Targeting BCL2 pathways in CLL: a story of resistance and ingenuity
0
Abstract
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is common amongst leukemic malignancies, prompting dedicated investigation throughout the years. Over the last decade, the treatment for CLL has significantly advanced with agents targeting B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL2), Bruton’s tyrosine kinase, and CD20. Single agents or combinations of these targets have proven efficacy. Unfortunately, resistance to one or multiple of the new treatment targets develops. Our review investigates various mechanisms of resistance to BCL2 inhibitors, including mutations in BCL2, alterations in the Bcl protein pathway, epigenetic modifications, genetic heterogeneity, Richter transformation, and alterations in oxidative phosphorylation. Additionally, the review will discuss potential avenues to overcome this resistance with novel agents such as bispecific antibodies, Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) degraders, non-covalent BTK inhibitors, and chimeric antigen receptor T (CART).
Keywords
INTRODUCTION
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has been the most common form of Leukemia in the developed world for the last decade, according to the Surveillance epidemiology and end result database[1]. Treatment and, therefore, overall prognosis have improved significantly during this time. Investigation into the pathophysiology of CLL allowed for the development of targeted agents, including Burton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, and B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL2) inhibitors[2]. Ibrutinib, a BTK inhibitor, proved to be an effective treatment of CLL in the first line[3]. Venetoclax, a BCL2 inhibitor, was first utilized in relapsed disease alone and then in combination with rituximab [Table 1][4-10]. More recently, the combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax was approved for front-line treatment of CLL in Europe after findings from the GLOW trial [NCT03462719] and CAPTIVATE trials [NCT02910583][6,7] [Table 1].
Venetoclax trials in CLL
| Drug | Line of treatment | Target | Trial | Duration of treatment | Rate of Richter’s transformation |
| Venetoclax + Ibrutinib | First line | BCL2 + BTK | GLOW[6] | Fixed | 3 patients (2.8%) vs. 2 patients (1.9%) in control arm |
| Venetoclax + Ibrutinib | First line | BCL2 + BTK | Fixed | Not documented | |
| Venetoclax + Ibrutinib | Relapsed/Refractory | BCL2 + BTK | CLARITY[8] | Fixed | 0 patients |
| Venetoclax | Refractory, 17p mutated | BCL2 | Phase II[9] | Till progression | 11 patients (10.3%) |
| Venetoclax + Rituximab | Refractory | BCL2 + CD20 | MURANO[5] | Fixed | 6 patients (3.1%) vs. 5 patients (2.65%) in control arm |
| Venetoclax + Obinutuzumab | First line | BCL2 + CD20 | CLL14[10] | Fixed | 2 patients (0.94%) vs. 1 patient (0.46%) in control arm |
Widespread use of venetoclax in hematologic malignancies prompted further research into the BCL22 apoptosis pathway, allowing for the identification of the key agents involved. From extensive research, we have found that in non-cancerous cells, after receiving a pro-apoptotic signal, the BH3-only proteins will activate additional proteins, BAX and BAK, by binding directly or by binding to anti-apoptotic proteins, BCL2, BCL-XL, MCL-1, thereby freeing these pro-apoptotic proteins to travel to the mitochondrial membrane forming pores, releasing cytochrome c which stimulates the caspase cascade for apoptosis[11,12] [Figure 1]. Venetoclax promotes apoptosis by binding to BCL2, enabling the release of the pro-apoptotic proteins to trigger apoptosis[13] [Figure 1]. Unfortunately, resistance to venetoclax develops by several distinct mechanisms, including mutations in BCL2, epigenetic pathways, alterations in oxidative phosphorylation, alterations in BCL2 pathway, tumor microenvironment, genetic heterogeneity, and Ritcher’s transformation. We will discuss each of these mechanisms, focusing on the contributions to resistance in this review. Additionally, we will propose various methods to overcome the various resistance pathways.
