Search

The use of novel small molecule inhibitors alone or in combination with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has raised a number of questions on efficacy, tolerability, long-term treatment adherence in patients with heterogeneous clinical features. To fill this gap, we designed a study focusing on treatment sequencing in patients with CLL in order to (i) compare the outcome of patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) combinations in first-line versus those receiving Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi); (ii) characterize the efficacy and tolerability of venetoclax-based regimens; (ii) understand the impact of treatment sequencing when it comes to chemo-free options including venetoclax after BTKi and vice versa. Data from consecutive sets of patients diagnosed with CLL between 2000-2020 attended at 77 institutions affiliated with ERIC were collected and analyzed. Collected variables included: demographics, clinical stage at diagnosis, IGHV gene somatic hypermutation status; cytogenetic status for chromosomes 11q, 13q 17p and 12 determined by fluorescence in situ hybridization; TP53 gene mutation status; treatment; treatment response; discontinuation; reason for discontinuation; death. We included 9173 patients with a diagnosis of CLL who received at least one line of treatment. The median age at diagnosis was 67 years with a male:female ratio of 1.9. The median follow-up was 78 months (IQR, 48-120 months). Regarding novel targeted agents, 1860/9173 (20.2%) patients had received at least one line of treatment with BTKi (ibrutinib, n=1788; acalabrutinib, n=72) over the disease course; 631/9173 (6.9%) with venetoclax; and, 447/9173 (4.9%) with the PI3K inhibitor idelalisib. Seventy-nine patients were treated with both BTKi and venetoclax (59 BTKi followed by BCL2i, 20 vice versa). At last follow-up, 5870/9173 patients (64.0%) were alive, 3229/9173 (35.2%) died and 74/9173 (0.8%) were lost to follow-up. Patients treated with BTKi in first-line were enriched for TP53 aberrations [del(17p) 27.6%, TP53 mutation 26.3%] and unmutated IGHV genes (69%) and obtained an ORR of 87.7%. Of these, 136 (26.3%) discontinued treatment after a median of 1.2 years (0.07-5.98); main reasons of discontinuation were toxicity (40.5%) and failure (26.2%). Among 631 patients treated with venetoclax at any line, 100 (15.8%) received BCL2 +/- anti-CD20 as first-line; 170 (26.9%) as second line (125 previously treated with CIT, 27 with BTKi); and, 361 as third or subsequent line. ORR ranged between 71.5% (≥3 lines) with 30.5% CR/CRi to 90.3% (first-line) with 68.1% CR/CRi. Treatment discontinuation was due to toxicity in 28.6% of patients treated in the first-line, and 17.6% and 21.8% of patients treated in second and third-or-higher-line, respectively. Disease progression led to treatment discontinuation in 14.3%, 20.6% and 33.6% in first, second and third-or-higher line, respectively. CIT was used as front-line treatment in 5465 patients (59.6%). Of these, 2070 (37.9%) and 1018 (18.6%) patients received a second and third line of treatment, respectively. The great majority (865/1086 cases, 79.7%) of patients who received a second line before 2014 were retreated with CIT, most commonly Bendamustine-Rituximab (284/1086, 26.1%) and Fludarabine-Cyclophosphamide-Rituximab (252/1086, 23.2%); alemtuzumab monotherapy was used in 55/1086 (5%) of patients. After 2014, 415/984 patients (42.1%) were retreated with BTKi; 93 (9.5%) with venetoclax; 70 (7.2%) with idelalisib; 50 (5%) with Alemtuzumab monotherapy, and 315 (32%) with CIT. Similarly, in the third-or-higher line of treatment, most patients (86.3%) were retreated with CIT before 2014, while BTKi, BCL2i, and PI3Ki were mainly used after 2014 (in 43.1%, 15.7% and 14.7% of cases, respectively). Finally, our cohort included 1075 patients with TP53 aberrations. The ORR of patients receiving BTKis (n=171) as first-line of treatment was 86.5% (22.2 CR+64.3 PR), while the ORR with venetoclax +/- anti-CD20 (n=15) was 91% (45.5% CR+45.5 PR). Patients treated with CIT (n=694) had an ORR of 68.7% (28.3% CR+40.4% PR). In conclusion, in a large international study we provide real world data regarding the selection and sequencing of treatment in CLL, charting a major shift in treatment patterns before and after the introduction of novel trargeted agents and confirming their efficacy even in high-risk CLL. Disclosures Scarfo: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Iacoboni: BMS/Celgene, Gilead, Novartis, Janssen, Roche: Honoraria. Collado: Abbvie,: Other: pharmaceutical Company, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Pharmaceutical Company, Research Funding. Galimberti: AbbVie, Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Incyte: Speakers Bureau. García-Serra: AbbVie: Other: Educational grands; Janssen: Other: Educational grants; Novartis: Other: Educational grants. Gozzetti: Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria. Hatzimichael: Amgen, Roche, Genesis, Novartis, Bristol Mayer Squibb, Celgene, Pfizer: Consultancy; Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol Mayer Squibb, MSD, Gilead, Janssen Cilag, Genesis Pharma, Roche, Takeda: Honoraria. Herishanu: AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Medison: Honoraria. Jaksic: Roche, Oktal-Pharma/Celtrion, Sandoz: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kater: Janssen, AstraZeneca: Other: Ad Board, steering committee, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Ad Board, Research Funding; BMS, Roche/Genentech: Other: Ad Board, , Research Funding; Genmab, LAVA: Other: Ad Board, Steering Committee. Kotsianidis: Astellas: Other: NONE, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genesis: Consultancy, Other: NONE; Janssen Hellas: Consultancy, Other: NONE, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Hellas: Consultancy, Other: NONE, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis Hellas: Consultancy, Other: NONE, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: NONE, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kreitman: NIH: Patents & Royalties: Moxetumomab Pasudotox; Genentech: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; AstraZeneca/MedImmune: Research Funding; Innate: Research Funding; GSK/Novartis: Research Funding; Array BioPharma/Pfizer: Research Funding. Laribi: BeiGene: Other: Personal Fees; Jansen: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Personal Fees, Research Funding; Astellas Phama, Inc.: Other: Personal Fees; AstraZeneca: Other: Personal Fees; Le Mans Hospital: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Personal Fees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Personal Fees, Research Funding; IQONE: Other: Personal Fees. Lopez-Garcia: Roche: Other: Speaker Honoraria, Travel and accommodation grants; Novonordisk: Other: Speaker Honoraria; Fresenius: Other: Speaker Honoraria; Celgene: Other: Speaker Honoraria; Abbvie: Other: Speaker Honoraria, Advisor, Travel and accommodation grants; Janssen: Other: Speaker Honoraria, Advisor, Travel and accommodation grants, Research Funding. Milosevic: Roche: Honoraria; Abbvie,: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria. Reda: Beigene: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Ruchlemer: AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Šimkovič: Janssen, Gilead, Roche, AstraZeneca, and AbbVie: Other: consultancy fees, advisory board participation fees, travel grants, and honoraria; University Hospital Hradec Kralove: Current Employment; AbbVie: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Merck: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Eli Lilly: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; J&J: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Gilead: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Špaček: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Janssen, and Roche: Honoraria. Tadmor: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Visentin: Italfarmaco and Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Vassilakopoulos: AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Other: Travel; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Integris: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel; Genesis Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Research Funding. Vitale: Janssen: Honoraria. Yáñez: Gilead-Kite, Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Roche, Pfizer, Jazz, BMS, and Merck: Other: Advisory board participation fees ; Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Gilead-Kite, Roche, Pfizer, and Merck: Speakers Bureau. Antic: AbbVie, Janssen, and Roche: Honoraria. Coscia: Janssen: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other. Cuneo: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Gaidano: Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Astrazeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Guièze: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astrazeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria. Laurenti: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeiGene: Honoraria. Murru: Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel and accommodation; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sportoletti: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Tam: Beigene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Loxo: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Trněný: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Celgene: Consultancy; 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, General Hospital in Prague: Current Employment; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Portola: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Bosch Albareda: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Lilly: Honoraria. Doubek: Janssen-Cilag, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Gilead, Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Chatzidimitriou: Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ghia: AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ArQule/MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/Juno/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Research Funding. Stamatopoulos: AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic required reevaluation of the therapeutic approach and added emotional stress for patients with hematological malignancies at high risk of contracting the virus. We aimed to evaluate how it affected such patients during the second lockdown in Israel.Methods: This national survey included Hebrew-speaking patients with hematological malignancy. This included three tools with 28 items of socio-demographic and medical baseline characteristics, management of hematological disease, and evaluation of emotional coping during COVID-19 pandemic; the Hebrew version of the Patient Health Questionnaire 9; and 3 qualitative open-ended questions. Data was analyzed by mixed methods which combined both quantitative and qualitative thematic analyses.Results: 408 patients responded to the survey. The management of their hematological disease included a decrease in the number of visits to the hematology clinic (37.0%), delay of some treatment schedules (9.1%), and prescription of replacement therapies permitting less visits to the clinic (2.2%). The frequency and intensity of “feeling afraid” regarding COVID-19 infection was increased (mean±SD: 4±1 to 5±2 in a 1-7 Likert scale), and a high rate of depression was recorded, which appeared to be more evident in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) (pConclusion: The management of hematological malignancies during pandemics should always take into consideration patients' fears, as well as the development of depression related to isolation and loneliness, in addition to the high risk of severe disease. Patients with CML had a high rate of depression which obviously needs to be managed very carefully during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Standard treatment options in classic HCL (cHCL) result in high response rates and near normal life expectancy. However, the disease itself and the recommended standard treatment are associated with profound and prolonged immunosuppression, increasing susceptibility to infections and the risk for a severe course of COVID-19. The Hairy Cell Leukemia Foundation (HCLF) has recently convened experts and discussed different clinical strategies for the management of these patients. The new recommendations adapt the 2017 consensus for the diagnosis and management with cHCL to the current COVID-19 pandemic. They underline the option of active surveillance in patients with low but stable blood counts, consider the use of targeted and non-immunosuppressive agents as first-line treatment for cHCL, and give recommendations on preventive measures against COVID-19.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a neoplastic plasma-cell disorder characterized by clonal proliferation of malignant plasma cells. Despite extensive research, disease heterogeneity within and between treatment-resistant patients is poorly characterized. In the present study, we conduct a prospective, multicenter, single-arm clinical trial (NCT04065789), combined with longitudinal single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) to study the molecular dynamics of MM resistance mechanisms. Newly diagnosed MM patients (41), who either failed to respond or experienced early relapse after a bortezomib-containing induction regimen, were enrolled to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a daratumumab, carfilzomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone combination. The primary clinical endpoint was safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints included overall response rate, progression-free survival and overall survival. Treatment was safe and well tolerated; deep and durable responses were achieved. In prespecified exploratory analyses, comparison of 41 primary refractory and early relapsed patients, with 11 healthy subjects and 15 newly diagnosed MM patients, revealed new MM molecular pathways of resistance, including hypoxia tolerance, protein folding and mitochondria respiration, which generalized to larger clinical cohorts (CoMMpass). We found peptidylprolyl isomerase A (PPIA), a central enzyme in the protein-folding response pathway, as a potential new target for resistant MM. CRISPR–Cas9 deletion of PPIA or inhibition of PPIA with a small molecule inhibitor (ciclosporin) significantly sensitizes MM tumor cells to proteasome inhibitors. Together, our study defines a roadmap for integrating scRNA-seq in clinical trials, identifies a signature of highly resistant MM patients and discovers PPIA as a potent therapeutic target for these tumors. Integration of longitudinal single-cell analysis of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients in a prospective clinical trial uncovers new pathways of drug resistance and identifies potential actionable targets.

