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.

ASH 2014: Interview with Dr. Susan O'Brien and Dr. Bruce Cheson on CLL (chronic lymphocytic leukemia)

There is much to report from ASH 2014, and this sweet interview from Medscape offers a short synopsis of some of the highlights.

Over the coming weeks I plan to fill in the details with more comments and videos, but this is a nice and succinct place to start.

There are some priceless moments, thanks to the wise and dry humor of Dr. Cheson and the honest and patient centric attitude of Dr. O'Brien.

First, right up front, I really appreciate that Dr. Cheson points out just how out of date are even the most recent CLL guidelines that were developed only a few years ago.

Are you listening, community oncologists? The published CLL guidelines are out of date.

I am glad he also asked about the secondary malignancies with chemo-immunotherapy, a question too often swept under the carpet in many presentation on CLL treatment. We know there is a small but real risk of MDS or myelodysplastic syndrome (for an explanation of the relationship of MDS and CLL from Dr. Steensma, click here), a difficult to treat form of cancer that presents as bone marrow failure, that may come along as a late and serious complication with FCR (fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab), but we don't have much data yet on the risk with BR (bendamustine and rituximab).  Because bendamustine is a DNA damaging alkylating agent similar to chlorambucil (Leukeran) and cyclophosphamide (the C in FCR), it is likely that MDS will also present as a late, but hopefully infrequent ugly complication after BR.

What we do know already is that now that we are living longer with our CLL, we are getting more secondary cancers (click here for a reminder of our risks), especially blood cancers.

Don't miss Dr. Cheson's hand gesture when Dr. O'Brien talks about the minority of patients that do so very well on FCR, a topic that we have visited here more than once (click here to hear Dr. Hallek at  iwCLL discuss who gets the most benefit from FCR).

Another highlight comes right after the honest discussion of the follow up important trial of the two old school chemo-immunotherapies that are duking it out for supremacy in the CLL world, namely the  FCR versus BR (for more on this trial from Dr. Sharman click here). After Dr. O'Brien's honest and upbeat response, Dr. Cheson asks her, quite properly in this era of new treatment options: Do we care?

Yet another interesting moment occurs when he asks Dr. O'Brien to choose between ibrutinib, idelalisib, and ABT-199: If they were all available: Which one would you pick?

She refuses to answer.

Their discussion on the meaning of minimal residual disease or MRD negativity in the era of novel therapies is both informative about what we know but even more so about what we don't know.

Only time and trials will help sort al this out.

Dr. O'Brien has her own hand gesture when she describes just how much above 50% was the progression free survival curve for ABT-199 at 18 months. We need more data. And more time to sort this all out.

I wish I had produced this video. I don't usually see the role of my blog to share what is already available on other websites, but this is good stuff and there was much in it that cried out for commentary and context. I wanted everyone who reads my blog to have the link with it here.

Please enjoy this Medscape Interview:

CLL: It's the Best -- and Most Confusing -- of Times

Thanks for your help and support.

                                          

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.

ASH 2013: Dr. Adrian Wiestner Discusses Prognostic and Predictive Factors, the Nuances of 17p deletion and Residual Disease

Merry Christmas.

In the second part of the interview from ASH 2013 in New Orleans, Dr. Adrian Wiestner from the NIH gives us some very carefully considered reflections on the news from the cutting edge changes in our understanding of CLL.

I first asked him to revisit the important issue of predictive versus prognostic factors that I first discussed at iwCLL with Dr. Sharman.

His review of 17p deletion, particularly for those lucky few who are mutated with 17p is very hopeful and nuanced. Listen carefully.

Dr. Wiestner suggested a cut off of 25% to define high risk 17p deletion. The reality is that it depends. While Dr. Tam's research in Blood on de novo 17p del (from the time of diagnosis and not first appearing after treatment) find prognostic significance only when more than 25% of the nuclei are missing the small arm of one of the 17 chromosome, others suggests a lower cut of 20%, some 10%, and some as low as 5% in looking at all cases, de novo and acquired, of 17p deletion. Like many subjects in CLL, consensus is lacking.

My simple take is the less 17p, the better. None is the best.

And we all know that the less disease, the better. Dr. Wiestner points out the obvious but we we need to hear it: You have to get to MRD (minimal residual disease) negativity to get to cure. What does this mean for the new drugs that rarely seem to get to CR, let alone MRD negative? Dr. Wiestner shares some thoughts.

