Time takes a toll on all of us
Rummaging through some of my mom’s papers I came across snapshots of when I was in high school. I could hardly recognize myself. How things have changed, and almost none of the changes are for the better.
But it is not wrinkles, an extra pound or two and faded hair that I want to discuss. None of them are welcome, but they are only cosmetic. What I want to talk about are health conditions that creep in as we age that may impact how your CLL should be treated. Dr. John Gribben is a recognized CLL expert and I would like to review for you his latest article on the subject of CLL and elderly patients.
One shoe does not fit all
And that is particularly true when making right therapy decisions for older CLL patients. I confess I had not really thought about it before, but many of the clinical trials that we depend upon to set the stage are just not representative of real life CLL patients. The exclusion criteria usually rule out anyone with kidney or liver issues, anyone with serious co-morbidities such as heart disease, lung disease, on-going infections, secondary cancers etc. It follows, many of the clinical trial results discussed on this and other websites are not really relevant when we consider elderly patients with other health issues.
Researchers would like to test their drugs in pristine patients with nothing else wrong with them except CLL. It kind of makes sense. Researchers want to figure out how a particular drug or combination works on CLL, with nothing else to complicate evaluation of the results. But that is not real life. In real life, we deal with a host of complications all the time. Life is unfair, it does not throw at us just one curve ball at a time. More often than not, our patients are dealing with multiple problems and CLL is just one of them. This is particularly true as our patients age. Just because you have CLL does not mean you get a free pass from heart disease, emphysema, high blood pressure, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, kidney or liver disease, skin / breast / prostate cancer etc. ALL of these medical issues become more common in an aging population and CLL patients are not exempt. In fact, our guys are more likely to have second cancers and long lasting infections, courtesy of CLL.
If you are barely “40 something” CLL patient who is otherwise in perfect health, you can skip reading this article. But for the majority 95% or so of CLL patients, Dr. Gribben has something worth considering. Here is the abstract of his paper. Send me a personal email if you would like help locating the full text article.
Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2010 Sep;10(9):1389-94.
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia: planning for an aging population.
Gribben JG.
Barts Institute of Cancer, Barts and the London School of Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK. j.gribben@qmul.ac.uk
Abstract
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) remains incurable, but over the past decade there have been major advances in the understanding of the pathophysiology of CLL and in the treatment of this disease. This has led to greatly increased response rates and durations of response, as well as improved survival. CLL is a disease of the elderly and not all patients are eligible for the aggressive upfront chemoimmunotherapy regimens that are resulting in improved response rates and survival, so what is the optimal treatment approach for more frail elderly patients? It is highly likely that our treatment approaches will continue to evolve as the results of ongoing clinical trials are released. The age range of patients involved in clinical trials is not representative of this disease, and more research is required in patients who are representative of the majority of CLL patients seen in practice before we will see outcome improvements in these more elderly and often more frail patient populations.
PMID: 20836674
Age distribution of CLL patients
Below is a chart that spells it out quite clearly. Chances of being diagnosed with CLL increase as people age. True, there are a small percentage of very young CLL patients barely in their 40’s. But the incidence statistics are quite clear, odds of being diagnosed with CLL increase with age.

Dr. Gribben reports roughly 15,500 new CLL patients were diagnosed in 2009. As you can see from the graph above, chances of being diagnosed with CLL increases with age. Almost 70% of patients are older than 65 at the time of diagnosis. Less than 2% are younger than 45 years. (I wonder how many of the really young CLL patients are part of family clusters where an older blood relative in their families had CLL. CLL is clearly known to be a familial cancer. Some evidence points to younger members of family clusters getting the disease at an earlier age, the technical term for it is “anticipation”). Below is a chart showing age at diagnosis for CLL patients.

Just a couple of decades ago..
Back in the 70’s and earlier, the only realistic option for treating CLL was good old chlorambucil (“Leukeran”). Since it became clear that patients treated right away with single agent chlorambucil did not live any longer than patients who were treated with this drug only after their CLL had developed significant “B symptoms”, there was no point in treating patients as soon as they were diagnosed. “Watch & Wait” became the name of the game. Few patients got “CR” (complete response) or long lasting remissions from single agent chlorambucil treatments. The aim of therapy was palliative, to reduce symptoms so that patients had better quality of life.