Systemic immunoglobulin light-chain (AL) amyloidosis is characterized by deposition of amyloid fibrils of light chains produced by clonal CD38+ plasma cells. Daratumumab, a human CD38-targeting antibody, may improve outcomes for this disease.We randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis to receive six cycles of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone either alone (control group) or with subcutaneous daratumumab followed by single-agent daratumumab every 4 weeks for up to 24 cycles (daratumumab group). The primary end point was a hematologic complete response.A total of 388 patients underwent randomization. The median follow-up was 11.4 months. The percentage of patients who had a hematologic complete response was significantly higher in the daratumumab group than in the control group (53.3% vs. 18.1%) (relative risk ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1 to 4.1; P0.001). Survival free from major organ deterioration or hematologic progression favored the daratumumab group (hazard ratio for major organ deterioration, hematologic progression, or death, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.93; P = 0.02). At 6 months, more cardiac and renal responses occurred in the daratumumab group than in the control group (41.5% vs. 22.2% and 53.0% vs. 23.9%, respectively). The four most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were lymphopenia (13.0% in the daratumumab group and 10.1% in the control group), pneumonia (7.8% and 4.3%, respectively), cardiac failure (6.2% and 4.8%), and diarrhea (5.7% and 3.7%). Systemic administration-related reactions to daratumumab occurred in 7.3% of the patients. A total of 56 patients died (27 in the daratumumab group and 29 in the control group), most due to amyloidosis-related cardiomyopathy.Among patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis, the addition of daratumumab to bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone was associated with higher frequencies of hematologic complete response and survival free from major organ deterioration or hematologic progression. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; ANDROMEDA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03201965.).

Autoimmune manifestations are known to occur in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and of these hemolytic anemia and immune thrombocytopenia are the most well recognized. Autoimmunity may also be triggered by some of the therapeutic agents used like purine analoges and these events may sometimes be severe and even fatal. Non-hematological autoimmune stigmata occur far less frequently and are rarely encountered. Here we report a 59 year-old-woman, with CLL, who complained of recurrent headache starting 1 month after completing 6 cycles of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab combination therapy. Computed tomography scan of the brain showed a contrast enhancing lesion of 1 cm in diameter, with surrounding edema in the right frontal lobe. Brain MRI revealed ring enhancing lesions in the right frontal lobe and some additional small lesions in the left parietal lobe. Brain biopsy showed an inflammatory demyelinating lesion, not associated with JC virus. The patient subsequently improved after steroid therapy. Currently, after 2 years of follow-up, she remains in complete hematologic remission, has no neurological deficits, and is carefully followed by a team of neurologists and hematologists. Treating physicians should be aware of this rare autoimmune inflammatory demyelinating lesion which can occur in patients with CLL during the course of treatment and that may be linked to treatment with purine analogues like fludarabine.

Hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) is a rare and potentially life-threatening disorder. While many conditions can cause eosinophilia, it can also be provoked by rarer diseases such as vasculitis or myeloproliferative disorders. Here we present an almost fatal presentation of HES characterized with both vasculitis and clonal features. Treatment with combined chemo-immunotherapy allowed reversal of most of the complications. There is still much uncertainty in the diagnosis and management of HES, and research should be done to improve knowledge on pathophysiology and cytogenetics of this disease in order to improve treatment and prevent life-threatening complications.

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) may be more susceptible to Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to age, disease, and treatment-related immunosuppression. We aimed to assess risk factors of outcome and elucidate the impact of CLL-directed treatments on the course of COVID-19. We conducted a retrospective, international study, collectively including 941 patients with CLL and confirmed COVID-19. Data from the beginning of the pandemic until March 16, 2021, were collected from 91 centers. The risk factors of case fatality rate (CFR), disease severity, and overall survival (OS) were investigated. OS analysis was restricted to patients with severe COVID-19 (definition: hospitalization with need of oxygen or admission into an intensive care unit). CFR in patients with severe COVID-19 was 38.4%. OS was inferior for patients in all treatment categories compared to untreated (p

Background: For fit CLL patients (pts), continuous BTK inhibitor treatment is replacing CIT as standard of care in frontline setting, particularly in pts with unfavorable prognostic factors. The time limited combinations venetoclax plus obinutuzumab (GVe) and venetoclax plus rituximab (RVe) have produced high rates of undetectable minimal residual disease (uMRD), which strongly associates with long progression-free survival (PFS) both in frontline and relapsed setting. For frontline therapy GVe is approved in this setting based on data from the CLL14 trial in an unfit population. However, data from a fit cohort are not yet available. The GAIA (CLL13) trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of three Ven+CD20 antibody-based regimens in comparison to CIT as a frontline treatment for fit pts with CLL and without TP53 mutation/deletion. Methods: Treatment-naïve fit (CIRS ≤6, normal creatinine clearance with ≥ 70ml/min) CLL pts requiring therapy were eligible. Based on known poor response to CIT, pts with TP53 aberrations were excluded. Pts were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive six courses of CIT (FCR for pt ≤65 years: fludarabine 25 mg/m² d1-3, cyclophosphamide 250 mg/m² d1-3, rituximab 375 mg/m² d1 cycle 1 and 500 mg/m² d1 cycle 2-6; BR for pt >65 years: bendamustine 90mg/m² d1-2, rituximab) or one of three venetoclax (V) combinations (standard ramp-up from cycle 1 d22, 400 mg/d cycle 2-12): V and rituximab (375/500mg/m² d1 cycle 1-6) [RVe], V and obinutuzumab (1000 mg d1, 8, 15 cycle 1 and d1 cycle 2-6) [GVe], or V, obinutuzumab and ibrutinib (420 mg/d cycle 1-12, if MRD-detectable continued until cycle 36) [GIVe] . Pts were stratified according to country, Binet stage and age (≤ 65/> 65 years). The co-primary endpoints of the trial are (1) the rate of uMRD ( Trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02950051). Results: A total of 926 pts (CIT: 229 (150 FCR, 79 BR), RVe: 237, GVe: 229, GIVe: 231) with a median age of 61 years (range 27-84) were accrued between 12/2016 and 09/2019. The majority of pts were in advanced Binet stage (B: 37.8%, C: 35.6%) and unmutated IGHV status was present in 56%. Fourteen pts did not receive study treatment (13 FCR, 1 GVe) and were not included in the safety population. The data cut for the first co-primary endpoint analysis was February 28, 2021. The median observation time was 27.9 months. The co-primary endpoint uMRD in PB at MO15 was met as the rate of uMRD in ITT population was significantly higher in GVe compared to CIT: 86.5% (97.5% CI 80.6-91.1) vs 52.0% (CI 44.4-59.5; p The most common grade 3-5 treatment-emergent AE were neutropenia (50.5% of all pts), thrombocytopenia (12.2%), tumor lysis syndrome (7.5%), infusion-related reaction (7.2%), febrile neutropenia (6.5%) and pneumonia (5.3%)). Atrial fibrillation and bleeding events occurred more frequently in GIVe while infusion-related reactions were most common in the GVe arm (Table 1). The absolute numbers of second malignancies were 33, 19, 22 and 21 for CIT, RVe, GVe and GIVe. Fatal AEs occurred in 5, 7, 6 and 9 of the patients. Conclusions: The time-limited therapies of GVe and GIVe provided superior uMRD rates in PB at MO 15 compared to CIT. In addition, uMRD rates in BM and CRR were higher in GVe and GIVe in particular than in CIT. All arms showed a good safety profile in this fit pt population. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Eichhorst: AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Speakers Bureau; Hexal: Speakers Bureau; ArQule: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oxford Biomedica (UK): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Consultant Department I for Internal Medicine: Consultancy; University Hospital of Cologne: Current Employment. Kater: Genmab, LAVA: Other: Ad Board, Steering Committee; Janssen, AstraZeneca: Other: Ad Board, steering committee, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Ad Board, Research Funding; BMS, Roche/Genentech: Other: Ad Board, , Research Funding. Von Tresckow: Celgene: Other: travel grant; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Other; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Reasearch support, travel grant; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Reasearch support, travel grant; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: advisory board, travel grant. Staber: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Tadmor: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Poulsen: Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Janssens: Sanofi: Consultancy; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Beigene, AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Trael Grant, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie, Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Noesslinger: Roche: Speakers Bureau; Abbvie,: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Jaeger: Norvartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Frederiksen: Abbvie: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Alexion: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Hebart: Roche: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Simon: Gilead: Other: Travel support. Fink: AbbVie: Other: travel grant; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Fischer: Abbvie: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel Grants. Kreuzer: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ritgen: Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Chugai: Consultancy; MSD: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Travel support. Brüggemann: Amgen: Other: Advisory Board, Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Levin: Roche, Janssen, Abbvie: Other: Travel Expenses, Ad-Board. Stilgenbauer: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis: Other: Research Support; AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis: Consultancy; AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis: Honoraria; AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis: Research Funding. Hallek: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. OffLabel Disclosure: Ibrutinib in combaintion with Venetoclax + Obinutuzumab is not approved.

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have an impaired antibody response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination. Here, we evaluated the antibody response to a third BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in patients with CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) who failed to achieve a humoral response after standard 2-dose vaccination regimen. Anti–severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies were measured 3 weeks after administration of the third dose. In 172 patients with CLL, the antibody response rate was 23.8%. Response rate among actively treated patients (12.0%; n = 12/100) was lower compared with treatment-naïve patients (40.0%; n = 16/40; OR = 4.9, 95% CI 1.9-12.9; P < .001) and patients off-therapy (40.6%; n = 13/32; OR = 5.0, 95% CI 1.8-14.1; P < .001), (P < .001). In patients actively treated with Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors or venetoclax ± anti-CD20 antibody, response rates were extremely low (15.3%, n = 9/59, and 7.7%, n = 3/39, respectively). Only 1 of the 28 patients (3.6%) treated with anti-CD20 antibodies

BACKGROUND/AIM: We present the case of a 19-year-old male patient diagnosed concomitantly with extensive thromboses (including two intra-cardiac masses and Budd-Chiari syndrome), as well as acute myeloid leukemia. This necessitated prompt deployment of a monitoring and treatment strategy which included twice-daily blood count assessment, multiple platelet transfusions and anti-coagulation therapy with dose-adjustment per blood count during both induction and consolidation chemotherapy. Multiple factors are believed to contribute to the development of thrombosis in acute leukemia such as diffuse intravascular coagulation, cytokine release and chemotherapy. CASE REPORT: Our patient presented early on in the COVID-19 pandemic, delaying his seeking out medical treatment and we suspect this to have contributed to his 'catastrophic' thrombotic presentation. Well-structured guidelines to help clinicians manage these patients are lacking, and most data are from retrospective analyses or case reports. Our patient continued full-dose anticoagulant therapy until successfully undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplant. The thrombi eventually diminished in size, and the patient was not diagnosed with any further thrombotic events. CONCLUSION: Our case highlights the feasibility of intensive monitoring and provision of platelet transfusion as necessary in order to safely administer low molecular weight heparin from the outset of chemotherapy.