BCL2 INHIBITOR RESISTANCE MECHANISMS
Genetic mutations in BCL2
Alterations in the substrate or target thereby conferring resistance is a common theme in biology and venetoclax resistance is no exception. A recent analysis of CLL patients who progressed on venetoclax found that 7 of the 15 patients developed a mutation, Gly101Val, in BCL2, which decreases the affinity of BCL2 for venetoclax by overcrowding the BH3 binding groove, thereby preventing venetoclax from displacing the pro-apoptotic proteins [Table 2][14-18]. Of note, the mutation was not detected prior to starting treatment but rather was detected after 19-42 months of treatment[14]. Mutations that also confer resistance due to the impact on binding include Phe104lle located at the venetoclax binding site of BCL2 and Asp103Tyr, an essential part of hydrogen binding of venetoclax which have been identified in follicular lymphoma and CLL, respectively[15,16] [Table 2]. In mantle cell lymphoma cell lines, Phe104Cys and Phe104leu missense mutations have also been found to alter the BH3 domain and therefore binding affinity[17] [Table 2]. From a retrospective analysis of CLL patients whose disease was refractory to ibrutinib and resistant to venetoclax, multiple mutations including point mutations in Gly101Ala, Ala113Gly, Leu119Val, Asp113Glu and in-frame insertion of Arg107_Arg110 were observed[18] [Table 2]. Of note, the BCL2 mutations were noted to be sub-clonal with a varying percentage of cells (from 7%-70%, vast majority < 50%), indicating multiple resistance patterns are likely involved[14-18]. This finding would argue against these mutations representing so-called “driver mutations”, but there is not enough evidence to definitively determine this. As the general CLL population is not tested for the above mutations given their rarity, it is impossible to give an overall frequency. From the original study identifying the G101V mutation, 21 out of 67 patients had progression on venetoclax, of which 15 samples were analyzed and roughly 50% (7 patients) developed the mutation after venetoclax as the mutation was not present prior[14]. With further analysis into venetoclax-resistant patients, additional mutations conferring various changes in the structure of the BCL2 will likely be identified and methods to overcome these mutations will follow.
Venetoclax resistance: mutations in BCL2
| Mutation | Mutation type | Mutation site | Found in | Frequency in patients |
| Gly101Val[14] | Point | BH3 binding groove | CLL | 7/15 (46.6%) |
| Phe104lle[16] | Point | BH3 binding groove | Follicular lymphoma | 1/1 (100%) |
| Gly101Ala[18] | Point | BH3 binding groove | CLL | 1/11 (9%) |
| Asp103Tyr[15] | Point | BH3 binding groove | CLL | 1/4 (25%) |
| Ala113Glu[18] | Point | Non-binding | CLL | 1/11 (9%) |
| Phe104Cys[17] | Point | BH3 binding groove | Murine human-like MCL cell lines | NA |
| Phe104Leu[17] | Point | BH3 binding groove | Murine human-like MCL cell lines | NA |
| Leu119Val[18] | Point | Unknown | CLL | 1/11 (9%) |
| Arg107_Arg110[18] | Frame shift | Unknown | CLL | 3/11 (27.3%) |
Epigenetic modifications
For the last decade, scientists investigated modifications of translation with gene activation or deactivation and the corresponding downstream effects. In the case of the BCL2 pathway, these epigenetic alterations may play a larger role in resistance than direct mutations in the BCL2 protein. A recent study used advanced molecular techniques including CRISPR, whole-exome sequencing, and methylated DNA immunoprecipitation sequencing to identify a regulatory CpG island within the PUMA (a BH3-only protein) promoter site which was shown to be methylated and therefore silenced gene expression (favoring oxidative phosphorylation and cell survival) after the administration of venetoclax, indicating resistance[19]. This data was obtained from both CLL patients (6 patients) and VEN/S63845 resistant cell lines. Further proof of this concept was demonstrated by the restoration of venetoclax function (cell death) after inhibition of methyltransferases[19].
Non-coding RNAs, including microRNA (miRNA) and long non-coding RNA (lncRNA), have been investigated extensively in the last two decades in CLL due to their involvement in cell cycle regulation among other cellular mechanics, thereby promoting resistance[20-22]. Additionally, RNA cytosine methyltransferases NSUN1 and NSUN2 have been shown to induce venetoclax resistance in leukemic cells via interactions with RNA polymerase II extension complex, knocking down NSUN1 or NSUN2 returned sensitivity to venetoclax[23]. Much is still not fully understood regarding these complex epigenetic regulations, as this is an area of future research and investigation.
Alterations in BCL2 pathway
As the BCL2 pathway is complex, alterations or upregulation of other components have also been the subject of investigation. Mutations in the effector proteins BAX/BAK may be venetoclax specific as one analysis found mutations in BAX followed venetoclax treatment in 30% of the patients but not after treatment with ibrutinib[24]. Further, a mutation in the C terminal transmembrane domain (G179E) of BAX prevents the anchoring of BAX to Mitochondria, thereby blocking venetoclax-induced apoptosis[17,25].
