Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Fixed-Duration versus Continuous Treatment for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

  • CLL17 Trial Investigators
  • University of Cologne
  • University Hospital Vall d'Hebron
  • Norwegian University of Science and Technology
  • Vita-Salute San Raffaele University
  • Ospedale San Raffaele and Vita-Salute San Raffaele University
  • Kantonsspital Luzern
  • University of Amsterdam
  • Helsinki University Hospital
  • Uppsala University
  • University of Copenhagen
  • Medical University of Vienna
  • Saarland University
  • Technion-Israel Institute of Technology
  • Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland
  • Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich
  • KU Leuven
  • Hanusch Krankenhaus
  • Innsbruck Medical University
  • Sjællands Universitetshospital
  • University of Turku
  • University of Rostock
  • University Hospitals Limerick
  • Sheba Medical Center at Tel Hashomer
  • Niguarda Hospital
  • University of Perugia
  • Martini Ziekenhuis
  • Albert Schweitzer Ziekenhuis
  • Ziekenhuis St Jansdal
  • Amphia Hospital
  • University of Oslo
  • Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre
  • Hospital Universitario de la Princesa
  • Lund University
  • Linköping University
  • Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen
  • Kiel University
  • Ulm University

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) currently consists of two main approaches - continuous therapy with Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors and fixed-duration regimens combining venetoclax with either CD20 antibodies or Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Comparisons of these two therapeutic approaches are lacking. METHODS: We conducted an investigator-initiated, phase 3, randomized trial involving patients with previously untreated CLL. Patients were randomly assigned to receive continuous ibrutinib or fixed-duration venetoclax-obinutuzumab or venetoclax-ibrutinib. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (noninferiority margin for the hazard ratio, 1.608, corresponding to a noninferiority margin of 8 percentage points at 3 years). Secondary end points included minimal residual disease (MRD), response, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 909 patients were assigned to venetoclax-obinutuzumab (303 patients), venetoclax-ibrutinib (305 patients), or ibrutinib (301 patients). The median follow-up was 34.2 months. In this prespecified interim analysis, 3-year progression-free survival was 81.1% in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group, 79.4% in the venetoclax-ibrutinib group, and 81.0% in the ibrutinib group (hazard ratio for venetoclax-obinutuzumab vs. ibrutinib, 0.87 [98.3% confidence interval {CI}, 0.54 to 1.41]; hazard ratio for venetoclax-ibrutinib vs. ibrutinib, 0.84 [98.0% CI, 0.53 to 1.32]); the results for each comparison met the criterion for noninferiority. After the end of treatment, MRD in peripheral blood was undetectable in 73.3% of the patients in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group, 47.2% in the venetoclax-ibrutinib group, and 0% in the ibrutinib group. Three-year overall survival was 91.5%, 96.0%, and 95.7%, respectively. The most common adverse events were infections, gastrointestinal disorders, and cytopenias. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with previously untreated CLL, fixed-duration treatment with venetoclax-obinutuzumab or venetoclax-ibrutinib was noninferior to continuous ibrutinib with regard to investigator-assessed progression-free survival. (Funded by the University of Cologne and others; CLL17 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04608318; EudraCT number, 2019-003854-99.).

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1084-1096
Number of pages13
JournalNew England Journal of Medicine
Volume394
Issue number11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 12 Mar 2026
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Fixed-Duration versus Continuous Treatment for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this