Next Article in Journal
Warning Signals of Post-Exertional Malaise in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Retrospective Analysis of 197 Patients
Next Article in Special Issue
Perspectives on Precision Medicine in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: Targeting Recurrent Mutations—NOTCH1, SF3B1, MYD88, BIRC3
Previous Article in Journal
Disturbances in White Matter Integrity in the Ultra-High-Risk Psychosis State—A Systematic Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
Driver Mutations and Single Copy Number Abnormalities Identify Binet Stage A Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia with Aggressive Progression
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 10
Issue 11
10.3390/jcm10112516
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Will New Drugs Replace Transplants for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia?

by
Shenmiao Yang
1,*,
Xiaojun Huang
1 and
Robert Peter Gale
2
1
National Clinical Research Center for Hematologic Disease, Peking University Institute of Hematology, Peking University Peoples Hospital, Beijing 100044, China
2
Haematology Research Centre, Department of Immunology and Inflammation, Imperial College London, London SW7 2BX, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10(11), 2516; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jcm10112516
Submission received: 8 March 2021 / Revised: 15 May 2021 / Accepted: 3 June 2021 / Published: 7 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in the Treatment of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Transplants have been used to treat chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) for more than 35 years. Use has been restricted to <1 percent of highly selected persons typically failing concurrent conventional therapies. As therapies of CLL have evolved, so have indications for transplantation and transplant techniques. The data that we review indicate that transplants can result in long-term leukemia-free survival in some persons but are associated with substantial transplant-related morbidity and mortality. We discuss the mechanisms underlying the anti-leukemia effects of transplants including drugs, ionizing radiations, immune-mediated mechanisms and/or a combination. We discuss prognostic and predicative covariates for transplant outcomes. Importantly, we consider whether there is presently a role of transplants in CLL and who, if anyone, is an appropriate candidate in the context of new drugs.

1. Introduction

Few patients, if any, with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) are cured, despite important recent therapy advances [1,2]. In this review, we consider results of transplants over four decades, compare these results with those of new CLL therapies and suggest who, if anyone, is an appropriate transplant candidate today.

2. Transplant Outcomes

In 1996, the European Bone Marrow Transplant Group (EBMT)/International Bone Marrow Transplant Registry (IBMTR; now CIBMTR) reported data on 54 recipients of allotransplants for advanced CLL from HLA-identical siblings following intensive pretransplant conditioning [3]. Thirty-eight achieved a hematologic remission, differently defined at that time, and 24 were alive at a median of 2 years. Three-year survival was 46% (95% confidence interval (CI), 32, 60%). Twenty-five subjects died of transplant-related complications. In another report, the German CLL Study Group presented data of reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) transplants from HLA-matched related and unrelated donors in 90 subjects with high-risk CLL. Ten-year PFS was 34% (23, 44%). Twenty-eight subjects were measurable residual disease (MRD)-negative at 1 year post-transplant, with 24 alive and leukemia-free at >10 years, indicating at least operational cure of CLL in some people [4]. Reducing post-transplant immune suppression and/or giving donor lymphocyte infusions to some subjects with persistent or recurrent leukemia resulted in MRD negativity. We discuss below whether these data indicate an anti-leukemia effect of graft-versus-host disease (GvHD), a specific anti-leukemia effect sometimes termed graft-versus-leukemia (GvL) or both [5]. Other reports of transplants, mostly in persons with advanced CLL, followed. These used diverse strategies, including different pre-transplant conditioning regimens (conventional versus reduced-intensity (RIC), donors (HLA-identical versus -matched; related versus unrelated), graft sources (blood versus bone marrow versus umbilical cord blood) and pre- and post-transplant immune suppression [6,7,8,9,10]. There were no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of any of these covariates, making it impossible to recommend a specific transplant strategy [6,7,8,9,10]. We conclude that allotransplants under diverse conditions can result in long-term leukemia-free survival (LFS) in some persons with advanced CLL (Table 1). We also caution against comparing the results of transplants performed in persons receiving chemo-immuno-therapy versus new drugs because of several confounders, including subject selection biases, different pre-transplant conditioning regimens, donors and graft types. Furthermore, there is improvement in outcomes in transplants for all diseases over the interval that we survey because of the improved prevention, diagnosis and therapy of CMV infection, acute and chronic GvHD and supportive care.

