Advertisement


Muhit Özcan, MD, on CLL/SLL: Report on a Still-Recruiting International Study of Nemtabrutinib, Venetoclax, and Rituximab

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Advertisement

Muhit Özcan, MD, of Turkey’s Ankara University School of Medicine, discusses the ongoing phase III BELLWAVE-010 study of nemtabrutinib plus venetoclax vs venetoclax plus rituximab in previously treated patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) (Abstract TPS7089).  



Transcript

Disclaimer: This video transcript has not been proofread or edited and may contain errors.
[Inaudible 00:00:08] is a standard of care option for patients with CLL, SLL, who have relapsed after at least one line of prior therapy. However, there is an unmet need for more effective treatments. Bruton tyrosine kinase, BTK, plays an important role in the pathogenesis of CLL. Nemtabrutinib is a BTK inhibitor that targets both wild-type and C-481 mutant forms of BTK, in the ongoing BELLWAVE-001 study, nemtabrutinib demonstrates manageable safety and durable anti-tumor activity in patients with refractory relapse, CLL, SLL, with and without C-481 mutations. The randomized open-label phase III BELLWAVE zero-tense study is designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of nemtabrutinib plus venetoclax versus VR as a second line or later treatment for patients with RR CLL, SLL. Eligible patients are aged more than 18 years with active refractory relapse CLL, SLL after at least one line on prior therapy per IW-CLL 2018 criteria, and equal performance status of zero to two approximately 720 patients will be enrolled in two parts. Part one is an open-label, non-randomized dose escalation and confirmation phase to evaluate safety, and determine the optimal dose of nemtabrutinib plus venetoclax. Part one will enroll 30 patients to establish the dose of nemtabrutinib, using a modified toxicity probability interval design. Patients will receive nemtabrutinib at two dose levels. 45 milligram per day parallel Q-day, starting dose. Escalating to six five milligram parallel Q-day for 28 days, followed by nemtabrutinib plus venetoclax ramp up over four weeks. Part two is an open-label parallel group randomized phase comparing the efficacy and safety of nemtabrutinib plus venetoclax with VR. In part two, approximately 690 patients will be randomly assigned one-to-one to receive either nemtabrutinib at recommended dose for 28 days, followed by the nemtabrutinib plus venetoclax, or venetoclax plus rituximab. Study treatment will continue for approximately two years, or until an acceptable toxicity, disease progression, or other discontinuation criteria are met. Randomization will be certified by BTKC-481 mutation status, geographic region, and risk group. The primary endpoint for part two is progression free survival by Blinded Independent Central Review, BICR, per IWCLL 2018 criteria. Secondary endpoints for part two are: Undetectable, minimal residual disease in bone marrow at month 14 by central laboratory assessment, objective response rate and duration of response by BICR per IWCLL 2018 criteria, Overall survival and safety. Exploratory endpoints are overall response rate, including partial response with lymphocytosis, pharmacokinetics, and heart-related quality of life. Recruitment is ongoing.

Related Videos

Multiple Myeloma

Xavier P. Leleu, MD, PhD, on Multiple Myeloma: Update on Isatuximab, Lenalidomide, Dexamethasone, and Bortezomib

Xavier P. Leleu, MD, PhD, of France’s Université de Poitiers and Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Poitiers, discusses phase III findings showing that isatuximab in combination with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone deepened responses and increased the rate of measurable residual disease negativity vs isatuximab with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma (Abstract 7501).

Gynecologic Cancers

Jean-Marc Classe, MD, PhD, on Ovarian Cancer: New Data on Lymphadenectomy From the CARACO Trial

Jean-Marc Classe, MD, PhD, of France’s Nantes Université, discusses phase III results showing that systematic lymphadenectomy should be omitted in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer with clinically negative lymph nodes, as well as those undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval complete surgery (LBA5505).

Lung Cancer

Narjust Florez, MD, and David R. Spigel, MD, on Limited-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results From the ADRIATIC Study

Narjust Florez, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and David R. Spigel, MD, of Sarah Cannon Research Institute, discuss phase III findings showing that durvalumab as consolidation treatment after concurrent platinum-based chemoradiotherapy improved survival outcomes compared with placebo in patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer. According to Dr. Spigel, these data support durvalumab as a new standard of care in this population (Abstract LBA5).

Lung Cancer

Narjust Florez, MD, and Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD, on EGFR-Mutated NSCLC: Update on Osimertinib and Chemoradiotherapy

Narjust Florez, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD, of Emory University School of Medicine, Winship Cancer Institute, discuss potentially practice-changing phase III results from the LAURA study. This trial showed that osimertinib after definitive chemoradiation therapy improved progression-free survival for patients with unresectable stage III EGFR-mutated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), suggesting this agent may represent a new standard of care in this setting (LBA4).

Multiple Myeloma

Thierry Facon, MD, on Multiple Myeloma: Results From the IMROZ Study on Isatuximab, Bortezomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone

Thierry Facon, MD, of the University of Lille and Lille University Hospital, discusses phase III findings showing for the first time that isatuximab, an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, when given with the standard of care (bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone, or VRd) to patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are transplant-ineligible, may reduce the risk of disease progression or death by 40.4% vs VRd alone (Abstract 7500).

Advertisement

Advertisement




Advertisement