Fludarabine followed by alemtuzumab consolidation for previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia: final report of Cancer and Leukemia Group B study 19901

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.

Remission maintenance treatment options in chronic lymphocytic leukemia

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) treatment has come a long way in the last two decades, producing increases in tumor control to the point of generating sizeable numbers of patients with undetectable minimal residual disease and creating overall survival benefits in randomized comparisons. Most of this has been achieved by limited-term treatment approaches including chemotherapeutic and immune-therapeutic drugs. More recently, novel therapies targeting signaling pathways essential for the survival of the neoplastic clones have opened avenues that provide disease control in long-term treatment designs, mostly without producing deep remissions. In this disease, where current treatments are largely unable to effect a cure, prolonged therapy designs using maintenance approaches are explored and 5 randomized studies of maintenance have recently been published. This review shall summarize available results from a systematic literature review in a clinical context and outline basic biology principles that should be heeded in this regard.

Understanding Subcutaneous Tissue Pressure for Engineering Injection Devices for Large-Volume Protein Delivery

Subcutaneous injection allows for self-administration of monoclonal antibodies using prefilled syringes, autoinjectors, and on-body injector devices. However, subcutaneous injections are typically limited to 1 mL due to concerns of injection pain from volume, viscosity, and formulation characteristics. Back pressure can serve as an indicator for changes in subcutaneous mechanical properties leading to pain during injection. The purpose of this study was to investigate subcutaneous pressures and injection site reactions as a function of injection volume and flow rate. A pressure sensor in the fluid path recorded subcutaneous pressures in the abdomen of Yorkshire swine. The subcutaneous tissue accommodates large-volume injections and with little back pressure as long as low flow rates are used. A 1 mL injection in 10 seconds (360 mL/h flow rate) generated a pressure of 24.0 ± 3.4 kPa, whereas 10 mL delivered in 10 minutes (60 mL/h flow rate) generated a pressure of 7.4 ± 7.8 kPa. After the injection, the pressure decays to 0 over several seconds. The subcutaneous pressures and mechanical strain increased with increasing flow rate but not increasing dose volume. These data are useful for the design of injection devices to mitigate back pressure and pain during subcutaneous large-volume injection.

Immunosuppression associated with novel chemotherapy agents and monoclonal antibodies

The introduction of novel agents to the therapeutic armamentarium for oncologic, rheumatologic, and neurologic disorders has resulted in major clinical advances. These agents impact immune function, resulting in a discrete spectrum of infectious complications. Purine analogues and alemtuzumab alter cell-mediated immunity, resulting in opportunistic viral/fungal infections. Herpes zoster incidence increases with bortezomib. Hepatitis B reactivation may occur with rituximab. Cases of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy have occurred following monoclonal antibody therapy. Tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor therapy is complicated by tuberculosis reactivation and fungal infections. We summarize the impact of these therapies on pathogenesis and spectrum of infection complicating their usage.

Relationship between progression-free survival and overall survival in chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a literature-based analysis

BACKGROUND

The endpoints of progression-free survival (pfs) and time-to-progression (ttp) are frequently used to evaluate the clinical benefit of anticancer drugs. However, the surrogacy of those endpoints for overall survival (os) is not validated in all cancer settings. In the present study, we used a trial-based approach to assess the relationship between median pfs or ttp and median os in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (cll).

METHODS

The pico (population, interventions, comparators, outcomes) method was used to conduct a systematic review of the literature. The population consisted of patients with cll; the interventions and comparators were standard therapies for cll; and the outcomes were median pfs, ttp, and os. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full papers for eligibility and then extracted data from selected studies. Correlation coefficients were calculated to assess the relationship between median pfs or ttp and median os. Subgroup correlation analyses were also conducted according to the characteristics of the selected studies (such as line of treatment and type of treatment under investigation).

RESULTS

Of the 1263 potentially relevant articles identified during the literature search, twenty-three were included. On average, median pfs or ttp was 16.0 months (standard deviation: 12.4 months) and median os was 43.5 months (standard deviation: 31.2 months). Results of the correlation analysis indicated that median pfs or ttp is highly correlated with median os (Spearman correlation coefficient: 0.813; p ≤ 0.001). A significant correlation between median pfs or ttp and median os was observed in second- and subsequent-line therapies, but not in the first-line setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates a strong correlation between median pfs or ttp and median os in previously treated cll, which reinforce the hypothesis that pfs and ttp could be adequate surrogate endpoints for os in this cancer setting.

