Characteristics of Patients (Pts) with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) Receiving Rituximab Monotherapy in the Connect® CLL Registry
Authors: Sharman Jeff , Davids Matthew , Farber Charles Michael , Grinblatt David L. , Kay Neil E. , Lamanna Nicole , Mato Anthony R. , Nabhan Chadi , Sullivan Kristen , Flick E. Dawn , Kiselev Pavel , Bhushan Shriya , Swern Arlene S. , Flowers Christopher R. 
Published: November 2019

Introduction: Rituximab (R) improves survival in CLL when added to intensive chemotherapy (such as fludarabine and cyclophosphamide [FCR]), and has been shown to improve progression-free survival when given as maintenance therapy following first- or second-line chemoimmunotherapy. However, early phase 2 studies demonstrated only modest activity of R monotherapy (R mono), particularly at standard dose, and its use as a single agent for pts with CLL has remained controversial. Here we describe the characteristics and outcomes of pts with CLL receiving R mono in a real-world setting.

Methods: The Connect CLL registry (NCT01081015), a multicenter, prospective observational cohort study, enrolled 1,494 pts with CLL between 2010-2014 from 179 community, 17 academic, and 3 government sites throughout the USA. Pts were ≥ 18 years and were enrolled ≤ 2 months after initiating any line of therapy (LOT). Pts were treated according to individual physician/patient decision making, and adherence to IWCLL standards cannot be determined. Bone marrow biopsy and CT scans were at the physician's discretion; responses were physician assessed and not centrally reviewed. For this analysis, pts were stratified by first (LOT1) or subsequent LOT (LOT≥2), and by treatment with R mono or other treatments (Tx). Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate event-free survival (EFS; event defined as death, progression/relapse, or transformation). A log-rank test was used to evaluate differences in EFS. A multivariate analysis of EFS in LOT1 pts was performed using the Cox regression model.

Results: Of the pts enrolled, 105 (11.8%) pts in LOT1 and 81 (13.4%) pts in LOT≥2 received R mono. Of the pts receiving other Tx, 620/784 pts (79%) in LOT1 and 333/524 pts (64%) in LOT≥2 received R in combination. In LOT1, pts receiving R mono were older than pts receiving other Tx (74 vs 67 years; P < 0.0001); in LOT≥2 median ages were comparable (71 vs 70 years).

Pts receiving R mono were more likely to have Rai stage 0-1 CLL than pts receiving other Tx, both in LOT1 (63.9% vs 51.8%; P = 0.05) and LOT≥2 (70.4% vs 49.9%; P = 0.005). The proportion of pts receiving R mono vs other Tx with a CCI score of ≥ 4 was similar in LOT1 (25.7% vs 22.8%) and LOT≥2 (32.1% vs 28.4%). Median absolute lymphocyte count at enrollment was lower in pts on R mono vs other Tx in LOT1 (27.7 vs 46.1 x 109/L) but similar in LOT≥2 (35.6 vs 30.2 x 109/L). A lower proportion of pts receiving R mono had FISH/cytogenetics performed at enrollment than pts receiving other Tx in LOT1 (48.6% vs 67.0%; P = 0.0002) and LOT≥2 (30.9% vs 49.6%; P = 0.002).

The most common Tx regimens in LOT1 were FCR (25.9%), bendamustine plus R ([BR] 21.0%), R mono (11.8%), fludarabine plus R ([FR] 6.3%), and chlorambucil (4.6%); and in LOT≥2, BR (27.6%), R mono (13.4%), FCR (8.6%), bendamustine (7.4%), FR (4.1%), and ofatumumab (4.0%). The most common reason to initiate treatment in any LOT was bone marrow failure (LOT1, 44.8% vs 39.3%; LOT≥2, 37.0% vs 31.5%; R mono vs other Tx).

Duration of therapy was shorter for pts receiving R mono vs other Tx in LOT1 (1.4 vs 4.1 months) and LOT≥2 (1.6 vs 3.3 months). In LOT1, responses were lower in pts on R mono vs other Tx: overall response rate (ORR) was 38.1% vs 64.2% (complete response [CR], 16.2% vs 41.2%; P < 0.0001). In LOT≥2, ORR was 25.9% vs 24.6% for pts on R mono vs other Tx (CR, 9.9% vs 11.5%; P = 0.68). Partial response did not differ significantly between pts receiving R mono vs other Tx in LOT1 and LOT≥2. Pts receiving R mono in LOT1 had inferior median EFS vs other Tx (34 vs 50 months; log-rank P = 0.04); however, after adjusting for factors such as ECOG status and del(17p) status, there was no difference in EFS (HR 0.932; P = 0.79). In pts in LOT≥2, median EFS was similar for R mono and other Tx (15 months for both groups; P = 0.93).

Conclusions: Pts receiving R mono as frontline CLL therapy were older than pts receiving other Tx. They also had lower stage disease and lower lymphocyte counts, a shorter duration of treatment, and inferior response rates. Pts receiving R mono in relapsed CLL, more closely approximated pts receiving other Tx in terms of age. Despite the shorter duration of therapy for pts receiving R mono in LOT1 and LOT≥2, both groups had similar ORR and EFS in LOT≥2. These data reinforce the idea that R mono is inadequate as frontline therapy in progressive CLL, and demonstrate the opportunity for improvement in relapsed/refractory disease with novel agents relative to traditional chemoimmunotherapy approaches.

Disclosures

Sharman: Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Davids:Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Infinity: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie, Janssen, Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Farber:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Grinblatt:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Lamanna:Gilead: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Pronai: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Mato:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; ProNAi: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Theradex: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Nabhan:Astellas: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Cardinal Health: Consultancy; Infinity: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sullivan:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Flick:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kiselev:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Bhushan:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Swern:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Flowers:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Optum Rx, Seattle Genetics, Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria; Spectrum, Janssen, Infinity, AbbVie, Acerta, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding.