Immunochemotherapy in Waldenström macroglobulinemia – still the backbone of treatment

C. Buske,J. Seymour

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/10428194.2015.1058938

2015-06-09

Abstract:Despite major recent progress in the treatment of indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL), the optimal management of Waldenstr ö m macroglobulinemia (WM) remains a major clinical challenge. WM is generally a disease of the elderly with a median age of approximately 68 years at the time of diagnosis [1]. Th us many patients present with co-morbidities preventing application of dose intense regimens [2]. Th e emergence of rationally designed small molecules targeting critical signal transduction pathways is about to dramatically change the therapeutic landscape in indolent lymphoma [3], with the potential to deliver high anti-lymphoma activity with favorable tolerability. We also note with keen interest he development of the Bruton ’ s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib with very encouraging results in WM [4], which was just recently led to its approval by the FDA on the US market as fi rst drug ever specifi cally indicated for the treatment of WM. Despite these encouraging developments on a number of fronts, we have to state that at least today rituximab/chemotherapy remains the backbone of treatment in WM, with excellent clinical activity and manageable side eff ects in the majority of patients [5]. Despite this fact, the effi cacy of the traditional established regimens certainly have room for improvements in effi cacy (alkylating agents), short-term tolerability (proteasome inhibitors and nucleoside analogues) and long-term marrow impairment and risk of secondary myelodysplasia (nucleoside analogues) [6,7]. In this context, there has been substantial interest in the utilization of Bendamustine as a potentially well-tolerated and eff ective chemotherapy agent in patients with relapsed or refractory WM [8]. However, the strength of the published data supporting the interest in Bendamustine in this clinical context was modest, based on a single small monocentric study [8]. It is therefore very welcome to see the report by A. Tedeschi et al. in this issue [9]. She reports on a retrospective data set among 71 moderately heavily pretreated elderly patients with WM and a median age of 72 years treated with Bendamustine and rituximab, who achieved excellent response rates with an overall response and major response of 80.2 and 74.6%, respectively. Equivalent response rates were attained among patients with relapsed and previously chemotherapy-refractory disease, supporting the lack of clinical crossresistance between Bendamustine and the commonly used alkylating agents. Th e 1-year progression free survival (PFS) was approximately 80% and the 3-year rate approximately 60%. With a relatively short median follow-up of 19 months (maximum 54 months) there are currently no instances of secondary MDS/AML, although continued long-term monitoring for such events will be important. As expected, treatment-related toxicity was mainly hematological leading to treatment delay in every 10th patient and G-CSF administration in 45% of courses. However, treatment was discontinued because of toxicity in only 14%, which is acceptable in this elderly, pretreated WM cohort. Herpes zoster reactivation was reported in four of the 15 patients (27%) who did not receive prophylaxis, and the authors appropriately recommend that such prophylaxis be routinely used with this regimen in the future. Th e dose of Bendamustine used was somewhat variable (50 – 90 mg/m 2 IV days 1 & 2 every 28 days) without clear evidence of a dose-response relationship in either response rate of PFS from this non-randomized setting, leaving some uncertainty regarding the optimal dosing in clinical practice. Th e high activity of Bendamustine with Rituximab in the context of relapsed/refractory disease is concordant with data from a large phase III randomized trial in the setting of previously untreated disease, which in a subgroup analysis reported an overall response of about 90% and a median PFS of 69 months [10]. Based on these data, national and international guidelines recommend Rituximab/Bendamustine alongside the DRC (Dexamethasone, Rituximab, Cyclophosphamide) regimen as a treatment of choice in medically fi t patients with WM in need of treatment in fi rst line, but also as salvage treatment depending on the initially applied regimen and the duration of previous remission [5,11]. Th e key question will be, whether novel compounds such as ibrutinib or idelalisib as single agents, or combined with rituximab, are able to challenge the Leukemia & Lymphoma, September 2015; 56(9): 2489–2490