Acalabrutinib ± obinutuzumab versus obinutuzumab + chlorambucil in treatment-naïve chronic lymphocytic leukemia: Five-year follow-up of ELEVATE-TN

7539 Background: For ELEVATE-TN (NCT02475681), we previously reported superior efficacy of acalabrutinib (A) ± obinutuzumab (O) vs O + chlorambucil (Clb) in patients (pts) with treatment-naive (TN) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) at 28.3 and 46.9 months (mo) median follow-up. Now, we report resul...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of clinical oncology Vol. 40; no. 16_suppl; p. 7539
Main Authors Sharman, Jeff Porter, Egyed, Miklos, Jurczak, Wojciech, Skarbnik, Alan P., Kamdar, Manali K., Munir, Talha, Fogliatto, Laura, Herishanu, Yair, Banerji, Versha, Follows, George, Walker, Patricia, Karlsson, Karin, Ghia, Paolo, Janssens, Ann, Ferrant, Emmanuelle, Munugalavadla, Veerendra, Yu, Ting, Wang, Min Hui, Woyach, Jennifer Ann
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published 01.06.2022
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:7539 Background: For ELEVATE-TN (NCT02475681), we previously reported superior efficacy of acalabrutinib (A) ± obinutuzumab (O) vs O + chlorambucil (Clb) in patients (pts) with treatment-naive (TN) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) at 28.3 and 46.9 months (mo) median follow-up. Now, we report results from a 5-y update. Methods: Pts were randomized to A+O, A, or O+Clb. Pts who progressed on O+Clb could cross over to A monotherapy. Investigator-assessed (INV) progression-free survival (PFS), INV overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety were evaluated. Results: A total of 535 pts (A+O, n=179; A, n=179; O+Clb, n=177) had a median age of 70 y. At a median follow-up of 58.2 mo (range, 0.0–72.0; data cutoff Oct 1, 2021), median PFS was not reached (NR) (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.11) for A+O and A (HR: 0.21) vs 27.8 mo for O+Clb (both P<0.0001). Estimated 60-mo PFS rates were 84% (A+O), 72% (A), and 21% (O+Clb). Median OS was NR in any treatment arm, and significantly longer in the A+O vs O+Clb arms (HR: 0.55; P=0.0474); estimated 60-mo OS rates were 90% (A+O), 84% (A), and 82% (O+Clb). ORR was significantly higher with A+O (96%; 95% CI 92–98) and A (90%; 85–94) vs O+Clb (83%; 77–88; P<0.0001 [A+O], P=0.0499 [A]). Complete response (CR)/CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi) rates were higher with A+O (29%/3%) vs O+Clb (13%/1%); 13%/1% had CR/CRi with A; CR increased since the interim analysis (previously 21% [A+O] and 7% [A]). Adverse events (AEs) and treatment exposure are shown in the Table. Treatment is ongoing in 65% (A+O) and 60% (A) of pts; the most common reasons for treatment discontinuation were AEs (17% [A+O], 16% [A], 14% [O+Clb]) and progressive disease (6%, 10%, 2%, respectively). Crossover from O+Clb to A occurred in 72 (41%) patients; 25% of these pts discontinued A (10% due to AEs and 11% due to progressive disease). Conclusions: After a 5-y follow-up, efficacy and safety of A+O and A monotherapy were maintained, with significantly longer OS in the A+O arm compared with O+Clb. Clinical trial information: NCT02475681. [Table: see text]
ISSN:0732-183X
1527-7755
DOI:10.1200/JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.7539