How things have changed in the last decade or so. Now, palliation is not good enough. Now, we want to see high response rates, high percentage of complete responses, and most important from patients’ perspective, longer remissions and overall survival. Chemoimmunotherapy combinations such as FCR have been shown to extend overall life, something that is truly worth celebrating. Just for comparison, it is interesting to note that CR rates went from about 7% in patients treated with single agent chlorambucil to 44-70% among patients treated with FCR. Dr. Gribben puts it in unequivocal terms: chemoimmunotherapy is the treatment of choice today. If it is not contra-indicated in your case, that is.
When CLL is just one of many problems
But FCR may not be a slam dunk front-line choice for older patients. Since the bulk of newly diagnosed CLL patients are in their late 60’s to early 70’s, and then there is typically a couple of years of Watch & Wait before therapy becomes necessary, majority of patients considering therapy options are no spring chickens. We are talking of people closer to 70 years old than otherwise.
Advancing age is invariably associated with age related health problems. Every single system in our bodies takes a hit as we age. Virtuous living and terrific genes may mean you lucked out and have none of the obvious medical problems of your age cohort. But it is only a matter of degree. Over 1,000 newly diagnosed patients at Mayo Clinic were evaluated for other major health issues besides CLL. 89% of the patients had at least one additional major co-morbidity, 46% had more than one.

How about you? Is CLL your only health problem? Here is a list of the various systems in our bodies that take a hit as we age. Be honest with yourself as you go down the list and check the ones that may present a problem for you now or down the road as you go through CLL therapy.

It is interesting to see that Dr. Gribben included psychiatric problems in his list. That does not mean he is only talking about people in late stage dementia or Alzheimer’s disease. How about garden variety depression? Going through something like FCR is tough enough, with a long list of potential adverse effects that can gang up on you. It is never a dull day, and sometimes the relentless march of therapy related side effects (that can last many months even after completion of the 6 months of therapy) can bring even macho men to their knees. Dealing with these problems day in and day out is not easy, if you are also dealing with depression at the same time.
Do co-morbidities influence outcome?
I have seen no back-to-back clinical trials with chemoimmunotherapy regimens such as FCR where the role of co-morbidities are considered. However, there is information available on survival statistics for patients undergoing mini-allo stem cell transplants. As you would expect, people with extra medical problems don’t do as well after a mini-allo stem cell transplant. But how much of an effect is there? Here a graph from none other than the “Hutch” (Fred Hutchinson cancer center, Seattle, WA) that spells it out. Each major medical issue (other than CLL) is a penalty point. As you can see, 75% patients with zero penalty points are alive at the two year and 4 year mark. At the other end of the spectrum, only 30% of patients with 3 or more penalty points are alive over the same time periods. Please be aware these survival statistics are based on transplant outcomes done 5-10 years ago and the good news is that the statistics keep improving each and every year.

Moral of the story, just because they have extended the age cut-off for mini-allo transplants does not mean every 75 year old is a good transplant candidate. If you have more than your share of medical problems associated with a 75 year old, you may want to take a careful look at the value of quality of life versus quantity of life. Going through a stem cell transplant is no picnic, far from it. If your chances of coming out of it with significantly prolonged life expectancy are not all that good, why put yourself through the loss of quality of life? Only you can make that call, after discussing the pros and cons with your medical team.
FCR is not everyone’s best therapy option
Below is a list of items to consider in Dr. Gribben’s article, if you are in the market for chemoimmunotherapy regimens such as FCR or FR. I added a few of mine own as well; all of this is stuff that you should know by now, if you have been a frequent reader of CLL Topics and Updates. All of them are good recommendations for any CLL patient. They are particularly important to consider in the case of elderly patients.
Did you know that there is a steady and irreversible decline in thymus function as we age, which in turn decreases the number and effectiveness of T-cells we have available to fight infections and second cancers? That is because the thymus is where T-cells mature and learn their trade. “T” in T-cells stands for “Thymus”. A seventy year old is handicapped in this sense, compared to a 50 year old – even if he feels just fine. Older people have a harder time fighting infections – plain and simple. Eating a good diet, exercising etc are good for you for other reasons. But they don’t do one bit to prolong and improve the function of your thymus.
- Discuss all of your medical problems with your physicians. Often they do not have access to all of your medical history and in any case it seems to me most physicians have only short term memory. Of particular importance, any recent history of shingles (herpes zoster), hepatitis (HCV, HBV), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections. The reason why these viral infections are important to consider is that fludarabine is justly infamous for killing off what few T-cell defenses you have, making viral reactivation a real possibility to guard against.