In a 2011 study of the novel agent ABT-737, which inhibits BCL2, BCL-XL, and BCL-w, the levels of MCL-1 and BFL-1 were significantly higher than BCL2 in the population resistant to the drug, while the sensitive population had the highest levels of BCL2 comparatively[26]. Conversely, in some tumor models, cells express low levels of BCL2 but are still highly sensitive to BCL-2 inhibition, indicating that the BCL2 protein is a small part of a more intricate process[17]. Other anti-apoptotic proteins, such as MCL-1 and BCL-XL, are not directly inhibited by venetoclax but appear to have a role in resistance, with BCL-XL appearing to have the strongest impact[27]. The overexpression of BCL-XL is associated with venetoclax resistance and the upregulation of NF-kB signaling (cell survival); the addition of BCL-XL inhibitors can restore cell sensitivity to venetoclax[27].
Likewise, MCL-1, involved in the sequestration of BIM and binding of BAK which prevents apoptosis is commonly overexpressed in venetoclax-resistant patients[13,28]. MCL-1 has been the subject of interest as there are various efforts at utilizing its inhibition as a potential therapeutic option, occasionally in conjunction with venetoclax[29]. Yet still, the matter is more complicated as additional proteins involved in this pathway were also found to have interactions with MCL-1 and BCL-XL, namely BFL-1[30]. Research into the detailed interactions between the pro-apoptotic and anti-apoptotic protein signaling balance is warranted, as any number of these proteins could be targeted for treatment.
Tumor microenvironment
For added complexity, tumor microenvironment including alterations in cell metabolism and signaling may also contribute to resistance. When CLL and MCL cells were preincubated with anti-apoptotic/pro-growth signaling factors from outside the direct BCL2 pathway, namely sCD40L, IL-10, CpG-ODN, B-cell-activating factor (BAFF), CXCL3, the combination of sCD40L, IL-10, and CpG-ODN had the lowest level of ibrutinib/venetoclax induced cytotoxicity indicating resistance[31]. Even high levels of ibrutinib and venetoclax did not achieve an adequate level of cytotoxicity, but when NF-kB signaling was inhibited by the addition of proteasome inhibitors, bortezomib and carfilzomib, sensitivity to ibrutinib/venetoclax returned[31]. Further research into this topic may reveal potential therapeutic targets for patients experiencing relapse/resistance.
Genetic heterogeneity
The extensive variation in the genetics of CLL patients has been noted, and the most common alterations include deletions of chromosomes 13q, 11q, 17p, and trisomy 12[32]. This heterogeneity may also play a role in resistance, as seen with the 17p deletion, which is not only associated with advanced disease/poor prognosis but also correlated with resistance, as one study found 7 out of 11 venetoclax-resistant CLL patients harbored the TP53 aberration[18,32]. Further, trisomy 12 contributes to increased expression of
Abnormal oxidative phosphorylation
As the BCL2 pathway ultimately involves mitochondria, there has been consideration of the role of oxidative phosphorylation in resistance. In other cancerous cell lines, increased levels of oxidative phosphorylation and reactive oxygen species are associated with resistance to chemotherapeutic agents[36]. Investigation into CLL cell lines in vitro found that the resistant cells had significantly higher levels of both basal and maximal oxygen consumption from ATP production by oxidative phosphorylation as well as increased mitochondrial membrane potential[37]. Additionally, after the cell lines were treated with venetoclax, a decline in oxygen consumption was observed, but this was dependent on the ability of pore formation (BAX/BAK) as knockout cell lines did not have the same response to venetoclax[37]. Additional research into cell metabolism may further elucidate details regarding these complex interactions and potential treatment targets.
Richter transformation
Transformation of CLL contributing to venetoclax resistance is one of the less well-studied mechanisms of resistance. Recent analysis has shown that increased genetic instability during transformation can result in the development of mutations related to venetoclax resistance[27]. While the more common BCL2 mutation, Gly101Val, was not seen in the transformed population, a rarer mutation, Arg110dup, was seen in a low percentage (< 0.5%)[18]. Rates of Richter’s transformation vary by trial but were generally low [Table 1]. Currently, data on Richter transformation in CLL remains limited, but it is an area of ongoing investigation.
