CLL8: a randomised, phase III study to assess alemtuzumab consolidation therapy in patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia (CLL) who have responded to previous therapy

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Hillmen
Blood ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 104 (11) ◽  
pp. 2506-2506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Ritgen ◽  
C. Schweighofer ◽  
Günther Fingerle-Rowson ◽  
Barbara Eichhorst ◽  
Raimunde Busch ◽  
...  

Abstract The monoclonal antibody alemtuzumab is known to be effective in combination or alone in patients with late stage chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Flow cytometric studies on minimal residual disease (MRD) showed the high potency beyond clinical response criteria even in late stage chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL). The aim of the phase III trial of the GCLLSG was to investigate the role of alemtuzumab as consolidation therapy in CLL patients in first clinical remission after fludarabin (F) or F plus cyclophosphamide (FC). Patients in partial or complete clinical remission were randomized to either arm A (alemtuzumab 3 x 30 mg i.v. for up to 12 wks) or no further treatment (arm B). From 21 eligible patients 11 (1CR, 1 nPR, 9PR) were randomized to arm A. All patients received standard infection prophylaxis with famciclovir and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. Before, at 6 and 12 weeks after start of consolidation therapy and regulary during follow up blood and bone marrow samples were send for molecular MRD assessment by allele specific real time PCR. The PCR allowed MRD assessment with a sensitivity of at least 10E-4 in 11 eligible cases. Results: MRD analysis showed clear reduction of CLL content by first line treatment to a median MRD level of 2.2E-3. Short after alemtuzumab treatment all treated patients showed pronounced MRD reduction to a median MRD level of 5.0E-5. During molecular follow-up median MRD level remained below 1E-4 for one year with a tendency to increase afterwards. After a median follow-up of 31.3 months from start of initial treatment occurred one relapse in the treatment arm compared to 7 of 10 in arm B. The median progression free survival (PFS) calculated from start of consolidation therapy was significantly shorter in the control group versus the treatment group (pfs 25.2; p= 0.04). Nevertheless due to severe acute infections (CTC III and IV) this study had to be stopped prematurely. Conlusion: The addition of alemtuzumab as a consolidation regimen after remission induction by F or FC is highly effective and leads to sustained MRD reduction below 10E-4. This translates into significant improved clinical outcome even in this small patient cohort compared to the control group. Encouraged by the molecular responses the GCLLSG initiated a new phase I/II trial as a dose finding study in CLL patients after F based induction of clinical remission.


2012 ◽  
Vol 08 (01) ◽  
pp. 52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Véronique Leblond ◽  

Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) is the most common adult leukaemia and mainly affects older patients. First-line treatments for 'fit' (go go) and 'unfit' (no go) CLL patients are well defined, in the form of fludarabine–cyclophosphamide–rituximab (FCR) combination chemoimmunotherapy and best supportive care, respectively. However, the majority of CLL patients fall between these two extremes (slow go patients), nevertheless the standard of care for these patients is not well defined. Recent data suggest that bendamustine chemotherapy may be a good option in this group. In a recent Phase III study, significant improvements in overall response rate, complete response and progression-free survival were reported with bendamustine compared with chlorambucil. Chlorambucil plus rituximab has been shown to induce high responses in elderly CLL patients with a relatively low complete response rate. Bendamustine plus rituximab, and reduced-dose fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide plus high-dose rituximab have demonstrated promising efficacy, but have not been evaluated in elderly CLL patients. Several trials are also ongoing evaluating novel cytostatic agents, combination chemotherapy and chemoimmunotherapy regimens in elderly patients.


2012 ◽  
Vol 159 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang U. Knauf ◽  
Toshko Lissitchkov ◽  
Ali Aldaoud ◽  
Anna M. Liberati ◽  
Javier Loscertales ◽  
...  