- Prophylactic medications such as Valtrex and Famvir may provide much needed protection against shingles. Have you been hospitalized for pneumonia (pneumocystis carinii) recently? Bactrim is standard prophylaxis to protect against pneumocystis carini.
- I will have more to say about Rituxan and hepatitis in my next article, please bear with me.
- Fortunately for us, most of the drugs used to treat CLL are not particularly toxic to the heart. The “H” in the popular therapy regimen called CHOP stands for hydroxydaunorubicin (also called doxorubicin or Adriamycin) has significant cardiac toxicity, but this combo is rarely used in straightforward CLL. It is used a lot more in NHL and also for treating CLL patients who have undergone Richter’s transformation. An analog of doxorubicin called mitoxantrone (with cardiac toxicity to match) has been used in some CLL clinical trials, along with FCR. I have a poor opinion of adding ever more toxic drugs to an already high impact regimen such as FCR.
- Renal (kidney) toxicity is the one to watch for. Both fludarabine and cyclophosphamide have kidney toxicity. If you have had problems with your kidneys in the past, it is important that your doctor knows about it ahead of initiating FCR or similar regimen. It is also important to discuss use of allopurinol as prophylaxis to protect against kidney damage and “tumor lysis syndrome“. You can do your bit by staying well hydrated and visiting the facilities frequently, so that your bladder does not take a hit either.
- Make sure the nurse does not rush the administration of Rituxan. Infusion related adverse effects of Rituxan and significantly reduced if the drug is given very, very slowly – especially the first time you get it. Make it a point to get your appointment for early in the morning, so the nursing staff are not in a hurry to quit work and go home for the day, therefore rushing the rate of infusion.
- If there is concern that your health does not permit use of full strength FCR, it may be time to consider lower doses. “FCR Lite“, for example, reduces the “F” and “C” contributions while dramatically increasing the amount of “R”. Does it work as well as full strength FCR? Hard to tell, since there is no back-to-back comparison of the two versions. Along the same lines, does FR work as well as FCR? Dropping the “C” in FCR surely reduces the toxicity of the combination, but it is probably at the expense of reducing the efficacy of the therapy as well. People with 11q deletion (FISH) are better off using FCR rather than FR.
- Old fashioned chlorambucil is not that popular in the USA, but it is still used quite often in Europe – rightly so in my opinion. It has the advantage of being a cheap drug (off patent), you just fill a prescription and swallow a pill in the comfort of your own home. It has relatively easy to take, no nausea, GI distress etc. But make no bones about it, chlorambucil is every bit an alkylating agent as is cyclophosphamide, with all the toxicities associated with that classification. Neither chlorambucil nor cyclophosphamide as single agents give deep or lasting remissions. You get what you pay for. But for an elderly and frail CLL patient with limited physical and financial resources, chlorambucil may still be a good option. It is a good palliative drug, improving quality of life by reducing B-symptoms such as fatigue, night sweats etc.
- Keep your fingers (and toes, and eyes) crossed that the new fangled kinase inhibitors such as CAL-101 continue to look good and that they get approved quickly for general use. I like the low adverse effect profile seen thus far, I like the fact that they are oral drugs and do not require a trip to the infusion chair, they seem to work by entirely different mechanisms than standard chemotherapy drugs such as fludarabine and cyclophosphamide. No doubt they will cost an arm and a leg – what else is new.
- Do NOT assume that just because Revlimid (lenalidomide) is an oral drug, a daily pill you swallow each night, that it has a low adverse effect profile. Revlimid has a long list of possible side effects, not the least of which is the infamous “Tumor flare reaction“. It can also cause deep hematological toxicity, with reduced counts of neutrophils, red blood cells and platelets. Another thing to be aware of is its propensity to cause blood clots and possibly deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Revlimid should not be administered except by physicians familiar with its peculiar toxicity profile.
- R+ HDMP (Rituxan + high dose methylprednisolone) is often recommended to elderly and frail CLL patients. We are talking of really high dose methylprednisolone. If you have diabetes, this is something to discuss with your doctor before starting on R+HDMP, since the high dose of corticosteroidal drugs can play havoc with your blood sugar level.
- Another combination that was studied at M. D. Anderson a couple of years ago (but I have not seen it followed up any place else) is combination of Rituxan + GMCSF (granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor – a growth factor similar to Neupogen and Neulasta, except that it also stimulates production of macrophages in addition to neutrophils). For a while this was the recommended therapy for elderly patients treated at M. D. Anderson; perhaps it still is. If you went through this regimen, do tell us how it worked for you.