This national Israeli multicenter retrospective study aimed to characterize the clinical course of COVID-19 infection among patients with hematological malignancies, with special emphasis on treatment efficacy and outcome. Clinical and laboratory data from haemato-oncological patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from 16 medical centers were centrally reported. Multivariate regression analyses were used to determine variables associated with severe disease, hospitalization, and mortality. In total, 313 patients were included: 103 (35.7%) developed severe/critical respiratory infection, 178 (61.4%) were hospitalized, and 60 (20.0%) died. Age > 70 years was associated with severe/critical disease (p = 0.036) and mortality (p = 0.023), hypertension with severe/critical disease (p = 0.046) and hospitalization (p = 0.001), active haemato-oncological treatment with hospitalization (p = 0.009), and remdesivir treatment was associated with decreased mortality (p = 0.021). Convalescent plasma, enoxaparin, and corticosteroids resulted in no clinical benefit. In conclusion, COVID-19 infection seems particularly severe in patients with hematological malignancies, and of all examined therapies, remdesivir appears to be the most effective.

Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is common in young adults and considered curable in most patients. Young HL survivors (HLS) are at risk of long-term adverse effects. Our study aimed to assess various fatigue and quality of life (QoL) complaints, and their correlations with treatment. Self-reported questionnaires assessing fatigue (MFI-20) and QoL-related issues (EORTC-QOL-C-30) were used to examine HLS aged 18-65 who completed first-line chemotherapy ± radiotherapy (RT) and were in complete remission for at least six months post-therapy. The cohort included 120 HLS (median age 32 years), assessed between 6 months and 15 years post-treatment. About 28% presented with severe fatigue and severely reduced QoL. Higher fatigue levels were associated with four cycles of the ABVD + RT. Young HLS experience high levels of persistent physical fatigue, emotional distress, and cognitive decline that are insufficiently investigated. Assessment of these complaints is essential and further investigation may provide tailored solutions for a better QoL for HLS.

Background Major advances in the treatment of patients with hairy cell leukemia (HCL) have been made following the introduction of purine analogues. The major significant short-term toxicity of cladribine therapy are neutropenia and neutropenic fever (NF) which may be life-threatening. Aim In this retrospective study, we compared the incidence and duration of neutropenia and hospitalization in patients with HCL treated with cladribine followed by peg-filgrastim as primary prophylaxis versus daily filgrastim given “on demand” according to absolute neutrophil count (ANC). Methods Medical records of patients with HCL diagnosed and followed in 12 medical centers in Israel during 1985–2015 were examined for details of disease at diagnosis. The efficacy of peg-filgrastim and filgrastim was assessed by evaluating the incidence of neutropenia (ANC 9 ]/L), number and length of hospitalizations, and number of days from the last day of therapy to recovery of ANC to >1.0 × 10 [ 9 ]/L. Results The study population included 202 patients with HCL, 159 of whom (80.7%) were treated with cladribine; 78 patients (49%) required hospitalization for the administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics due to NF. Twenty-eight (19%) patients were treated with peg-filgrastim as primary prophylaxis, while 74 (64%) received filgrastim “on demand” due to neutropenia. Median length of hospitalization, and nadir duration were 8 and 18 days respectively (p = 0.71, p = 0.44). Conclusions Infectious complications post-cladribine treatment remain high. No difference was found in terms of incidence of NF, number of febrile days, and nadir duration in patients receiving primary peg-filgrastim prophylaxis compared to filgrastim given on demand. Both approaches are justifiable, and the choice remains at the physician’s discretion.

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have a suboptimal humoral response to vaccination. Recently, BNT162b2, an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine with a high efficacy of 95% in immunocompetent individuals, was introduced. We investigated the safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in patients with CLL from nine medical centers in Israel, Overall 400 patients were included, of whom 373 were found to be eligible for the analysis of antibody response. The vaccine appeared to be safe and only grade 1-2 adverse events were seen in 50% of the patients. Following the second dose, an antibody response was detected in 43% of the cohort. Among these CLL patients, 61% of the treatment-na ve patients responded to the vaccine, while responses developed in only 18% of those with ongoing disease, 37% of those previously treated with a BTK inhibitor and 5% of those recently given an anti-CD20 antibody. Among patients treated with BCL2 as monotherapy or in combination with anti-CD20, 62% and 14%, respectively, developed an immune response. There was a high concordance between neutralizing antibodies and positive serological response to spike protein. Based on our findings we developed a simple seven-factor score including timing of any treatment with anti-CD20, age, treatment status, and IgG, IgA, IgM and hemoglobin levels. The sum of all the above parameters can serve as a possible estimate to predict whether a given CLL patient will develop sufficient antibodies. In conclusion, the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was found to be safe in patients with CLL, but its efficacy is limited, particularly in treated patients.

Background: One of the main obstacles of providing home-based palliative care to transfusion-dependent hematology patients is the lack of home transfusions services. While healthcare professionals are concerned with safety and cost of home transfusions, the attitude of the patients toward home transfusions are mostly unknown. Aim: To obtain quantitative data regarding the willingness and concerns of transfusion-dependent patients with hematological diseases toward the option of home transfusions. Design: A cross sectional survey including a self-administered questionnaire in one of the three main spoken languages in Israel was administered to patients in 17 hospital hematology outpatient clinics between May 2019 and March 2020. Results: About 52% of 385 patients that participated in the survey preferred home transfusions to hospital transfusions. Gender, age, education, or type of disease were not associated with preference for home transfusions, nor were hospital location or its size. The likelihood to prefer home transfusions was significantly higher among the Hebrew-speakers and those who had not experienced adverse effects previously. The most significant factor associated with preference of home transfusions was a perceived negative effect of hospital-based transfusion on quality of life. The main reason to reject home transfusions was fear of possible adverse effects and concerns over losing contact with the medical staff at the treating hospital. Conclusion: These data suggest that a significant portion of transfusion-dependent patients in Israel view home transfusions as a preferred treatment option and that its successful implementation requires maintaining ongoing contact with the treating hospital.

The efficacy of polatuzumab vedotin in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma outside clinical study are undetermined. This retrospective study examined the efficacy and safety of polatuzumab vedotin administered in real life settings. Forty-seven patients, 31 with

Background Lenalidomide and ixazomib maintenance improve long-term outcomes in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. However, there is less evidence to support bortezomib (BTZ) maintenance therapy, and real-life data on maintenance are scarce. We investigated the efficacy and safety of BTZ maintenance therapy in NDMM. Patients and Methods A retrospective multisite study was performed in 6 medical centers in Israel. All consecutive patients with NDMM diagnosed between January 1, 2010, and July 3, 2019, who received a BTZ-based induction, with or without an autologous transplantation, followed by BTZ maintenance therapy, were identified. Maintenance therapy was defined as BTZ (1.3 mg/m2) once every 2 weeks, administered subcutaneously alone or with dexamethasone, or weekly BTZ monotherapy. Results A total of 105 patients were identified, 58 of whom had received a transplant (transplant eligible) and 47 who had not (not transplant eligible). During BTZ maintenance therapy, 96% had one or more adverse event, 11.5% had grade 3 or higher adverse events, and 11.5% discontinued treatment due to toxicity. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were 45 and 91.5 months, respectively; 4-year survival was 88%. Adverse cytogenetics was associated with worse PFS (24 vs. 46 months, P = .001). In subgroup analysis, adverse cytogenetics were associated with worse PFS (P Conclusion Analysis of multisite real-life data showed that BTZ maintenance therapy is safe, well tolerated, and effective. Median PFS was similar to that reported with alternative maintenance strategies. Our findings further support its use among patients with adverse cytogenetics, it may also be relevant for patients with lenalidomide-intolerant disease.

In recent years, considerable progress has been made in frontline therapy for elderly/physically unfit patients with CLL. The combination of obinutuzumab and chlorambucil (O-Clb) has been shown to prolong progression free survival (PFS, median PFS-31.5 months) and overall survival (OS) compared to chlorambucil alone. More recently, obinutuzumab given in combination with either ibrutinib or venetoclax improved PFS but not OS when compared to O-Clb. In this retrospective multinational, multicenter co-operative study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of frontline treatment with O ± Clb in unfit patients with CLL, in a “real-world” setting. Patients with documented del (17p13.1)/TP53 mutation were excluded. A total of 437 patients (median age, 75.9 years; median CIRS score, 8; median creatinine clearance, 61.1 mL/min) were included. The clinical overall response rate was 80.3% (clinical complete and partial responses in 38.7% and 41.6% of patients, respectively). Median observation time was 14.1 months and estimated median PFS was 27.6 months (95% CI, 24.2-31.0). In a multivariate analysis, high-risk disease [del (11q22.3) and/or IGHV-unmutated], lymph nodes of diameter > 5 cm, obinutuzumab monotherapy and reduced cumulative dose of obinutuzumab, were all independently associated with shorter PFS. The median OS has not yet been reached and estimated 2-year OS is 88%. In conclusion, in a “real-world” setting, frontline treatment with O-Clb achieves PFS comparable to that reported in clinical trials. Inferior outcomes were noted in patients with del (11q22.3) and/or unmutated IGHV and those treated with obinutuzumab-monotherapy. Thus, O-Clb can be still considered as legitimate frontline therapy for unfit CLL patients with low-risk disease.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate disease characteristics and long-term outcomes in patients requiring second-line treatment following fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR), for relapsed/refractory disease (R/R), or following discontinuation due to toxicities. METHOD A retrospective analysis of 126 chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients treated with frontline FCR: 63 received second-line treatment (41 relapsed, nine refractory [SD/PD], 13 prior toxicity). Time to next treatment (TTNT) was calculated from beginning FCR to initiation of second-line therapy. Overall and event-free survival was calculated from initiation of salvage treatment (OS2/EFS2). RESULTS Median follow-up for the entire cohort was 67 and 37 months from second-line therapy. TTNT

Background/aim In chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) has generally been reported to be within normal limits and leukocytosis is due to absolute lymphocytosis. However, other cell types such as neutrophils and monocytes may also exceed the normal range in this disorder. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the frequency and prognostic value of neutrophilia defined as an ANC>7×109/l and monocytosis- an absolute monocyte count (AMC)>1×109/l in 113 patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Materials and methods We analyzed clinical and laboratory data from the records of patients with CLL followed in the Hematology unit of a tertiary hospital in Israel. Patients were categorized according to their ANC and AMC before treatment and their data compared. Results In 24 (21%) patients, neutrophilia was present at diagnosis while 40 (35%) had monocytosis. We identified that 9% of cases had neutrophilia with normal AMC. This subgroup of patients had a better prognosis with lower mortality rate, longer time-to-treatment interval and a higher rate of complete or partial response to treatment compared to patients without neutrophilia or monocytosis. Conclusion The presence of neutrophilia without monocytosis before treatment appears to be associated with a more favorable prognosis in CLL. These observations still need to be confirmed and validated in a larger cohort of patients.

