Frontline therapies In CLL (Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia)

In this lively ONCLIVE multi-part series of polite debates among four world class CLL experts (Drs. Byrd, Furman, Ma, and Kipps), I was struck by the conservative approach of the panelists to frontline therapy.

Almost all the discussion in this 13 minute segment is about chemo-immunotherapy (CIT).

Keep on mind that except for patients with 17p deletion where ibrutinib is approved, chemo-immunotherapy is all that is approved for frontline therapy. That said, we all know that many doctors including several on this panel would discuss with their patients other frontline options besides those they discuss on camera, namely FCR (fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab) or BR (bendamustine-rituximab) or chlorambucil and obinutuzumab.

Dr. Kipps points out the potential advantages of the chlorambucil and obinutuzumab in elderly patients with a less resilient bone marrow. This relatively gentle approach has achieved a 20% complete response rate and a 26.7 month mean progession free survival, much better than the other arms in the trial that lead to its approval. For the details of the study published in the NEJM please click on this link.

Drs. Byrd and Kipps talk glowingly about the very long term benefits of FCR in a small subset of patients with the best prognostic markers: mutated with no other bad prognostic indicators. This is a subject we have visited frequently visited in the past. Here Professor Hallek and I discussed this topic in this post in the context of the role of chemo-immunotherapy (CIT) way back at iwCLL 2013. I am still waiting for the published material on that low risk subgroup that is looking more and more as if they might be CURED!

In this ONCLIVE video, there is also debate on the need to complete all the cycles of FCR to get the full benefit. I fully agree with Dr. Kipps that the evidence suggests getting to MRD (minimal residual disease) negativity is what determines our prognosis and not the number of cycles it takes to get there. I quote from a Blood editorial by Sebastian Böttcher on the original research: "current investigation suggests that the number of treatment cycles also becomes irrelevant as long as MRD negativity can be attained." 
The full text of the original research is accessible here. The authors state in the abstract that:" MRD-negative patients had comparable PFS ( progression free survival) and OS (overall survival), independent of the number of courses received or interim staging. Early MRD eradication may be a desirable goal, prompting consideration of early discontinuation of treatment."

Dr. Furman hastened to point out the potential downside of chemo-immunotherapy and also that the group that did so well is a group that should do well with any therapy.

In this article from the British Journal of Hematology, we learn: "patients treated with purine nucleoside analogues (PNA) had a significantly increased risk of subsequent second LPD (5·2%) compared with patients who had not received PNA (1·9%; P = 0·008)"  PNA are drugs such as fludarabine and LPD are lymphoid cancers.  In fact, they go to stated that the only factor found to be associated with an increased risk of a secondary lymphoma for those us with CLL was prior treatment with chemotherapy.

That certainly does give one pause.

There is also some very interesting comparison of BR versus FCR, a subject that we extensively reviewed in this prior blog post with Dr. Jeff Sharman.  I appreciate Dr. Kipps' careful analysis of the different arms of the trial to ensure that we are really comparing apples to apples.

Give a listen and please share your comments.

Again, thank you ONCLIVE for bringing us this great panel discussion.

CLL (chronic lymphocytic leukemia) Treatment Internationally: We Can't Always Get What We Want

Below is an article from the Brampton Guardian.

This unfortunate CLL patient can't even get bendamustine and rituximab in Ontario, Canada, let alone ibrutinib or idelalisib or ABT-199 or obinutizumab. OHIP, the provincial insurance won't pay for any of it.

Here in the USA, she would automatically qualify for ibrutinib as as second line therapy or she could get her BR or enter a trial or a host of other choices. Not so in Canada.

I am so lucky to be able to have received ibrutinib in a clinical trial long before it was approved.

Others, mostly those wanting a non-chemo first line therapy, have been less fortunate. Still on clinical trials.gov, a quick look found eight open trials for untreated CLL patients with either ABT-199 or ibrutinib or idelalisib or obinutuzumab. And there are many more options using other very promising TKIs and mAbs in development. It's true that you can't be assured that you can get ibrutinib by prescription for frontline treatment, but at least most American untreated patients have many fine options with or without chemo.

