Fludarabine and rituximab with escalating doses of lenalidomide followed by lenalidomide/rituximab maintenance in previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL): the REVLIRIT CLL-5 AGMT phase I/II study

Maintenance low-dose fixed duration lenalidomide and rituximab following bendamustine and rituximab induction in previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma

Lenalidomide (LEN) and rituximab (RTX) have independently improved progression-free survival (PFS) in CLL, leading to interest in use of LEN + RTX (R2) following induction chemoimmunotherapy. Patients with previously untreated CLL received bendamustine + RTX (BR) for 6 cycles, then 24 cycles of R2. LEN dosing was 5-10 mg daily; RTX was given odd cycles (12 doses). The primary endpoint is PFS; secondary endpoints are response and overall survival. Thirty-six patients enrolled, median age 64.5 years. Twenty-nine received R2; 12 completed a full course R2 (33.3%), 5 completed R2 with premature discontinuation of LEN. Dose reductions/holds were most often for neutropenia. Complete response was achieved in 33.3%. After median >4 years follow-up, 2-year and 3-year PFS were 86.1% and 69.4%. Five-year overall survival was 92.3%. R2 maintenance may improve PFS after BR induction, and a lower dose of 5 mg/day and ≤1 year of R2 may be most tolerable (NCT00974233).

Maintenance therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia

BACKGROUND

Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) is the most common lymphoproliferative disease in adults and currently remains incurable. As the progression-free period shortens after each successive treatment, strategies such as maintenance therapy are needed to improve the degree and duration of response to previous therapies. Monoclonal antibodies, immunomodulatory agents, and targeted therapies are among the available options for maintenance therapy. People with CLL who achieve remission after previous therapy may choose to undergo medical observation or maintenance therapy to deepen the response. Even though there is widespread use of therapeutic maintenance agents, the benefits and harms of these treatments are still uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects and safety of maintenance therapy, including anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, immunomodulatory drug therapy, anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody, Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, and B-cell lymphoma-2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor, for individuals with CLL.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with no language or publication status restrictions. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and three trials registers in January 2022 together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs with prospective identification of participants. We excluded cluster-randomised trials, cross-over trial designs, and non-randomised studies. We included studies comparing maintenance therapies with placebo/observation or head-to-head comparisons.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We assessed risk of bias in the included studies using Cochrane's RoB 1 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes using the GRADE approach: overall survival (OS), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AEs), progression-free survival (PFS), treatment-related mortality (TRM), treatment discontinuation (TD), and all adverse events (AEs).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 11 RCTs (2393 participants) that met the inclusion criteria, including seven trials comparing anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) (rituximab or ofatumumab) with observation in 1679 participants; three trials comparing immunomodulatory drug (lenalidomide) with placebo/observation in 693 participants; and one trial comparing anti-CD 52 mAbs (alemtuzumab) with observation in 21 participants. No comparisons of novel small molecular inhibitors were found. The median age of participants was 54.1 to 71.7 years; 59.5% were males. The type of previous induction treatment, severity of disease, and baseline stage varied among the studies. Five trials included early-stage symptomatic patients, and three trials included advanced-stage patients (Rai stage III/IV or Binet stage B/C). Six trials reported a frequent occurrence of cytogenic aberrations at baseline (69.7% to 80.1%). The median follow-up duration was 12.4 to 73 months. The risk of selection bias in the included studies was unclear. We assessed overall risk of performance bias and detection bias as low risk for objective outcomes and high risk for subjective outcomes. Overall risk of attrition bias, reporting bias, and other bias was low. Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs): rituximab or ofatumumab maintenance versus observation Anti-CD20 mAbs maintenance likely results in little to no difference in OS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.20; 1152 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and likely increases PFS significantly (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.73; 1255 participants; 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) compared to observation alone. Anti-CD20 mAbs may result in: an increase in grade 3/4 AEs (rate ratio 1.34, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.71; 1284 participants; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence); little to no difference in TRM (risk ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.71; 1189 participants; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence); a slight reduction to no difference in TD (risk ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.20; 1321 participants; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence); and an increase in all AEs (rate ratio 1.23, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.47; 1321 participants; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence) compared to the observation group. One RCT reported that there may be no difference in HRQoL between the anti-CD20 mAbs (ofatumumab) maintenance and the observation group (mean difference -1.70, 95% CI -8.59 to 5.19; 480 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). Immunomodulatory drug (IMiD): lenalidomide maintenance versus placebo/observation IMiD maintenance therapy likely results in little to no difference in OS (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.35; 461 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and likely results in a large increase in PFS (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.73; 461 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) compared to placebo/observation. Regarding harms, IMiD maintenance therapy may result in an increase in grade 3/4 AEs (rate ratio 1.82, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.38; 400 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) and may result in a slight increase in TRM (risk ratio 1.22, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.29; 458 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo/observation. The evidence for the effect on TD compared to placebo is very uncertain (risk ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.05; 400 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). IMiD maintenance therapy probably increases all AEs slightly (rate ratio 1.41, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.54; 458 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) compared to placebo/observation. No studies assessed HRQoL. Anti-CD52 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs): alemtuzumab maintenance versus observation Maintenance with alemtuzumab may have little to no effect on PFS, but the evidence is very uncertain (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.95; 21 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting the outcomes OS, HRQoL, grade 3/4 AEs, TRM, TD, or all AEs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently moderate- to very low-certainty evidence available regarding the benefits and harms of maintenance therapy in people with CLL. Anti-CD20 mAbs maintenance improved PFS, but also increased grade 3/4 AEs and all AEs. IMiD maintenance had a large effect on PFS, but also increased grade 3/4 AEs. However, none of the above-mentioned maintenance interventions show differences in OS between the maintenance and control groups. The effects of alemtuzumab maintenance are uncertain, coupled with a warning for drug-related infectious toxicity. We found no studies evaluating other novel maintenance interventions, such as B-cell receptor inhibitors, B-cell leukaemia-2/lymphoma-2 inhibitors, or obinutuzumab.