METHODS TO OVERCOME RESISTANCE
While the first action after resistance to treatment is to alter treatment to another agent, researchers have identified several other avenues to combat resistance, including other formulations of bcl2 inhibitors, chimeric antigen receptor T (CART), BTK degraders, non-covalent BTK inhibitors, phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitors, and novel bispecific antibodies. Additionally, duration of treatment, fixed vs. continuous, may be instrumental in the development of resistance. An investigation into relapsed CLL patients treated with venetoclax and rituximab followed by venetoclax monotherapy found that among the durable responses (33 patients of which 14 remained on monotherapy and 19 stopped venetoclax), five-year estimates of ongoing response rate were similar, 71% (95%CI, 39-88) in continuous treatment vs. 79% (95%CI, 49-93) in the fixed duration group[38]. However, an analysis of single-agent venetoclax in CLL patients with prolonged follow-up found ongoing venetoclax treatment may be a driver of resistance, as activation of NF-kB with associated MCL1 expression was increased in all relapsed samples while on venetoclax therapy compared to off therapy[39]. This concept is further supported by a patient who achieved minimal residual disease on venetoclax with fixed treatment duration, and did not have increased NF-kB or other cell survival signaling[39]. Further, analysis of the MURANO trial with fixed duration combination treatment did not identify any mutations in BCL2, a known mechanism of resistance as discussed above[40].
BCL2 inhibitors/BH3 mimetic
Since the discovery of the BCL2 family of proteins involved in apoptosis, there has been an evaluation of BCL2-targeted agents. Obatoclax, a BH3 mimetic that antagonizes Mcl-1/Bcl-xL and Bcl-w but not BCL2, was evaluated in a phase I/II with bortezomib in relapsed refractory mantle cell lymphoma, but ORR was modest at 31% with myelosuppression and fatigue as the most common grade 3/4 adverse events[41]. Additionally, navitoclax, another BH3 mimetic, demonstrated 55% ORR when used with Rituximab for 12 weeks and 70% when used with Rituximab continuously until progression or intolerance compared to 35% ORR with rituximab alone in previously untreated CLL patients[42]. Unfortunately, significant thrombocytopenia limited widespread use as it was often dose-limiting[43,44]. Recently, Lisaftoclax, which selectively binds Bcl2 and prevents BCL2:BIM complexes allowing pore formation in mitochondria, demonstrated significant antitumor activity in preclinical trials[45]. This prompted progression to a phase I/II clinical trial in relapsed/refractory CLL patients with an ORR of 65% in the monotherapy group, 98% ORR in combination with acalabrutinib, and 87% in combination with Rituximab[46]. The average number of previous treatments was 2, with 12% of the patients progressing on BTK inhibitors and/or venetoclax[46].
Novel agents
In addition to BH3 mimetics, there has been an investigation into alternative targets with Bispecific antibodies/BiTE. As with venetoclax, the novel agents are explored across B-cell malignancies. Mosunetuzumab, a bispecific T cell engager targeting CD20/CD3, is under evaluation in Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) and CLL refractory to at least two lines of treatment in a phase I/II trial [NCT02500407] after promising results of a 60% CR in follicular lymphoma[47]. Other bispecific antibodies targeting CD20/CD3 are currently in various stages of clinical trials, namely odronextamab, glofitamab, epcoritamab, and plamotamab[48-51]. The most common serious adverse event across this drug class remains cytokine release syndrome[48-51]. At this time, these studies consist of mostly large B-cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma patients, but in the future, the trials could be expanded to include refractory CLL patients.
Since the last decade, the implementation of CART has greatly impacted hematology and the treatment of hematologic malignancies. Initial evaluation of CART in CLL over a decade ago had a small sample size (2 patients), but on long-term follow-up, the patients continued to have a durable remission[52,53]. An analysis of several studies (15 studies, 160 patients) found decreased efficacy of CART in CLL patients with an average CR rate of 30% (0% to 67%) and suggested T-cell dysfunction as a potential rationale for the less robust response[54]. However, a large multicenter study of lisocabtagene maraleucel has recently shown rapid, deep, and durable responses in relapsed/refractory CLL patients after BTKi and venetoclax use[55].
