Citations

BACKGROUNDAlthough rituximab‐based chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) has substantially improved clinical outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), only 40% to 50% of patients achieve a complete remission (CR). There remains interest in identifying new approaches to improve the effectiveness of CIT. Ofatumumab is a fully human anti‐CD20 monoclonal antibody with greater apparent single‐agent activity than rituximab in CLL patients.METHODSPreviously untreated CLL patients in need of therapy received 6 cycles of CIT induction with pentostatin, cyclophosphamide, and ofatumumab (PCO) followed by response assessment.RESULTSOf the 48 patients enrolled, 77% completed PCO induction. Adverse events during induction included grade 3+ hematologic toxicity (27%) and grade 3+ nonhematologic toxicity (23%). Median CD4 count after induction and 6 months later were 186 × 106/L and 272 × 106/L. The overall response rate was 96% (46 of 48 patients), and the CR rate was 46% (22 of 48 patients). Among the 38 patients who underwent minimal residual disease evaluation, 7 (18%) were negative for minimal residual disease. After median follow‐up of 24 months, 10 (21%) patients have progressed and 8 (17%) have required retreatment. The efficacy and toxicity of ofatumumab‐based CIT compare favorably to our historical trials of rituximab‐based CIT using an identical chemotherapy backbone (n = 64). Time to retreatment also appeared longer for ofatumumab‐based CIT (free of retreatment at 24 months: 86% [95% confidence interval = 75‐99] versus 68% [95% confidence interval = 56‐81] for rituximab‐based CIT).CONCLUSIONSOfatumumab‐based CIT is well tolerated in patients with previously untreated CLL. The efficacy of ofatumumab‐based CIT compares favorably to historical trials of rituximab‐based CIT, suggesting randomized trials comparing ofatumumab‐based CIT and rituximab‐based CIT should be considered. Cancer 2013;119:3788–3796. © 2013 American Cancer Society.

SummaryNearly all information about patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) who develop diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma [Richter syndrome (RS)] is derived from retrospective case series or patients treated on clinical trials. We used the Mayo Clinic CLL Database to identify patients with newly diagnosed CLL between January 2000 and July 2011. Individuals who developed biopsy‐proven RS during follow‐up were identified. After a median follow‐up of 4 years, 37/1641 (2·3%) CLL patients developed RS. The rate of RS was approximately 0·5%/year. Risk of RS was associated with advanced Rai stage at diagnosis (P < 0·001), high‐risk genetic abnormalitites on fluorescence in situ hybridization (P < 0·0001), unmutated IGHV (P = 0·003), and expression of ZAP70 (P = 0·02) and CD38 (P = 0·001). The rate of RS doubled in patients after treatment for CLL (1%/year). Stereotyped B‐cell receptors (odds‐ratio = 4·2; P = 0·01) but not IGHV4‐39 family usage was associated with increased risk of RS. Treatment with combination of purine analogues and alkylating agents increased the risk of RS three‐fold (odds‐ratio = 3·26, P = 0·0003). Median survival after RS diagnosis was 2·1 years. The RS prognosis score stratified patients into three risk groups with median survivals of 0·5 years, 2·1 years and not reached. Both underlying characteristics of the CLL clone and subsequent CLL therapy influence the risk of RS. Survival after RS remains poor and new therapies are needed.

Key Points miR-155 levels are significantly and increasingly overexpressed as normal B cells progress to MBL and to CLL. Plasma levels of miR-155 before treatment were significantly lower in patients with CLL who experienced complete response than in all others.

Consensus abstract Background The management of primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes (PRC-bTME) and recurrent rectal cancer (RRC) is challenging. There is global variation in standards and no guidelines exist. To achieve cure most patients require extended, multivisceral, exenterative surgery, beyond conventional total mesorectal excision planes. The aim of the Beyond TME Group was to achieve consensus on the definitions and principles of management, and to identify areas of research priority. Methods Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus. The Group consisted of invited experts from surgery, radiology, oncology and pathology. The process included two international dedicated discussion conferences, formal feedback, three rounds of editing and two rounds of anonymized web-based voting. Consensus was achieved with more than 80 per cent agreement; less than 80 per cent agreement indicated low consensus. During conferences held in September 2011 and March 2012, open discussion took place on areas in which there is a low level of consensus. Results The final consensus document included 51 voted statements, making recommendations on ten key areas of PRC-bTME and RRC. Consensus agreement was achieved on the recommendations of 49 statements, with 34 achieving consensus in over 95 per cent. The lowest level of consensus obtained was 76 per cent. There was clear identification of the need for referral to a specialist multidisciplinary team for diagnosis, assessment and further management. Conclusion The consensus process has provided guidance for the management of patients with PRC-bTME or RRC, taking into account global variations in surgical techniques and technology. It has further identified areas of research priority.

Consensus abstract Background The management of primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes (PRC-bTME) and recurrent rectal cancer (RRC) is challenging. There is global variation in standards and no guidelines exist. To achieve cure most patients require extended, multivisceral, exenterative surgery, beyond conventional total mesorectal excision planes. The aim of the Beyond TME Group was to achieve consensus on the definitions and principles of management, and to identify areas of research priority. Methods Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus. The Group consisted of invited experts from surgery, radiology, oncology and pathology. The process included two international dedicated discussion conferences, formal feedback, three rounds of editing and two rounds of anonymized web-based voting. Consensus was achieved with more than 80 per cent agreement; less than 80 per cent agreement indicated low consensus. During conferences held in September 2011 and March 2012, open discussion took place on areas in which there is a low level of consensus. Results The final consensus document included 51 voted statements, making recommendations on ten key areas of PRC-bTME and RRC. Consensus agreement was achieved on the recommendations of 49 statements, with 34 achieving consensus in over 95 per cent. The lowest level of consensus obtained was 76 per cent. There was clear identification of the need for referral to a specialist multidisciplinary team for diagnosis, assessment and further management. Conclusion The consensus process has provided guidance for the management of patients with PRC-bTME or RRC, taking into account global variations in surgical techniques and technology. It has further identified areas of research priority.