Search

PURPOSE To present primary and final analyses from the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III iNTEGRATE study, which evaluated the safety and efficacy of ibrutinib with prednisone in previously untreated patients with chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD). METHODS Patients (age ≥ 12 years) with newly diagnosed moderate or severe cGVHD, requiring systemic corticosteroid therapy, and with no prior systemic treatment for cGVHD were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive ibrutinib 420 mg once daily plus prednisone, starting at 1 mg/kg once daily or placebo plus prednisone. The primary end point was response rate at 48 weeks according to 2014 National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Project Criteria. Other end points included event-free survival, duration of response, time to withdrawal of immunosuppressants, improvement in Lee cGVHD Symptom Scale score, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Ninety-five and 98 patients enrolled in the ibrutinib-prednisone and placebo-prednisone arms, respectively. At 48 weeks, response rates were 41% (ibrutinib-prednisone) and 37% (placebo-prednisone; P = .54). At 33 months of follow-up, median duration of response was 19 months (ibrutinib-prednisone) and 10 months (placebo-prednisone; P = .10). Median event-free survival was 15 months (ibrutinib-prednisone) and 8 months (placebo-prednisone; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.1; P = .11). Improvement in overall Lee cGVHD Symptom Scale was 43% (ibrutinib-prednisone) and 31% (placebo-ibrutinib; P = .07). Median OS was not reached in either arm. The 24-month Kaplan-Meier OS estimates were 80% for both arms (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.90). Grade ≥ 3 serious adverse events occurred in 49% (ibrutinib-prednisone) and 47% (placebo-prednisone) of patients. CONCLUSION There was no statistical difference observed in the primary and secondary end points with ibrutinib-prednisone treatment. No new safety signals were observed with ibrutinib treatment in previously untreated patients with cGVHD. The primary end point of iNTEGRATE was not met.

Supplemental Table 1 and Supplemental Figure Legends

Purpose:Clinical trials of venetoclax reported negligible rates of clinical tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) when using an extended dose escalation schedule. We aimed to understand TLS prophylaxis, rates of select adverse events (AE), and impact of dosing modifications in routine clinical practice.Experimental Design:This retrospective cohort study included 297 CLL venetoclax-treated patients outside of clinical trials in academic and community centers. Demographics, baseline disease characteristics, venetoclax dosing, TLS risk and prophylaxis, and AEs were collected.Results:The group was 69% male, 96% had relapsed/refractory CLL, 45% had deletion chromosome 17p, 84% had unmutated IGHV, 80% received venetoclax monotherapy, and median age was 67. TLS risk was categorized as low (40%), intermediate (32%), or high (28%), and 62% had imaging prior to venetoclax initiation. Clinical TLS occurred in 2.7% of patients and laboratory TLS occurred in 5.7%. Pre-venetoclax TLS risk group and creatinine clearance independently predict TLS development in multivariable analysis. Grade 3/4 AEs included neutropenia (39.6%), thrombocytopenia (29.2%), infection (25%), neutropenic fever (7.9%), and diarrhea (6.9%). Twenty-two patients (7.4%) discontinued venetoclax due to an AE. Progression-free survival was similar regardless of number of dose interruptions, length of dose interruption, and stable venetoclax dose.Conclusions:These data provide insights into current use of venetoclax in clinical practice, including TLS rates observed in clinical practice. We identified opportunities for improved adherence to TLS risk stratification and prophylaxis, which may improve safety.

Purpose:Venetoclax-based therapy is a standard-of-care option in first-line and relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Patient management following venetoclax discontinuation remains nonstandard and poorly understood.Experimental Design:To address this, we conducted a large international study to identify a cohort of 326 patients who discontinued venetoclax and have been subsequently treated. Coprimary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival for the post-venetoclax treatments stratified by treatment type [Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi), PI3K inhibitor (PI3Ki), and cellular therapies].Results:We identified patients with CLL who discontinued venetoclax in the first-line (4%) and relapsed/refractory settings (96%). Patients received a median of three therapies prior to venetoclax; 40% were BTKi naïve (n = 130), and 81% were idelalisib naïve (n = 263). ORR to BTKi was 84% (n = 44) in BTKi-naïve patients versus 54% (n = 30) in BTKi-exposed patients. We demonstrate therapy selection following venetoclax requires prior novel agent exposure consideration and discontinuation reasons.Conclusions:For BTKi-naïve patients, selection of covalently binding BTKis results in high ORR and durable remissions. For BTKi-exposed patients, covalent BTK inhibition is not effective in the setting of BTKi resistance. PI3Kis following venetoclax do not appear to result in durable remissions. We conclude that BTKi in naïve or previously responsive patients and cellular therapies following venetoclax may be the most effective strategies.See related commentary by Rogers, p. 3501

Supplemental Figure 2: Progression free survival of patients without prior BTKi exposure who had progressed on venetoclax and were then treated with BTKi.

