Song, Yuqin

Abstract Introduction: The introduction of the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor acalabrutinib combined with bendamustine and rituximab (ABR) as first-line (1L) therapy for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) in older patients (pts) is reshaping the approach to treatment sequencing in this disease. The primary analysis of the phase 3 ECHO trial (NCT02972840) with data cutoff Feb 15, 2024 (median time on study 44.9 mo) demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) with ABR vs placebo plus BR (PBR; hazard ratio [HR] 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57–0.94; P=0.0160) in pts ≥65 y with treatment-naive (TN) MCL. Here we present updated results after 50 mo of follow-up, including time to next treatment 2 (TTNT2; ie, initiation of third-line [3L] therapy). Methods: Pts aged ≥65 y with TN MCL and ECOG performance status ≤2 were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive ABR or PBR. Randomization was stratified according to geographic region and simplified MIPI score. BR was given for 6 cycles followed by rituximab maintenance for 2 y in pts achieving a partial or complete response (CR). Acalabrutinib (100 mg twice daily) or placebo was administered at study start until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. Crossover to acalabrutinib was permitted at PD. The primary endpoint was PFS per independent review committee. TTNT2, which was used as a surrogate for PFS2 (time from initial treatment to second disease progression), was defined as time from randomization to second subsequent (3L) antilymphoma therapy after discontinuation of randomized treatment or death. Results: In total, 299 pts were randomized to each arm; median age was 71 y. At data cutoff (February 15, 2025), median (range) time on study was 51.86 (0.03–93.04) mo and median (range) follow-up through reverse Kaplan-Meier method for PFS was 60.8 (0–88.5) mo. Median TTNT2 was not reached (NR) in the ABR arm and 73.8 mo in the PBR arm, establishing a 24% reduction in the risk of initiating 3L therapy or death with ABR vs PBR (stratified HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.59–0.98). In total, 33 (11.0%) and 100 (33.4%) pts received second-line [2L] treatment (median time to 2L therapy, 26.3 vs 19.6 mo) and 10 (3.3%) and 37 (12.4%) received 3L treatment in the ABR and PBR arms, respectively. When COVID-19 deaths were censored (in alignment with prespecified analyses from the primary study), the HR further improved (stratified HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.50–0.89; median TTNT2 NR in any arm). In total, 71.6% and 78.3% of pts discontinued acalabrutinib and placebo, respectively; the most common reasons (>5%) for discontinuation were adverse events (AEs; 44.5%, ABR; 32.4%, PBR) and objective PD (12.7%, ABR; 30.8%, PBR). Median PFS was 72.5 and 47.8 mo in the ABR and PBR arms, respectively (stratified HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.53–0.87; P=0.002). In total, 108 (36.1%) and 116 (38.8%) pts in each arm died; median overall survival (OS) was NR in both arms (stratified HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.67–1.13), with a 36-mo OS rate of 73.8% with ABR vs 68.3% with PBR. With 1 additional year of follow-up since the primary analysis, rates of grade ≥3 AEs and serious AEs in the ABR arm were comparable to previously reported rates, indicating that prolonged acalabrutinib exposure does not appear to result in cumulative toxicities. Three new cases of grade 3/4 neutropenia were reported, with no marked changes in the rates of grade ≥3 or serious infections. The rate of grade ≥3 cardiac events remained consistent with the primary analysis. In the ABR arm, 1 new case of grade 3/4 atrial fibrillation and 1 new case of grade 3/4 hypertension were reported. Rates of thrombocytopenia, major hemorrhage, and ventricular tachyarrhythmia remain unchanged. Conclusion: In this updated analysis of the ECHO trial, despite crossover to acalabrutinib being permitted in the PBR arm, fewer pts in the ABR arm were in need of subsequent treatment (2L and 3L), with longer TTNT2 in the ABR arm. These results suggest that 1L treatment with ABR provides a 24% reduction in risk of initiating 3L therapies or death. Further follow-up has demonstrated that ABR offers improved efficacy (ie, PFS) vs PBR, with no long-term safety concerns with acalabrutinib maintenance. The updated safety findings further support the favorable benefit–risk profile of acalabrutinib in TN MCL. Altogether, these data support the potential of acalabrutinib in combination with BR as 1L treatment, rather than in later lines, to modify long-term treatment outcomes in pts with TN MCL.

Introduction: The primary analysis of the phase 3 ECHO trial (NCT02972840) demonstrated that acalabrutinib plus bendamustine-rituximab (ABR) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo plus bendamustine-rituximab (PBR) in older patients (pts) with previously untreated mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) (Wang et al. EHA 2024, Abstract #LB3439). Here we present additional efficacy and safety results from the ECHO trial. Methods: Pts aged ≥65 years (y) with previously untreated MCL and ECOG PS ≤2 were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive ABR or PBR. Acalabrutinib (100 mg twice daily) or placebo was administered until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. Induction with BR was administered for 6 cycles followed by rituximab maintenance (A±R maintenance, cycles 7-30) in pts achieving a partial or complete response (PR or CR). Pts progressing on PBR could cross over to receive acalabrutinib monotherapy. PFS (primary endpoint) was assessed by independent review committee. Minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate (10-5) was assessed in peripheral blood (every 24 weeks [wks], at CR, and at PD) and bone marrow (at CR) by NGS-based ClonoSEQ assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies). Results: Among the 598 pts randomized to ABR or PBR (299 in each arm), high-risk baseline characteristics included high-risk simplified MIPI score in 24.1% and 24.4%, blastoid histology in 8.7% and 6.7%, pleomorphic histology in 5.0% and 6.0%, centrally tested Ki-67 ≥30% in 46.5% and 49.2%, and known TP53 mutation in 7.4% and 9.7%, respectively. PFS hazard ratios (HRs) for subgroups were 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-1.19) in pts with high-risk simplified MIPI score, 0.68 (95% CI 0.29-1.58) in pts with blastoid histology, 0.64 (95% CI 0.25-1.66) in pts with pleomorphic histology, 0.69 (95% CI 0.49-0.98) in pts with Ki-67 ≥30%, and 0.88 (95% CI 0.42-1.78) in pts with known TP53 mutation. In the ABR arm, median PFS was 22.2 months (mo) among pts who discontinued acalabrutinib during induction for reasons other than PD or death, 29.4 mo in pts who discontinued acalabrutinib during A±R maintenance (cycles 7-30) for reasons other than PD or death, and not reached in pts who received acalabrutinib for 31 cycles or more. Among evaluable patients who were MRD negative at the end of induction (24 wks), the rate of conversion to MRD positive during maintenance was lower in the ABR arm (5.85%; n=11/188) than in the PBR arm (15%; n=26/171). Conversely, among evaluable pts who were MRD positive at the end of induction (24 wks), 37.5% (n=3/8) in the ABR arm and 20% (n=3/15) in the PBR arm converted to MRD negative during maintenance. Overall rates of AEs were similar in each arm during induction, but were higher in ABR during A±R maintenance (cycles 7-30) and more so in the monotherapy phase (cycle 31+). Grade ≥3 TEAEs (ABR vs PBR) were 70.0% vs 68.7% during induction, 64.9% vs 62.9% during A±R maintenance (cycles 7-30), and 57.0% vs 45.3% during monotherapy (cycle 31+). Similarly, rates of TEAEs leading to discontinuation of acalabrutinib/placebo were 8.1% vs 8.8% during induction, 23.9% vs 19.0% during A±R maintenance (cycles 7-30), and 25.9% vs 13.7% during monotherapy (cycle 31+). Exposure-adjusted incidence rates per 100 person-years reduced the difference between ABR and PBR for clinically relevant TEAE rates (32.6 vs 29.3 for grade ≥3 serious TEAEs; 4.2 vs 4.0 for grade 5 TEAEs; 15.5 vs 12.4 for TEAEs leading to acalabrutinib/placebo discontinuation), possibly due to longer median exposure to acalabrutinib (28.6 vs 24.6 mo). Conclusion: Acalabrutinib in combination with BR provides a significant PFS benefit in pts with previously untreated MCL, including those with high-risk features. Furthermore, the addition of acalabrutinib to BR provided a greater PFS effect among pts in the ABR arm with the longest exposure to acalabrutinib. The PFS improvement may be partially driven by the contribution of acalabrutinib to sustained MRD-negative status and deepened responses after the end of induction. ABR provides this clinical benefit without excess toxicity as shown by attenuated differences between arms in exposure-adjusted incidence rates, suggesting that higher AE rates in the ABR arm are likely due in part to the longer duration of acalabrutinib treatment vs placebo. These data emphasize the benefits of acalabrutinib in frontline MCL treatment in high-risk pts and the additional benefit of continuous therapy.