- I am sure there are a bunch more issues to consider before signing up for FCR. If you can think of any that I have forgotten, do write about them in the discussion section. My reviews are just a way of getting the discussion going, your comments add significantly to the overall value of these articles.
Editorial
Doctors and researchers don’t often get involved in individual patient’s personal problems. This may be because there are no real good answers, nothing that the physician can do to solve the problem. Nevertheless, individual patient concerns (over and beyond the body systems listed in the chart above) do have a role to play in making therapy choices. We are more than the sum total of our purely medical problems.
I suppose money (lack thereof) and inadequate medical insurance are not systematic health issues, but they may as well be. Without financial resources and robust medical insurance to back you up, chemoimmunotherapy options such as FCR are a lot more expensive than old fashioned chlorambucil. I am always depressed and at a loss as to what to suggest when I hear from people with these particular “co-morbidities”.
Another related issue is lack of social network. This too is a “co-morbidity” that is increasingly likely as we age. Spouses die, children move away, old friends are under the weather themselves. We get more isolated and lonely as we age. Who will drive you to the many infusions you need for six months of FCR therapy? Who will take care of things that need to be taken care of in your daily life, if you are among the unlucky with deep seated anemia and resulting fatigue? What if you need to be hospitalized for pneumonia? Who will take care of your cats or dog when you are not there to take care of them?
There are really no good answers, certainly none that fit every situation. All I can suggest is that you evaluate your own situation as honestly as you can, so that you can make therapy decisions that are right for you. They say misery loves company. If that is true, it might help to know that each and everyone of us is aging at the same rate, all of us face many of the same issues as we age. You are not alone. Finding emotional balance is not easy, especially when we face health issues. Hopefully websites such as this one will help you to reach out to others that can understand what you are going through. Do the best you can, and remember that no one can be expected to do more than that.





27 comments on "Treating Older CLL Patients"
Just a very remotely related anecdote…
When I was getting my chemo, I had a late appointment one day. But they did not try to speed up the infusions, and one nurse volunteered to stay until I was “done”.
It is one of the only two days there that I really remember (the other being when one of the other nurses told me of a dream she had…she dreamt I was that “naked cowboy” that was running around New York City a few years ago!). While waiting for the infusion to finish at it’s normal slow rate, we played cards and she ordered a pizza for us from a nearby Pizza Hut for supper! A far cry from the turkey or egg salad sandwiches the volunteers usually provided for lunch.
And when I left there at 7 PM, the toll takers at the hospital’s parking garage had gone home, and there was no parking fee that day!
Totally unrelated to Chaya’s topic, but it does show that sometimes, the chemo can be memorable for good reasons…
My mother was diagnosed at 83 with CLL and immediately began FCR treatment with great results. However, what was not great was the choice of medication used to reduce the allergic reaction to the treatment. She was given Benadryl – a drug that is on the “Beer’s List/Beer’s Criteria” which cautions against its use in the elderly. She went through a rather frightening hours long mental break complete with hallucinations, overwhelming fear, and shouting/screaming, etc.
With just 2 minutes of Google time I was able to find multiple articles warning about these side effects of Benadryl in the elderly, but the oncologist was unaware of these issues. (How can this be with the age profiles discussed in this article?)
Bottom line, be your patient’s advocate. Get a complete list of the drugs that will be used during treatment and Google them along with the words “elderly” and “side effects” and discuss any concerns with the doctor BEFORE treatment begins.
Another spot-on article as usual! It seems to me that steroids in general are to be avoided if you have diabetes as a co-morbidity – My chemo team were still learning on my first Rituxan infusion, and I almost fainted. Bless them, they were on to it right away and sorted it out with a steroid injection, which helped a lot at the time, but it also ratchetted up my insulin requirement!
But I also like this article as it recognises the environmental factors including fatigue and depression. I’ve been trying to contribute to a cancer rehabilitation taskforce recently, and I keep dinging home those two factors, as it seems they are not recognised as much as things like physiotherapy. But FCR has given me an excellent remission so far, and overall I am very grateful.
Again, thanks very much for the article CHaya.
Lawrence
in-awe:
I could not have said that better. I fully concur with your bottom line. Thank you.