Plasma cell dyscrasias (PCDs) are disorders of plasma cells having in common the production of a monoclonal M-protein. They include a spectrum of conditions that may represent a natural progression of the same disease from monoclonal gammopathy of unknown significance to asymptomatic and symptomatic multiple myeloma, plasma cell leukemia, and Waldenström's macroglobulinemia. In PCDs, the immune system is actively suppressed through the secretion of suppressive factors and the recruitment of immune suppressive subpopulations. In this study, we examined the expression of two subpopulations of cells with immunosuppressive activity, monocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) and monocytes expressing latency-associated peptide (LAP), in patients with different PCDs and in healthy volunteers.A total of 27 consecutive patients with PCDs were included in this study. Nineteen healthy volunteers served as controls.We observed a hierarchical correlation between disease activity and the presence of monocytes with immunosuppressive activity.These results suggest that MDSCs and monocytes expressing LAP have diverging roles in PCDs and may perhaps serve as biomarkers of tumor activity and bulk.Amaç: Plazma hücreli diskrazi (PHD), monoklonal M-proteinin üretimine sahip olan plazma hücrelerinin bozukluklarıdır. Aynı hastalığın, önemi bilinmeyen monoklonal gammopatiden, asemptomatik ve semptomatik multipl myeloma, plazma hücreli lösemi ve Waldenström makroglobulinemiye doğru doğal ilerlemesini temsil edebilen bir dizi spektrum içerir. PHD’lerde, baskılayıcı faktörlerin salgılanması ve bağışıklık baskılayıcı alt popülasyonların katılımı ile bağışıklık sistemi aktif olarak baskılanır. Bu çalışmada, PHD’lerin ve sağlıklı gönüllülerin, immün baskılayıcı aktiviteye sahip iki alt popülasyonundaki; monositik myeloid kökenli baskılayıcı hücreler (MKBH) ve latent asosiye peptit (LAP) eksprese eden monositlerin, ekspresyonunu incelenmiştir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu çalışmaya PHD’li toplam 27 hasta dahil edildi. On dokuz sağlıklı gönüllü, kontrol olarak kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Hastalık aktivitesi ile immünosüpresif aktivitesi olan monositler arasında hiyerarşik bir ilişki gözlenmiştir. Sonuç: Bu sonuçlar LAP anlatımı gösteren MKBH’lerin ve monositlerin, PHD’lerde farklı rollere sahip olduğunu ve tümör aktivitesi ve kitle biyobelirteçleri olarak kullanılabileceğini düşündürmektedir.

Acquired amegakaryocytic thrombocytopenia (AAT), a rare entity characterized by severe thrombocytopenia and the absence of megakaryocytes in the bone marrow, may mimic or precede the diagnosis of aplastic anemia (AA). Here, we describe a patient who presented with apparent Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-associated immune thrombocytopenia resistant to several lines of therapies, which was in fact a form of AAT with some features of AA. He eventually responded to therapy with eltrombopag, cyclosporine A (CSA), and antithymocyte globulin (ATG) and recovered completely. EBV infection is known to cause a variety of benign and malignant hematologic disorders, including bone marrow failure. However, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first case report of EBV-associated AAT. Treatment options for AAT are still not well defined, and even response to eltrombopag together with CSA and ATG does not always imply successful therapy. The natural history of EBV infection may well be sufficient to explain unexpected eventual recovery.

Background: Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) are known to have a suboptimal immune response of both humoral and cellular arms. Recently, a BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was introduced with a high efficacy of 95% in immunocompetent individuals. Approximately half of the patients with CLL fail to mount a humoral response to the vaccine, as detected by anti-spike antibodies. Currently, there is no data available regarding T-cell immune responses following the vaccine of these patients. Aim of the study: To investigate T-cell response determined by interferon gamma (IFNγ) secretion in patients with CLL following BNT162b mRNA Covid-19 vaccine, in comparison with serologic response. Methods: CLL patients from 3 medical centers in Israel were included in the study. All patients received two 30-μg doses of BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer), administered intramuscularly 3 weeks apart. For evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 Spike-specific T-cell responses, blood samples were stimulated ex-vivo with Spike protein and secreted IFNγ was quantified (ELISA DuoSet, R&D Systems, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA). T-cell immune response was considered to be positive for values above 25 pg/ml of Spike-specific response. T-cell subpopulations were characterized by flow cytometry (CD3, CD4, CD8). Anti-spike antibody tests were performed using the Architect AdviseDx SARS-CoV-2 IgG II (Abbot, Lake Forest, Illinois, USA). Statistical analysis was performed using Mann-Whitney test for continuous variables while the Wald Chi-square test was used for comparing categorical variables. Results: 83 patients with CLL were tested for T-cell response. Blood samples were collected after a median time of 139 days post administration of the second dose of vaccine (IQ range 134-152). Out of 83 patients, 68 were eligible for the analysis (with positive internal control). Median age of the cohort was 68 years (56-72); and 44 (65%) were males. 19 (28%) patients were treatment-naïve, most of whom were Binet stage A or B. 31 (46%) patients were on therapy: 17 with a BTK-inhibitor, and 13 with a venetoclax-based regimen. 29 (42%) patients were previously treated with anti-CD20, 13 of whom in the 12 months period prior to vaccination. T cell immune response to the vaccine was evident in 22 (32%) patients. CIRS Score>6 and specifically hypertension were statistically significantly associated with a lower T-cell response (univariate analysis, p-value The presence of T-cell response highly correlated with both the detection of anti-spike IgG antibodies following the second dose (p=0.0239) and at the time of T-cell testing (n=66, p=0.048, Table 2). While 50% of patients who tested positive for anti-spike IgG antibodies also developed positive T-cell response, only 17% of patients who did not develop T-cell response, tested positive for anti-spike antibodies. Importantly, 24% of the patients who tested negative for anti-spike IgG antibodies, developed positive T cell response. Moreover, the level of the T-cell response (log transformed) correlated linearly with (log transformed) anti-spike IgG titer (adjusted r=0.26 and p =0.026 according to Pearson correlation, Figure 1). Conclusion: We show that cellular immune response to the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, is blunted in most CLL patients and that there is a correlation between T-cell response and serologic response to the vaccine. These results need to be validated in a larger cohort. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Itchaki: AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Benjamini: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Tadmor: AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is the most common leukemia in the Western world, characterized by the presence of long-lived circulating leukemic cells in the peripheral blood that may infiltrate all organs, particularly those of the reticulo-endothelial system. Liver enlargement and elevation of liver enzymes related to specific involvement by the underlying disease are well-recognized features in these patients. In CLL, the differential diagnosis of liver disorders is broad and includes liver infiltration by leukemic cells, immunologic manifestations associated with CLL, primary and secondary hepatic malignancies, drug-induced hepatotoxicity, infections, and Richter transformation. The above conditions can cause serious and even fatal complications such as acute liver failure. The aim of this study was to summarize all available published literature on hepatic manifestations encountered in CLL. This review contains sections on liver enlargement because of leukemic infiltration, autoimmune-induced hepatic dysfunction, acute liver failure, drug-induced liver toxicity, and associated malignancies. A high index of clinical suspicion and appropriate diagnostic evaluation, including liver biopsy in special circumstances, are important for both accurate diagnosis and deciding on the most appropriate treatment to prevent the development of fatal complications of acute liver failure.

Background: Venetoclax-based combinations were recently approved to treat patients (pts) with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. Limited prospective 'real-world' data is available on treatment patterns of venetoclax-based therapy in routine clinical practice. We investigated patterns of patient selection, efficacy, toxicity, patient related outcome and post-remission management in a nationwide multicenter prospective observational trial. Methods: Newly diagnosed pts with AML were enrolled at the time of venetoclax-based therapy initiation from 10 medical centers in Israel. Demographic, clinical and patient-related baseline characteristics were documented. Treatment patterns, safety and efficacy outcomes are reported. Results: Between August 12, 2019, and June 17, 2021(data cut) ,127 AML pts were enrolled to receive venetoclax based therapy. Baseline patient and disease characteristics are reported in Table 1. The main reasons for physician's choice of venetoclax-based therapy were age ≥75, comorbidities and ECOG ≥2 (patient related factors) in 76% of cases and adverse disease biology predicting poor response to intensive chemotherapy (disease related factors) in 24% of cases. Most pts started therapy in an inpatient setting, 82 (64.6%) with a median hospitalization duration of 14 days, while 44 pts (34.6%) started therapy as out pts. Pts received a median of 3.8 cycles of therapy (range 1-21). Most pts (97%) received venetoclax in combination with hypomethylating agents. The full dose of 400mg QD after a median ramp-up duration of 3 days was achieved in 88% of the pts. Dose interruptions and dose modifications during follow-up occurred in 59 (46%) and 30 (24%) of pts, respectively. To allow for adequate follow up for response assessment, efficacy analysis was limited to pts enrolled prior to December 31, 2020, and included 108 pts with a median follow-up of 8 months (range 1-20). As of data cut, 93 pts completed cycle 1 of therapy, 66 pts completed cycle 3 and 39 pts completed cycle 6. 29 pts (27%) are still active on treatment. Best composite complete remission [CCR = complete remission (CR) plus CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi)] was achieved in 62 (57%) pts. CCR rates were assessed in different pre-defined subgroups. Best CCR in pts selected for therapy based on disease-related and patient-related factors were 70% and 54% respectively. Best CCR in pts with AML arising from MPN and pts with other AML were 45% and 58% respectively. Estimated median overall survival (OS) of all pts was 9.6 months (range 7.4-10.6) (Figure 1). Achieving CCR was associated with a superior probability for survival. Estimated median OS was 13.6 months (range 10.6 - not reached) in pts achieving CCR and 4.2 months (range 1.2-10.3) in non-CCR (p Allogeneic transplantation following venetoclax based treatment was offered to 16 (26%) pts with a median age of 71 years (range 43-77). Last documented response prior to transplant was CR in 5 (32%) pts, CRi 9 (56%), MLFS 1 (6%) and PR in 1 (6%) patient. Among grade ≥3 AEs were febrile neutropenia in 28% and infections in 21% of pts. Clinical and laboratory tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) was documented in 2 and 4 pts, respectively. Antifungal prophylaxis was administered in 20% of pts and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) support was used in 17% of pts in response. Early death rate at 30 and 60 days were 7% and 13%, respectively. Conclusion: This prospective real-world analysis reveals unique patterns of patient selection and venetoclax treatment utilization in a medical system with wide access for this indication. Venetoclax-based therapies are effective and associated with manageable toxicity, including in AML patient populations that were excluded from previous registration trials with comparable CCR and early death rates. Factors associated with patient selection in the 'real-world' setting and immature follow up data most probably led to a shorter estimated median OS in this analysis as compared to controlled trials. The REVIVE study continues to expand and is expected to provide additional insights on treatment patterns, management as well as clinical and patient related outcomes. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Wolach: Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Neopharm: Consultancy. Levi: AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lavie: AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Fees for lectures; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Fees for lectures; Roche: Other: Fees for lectures; Novartis: Other: Fees for lectures. Tavor: AbbVie: Consultancy. Hellmann: AbbVie: Consultancy. Tadmor: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Zuckerman: Gilead Sciences: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Cellect Biotechnology: Honoraria; BioSight Ltd: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Orgenesis Inc.: Honoraria. Stemer: AbbVie: Consultancy. Berelovich: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ofek: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Frankel: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Grunspan: AbbVie: Current Employment, Other: May hold equity. Ofran: Medison Israel: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Moshe: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Lectures; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Lectures; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Lectures.