Residual cancer lymphocytes in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia after therapy show increased expression of surface antigen CD52 detected using quantitative fluorescence cytometry

BACKGROUND

Rituximab and alemtuzumab, mAbs used in recent years to treat CLL, are directed against antigens CD20 and CD52. CD20 is not highly expressed by CLL tumor cells, and rituximab does not have significant effectiveness in CLL unless combined with chemotherapy. Alemtuzumab targets CD52, which is much more highly expressed, and is currently the most effective agent used alone for CLL. Variability in expression of both antigens among these patients might be related to different individual therapeutic responses to mAb therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total 95 patients diagnosed with CLL and/or SLL were divided into 4 groups: (1) untreated; (2) in complete or partial remission; (3) disease in progression; and (4) diagnosed with SLL. Flow cytometry of peripheral blood cells included gating of the CD5(+)CD19(+) tumor population, within which mean fluorescence intensity of fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) conjugated with anti-CD20 or anti-CD52 antibody was measured. The resulting expression of the 2 antigens was deduced from the calibration curve using Quantum FITC particles.

RESULTS

Expression of CD20 showed no significant differences among the 4 groups of patients. However, significantly greater expression of surface antigen CD52 was recorded in patient group 2 in complete or partial remission (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The residual population of CLL cells after therapy is characterized by increased surface detection of CD52. Although the exact cause of this phenomenon is unknown, our results provide a basis to consider the potential for CLL consolidation therapy using alemtuzumab.

Comparison of subcutaneous and intravenous administration of trastuzumab: a phase I/Ib trial in healthy male volunteers and patients with HER2-positive breast cancer

Trastuzumab is a key component of treatment for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer in both the early and metastatic settings. It is administered intravenously, with between 17 and 52 infusions in standard regimens over 1 year. Intravenous administration of trastuzumab requires substantial time commitments for patients and health care professionals and can result in patient discomfort. A subcutaneous formulation of trastuzumab, containing recombinant human hyaluronidase to overcome subcutaneous absorption barriers, would reduce the administration duration and remove the need to establish intravenous access, thus improving the overall convenience of trastuzumab administration. This open-label, 2-part, phase I/Ib study (NCT00800436) was undertaken in healthy male volunteers and female patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer to identify the dose of subcutaneous trastuzumab that resulted in exposure comparable with the approved intravenous trastuzumab dose. A subcutaneous trastuzumab dose of 8 mg/kg was found to result in exposure comparable with the intravenous trastuzumab dose of 6 mg/kg. The subcutaneous formulation was well tolerated, with a trend toward fewer adverse events versus intravenous administration; most adverse events were mild in intensity. These results support an ongoing phase III efficacy and safety study comparing a fixed subcutaneous trastuzumab dose with intravenous trastuzumab administration.

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia with high-risk genomic features have inferior outcome on successive Cancer and Leukemia Group B trials with alemtuzumab consolidation: subgroup analysis from CALGB 19901 and CALGB 10101

Alemtuzumab consolidation has been investigated to improve remission duration after fludarabine-based induction for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The impact on genomic high-risk disease remains unknown. Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 19901 and 10101 enrolled previously untreated patients to receive alemtuzumab consolidation after fludarabine-based induction. Immunoglobulin heavy chain gene (IGVH) mutation status and interphase cytogenetics were assessed retrospectively. Treatment response with these alemtuzumab-containing regimens was similar, regardless of genomic risk, except for patients harboring del(17p), where few complete remissions were observed. Progression-free survival (PFS) was similar between IGVH groups, but overall survival (OS) was inferior in IGVH unmutated patients (p = 0.03). Cytogenetic risk group was associated with PFS and OS (p = 0.01 for both), with similarly short PFS in patients with del(17p) and del(11q) and particularly short OS in patients with del(17p). Cytogenetic risk group remained significantly associated with PFS and OS when controlling for other prognostic factors (PFS: p = 0.009; OS: p = 0.02), as did the negative association of IGVH unmutated disease with OS (p = 0.004). Results were similar when restricting to patients who received at least one dose of alemtuzumab consolidation, demonstrating limited ability to overcome the poor outcome associated with high-risk genetic features.