Terrific and timely article. I suspect I had a more difficult first two cycles of Bendamustine/Rituxan as my third line therapy than younger patients did. I certainly know I am less resilient than I used to be. And the information about Benadryl is a real eye opener. I am groggy and dysfunctional for at least 12 hours after taking a 50mg dose which does however seem to minimize allergic reactions during IVIG and Rituxan infusions. Very pleased to hear that at last the older CLL patient is getting some attention, especially from the likes of John Gribben, my very favorite CLL doctor who unfortunately for me moved from Boston to London.
I didn’t get the impression when speaking to a senior Clinical Affairs staffer at Calistoga in early January that they foresee CAL-101 getting FDA approval anytime soon, My guess is that four years from now, from a funding perspective, would be fine with them.
If you think CAL-101 fits your needs, I’d jump on the trials running right now which will allow responders to get CAL-101 until it no longer works for them.
If you have better information about CAL-101’s prospects for FDA approval, pls let us know..
Thank you for another article at just my level and interest. The comments are always interesting. I’m about to decide, with my hemo/onc, whether to do my sixth FCR treatment. He and his colleagues are knowledgeable and I trust them. I also verify their recommendations through your articles and acor, which reassure me.
It’s heartening that there are now two trials for untreated “elderly” (>65) patients, one Phase Ib for PCI-32765 and one Phase I or II for CAL-101+R (website says phase II, but one of the participants posted that it is Phase I). I believe more centers are starting up the latter than currently show up on the clinicaltrails website. Mschaeffer33 .. I think there are no more openings in the CAL-101-only trial. It has been extended for those already in it who are responding.
I think the writing is on the wall that these new treatments will have to be gotten through clinical trials for quite a while longer, although clearly there is dialog between the research docs, pharm companies and the FDA as to how these “maintenance” drugs are evaluated. Let’s be hopeful that they will, somehow, become available to a larger, more geographically dispersed, population.
Mari
Just wanted to remind you of the “Natural History of CLL” clinical trial at NIH. I signed up for this (recently diagnosed at age 65) after hearing about it on the website. This study does not involve any treatment, just following along prior to treament. It will tell us whether smoldering CLL is a risk factor for other morbidities as you age. It would also hopefully show how many concurrent diagnoses the typical older CLL patient accumulates before they go into treatment.
Just from my experience with older family and friends, the reaction to symptom-treating drugs is a huge issue. Benadryl and opiates can be disastrous. Also some antibiotics It would be nice to know if the current practice of putting everyone with a chronic disease on antidepressants has consequences.
As always, many thanks for your detailed analytical approach to CLL issues.
The CAL-101 trials currently open are combination studies: CAL + Bendamustine and CAL + olawhatchimicallit,
My belief is that anything as groundbreaking as CAL-101 would automatically find its way to the patient community. But the person I spoke to in Clinical Affairs at Calistoga didn’t share my optimism,
As always, thank you for keeping us informed.
Monique
Thanks Chaya, as usual an excellent article. As CLL treatments become better, more of us will survive to the point where we are “older.” I was diagnosed in 1988 at the relatively young age of 48. Now at age 70, having gone through several treatment cycles with the new drugs (including my first F in 1991 as part of a clinical trial), my local doctor and long-time oncologist at M.D. Anderson are favoring the “gentler” approaches, currently Arzerra.
One thing about the “pretreatments.” I’ve been on monthly IVIG for many years, at first with the standard pretreatments including IV benadryl. We started backing off on those about 10 years ago with no reaction. Now I don’t use any. Something patients may want to discuss with their doctor.
Bob
chaya,
I really feel like this article was written with me in mind. I was Dx in 1994 at age 61 and on w&w for 8 years. In between, surgery for colon cancer and other caveats.
2002, R/F. A very long time to recover. My remission was not even 2 years. Though I did not need chemo again for 7 years. I have had chemo twice since then. One year ago, Rituxan/Bendamustine. I refused R/F. I was too scared. My vibes said “No.” Though B/R was not a walk in the park. I got through it.
Re: benadryl. I finally had them lower the dose to 25mg. I insist on slow infusions. My doctor wrote the order. With a slower infusion, I have no headache, nausea, dizziness, flushing.
This 77 year old thanks you so much for this article.
Many Blessings,
Rita
Chaya
Another outstanding article. A question comes to mind… How do you know when to stop a treatment? Not because of bad reaction, but because you are doing well. Whether FCR or some other combo, how do you make the call to stop when the number you get from the blood test are the best they have been in years? All in normal ranges. Nobody talks about this. Should we just assume that the treatment calls for 6 rounds and ok that’s what we’ll do, even if your numbers look impressive only after a couple of rounds. Can we the patient – ask for another battery of test to verify the need for more chemo rounds? And what about if you are in a clinical trial, how does this affect your decision? More chemo rounds vs we are doing good and I’m not going to take this anymore. Just thought I’d ask.