3. How Is Leukemia Controlled?

Leukemia control after an allotransplant can result from the efficacy of anti-leukemia drugs and ionizing radiations, immune-mediated anti-leukemia effects which could be non-specific (GvHD) or leukaemia-specific (GvL) or combinations. There is some long-term LFS in recipients of transplants from genetically identical twins where GvHD is absent and is likely the result of anti-leukemia effects of drugs and radiation [22]. Another study compared outcomes of conventional pre-transplant conditioning versus RIC [23]. RIC transplants had less TRM but a higher cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR). Intensive pre-transplant conditioning was associated with better LFS and survival in transplants before 2001 but not subsequently. The reason for this is uncertain. Conditioning regimens with and without ionizing radiations have similar TRM, CIR, progression-free survival (PFS) and survival [12]. There was a reasonably strong immune-mediated posttransplant anti-leukemia effect but researchers were unable to determine whether this resulted from GvHD, GvL or both [24]. The German CLL study group reported that some subjects previously MRD-test-positive became -test-negative after stopping post-transplant immune suppression and/or receiving a donor leukocyte infusion (DLI) [5]. Most subjects developed clinical GvHD consistent with a non-specific anti-leukemia effect. Another study reported that early complete T-cell chimerism correlated with a higher likelihood of becoming MRD-negative but also with higher TRM and acute GvHD, offsetting any clinical benefit [25].

4. Predicting Outcomes

There are several reports of predictive covariates for transplant outcomes in CLL [16,26]. In most studies, disease state and comorbidity index were adverse risk factors. Some studies reported that poor-risk covariates such as del (17p)/TP53 mutation did not impact post-transplant event-free survival (EFS) [16,26,27]. The Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) reported a prognostic score which also included high blood lymphocyte concentration and cytogenetic risk category (especially del(17p) and complex karyotype with ≥5 abnormalities) which correlated with poor PFS [28]. Models such as these can be used to counsel people with CLL regarding predicted transplant outcomes.
Several prognostic and predictive scores estimate if or when someone with CLL will need therapy and the survival of persons treated with new drugs (Table 2). Examples include the CLL-IPI, IPS-E, CLL1 prognostic model (CLL1-PM), BALL score, four-factor prognostic model, SRSI and others, which use covariates such as age, stage, hemoglobin concentration, lactate dehydrogenase, beta-2 microglobulin and mutation states of IGHV and TP53 to predict outcomes [29,30,31,32,33,34,35]. A brief response duration to a prior therapy is an adverse risk covariate regardless of therapy type [32]. Several studies correlated PFS and/or survival with negative results of MRD testing at the end of therapy in persons receiving venetoclax-based treatment or fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR) [36,37]. In summary, although it is possible to predict outcomes of cohorts of persons with CLL using a few covariates and receiving diverse therapies, accurate prediction at the individual level is difficult.

5. Transplant versus Current Therapies

The most important clinical question is how outcomes of transplants compare with those of current CLL therapy. In the era before new drugs, this question could only be approached indirectly because we lacked RCTs. For example, Kharfan-Dabaja and co-workers used estimates from a systematic review and data from meta-analyses to construct a Markov decision model comparing these approaches [39]. They concluded that there was better quality-adjusted life expectancy and survival with allotransplants.
Beginning in 2007, the US FDA approved 10 new anti-CLL drugs, including alemtuzumab, bendamustine, ofatumumab, rituximab, obinutuzumab, ibrutinib, idelalisib, duvelisib, venetoclax and acalabrutinib. For example, Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK)-inhibitors such as ibrutinib and acalabrutinib improve CLL therapy, reducing the impact of adverse prognostic covariates such as fludarabine resistance, del (11q), unmutated IGHV and TP53 mutation/abnormality and purine-analogue resistance [40,41,42,43,44,45]. Therapy with a BCL2-inhibitor such as venetoclax and rituximab or obinutuzumab results in high rates of MRD negativity and good PFS [36,46]. Phosphoinostide 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitors such as idelalisib and duvelisib are effective in persons failing prior therapies [47,48]. These advances have changed the definition of risk categories in CLL and reduced the numbers of persons classified as high-risk who might be appropriate candidates for a transplant. Between 1987 and 2010, when new drugs emerged, data on 712 allotransplants were reported to the Centre for Blood and Marrow Research (CIBMTR), or roughly 31 per year. In contrast, from 2011 to 2019, 31 allotransplants were reported, or three per year, suggesting a substantial decrease, which, of course, could be transient if new drugs are simply delaying the use of transplants (Prof. M. A. Eapen, CIBMTR and Medical College of Wisconsin). Even at the highest transplant rate and assuming substantial under-reporting, these data indicate that transplants are used in an infinitesimally small proportion of the approximately 0.5 million people with CLL in the US and EU.
It is important to consider transplants in the context of these new CLL drugs and prognostic models. Two EBMT studies reported transplant outcomes in subjects receiving ibrutinib or idelalisib [49,50]. Without a comparator arm or comparison to historical controls, and considering obvious selection biases, it is impossible to know if recent transplant outcomes differ from those reported previously. A non-randomized study with few data in subjects receiving BTK-, PI3K- or BCL-2-inhibitors pre-, peri- and/or post-transplant reported transplant outcomes similar to those reported in transplant recipients receiving conventional CLL drugs, but it is impossible to comment critically [20].
New CLL drugs can also be given to people relapsing after a transplant or to prevent post-transplant relapse. In several studies, subjects relapsing post-transplant responded to subsequent therapy with new drugs such as ibrutinib [4,51,52]. Whether giving new drugs post-transplant to prevent relapse improves outcomes is unknown [18].
Based on these data, we can make the following conclusions. (1) There are no convincing data to confirm that giving new drugs pre-transplant improves transplant outcomes. This would require data from a randomized clinical trial; no such data are available, nor is such a trial likely to be performed. The popular notion that persons with advanced CLL can receive these new drugs as a bridge to transplant is attractive but unproven. (2) Persons relapsing after a transplant respond to new drugs. (3) There are no convincing data to confirm that giving new CLL drugs post-transplant prevents relapse or improves outcomes. In summary, although there is much enthusiasm for using new CLL drugs in the context of transplants, there are presently few supporting data.