Impact of age on outcomes after initial therapy with chemotherapy and different chemoimmunotherapy regimens in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia: results of sequential cancer and leukemia group B studies

PURPOSE

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a disease of the elderly, yet few clinical trials include a significant number of older patients, and outcomes after specific therapies can be different depending on age.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We examined patients enrolled onto successive first-line CALGB CLL trials to determine whether efficacy of regimens varied by age, focusing on ideal chemotherapy choice and benefit of immunotherapy addition to chemotherapy in older patients. Regimens included chlorambucil, fludarabine, fludarabine plus rituximab (FR), fludarabine with consolidation alemtuzumab, and FR with consolidation alemtuzumab.

RESULTS

A total of 663 patients were evaluated for response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) by age group. Interaction effects of fludarabine versus chlorambucil by age group (PFS, P = .046; OS, P = .006) showed that among patients younger than 70 years, PFS and OS was improved with fludarabine over chlorambucil (PFS: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.6, 95% CI, 0.5 to 0.8; OS: HR = 0.7, 95% CI, 0.5 to 0.9), but not in older adults (PFS, HR = 1.0, 95% CI, 0.6 to 1.7; OS: HR = 1.5, 95% CI, 0.9 to 2.3). In contrast, FR improved outcomes relative to fludarabine, irrespective of age (PFS: HR = 0.6, 95% CI, 0.4 to 0.7; OS: HR = 0.7, 95% CI, 0.5 to 0.9). Alemtuzumab consolidation did not provide benefit over similar regimens without alemtuzumab (P > .20), irrespective of age.

CONCLUSION

These data support the use of chlorambucil as an acceptable treatment for many older patients with CLL and suggest rituximab is beneficial regardless of age. These findings bear relevance to both routine care of CLL patients 70 years and older and also future clinical trials in this population.

Rituximab, ofatumumab and other monoclonal anti-CD20 antibodies for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia

BACKGROUND

Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) accounts for 25% of all leukaemias and is the most common lymphoid malignancy in western countries. Standard treatments include mono- or polychemotherapies, usually combined with monoclonal antibodies such as rituximab or alemtuzumab. However, the impact of these agents remains unclear, as there are hints for increased risk of severe infections.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review are to provide an evidence-based answer regarding the clinical benefits and harms of monoclonal anti-CD20 antibodies (such as rituximab, ofatumumab, GA101) compared to no further therapy or to other anti-leukaemic therapies in patients with CLL, irrespective of disease status.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 12, 2011), MEDLINE (from January 1990 to 4 January 2012), and EMBASE (from 1990 to 20 March 2009) as well as conference proceedings (American Society of Hematology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Hematology Association and European Society of Medical Oncology) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs examining monoclonal anti-CD20 antibodies compared to no further therapy or to anti-leukaemic therapy such as chemotherapy or monoclonal antibodies in patients with newly diagnosed or relapsed CLL.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used hazard ratios (HR) as effect measures for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and time to next treatment, and risk ratios (RR) for response rates, treatment-related mortality (TRM) and adverse events (AEs). Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality of trials.