Supplemental Figure 1: Overall survival of entire cohort from initiation of venetoclax.

The management of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has undergone unprecedented changes over the last decade. Modern targeted therapies are incorporated into clinical practice. Unfortunately, patients have begun to develop resistance or intolerance to multiple classes. Symptomatic patients previously treated with a BTK inhibitor (BTKi) and venetoclax represent a new and rapidly growing unmet need in CLL. Here, we define unmet needs in a modern treatment context. We also critically review the literature for PI3K inhibitors and chemoimmunotherapy and lack of data to support their utility following BTKis and venetoclax. Finally, we suggest opportunities to ensure the continued innovation for patients with CLL.

Purpose Intolerance is the most common reason for kinase inhibitor (KI) discontinuation in CLL. Umbralisib a novel, highly selective PI3Kδ/CK1e inhibitor, is active and well tolerated in CLL patients. This phase 2 trial evaluated umbralisib in CLL patients who are intolerant to prior BTK or PI3K inhibitor therapy. Patients and methods In this phase 2 trial (NCT02742090), umbralisib was initiated at 800 mg oral daily in CLL patients requiring therapy per investigator discretion who were intolerant to prior BTK or PI3K inhibitor therapy, until progression or toxicity. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included time to treatment failure and umbralisib safety profile. DNA isolated from buccal swabs was genotyped for polymorphisms in CYP3A4, CYP3A5 and CYP2D6. Results Fifty-one patients were enrolled (44 BTKi and 7 PI3Kδi intolerant). Median age was 70 years (range 48-96), median of 2 prior lines of therapy (1-7), 24% had del17p and/or TP53 mutation, and 65% were IGHV unmutated. Most common AEs leading to prior KI discontinuation were rash (27%), arthralgia (18%), and atrial fibrillation (16%). Median progression free survival (PFS) was 23.5 months (95% CI 13.1-not estimable). 58% of patients were on umbralisib for a longer duration than prior KI. Most common (≥5%) grade ≥3 AEs on umbralisib (all causality) were neutropenia (18%), leukocytosis (14%), thrombocytopenia (12%), pneumonia (12%), and diarrhea (8%). Six patients (12%) discontinued umbralisib due to an AE. Eight patients (16%) had dose reductions and were successfully re-challenged. Conclusions Umbralisib is safe and effective in this BTK and alternate PI3K inhibitor intolerant CLL population. These are the first prospective data to confirm that switching from a BTK or alternate PI3K inhibitor to umbralisib can result in durable, well tolerated responses.