Thanks again for these articles.
Loved your editorial! My husband is facing the end of Watch and Wait, but just got shingles the end of January. We’re not sure where that will lead in choices for chemo now.
slbarnaby:
You are right, doctors do not always spend any time discussing when to stop treatment because the goal has been reached. We discussed the issue at length in a recent article, here is the link to it:
http://updates.clltopics.org/2036-how-much-chemo-is-too-much
Addressing some of the other comments:
I agree, it will be several years before the new generation kinase inhibitors (such as CAL-101) can hope to be commercially available. We are seeing very early stage clinical trials, with small numbers of patients. Before you guys get ready to lynch the FDA for being too slow in its drug approvals, may I remind you that we really do not have a good feel for toxicity of these very powerful drugs. There are no shortcuts to good science or clinical research. I continue to be concerned about the (potential) lack of activity of CAL-101 in the bone marrow – the real home of CLL.
None of us like getting tagged with the word “elderly“. Western culture tends to be youth oriented – unreasonably so to my Asian sensibilities. But no matter how toned and buff our bodies are with regular exercise, how smooth our skin and how glossy our hair, some vital body functions change over time and there is not a whole heck of a lot we can do about it.
In CLL terms, two important organs that age with each passing day are the bone marrow and the thymus. Bone marrow starts out at 100% cellularity at birth of the individual. As we age, more and more of the bone marrow is mothballed, filled with fat cells and put aside. The rule of thumb is this; bone marrow cellularity = 100 – patient’s age in years. A healthy sixty five year old has only 35% of his /her bone marrow working, compared to when he/she was born. In CLL patients the body makes a desperate attempt to get back more bone marrow function by bringing back previously mothballed capacity, but only because the marrow is getting filled up with useless CLL cells. In fact, marrow cellularity that is higher than usual for given age group is a clear indication of bone marrow infiltration by CLL cells.
Thymus decays with age, starting at about the end of puberty. This is the organ where T-cells receive their education, where they learn how to fight infectious agents, how to recognize the bad guys in the first place. T-cell repertoire becomes smaller and smaller as we age, one of the reasons why older patients are more likely to succumb to infections, why they don’t heal as quickly, why infections last longer than in younger people, why they are more prone to skin cancer and other cancers in general.
Other body systems take a toll as well. Mother nature basically washes her hands of us as we go past the age of having babies. Modern medicine has made huge strides in making up for some of the inevitable changes as we age, hence the increased life expectancy in developed countries. Careful physicians take this into account, by being aware of “chronological age” as well as “biological age”.
But the one area where not much has changed is the area of interest to us – our immune system. Labeling 65 year old as “elderly” is not politically correct, I am just short of being “elderly” myself by 3 years and I don’t like it either, even though I can see my grey hair and less than svelte body in the mirror each day. But the term “elderly” is not irrelevant in terms of functioning of the immune system, hence appropriate to use in describing clinical trial participation.
When you add genomic abnormalities to advancing age the problem is confounded. Most physicians (and I think this article?) cite FCR for those with 11q, but the older patient may need/prefer something less toxic.
Multiplying the points of the dilemma, Dr. Terry Hamblin believes it is the R, not the C, that improves the 11q patients lot. So, can an elderly 11q go for FR on the theory that the Rituxan matters most. He cites the CLL8 study. But most others believe it is the the C that matters, though I am not sure why as there is no FR vs FCR study. 11q did much better with FC than F (I think from CLL4 study?) but it is FCR that has really leveled the playing field. So, why do we have a prevailing opinion that it is the C that makes the difference?
This is a debate among physicians that has very major treatment implications for the older 11q person.
Any further info on this would be much appreciated.
Dear Chaya,
Hugs and warm thanks for a beautifully written, much needed and much appreciated article. And many thanks to Dr. Gribben, as well.
Gypsydog
Dear Chaya et al.
I was recently invited to consider participation in a CAL-101/Rituxan Clinical Trial for untreated patients, 65 years old or older, being conducted at a major cancer center. I have spent considerable time trying to decide if this is the right thing for me at this time. After reading what I could find on the subject, including on this wonderful CLL Topics site, I still was undecided and sent multiple questions to the cancer center in an effort to resolve my remaining concerns. My intent here is to share with you the question of greatest concern, that I presented to the center, and their answer.
