Efficacy of bendamustine and rituximab in unfit patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Indirect comparison with ibrutinib in a real-world setting. A GIMEMA-ERIC and US study.
Adenine
/ adverse effects
Aged
Antineoplastic Agents, Alkylating
/ adverse effects
Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological
/ adverse effects
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
/ adverse effects
Bendamustine Hydrochloride
/ adverse effects
Disease Progression
Europe
Female
Humans
Leukemia, Lymphocytic, Chronic, B-Cell
/ diagnosis
Male
Middle Aged
Piperidines
/ adverse effects
Progression-Free Survival
Protein Kinase Inhibitors
/ adverse effects
Retrospective Studies
Rituximab
/ adverse effects
Time Factors
United States
bendamustine
chronic lymphocytic leukemia
ibrutinib
real-world analysis
unfit patients
Journal
Cancer medicine
ISSN: 2045-7634
Titre abrégé: Cancer Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101595310
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2020
11 2020
Historique:
received:
30
03
2020
revised:
28
08
2020
accepted:
02
09
2020
pubmed:
25
9
2020
medline:
20
7
2021
entrez:
24
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Limited information is available on the efficacy of front-line bendamustine and rituximab (BR) in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with reduced renal function or coexisting conditions. We therefore analyzed a cohort of real-world patients and performed a matched adjusted indirect comparison with a cohort of patients treated with ibrutinib. One hundred and fifty-seven patients with creatinine clearance (CrCl) <70 mL/min and/or CIRS score >6 were treated with BR. The median age was 72 years; 69% of patients had ≥2 comorbidities and the median CrCl was 59.8 mL/min. 17.6% of patients carried TP53 disruption. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 45 months; TP53 disruption was associated with a shorter PFS (P = 0.05). The overall survival (OS) at 12, 24, and 36 months was 96.2%, 90.1%, and 79.5%, respectively. TP53 disruption was associated with an increased risk of death (P = 0.01). Data on 162 patients ≥65 years treated with ibrutinib were analyzed and compared with 165 patients ≥65 years treated with BR. Factors predicting for a longer PFS at multivariable analysis in the total patient population treated with BR and ibrutinib were age (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.10, P < 0.01) and treatment with ibrutinib (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33-0.93, P = 0.03). In a post hoc analysis of patients in advanced stage, a significant PFS advantage was observed in patient who had received ibrutinib (P = 0.03), who showed a trend for OS advantage (P = 0.08). We arrived at the following conclusions: (a) BR is a relatively effective first-line regimen in a real-world population of unfit patients without TP53 disruption, (b) ibrutinib provided longer disease control than BR in patients with advanced disease stage.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32969597
doi: 10.1002/cam4.3470
pmc: PMC7666748
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antineoplastic Agents, Alkylating
0
Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological
0
Piperidines
0
Protein Kinase Inhibitors
0
ibrutinib
1X70OSD4VX
Rituximab
4F4X42SYQ6
Bendamustine Hydrochloride
981Y8SX18M
Adenine
JAC85A2161
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
8468-8479Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA008748
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
Eur J Cancer. 2016 Jun;60:154-65
pubmed: 27127905
N Engl J Med. 2015 Dec 17;373(25):2425-37
pubmed: 26639149
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20(1):43-56
pubmed: 30522969
Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2018 Nov 30;2018(1):242-247
pubmed: 30504317
Blood. 2008 Jun 15;111(12):5446-56
pubmed: 18216293
Haematologica. 2018 Apr;103(4):698-706
pubmed: 29419437
Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2020 Mar 13;21(4):24
pubmed: 32170458
Haematologica. 2016 Dec;101(12):1448-1450
pubmed: 27903711
Cancer Med. 2020 Nov;9(22):8468-8479
pubmed: 32969597
Am J Hematol. 2014 May;89(5):480-6
pubmed: 24415640
Hematol Oncol. 2015 Mar;33(1):15-22
pubmed: 24733536
Lancet. 2015 May 9;385(9980):1873-83
pubmed: 25882396
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Sep 10;30(26):3209-16
pubmed: 22869884
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jan 10;35(2):166-174
pubmed: 27870563
N Engl J Med. 2018 Dec 27;379(26):2517-2528
pubmed: 30501481
Blood. 2016 Jan 14;127(2):208-15
pubmed: 26486789
Ther Adv Hematol. 2017 Jun;8(6):197-205
pubmed: 28567239
Haematologica. 2015 May;100(5):662-9
pubmed: 25661442
Am J Hematol. 2018 Nov;93(11):1394-1401
pubmed: 30132965
Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2017 Jan 19;3:16096
pubmed: 28102226
N Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 1;381(5):432-443
pubmed: 31365801
CA Cancer J Clin. 2019 Jan;69(1):7-34
pubmed: 30620402
Haematologica. 2018 Jul;103(7):1209-1217
pubmed: 29674504
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019 Nov;17(11.5):1408-1410
pubmed: 31766019
Haematologica. 2018 May;103(5):874-879
pubmed: 29419429
Ann Hematol. 2016 May;95(6):853-61
pubmed: 27021305
Br J Haematol. 2016 Dec;175(5):892-903
pubmed: 27861736
N Engl J Med. 2019 Jun 06;380(23):2225-2236
pubmed: 31166681
Haematologica. 2016 Dec;101(12):1563-1572
pubmed: 27756834
Cancer J. 2019 Nov/Dec;25(6):442-448
pubmed: 31764126
Haematologica. 2017 Sep;102(9):e352-e355
pubmed: 28596282
J Clin Oncol. 2005 Jun 20;23(18):4079-88
pubmed: 15767648
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Apr 20;32(12):1236-41
pubmed: 24638012
N Engl J Med. 2014 Mar 20;370(12):1101-10
pubmed: 24401022
Am J Hematol. 2019 Nov;94(11):1266-1287
pubmed: 31364186
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Jul;17(7):928-942
pubmed: 27216274
Am J Hematol. 2020 Jun;95(6):604-611
pubmed: 32096887