Additionally, there are ongoing clinical trials evaluating novel agents such as BTK degrader (NX-2127) and non-covalent BTK inhibitor (Pirtobrutinib) in relapsed/refractory patients[56,57]. Initial data on pirtobrutinib demonstrated promising results in BTK inhibitor refractory patients, with an ORR of 79% in patients (100 patients) who were refractory to both BTK inhibitors and BCL2 inhibitors[54]. This success prompted a large phase III trial evaluating pirtobrutinib in the first line in CLL/SLL vs. ibrutinib and bendamustine + rituximab[58,59]. The combination of pirtobrutinib and venetoclax is currently in a phase II study in CLL patients in the first line with the primary endpoint of minimal residual disease after 15 cycles [NCT05677919]. Other non-covalent BTK inhibitors such as fenebrutinib and nemtabrutinib have also been investigated, but as both had limited success in phase I trials, their use in B cell malignancies was stopped[60,61]. Phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitors have some proven efficacy in CLL, namely idelalisib and duvelisib, with many others under various stages of investigation[62-64]. Combination treatments instead of single-agent therapy may be a method to overcome resistance, as previous CLL studies found that 50% of the patients became refractory to single-agent venetoclax after 2-3 years[4,9].
CONCLUSION
Since the widespread use of venetoclax, more and more has been discovered about intrinsic and extrinsic mechanisms of resistance. Genetic mutations in Bcl-2 are the most common form of venetoclax resistance but have only been reported in approximately 50% of resistant patients, although small sample size (15 patients)[14]. The less well-known forms of resistance, such as epigenetic modifications, alterations of oxidative phosphorylation, and Richter’s transformation, may play a larger role in resistance than we know and may become essential in future research of relapsed disease. Given this heterogeneity in resistance in both mechanisms and timeline of development, testing for resistance prior to venetoclax initiation is not warranted. However, there is some data supporting NF-kB expression as a potential biomarker for venetoclax resistance[39], but more investigation is needed to determine its validity prior to widespread application.
Despite the extensive modes of venetoclax resistance, treatment is effective with both monotherapy and combination therapy[4-10]. Even refractory/relapsed CLL patients with poor prognostic factors, like 17p deletion, had durable responses to venetoclax in a phase 2 trial with 54% PFS at 24 months[9]. Interestingly, in a post-hoc analysis of the MURANO trial, dose reduction of venetoclax did not have a significant impact on PFS as long as treatment was not terminated[65]. The implication of dose reduction on resistance was not examined, but it would be beneficial to determine whether lower doses contribute to resistance as this would change management. Additionally, we need further analysis on fixed versus continuous treatment on the development of resistance as initial investigation supports fixed duration treatment in preventing at least certain types of resistance. Research into continuous vs. fixed treatment in combination treatments, particularly combination oral agents, could provide clarification.
Novel treatments like bispecific antibodies, BTK degraders, non-covalent binding BTK inhibitors, phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitors, and CART may provide the solution for relapsed/refractory patients, but their sequencing order in treatment remains to be determined, especially in CLL where the treated patient population is small. Given the relative novelty of bispecific antibodies, BTK degraders, non-covalent BTK inhibitors, and CART, we do not have long-term data on the impact on resistance. Retrospective analysis of the various clinical trials may provide some insights and should be an area for further research. Regardless of the potential resistance, we can conclude that venetoclax remains a cornerstone in the treatment of CLL.
DECLARATIONS
Authors’ contributions
Made substantial contributions to concept and design as well as editing: Siddiqi T
Drafting and editing manuscript: Reyes A
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
Financial support and sponsorship
None.
Conflicts of interest
All authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest.
Ethical approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2023.
REFERENCES
1. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia - Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/clyl.html. [Last accessed on 21 Nov 2023].
3. Burger JA, Tedeschi A, Barr PM, et al. Ibrutinib as initial therapy for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med 2015;373:2425-37.
4. Roberts AW, Davids MS, Pagel JM, et al. Targeting BCL2 with venetoclax in relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med 2016;374:311-22.
5. Seymour JF, Kipps TJ, Eichhorst B, et al. Venetoclax-rituximab in relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med 2018;378:1107-20.
6. Jain N, Keating M, Thompson P, et al. Ibrutinib and venetoclax for first-line treatment of CLL. N Engl J Med 2019;380:2095-103.
7. Tam CS, Allan JN, Siddiqi T, et al. Fixed-duration ibrutinib plus venetoclax for first-line treatment of CLL: primary analysis of the CAPTIVATE FD cohort. Blood 2022;139:3278-89.
8. Hillmen P, Rawstron AC, Brock K, et al. Ibrutinib plus venetoclax in relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia: the CLARITY study. J Clin Oncol 2019;37:2722-9.
9. Stilgenbauer S, Eichhorst B, Schetelig J, et al. Venetoclax for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia with 17p deletion: results from the full population of a phase II pivotal trial. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:1973-80.