Background — I am almost 71 years old, currently have a WBC just below 100,000; neutrophils at 1920; Hgb at 12.4; and platelets at 115,000. The cancer center says I am still at a Rai Stage 1 because of palpable lymp nodes. I have been at Stage 1 for a number of years even as the disease has progressed in my bone marrow and blood serum. The lymp nodes have increased only small amounts during this time and they have caused me almost no discomfort. I have moderate fatigue but I am asytomatic in all other regards and remain in rather good health aside from the CLL.
Question:
As the result of your invitation to consider participation in the CAL-101/Rituxan trials, I have read literature available to me focusing on various treatment protocols, including modes of action, response, relapse times, toxicity, side effects, etc. The relatively lower toxicity and side effects, which are anticipated with the CAL-101/Rituxan protocol, are attractive. However, in review of the literature, I did arrive at a concern for my particular CLL status. There are statements in press releases, and perhaps the literature, that CAL-101 improved bone marrow function as manifested by increased platelet production. However, in a July 10, 2010 section of “Clinical Advances in Hematology and Oncology,” edited by Dr. O’Brien, Dr. Richard Furman stated CAL-101 had shown dramatic reductions in lymphadenopathy but that it seemed to show far less efficacy on bone marrow disease. As you know, lymphadenopathy has not been a problem for me yet. On the other hand, bone marrow infiltration is a problem. I have had three bone marrow biopsies: one very early in my disease (1999) that showed very little CLL infiltrates, one in June 2002 that showed 51% lymphocytes, and one in December 2004 that showed 84% lymphocytes. From December 2004 to now, my WBC has gone from 60,000 to a bit below 100,000. It seems likely that the bone marrow CLL infiltrates are 90% plus at this point. Thus, my deterioration in the production of red blood cells and platelets. Also, it is my understanding, that Rituxan has not proven to be especially effective in clearing the CLL cells from the bone marrow when used as a single agent. My question is this: are there good reasons to believe that (when taken together) the synergy of CAL-101 and Rituxan will be significantly more effective in clearing out the bone marrow? Or, maybe I am misinterpreting something? I am not sure what would be considered an acceptable outcome for reduction in bone marrow infiltrates, but in my case it would seem that substantial reduction is desirable for a reasonable remission to be sustained.
Answer.
There is no data on marrows as very few were done in the original trials. We don’t know if the CAL and Rituxan will be synergistic but should be at least additive which by itself would probably be good enough. If synergistic, even better.
——–
Comments and thoughts from any of you would be much appreciated.
Thanks,
Gypsydog
Gypsydog:
The quote from Dr. Furman you used in your ‘question’ is the one I published on this website. Glad to see you did not miss it.
I cannot fault your logic. And the answer is frank and clear admission of where things stand right now: namely, we do not know how CAL-101 works on the bone marrow.
Given the importance of the bone marrow, I am a little bemused that they have not made more of an effort to look for the effect of CAL-101 on this unique organ. Frankly, I find it hard to understand why they are not doing before and after bone marrow biopsies – pretty common procedures in many clinical trials. If you were a cynic, you might even wonder if they already have a pretty good idea the answer would not be to their liking, so they would rather not ask the question. I wonder how this will impact time to FDA approval.
But I want to hasten to add that even if kinase inhibitors such as CAL-101 do not do a good job on the bone marrow, it does not mean they are a failure. As we learn more about them, more intelligent combination drug therapies using kinase inhibitors may prove very effective. Treating bulky nodes has been the toughest job in CLL thus far, and CAL-101 seems to take care of that nicely – and that in itself is worth a lot.
Good clinical research takes years of painstaking work. There are few magic bullets. I am saddened when I see patients getting all riled up about delays in drug approval. Sure, we can use more efficiency in our FDA and other regulatory agencies as well. But I would hate to see the day when drugs are approved with skimpy clinical information and glossed over adverse effect profiles. Individual needs can be met with expanded compassionate use programs. But the general public should not be exposed to unproven drugs marketed by companies looking out for short term profit. That would be exploitation of a vulnerable group of people looking for any straw to clutch in their darkest hour.
“Rabble rousing” without careful attention to details is not the equivalent of responsible patient advocacy. Just my two cents.
