Impact of prognostic mutations on outcomes with fixed-duration acalabrutinib-venetoclax combinations versus chemoimmunotherapy: An exploratory analysis from AMPLIFY

Résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Introduction: The AMPLIFY trial evaluated fixed-duration acalabrutinib + venetoclax ± obinutuzumab (AV/AVO) vs chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in fit patients (pts) with treatment-naive (TN) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) (Brown et al. NEJM 2025;392:748-62). In the ITT population, AV/AVO demonstrated prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) vs CIT. However, shorter PFS occurs with certain genetic factors, such as unmutated IGHV (uIGHV) and NOTCH1, even with targeted treatment (tx) (Tausch et al. Blood 2022;140(Suppl 1):839-41). This exploratory analysis evaluated the relationship between prognostic genetic aberrations and clinical outcomes in AMPLIFY. Methods AMPLIFY (ACE-CL-311; NCT03836261) is an ongoing, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial in pts with TN CLL aged ≥18 y with ECOG performance status ≤2 and without del(17p) or TP53 mutation. Pts were randomized to receive AV (acalabrutinib, cycles [C] 1–14; venetoclax, C3–14), AVO (AV as described; obinutuzumab, C2−7), or investigator's choice of fludarabine + cyclophosphamide + rituximab or bendamustine + rituximab (FCR/BR, C1−6). Subgroup analyses were performed for blinded independent central review–assessed PFS and time to next tx (TTNT) according to baseline and disease characteristics for AV and AVO vs FCR/BR. Blood samples collected at baseline were analyzed centrally for genetic factors, including uIGHV and 6 mutations (ATM, CARD11, NOTCH1, BIRC3, MYD88, SF3B1) by next-generation sequencing. PFS and TTNT (AV and AVO vs FCR/BR) were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional-hazards model. Results In total,867 pts were randomized (AV=291; AVO=286; FCR/BR=290); 57% (AV), 59% (AVO), and 59% (FCR/BR) had uIGHV; median follow-up was 40.8 mo. Mutation analysis demonstrated comparable prevalence of mutations across arms, most commonly ATM (24% AV, 24% AVO, 20% FCR/BR), NOTCH1 (14% AV, 16% AVO, 17% FCR/BR), and SF3B1 (15% AV, 16% AVO, 16% FCR/BR). Across arms, most ATM, SF3B1, and NOTCH1 mutations occurred in pts with uIGHV (AV: 71%, 78%, and 76%, respectively; AVO: 74%, 70%, 91%; FCR/BR: 73%, 80%, 86%), with significantly higher frequencies in pts with uIGHV vs mutated IGHV (mIGHV; P<0.01). Among pts with ≥1 mutation (AV=145; AVO=150; FCR/BR=137), co-mutation rates in the AV, AVO, and FCR/BR arms were ATM/NOTCH1 (6.2%, 10.0%, 10.2%), ATM/SF3B1 (12.4%, 10.0%, 10.9%), and NOTCH1/SF3B1 (5.5%, 4.7%, 8.8%), respectively. The 36-mo PFS (ITT) was 76.5% (AV), 83.1% (AVO), and 66.5% (FCR/BR). PFS improvement was observed with AV vs FCR/BR in pts with uIGHV (hazard ratio [HR] 0.69; 95% CI 0.48–0.97) and mutated ATM (0.50; 0.25–1.0), NOTCH1 (0.72; 0.36–1.42), and SF3B1 (0.22; 0.09–0.55), and with AVO vs FCR/BR (uIGHV: 0.35, 0.23–0.53; ATM: 0.41, 0.19–0.86; NOTCH1: 0.26, 0.10–0.65; SF3B1: 0.34, 0.15–0.77). Among pts with/without ATM, 36-mo PFS was 76%/74% (AV), 82%/84% (AVO), and 58%/68% (FCR/BR). Among pts with/without NOTCH1, 36-mo PFS was 57%/79% (AV), 86%/83% (AVO), and 50%/69% (FCR/BR). A 36-mo PFS rate difference in AV with/without NOTCH1 was seen in the uIGHV subgroup (49%/73%; HR 0.46; 95% CI 0.24–0.87) but not in the mIGHV subgroup (80%/85%; 0.77; 0.18–3.37); however, sample size was limited in this subgroup. For those with/without SF3B1, 36-mo PFS was 85%/74% (AV), 79%/85% (AVO), and 51%/69% (FCR/BR). The 36-mo TTNT (ITT) was 88.5% (AV), 85.4% (AVO), and 75.2% (FCR/BR). TTNT improvement for AV and AVO vs FCR/BR was observed for pts with uIGHV (HR 0.50 [95% CI 0.33–0.74] and 0.35 [0.22–0.54], respectively) and mutated ATM (0.32 [0.14–0.75] and 0.53 [0.25–1.14]), NOTCH1 (0.56 [0.24–1.29] and 0.42 [0.17–1.05]), and SF3B1 (0.24 [0.08–0.74] and 0.43 [0.17–1.09]). For those with/without ATM, 36-mo TTNT was 89%/88% (AV), 82%/88% (AVO), and 69%/77% (FCR/BR). For those with/without NOTCH1, 36-mo TTNT was 77%/90% (AV), 84%/86% (AVO), and 64%/78% (FCR/BR); for those with/without SF3B1, 36-mo TTNT was 91%/87% (AV), 85%/86% (AVO), and 68%/77% (FCR/BR). Conclusion This analysis from AMPLIFY demonstrates an association between presence of mutations and uIGHV status. Similar benefits in PFS and TTNT with AV and AVO vs FCR/BR were observed across these mutations. In the AVO arm, ATM, SF3B1, and NOTCH1 mutations were not associated with poorer outcomes. In the AV arm, pts with uIGHV without a NOTCH1 mutation had better outcomes vs patients with uIGHV with a co-occurring NOTCH1 mutation. The predictive values of these mutations will be explored via multivariate analysis.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.