10. Al-Sawaf O, Zhang C, Tandon M, et al. Venetoclax plus obinutuzumab versus chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab for previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL14): follow-up results from a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2020;21:1188-200.
11. Roy MJ, Vom A, Czabotar PE, Lessene G. Cell death and the mitochondria: therapeutic targeting of the BCL-2 family-driven pathway. Br J Pharmacol 2014;171:1973-87.
12. Youle RJ, Strasser A. The BCL-2 protein family: opposing activities that mediate cell death. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2008;9:47-59.
13. Bose P, Gandhi V, Konopleva M. Pathways and mechanisms of venetoclax resistance. Leuk Lymphoma 2017;58:2026-39.
14. Blombery P, Anderson MA, Gong JN, et al. Acquisition of the recurrent Gly101Val mutation in BCL2 confers resistance to venetoclax in patients with progressive chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Cancer Discov 2019;9:342-53.
15. Tausch E, Close W, Dolnik A, et al. Venetoclax resistance and acquired BCL2 mutations in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Haematologica 2019;104:e434-7.
16. Blombery P, Birkinshaw RW, Nguyen T, et al. Characterization of a novel venetoclax resistance mutation (BCL2 Phe104Ile) observed in follicular lymphoma. Br J Haematol 2019;186:e188-91.
17. Fresquet V, Rieger M, Carolis C, García-Barchino MJ, Martinez-Climent JA. Acquired mutations in BCL2 family proteins conferring resistance to the BH3 mimetic ABT-199 in lymphoma. Blood 2014;123:4111-9.
18. Lucas F, Larkin K, Gregory CT, et al. Novel BCL2 mutations in venetoclax-resistant, ibrutinib-resistant CLL patients with BTK/PLCG2 mutations. Blood 2020;135:2192-5.
19. Thomalla D, Beckmann L, Grimm C, et al. Deregulation and epigenetic modification of BCL2-family genes cause resistance to venetoclax in hematologic malignancies. Blood 2022;140:2113-26.
20. Landau DA, Tausch E, Taylor-Weiner AN, et al. Mutations driving cll and their evolution in progression and relapse. Nature 2015;526:525-30.
21. Calin GA, Ferracin M, Cimmino A, et al. A MicroRNA signature associated with prognosis and progression in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1793-801.
22. Fabris L, Juracek J, Calin G. Non-coding RNAs as cancer hallmarks in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Int J Mol Sci 2020;21:6720.
23. Wood S, Willbanks A, Cheng JX. RNA cytosine methyltransferases NSUN1 and NSUN2 mediate the lineage-associated resistance to venetoclax in leukemia. Blood 2020;136:13-4.
24. Blombery P, Lew TE, Dengler MA, et al. Clonal hematopoiesis, myeloid disorders and BAX-mutated myelopoiesis in patients receiving venetoclax for CLL. Blood 2022;139:1198-207.
25. Birkinshaw RW, Gong JN, Luo CS, et al. Structures of BCL-2 in complex with venetoclax reveal the molecular basis of resistance mutations. Nat Commun 2019;10:2385.
26. Al-harbi S, Hill BT, Mazumder S, et al. An antiapoptotic BCL-2 family expression index predicts the response of chronic lymphocytic leukemia to ABT-737. Blood 2011;118:3579-90.
27. Bennett R, Thompson E, Tam C. SOHO state of the art updates and next questions | mechanisms of resistance to BCL2 inhibitor therapy in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and potential future therapeutic directions. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2022;22:795-804.
28. Niu X, Zhao J, Ma J, et al. Binding of released bim to Mcl-1 is a mechanism of intrinsic resistance to ABT-199 which can be overcome by combination with daunorubicin or cytarabine in AML cells. Clin Cancer Res 2016;22:4440-51.
29. Negi A, Murphy PV. Development of Mcl-1 inhibitors for cancer therapy. Eur J Med Chem 2021;210:113038.
30. Haselager MV, Kielbassa K, Ter Burg J, et al. Changes in Bcl-2 members after ibrutinib or venetoclax uncover functional hierarchy in determining resistance to venetoclax in CLL. Blood 2020;136:2918-26.
31. Jayappa KD, Portell CA, Gordon VL, et al. Microenvironmental agonists generate de novo phenotypic resistance to combined ibrutinib plus venetoclax in CLL and MCL. Blood Adv 2017;1:933-46.
