In Waldenström's macroglobulinemia (WM) chemotherapy induces only low CR/VGPR rates and response duration is limited. In addition, WM patients are often elderly, partly not tolerating chemotherapy related toxicities. Thus, innovative approaches are needed which combine excellent activity and tolerability in WM. Chemotherapy-free approaches are highly attractive for this patient group. Based on its high activity and favorable toxicity profile in indolent B-NHL such as CLL, Venetoclax was approved for the treatment of this diseases by the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). First data in relapsed/refractory WM have documented high activity and low toxicity of Venetoclax also in WM, including patients with prior Ibrutinib treatment or patients carrying CXCR4 mutations. Ibrutinib itself has high activity and a relatively low toxicity profile in WM, but has also major disadvantages: the main disadvantage is the need to apply this drug continuously. Furthermore, Ibrutinib efficacy depends largely on the genotype with a substantial drop in major responses and PFS in the presence of CXCR4 mutations and non-mutated MYD88. In particular the need of continuous treatment for Ibrutinib has prevented that Ibrutinib has become the standard of care outcompeting conventional Rituximab/chemotherapy. This is reflected in current guidelines such as the NCCN and the ESMO guidelines, which still see immunochemotherapy as a backbone of treatment, largely because of the advantage of a timely fixed application. Data in CLL in the relapsed as well as in the first line setting have convincingly shown that in contrast to Ibrutinib Venetoclax is highly efficient also when used in a timely defined application scheme over 12 months in combination with the anti-CD20 antibody Rituximab. Data documented deep responses including molecular responses and a highly significant advantage over immunochemotherapy in large international Phase III trials, changing the standard of care in this disease. Based on this the hypothesis is that timely fixed application of the combination of Venetoclax and Rituximab induces significantly superior treatment outcomes compared to chemotherapy and Rituximab (DRC) in patients with treatment naïve WM, regardless of the genotype. A first indication for this assumption in the proposed trial will allow the performance of confirmatory phase 3 trials that might change the standard of care in WM.
In Waldenström's macroglobulinemia (WM) chemotherapy induces only low CR/VGPR rates and response duration is limited. In addition, WM patients are often elderly, partly not tolerating chemotherapy related toxicities. Thus, innovative approaches are needed which combine excellent activity and tolerability in WM. Chemotherapy-free approaches are highly attractive for this patient group. Based on its high activity and favorable toxicity profile in indolent B-NHL such as CLL, Venetoclax was approved for the treatment of this diseases by the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). First data in relapsed/refractory WM have documented high activity and low toxicity of Venetoclax also in WM, including patients with prior Ibrutinib treatment or patients carrying CXCR4 mutations. Ibrutinib itself has high activity and a relatively low toxicity profile in WM, but has also major disadvantages: the main disadvantage is the need to apply this drug continuously. Furthermore, Ibrutinib efficacy depends largely on the genotype with a substantial drop in major responses and PFS in the presence of CXCR4 mutations and non-mutated MYD88. In particular the need of continuous treatment for Ibrutinib has prevented that Ibrutinib has become the standard of care outcompeting conventional Rituximab/chemotherapy. This is reflected in current guidelines such as the NCCN and the ESMO guidelines, which still see immunochemotherapy as a backbone of treatment, largely because of the advantage of a timely fixed application. Data in CLL in the relapsed as well as in the first line setting have convincingly shown that in contrast to Ibrutinib Venetoclax is highly efficient also when used in a timely defined application scheme over 12 months in combination with the anti-CD20 antibody Rituximab. Data documented deep responses including molecular responses and a highly significant advantage over immunochemotherapy in large international Phase III trials, changing the standard of care in this disease. Based on this the hypothesis is that timely fixed application of the combination of Venetoclax and Rituximab induces significantly superior treatment outcomes compared to chemotherapy and Rituximab (DRC) in patients with treatment naïve WM, regardless of the genotype. A first indication for this assumption in the proposed trial will allow the performance of confirmatory phase 3 trials that might change the standard of care in WM. This study is an International phase II explorative, multicenter, open label, and randomized trial. The study will consist of an open labeled, stratified 1:1 randomization between Arm A and Arm B for de novo WM patients in need of treatment (phase II). Stratification factors are MYD88 and CXCR4 status (positive vs. negative). A stratified central block randomization will be used. The central randomization service will be used to avoid predictability of the treatment arm. The primary goal of this study is to explore the efficacy of Venetoclax plus Rituximab versus Dexamethasone/Cyclophosphamide/Rituximab in the treatment of de novo WM patients (Arm A vs. Arm B). 