Zanubrutinib in patients with previously treated B-cell malignancies intolerant of previous Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors in the USA: a phase 2, open-label, single-arm study.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesised that zanubrutinib, a highly selective next-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, would be a safe and active treatment for patients intolerant of ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, or both. We aimed to assess whether zanubrutinib would prolong treatment duration by minimising treatment-related toxicities and discontinuations in patients with previously treated B-cell malignancies. METHODS: This ongoing, phase 2, multicentre, open-label, single-arm study was done in 20 centres in the USA. Patients aged 18 or older with previously treated B-cell malignancies (chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, small lymphocytic lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, Waldenström macroglobulinaemia, or marginal zone lymphoma) who became intolerant of ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, or both, were orally administered zanubrutinib 160 mg twice daily or 320 mg once daily per investigator. The primary endpoint was recurrence and change in severity of ibrutinib or acalabrutinib intolerance events based on investigator-assessed adverse events. Secondary endpoints were investigator-assessed overall response rate; duration of response; disease control rate; and progression-free survival. Analyses included all patients who received any dose of the study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04116437. FINDINGS: Between Oct 14, 2019, and Sept 8, 2021, 67 patients (36 [54%] men and 31 [46%] women) who were intolerant of ibrutinib (n=57; cohort 1) or of acalabrutinib or acalabrutinib and ibrutinib (n=10; cohort 2) were enrolled. 63 (94%) patients were White, one (2%) had multiple ethnicities, and three (5%) had unreported or unknown ethnicity. Most intolerance events (81 [70%] of 115 for ibrutinib; 15 [83%] of 18 for acalabrutinib) did not recur with zanubrutinib. Of the recurring events, seven (21%) of 34 ibrutinib intolerance events and two (67%) of three acalabrutinib intolerance events recurred at the same severity with zanubrutinib; 27 (79%) ibrutinib intolerance events and one (33%) acalabrutinib intolerance event recurred at a lower severity with zanubrutinib. No events recurred at higher severity. No grade 4 intolerance events recurred. 64 (96%) of 67 patients had one or more adverse events with zanubrutinib; the most common adverse events were contusion (in 15 [22%] of 67 patients), fatigue (14 [21%]), myalgia (ten [15%]), arthralgia (nine [13%]), and diarrhoea (nine [13%]). Atrial fibrillation occurred in three (4%) patients (all grade 2). Eight (12%) of 67 patients had serious adverse events (anaemia, atrial fibrillation, bronchitis, COVID-19, COVID-19 pneumonia, febrile neutropenia, salmonella gastroenteritis, transfusion reaction, trigeminal nerve disorder, and urinary tract infection). No treatment-related deaths occurred. The median follow-up time was 12·0 months (IQR 8·2-15·6). Among the 64 efficacy-evaluable patients, disease control rate was 93·8% (60; 95% CI 84·8-98·3) and overall response rate was 64·1% (41; 95% CI 51·1-75·7). The median duration of response was not reached; the 12-month event-free duration of response rate was 95·0% (95% CI 69·5-99·3). Similarly, median progression-free survival was not reached; 18-month progression-free survival was 83·8% (95% CI 62·6-93·6). INTERPRETATION: Patients intolerant of previous BTK inhibitors have limited treatment options. These results suggest that zanubrutinib, a safe and viable treatment for patients with B-cell malignancies, might fill that unmet need for those who exhibit intolerance to ibrutinib or acalabrutinib. FUNDING: BeiGene.

Occupational and Personal Consequences of the COVID-19 Pandemic on US Oncologist Burnout and Well-Being: A Study From the ASCO Clinician Well-Being Task Force.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented global crisis profoundly affecting oncology care delivery. PURPOSE: This study will describe the occupational and personal consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on oncologist well-being and patient care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four virtual focus groups were conducted with US ASCO member oncologists (September-November 2020). Inquiry and subsequent discussions centered on self-reported accounts of professional and personal COVID-19 experiences affecting well-being, and oncologist recommendations for well-being interventions that the cancer organization and professional societies (ASCO) might implement were explored. Qualitative interviews were analyzed using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-five oncologists were interviewed: median age 44 years (range: 35-69 years), 52% female, 52% racial or ethnic minority, 76% medical oncologists, 64% married, and an average of 51.5 patients seen per week (range: 20-120). Five thematic consequences emerged: (1) impact of pre-COVID-19 burnout, (2) occupational or professional limitations and adaptations, (3) personal implications, (4) concern for the future of cancer care and the workforce, and (5) recommendations for physician well-being interventions. Underlying oncologist burnout exacerbated stressors associated with disruptions in care, education, research, financial practice health, and telemedicine. Many feared delays in cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Oncologists noted personal and familial stressors related to COVID-19 exposure fears and loss of social support. Many participants strongly considered working part-time or taking early retirement. Yet, opportunities arose to facilitate personal growth and rise above pandemic adversity, fostering greater resilience. Recommendations for organizational well-being interventions included psychologic or peer support resources, flexible time-off, and ASCO and state oncology societies involvement to develop care guidelines, well-being resources, and mental health advocacy. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic has adversely affected oncologist burnout, fulfillment, practice health, cancer care, and workforce. It illuminates where professional organizations could play a significant role in oncologist well-being.

Creating a Blueprint of Well-Being in Oncology: An Approach for Addressing Burnout From ASCO's Clinician Well-Being Taskforce.

Optimizing the well-being of the oncology clinician has never been more important. Well-being is a critical priority for the cancer organization because burnout adversely impacts the quality of care, patient satisfaction, the workforce, and overall practice success. To date, 45% of U.S. ASCO member medical oncologists report experiencing burnout symptoms of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. As the COVID-19 pandemic remains widespread with periods of outbreaks, recovery, and response with substantial personal and professional consequences for the clinician, it is imperative that the oncologist, team, and organization gain direct access to resources addressing burnout. In response, the Clinician Well-Being Task Force was created to improve the quality, safety, and value of cancer care by enhancing oncology clinician well-being and practice sustainability. Well-being is an integrative concept that characterizes quality of life and encompasses an individual's work- and personal health-related environmental, organizational, and psychosocial factors. These resources can be useful for the cancer organization to develop a well-being blueprint: a detailed start plan with recognized strategies and interventions targeting all oncology stakeholders to support a culture of community in oncology.