Introduction: Venetoclax has demonstrated deep responses and sustained progression-free survival and is well tolerated in patients (pts) with previously untreated or relapsed/refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic leukemia (CLL/SLL) in clinical trials. Some early studies provided initial insight of venetoclax utilization in the real-world (RW), but RW evidence focusing on venetoclax effectiveness and safety is still limited. This study assessed venetoclax effectiveness, safety, and treatment patterns in CLL pts treated in clinical practice. Methods: The CLL Collaborative Study of Real-World Evidence (CORE), a large multicenter chart review across 21 institutions in 4 countries, enrolled adult pts who initiated a first line (1L) therapy on/after 01/01/2012 or a new line of therapy (LOT) for R/R CLL/SLL on/after 02/12/2014 (current data cut through 06/08/2020). Clinical responses were abstracted from the medical records as assessed by treating physicians or investigators (iwCLL criteria were provided as reference). Overall response rate (ORR) was calculated as the proportion of pts with complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) out of pts with documented response assessments. Treatment patterns included choice of regimens and sequences, dose interruption, dose reduction, and discontinuation. Treatment discontinuation was defined as ending therapy for any reason(s) other than the completion of planned duration of therapy. Interruption was defined as a gap in the same LOT. All analyses were descriptive. Results: Of the 1231 CLL pts in the CORE data, 155 received venetoclax (21 in 1L and 134 in R/R) and were included in this study. Most of the sample were male (65%) and the median age at venetoclax initiation was 67.5 (range 37-91). For high-risk features among pts with available data, 33% (43/132 pts) had del(17p) or TP53 mutation, 24% (31/131 pts) had complex karyotype (≥ 3 abnormalities), and 77% (61/79 pts) had unmutated IGHV. At venetoclax initiation, 46%, 40%, and 14% of 151 pts with available data had low, medium, and high tumor burden, respectively. Median follow-up time from venetoclax initiation across all lines was 7.0 (0.1-43.1) months. Median number of prior LOT for R/R pts was 2 (1-5); the largest proportion of pts (36%) received venetoclax in 2L followed by 3L (26%). In 1L, venetoclax was most frequently used (62%) in combination (Figure 1), while in R/R setting venetoclax monotherapy was more commonly used (61%) followed by venetoclax + rituximab (25%; Figure 2). Majority of R/R pts (63%) received Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) prior to venetoclax (Figure 2). Response was assessed and documented for 114 pts (74%). Among these, ORR was 75% (CR=40%, PR=35%) overall. Pts ≥65 years old had an ORR of 79% (CR=41%, PR=38%, n=74), and pts Overall, 48% of pts had adverse events (AEs) recorded. Five R/R pts (3.2%) had TLS events (defined by Howard or Cairo-Bishop criteria), of which 3 (1.9%) were clinical. Of the 5 pts, 2 had high tumor burden, and 3 had medium burden. Other AEs of interest include neutropenia (17%), thrombocytopenia (9%), and diarrhea/colitis (5%). Overall, 32% of pts discontinued venetoclax; 13% of all pts discontinued venetoclax due to AEs (primarily neutropenia [n=2] and thrombocytopenia [n=2]), followed by disease progression (8%). Venetoclax interruption rate was 14%, and dose reduction rate was 22% overall. Conclusions: Consistent with trial experiences, venetoclax demonstrates high response rates, including high-risk groups, and a manageable safety profile with low rates of TLS in clinical practice. Despite limitations of RW research, this study provides useful insights into treatment practices with venetoclax. Future research with longer follow-up is warranted to better understand the long-term clinical outcomes associated with venetoclax regimens. Disclosures Zheng: AbbVie: Current Employment. Sail:AbbVie Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Roeker:Abbott Laboratories: Other: spouse with minority ownership interest ; American Society of Hematology: Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: spouse with minority ownership interest . Manzoor:AbbVie: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Tuncer:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Allan:Abbvie, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Celgene, Genentech, Janssen, TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta, Genentech, Abbvie, Sunesis, Ascentage, Pharmacyclics, Janssen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene: Consultancy. Ujjani:Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Atara: Consultancy, Honoraria; Verastem Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Barr:Genentech: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Abbvie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; TG therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding. Brown:Novartis: Consultancy; Nextcea: Consultancy; Octapharma: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Eli Lilly and Company: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Loxo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sun: Research Funding; Rigel Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Catapult: Consultancy; Dynamo Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Invectys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: DSMC; Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy. Eyre:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; KITE, AZ, Loxo Oncology at Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support. Skarbnik:Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; CLL Society: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Consultancy; Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Bannerji:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc and Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Sanofi-Pasteur: Other: Spouse is employee; AbbVie: Research Funding. Eichhorst:BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; ArQule: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Oxford Biomedica: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding. Brander:Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; NCCN: Other; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Juno/Celgene/BMS: Other, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Other, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding; NCCN: Other; Novartis: Consultancy, Other; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Tolero: Research Funding; Ascentage: Other, Research Funding; ArQule: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Other; DTRM: Other, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; BeiGene: Other, Research Funding. Sharmokh:AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Jiang:AbbVie: Current Employment, Other: may hold stock or options. Pena:AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kamalakar:AbbVie: Current Employment, Other: may hold stock or other options. Emechebe:AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Pivneva:Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Irina Pivneva is an employee of Analysis Group, Inc which received consultancy fees from Novartis.. Burne:Analysis Group, Inc., which has received consultancy fees from AbbVie: Current Employment. Guerin:Abbvie: Consultancy, Other; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Other: Annie Guerin is an employee of Analysis Group, Inc. which received consultancy fees from Novartis.; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy, Other: Annie Guerin is an employee of Analysis Group, Inc. which received consultancy fees from Sanofi Genzyme.. Davids:Celgene: Consultancy; Research to Practice: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Ascentage Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Eli Lilly: Consultancy; Syros Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Zentalis: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding. Mato:AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Loxo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Introduction Recent randomized trials have demonstrated the efficacy of ibrutinib-based therapy in the treatment of patients with CLL. In Alliance A041202, a higher than expected number of unexplained deaths were reported with front-line ibrutinib in a patient population aged at least 65 years compared to ECOG 1912, which included patients up to 70 years of age. Methods Therefore, we conducted a retrospective analysis to investigate whether ibrutinib was associated with a greater mortality in older patients outside of a clinical trial setting. This multicenter analysis was performed by investigators at 20 academic and community practices. Results Amongst the 391 patients included, there was no correlation between age and response rate, PFS, or OS. However, there was a trend to higher rate of deaths in patients >65-years-old (8.7% vs 3.8%, p=0.097), with an increased number of early deaths (13 vs 4, p=0.3). Conclusion These data suggest greater intolerance, and possibly mortality, with ibrutinib in an older population. Patients should be educated regarding the potential complications related to ibrutinib and symptoms of concern to report.