Measurable residual disease in chronic lymphocytic leukemia: expert review and consensus recommendations

Assessment of measurable residual disease (often referred to as "minimal residual disease") has emerged as a highly sensitive indicator of disease burden during and at the end of treatment and has been correlated with time-to-event outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Undetectable-measurable residual disease status at the end of treatment demonstrated independent prognostic significance in chronic lymphocytic leukemia, correlating with favorable progression-free and overall survival with chemoimmunotherapy. Given its utility in evaluating depth of response, determining measurable residual disease status is now a focus of outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia clinical trials. Increased adoption of measurable residual disease assessment calls for standards for nomenclature and outcomes data reporting. In addition, many basic questions have not been systematically addressed. Here, we present the work of an international, multidisciplinary, 174-member panel convened to identify critical questions on key issues pertaining to measurable residual disease in chronic lymphocytic leukemia, review evaluable data, develop unified answers in conjunction with local expert input, and provide recommendations for future studies. Recommendations are presented regarding methodology for measurable residual disease determination, assay requirements and in which tissue to assess measurable residual disease, timing and frequency of assessment, use of measurable residual disease in clinical practice versus clinical trials, and the future usefulness of measurable residual disease assessment. Nomenclature is also proposed. Adoption of these recommendations will work toward standardizing data acquisition and interpretation in future studies with new treatments with the ultimate objective of improving outcomes and curing chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Randomized controlled trial of individualized, low dose, fixed duration lenalidomide maintenance versus observation after frontline chemo-immunotherapy in CLL

Lenalidomide maintenance after frontline chemo-immunotherapy (CIT) in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has not been standard due to the availability of novel therapies, though these remain out of reach for most in low-middle income countries. This single-center, open-label study randomized CLL patients (non-deletion 17p) after frontline therapy to lenalidomide maintenance (dose-escalated 2.5-10mg, 20/28 days per cycle for six months) or observation (2:1 allocation). Forty patients were included over 2018-2020. At a median follow-up of 22 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) with lenalidomide was not significantly different than observation (26 vs. 18 months, p = 0.4). Patients with minimal residual disease >10^-2 had a trend toward better PFS with lenalidomide (19 vs. 7 months, p = 0.07). Grade 3 neutropenia was seen in 16.7% of patients on lenalidomide. Quality of life was comparable between the two arms. Low dose, fixed duration lenalidomide maintenance is not an effective strategy after frontline CIT in CLL.

RNA editing contributes to epitranscriptome diversity in chronic lymphocytic leukemia

RNA editing-primarily conversion of adenosine to inosine (A > I)-is a widespread posttranscriptional mechanism, mediated by Adenosine Deaminases acting on RNA (ADAR) enzymes to alter the RNA sequence of primary transcripts. Hence, in addition to somatic mutations and alternative RNA splicing, RNA editing can be a further source for recoding events. Although RNA editing has been detected in many solid cancers and normal tissue, RNA editing in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has not been addressed so far. We determined global RNA editing and recurrent, recoding RNA editing events from matched RNA-sequencing and whole exome sequencing data in CLL samples from 45 untreated patients. RNA editing was verified in a validation cohort of 98 CLL patients and revealed substantially altered RNA editing profiles in CLL compared with normal B cells. We further found that RNA editing patterns were prognostically relevant. Finally, we showed that ADAR knockout decreased steady state viability of MEC1 cells and made them more susceptible to treatment with fludarabine and ibrutinib in vitro. We propose that RNA editing contributes to the pathophysiology of CLL and targeting the RNA editing machinery could be a future strategy to maximize treatment efficacy.

RNA Editing Alters miRNA Function in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a high incidence B cell leukemia with a highly variable clinical course, leading to survival times ranging from months to several decades. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are small non-coding RNAs that regulate the expression levels of genes by binding to the untranslated regions of transcripts. Although miRNAs have been previously shown to play a crucial role in CLL development, progression and treatment resistance, their further processing and diversification by RNA editing (specifically adenosine to inosine or cytosine to uracil deamination) has not been addressed so far. In this study, we analyzed next generation sequencing data to provide a detailed map of adenosine to inosine and cytosine to uracil changes in miRNAs from CLL and normal B cells. Our results reveal that in addition to a CLL-specific expression pattern, there is also specific RNA editing of many miRNAs, particularly miR-3157 and miR-6503, in CLL. Our data draw further light on how miRNAs and miRNA editing might be implicated in the pathogenesis of the disease.

Role of Non-Coding RNAs in the Development of Targeted Therapy and Immunotherapy Approaches for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

In the past decade, novel targeted therapy approaches, such as BTK inhibitors and Bcl2 blockers, and innovative treatments that regulate the immune response against cancer cells, such as monoclonal antibodies, CAR-T cell therapy, and immunomodulatory molecules, have been established to provide support for the treatment of patients. However, drug resistance development and relapse are still major challenges in CLL treatment. Several studies revealed that non-coding RNAs have a main role in the development and progression of CLL. Specifically, microRNAs (miRs) and tRNA-derived small-RNAs (tsRNAs) were shown to be outstanding biomarkers that can be used to diagnose and monitor the disease and to possibly anticipate drug resistance and relapse, thus supporting physicians in the selection of treatment regimens tailored to the patient needs. In this review, we will summarize the most recent discoveries in the field of targeted therapy and immunotherapy for CLL and discuss the role of ncRNAs in the development of novel drugs and combination regimens for CLL patients.