MAIN RESULTS

We screened a total of 1150 records. Seven RCTs involving 1763 patients were identified, but only five could be included in the two separate meta-analyses we performed. We judged the overall the quality of these trials as moderate to high. All trials were randomised and open-label studies. However, two trials were published as abstracts only, therefore we were unable to assess the potential risk of bias for these trials in detail.Three RCTs (N = 1421) assessed the efficacy of monoclonal anti-CD20 antibodies (i.e. rituximab) plus chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone. The meta-analyses showed a statistically significant OS (HR 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.98, P = 0.03, the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial effect (NNTB) was 12) and PFS (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.74, P < 0.00001) advantage for patients receiving rituximab. In the rituximab-arm occurred more AEs, World Health Organization (WHO) grade 3 or 4 (3 trials, N = 1398, RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.23, P < 0.0001; the number needed to harm for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) was 9), but that did not lead to a statistically significant difference regarding TRM (3 trials, N = 1415, RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.01, P = 0.52).Two trials (N = 177) evaluated rituximab versus alemtuzumab. Neither study reported OS or PFS. There was no statistically significant difference between arms regarding complete response rate (CRR) (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.58, P = 0.14) or TRM (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.51, P = 0.15). However, the CLL2007FMP trial was stopped early owing to an increase in mortality in the alemtuzumab arm. More serious AEs occurred in this arm (43% with alemtuzumab versus 22% with rituximab; P = 0.006).Two trials assessed different dosages or time schedules of monoclonal anti-CD20 antibodies. One trial (N = 104) evaluated two different rituximab schedules (concurrent arm: fludarabine plus rituximab (Flu-R) plus rituximab consolidation versus sequential arm: fludarabine alone plus rituximab consolidation). The comparison of the concurrent versus sequential regimen of rituximab showed a statistically significant difference of the CRR with 33% in the concurrent-arm and 15% in the sequential-arm (P = 0.04), that did not lead to statistically significant differences regarding OS (HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.20 to 6.65, P = 0.30) or PFS (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.15, P = 0.11). Furthermore results showed no differences in occurring AEs, except for neutropenia, which was more often observed in patients of the concurrent arm. The other trial (N = 61) investigated two different dosages (500 mg and 1000 mg) of ofatumumab in addition to FluC. The arm investigating ofatumumab did not assess OS and a median PFS had not been reached owing to the short median follow-up of eight months. It showed no statistically significant differences between arms regarding CRR (32% in the FCO500 arm versus 50% in the FCO1000 arm; P = 0.10) or AEs (anaemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showed that patients receiving chemotherapy plus rituximab benefit in terms of OS as well as PFS compared to those with chemotherapy alone. Therefore, it supports the recommendation of rituximab in combination with FluC as an option for the first-line treatment as well as for the people with relapsed or refractory CLL. The available evidence regarding the other assessed comparisons was not sufficient to deduct final conclusions.

Cytomegalovirus oesophagitis following treatment with fludarabine for refractory lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma

A 64-year-old man with a 2-week history of fatigue and fever presented to the medical admissions unit. He had a background of lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma and had recently completed a course of fludarabine-based chemotherapy. CT of the abdomen demonstrated an increase in spleen size and it was thought that his fevers were most likely due to disease recurrence or high-grade transformation. A bone marrow trephine was organised, which showed no evidence of lymphoma and positron emission tomography-CT demonstrated an area of increased avidity at the gastro-oesophageal junction. An oesophagogastroduodenoscopy was recommended, which revealed ulceration within the oesophagus and stomach. Biopsy of the lesions and immunohistochemistry confirmed a diagnosis of cytomegalovirus oesophagitis. He was treated with intravenous ganciclovir followed by oral valganciclovir for a total of 3&emsp14;weeks. His fever resolved and he was discharged home approximately 8&emsp14;weeks after he first presented.

Choosing first-line therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) exhibits a highly variable natural history, but the addition of genomic risk stratification to traditional clinical staging systems has begun to explain the heterogeneous clinical course. Overall response to treatment has significantly improved over the past three decades and for the first time, a survival benefit has been demonstrated with the use of monoclonal antibodies in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy. Newer therapeutic strategies have abrogated the adverse prognosis associated with some higher risk features, but other genetic subgroups remain at high risk for rapid disease progression and early mortality. Patients at advanced age or with significant comorbidity constitute a large proportion of the CLL population and present unique clinical challenges. This article will discuss the evolution of contemporary therapeutic approaches to the initial treatment of CLL, and highlight the ways in which risk-adapted therapeutic strategies are improving clinical outcomes.

Alemtuzumab for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia

BACKGROUND

Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) accounts for 25% of all leukaemias and is the most common lymphoid malignancy in Western countries. Standard treatment  includes mono- or poly-chemotherapies. Nowadays, monoclonal antibodies are added, especially alemtuzumab and rituximab. However, the impact of these agents remains unclear, as there are hints of an increased risk of severe infections.

