Treatment Outcomes of Patients Treated with Venetoclax-Obinutuzumab Therapy Vs Btki Therapies in 1L CLL: An International Real-World Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Venetoclax + obinutuzumab (VO) and Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) therapies used in the first line (1L) setting are highly effective for patients (pts) with chronic/small lymphocytic leukemia (CLL/SLL) but there are no reported comparative studies. This study compared real-world clinical outcomes of pts treated with VO vs BTKi therapy in 1L. Methods: Data from the CLL Collaborative Study of Real-World Evidence (CORE), an international, retrospective, multi-center chart review study (25 centers) were used. Adult pts who initiated approved 1L treatments of VO (VO cohort) or covalent BTKi (cBTKi cohort) therapy in 1L between 2019-2024 were included. Cohorts were balanced using entropy balancing on sex, age at 1L, year of 1L start, ECOG performance status, Rai stage, del(17p)/TP53 mutation, and comorbidities. Among pts with known mutation status, proportion of pts with unmutated IGHV was similar across cohorts; hence it was not included (VO: 54.8%; cBTKi: 57.6%). Weighted outcomes included overall response rate (ORR: proportion of pts with physician-reported clinical complete/partial response [CR/PR] out of pts with available response data), progression-free-survival (PFS: time from initiation of therapy to disease progression/death [event] or last follow-up [censor]), and time to next treatment or death (TTNT-D: time from initiation of therapy to the change of therapy (including cBTKi to cBTKi)/death [event] or last follow-up [censor]). Time-to-event data were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards model at 12 and 18 months (mos). Given >20% of pts were still at risk 18-mos after 1L initiation, results for 18-mos rates were reported. Results: Of 2,309 total pts, 110 initiated VO and 242 a cBTKi (ibrutinib: 111 [45.9%], acalabrutinib: 102 [42.1%], zanubrutinib: 15 [6.2%], cBTKi+anti-CD20: 14 [5.8%]) in 1L. Before weighting, the VO cohort was younger at 1L initiation (median years VO: 64.5; cBTKi: 67.9) and median time to 1L start post-diagnosis was longer (39.1 vs 25.1 mos). The VO cohort had higher proportion of pts with ECOG 0-2 (among those with known ECOG: 99.0% vs 98.9%), lower proportion with del(17p)/TP53 mutation (6.7% vs 17.1%), and lower median number of comorbidities (1 vs 2). Common comorbidities for both cohorts included cardiovascular (43.6% vs 52.1%) and endocrine/metabolic conditions (20.9% vs 36.8%). Pt and treatment characteristics were well-matched between cohorts after weighting. After weighting, with a median follow-up of 10.2 mos (IQR: 5.6, 17.9) for the VO cohort and 10.7 mos (IQR: 4.9, 25.5) for the cBTKi cohort, median duration of treatment was 9.5 [IQR: 5.4, 17.3] vs 12.1 [IQR: 4.9, 18.3] mos, respectively; majority of pts were still on therapy at the time of analyses (63.6% vs 74.7%) but fewer pts in the VO cohort initiated a subsequent line of therapy (2.7% vs 18.8%). Among the 58 pts in the cBTKi cohort who sequenced to another therapy, largely due to intolerance (66.7%), 41.9% switched to another cBTKi (36.2% to acalabrutinib) and 58.1% to a different regimen (i.e., venetoclax-based: 45.7%; other: 12.4%). Only 3 pts in the VO cohort started another therapy (2 due to intolerance). The ORR was descriptively higher for the VO cohort (ORR: 89.2% [CR: 58.1%; PR: 31.1%], available response data for 67.3%) relative to the cBTKi cohort (ORR: 80.7% [CR: 8.8%; PR: 71.9%], available response data for 63.0%). The median PFS was not reached, however the 18-mos rate was trending higher for the VO cohort (92.2% vs 84.3%). Based on the Cox model, there was no statistically significant difference in PFS at 18-mos for the cBTKi cohort compared to the VO cohort (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.37 (confidence interval [CI]: 0.76, 7.44; p-value: 0.14). The median TTNT-D was not reached, however the 18-mos rate was higher for the VO cohort (89.4% vs 70.2%). Based on the Cox model, the cBTKi cohort had a statistically significant greater risk of sequencing to the next treatment/death at 18-mos compared to the VO-based cohort (HR: 3.27 (CI: 1.35, 7.94; p-value: <0.01). Conclusions: This study is one of the first to demonstrate advantages in clinical outcomes of pts using VO vs cBTKi therapy in 1L for TTNT-D. Considering that 19% of BTKi pts switched therapy, largely due to intolerance, this highlights the need for future studies to assess VO vs 2nd-generation BTKis in the 1L setting with longer follow-up time and larger cohorts.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».