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (13) ◽  
pp. 3134
Author(s):  
Lukáš Smolej ◽  
Pavel Vodárek ◽  
Dominika Écsiová ◽  
Martin Šimkovič

The paradigm of first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) is currently undergoing a radical change. On the basis of several randomised phase III trials showing prolongation of progression-free survival, chemoimmunotherapy is being replaced by treatment based on novel, orally available targeted inhibitors such as Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors ibrutinib and acalabrutinib or bcl-2 inhibitor venetoclax. However, the use of these agents may be associated with other disadvantages. First, with the exception of one trial in younger/fit patients, no studies have so far demonstrated benefit regarding the ultimate endpoint of overall survival. Second, oral inhibitors are extremely expensive and thus currently unavailable due to the absence of reimbursement in some countries. Third, treatment with ibrutinib and acalabrutinib necessitates long-term administration until progression; this may be associated with accumulation of late side effects, problems with patient compliance, and selection of resistant clones. Therefore, the identification of a subset of patients who could benefit from chemoimmunotherapy would be ideal. Current data suggest that patients with the mutated variable region of the immunoglobulin heavy chain (IGHV) achieve fairly durable remissions, especially when treated with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) regimen. This review discusses current options for treatment-naïve patients with CLL.


Blood ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 110 (11) ◽  
pp. 531-531 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roman Hajek Prof ◽  
Ivan Spicka ◽  
Vlastimil Scudla ◽  
Evzen Gregora ◽  
Vladimir Maisnar ◽  
...  

Abstract Benefit of maintenance and/or consolidation therapy after autologous transplantation (AT) is unclear. CMG 2002 is randomized phase III study comparing efficacy and safety of consolidation therapy versus interferon alfa (IFN) maintenance therapy after AT in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). Methods: A total of 545 patients were enrolled to the trial in the period of April 2002 to April 2007. This first analysis (patients enrolled until December 31, 2005) was done in cohort of 269 patients randomly assigned after AT to either IFN 3x3 MU s.c. weekly alone (IFN group) until relapse or four cycles of chemotherapy CED (cyclophosphamide 300–400 mg/m2 i.v., etoposide 30–40mg/m2 i.v., and dexamethasone 40mg on days 1–4; month 4,8,12 and 16 after transplantation; CED group) followed by IFN 3x3 MU s.c. weekly starting month 18 after AT. All patients received primary therapy with four cycles of VAD regimen (vincristine, doxorubicine, and dexamethasone) followed by mobilization with cyclophosphamide 2.5g/m2 and G-CSF 5–10 μg/kg. The conditioning regimen with melphalan 200mg/m2 was used for single AT. Response was defined according to Blade’s criteria. Median of follow up is 41 months (range 6.2–56.1) Results: All basic parameters including median age, gender distribution, measures of disease burden, renal function and also response rate before/after AT, and basic prognostic factors (beta2microglobulin, albumin, LDH, CRP) were comparable between randomized IFN group (n=134) and CED group (n=135) as follows: median age 57.0 vs. 57.0; stage I: 8.1% vs. 5.5%, stage II: 27% vs. 27.3%, stage III: 64.9% vs. 66.7%; stage B 12.8% vs. 17.1%; ISS I: 37.2% vs. 34.0%, ISS II: 29.7% vs. 34.0%, ISS III: 17.6% vs.21.8%, ISS not available: 15.5 vs.10.2%; IgA: 25.7% vs. 29.9%, IgG: 61.5% vs. 51.8%; ORR after AT (CR+PR): 72.3% vs.72.1%, CR: 23.0% vs. 19.0%, VGPR: 17.6 vs. 24.5%, PR 31.8% vs. 28.6%). Four cycles of CED consolidation treatment after AT did not significantly increase response rate achieved after AT in comparison with IFN group (response rate improved in 14,8% in CED group vs. 15,1% in IFN group at 4 months, respectively in 81,5% vs. 75,8% at 18 months after AT). There was no significant difference between CED and IFN groups in time to progression [TTP] (median 34.5 vs.38.2 months, p=0.622), in progression free survival [PFS] (median 32.4 vs. 36.8 months, p=0.515) and also in duration of response [DOR] (29.6 vs. 36.2 months). Median of overall survival was not yet reached (25th percentile 40.8 months for all patients). CED consolidation had acceptable toxic profile. Conclusions: In the first analysis of CMG 2002 randomized phase III study consolidation therapy based on conventional chemotherapy and corticoids followed by IFN maintenance therapy did not show any benefit for patients if compared with IFN maintenance alone.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document