Background: Overexpression of the nuclear export protein exportin 1 (XPO1) mediates the functional inactivation of tumor suppressor proteins (TSPs), facilitates the export of oncogene mRNA thus facilitating oncoprotein expression, is associated with poor prognosis in multiple myeloma (MM), and contributes to immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) resistance. Selinexor is an oral, first-in-class, selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) compound that by blocking XPO1 forces the nuclear retention and activation of TSPs and nuclear retention and inactivation of oncoproteins. 1 Selinexor is approved with low-dose dexamethasone ± bortezomib for patients with previously treated MM. Pomalidomide plus dexamethasone (Pd) has an overall response rate (ORR) of ~30% and median PFS (mPFS) of ~4 months in patients with MM refractory to bortezomib and lenalidomide. We hypothesized that selinexor could be safely combined with Pd (XPd) and would improve the combination's efficacy. Methods: In the XPd arm of the multi-arm Phase 1b/2 STOMP study, selinexor was evaluated at 60, 80, or 100 mg in combination with Pd. Study objectives were to determine the maximum tolerated dose and recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) and to assess the safety and activity of the XPd regimen. The dose of selinexor 60 mg once weekly (QW), pomalidomide 4 mg once daily (days 1-21), dexamethasone 40 mg QW (XPd-60) was the lowest evaluated dose of selinexor in combination with the approved dose of Pd, and in light of the marked efficacy of that dose (ORR 65%), Phase 2 cohorts at a lower (40 mg weekly) dose of selinexor (XPd-40), were evaluated. Of the 19 patients enrolled at XPd-40 and evaluable for efficacy, 12 patients were enrolled into STOMP and 7 patients were enrolled at the same dose level and similar inclusion criteria into a parallel study XPORT-MM-028. Results: As of 14 July 2021, 39 patients were enrolled into the 60 (N=20) and 40 (N=19) mg selinexor dose levels in combination with Pd: 19 males, median age 66.0 years (range 37-85 years), median number of prior lines of therapy 2 (range 1-9). 85% of patients had MM refractory to a proteasome inhibitor (PI; bortezomib or carfilzomib or ixazomib), 79% to an IMiD (thalidomide or lenalidomide or pomalidomide), 33% to an anti-CD38 mAb (daratumumab or isatuximab); 26% had triple class refractory disease. Common hematologic, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) consisted of (all grades, grade ≥3) neutropenia (72%, 59%; and two cases of grade 3 [G3] febrile neutropenia one in each of the dose levels), and anemia (51%, 15% all G3). Non-hematologic TEAEs were reversible and included fatigue (56%, 10% all G3) and nausea (49%, 0%). On XPd-60, the RP2D (N=20), ORR was 65% (1 stringent complete response [sCR], 5 very good partial responses [VGPR], 7 PR); mPFS was 8.9 months (95% CI, 7.6 - NE, median follow-up 8.3 months). In patients treated at XPd-40 (N=19), ORR was 42% (3 VGPR, 5 PR); mPFS was not reached (95% CI, 5.7 - NE, median follow-up 2.8 months). Among patients who had received anti-CD38 mAb, the ORR was 64% overall and 100% at the RP2D (1 sCR, 2 VGPR, 3 PR). All patients who had MM refractory to pomalidomide (N=3; all at the 60 mg dose level) responded with 1 VGPR and 2 PR. For the 21 responders across both dose levels, median time to response was 1.0 months (95% CI 1.0 - 2.0) and median duration of response was not reached (95% CI: 8.0, NE). Conclusions: Selinexor, once weekly, can be safely combined with Pd in patients with relapsed MM. The all-oral combination of XPd is highly active with an ORR of 65% at XPd-60, the RP2D, and an ORR of 42% at XPd-40 dose level (compared to expected ORR ~30% for Pd). The high ORR that was achieved at the RP2D, including in patients previously treated with anti-CD38 mAb, supports XPd-60 as a promising therapy with no significant cross-resistance to anti-CD38, PIs or lenalidomide. No new safety signals were identified. The most common TEAE, neutropenia, is a common AE of Pd and was managed effectively with standard G-CSF. The regimen leverages the concept of mechanism switching from an anti-CD38 mAb-based regimen to a selinexor-based regimen. These data support the new Phase 3 study (XPORT-MM-031) with an all-oral combination of XPd vs elotuzumab-Pd in patients who have been previously treated with lenalidomide, a PI, and an anti-CD38 mAb. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures White: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Forus: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria. Chen: Astrazeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy. Baljevic: BMS/Celgene: Consultancy; Exelixis: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Other: Advisory Board; BMS/Celgene: Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen Research: Other: Advisory Board; Oncopeptides: Other: Advisory Board. Tuchman: Caelum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi / Genzyme: Consultancy, Research Funding; Shattuck Labs: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy. Bahlis: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria. Schiller: Eli Lilly: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ambit: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Geron: Research Funding; Genentech-Roche: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Trovagene: Research Funding; Gamida Cell Ltd.: Research Funding; Bio: Research Funding; Pfizer: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Deciphera: Research Funding; Regimmune: Research Funding; Delta-Fly: Research Funding; FujiFilm: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Kaiser Permanente: Consultancy; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Arog: Research Funding; Actuate: Research Funding; Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Elevate: Research Funding; Samus: Research Funding; PrECOG: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ono-UK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sangamo: Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mateon: Research Funding; Pharma: Consultancy; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Johnson & Johnson: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Biomed Valley Discoveries: Research Funding; ASH foundation: Other: Chair-unpaid; Sellas: Research Funding; Ono: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Ariad: Research Funding; Leukemia & Lymphoma Society: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingleheim: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Research Funding; National Marrow Donor Program: Research Funding; NIH: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Pharmamar: Research Funding; UC Davis: Research Funding; UCSD: Research Funding; Evidera: Consultancy; NCI: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Lipe: Seagen Inc.: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; sanofi: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; amgen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Harpoon: Research Funding. Kotb: Akcea: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Amgen: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Sutherland: Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy. Bensinger: Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; BMS, Janssen, Poseida, Regeneron, Trillium: Research Funding. Madan: Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau. Sebag: Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Venner: GSK: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Leblanc: BMS/Celgene Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS: Research Funding. Monge: Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Tadmor: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. DeCastro: Karyopharm: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Van Domelen: Karyopharm: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Zhang: Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Mishal: Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Bentur: Karyopharm Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Shah: Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Shacham: Karyopharm: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Patents & Royalties: (8999996, 9079865, 9714226, PCT/US12/048319, and I574957) on hydrazide containing nuclear transport modulators and uses, and pending patents PCT/US12/048319, 499/2012, PI20102724, and 2012000928) . Kauffman: Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Gasparetto: Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy; Oncopeptite: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Connect Registry: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Introduction: In previously untreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), treatment with ibrutinib plus rituximab improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to the standard fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR) chemoimmunotherapeutic regimen, based on the results of the phase III ECOG-E1912 trial. The improvement in PFS with ibrutinib plus rituximab was observed in patients with unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region gene (IGHV) but not in those with an IGHV mutated profile. However, the efficacy of ibrutinib compared to FCR has not yet been investigated in the real-world setting. Methods: A multi-center retrospective "real-world" study to compare the efficacy of front-line ibrutinib monotherapy versus standard FCR in patients with CLL. Demographic and clinical data of the FCR cohort were retrieved from the Israeli CLL Study Group database and of the ibrutinib from the Italian multicenter "Campus CLL" network and the CLL database of the department of hematology at the Sourasky Medical Center. Patients with a documented del(17p) or those who are participating in clinical trials were excluded. In order to fit both treatment samples, the maximum follow-up was censored at 48 months. IBM SPSS Statistics was used to analyze PFS and OS by Kaplan Meier Estimator, Log-Rank test and Cox Regression. In order to control for differences in patients' characteristics, the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method with stabilized weights and truncation of 5% extreme score was applied by R. Results: A total of 235 patients who had been front-line treated with either FCR (n=136, 57.9%) or ibrutinib (n=99, 42.1%) were included (Table 1). Most patients were males (n=160, 68.1%), had an unmutated IGHV status (n=115, 70.6%) and were Binet stage B/C (n=191, 83.8%). By FISH, the most frequent abnormality was del(11q) (n=45, 23.1%) followed by trisomy12 (n=34, 17.4%) and del(13q) (n=43, 22.1%). Median time to first treatment was 29.4 months (IQR, 11.9-56.2), and it was not significantly different between ibrutinib (median=24.9 months, IQR 10.3-46.6) and FCR (median=34.0 months, IQR 13.8-60.1; p=0.101). Patients treated with FCR were younger than those treated with ibrutinib (median=58.4 years vs. 71.9 years; p65 years (n=100, 3-year PFS 89.4% vs. 53.1%; HR=3.9, 95% CI [1.6-9.9], p=0.002), Binet stage B/C (3-year PFS: 90.5% vs. 67.8%; HR=3.5, 95% CI [1.7-7.5], p Conclusions: In a real-world setting, front-line treatment with ibrutinib improves PFS and OS in patients with CLL. Similar to the results of the phase III ECOG-E1912 trial, the improvement in PFS was preferentially observed in patients with unmutated IGHV. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Herishanu: AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Medison: Honoraria. Goldschmidt: AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Fineman: AbbVie: Research Funding. Mauro: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Tskeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Reda: Abbvie: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Ruchlemer: AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Sportoletti: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Laurenti: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeiGene: Honoraria. Shvidel: AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Coscia: Janssen: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other; AstraZeneca: Honoraria. Tadmor: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Varettoni: AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Aviv: AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Murru: Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel and accommodation; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Rossi: Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Verastem: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Cellestia: Honoraria, Research Funding. Gaidano: Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astrazeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Cuneo: AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Gattei: abbVie: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Menarini: Research Funding.