6. Who Should Get a Transplant Today?

Several organizations and scientific and medical bodies have published consensus statements or practice guidelines on the use of transplants and/or CAR-T-cells in persons with CLL [53,54,55,56,57]. None of these are evidence-based and we urge caution in accepting them. Some recommendations are based on comparing data from phase 1/2 trials in selected subjects with historical or otherwise matched controls. Such comparisons are scientifically and statistically flawed and often reach incorrect conclusions that are unconfirmed in phase 3 studies. Other recommendations are based on so-called consensus statements or practice guidelines. Elsewhere, we comment on the poor scientific validity of these metrics [58,59].
Given these limitations, how can one decide who is an appropriate transplant candidate today? Any recommendation is of course subjective in the absence of RCTs. We believe that persons unresponsive or rapidly failing ≥ 1 new therapies may be appropriate. The possible place of new CLL drugs in a typical transplant scheme is shown in Figure 1.

7. Summary

Transplants can operationally cure some persons with advanced CLL, including some failing current new therapies. We suggest that these cures result from high-dose anti-leukemia drugs, ionizing radiations and immune-mediated mechanisms, which may combine differently in different persons. Transplant outcomes seem to have improved but selection biases and other confounders discussed above make this conclusion uncertain. There are no RCTs comparing outcomes of transplants with current therapies, making the decision to perform a transplant subjective. Nevertheless, we suggest that transplants may be an appropriate intervention in some persons with CLL. When to intervene with a transplant, after failing alternative therapies or sooner, especially in young persons with advanced leukemia, is uncertain. Data from studies of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T-cells in CLL are too few to evaluate critically, but this may represent another cell-based therapy of CLL with fewer adverse events compared with transplants.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

R.P.G. acknowledges support from the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre funding scheme.

Conflicts of Interest

R.P.G. is a consultant to BeiGene Ltd., Fusion Pharma LLC, LaJolla NanoMedical Inc., Mingsight Parmaceuticals Inc. and CStone Pharmaceuticals; advisor to Antegene Biotech LLC, Medical Director, FFF Enterprises Inc.; partner, AZAC Inc.; Board of Directors, Russian Foundation for Cancer Research Support; and Scientific Advisory Board: StemRad Ltd.