OBJECTIVES

To assess alemtuzumab compared with no further therapy, or with other anti-leukaemic therapy in patients with CLL.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL and MEDLINE (from January 1985 to November 2011), and EMBASE (from 1990 to 2009) as well as conference proceedings for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Two review authors (KB, NS) independently screened search results.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing alemtuzumab with no further therapy or comparing alemtuzumab with anti-leukaemic therapy such as chemotherapy or monoclonal antibodies in patients with histologically-confirmed B-cell CLL. Both pretreated and chemotherapy-naive patients were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used hazard ratios (HR) as an effect measure for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and risk ratios (RRs) for response rates, treatment-related mortality (TRM) and adverse events. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Our search strategies led to 1542 potentially relevant references. Of these, we included five RCTs involving 845 patients. Overall, we judged the quality of the five trials as moderate. All trials were reported as randomised and open-label studies. However, two trials were published as abstracts only, therefore, we were unable to assess the potential risk of bias for these trials in detail. Because of the small number of studies in each analysis (two), the quantification of heterogeneity was not reliable.Two trials (N = 356) assessed the efficacy of alemtuzumab compared with no further therapy. One trial (N = 335), reported a statistically significant OS advantage for all patients receiving alemtuzumab (HR 0.65 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.94; P = 0.021). However, no improvement was seen for the subgroup of patients in Rai stage I or II (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.84; P = 0.82). In both trials, the complete response rate (CRR) (RR 2.61; 95% CI 1.26 to 5.42; P = 0.01) and PFS (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.76; P < 0.0001) were statistically significantly increased under therapy with alemtuzumab. The potential heterogeneity seen in the forest plot could be due to the different study designs: One trial evaluated alemtuzumab additional to fludarabine as relapse therapy; the other trial examined alemtuzumab compared with no further therapy for consolidation after first remission.There was no statistically significant difference for TRM between both arms (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.17 to 1.90; P = 0.36). A statistically significant higher rate of CMV reactivation (RR 10.52; 95% CI 1.42 to 77.68; P = 0.02) and infections (RR 1.32; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.74; P = 0.04) occurred in patients receiving alemtuzumab. Seven severe infections (64%) in the alemtuzumab arm in the GCLLSG CLL4B study led to premature closure.Two trials (N = 177), evaluated alemtuzumab versus rituximab. Neither study reported OS or PFS. We could not detect a statistically significant difference for CRR (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.67 to 1.08; P = 0.18) or TRM (RR 3.20; 95% CI 0.66 to 15.50; P = 0.15) between both arms. However, the CLL2007FMP trial was stopped early due to an increase in mortality in the alemtuzumab arm. More serious adverse events occurred in this arm (43% versus 22% (rituximab), P = 0.006).One trial (N = 297), assessed the efficacy of alemtuzumab compared with chemotherapy (chlorambucil). For this trial, no HR is reported for OS. Median survival has not yet been reached, 84% of patients were alive in each arm at the data cut-off or at the last follow-up date (24.6 months). The TRM between arms shows no statistical significant difference (0.6% versus 2.0%; P = 0.34). Alemtuzumab statistically significantly improves PFS (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.77; P = 0.0001), time to next treatment (23.3 compared with 14.7 months; P = 0.0001), ORR (83.2% versus 55.4%; P < 0.0001), CRR (24.2% versus 2.0%; P < 0.0001), and minimal residual disease rate (7.4% versus 0%; P = 0.0008) compared with chlorambucil. Statistically, significantly more asymptomatic (51.7% versus 7.4%) and symptomatic cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections (15.4% versus 0%) occurred in the patients treated with alemtuzumab.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In summary, the currently available evidence suggests an OS, CRR and PFS benefit for alemtuzumab compared with no further therapy, but an increased risk for infections in general, CMV infections and CMV reactivations. The role of alemtuzumab versus rituximab still remains unclear, further trials with longer follow-up and overall survival as primary endpoint are needed to evaluate the effects of both agents compared with each other. Alemtuzumab compared with chlorambucil seems to be favourable in terms of PFS, but a longer follow-up period and trials with overall survival as primary endpoint are needed to determine whether this effect will translate into a survival advantage.

Cancer immunotherapy

Cancer immunotherapy consists of approaches that modify the host immune system, and/or the utilization of components of the immune system, as cancer treatment. During the past 25 years, 17 immunologic products have received regulatory approval based on anticancer activity as single agents and/or in combination with chemotherapy. These include the nonspecific immune stimulants BCG and levamisole; the cytokines interferon-α and interleukin-2; the monoclonal antibodies rituximab, ofatumumab, alemtuzumab, trastuzumab, bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab; the radiolabeled antibodies Y-90 ibritumomab tiuxetan and I-131 tositumomab; the immunotoxins denileukin diftitox and gemtuzumab ozogamicin; nonmyeloablative allogeneic transplants with donor lymphocyte infusions; and the anti-prostate cancer cell-based therapy sipuleucel-T. All but two of these products are still regularly used to treat various B- and T-cell malignancies, and numerous solid tumors, including breast, lung, colorectal, prostate, melanoma, kidney, glioblastoma, bladder, and head and neck. Positive randomized trials have recently been reported for idiotype vaccines in lymphoma and a peptide vaccine in melanoma. The anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibody ipilumumab, which blocks regulatory T-cells, is expected to receive regulatory approval in the near future, based on a randomized trial in melanoma. As the fourth modality of cancer treatment, biotherapy/immunotherapy is an increasingly important component of the anticancer armamentarium.

What is the best frontline therapy for patients with CLL and 17p deletion?

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a lymphoproliferative disease with significant variation in disease progression, response to therapy, and survival outcome. Deletions of 17p or mutations of TP53 have been identified as one of the poorest prognostic factors, being predictive of short time for disease progression, lack of response to therapy, short response duration, and short overall survival. The treatment of patients with CLL has improved significantly with the development of chemoimmunotherapy, but this benefit was not pronounced in patients with 17p deletion. We compare various treatment strategies used in these patients, including FCR-like chemoimmunotherapy, alemtuzumab, other antibody combinations, or novel targeted therapies with promising results. Allogeneic stem cell transplantation offers the possibility for long-term disease control in these patients and should be considered early in younger, transplant-eligible patients. The current state of therapy is far from optimal and resources should be applied to studying therapeutic options for patients who have CLL with loss of p53 function.

The clinical application of monoclonal antibodies in chronic lymphocytic leukemia

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) represents the most prevalent adult leukemia. Treatment with chemotherapy over the past 3 decades has been palliative. The introduction of therapeutic antibodies has increased the number of treatment options for this disease. Despite this increase, our true understanding of the mechanism of action of antibody therapy in CLL remains limited. Rituximab, a CD20 antibody, is currently widely used in combination-based strategies for both previously untreated symptomatic CLL and as salvage therapy. Recent data suggest that the addition of rituximab to fludarabine with or without cyclophosphamide prolongs survival in younger patients with CLL. Other improved CD20 antibodies with promising clinical activity, including ofatumumab and GA-101, are coming forward. Alemtuzumab, a CD52 antibody, likewise has demonstrated benefit in both symptomatic, previously untreated CLL and in patients with relapsed disease but has less selectivity. Development of other therapeutic antibodies targeting alternative B-cell-specific antigens in CLL has been less successful, although many promising candidate antibodies and/or small modular immune pharmaceuticals (SMIPs) are coming forward. In addition, recent efforts to combine currently applied therapeutic antibodies with other biologic and targeted therapies with efficacy in CLL offers the potential to move toward alternative non-chemotherapy-based treatment approaches.

Consolidation therapy with subcutaneous alemtuzumab after fludarabine and rituximab induction therapy for previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia: final analysis of CALGB 10101

PURPOSE

To determine if alemtuzumab consolidation improves response rate and progression-free survival (PFS) after induction chemoimmunotherapy in previously untreated symptomatic patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients (n = 102) received fludarabine 25 mg/m(2) intravenously days 1 to 5 and rituximab 50 mg/m(2) day 1, 325 mg/m(2) day 3, and 375 mg/m(2) day 5 of cycle 1 and then 375 mg/m(2) day 1 of cycles 2 to 6; fludarabine plus rituximab (FR) administration was repeated every 28 days for six cycles. Three months after completion of FR, patients with stable disease or better response received subcutaneous alemtuzumab 3 mg day 1, 10 mg day 3, and 30 mg day 5 and then 30 mg three times per week for 5 weeks.

RESULTS

Overall response (OR), complete response (CR), and partial response (PR) rates were 90%, 29%, and 61% after FR, respectively; 15% of patients were minimal residual disease (MRD) negative. Of 102 patients, 58 received alemtuzumab; 28 (61%) of 46 patients achieving PR after FR attained CR after alemtuzumab. By intent to treat (n = 102), OR and CR rates were 90% and 57% after alemtuzumab, respectively; 42% of patients became MRD negative. With median follow-up of 36 months, median PFS was 36 months, 2-year PFS was 72%, and 2-year OS was 86%. In patients achieving CR after FR, alemtuzumab was associated with five deaths resulting from infection (viral and Listeria meningitis and Legionella, cytomegalovirus, and Pneumocystis pneumonias), which occurred up to 7 months after last therapy. The study was amended to exclude CR patients from receiving alemtuzumab.

CONCLUSION

Alemtuzumab consolidation improved CR and MRD-negative rates after FR induction but caused serious infections in patients who had already achieved CR after induction and did not improve 2-year PFS or survival.