Background: In early studies of venetoclax (ven) in CLL, severe tumor lysis syndromes (TLS) were observed leading to the implementation of multiple safety measures including a 5-week ramp up schedule. Since then, studies have consistently reported low rates of TLS in ven-treated patients (pts), most likely as a result of strict prophylactic and laboratory monitoring measures. Various lead-in regimens prior to the administration of ven were shown to be feasible and effective in reducing the risk of TLS in pts with CLL. However, no comparison of different pretreatment regimens has been performed so far in a prospective randomized trial. Using the set-up of the GAIA trial, we compared TLS incidence and formal TLS risk reduction between 3 different ven-based combinations. Methods: The phase 3 GAIA (CLL13) trial compared 3 different time-limited ven-based combinations against standard chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in fit, treatment-naïve pts with CLL. Pts were randomized to receive CIT (FCR in pts ≤65 years; BR in pts >65 years), ven and rituximab (RVe), ven and obinutuzumab (GVe), or ven, obinutuzumab and ibrutinib (GIVe). In RVe, GVe and GIVe, ven was added at cycle 1 day 22 (ramp up day 1) after a 21-day pretreatment with rituximab (1 dose), obinutuzumab (3 doses) or obinutuzumab (3 doses) plus ibrutinib (continuous) (Figure 1A). The safety population (i.e. all pts who received study treatment) of the ven-containing arms was used for this analysis. TLS was reported according to Cairo-Bishop criteria (Cairo M, Bishop M. Br J Haematol. 2004). For TLS risk evaluation, the most recent available CT/MRI and absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) were used. TLS risk was evaluated at baseline and at ramp up day 1, before the first dose of ven. The patients were categorized retrospectively according to the following TLS risk categories: high (any lymph node [LN] with largest diameter ≥10 cm or any LN with largest diameter ≥5 cm and ALC ≥25 G/L), intermediate (any LN ≥5 cm to Results: The safety population of all ven-containing arms comprised of 696 pts (RVe: 237, GVe: 228, GIVe: 231). Baseline TLS risk was high in 22%, 23% and 19% of pts in the RVe, GVe and GIVe arm, intermediate in 62%, 65%, 67% and low in 10.5%, 14.7% and 12.4% of pts, respectively. After the first 21 days of treatment (i.e. at ramp up day 1), the fraction of pts with a reduction in TLS risk varied between the treatment arms with 31.7% (RVe), 71.4% (GVe) and 47.3% (GIVe) of pts decreasing by at least one TLS risk category (Figure 1B). With regard to TLS risk reduction, GVe was superior to RVe (p In total, 36, 30 and 19 cases of TLS occurred in 29 (12.2%), 26 (11.4%) and 19 (8.2%) pts in the RVe, GVe and GIVe arm. The majority of TLS cases were categorized as CTC grade 3 (28 [RVe], 19 [GVe], 12 [GIVe]), only few CTC grade 4 TLS were reported (1 [RVe], 2 [GVe], 3 [GIVe]). There were no cases of fatal TLS and no pts requiring dialysis due to TLS. In the obinutuzumab arms the majority of TLS cases occurred before ramp up day 1 (GVe: 76.7%, GIVe: 68.4%), i.e. before any venetoclax intake, in contrast 80.6% of TLS cases in the RVe arm were reported during ven ramp up (Figure 2). While there was no significant difference in the cumulative TLS incidence between the treatment arms (p=0.334), there was an increase in TLS occurring after ramp up day 1 in the RVe arm compared to GVe (p Conclusions: This analysis represents the first comparison of the formal TLS risk reduction and actual TLS incidence of different ven-based combinations in a randomized trial. GVe led to the highest TLS risk reduction, while the lowest number of TLS cases occurred in the GIVe arm. Most TLS cases in the GVe and GIVe arms occurred before the start of ven. RVe was least effective in reducing TLS risk and in contrast to the obinutuzumab-containing arms, the vast majority of TLS cases was reported during the ven ramp up. The relatively high incidence of TLS in comparison to other trials might partly be a consequence of using different reporting criteria (Cairo-Bishop vs Howard criteria). No fatal TLS occurred in any of the treatment arms. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Von Tresckow: AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: advisory board, travel grant; Celgene: Other: travel grant; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Other; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Reasearch support, travel grant; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Reasearch support, travel grant. Niemann: Novo Nordisk Foundation: Research Funding; CSL Behring, Genmab, Takeda, Octapharma: Consultancy; Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kater: Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Ad Board, Research Funding; Janssen, AstraZeneca: Other: Ad Board, steering committee, Research Funding; Genmab, LAVA: Other: Ad Board, Steering Committee; BMS, Roche/Genentech: Other: Ad Board, , Research Funding. Staber: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Tadmor: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Levin: Roche, Janssen, Abbvie: Other: Travel Expenses, Ad-Board. Poulsen: Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Janssens: Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Trael Grant, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy; Beigene, AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie, Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Noesslinger: AbbVie: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Jansen: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Simon: Gilead: Other: Travel support. Fink: AbbVie: Other: travel grant; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Fischer: Abbvie: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel Grants. Wendtner: Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding. Ritgen: MSD: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Chugai: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Travel support. Brüggemann: Amgen: Other: Advisory Board, Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Stilgenbauer: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis: Honoraria; AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis: Other: Research Support; AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis: Research Funding; AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis: Consultancy. Hallek: Roche: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Eichhorst: Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Speakers Bureau; Hexal: Speakers Bureau; ArQule: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oxford Biomedica (UK): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Consultant Department I for Internal Medicine: Consultancy; University Hospital of Cologne: Current Employment. OffLabel Disclosure: The combination of obinutuzumab, venetoclax and ibrutinib is not approved for the treatment of CLL

Background: The BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax in combination with an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (rituximab or obinutuzumab) has demonstrated superior outcomes and manageable safety as compared to chemo-immunotherapy in phase III clinical trials for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Moreover, venetoclax-based regimens induced high rates of undetectable minimal residual disease (uMRD). Prospective data on the effectiveness of venetoclax-based regimens specifically with regard to achieving uMRD in a real-world setting are still lacking. Here we report the first interim analysis for efficacy and safety of an ongoing nationwide real-world study of venetoclax based therapy for CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL). Method: A prospective observational nationwide multicenter study. Treatment-naïve (TN) and relapsed/refractory (R/R) CLL/SLL patients were enrolled in 13 medical centers in Israel. The primary endpoint was clinical response, per physician assessment 12-months after the initiation of venetoclax treatment. Key secondary endpoints included progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and uMRD as assessed at a central laboratory by 8-color flow-cytometry. Results: Between February 10, 2019, and Jun 17, 2021 (data cut), 199 CLL/SLL patients were enrolled from 13 medical centers in Israel to receive venetoclax based therapy. The study included 83 TN and 116 R/R evaluable CLL/SLL patients with a median age of 69 years (range, 34-85) and 70.5 years (range, 25-91), respectively (Table 1). R/R patients had received a median of one prior therapy with a range up to 8, of these patients 60 (51.7%) were previously treated with a B-cell receptor inhibitor (BCRi) including ibrutinib in 52 (44.8%) and idelalisib in combination with rituximab in 6 (5.2%). TN patients had been treated with venetoclax in combination with obinutuzumab (92.8%) or rituximab (4.8%) and R/R patients received either venetoclax with rituximab (60.3%) or obinutuzumab (9.5%), venetoclax monotherapy (25.8%) or triple therapy with venetoclax, rituximab and ibrutinib in 5 (4.3%). Dose escalation of venetoclax to the recommended dose of 400 mg daily was achieved in 80.7% (n=67) of TN and 81% (n=94) of R/R patients. The median duration of ramp-up was 38 and 42 days in TN and R\R patients, respectively. Prior to therapy, tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) risk was considered high in 12% and 29.3% of TN and R/R patients, respectively (Table 1). Laboratory TLS occurred in one TN patient and 4 R/R patients, whereas 3 of the R/R patients experienced clinical TLS. Nineteen TN and 75 R/R patients had a follow-up of at least 12 months or discontinued study prematurely. The 12-month overall response rate (ORR) for TN and R/R patients was 89.5% [complete response (CR) 13 (68.4%), partial response (PR) 4 (21.1%)] and 73.3% [CR 37 (49.3%), PR 18 (24%)], respectively. In the R/R cohort, the 12-month ORR among assessed patients was 67.6% (25/37) in BCRi-exposed versus 85.7% (30/35) in BCRi-naïve patients. At 12 months, peripheral blood uMRD ( Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were reported in 34.9% of TN patients and 43.9% R/R patients. The most frequent grade ≥3 AEs documented were neutropenia (TN: 19.2% and R/R 17.2%), infections (TN: 4.8% and R/R: 21.5%) and febrile neutropenia (TN: 2.4% and in R/R: 2.6%). COVID-19 occurred in 7 patients including one death. At the time of data cut, 10 deaths occurred, one TN and 9 R/R patients. Causes for death included infections (5 patients), disease progression (2 patients), acute myeloid leukemia/ myelodysplastic syndrome (2 patients) and a soft-tissue sarcoma (1 patient). Conclusions: This first interim analysis of our ongoing prospective real-world study of venetoclax-based treatment for TN and R/R CLL/SLL, demonstrates high efficacy together with a high proportion of undetectable MRD levels and a favorable toxicity profile. These efficacy results are comparable to those reported in previous Phase III clinical trials for CLL, with no new safety signals. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Herishanu: AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria. Goldschmidt: AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Itchaki: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Levi: AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Aviv: AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Fineman: AbbVie: Research Funding. Dally: AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Tadmor: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ruchlemer: AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Abadi: AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Shvidel: AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Braester: AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Cohen: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Frankel: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ofek: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Berelovich: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Grunspan: AbbVie: Current Employment, Other: May hold equity. Benjamini: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Simple Summary Richter transformation is a significant and devastating complication of chronic lymphocytic leukemia. While its pathogenesis has been well-studied in terms of genetic and molecular changes and its diagnosis has been made easier by imaging and pathological techniques, its treatment is still an issue. Most patients are resistant to chemo-immunotherapy, and even novel agents do not seem to improve the prognosis in a significant way. Therefore, new combinations and novel drugs are currently being tested. In the current review, we summarize new data about the pathophysiology, biological, and clinical basis of Richter transformation, as well as the different treatments of this condition. Abstract Richter transformation (RT) is a poorly understood complication of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with a dismal prognosis. It is associated with a switch in histopathology and biology, generally with a transformation of the original CLL clone to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or less frequently to Hodgkin’s variant of Richter transformation (HVRT). It occurs in 2–10% of CLL patients, with an incidence rate of 0.5–1% per year, and may develop in treatment-naïve patients, although it is more common following therapy. In recent years, there has been a deeper understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of RT that involves the inactivation of the TP53 tumor suppressor gene in 50–60% of cases and the activation of aberrations of NOTCH1 and MYC pathways in about 30% of cases. Compared to the preceding CLL, 80% of cases with DLBCL-RT and 30% of HVRT harbor the same IGHV-D-J rearrangements, indicating a clonal evolution of the disease, while the remaining cases represent de novo lymphomas that are clonally unrelated. Despite advances in understanding the molecular variations and the pathogenesis of the disease, there is still no significant improvement in patient outcomes. However, if no clinical trials were designed for patients with RT in the past, now there many studies for these patients that incorporate new drugs and novel combinations that are being explored. In this review, we summarize the new information accumulated on RT with special emphasis on results involving the novel therapy tested for this entity, which represents an unmet clinical need.

Decreased absolute lymphocyte counts (ALCs) following frontline therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia may be associated with disease control, even in patients without evidence of minimal residual disease. We studied the prognostic significance of ALCs during the first year following treatment with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR). We evaluated 99 patients who achieved a partial response without lymphocytosis ( 1.8 vs not reached for ALC ≤ 0.7 at 9 months, P

Summary This multicentre study evaluated 5-year progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in early and advanced Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), where therapy was individualized based on initial prognostic factors and positron emission tomography-computed tomography performed after two cycles (PET-2). Between September 2006 and August 2013, 359 patients aged 18–60 years, were recruited in nine Israeli centres. Early-HL patients initially received ABVD (adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) ×2. Depending on initial unfavourable prognostic features, PET-2-positive patients received additional ABVD followed by involved-site radiotherapy (ISRT). Patients with negative PET-2 and favourable disease received ISRT or ABVD ×2; those with unfavourable disease received ABVD ×2 with ISRT or, alternatively, ABVD ×4. Advanced-HL patients initially received ABVD ×2 or escalated BEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, adriamycin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, prednisone; EB) ×2 based on their international prognostic score (≤2 or ≥3). PET-2-negative patients further received ABVD ×4; PET-2-positive patients received EB ×4 and ISRT to residual masses. With a median follow-up of 55 (13–119) months, 5-year PFS was 91% and 69% for PET-2-negative and positive early-HL, respectively; 5-year OS was 100% and 95%, respectively. For advanced-HL, the PFS was 81% and 68%, respectively (P = 0·08); 5-year OS was 98% and 91%, respectively. PET-2 positivity is associated with inferior prognosis in early-HL, even with additional ABVD and ISRT. Advanced-HL patients benefit from therapy escalation following positive PET-2. EB can be safely de-escalated to ABVD in PET-2-negative patients.

