Immature Data Limit Conclusions on Continuous vs Fixed-Duration Frontline CLL Therapies
At the Lymphoma, Leukemia & Myeloma (LL&M) Winter Symposium, Richard Furman, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, discusses early findings from the CLL-17 study, assessing continuous and fixed-duration regimens, including ibrutinib, ibrutinib-venetoclax, and venetoclax-obinutuzumab, among treatment-naive patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).
Dr Furman emphasizes that it is premature to conclude that these regimens have comparable efficacy, given the limited duration of follow-up, and stresses the need for longer-term data before drawing definitive conclusions about optimal treatment strategies.
Transcript:
Hello, I'm Richard Furman, I am the Morton Coleman distinguished professor of medicine from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York Presbyterian Hospital in New York, New York.
Here at 2026 Lymphoma, Leukemia & Myeloma Winter the focus of my talk today was trying to ascertain what additional information we need to learn from the CLL-17 study, which focused on 3 different treatment regimens for treatment-naive CLL patients. Patients were treated with ibrutinib, ibrutinib venetoclax, and venetoclax and obinutuzumab. The idea was really to look at continuous treatment versus fixed duration treatment and whether or not they showed a non-inferiority to each other.
One of the things that I think that is very important is the data that was shown at ASH this past December is really quite immature. The comment that the treatment regimens are currently equal in efficacy, I think really belies the fact that it's really very early and that any conclusions from the trial should be deferred until we have longer follow up.
Source:
Furman R. The next frontier: What’s eft to learn after the latest global update. Presented at LL&M Winter Symposium; January 30-February 1, 2026. Amelia Island, FL.