GypsyDog,
Why do you and the cancer center feel you should be treated? You doubling time is not an issue and your platelets are not in the danger zone. Your marrow is not great but not fully infiltrated. Is there something I am not seeing? I thought these trials had to meet certain requirement / standards in bringing in new patients. In fact, I think my numbers etc. are similar or worse than yours, and when visiting one of the centers offering this treatment for elderly untreated patients, I was told I did not need treatment at this time and so was not elibible.
oops ..” and so was not eligible” (edible? whatever !!)
LynnS:
The “moderate fatigue” can be considered a B-symptom and therefore cause for start of therapy. But that is a bit of a stretch in this particular patient profile since everything else points to a nicely smoldering disease that can probably smolder on for a while longer. A second opinion at a different center may easily come back with a different answer, namely the patient need not be treated yet, W&W is still the best choice. Call me a cynic, most clinical trials like to recruit patients that do not require “heavy lifting” in terms of tumor load.
Gypsydog
Chaya and LynnS
Chaya, I think you are correct in identifying “moderate fatigue” as the principal criterion being used as a basis of consideration for my entry into this trial. The clinicaltrials.gov site lists “significant” fatigue as one criterion for admission to this trial. “Significant” is not defined.
In this Phase 2 trial there will be bone marrow biopsies and aspirations done prior to treatment and after the sixth cycle (i.e. about six months). Optional marrow samples may be taken at the end of cycles 2, 4, and 9 if the doctor thinks they are needed. However, no allowance is indicated for a marrow sample at the end of the trial (cycle 12 — about 12 months).
I am with you. I do not understand why adequate bone marrow samples were not taken during the Phase 1 trials. Also, I am having trouble with the possibility of prolonged use of CAL-101 as a maintenance drug (at least for my particular CLL characteristics) if it is not effective in clearing the CLL infiltrates from the bone marrow. It seems that the thinking is to use Rituxan combined with CAL-101 for the first two months and then to continue with only CAL-101 after that. They indicate that CAL-101 can be continued beyond 12 months if the patient is responding and tolerating the drug. As you know, this is being done for some participants of the Phase 1 trials. One thing that concerns me in determining the efficacy of CAL-101 alone on the bone marrow is that it will probably take a good half year, or longer, before the Rituxan is out of your system and its effects have completely dissipated. Therefore, it would seem important to me to take a bone marrow sample at the official end of the Phase 2 period (i.e. 12 months). Based on the little we know, my best guess is that my CLL would progress fairly soon after completion of the Phase 2 trial unless some other drug is brought back into the picture in combination with CAL-101. Of course I do not know this for sure and I would know a lot more if we only had bone marrow data from the Phase 1 trials.
Thanks for your input.
Gypsydog
Thank you for also addressing the social issues related to aging with this disease. We don’t like to think about such things but it is necessary to look ahead at what can happen and have back up plans in place.
Dear Chaya,
Thank you again for a wonderful article, one which really touches me because of my age, 79, and my concerns due to my age for treatment. Several years ago, I was in a clinical trial for Clofarabine which was very harsh on my bone marrow. I felt that this was because of my age. Thus I didn’t want FCR when I needed to be treated again, and decided to go with Bendamustie + R. I have just completed 6 cycles of B+R. Administrating the R very slowly with Benadryl and Zantac along with the other usually used drugs meant that I was able to tolerate it.
I think that I am going for quality of life more than “cure.” Time will tell.
Thank you for your concern re age and CLL, and of course for all the other articles you share with your wisdom.
Murre
Frailty is relative and sometimes highly specific, as in the overall strength of a heavy chain can be compromised by a single weak link.
I was 63 when diagnosed in ’06 and had excellent health with the exception of osteoarthritis. The CLL has decided to impair my kidneys and the 1st TX of FR had to be abandoned after 2 cycles due to kidney failure not caused by Tumor lysis Syndrome but undoubtedly the lysing of cells had much to do with the kidney damage.
I am now 67 and my relapsing from TX in ’09 means I need to TX again with a lower tumor burden and with a less toxic drug protocol to try and prevent further kidney damage. So while I am active and asymptomatic regarding absence of “B” symptoms I am required to view the “when” and “with what” of TX options in the most cautious manner.
Because of an expanding selection of options I am lucky to be able to consider some therapies like CAL-101 down the road, particularly because of my bulky lymphadenopathy. I do believe there are enough patients who have restricted options to the newer therapies that with proper counseling and with knowledge of the risks these Therapies should be available, at least at the CLL Consortium centers.
Great topic – well presented as usual,
WWW
Leave a Comment