Nodular marginal zone lymphoma (NMZL) is a small B-cell lymphoma involving only lymph nodes and is the least common form of MZL constituting about 10% of cases. Patients usually present with advanced disease which must be distinguished from extranodal MZL with lymph node spread. NMZL shares cytological and immunophenotypic features with MALT and splenic MZL, but has a less favorable prognosis than these two categories. It occurs mostly in adults and pediatric cases are rare. Different therapeutic approaches have been used in NMZL, but because of the small patient numbers involved, more definitive treatment is still anticipated. Recent studies suggest that it probably represents a separate entity within the broader indolent lymphoma category. In NMZL there is an emerging need to utilize novel agents, already available for indolent lymphomas. Prospective studies are required to evaluate their therapeutic efficacy for NMZL in the future.

In recent years, there have been major advances in the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) particularly since the development of novel therapeutic agents, mostly “biological drugs.” One of the obvious advantages of these agents is the decreased rate of infectious complications occurring during the course of therapy, compared to the use of standard immuno-chemotherapy regimens. Here, we describe 3 patients with CLL and 1 with mantle cell lymphoma who developed severe life-threatening pneumonias, during monotherapy with ibrutinib. The first case was a 70-year-old woman with relapsed CLL who developed bilateral pneumonia with hypoxia 1 week after starting ibrutinib. She did not respond to broad-spectrum antibiotics and was treated empirically with trimethoprim-sulphamethoxazole and improved. In the second case, we describe a 76-year-old woman with relapsed CLL who developed recurrent pneumonia after 3 years of treatment with ibrutinib. Presuming that ibrutinib was the cause of pneumonitis with secondary infection, it was stopped with subsequent improvement. The third patient a 67 year-old man died because of severe bilateral necrotizing pneumonia due to invasive aspergillosis and mucormycosis with pulmonary hemorrhage. The fourth patient with relapsed mantle cell lymphoma died because of severe bilateral pneumonia, caused by pseudomonas and candida, despite receiving appropriate antibiotics. From this experience, we hypothesize that the etiology of severe pneumonia associated with ibrutinib treatment is probably multifactorial, involving factors like preexisting immune-suppression, drug induced pneumonitis and infections. We suggest that patients with CLL or other lymphoproliferative disorders with suspected pneumonia during monotherapy with ibrutinib should be very carefully evaluated and need to undergo complete diagnostic workup to establish an exact diagnosis. Understanding which patients with CLL or lymphoma treated with kinase inhibitors are at a higher risk for developing pulmonary complications could be one of the important future challenges, when selecting the best available therapy for these patients.

Background: The outcome of elderly patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) is poor and treatment options in these high-risk groups are limited. Recently, venetoclax combinations with hypomethylating agents or low dose cytarabine were approved to treat patients with AML ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. However limited prospective data is available on the safety and efficacy of venetoclax treatment in routine clinical practice. Israel is among the first countries to have approved venetoclax-based combinations as first line therapy for AML and this treatment is fully reimbursed via the national health system. Here we present the initial results of a prospective, multicenter, nationwide trial that sought to assess the use of venetoclax-based therapy in a real-world setting. Methods: A prospective observational nationwide multicenter trial. Newly diagnosed patients with AML were enrolled at the time of venetoclax-based therapy initiation. Demographic, clinical and patient-related baseline characteristics were documented. Treatment patterns, safety and efficacy outcomes are reported. Patient related outcomes were assessed at baseline and after cycle 3 using the EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaires. Results: A total of 70 patients were enrolled between August 2019 and June 2020 (data cut off) with a median age of 75 years (range 45-88) and a median follow-up of 74 days (8-232). Two-thirds of patients were males (62.9%). Over one-quarter (28.6%) of patients had an ECOG performance status of 2 or higher; the median modified Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was 0 (range 1-4) with 27.1% with a CCI ≥2. De-novo AML was documented in 44.3%, secondary AML was diagnosed in 52.8% (secondary to MDS (27.1%), MPNs (11.4%) and therapy related AML (14.3%)). European LeukemiaNet (ELN) risk category was favorable, intermediate and adverse in 8.6%, 30% and 42.9%, respectively (Table 1). Time from diagnosis to initiation of therapy was 8 days (median, range 1-38). The main reasons for choosing venetoclax-based low intensity therapy as reported by treating physicians were patient related factors (mainly age>75 years, performance status) in the majority of cases and adverse disease biology predicting poor response to intensive chemotherapy in 17.1%. Of the 57 patients with available data, 38 (67%) initiated therapy in an inpatient setting with a median hospitalization duration of 12 days (range 1-62 days) and 19 (33%) patients started therapy as outpatients. By data cutoff, of 63 patients that initiated therapy 45, 23 and 7 patients completed cycle 1, cycle 3 and cycle 6 assessments, respectively. Complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi) was achieved in 23/44 (52.3%) patients that were assessed for best response. Of responding patients, 6 (23%, 5 CRi and 1 Partial Remission (PR)) went on to receive an allogeneic transplantation (median age 70.5 years). Ninety percent of patients received venetoclax in combination with hypomethylating agents (azacytidine n=56, decitabine n=1). The full dose of 400mg was administered in 87% of cases with a median ramp-up duration of 3 days. Dose interruptions, dose modifications and dose discontinuations during follow-up were frequent and occurred in 41%, 35% and 27%, respectively. During therapy 63.5% of patients experienced adverse events (AE) of any grade; severe AE's were recorded in 41.3% of patients. Febrile neutropenia was documented in 22.2% and Tumor Lysis Syndrome (TLS) was documented in 2 patients (grade 2; 3.2%). Early death rates at 30 and 60 days were 6.3% and 11.1%, respectively. Conclusion: In the real-world setting venetoclax-based therapies are effective and associated with manageable toxicity including in the outpatient setting. In routine practice patient-related factors and disease-related factors (disease-risk) both seem to play a role in choice of therapy. Venetoclax treatment in real-life practice in Israel appears to follow general recommendations, is tolerable with approximately 90% of patients achieving target dose. These observational data are expected to provide information on patient selection patterns, efficacy and safety and patient related outcomes in patients not in clinical trial. Table Disclosures Wolach: AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Fees for lectures and Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Fees for lectures and Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Fees for lectures and Consultancy; Amgen: Other: Fees for lectures and Consultancy; Janssen: Other: Fees for lectures and Consultancy. Levi:Abbvie Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding. Canaani:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Tadmor:AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Medison: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Neopharm: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; 6. Novartis Israel Ltd., a company wholly owned by Novartis Pharma AG: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Tavor:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hellmann:Abbvie: Research Funding. Stemer:Abbvie: Research Funding. Cohen:Abbvie Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Afik:Abbvie Inc: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ofek:Abbvie Inc: Current Employment. Banayan:Abbvie Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kan:Abbvie Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Grunspan:Abbvie Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ofran:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moshe:Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Background: Hydroxyurea (HU) is an effective and common therapy for high-risk Polycythemia Vera (PV). Some patients may demonstrate resistance or intolerance to HU, but the consequences of these warrant further studies. Objective: Evaluate the clinical and economic implications of HU resistance/intolerance, in routine clinical practice in Israel. Methods: A retrospective analysis of Maccabi Health Services' (MHS) database was performed. MHS is a Non-for-Profit healthcare insurer and provider in Israel, with over 2.2 million members. Patients were included in the study if they had a recorded PV diagnosis or complete blood count indicative of PV, and had purchased HU for at least 3 months between 2000-2015. Enrolled patients were divided into 3 groups: A) Resistant to HU (patients prescribed 2g/day of HU); B) Intolerant of HU (patients who stopped HU, transitioned to another line of therapy or who developed HU related cytopenias); C) Stable on HU. A mid-time point was added to "Stable" to compensate for the time required for transition in the "Intolerant" group. Only patients who developed Intolerance within 5 years were included. Collected data pertained to demographics, clinical outcomes, resource utilization and expenditure data. Results: A total of 830 patients were identified. Only 3 met criteria for Resistance and were disregarded for further analysis, while 318 (38%) were defined as "Intolerant" and 509 (61%) as "Stable". At baseline, there were no significant differences between "Intolerant" and "Stable" groups, apart from platelet counts (431 vs. 495, respectively) and red cell distribution width (RDW) (18.4 vs. 17.6, respectively). Intolerance was determined based on HU-related cytopenias (n=144, 45% of Intolerant), transition to other treatment line (n=52, 16%) or stopping HU (n=122, 38%). These results indicate some patients continue HU treatment despite lack of disease control. "Intolerant" patients who had transitioned by 5 years from first HU purchase (N=173) and "Stable" patients who met the mid-point of time to transition (N=487) were eligible for comparison. Median follow up time was 4.9 and 5.5 years for "Intolerant" and "Stable" groups, respectively. Thrombotic events occurred in 8% of the "Intolerant" group compared with 3% of "Stable" (p=0.003) and event rate per 100 patient-years was 1.6 versus 0.5 (p During study follow up, hospitalization occurred in 84% versus 69% (p Treatment costs for an Intolerant patient in the first year after intolerance were 2.6-fold higher than those for a Stable patient, driven mainly by hospitalization costs being 3.6-fold higher (data available from 2010). Conclusions: The results of this analysis indicate that intolerance to HU treatment in PV patients is associated with serious clinical and economic implications, indicating a need for improved treatment for these patients. Disclosures Ellis: Novartis Pharma AG: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research grant; BMS: Consultancy, Other: Institutional research grant; Gilead: Other: Institutional research grant. Tadmor:AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Medison: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Neopharm: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; 6. Novartis Israel Ltd., a company wholly owned by Novartis Pharma AG: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Chodick:Novartis Pharma AG: Other: Institutional grant. Yekutiel:Novartis Israel Ltd., a company wholly owned by Novartis Pharma AG: Other: Institutional grant. Sharf:Novartis Pharma AG: Consultancy, Other: Institutional Grant; Leukaemia Patient Advocates Foundation: Ended employment in the past 24 months, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Israeli CML Patient Organisation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Other: Institutional grant; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Institutional Grant; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Institutional grant; Bristol Mayers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Institutional Grant; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Institutional Grant; AOP Orphan: Other: Institutional grant; CTI: Other: Institutional grant; Medison: Other; Roche: Other; Jansseb: Other; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other; Takeda: Other; Gilead: Other. Feine:Novartis Israel Ltd., a company wholly owned by Novartis Pharma AG: Current Employment. Leef:Novartis Israel Ltd., a company wholly owned by Novartis Pharma AG: Current Employment. Ben Zvi:Novartis Israel Ltd., a company wholly owned by Novartis Pharma AG: Current Employment. Shavit:6. Novartis Israel Ltd., a company wholly owned by Novartis Pharma AG: Current Employment.

