Skip to main content
Search
Search
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation
Open access
Short Report
21 August 2026

Zanubrutinib versus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab in fit, treatment-naïve patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison

Authors: Talha Munir https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2901-0769 [email protected], Lianne Barnieh, Leyla Mohseninejad, Sheng Xu, Milica Jevdjevic, Walter Bouwmeester, and Keri YangAuthor Info & Affiliations
Volume 15, Number 9
https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2025-0192
PDFFormats

Abstract

Aim: Fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR) is a first-line therapy for fit treatment-naive patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL); however, its hematotoxicity and related infections necessitate more efficacious, safer treatments. Zanubrutinib is a highly potent and selective next-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for treatment-naive patients with CLL and small lymphocytic lymphoma. Given the absence of clinical trials providing head-to-head comparisons, the aim of this analysis was to conduct a matching-adjusted indirect comparison between zanubrutinib and FCR. Materials & methods: Patient-level data from SEQUOIA (zanubrutinib vs bendamustine + rituximab [BR]) was adjusted for interpopulation differences through propensity-score matching with aggregate data from the CLL10 trial (FCR vs BR). Progression-free survival (PFS) was compared among populations matched for immunoglobulin heavy-chain gene mutation, 11q deletion, β2-microglobulin, Binet stage and age. Sensitivity analyses incorporated geographic region, sex, creatinine clearance, the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and previous infections. Results: Zanubrutinib improved PFS compared with FCR, with a hazard ratio of 0.41 (95% CI: 0.20–0.81; effective sample size 174). Including geographic region, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status or previous infections as matching factors one by one in the propensity score model showed similar results. Incorporating Cumulative Illness Rating Scale or creatinine clearance showed numerically favorable PFS with zanubrutinib (hazard ratio [95% CI] 0.45 [0.16–1.24] and 0.52 [0.24–1.13], respectively), owing to the low effective sample size of the expanded model (64 and 123, respectively). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that zanubrutinib offers improved PFS over FCR in fit, treatment-naive patients with CLL, further supporting zanubrutinib as a first-line CLL treatment for multiple patient profiles.

Plain language summary

What is this article about?

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who are active and otherwise healthy often receive a chemotherapy treatment called FCR (fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab) as their first therapy. While FCR can help, it may also cause liver problems and make infections more likely. Zanubrutinib is a newer, nonchemotherapy drug used to treat CLL. Since FCR and zanubrutinib have not been tested in the same study, we used data from separate clinical trials to indirectly compare them.

What were the results?

To ensure the comparison was fair, we matched patients from different studies based on key health traits. After matching, we found that patients taking zanubrutinib lived longer without their disease getting worse compared with those taking FCR.

What do the results mean?

For active and otherwise healthy patients with CLL, zanubrutinib may be a more effective first treatment choice than FCR.

Supplementary Material

File (supplementary data.pdf)

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
Hallek M, Cheson BD, Catovsky D et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a report from the International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia updating the National Cancer Institute–Working Group 1996 guidelines. Blood 111(12), 5446–5456 (2008).
PubMed
Google Scholar
2.
Eichhorst B, Robak T, Montserrat E et al. Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol. 32(1), 23–33 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
3.
Surveillance Research Program NCI. SEER*Explorer: an interactive website for SEER cancer statistics [Internet]. Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute. Data source(s): U.S. Mortality Data (1969–2022), National Center for Health Statistics, CDC. (2024 Apr 17 [updated: 2024 Nov 5; cited 2025 Jan 21]). https://seer.cancer.gov/statistics-network/explorer/
Google Scholar
4.
Hallek M, Fischer K, Fingerle-Rowson G et al. Addition of rituximab to fludarabine and cyclophosphamide in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet 376(9747), 1164–1174 (2010).
Google Scholar
5.
Goede V, Fischer K, Busch R et al. Obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil in patients with CLL and coexisting conditions. N. Engl. J. Med. 370(12), 1101–1110 (2014).
PubMed
Google Scholar
6.
Eichhorst B, Ghia P, Niemann CU et al. ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline interim update on new targeted therapies in the first line and at relapse of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Ann. Oncol. 35(9), 762–768 (2024).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Presents updated management guidelines that include recently approved agents, including zanubrutinib, and recommendations for later-line treatments based on prior lines of therapy.
7.
Eichhorst B, Fink A-M, Bahlo J et al. First-line chemoimmunotherapy with bendamustine and rituximab versus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab in patients with advanced chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL10): an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol. 17(7), 928–942 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Primary publication presenting results of the phase 3 CLL10 trial (bendamustine and rituximab vs. fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab).
8.
Fischer K, Bahlo J, Fink AM et al. Long-term remissions after FCR chemoimmunotherapy in previously untreated patients with CLL: updated results of the CLL8 trial. Blood 127(2), 208–215 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
9.
Tam CS, Brown JR, Kahl BS et al. Zanubrutinib versus bendamustine and rituximab in untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma (SEQUOIA): a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 23(8), 1031–1043 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Primary publication presenting results of the Phase III SEQUOIA trial of zanubrutinib versus bendamustine and rituximab.
10.
Phillippo DM, Ades AE, Dias S et al. Methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in health technology appraisal. Med. Decis. Making 38(2), 200–211 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Summarizes approaches and methodology for matching-adjusted indirect comparisons.
11.
Sharman JP, Egyed M, Jurczak W et al. Efficacy and safety in a 4-year follow-up of the ELEVATE-TN study comparing acalabrutinib with or without obinutuzumab versus obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil in treatment-naïve chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Leukemia 36(4), 1171–1175 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
12.
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. 21(9), 1188–1200 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
13.
Woyach JA, Ruppert AS, Heerema NA et al. Ibrutinib regimens versus chemoimmunotherapy in older patients with untreated CLL. N. Engl. J. Med. 379(26), 2517–2528 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
14.
Burger JA, Tedeschi A, Barr PM et al. Ibrutinib as initial therapy for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N. Engl. J. Med. 373(25), 2425–2437 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
15.
Salvi F, Miller MD, Grilli A et al. A manual of guidelines to score the modified cumulative illness rating scale and its validation in acute hospitalized elderly patients. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 56(10), 1926–1931 (2008).
PubMed
Google Scholar
16.
Phillippo DM, Ades AE, Dias S et al. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 18: methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in submission to NICE. DSU (2016). https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/files/94868463/Population_adjustment_TSD_FINAL.pdf
Google Scholar
17.
The Comprehensive R Archive Network. R CRAN version 4.0.2. https://cran.r-project.org/bin/windows/base/old/
Google Scholar
18.
Chanan-Khan A, Yang K, Liu T et al. PB1888: efficacy of first-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a Bayesian network meta-analysis. HemaSphere 6, 1767–1768 (2022).
Google Scholar
•• Results of a matching-adjusted indirect comparison of zanubrutinib versus standard frontline treatments for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (not including fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab).
19.
Farinasso CM, Ferreira VL, Medeiros FC et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison studies in oncology: a scoping review focused on reporting quality. Value Health Reg. Issues 47, 101088 (2025).
PubMed
Google Scholar
20.
BeiGene. Clinical Study Report (CSR): international, phase 3, open-label, randomized study of BGB-3111 compared with bendamustine plus rituximab in patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma. BeiGene (2022).
Google Scholar