References

  1. Parikh, S.A.; Gale, R.P.; Kay, N.E. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia in 2020: A surfeit of riches? Leukemia 2020, 34, 1979–1983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Iovino, L.; Shadman, M. Novel Therapies in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: A Rapidly Changing Landscape. Curr. Treat Options Oncol. 2020, 21, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Michallet, M.; Archimbaud, E.; Bandini, G.; Rowlings, P.A.; Deeg, H.J.; Gahrton, G.; Montserrat, E.; Rozman, C.; Gratwohl, A.; Gale, R.P. HLA-identical sibling bone marrow transplantation in younger patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the International Bone Marrow Transplant Registry. Ann. Intern. Med. 1996, 124, 311–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Kramer, I.; Stilgenbauer, S.; Dietrich, S.; Bottcher, S.; Zeis, M.; Stadler, M.; Bittenbring, J.; Uharek, L.; Scheid, C.; Hegenbart, U.; et al. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for high-risk CLL: 10-year follow-up of the GCLLSG CLL3X trial. Blood 2017, 130, 1477–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Ritgen, M.; Bottcher, S.; Stilgenbauer, S.; Bunjes, D.; Schubert, J.; Cohen, S.; Humpe, A.; Hallek, M.; Kneba, M.; Schmitz, N.; et al. Quantitative MRD monitoring identifies distinct GVL response patterns after allogeneic stem cell transplantation for chronic lymphocytic leukemia: Results from the GCLLSG CLL3X trial. Leukemia 2008, 22, 1377–1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Schetelig, J.; Thiede, C.; Bornhauser, M.; Schwerdtfeger, R.; Kiehl, M.; Beyer, J.; Sayer, H.G.; Kroger, N.; Hensel, M.; Scheffold, C.; et al. Evidence of a graft-versus-leukemia effect in chronic lymphocytic leukemia after reduced-intensity conditioning and allogeneic stem-cell transplantation: The Cooperative German Transplant Study Group. J. Clin. Oncol. 2003, 21, 2747–2753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dreger, P.; Brand, R.; Milligan, D.; Corradini, P.; Finke, J.; Lambertenghi Deliliers, G.; Martino, R.; Russell, N.; van Biezen, A.; Michallet, M.; et al. Reduced-intensity conditioning lowers treatment-related mortality of allogeneic stem cell transplantation for chronic lymphocytic leukemia: A population-matched analysis. Leukemia 2005, 19, 1029–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Sorror, M.L.; Maris, M.B.; Sandmaier, B.M.; Storer, B.E.; Stuart, M.J.; Hegenbart, U.; Agura, E.; Chauncey, T.R.; Leis, J.; Pulsipher, M.; et al. Hematopoietic cell transplantation after nonmyeloablative conditioning for advanced chronic lymphocytic leukemia. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005, 23, 3819–3829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Delgado, J.; Thomson, K.; Russell, N.; Ewing, J.; Stewart, W.; Cook, G.; Devereux, S.; Lovell, R.; Chopra, R.; Marks, D.I.; et al. Results of alemtuzumab-based reduced-intensity allogeneic transplantation for chronic lymphocytic leukemia: A British Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation Study. Blood 2006, 107, 1724–1730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. McClune, B.L.; Defor, T.; Brunstein, C.; Vogel, R.I.; Majhail, N.S.; Bachanova, V.; Burns, L.J.; Slungaard, A.; Weisdorf, D.J. Reduced intensity allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplantation for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: Related donor and umbilical cord allografting. Br. J. Haematol. 2012, 156, 273–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Brown, J.R.; Kim, H.T.; Armand, P.; Cutler, C.; Fisher, D.C.; Ho, V.; Koreth, J.; Ritz, J.; Wu, C.; Antin, J.H.; et al. Long-term follow-up of reduced-intensity allogeneic stem cell transplantation for chronic lymphocytic leukemia: Prognostic model to predict outcome. Leukemia 2013, 27, 362–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sabloff, M.; Sobecks, R.M.; Ahn, K.W.; Zhu, X.; de Lima, M.; Brown, J.R.; Inamoto, Y.; Holland, H.K.; Aljurf, M.D.; Laughlin, M.J.; et al. Does total body irradiation conditioning improve outcomes of myeloablative human leukocyte antigen-identical sibling transplantations for chronic lymphocytic leukemia? Biol. Blood Marrow Transpl. 2014, 20, 421–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Van Gelder, M.; de Wreede, L.C.; Bornhauser, M.; Niederwieser, D.; Karas, M.; Anderson, N.S.; Gramatzki, M.; Dreger, P.; Michallet, M.; Petersen, E.; et al. Long-term survival of patients with CLL after allogeneic transplantation: A report from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2017, 52, 372–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Van Gelder, M.; Ziagkos, D.; de Wreede, L.; van Biezen, A.; Dreger, P.; Gramatzki, M.; Stelljes, M.; Andersen, N.S.; Schaap, N.; Vitek, A.; et al. Baseline Characteristics Predicting Very Good Outcome of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation in Young Patients With High Cytogenetic Risk Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia—A Retrospective Analysis From the Chronic Malignancies Working Party of the EBMT. Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2017, 17, 667–675 e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Van Gorkom, G.; van Gelder, M.; Eikema, D.J.; Blok, H.J.; van Lint, M.T.; Koc, Y.; Ciceri, F.; Beelen, D.; Chevallier, P.; Selleslag, D.; et al. Chronic Malignancies Working Party of the, E., Outcomes of haploidentical stem cell transplantation for chronic lymphocytic leukemia: A retrospective study on behalf of the chronic malignancies working party of the EBMT. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2018, 53, 255–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Andersen, N.S.; Bornhauser, M.; Gramatzki, M.; Dreger, P.; Vitek, A.; Karas, M.; Michallet, M.; Moreno, C.; van Gelder, M.; Henseler, A.; et al. Reduced intensity conditioning regimens including alkylating chemotherapy do not alter survival outcomes after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in chronic lymphocytic leukemia compared to low-intensity non-myeloablative conditioning. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 145, 2823–2834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Paul, S.; Tsai, H.L.; Lowery, P.; Fuchs, E.J.; Luznik, L.; Bolanos-Meade, J.; Swinnen, L.J.; Shanbhag, S.; Wagner-Johnston, N.; Varadhan, R.; et al. Allogeneic Haploidentical Blood or Marrow Transplantation with Post-Transplantation Cyclophosphamide in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia. Biol. Blood Marrow Transpl. 2020, 26, 502–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Farina, L.; Barretta, F.; Scarfo, L.; Bruno, B.; Patriarca, F.; Frustaci, A.M.; Coscia, M.; Salvetti, C.; Quaresmini, G.; Fanin, R.; et al. Refractory and 17p-deleted chronic lymphocytic leukemia: Improving survival with pathway inhibitors and allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Biol. Blood Marrow Transpl. 2020, 26, e256–e262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kim, H.T.; Shaughnessy, C.J.; Rai, S.C.; Reynolds, C.; Ho, V.T.; Cutler, C.; Koreth, J.; Gooptu, M.; Romee, R.; Nikiforow, S.; et al. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation after prior targeted therapy for high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Blood Adv. 2020, 4, 4113–4123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Roeker, L.E.; Dreger, P.; Brown, J.R.; Lahoud, O.B.; Eyre, T.A.; Brander, D.M.; Skarbnik, A.; Coombs, C.C.; Kim, H.T.; Davids, M.; et al. Allogeneic stem cell transplantation for chronic lymphocytic leukemia in the era of novel agents. Blood Adv. 2020, 4, 3977–3989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Schetelig, J.; Chevallier, P.; van Gelder, M.; Hoek, J.; Hermine, O.; Chakraverty, R.; Browne, P.; Milpied, N.; Malagola, M.; Socie, G.; et al. Idelalisib treatment prior to allogeneic stem cell transplantation for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia: A report from the EBMT chronic malignancies working party. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Pavletic, S.Z.; Zhou, G.; Sobocinski, K.; Marti, G.; Doney, K.; DiPersio, J.; Feremans, W.; Foroni, L.; Goodman, S.; Prentice, G.; et al. Genetically identical twin transplantation for chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Leukemia 2007, 21, 2452–2455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Sobecks, R.M.; Leis, J.F.; Gale, R.P.; Ahn, K.W.; Zhu, X.; Sabloff, M.; de Lima, M.; Brown, J.R.; Inamoto, Y.; Hale, G.A.; et al. Outcomes of human leukocyte antigen-matched sibling donor hematopoietic cell transplantation in chronic lymphocytic leukemia: Myeloablative versus reduced-intensity conditioning regimens. Biol. Blood Marrow Transpl. 2014, 20, 1390–1398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Ben-Bassat, I.; Raanani, P.; Gale, R.P. Graft-versus-leukemia in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2007, 39, 441–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Shaffer, B.C.; Modric, M.; Stetler-Stevenson, M.; Arthur, D.C.; Steinberg, S.M.; Liewehr, D.J.; Fowler, D.H.; Gale, R.P.; Bishop, M.R.; Pavletic, S.Z. Rapid complete donor lymphoid chimerism and graft-versus-leukemia effect are important in early control of chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Exp. Hematol. 2013, 41, 772–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Schetelig, J.; de Wreede, L.C.; van Gelder, M.; Andersen, N.S.; Moreno, C.; Vitek, A.; Karas, M.; Michallet, M.; Machaczka, M.; Gramatzki, M.; et al. Risk factors for treatment failure after allogeneic transplantation of patients with CLL: A report from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2017, 52, 552–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Schetelig, J.; Hoek, J.; Stilgenbauer, S.; Middeke, J.M.; Andersen, N.S.; Fox, C.P.; Lenhoff, S.; Volin, L.; Shimoni, A.; Schroyens, W.; et al. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for patients with TP53 mutant or deleted chronic lymphocytic leukemia: Results of a prospective observational study. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kim, H.T.; Ahn, K.W.; Hu, Z.H.; Davids, M.S.; Volpe, V.O.; Antin, J.H.; Sorror, M.L.; Shadman, M.; Press, O.; Pidala, J.; et al. Prognostic Score and Cytogenetic Risk Classification for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Patients: Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research Report. Clin. Cancer Res. 2019, 25, 5143–5155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. International CLL-IPI Working Group. An international prognostic index for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL-IPI): A meta-analysis of individual patient data. Lancet Oncol. 2016, 17, 779–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Condoluci, A.; Terzi di Bergamo, L.; Langerbeins, P.; Hoechstetter, M.A.; Herling, C.D.; De Paoli, L.; Delgado, J.; Rabe, K.G.; Gentile, M.; Doubek, M.; et al. International prognostic score for asymptomatic early-stage chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Blood 2020, 135, 1859–1869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Hoechstetter, M.A.; Busch, R.; Eichhorst, B.; Buhler, A.; Winkler, D.; Bahlo, J.; Robrecht, S.; Eckart, M.J.; Vehling-Kaiser, U.; Jacobs, G.; et al. Prognostic model for newly diagnosed CLL patients in Binet stage A: Results of the multicenter, prospective CLL1 trial of the German CLL study group. Leukemia 2020, 34, 1038–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Soumerai, J.D.; Ni, A.; Darif, M.; Londhe, A.; Xing, G.; Mun, Y.; Kay, N.E.; Shanafelt, T.D.; Rabe, K.G.; Byrd, J.C.; et al. Prognostic risk score for patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia treated with targeted therapies or chemoimmunotherapy: A retrospective, pooled cohort study with external validations. Lancet Haematol. 2019, 6, e366–e374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gentile, M.; Morabito, F.; Del Poeta, G.; Mauro, F.R.; Reda, G.; Sportoletti, P.; Laurenti, L.; Coscia, M.; Herishanu, Y.; Recchia, A.G.; et al. Survival risk score for real-life relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients receiving ibrutinib. A campus CLL study. Leukemia 2021, 35, 235–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gentile, M.; Martino, E.A.; Visentin, A.; Coscia, M.; Reda, G.; Sportoletti, P.; Mauro, F.R.; Laurenti, L.; Varettoni, M.; Murru, R.; et al. Validation of a survival-risk score (SRS) in relapsed/refractory CLL patients treated with idelalisib-rituximab. Blood Cancer J. 2020, 10, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ahn, I.E.; Tian, X.; Ipe, D.; Cheng, M.; Albitar, M.; Tsao, L.C.; Zhang, L.; Ma, W.; Herman, S.E.M.; Gaglione, E.M.; et al. Prediction of Outcome in Patients With Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Treated With Ibrutinib: Development and Validation of a Four-Factor Prognostic Model. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, JCO2000979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Kater, A.P.; Wu, J.Q.; Kipps, T.; Eichhorst, B.; Hillmen, P.; D’Rozario, J.; Assouline, S.; Owen, C.; Robak, T.; de la Serna, J.; et al. Venetoclax Plus Rituximab in Relapsed Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: 4-Year Results and Evaluation of Impact of Genomic Complexity and Gene Mutations From the MURANO Phase III Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38, 4042–4054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Thompson, P.A.; Srivastava, J.; Peterson, C.; Strati, P.; Jorgensen, J.L.; Hether, T.; Keating, M.J.; O’Brien, S.M.; Ferrajoli, A.; Burger, J.A.; et al. Minimal residual disease undetectable by next-generation sequencing predicts improved outcome in CLL after chemoimmunotherapy. Blood 2019, 134, 1951–1959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Lew, T.E.; Anderson, M.A.; Lin, V.S.; Handunnetti, S.M.; Came, N.A.; Blombery, P.; Westerman, D.A.; Wall, M.; Tam, C.S.; Roberts, A.W.; et al. Undetectable peripheral blood MRD should be the goal of venetoclax in CLL, but attainment plateaus after 24 months. Blood Adv. 2020, 4, 165–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kharfan-Dabaja, M.A.; Pidala, J.; Kumar, A.; Terasawa, T.; Djulbegovic, B. Comparing efficacy of reduced-toxicity allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation with conventional chemo-(immuno) therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory CLL: A Markov decision analysis. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2012, 47, 1164–1170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Byrd, J.C.; Brown, J.R.; O’Brien, S.; Barrientos, J.C.; Kay, N.E.; Reddy, N.M.; Coutre, S.; Tam, C.S.; Mulligan, S.P.; Jaeger, U.; et al. Ibrutinib versus ofatumumab in previously treated chronic lymphoid leukemia. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014, 371, 213–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Xu, W.; Yang, S.; Zhou, K.; Pan, L.; Li, Z.; Zhou, J.; Gao, S.; Zhou, D.; Hu, J.; Feng, R.; et al. Treatment of relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma with the BTK inhibitor zanubrutinib: Phase 2, single-arm, multicenter study. J. Hematol. Oncol. 