{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.06463195691202872, 'fraction_numerical': 0.05098743267504488, 'mean_word_length': 4.549800796812749, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Bendamustine rituximab (BR) versus ibrutinib (Ibr) as primary therapy for Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM): An international collaborative study.

7566 Background: Parenteral limited-duration BR chemoimmunotherapy and continuous orally administered Ibr, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, dominate the treatment landscape of WM, a rare B cell lymphoma. No trials have assessed the comparative effectiveness of these 2 vastly different approaches. We conducted a multiinstitutional, international, collaborative study to compare BR and single-agent Ibr in patients (pts) with treatment naïve (TN) WM. Methods: Data from 347 pts with active TN WM, seen between 2011 and 2021 in the US and Europe, were analyzed. The pts on rituximab maintenance were excluded. The modified IWWM-6 criteria (based on IgM alone) were used for response assessment. All time-to-event analyses were performed from the frontline therapy initiation, using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: The median age of the pts treated with BR (n=208) and Ibr (n=139) was 66 (range 40-86) years (y) and 69 (39-97) y, respectively, (p=0.005). With a median follow up of 4.2 y (95% CI 3.8-4.5), the 4-y progression free survival (PFS) was 73% in each group, p=0.6, and 4-y overall survival (OS) was 94% (95% CI 91-98) in the BR group versus ( v) 82% (95% CI 75-90) in the Ibr group, p=0.01. In a bivariate analysis adjusting for age and the treatment type, only age emerged as a predictor for OS (HR 7.2, p=0.0001). Therefore, a 1:1 age-matched analysis of 246 pts who received Ibr (n=123) or BR (n=123) was performed. Pts with a known MYD88WT status who had received Ibr and their age matched controls on BR were excluded. The international prognostic scoring system (IPSS) WM was comparable between the 2 groups (Table). A higher proportion of pts on BR attained very good partial or deeper response (≥VGPR) as the best response in comparison to the pts on Ibr (Table). The 4-y PFS for the BR and Ibr groups was similar [72% (95% CI 63-82) v 78% (95% CI 70-87), p=0.14] and 4-y OS was 95% (95% CI 91-99) with BR v 86% (95% CI 80-93) with Ibr (p=0.3). Premature discontinuation, during active treatment, due to adverse effects (AEs) or lack of response was noted in 13% and 33% of pts on BR and Ibr, respectively. A detailed assessment of the AEs will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: Both BR and Ibr lead to comparable outcomes in pts with TN WM, although deeper responses are attained with BR. These findings require confirmation in prospective studies. For pts who harbor MYD 88L265P mutation, selection between the 2 approaches should be dictated by their potential toxicities, pt comorbidities, pt/clinician preference (parenteral fixed-duration v continuous oral) and access to therapies. [Table: see text]