When I advocate for more research on the the multi-drug non -chemo treatments for those of us such as myself not in CR after two years of ibrutinib, it is not meant at the expense of those needing other therapies or better access.

I want to see improved access for all of us. One way that might be possible is by following a path such a Professor Hallek outlined at ASH 2013 to limit the duration of therapy and thus control cost. I would just leave out or at least severely restrict the chemo piece of his protocol. His full article is available and well worth reading. It is a thoughtful discussion and one vision of the possible future of CLL treatment.

This is all new territory and we need the trials on untreated patients and we need the trials on relapsed patients and we need the trials on patients not in CR.

Truth is we are barely at the break of dawn of this new era of treatment and we need so many studies to help guide us. We are making this up as we go along.

What we also need to remember is that we are are all in this together and none of us, myself included, should wish for an option that limits another's choices. At least in the USA, we are not at that point.

Canada may be a different story. There is a petition at the end of the attached article. Her denial of care seems cruel, unjust, unscientific, and just plain dumb to me.

I understand that nearly all cancer treatment is expensive. I understand society must make tough choices about how to allocate limited resources. But making choices based solely on arbitrary protocols and short term dollars signs is not good policy, especially when it clearly stands against both the best evidence based medicine and the specific clinical circumstances of the patient.

Truth is that ibrutinib might be a smarter choice than BR for this patient after relapsing only four years post FR. Truth is we learn nothing in this article about the state of her marrow. Can it handle more chemo? We don't even know her FISH. If she is 17p deleted, BR could be a dangerous waste of time and resources, and might leave her worse off than before the therapy.

In the end with CLL, one has to chose which battles to fight. Anne and her oncologist have made their choice and are pushing for BR, so I am assuming they are on their game and have done their due diligence.

Yesterday, I heard from patients in Turkey and China looking in vain for novel therapies. I quote from the latter email discussing ibrutinib: Indeed the medicine cost is too high, and even if it's approved to be imported to China, the market price in China would be still higher (with extremely high custom rate), and yet any imported medicine is out of the range of medical insurance in China.

It's tough for my friends in Europe too. NICE that regulates new drugs in the EU can be very price sensitive and there seems to be be fewer non-chemo trials.

I know how spoiled I am living in the USA. I know how lucky I am to have nabbed a spot in my trial.

I wish everyone everywhere had access to what they needed to be well.

After all, we are all in this together. 

But there is only one of me and I am spread pretty thin already, so I narrow my focus, and try to make sure that at least those of us in North America get the best possible and smartest treatments out there.

The LLS is doing important work on improving access through its patient advocacy and other efforts. They deserves our support. See the photo below.

Brampton woman denied OHIP coverage for life-saving cancer drugs

Brampton Guardian

BRAMPTON — 

Anne Mitchell is fighting an uphill battle.
After four years in remission, the 67-year-old mother of two is gearing up for her second battle with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.
But dealing with cancer isn’t the only obstacle the Brampton woman must overcome. The real challenge now — apart from fighting the illness — is coming up with the money to pay for life-saving drugs.
“My mother can’t receive chemotherapy drugs, purely for bureaucratic reasons,” said Mitchell’s daughter Eleanor Elliott, who has launched on an online petition in a bid to pressure the provincial government to dole out the $52,000 her mother needs for the chemotherapy drugs Bendamustine and Rituximab.

The drugs are covered by OHIP.

Mitchell is being denied coverage based on what family members say is a technicality. Bendamustine is covered for first-time chemotherapy treatments.
But, since Mitchell has undergone chemo before, the drug isn’t covered by OHIP. The other drug, Rituximab, is approved for second line use, but only in tandem with Fludarabine — a drug that Mitchell can’t take because she suffered an extreme, adverse reaction to it during her first bout with chemotherapy.
“The drugs that my mother’s oncologist prescribed are funded by the government. However, in my mother’s case, they have denied her funding,” Elliott said. “If a drug is approved for funding, how can you deny a Canadian citizen access to that drug? How is this possible in our great country that prides itself on universal healthcare?”
In October 2010, doctors treated Mitchell’s cancer with Fludarabine and Rituximab, two very powerful chemotherapy drugs.
Mitchell, who has lived in Bramalea for nearly 40 years, received got through two treatments before the regime was abruptly stopped because of her negative reaction to Fludarabine.
Mitchell was hospitalized for weeks with a severe lung infection that nearly killed her.
Despite that setback, her cancer went into remission and Mitchell and husband John, 68, were looking forward to better days.
But the cancer has returned and doctors believe Mitchell’s fighting chances are good if treated with a combination of Bendamustine and Rituximab.
However, the hefty price tag on those drugs now stands in Mitchell’s way.
Mitchell’s latest chemo treatment was to start April 7. Shortly after arriving in the oncology department at Brampton Civic Hospital, she received news that the $8,700 for the Bendamustine and Rituximab would have to come out of her own pocket.
“I felt complete and utter shock,” said an emotional Mitchell, describing her reaction when told OHIP denied her payment.
Mitchell used a credit card to cover the $4,500 cost for the first round of Bendamustine. She needs six treatments in total and can’t afford the cost.
Elliott said the hospital administered the Rituximab at no charge and has put through an appeal to Ontario’s health ministry for the $4,200.
“I sat in shock as my mother had to pull out a credit card to pay for her treatment,” said Elliott, who is concerned that her parents will be forced to spend their retirement savings on cancer treatments.
With her mother facing an uphill fight, Elliott has taken to social media for support. Her online petition has so far garnered more than 600 signatures, She plans to present the petition to provincial health officials.
Bramalea MPP Jagmeet Singh has offered his support in the form of a letter sent to Ontario Health Minister Deborah Matthews appealing for help

Meanwhile, Elliott has also reached out to the manufacturer of Bendamustine.
According to Elliott, Lundbeck Canada has agreed to cover 20 per cent of the cost of the Bendamustine, but the family will have to pay the cost up front and then apply for a rebate.
But, as Elliott noted, that works out to be just about 10 per cent of the total cost of her mother’s required treatment.
Elliott argues that her mother wasn’t able to complete her first round of chemotherapy and therefore should still be considered a first-time patient.
Falling under the category of first-time chemotherapy patient would make her eligible for the Bendamustine. Elliott also wants Ontario to waive the requirement that OHIP will only cover Rituximab if taken with Fludarabine.
She argues that approved chemotherapy drugs be approved “without discrimination and without bureaucratic intervention that could cost Canadians, like her mother, their lives.”
To view the online petition click here .

ASH 2013: Dr. Claire Dearden Discusses CLL Treatment in the Elderly

One of the nicest doctors in the world of CLL is the English hematologist or should I say haemotologist, Dr. Claire Dearden of the Royal Marsden in London.

At ASH 2013, Dr. Dearden and I reviewed the new studies on the treatment of the most common group in CLL but the most underrepresented in clinical research, namely the elderly patients.

At ASH 2013, several papers made significant progress addressing this gap and that is what we discussed.

We can hear echoes of my discussions with Dr. Jeff Sharman in a recent post on the trial of idelalisib with and without rituximab. In that interview, we focused on the ethics of that placebo controlled trial.

We may also recall that Dr. Jennifer Brown and I discussed in another ASH 2013 post the very exciting trial of chlorambucil alone, with rituximab or with obinutuzumab that Dr. Dearden mentioned.

There was also important information of relevance for this population group in the long awaited study comparing FCR versus BR. For another thoughtful discussion on this, check out Dr. Jeff Sharman's excellent blog post. Here is a link to the actual study data presented at ASH. In the over 65 group, there was no progression free survival (PFS) advantage for FCR over BR despite the former's greater toxicity, especially in this age group. This is news we can use.

But before we get started in deconstructing the data, one of the first issues we must address is exactly how to define old. Turns out there is much research on looking at the biological versus chronological age. The CIRS scale is commonly used to look at co-morbidities, but as Tait Shanafelt out of Mayo Clinic pointed out in his important educational paper at ASH on this topic, we need to look at quality of life, life expectancy (approximately 20 years for those us 65 years old), and frailty. It's not just calendar years.

This is the biggest reason I push for a healthy lifestyle. It is not that a plant based diet and regular exercise will cure our cancer, but we are sure to do better if we have fewer co-morbidities, and living healthy helps with that. We don't need to add diabetes or renal disease or heart trouble to our list of woes that come pre-packaged with CLL. More problems unrelated to CLL lead to more problems related to the CLL.