Keep in mind also that 17p is a bad player in that not only does it not allow apoptosis (cell suicide) in response to most chemotherapy and thus rendering common CLL drugs such as fludarabine and cytoxan most ineffective, it also allows the cancer cells to mutate (genomic instability) with no controls on a clone gone bad. Add this clonal devolution to a significant population of residual cancer cells and we begin to understand why initial responses to the new agents such as ibrutinib and idelalsib are excellent, but sadly late relapses are more likely in those of us with a deleted 17p.

This seems to me to be a strong call for dual therapy for the 17p population, but whether that is the answer will only be answered with clinical trials.

Let's listen to Dr Wiestner.



We are so lucky to have a team of doctors working to solve our issues.

More interviews soon.

ASH 2012: Dr. David P Steensma: Myelodysplastic Syndrome with a Focus on Secondary MDS in CLL

Dr. David Steensma is a world leader in not only basic laboratory and clinical research on MDS, but also in examining the impact that anemia has on the life of older patients.

MDS or myelodysplastic syndrome is bone marrow failure and in a minority cases, turns into an acute leukemia.

It is not an uncommon complication of CLL, both, as Dr. Steensma explains, secondary to the genetic and epigenetic changes inherent in the disease itself, and to the treatments, especially the alkylating agents that damage the DNA. In CLL, these included chlorambucil (Leukeran), cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan or the C in FCR), and bendamustine (Treanda).

This is a strong argument for younger patients to avoid those drugs known to damage the bone marrow, but Dr. Steensma offers some more subtle analysis and advice.

We also discuss the radiation risk of MDS from all those CT scans we get in clinical trials.

A good friend of mine is now more than two years out post transplant at MDACC for his CLL/MDS combo one-two knockout punch and he is doing great with no molecular evidence of either disease (MRD negative). And very little graft versus disease.  You can read his story at this link.

This is my last video interview from ASH 2012, but ASCO is just around the corner with more news and interviews.

Dr. Steensma clarifies and explains the risk of MDS in simple terms.

Einstein is quoted as saying: "Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Dr. Steensma does exactly that.

Saying No to Chemo: Non -Chemo Options for CLL, Part 1

This is probably the most common question that I am asked.

"I know that I need therapy, my CLL is taking off, but I don't want any chemo, so what are my options?"

The answer used to be "not much", but not so anymore. Today there are many choice and soon there will be even more.

But before I give my answer, let me give an important preamble and discuss what we are taking off the table when we veto the chemo option.

When fellow CLLers says no chemo please, I take it to mean that they don't want cytotoxic drugs that work by preferentially killing rapidly dividing cells.

For CLL in the USA, we are mostly taking about two classes of medications.

Number one and the backbone of most chemo cocktails is fludarabine that is a classic purine analog that kills by blocking DNA synthesis. Pentostatin and clardribine are similar adenosine analogs that work the same beat. What these cleverly designed drugs do is pretend to be purine, get themselves incorporated into the dividing DNA and completely gum up the work of replication. Nice.

The other class of pure chemo drugs we see a lot of are the direct descendants of the now banned World War I poison, mustard gas or nitrogen mustard. (The story of how its antileukemic powers were accidentally discovered is worthy of its own post). They destroy by attaching an alkyl group to any and all busy DNA, causing aberrant cross links and preventing it from making copies of itself. The more active the DNA, such as in a fast growing cancer, but also in our fast growing gut and skin, the more damage and the greater the kill. This is how the old standard therapy chlorambucil (AKA Leukeran) works. So too cyclophosphamide  (Cytoxan) the big C in FCR, and bendamustine (Treanda) an old communist drug but a new kid on this side of the Berlin Wall.

There are many many others cytotoxic drugs in oncology that play lesser roles in our disease such as vincristine (Oncovin), the V in CVP occasionally used for refractory CLL and just to confuse us, the O in R-CHOP used for Richter's Transformation and many lymphomas.

Oncologists carefully concoct these toxic cocktails with several goals in mind.

First they want to add to the killing power. Cancer is famously adaptive and will rapidly mutate itself right past a block on its road to lusty growth. Blocking it when it turns to either the left or right is a smart strategy. So too is capturing it in a pincer move with the lengthening lists of the toxic chemicals that make up the alphabet soup that we and others get IV to knock the socks off our cancer, and sometimes (but probably never in CLL) kill it for good.