80 patients are planned to be recruited for this study at approcimately 30 sites in Germany, Greece and France.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
80
Combination of venetoclax and rituximab
Combination of Dexamethasone / Rituximab / Cyclophosphamide
Onkologische Schwerpunktpraxis Bielefeld
Bielefeld, Germany
RECRUITINGKlinikum Chemnitz gGmbH
Chemnitz, Germany
RECRUITINGKlinikverbund Allgaeu gGmbH
Kempten, Germany
RECRUITINGUniversitaetsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein AöR
Kiel, Germany
NOT_YET_RECRUITINGGemeinschaftsklinikum Mittelrhein gGmbH
Koblenz, Germany
RECRUITINGDr. Vehling-Kaiser MVZ GmbH
Landshut, Germany
RECRUITINGKliniken Maria Hilf GmbH Moenchengladbach
Mönchengladbach, Germany
RECRUITINGHaematologie und Onkologie Muenchen-Pasing MVZ GmbH
München, Germany
RECRUITINGUniversitaet Muenster
Münster, Germany
RECRUITINGUniversity Hospital Ulm
Ulm, Germany
RECRUITING...and 1 more locations
Rate of CR / VGPR
CR / VGPR 12 months after randomization
Time frame: 12 months
Interim reponse
response at C4D1; C7D1 (arm A) / 28 days after C6D1 (arm B); C10D1 (arm A) / post treatment staging 1 (arm B) (categories: CR, VGPR, PR, MR, SD, PD, death)
Time frame: 12 months
Response rate
response rates (CR, VGPR, PR, MR, SD, PD, death)
Time frame: 12 months
Best response
Best response is determined in the time interval from start of treatment up to 24 months (categories: CR, VGPR, PR, MR, SD, PD, death).
Time frame: 24 months
Time to first overall response
Time to first overall response is defined as the time from randomization to first overall response (MR, PR, VGPR or CR) within 24 months from start of treatment.
Time frame: 24 months
Time to first major response
Time to first major response is defined as the time from randomization to first major response the patient achieves (CR, VGPR, PR) within 24 months from start of treatment.
Time frame: 24 months
Event free survival (EFS)
EFS is defined as the date of randomization to the first event of death from any cause or progression or stop of treatment due to toxicity or add-on of new anti-cancer therapy.
Time frame: 12 months
Response duration (RD)
Remission duration will be calculated in patients with overall response (CR, VGPR, PR, MR) from the first date of response to the date of progression, relapse or death from any cause.
Time frame: 12 months
Progression Free Survival (PFS)
PFS will be calculated from the date of randomization to the following events: the date of progression and the date of death if it occurred earlier.
Time frame: 6 years
Lymphoma specific survival (LSS)
Lymphoma specific survival is defined as the period from randomization to death from lymphoma or lymphoma related cause (e.g. infections, bleeding, amyloid caused organ failure).
Time frame: 6 years
Overall survival (OS)
Overall survival is defined as the period from randomization to death from any cause. Patients who have not died until the time of the analysis will be censored at their last contact date.
Time frame: 6 years
Safety of participants including number of adverse events according to NCI-CTCAE v5.0, SAEs, laboratory parameters, ECG and vital signs.
Adverse events according to NCI-CTCAE version 5.0, SAEs, laboratory parameters (hematology, serum chemistry, b2-microglobulin, coagulation, urine analysis, quantitative immunoglobulins, serum free light chain, cold agglutinin test, serum protein electrophoresis, serum immunofixation, Anti-HIV, HBV, HCV), 12-lead ECG (including PR-, QT- and QTc interval), vital signs (heart rate, blood pressure and temperature)
Time frame: 12 months
Quality of life assessed by FACT-Lym questionnaire
Quality of Life will be assessed by the FACT-Lym questionnaire which is a scoring instrument to measure the management of chronic illness in lymphoma patients. A higher score indicates a better quality of life
Time frame: 12 months
Comparison of response rates between CXCR4 mutated and CXCR4 wildtype patients
Response rates of CXCR4 mutated and CXCR4 wildtype patients will be compared.
Time frame: 12 months
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.