2020, 13, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Ghia, P.; Pluta, A.; Wach, M.; Lysak, D.; Kozak, T.; Simkovic, M.; Kaplan, P.; Kraychok, I.; Illes, A.; de la Serna, J.; et al. ASCEND: Phase III, Randomized Trial of Acalabrutinib Versus Idelalisib Plus Rituximab or Bendamustine Plus Rituximab in Relapsed or Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38, 2849–2861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Ahn, I.E.; Farooqui, M.Z.H.; Tian, X.; Valdez, J.; Sun, C.; Soto, S.; Lotter, J.; Housel, S.; Stetler-Stevenson, M.; Yuan, C.M.; et al. Depth and durability of response to ibrutinib in CLL: 5-year follow-up of a phase 2 study. Blood 2018, 131, 2357–2366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Brown, J.R.; Robak, T.; Ghia, P.; Kahl, B.S.; Walker, P.; Janowski, W.; Chan, H.; Shadman, M.; Ganly, P.S.; Laurenti, L.; et al. Efficacy and Safety of Zanubrutinib in Patients with Treatment-Naïve (TN) Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) or Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma (SLL) with del(17p): Follow-up Results from Arm C of the SEQUOIA (BGB-3111-304). Trial. Blood 2020, 136 (Suppl. S1), 11–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Byrd, J.C.; Furman, R.R.; Coutre, S.E.; Flinn, I.W.; Burger, J.A.; Blum, K.; Sharman, J.P.; Wierda, W.; Zhao, W.; Heerema, N.A.; et al. Ibrutinib Treatment for First-Line and Relapsed/Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: Final Analysis of the Pivotal Phase Ib/II PCYC-1102 Study. Clin. Cancer Res. 2020, 26, 3918–3927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Al-Sawaf, O.; Zhang, C.; Tandon, M.; Sinha, A.; Fink, A.M.; Robrecht, S.; Samoylova, O.; Liberati, A.M.; Pinilla-Ibarz, J.; Opat, S.; et al. Venetoclax plus obinutuzumab versus chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab for previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL14): Follow-up results from a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020, 21, 1188–1200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Jones, J.A.; Robak, T.; Brown, J.R.; Awan, F.T.; Badoux, X.; Coutre, S.; Loscertales, J.; Taylor, K.; Vandenberghe, E.; Wach, M.; et al. Efficacy and safety of idelalisib in combination with ofatumumab for previously treated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: An open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Haematol. 2017, 4, e114–e126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Flinn, I.W.; Hillmen, P.; Montillo, M.; Nagy, Z.; Illes, A.; Etienne, G.; Delgado, J.; Kuss, B.J.; Tam, C.S.; Gasztonyi, Z.; et al. The phase 3 DUO trial: Duvelisib vs. ofatumumab in relapsed and refractory CLL/SLL. Blood 2018, 132, 2446–2455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Dreger, P.; Michallet, M.; Bosman, P.; Dietrich, S.; Sobh, M.; Boumendil, A.; Nagler, A.; Scheid, C.; Cornelissen, J.; Niederwieser, D.; et al. Ibrutinib for bridging to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia or mantle cell lymphoma: A study by the EBMT Chronic Malignancies and Lymphoma Working Parties. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2019, 54, 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Dreger, P.; Michallet, M.; Hoek, J.; Boumendil, A.; Sobh, M.; Muller, L.; Vandenberghe, E.A.; Scortechini, I.; Andersen, N.S.; Finke, J.; et al. Ibrutinib for Bridging to Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation (alloHCT) in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) and Mantle Cell Lymphoma (MCL) Is Safe and Effective: First Results of a Survey by the Chronic Malignancy and the Lymphoma Working Parties of the EBMT. Blood 2016, 128, 4657. [Google Scholar]
  51. Okkenhaug, K.; Graupera, M.; Vanhaesebroeck, B. Targeting PI3K in Cancer: Impact on Tumor Cells, Their Protective Stroma, Angiogenesis, and Immunotherapy. Cancer Discov. 2016, 6, 1090–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Ryan, C.E.; Sahaf, B.; Logan, A.C.; O’Brien, S.; Byrd, J.C.; Hillmen, P.; Brown, J.R.; Dyer, M.J.; Mato, A.R.; Keating, M.J.; et al. Ibrutinib efficacy and tolerability in patients with relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia following allogeneic HCT. Blood 2016, 128, 2899–2908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Hallek, M.; Cheson, B.D.; Catovsky, D.; Caligaris-Cappio, F.; Dighiero, G.; Dohner, H.; Hillmen, P.; Keating, M.; Montserrat, E.; Chiorazzi, N.; et al. iwCLL guidelines for diagnosis, indications for treatment, response assessment, and supportive management of CLL. Blood 2018, 131, 2745–2760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Quinquenel, A.; Aurran-Schleinitz, T.; Clavert, A.; Cymbalista, F.; Dartigeas, C.; Davi, F.; de Guibert, S.; Delmer, A.; Dilhuydy, M.S.; Feugier, P.; et al. Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: Recommendations of the French CLL Study Group (FILO). Hemasphere 2020, 4, e473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Schuh, A.H.; Parry-Jones, N.; Appleby, N.; Bloor, A.; Dearden, C.E.; Fegan, C.; Follows, G.; Fox, C.P.; Iyengar, S.; Kennedy, B.; et al. Guideline for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: A British Society for Haematology Guideline. Br. J. Haematol. 2018, 182, 344–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia/Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma Version 4. 2021. Available online: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/cll.pdf (accessed on 8 March 2021).