But doesn't adding one drug on top of another inevitably lead to unacceptable toxicities?

Not necessarily so says our clever oncologists. They look for more than just complementary killing. They look for non-overlapping toxicities. CHOP is the poster boy example, a potentially curative cocktail for some lymphomas, where each of the chemo drugs interferes with the DNA in different synergistic ways AND where each drug has a different toxic target (the marrow or nerves or the heart).

Of course, it is never black and white, and dosing and individual sensitivities widely vary.

Hippocrates famously said that the difference between a medicine and a poison is the dose.

Never was this more true than with chemotherapy. Low dose oral chlorambucil is remarkably well tolerated, even in the elderly, but at the proven price of not doing much to extend the life of the patient.

Some chemo drugs are routinely used at low doses for relatively minor skin problems or auto-immune issues.

But the issue is more than the dose. It is also who is getting the dose.

Is there co-morbid heart disease or nerve damage from uncontrolled diabetes? Has the marrow been beaten up and is having a tough time rising again?

That is why it is so important that we stay well otherwise. Cancer is a hard enough fight without the handicap of a bad heart or bronchitic lungs.

Chemotherapy is not "targeted" in the strict sense, but it does preferentially cull the rapidly dividing cells and that is a good thing. In some cancers, it does such a strong job, it can cure. In CLL, while there are no chemo cures, it can and does give many of us years of healthy happy remission.

The majority of us that end up sitting in the infusion chairs for hours and hours report that while CLL chemo is annoying, it was much gentler that expected. No hair loss, little nausea. FCR or BR are wimpy protocols compared to some of the more potent stews used for more aggressive cancers. I know a surgeon who continue to operate all through his treatments with FCR.

Still cytopenias (low blood cell counts) are all too common including anemia, neutropenia with its high serious infection risk, and low platelets. So hand in hand with the chemo might come a partnering dose of a bone marrow stimulant for either red cells (EPOs), white cells (G-CSFs) or platelets (TPO mimetics) each carrying its own set of side effects and worries. Some of us even need transfusions to just keep going. More decisions. More risks. More time. More expense. More worries.

Long term, there also may be a price to pay. The marrow can only take so much before it gives up the ghost. When our marrow stops making enough of the three lineages of our blood cells, we are in dire straits and the only durable way out may be importing a new one AKA an allogeneic hematopoeitic stem cell transplant.

Chemo wallops our immune cells short term, risks of infections shoots up and may stays up for more than a year after fludarabine which is particularly nasty to our T cells.

Insist that your doctor offers you appropriate antimicrobial prophylaxis.

These drugs by design are mutagenic so we hold our breathe when we get our regular PAPs or mammos or PSAs or colonoscopies. We are getting them aren't we? Please see my earlier post on secondary cancers and do the right thing by yourself.

Infections and secondary cancers are the handle and the blade of the our grim reaper's scythe. So anything we can do to keep it reach short and its edge dull is good.

Eating right, exercise, love, sleep, and avoiding chemo are part of that prescription.

Still, when we face a clear and present danger, we must focus on our imminent needs and worry about tomorrow, tomorrow.

And until very recently, the best tools we had for staying alive when our cancer started to rage was a chemo cocktail, and I for one am grateful that these drugs were and are there in our time of need.

It was only a few years ago that we showed that for the first time a combination of chemo and immune therapy in FCR could prolong our lives. We know that those diagnosed with CLL in the 90s live longer than those diagnosed in the 80's, and much of the credit rests at the doorstep of chemotherapy and the modern management of its side effects.

So before we wave goodbye to chemo as some sort of poison concocted by the a cabal of international pharmaceutical companies, the military and medical industrial complex to keep cancer as a big profit center at our expense (believe me I encounter this line of thinking almost daily), let us calmly look at its risks and benefits.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If you have read any of my posts over the last few years, you have seen me vote with my feet and my blood. You know that I am a fan of the emerging small molecules and have tried to avoid chemo in my own personal journey.

All I am asking for is that we have some balance and keep our eyes wide open as we enter this brave new "post-chemo" world.

"Targeted therapies" while they might be compared a smart bombs or drone, they too like their battlefield equivalents, can pick off innocent target either that look like the enemy or are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

As I said, it isn't black and white.

More on non-chemo choices soon.