EHA 2019 – Acalabrutinib shows remarkable benefit in relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia


  • Elena Riboldi — Agenzia Zoe
  • Univadis
Access to the full content of this site is available only to registered healthcare professionals. Access to the full content of this site is available only to registered healthcare professionals.

Takeaway

  • Acalabrutinib monotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared to idelalisib plus rituximab (IdR) or bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), reducing the risk of disease progression or death by 69% after 16.1 months.
  •  Acalabrutinib had a more tolerable safety profile than standard combination therapies.

 

Why this matters

  • There is a need for effective but also well-tolerated agents to treat CLL.
  • Acalabrutinib previously demonstrated less off-target kinase inhibition compared with ibrutinib in vitro and substantial activity in CLL patients.
  • Acalabrutinib monotherapy may represent an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for R/R CLL.

 

Study design

  • The phase 3 ASCEND Study enrolled 301 patients with R/R CLL.
  • Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive acalabrutinib vs IdR or BR at investigator’s choice.
  • Crossover from IdR/BR arm was allowed after confirmed disease progression.
  • The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by independent review committee.
  • Interim analysis was planned after occurrence of about 79 events (2/3 of the primary event goal).

 

Key results

  • At a median follow-up of 16.1 months (range 0.5-22.1), acalabrutinib significantly prolonged PFS compared to IdR/BR (median not reached vs 16.5 months; HR 0.31 [95% CI 0.20-0.49]; P
  • PFS benefit with acalabrutinib was consistent across subgroups.
  • Discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) occurred in 11% of patients on acalabrutinib vs 49% of patients on IdR and 17% on BR.
  • Grade ≥3 AEs with acalabrutinib were neutropenia (16%), anaemia (12%) and pneumonia (5%); with IdR, neutropenia (40%) and diarrhea (24%); and with BR, neutropenia (31%), anemia (9%) and constipation (6%).
  • Events of clinical interest were atrial fibrillation (5.2% acalabrutinib vs 3.3% IdR/BR), bleeding (26% vs 7.2%), Grade ≥3 infections (15% vs 24%), and secondary primary malignancies (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer; 6.5% vs 2.6%).

 

Expert commentary

“There are no clear signals that the toxicity is being less important with acalabrutinib. If you compare with what emerged from a trial with ibrutinib at 16 months, it was almost the same. Maybe some mild side effects, like bruising, are a little less frequent, but I think that this is the only thing that we can say about it at the moment. We are really waiting for the head-to-head comparison that will not be out before one or one year and a half.” Florence Cymbalista, MD at Hôpital Avicenne and Professor at Université Paris 13 (France).