32. Döhner H, Stilgenbauer S, Benner A, et al. Genomic aberrations and survival in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med 2000;343:1910-6.
33. Fiorcari S, Maffei R, Atene CG, et al. Notch2 increases the resistance to venetoclax-induced apoptosis in chronic lymphocytic leukemia B cells by inducing Mcl-1. Front Oncol 2022;11:777587.
34. Herling CD, Abedpour N, Weiss J, et al. Clonal dynamics towards the development of venetoclax resistance in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Nat Commun 2018;9:727.
35. Guièze R, Wu CJ. Genomic and epigenomic heterogeneity in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Blood 2015;126:445-53.
36. Lee KM, Giltnane JM, Balko JM, et al. MYC and MCL1 cooperatively promote chemotherapy-resistant breast cancer stem cells via regulation of mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation. Cell Metab 2017;26:633-47.e7.
37. Guièze R, Liu VM, Rosebrock D, et al. Mitochondrial reprogramming underlies resistance to BCL-2 inhibition in lymphoid malignancies. Cancer Cell 2019;36:369-84.e13.
38. Ma S, Seymour JF, Brander DM, et al. Efficacy of venetoclax plus rituximab for relapsed CLL: 5-year follow-up of continuous or limited- duration therapy. Blood 2021;138:836-46.
39. Thijssen R, Tian L, Anderson MA, et al. Single-cell multiomics reveal the scale of multilayered adaptations enabling CLL relapse during venetoclax therapy. Blood 2022;140:2127-41.
40. Seymour JF, Wu JQ, Popovic R, et al. Assessment of the clonal dynamics of acquired mutations in patients (Pts) with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (R/R CLL) treated in the randomized phase 3 murano trial supports venetoclax-rituximab (VenR) fixed-duration combination treatment (Tx). Blood 2021;138:1548.
41. Goy A, Hernandez-Ilzaliturri FJ, Kahl B, Ford P, Protomastro E, Berger M. A phase I/II study of the pan Bcl-2 inhibitor obatoclax mesylate plus bortezomib for relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma. Leuk lymphoma 2014;55:2761-8.
42. Kipps TJ, Eradat H, Grosicki S, et al. A phase 2 study of the BH3 mimetic BCL2 inhibitor navitoclax (ABT-263) with or without rituximab, in previously untreated B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma 2015;56:2826-33.
43. Roberts AW, Seymour JF, Brown JR, et al. Substantial susceptibility of chronic lymphocytic leukemia to BCL2 inhibition: results of a phase I study of navitoclax in patients with relapsed or refractory disease. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:488-96.
44. Wilson WH, O’Connor OA, Czuczman MS, et al. Navitoclax, a targeted high-affinity inhibitor of BCL-2, in lymphoid malignancies: a phase 1 dose-escalation study of safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antitumour activity. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:1149-59.
45. Deng J, Paulus A, Fang DD, et al. Lisaftoclax (APG-2575) is a novel BCL-2 inhibitor with robust antitumor activity in preclinical models of hematologic malignancy. Clin Cancer Res 2022;28:5455-68.
46. Davids MS, Chanan-Khan A, Mudenda B, et al. Lisaftoclax (APG-2575) safety and activity as monotherapy or combined with acalabrutinib or rituximab in patients (pts) with treatment-naïve, relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (R/R CLL/SLL): initial data from a phase 2 global study. Blood 2022;140:2326-8.
47. Budde LE, Sehn LH, Matasar M, et al. Safety and efficacy of mosunetuzumab, a bispecific antibody, in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma: a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 2022;23:1055-65.
48. Bannerji R, Arnason JE, Advani RH, et al. Odronextamab, a human CD20×CD3 bispecific antibody in patients with CD20-positive B-cell malignancies (ELM-1): results from the relapsed or refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma cohort in a single-arm, multicentre, phase 1 trial. Lancet Haematol 2022;9:e327-39.
49. Hutchings M, Morschhauser F, Iacoboni G, et al. Glofitamab, a novel, bivalent CD20-targeting T-cell-engaging bispecific antibody, induces durable complete remissions in relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphoma: A Phase I trial. J Clin Oncol 2021;39:1959-70.
50. Thieblemont C, Phillips T, Ghesquieres H, et al. Epcoritamab, a novel, subcutaneous CD3xCD20 bispecific T-cell-engaging antibody, in relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma: dose expansion in a phase I/II trial. J Clin Oncol 2023;41:2238-47.
51. Patel K, Riedell PA, Tilly H, et al. A phase 1 study of plamotamab, an anti-CD20×Anti-CD3 bispecific antibody, in patients with relapsed/refractory non-hodgkin’s lymphoma: recommended dose safety/efficacy update and escalation exposure-response analysis. Blood 2022;140:9470-2.
52. Porter DL, Levine BL, Kalos M, Bagg A, June CH. Chimeric antigen receptor-modified T cells in chronic lymphoid leukemia. N Engl J Med 2011;365:725-33.
53. Melenhorst JJ, Chen GM, Wang M, et al. Decade-long leukaemia remissions with persistence of CD4+ CAR T cells. Nature 2022;602:503-9.
54. Todorovic Z, Todorovic D, Markovic V, et al. CAR T cell therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia: successes and shortcomings. Curr Oncol 2022;29:3647-57.
55. Siddiqi T, Maloney DG, Kenderian SS, et al. Lisocabtagene maraleucel in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma (TRANSCEND CLL 004): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 1-2 study. Lancet 2023;402:641-54.
56. Mato AR, Wierda WG, Ai WZ, et al. NX-2127-001, a first-in-human trial of NX-2127, a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase-targeted protein degrader, in patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia and B-cell malignancies. Blood 2022;140:2329-32.
57. Mato AR, Woyach JA, Brown JR, et al. Pirtobrutinib after a covalent BTK inhibitor in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med 2023;389:33-44.
58. Woyach JA, Wierda WG, Coombs CC, et al. BRUIN CLL-314: a phase III open-label, randomized study of pirtobrutinib (LOXO-305) versus ibrutinib in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma. Blood 2022;140:12427-8.
59. Jurczak W, Dartigeas C, Coscia M, et al. BRUIN CLL-313: a phase 3 open-label, randomized study of pirtobrutinib versus bendamustine plus rituximab in untreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (trial in progress). Blood 2021;138:3732.
60. Woyach JA, Flinn IW, Awan FT, et al. Efficacy and safety of nemtabrutinib, a wild-type and C481S-mutated bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor for B-cell malignancies: updated analysis of the open-label phase 1/2 dose-expansion bellwave-001 study. Blood 2022;140:7004-6.
61. Byrd JC, Smith S, Wagner-Johnston N, et al. First-in-human phase 1 study of the BTK inhibitor GDC-0853 in relapsed or refractory B-cell NHL and CLL. Oncotarget 2018;9:13023-35.
62. Lannutti BJ, Meadows SA, Herman SE, et al. CAL-101, a p110delta selective phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase inhibitor for the treatment of B-cell malignancies, inhibits PI3K signaling and cellular viability. Blood 2011;117:591-4.
63. Caforio M, de Billy E, De Angelis B, et al. PI3K/Akt pathway: the indestructible role of a vintage target as a support to the most recent immunotherapeutic approaches. Cancers 2021;13:4040.
64. Hus I, Puła B, Robak T. PI3K inhibitors for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia: current status and future perspectives. Cancers 2022;14:1571.
Cite This Article
Export citation file: BibTeX | RIS
OAE Style
Reyes A, Siddiqi T. Targeting BCL2 pathways in CLL: a story of resistance and ingenuity. Cancer Drug Resist 2023;6:828-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/cdr.2023.97
AMA Style
Reyes A, Siddiqi T. Targeting BCL2 pathways in CLL: a story of resistance and ingenuity. Cancer Drug Resistance. 2023; 6(4): 828-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/cdr.2023.97
Chicago/Turabian Style
Reyes, Amanda, Tanya Siddiqi. 2023. "Targeting BCL2 pathways in CLL: a story of resistance and ingenuity" Cancer Drug Resistance. 6, no.4: 828-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/cdr.2023.97
ACS Style
Reyes, A.; Siddiqi T. Targeting BCL2 pathways in CLL: a story of resistance and ingenuity. Cancer Drug Resist. 2023, 6, 828-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/cdr.2023.97
About This Article
Special Issue
Copyright
Data & Comments
Data
0
Cite This Article 7 clicks
Like This Article 8
likes
Comments
Comments must be written in English. Spam, offensive content, impersonation, and private information will not be permitted. If any comment is reported and identified as inappropriate content by OAE staff, the comment will be removed without notice. If you have any queries or need any help, please contact us at support@oaepublish.com.