  57. Eichhorst, B.; Robak, T.; Montserrat, E.; Ghia, P.; Niemann, C.U.; Kater, A.P.; Gregor, M.; Cymbalista, F.; Buske, C.; Hillmen, P.; et al. Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol. 2021, 32, 23–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Barosi, G.; Gale, R.P. Is there expert consensus on expert consensus? Bone Marrow Transpl. 2018, 53, 1055–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gale, R.P. Being certain even when you’re wrong: Heuristics and thin slicing in haematopoietic cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jcm 10 02516 g001 550
Figure 1. The possible place of new CLL drugs in a typical transplant scheme.
Figure 1. The possible place of new CLL drugs in a typical transplant scheme.
Jcm 10 02516 g001
Table
Table 1. Transplant outcomes in studies with ≥50 subjects.
Table 1. Transplant outcomes in studies with ≥50 subjects.
YearReferenceNo. of SubjectsNRM (95% CI)CIR (95% CI)PFS/EFS (95% CI)Survival (95% CI)
After chemo-immuno-therapy
2013[11]
32 (MAC)48% (29, 64%)17% (6, 33%)36% (19, 52%)49% (31, 65%)
76 (RIC)16 (9, 26%)40% (27, 52%)43% (31, 55%)63% (51, 73%)
2014[12]
126 (TBI)48% (39, 57%)17% (11, 25%)34% (26, 43%)42% (33, 51%)
54 (drugs)50% (36, 64%)22% (11, 35%)28% (15, 42%)33% (19, 48%)
2017[13]258940% (37, 42%)32% (30, 35%)28% (25, 31%)35% (32, 38%)
2017[4]10020% (15, 36%)46% (43, 67%)34% (23, 44%)51% (40, 62%)
2017[14]19723% (17, 29%)39% (32, 45%)38% (31, 46%)52% (44, 59%)
2018[15]11744% (34, 54%)26% (16, 35%)30% (20, 41%)38% (27, 49%)
2019[16]
86 (NMA)35% (NR)28% (NR)38% (NR)46% (NR)
346 (RIC)32% (UA)25% (NR)43% (NR)52% (NR)
2020[17]6424% (13, 36%)36% (23, 49%)37% (26, 54%)52% (40, 68%)
After new drugs
2020[18]67 (19 new drugs)28% (NR)38% (NR)31% (NR)38% (NR)
2020[19]
30 new drugs7% (1, 19%)21% (8, 38%)72% (52, 85%)87% (68, 95%)
78 CITNRNR58% (46, 68%)69% (58, 78%)
2020[20]65 new drugs13% (6, 26%)27% (17, 41%)63% (50, 74%)81% (70, 90%)
2020[21]72 idelalisib31% (20, 43%)25% (14, 36%)44% (33, 58%)59% (45, 70%)
NRM: non-relapse mortality; CIR: cumulative incidence of relapse; PFS: progression-free survival; EFS: event-free survival; MAC: myeloablative conditioning; RIC: reduced-intensity conditioning; TBI: total body irradiation; NMA: non-myeloablative; CIT: chemoimmunotherapy; NR: not reported.
Table
Table 2. Prognostic and predictive scores for persons with CLL receiving new drugs.
Table 2. Prognostic and predictive scores for persons with CLL receiving new drugs.
Co-VariatesRisk Cohort2–3 y Survival or PFS (95% CI)
B-ALL [32]New drugsB2-microglobulin ≥ 5 mg/L
LDH > ULN
Hemoglobin < 110–120 g/L
Time to failure < 2 years
(Score 1 for each)		Low (score 0–1)
Intermediate (score 2–3)
High (score 4)		Low 90% (85, 93%)
Intermediate 80% (75, 83%)
High 56% (44, 66%)
SRSI [33,34]IbrutinibHemoglobin < 110–120 g/L (score 2)
B2-microglobulin ≥ 5 mg/L (Score 1)
LDH > ULN (Score 2)		Low (score 0)
Intermediate (score 1–3)
High (score 3–4)		Low 95%
intermediate 81%
High 61%
Idelalisib/
Rituximab		 Low 95%
Intermediate 81%
High 61%
4-factor
[35]		IbrutinibTP53 aberration
Prior therapy
B2-microglobulin ≥ 5 mg/L
LDH > 250 U/L
(Score 1 for each)		Low (score 0–1)
Intermediate (score 2)
High (score 3–4)		Low 93%
Intermediate 83%
High 63%
MRD [38]Venetoclax/RituximabMRDuMRD: <10−4
Low ≥ 10−4 to <10−2
High ≥ 10−2		Low 52% (32, 73%)
High 8% (0, 24%)
PFS: progression-free survival; LDH: lactate dehydrogenase; ULN: upper limit normal; MRD, minimal residual disease; uMRD, undetectable MRD.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yang, S.; Huang, X.; Gale, R.P. Will New Drugs Replace Transplants for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia? J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 2516. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jcm10112516

AMA Style

Yang S, Huang X, Gale RP. Will New Drugs Replace Transplants for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia? Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021; 10(11):2516. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jcm10112516

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yang, Shenmiao, Xiaojun Huang, and Robert Peter Gale. 2021. "Will New Drugs Replace Transplants for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia?" Journal of Clinical Medicine 10, no. 11: 2516. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jcm10112516

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop