Anti-Tumour Treatment
Comparative efficacy of first-line therapies for advanced-stage chronic lymphocytic leukemia: A multiple-treatment meta-analysis

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2012.05.007Get rights and content

Abstract

Since the introduction of chlorambucil as a treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in the 1960s, several alternative treatment regimens have been explored. We performed a multiple-treatment meta-analysis using direct and indirect data based on all available head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the benefits and harms of first-line treatments for untreated advanced-stage CLL. Two reviewers independently identified RCTs comparing overall survival and progression-free survival between two or more first-line treatments. Twenty-five trials involving 7926 patients were included. Of the 25 eligible RCTs, 30 (n = 7741 patients) and 12 (n = 3910 patients) treatment pairs were included in the multiple-treatment meta-analysis of overall and progression-free survival, respectively. Trials generally enrolled younger and less complicated patients than actual clinical practice. There was no evidence for inconsistency between direct and indirect data. Based on combined direct and indirect data, no single treatment showed significantly better overall survival than any other, and credible intervals were wide. Among six newer treatments with longer progression-free survival compared with chlorambucil, fludarabine-rituximab-based chemoimmunotherapy (HR = 0.24, 95% CrI: 0.13–0.51) and bendamustine (HR = 0.23, 95% CrI: 0.13–0.42) had the largest PFS benefit. Limited data on treatment-related mortality precluded multiple-treatment meta-analysis. In conclusion, published randomized evidence on overall survival is insufficient to recommend any particular first-line treatments. Any progression-free survival differences may be applicable to relatively young uncomplicated patients.

Introduction

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is the most commonly diagnosed lymphoid malignancy in Western countries.1, 2 Its incidence increases with age with a peak among patients older than 70 years.2, 3 Although the clinical behavior of untreated CLL varies from a long-term indolent to a rapidly progressive disease, it remains as an incurable condition. In advanced stages of CLL, timely therapeutic interventions are employed to control disease progression and its complications, such as cytopenias and opportunistic infections.4, 5

Since the introduction of chlorambucil as a treatment for CLL in the 1960s, alternative treatment strategies for untreated advanced-stage CLL have continued to multiply. Nearly 40 years later, clinicians can choose from any one of a handful of regimens. However, the comparative effectiveness of these treatment strategies has not been systematically evaluated. Previous meta-analyses6, 7, 8 assessed direct head-to-head comparisons from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of earlier treatments (i.e., chlorambucil monotherapy versus combination chemotherapies such as cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone [CHOP], and single-agent purine analogues, or other combinations) and found no evidence of better overall survival with a particular regimen. Subsequent trials have tested more aggressive regimens such as combinations of fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (FC), or chemoimmunotherapy such as fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) against various comparator treatments. Current practice guidelines, an expert consensus on the basis of the limited head-to-head comparative trials, recommend chemoimmunotherapy such as FCR for non-frail younger and chlorambucil for older patients.9, 10 Expert recommendations are also in line with these guidelines.11, 12

To date, the comparative effectiveness and safety of all clinically relevant treatments for CLL has not been assessed in a systematic and quantitative manner. To address this question, we performed a systematic review and multiple treatment meta-analysis (MTM) of all clinically relevant CLL treatments. The advantage of MTM is that it can estimate the comparative effectiveness and safety of a network of treatments, even when not all of them have been compared head to head. MTM is based on the premise that one can obtain indirect information on the comparison of two treatments by examining their effects versus a third reference treatment while preserving randomization.13, 14 For example, treatment A can be indirectly compared to treatment C by using a set of trials that compare treatment A to treatment B, and another set of trials that compare treatment B with treatment C.

Section snippets

Methods

We developed and followed a standard protocol for all steps of this research. The Appendix provides comprehensive descriptions of the methods.

Eligible trials

After abstract level screening and full text review of selected papers, we reviewed the full text of 24 potentially eligible published articles and 18 conference abstracts (describing 40 unique RCTs) (Appendix Fig. 1). Of these, we excluded 8 non-first-line trials, and 7 trials without data on survival or TRM. Unpublished data were available from one abstract author. A complete list of excluded studies along with reasons for exclusion is provided in the Appendix. Finally, 25 RCTs reported in 27

Discussion

In this study, we reported a 30-year overview of 25 RCTs evaluating 10 treatment categories for untreated CLL in nearly 7800 relatively young and uncomplicated patients. There was no evidence that any treatment is better than any other for OS. Although the credible intervals for most contrasts were wide, no newer therapy was shown to have a survival advantage over chlorambucil monotherapy beyond what is expected by chance. There were differences in PFS between several specific treatment

Conflict of interests statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author Contributions

Authors TTe and TAT had the initial idea and designed the study, which was revised by all authors. All authors acquired the data. Authors TTe and TAT did the statistical analyses, and all authors interpreted the findings. Authors TTe and TAT drafted the first version of the report, which was critically revised by all authors. Author TTe had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data. Authors TTe and TAT are guarantors of the accuracy of

Funding

Authors TTe and TAT were supported in part by R01 HS018574 from the United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Acknowledgments

Authors TTe and TAT were supported in part by R01 HS018574 from the United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The funders had no role in the study design, in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. We thank Feng Zhan, PhD (US Oncology Research, The Woodlands, TX) and Craig Reynolds, MD (Ocala Oncology Center, Ocala, FL) for providing the data in their original study. Drs.

References (60)

  • B.F. Eichhorst et al.

    First-line therapy with fludarabine compared with chlorambucil does not result in a major benefit for elderly patients with advanced chronic lymphocytic leukemia

    Blood

    (2009)
  • T. Robak et al.

    Cladribine with prednisone versus chlorambucil with prednisone as first-line therapy in chronic lymphocytic leukemia: report of a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial

    Blood

    (2000)
  • W.U. Knauf et al.

    Bendamustine induces higher remission rates, prolongs progression free survival as well as time to next treatment, and improves overall survival for patients in complete remission without compromising quality of life when compared to chlorambucil in first line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia [abstract]

    ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts

    (2010)
  • M. Leporrier et al.

    Randomized comparison of fludarabine, CAP, and ChOP in 938 previously untreated stage B and C chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients

    Blood

    (2001)
  • B.F. Eichhorst et al.

    Fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide versus fludarabine alone in first-line therapy of younger patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia

    Blood

    (2006)
  • M. Hallek et al.

    Addition of rituximab to fludarabine and cyclophosphamide in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

    Lancet

    (2010)
  • T. Robak et al.

    Cladribine alone and in combination with cyclophosphamide or cyclophosphamide plus mitoxantrone in the treatment of progressive chronic lymphocytic leukemia: report of a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial of the Polish Adult Leukemia Group (PALG CLL2)

    Blood

    (2006)
  • A. Jemal et al.

    Cancer statistics, 2010

    CA Cancer J Clin

    (2010)
  • T.D. Shanafelt et al.

    Comprehensive management of the CLL patient: a holistic approach

    Hematology (Am Soc Hematol Educ Program)

    (2007)
  • Chemotherapeutic options in chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a meta-analysis of the randomized trials

    J Natl Cancer Inst

    (1999)
  • Systematic review of purine analog treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia: lessons for future trials

    Haematologica

    (2012)
  • National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphomas, Version 2.2012. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in...
  • J.G. Gribben et al.

    Update on therapy of chronic lymphocytic leukemia

    J Clin Oncol

    (2011)
  • D.M. Caldwell et al.

    Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence

    BMJ

    (2005)
  • T. Lumley

    Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons

    Stat Med

    (2002)
  • K.A. Robinson et al.

    Development of a highly sensitive search strategy for the retrieval of reports of controlled trials using PubMed

    Int J Epidemiol.

    (2002)
  • M. Steurer et al.

    Purine antagonists for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev

    (2006)
  • E. Kimby et al.

    A systematic overview of chemotherapy effects in B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukaemia

    Acta Oncol

    (2001)
  • Q. Zhu et al.

    Fludarabine in comparison to alkylator-based regimen as induction therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Leuk Lymphoma

    (2004)
  • J.F. Tierney et al.

    Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis

    Trials

    (2007)
  • Cited by (12)

    • Rituximab, fludarabine, and cyclophosphamide versus fludarabine and cyclophosphamide for treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia: A systematic review with meta-analysis

      2015, Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology
      Citation Excerpt :

      There is consensus that FCR treatment leads to the occurrence of severe adverse reactions significantly more than FC, a fact reported by many authors [30–32]. Hematologic complications, such as neutropenia (from mild to severe), grade III/IV thrombocytopenia, and hemolytic anemia were reported in all studies (in these and other publications) [28–32], with greater frequency in patients treated with FCR. However, significant differences were found only for grade III/IV neutropenia, which is worrying, because this occurrence is associated with predisposition to bacterial, fungal, and viral infections [33,34] that can lead to death.

    • Appropriate use of bendamustine in first-line therapy of chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Recommendations from SIE, SIES, GITMO Group

      2014, Leukemia Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      In the long-term follow-up no statistically significant OS prolongation was observed in bendamustine-treated patients [17]. In a multiple-treatment meta-analysis bendamustine and R-fludarabine-based regimens [31] were found to achieve a similar PFS advantage (HR = 0.23) over chlorambucil. The Panel judged that, among critical outcomes, safety has a priority over PFS in the setting of elderly patients.

    • Modernizing Evidence Synthesis for Evidence-Based Medicine

      2014, Clinical Decision Support: The Road to Broad Adoption: Second Edition
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text