Here is the interview with Dr. Dearden.


The news is good. Options are improving. I am not thrilled with chlorambucil as the backbone of the therapy, an admittedly gentler but still old school alkylating agent in the same class as bendamustine or cyclophosphamide (cytoxan or the C in FCR) or mustard gas. Just because it's a pill, doesn't mean that it's safe. Moreover, I am sure that the heavy lifting in this trial was done by the immunotherapy agents, rituximab and especially obinutuzumab. But chlorambucil is cheap (as little as $1.50 a day for the lowest dose) and easy to take.  It is very popular in Europe and was a favorite of the late great Dr. Hamblin.

One more point.

As we hear from the end of our discussion, the choices are complex and nuanced. As I have said before and as has been proven in a study out of Mayo, we do better with a CLL expert as part of our team guiding us through our therapeutic decisions.

Finally, Dr. Dearden reminds us of the many unanswered questions and that's why we need more research.

I have been traveling and meeting with fellow CLL friends, but I am back and trying to catch up on a backlog of videos and personal stories and adventures to share.

Stay tuned. Posting should be more frequent over the next month.

ASH 2013: Dr. Jeff Sharman Discusses FCR versus BR in Front Line CLL

In this interview, Dr. Jeff Sharman gives us some understanding of the important trial data presented at ASH 2013 that compares FCR (fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, rituximab), the gold standard chemo-immunotherapy (CIT) to BR (bendamusine-rituximab) the new kid on the block and very popular with community oncologists.

In the excitement and promise of the new era of gentler and more effective oral medications for CLL, there is still a diminishing group of patients that for many reasons will continue to chose a chemo-immunotherapy (CIT) approach.

One possible reason is that for a few patients with excellent prognostic factors, a significant subset of those will reach MRD negativity and for that group FCR produces exceedingly durable remissions, starting to hint a possible cure. A half year of harsh but not the worst therapy, and you're done. Time to get on with your life without any daily pill reminding you that you have CLL.

Professor Hallek discusses this special group in my short interview from iwCLL last year.  I would not be completely dismissive of the value of CIT in those special circumstances.

Sadly insurance coverage and expense will be another reason that we will still see chemo. Older drugs are cheaper than newer drugs.

And even more sadly, patients' and physicians' unawareness of the rapidly changing therapeutic landscape will limit some of us CLLer's option to what our oncologist is most comfortable with it.

A few of us won't be able to tolerate the new oral therapies due to side effects, but as more options and new TKI's are approved I suspect that will be a vanishing small number. There are also the very few patients who have progressed on ibrutinib (the only oral TKI approved for CLL at this time and available by prescription) and an unfortunate group of us who both can not qualify for a trial or who have no access to the new meds because of where they live or their insurance and who need treatment NOW and can not wait for a different option.

That said, the FCR versus BR data welcomed as it is, is hardly the blockbuster news that it would have been a few years ago.

Ibrutinib and idelalisib and ABT-199 and obinutuzumab and others have rightly stolen the spotlight at ASH and elsewhere. Their time has come, and not a moment too soon.

Still CIT is not going to quietly fade away so fast so let's look at this important ASH abstract.

This link gives the data.

This link explains what is meant by the grade of adverse events and reminds us that a grade 3 adverse event is severe or disabling, a grade 4 is life threatening and a grade 5 adverse event is polite medical talk for a side effect that kills the patients. So when we see that on the FCR, we patients had a 90% of a Grade 3 or worst hematologic side effect compared to only two out of three in the BR arm.

The price of this higher that high toxicity and small but real risk of dying from FCR was an impressive 98% overall (ORR) response rate with nearly half of those being CR (complete responses). With BR the ORR is the same but the CR is 38%. MRD (minimal residual disease) negative data was not presented. Progression free survival was better for FCR in those under 65 years old, but not in the older group.

So very impressive results, but significant toxicity. This is an old and too common story with chemo: The more toxic the drug, the better it works. FCR is better in younger patients, but comes with more risks and misery.

New targeted and biological therapies break this paradigm and that is why when we have a choice, we should be putting the emerging therapies high on lists of options.

