitors looking potentially at time limited therapy similar to what's been done with other BTK inhibitors, mostly ibrutinib to date, but also acalabrutinib.

Related Videos

Multiple Myeloma
Genomics/Genetics
Immunotherapy

Jiye Liu, PhD, on Multiple Myeloma: Genome-Wide CRISPR-Cas9 Screening Identifies KDM6A as a Modulator of Daratumumab Sensitivity

Jiye Liu, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, discusses study findings that demonstrate KDM6A regulates CD38 and CD48 expression in multiple myeloma. Dr. Liu’s team validated combination treatment with an FDA-approved EZH2 inhibitor plus daratumumab, which can overcome daratumumab resistance in preclinical multiple myeloma models, providing the rationale for combination clinical trials to improve patient outcome (Abstract 148).

Leukemia
Immunotherapy

Eunice S. Wang, MD, on AML: Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin Plus Standard Induction Chemotherapy Improves Outcomes

Eunice S. Wang, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, discusses the outcomes of patients newly diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who were treated with cytarabine plus daunorubicin plus gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO). These patients experienced higher rates of measurable residual disease–negative complete remission and complete remission with incomplete count recovery, compared to those treated with cytarabine plus idarubicin daunorubicin alone. Although adding GO was not associated with improved overall survival, longer follow-up is warranted to determine an absolute survival advantage of this regimen (Abstract 58).

Leukemia

Jorge E. Cortes, MD, on CML: Efficacy and Safety of Vodobatinib

Jorge E. Cortes, MD, of Georgia Cancer Center at Augusta University, discusses new findings on vodobatinib, which was administered to patients with chronic-phase Philadelphia chromosome–positive chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) and appeared to be efficacious and safe in people who had received therapy with two or three prior tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Vodobatinib remains a potential option for these highly refractory patients. A phase II study (NCT02629692) of vodobatinib is ongoing in CML patients whose disease has failed to respond to three or more TKIs, including ponatinib (Abstract 84).

Multiple Myeloma

Paul G. Richardson, MD, on Multiple Myeloma: Mezigdomide Plus Dexamethasone in Relapsed and Refractory Disease

Paul G. Richardson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, discusses preliminary results from the dose-expansion phase of the CC-92480-MM-001 Trial, which showed promising efficacy in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma, including those with prior BCMA-targeted therapies. Patients in these two groups had an overall response rate of 40% and 50%, respectively. The results support the development of mezigdomide, currently being evaluated in combination with standard therapies in multiple myeloma as part of a large, ongoing phase I/II trial (NCT03989414) and planned phase III studies (Abstract 568).

Multiple Myeloma

Julie Côté, MD, on Multiple Myeloma: Real-World Results of Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Newly Diagnosed Patients

Julie Côté, MD, of CHU de Québec–Université Laval, discusses findings from the Canadian Myeloma Research Group database, which showed that integrating bortezomib and lenalidomide into the autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) sequence produces a median overall survival rate ≥ 10 years in most patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. These observations highlight the contribution of post-ASCT maintenance, particularly lenalidomide given until disease progression, when used in multiple patient groups including those with and without high risk, as well as those requiring a second induction regimen (Abstract 117).

Advertisement

Advertisement




Advertisement