Substantial progress in the treatment of Multiple Myeloma (MM) extends survival for many patients (Pts), though most Pts eventually relapse and become therapy refractory. Patients with induction resistant multiple myeloma (IRMM), either primary refractory or early (≤18 months) relapse, have a particularly compromised survival. New treatment strategies and molecular biomarkers for patient stratification and effective clinical care are needed. We previously reported outcomes of KYDAR (NCT04065789) single-arm prospective clinical trial, in which pts primary resistant to a bortezomib-based induction achieved high rates of durable responses when treated with carfilzomib/daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Cohen YC et al. Blood (2019) 134 (Suppl 1): 982). We applied comprehensive single cell RNA-seq analysis of plasma cells (PCs) obtained from longitudinal bone marrow aspirate samples, taken from KYDAR participants (n=34), compared to newly diagnosed MM Pts (n=15) and to healthy controls (n=11). We discovered a novel MM resistance signature differentially expressed between IRMM and newly diagnosed MM groups. This "gene module is enriched for several pathways that were perturbed in the IRMM Pts, including mitochondrial stress genes, the ER and UPR pathway, and the proteasome machinery. Furthermore, differential gene expression analysis between KYDAR responders and non-responders unveil potentially druggable escape mechanisms. These include upregulation of genes associated with immune regulation, proteasome, apoptotic and ER-stress pathways, e.g. Cyclophilin A (PPIA) creating an elaborated signature and potential target list of pathways and escape mechanisms from a highly potent quadruple therapy. This signature includes many novel genes which were not previously described in the context of MM (Fig 1A). Here we report external validation of this novel resistance signature among 908 MM Pts in the MMRF CoMMpass dataset. We found that our genes signature expression follows a normal distribution with no apparent sub-populations in naïve patients, but when examining Pts after multiple relapses, we detected gradient increase in our signature with a clear bi-model distribution (Fig. 1B). The prevalence of high module-1 expression was 5% in newly diagnosed Pts vs 14% in Pts in 3rd or subsequent relapse (p 200) Pts (n = 68) compared with the rest of the population (n = 711) revealed a striking hazard-ratio of 3.9 (2.22 - 6.87) with p-value = 4.57x10-17 (Fig 1C). Module-1 was highly predictive of treatment outcome in KYDAR trials, beyond FISH cytogenetics (Fig 1D). We hypothesized that PPIA may function as a protective resistance gene in MM malignant cells, by accelerating protein folding pathways and reducing stress associated to proteasome inhibitors. In order to test whether PPIA is merely a marker for highly resistant patients or has a causal role in MM resistance to proteasome inhibitors, we used Cyclosporine A (CsA), a known inhibitor of PPIA, in a series of in vitro experiments, to explore it's potential synergy with carfilzomib, a proteasome inhibitor, on RPMI-8226 and U266B MM cell lines, expressing high levels of PPIA. Using MTS proliferation assay, we found that the combined CsA and carfilzomib therapy was significantly more effective than carfilzomib alone. Apoptosis as measured by Propidium Iodide, DAPI and Annexin V FITC staining, was dramatically increased in the combination therapy setting compared to carfilzomib or CsA monotherapy (Fig 1E). In summary, our study defines a roadmap for combining single cell RNA-seq profiling with clinical trials. We reveal and externally-validate a novel transcriptional signature for therapy resistance. We show inhibition of PPIA, a potential target identified, by CsA, overcomes relative resistance of MM cell lines to carfilzomib. We anticipate that such studies will significantly improve the ability to define mechanism of action of treatment, molecularly characterize the Pts that may benefit from the treatment, and reveal potential novel targets. Disclosures Tadmor: AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Medison: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Neopharm: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; 6. Novartis Israel Ltd., a company wholly owned by Novartis Pharma AG: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.

Ixazomib, the first oral proteasome inhibitor (PI), has been approved for the treatment of relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, based on the TOURMALINE-MM1 phase 3 trial, which demonstrated the efficacy and safety of this all-oral triplet, compared with lenalidomide-dexamethasone. However, clinical trial outcomes do not always translate into real-world outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the outcomes of ixazomib-based combination for treatment of patients with RRMM in a real-world setting. All consecutive RRMM patients who received at least one cycle of ixazomib-based treatment combination between June 2013 and June 2018 were identified. Data was extracted from medical charts focusing on demographics, disease characteristics, prior treatment, and responses. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), safety, and tolerability. A total of 78 patients across 7 sites were retrospectively included. Median follow-up was 22 months. Median age was 68 (range 38–90). Sixty-four percent received ixazomib in 2nd line, 19% in 3rd line. Overall, 89% of patients had been exposed to PIs (bortezomib 87%) prior to IRd, 41% to IMiDs. Twenty-nine (48%, of 60 available) had high (t(4:14), t(14:16), del17p) or intermediate (+1q21) risk aberrations. Most patients (82%) received ixazomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone. An exploratory assessment for disease aggressiveness at diagnosis was classified by a treating physician as indolent (rapid control to protect from target organ damage not required) vs aggressive (imminent target organ damage) in 63% vs 37%, respectively. Treatment was well tolerated, with a low discontinuation rate (11%). Median PFS on ixazomib therapy was 24 months (95% CI 17–30). PFS was 77% and 47% at 12 and 24 months, respectively. Median OS was not reached; OS was 91% and 80% at 12 and 24 months, respectively. Higher LDH, older age, and worse clinical aggressiveness were associated with worse PFS, whereas a deeper response to ixazomib (≥ VGPR) and a longer response to first-line bortezomib (≥ 24 m) were associated with an improved PFS on ixazomib. No effect on PFS was found for cytogenetic risk by FISH, ISS/rISS, and prior anti-myeloma treatment. Ixazomib-based combinations are efficacious and safe regimens in RRMM patients in the real-world setting, regardless to cytogenetic risk, with a PFS of 24 months comparable with clinical trial data. This regimen had most favorable outcomes among patients who remained progression-free more than 24 months after a bortezomib induction and for those who have a more indolent disease phenotype.

BACKGROUND Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is frequently accompanied by immune dysregulation. AIMS In this multicenter prospective study, we investigated whether heavy + light chains (HLC: IgGκ, IgGλ, IgAκ, IgAκ, IgMκ, IgMλ) and IgG subclasses (IgG1, IgG2, IgG3, and IgG4) could be used as novel prognostic markers of immunoparesis in 105 treatment-naive patients with CLL. RESULTS Heavy + light chains immunoparesis of ≥1, ≥2, and ≥3 isotypes was evident in 74 (70%), 58 (55%), and 36 (34%) patients, respectively. Severe HLC immunoparesis was identified in 40 (38%) patients. Of the IgG subclasses, IgG1 and IgG2 were most frequently suppressed, affecting 46 (44%) and 36 (34%) patients, respectively; 63 (60%) patients had low levels of at least one IgG subclass. In multivariate analysis, severe HLC immunoparesis (hazard ratio [HR]: 36.5; P = .010) and ΣFLC ≥ 70 mg/L (HR: 13.2; P = .004) were the only factors independently associated with time to first treatment (TTFT). A risk model including these variables identified patients with 0, 1, and 2 risk factors and significantly different TTFT (P

It is well established that some patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and the negative end of treatment PET-CT (EOT-PET-CT) will relapse, while a proportion with positive uptake can still obtain long-term EFS. We reviewed data of 200 consecutive, previously untreated patients with DLBCL recorded in Italy and Israel between 2007 and 2015. We found that patients with negative EOT-PET-CT with AMC 630/mmc have a 3-years EFS of 72%, compared to those with AMC ≤ 630/mmc that have an EFS of 84%. Furthermore, considering patients with positive EOT-PET-CT, those with AMC 630/mmc have a 3-years EFS of 8%, while those with AMC ≤ 630/mmc have an EFS of 38%. Thus, it appears that combining the gold standard for response evaluation EOT-PET-CT with a simple and inexpensive parameter like AMC at diagnosis, further improves prognostication in DLBCL. Applying this simple method can be useful for all doctors working in lymphoma clinical practice.

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is the most common adult leukemia in the Western world. The therapeutic approach to CLL includes chemotherapeutic regimens and immunotherapy. Complement-mediated cytotoxicity, which is one of the mechanisms activated by the therapeutic monoclonal antibodies, depends on the availability and activity of the complement (C) system. The aim was to study the structure of circulating C components and evaluate the importance of C5 structural integrity for C activity in CLL patients. Blood samples were collected from 40 naïve CLL patients and 15 normal controls (NC). The Western blot analysis showed abnormal C5 pattern in some CLL patients, while patterns of C3 and C4 were similar in all subjects. Levels of the C activation markers sC5b-9 and C5a were quantified before and after activation via the classical (CP) and alternative (AP) pathways. In patients with abnormal C5, basal levels of sC5b-9 and C5a were increased while activities of the CP and of the CP C5-convertase, the immediate C5-upstream complex, were decreased compared to NC and to patients with normal C5. The data indicate a link between CP activation and apparent C5 alterations in CLL. This provides a potential prognostic tool that may personalize therapy by identifying a sub-group of CLL patients who display an abnormal C5 pattern, high basal levels of sC5b-9 and C5a, and impaired CP activity, and are likely to be less responsive to immunotherapy due to compromised CP activity.

[Background]: Maintenance therapy following autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) can delay disease progression and prolong survival in patients with multiple myeloma. Ixazomib is ideally suited for maintenance therapy given its convenient once-weekly oral dosing and low toxicity profile. In this study, we aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of ixazomib as maintenance therapy following ASCT. [Methods]: The phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled TOURMALINE-MM3 study took place in 167 clinical or hospital sites in 30 countries in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and North and South America. Eligible participants were adults with a confirmed diagnosis of symptomatic multiple myeloma according to International Myeloma Working Group criteria who had achieved at least a partial response after undergoing standard-of-care induction therapy followed by high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m²) conditioning and single ASCT within 12 months of diagnosis. Patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2 ratio to oral ixazomib or matching placebo on days 1, 8, and 15 in 28-day cycles for 2 years following induction, high-dose therapy, and transplantation. The initial 3 mg dose was increased to 4 mg from cycle 5 if tolerated during cycles 1–4. Randomisation was stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction disease stage, and response post-transplantation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by intention-to-treat analysis. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of ixazomib or placebo, according to treatment actually received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02181413, and follow-up is ongoing. [Findings]: Between July 31, 2014, and March 14, 2016, 656 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive ixazomib maintenance therapy (n=395) or placebo (n=261). With a median follow-up of 31 months (IQR 27·3–35·7), we observed a 28% reduction in the risk of progression or death with ixazomib versus placebo (median PFS 26·5 months [95% CI 23·7–33·8] vs 21·3 months [18·0–24·7]; hazard ratio 0·72, 95% CI 0·58–0·89; p=0·0023). No increase in second malignancies was noted with ixazomib therapy (12 [3%] patients) compared with placebo (eight [3%] patients) at the time of this analysis. 108 (27%) of 394 patients in the ixazomib group and 51 (20%) of 259 patients in the placebo group experienced serious adverse events. During the treatment period, one patient died in the ixazomib group and none died in the placebo group. [Interpretation]: Ixazomib maintenance prolongs PFS and represents an additional option for post-transplant maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, This study was sponsored by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company.