Remember too that this trial was for front line therapy in fit patients where access to the newer treatments in even more difficult.

Listen to Dr. Jeff Sharman and get his take on this important study. Dr. Sharman is a smart, very busy and compassionate guy who has done much to help the CLL and other blood cancer community and I am grateful for the time he gave for this interview at ASH 2013.



Dr. Sharman has an excellent blog himself where he covers much of the same and even more detail on the trial here.

iwCLL 2013: Prof Hallek Discusses a Focused Role of Chemo-Immunotherapy

In this brief second part of a three part interview from iwCLL 2013, Professor Hallek precisely defines the populations that do well with chemo-immunotherapy.

It is important to keep in mind that it was only with the addition of rituximab, an anti- CD20 monoclonal antibody,  to a chemo backbone of FC, comprising together the "gold standard" therapy of FRC, that a survival advantage was first shown. Prior to the German study presented at ASH only a few years ago that proved FCR prolonged lives, no therapy had been shown to help us live a day longer.

At iwCLL 2013, we learn some very important new wrinkles on exactly who it is that benefits from FRC.

There should be no debate that the role of CIT (chemo-immonotherapy such as FCR or Bendamustine -Rituximab or BR) is shrinking. Who benefits is a shrinking pool of CLL patients with very specific demographics and FISH findings and the good news that they are mutated. This argues strongly that we should never consider FCR without first knowing our mutation status and our FISH results.

The debate is whether there is any role at all for CIT even in that select population.

The question how intense the CIT protocol should be or what is best approach may soon be moot with all the new kinase inhibitors changing everything, but at ASH 2013 a few months later we did learn that FCR has deeper longer remissions than BR but at the price of more toxicities, so the answer is as always in CLL: It depends on the patient. More on this ASH abstract later

Listen to Professor Hallek discuss who should consider CIT and who should not.

iwCLL 2013: Dr. Michael Hallek Discusses Clinical Trials in Germany versus the USA and BR versus FCR

Happy New Year.

I am in Alameda, enjoying babysitting my 7 month old and 2 1/2 year old granddaughters. Needless to say, finding a second to get any work done is tough, but the joy of being with them makes my inefficiency a small price to pay.

Today, I am returning to share additional relevant interviews from iwCLL a few months ago.

In the first part of my interview on September 11, the last day of iwCLL 2013, Professor Hallek first discusses some of the differences in clinical trials on either side of the pond.

One subject Prof. Hallek does not mention is the greater willingness of European patients to be randomized in a trial. Canadians and Americans prefer more control in deciding their therapy, and that helps explain the generally lower accrual in North American studies that have two or more randomized arms. I admit that one reason I was drawn to my trial, the official title being,  An Open-label, Phase 1b/2, Safety and Efficacy Study of the Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (Btk) Inhibitor, PCI-32765, and Ofatumumab in Subjects With Relapsed/Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia/Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma and Prolymphocytic Leukemia, was that I was assured that I would be getting PCI-32765, AKA, ibrutinib, AKA, Imbruvica. Phase 3 trials rarely offer that certainty, unless there is a cross-over and that is a big ongoing issue.

Keep in mind that the  calculus of accrual is entirely different when we are looking at the new non-chemo agents, where trials offering some of the exciting new drugs have filled at record rates.

Also don't miss the professor's definition of young.

I like it.

Next, Prof. Hallek, presages with great accuracy what was going to be announced a few months later  in at an abstract presented in New Orleans at ASH 2013, namely that BR is gentler on the marrow, but less effective than FCR. His take on what to do with that data is the real gem in our conversation. Listen to how he describes tailoring of the therapy to the individual patient.

Dr. Jeff Sharman whose interviews have and will continue to pop up here, has a nice review of the ASH data on his excellent blog.

Here is Professor Hallek, who was very busy chairing iwCLL, so I very much appreciate his time.  Sadly when my flight to New Orleans was canceled, I had to also cancel my follow-up interview at ASH, but we get the full story here and from the abstract.

Many, myself included, wonder if the whole question of BR versus FCR is moot as the era of chemo-immunotherapy may be ending in CLL. We have spent many blog posts discussing this issue, and we aren't finished yet.

Here is Professor Hallek:



More soon.