Non-covalent BTK inhibitors like pirtobrutinib are currently approved for use after covalent BTK inhibitors fail. Moving them to the frontline setting, as studied in BRUIN-313, disrupts the established treatment pathway and creates uncertainty for managing relapsed disease, as the standard 'next step' is removed.
Related Insights
While platinum chemotherapy is considered the standard treatment after a patient progresses on a first-line ADC-IO combination, experts admit this is a standard "based on nothing." There is no clinical trial data to prove its efficacy in this specific setting; it serves only as a placeholder for new clinical trials.
Corvus Pharmaceuticals is already planning frontline combination trials for its T-cell lymphoma drug. The drug's favorable safety profile is the critical enabler, allowing it to be paired with chemotherapy and used as a long-term maintenance therapy to prolong remissions—a strategy unavailable to more toxic drugs.
An expert argues the path to curing metastatic cancer may mirror pediatric ALL's history: combining all highly active drugs upfront. Instead of sequencing treatments after failure, the focus should be on powerful initial regimens that eradicate cancer, even if it means higher initial toxicity.
The DAYBREAK pivotal study focuses on third-line plus patients who have already failed both BTK and BCL2 inhibitors. By enrolling this high unmet need population, particularly those resistant to the newest non-covalent inhibitors, Neurix aims for an accelerated regulatory approval to get its drug to market faster.
Developers often test novel agents in late-line settings because the control arm is weaker, increasing the statistical chance of success. However, this strategy may doom effective immunotherapies by testing them in biologically hostile, resistant tumors, masking their true potential.
The common practice of switching from one ARPI to another upon disease progression is now considered ineffective for most patients. With the advent of proven alternatives like chemotherapy and lutetium, using an "ARPI switch" as the sole control arm in clinical trials is no longer ethically or scientifically sound.
The BRUIN-313 trial successfully compared pirtobrutinib to bendamustine-rituximab (BR). However, BR is no longer the frontline standard of care. This 'straw man' comparator makes it difficult to position pirtobrutinib against current preferred treatments like other BTK inhibitors or venetoclax regimens, limiting immediate clinical applicability.
A key clinical nuance in CLL is that not all prognostic markers are static. The IGHV mutation status remains unchanged, requiring a one-time test. However, chromosomal abnormalities like deletion 17p can evolve, necessitating re-evaluation at each relapse to guide subsequent therapy choices and adapt the treatment strategy.
Rather than moving through distinct lines of therapy, a future strategy could involve an "ADC switch." When a patient progresses on an ADC-IO combination, the IO backbone would remain while the ADC is swapped for one with a different, non-cross-resistant mechanism, adapting the treatment in real-time.
The interpretation of ctDNA is context-dependent. Unlike in the adjuvant setting, in the neoadjuvant setting, remaining ctDNA positive post-treatment signifies that the current therapy has failed. These high-risk patients need a different therapeutic approach, not an extension of the ineffective one.