Treon et al provide early clinical data supporting a theoretical rationale for continuing ibrutinib in patients receiving the drug during COVID-19 illness.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with a fixed-duration venetoclax (Ven)-based regimen is now a standard of care (SOC) option for both frontline and relapsed refractory (R/R) disease based on results of the CLL14 and MURANO trials (Fischer et al NEJM 2019, Seymour et al NEJM 2018). As fixed-duration Ven regimens are now a SOC, it is expected that an increasing number of patients (pts) will ultimately progress after Ven exposure and require additional CLL-directed therapy. While many discuss re-treatment with Ven as a subsequent treatment option, the current literature contains response data on an extremely limited number of evaluable pts (11 pts MURANO, overall response rate (ORR) 55%; 3 pts VEN 365, ORR 100%). Whether re-treatment with Ven is an acceptable option remains an important unanswered clinical question. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective study of CLL pts treated with a Ven-based regimen (Ven1) and then re-treated with a second Ven-based regimen (Ven2) in a later line of therapy (LOT). Data were collected from 13 centers and the CLL Collaborative Study of Real-World Evidence database. CLL pts were eligible for inclusion if they were treated with a Ven-based regimen in any LOT and then re-treated with a Ven-based regimen as a later LOT. Collected data included demographics, prognostic disease characteristics, tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) risk and incidence, clinical response and reasons for treatment discontinuation (dc). The primary study endpoint was investigator-assessed ORR (CR: complete response, PR: partial response, SD: stable disease, PD: progression of disease, iwCLL 2018). Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate progression free survival (PFS). All other analyses were descriptive. RESULTS: We identified 25 pts who were re-treated with Ven. Pt characteristics prior to treatment with Ven1 are summarized in Table 1. In 24% of pts (n=6), Ven1 was administered as part of a clinical trial. Median prior LOT was 2 (range 0-10) with 12.0% treatment naïve and 60% with prior BTKi exposure. The majority of pts had ≥1 high-risk prognostic marker: del17p (39%), TP53 mut (27%), complex karyotype ≥5 abnormalities (30%) and unmutated IGHV (84%). For Ven1, treatment regimens, TLS risk, and dose are summarized in Table 2. With a median duration of exposure of 15 months (mos) (64% pts > 12 mos) for Ven1, the ORR was 88% (CR: 48%, PR: 40%, Figure 1A). Ten pts had minimal residual disease (MRD) assessments by flow cytometry; 8 pts (80%) achieved undetectable MRD (10^-4). Most common reasons for Ven1 dc included: toxicity (28%), completion of planned therapy (24%), MD/pt preference (24%), other (12%), alloHSCT (4%) and cost (4%). There was a median of 8.7 mos (36% > 12 mos) between Ven1 and the initiation of Ven2, and 88% did not receive another LOT between Ven1 and Ven2. Reasons for Ven2 initiation were either CLL progression (87.5%) or MRD-positive relapse (12.5%). For Ven2, TLS risk, TLS incidence and dose information are outlined in Table 2. TLS was a rare event during Ven re-treatment (4.5%, lab only). For Ven2, Ven monotherapy was the most common regimen (52%). Standard Ven dose-escalation was used for re-initiation in 17 of 19 pts with available data, however 1 pt started Ven2 at 400 mg daily (no TLS) and another underwent a prolonged ramp-up period. At the time of this analysis, 18 pts had available response assessments for Ven2: ORR is 72.2% (CR: 4, PR: 9, SD: 4 and PD: 1, Figure 1B). Median time from Ven2 to progression or last follow up is 8 mos (0.2-29 mos). Median PFS has not been reached. Estimated 12-month PFS is 69.1%. For pts with a CR to Ven2, median follow up time is 14.5 mos vs 7 mos for pts with PR or SD. Of 25 pts re-treated with Ven, 68% remain on Ven2 presently and 32% have discontinued Ven2, including due to CLL progression (n=4), completion of planned therapy (n=1), unrelated death (n=1), MD/pt preference (n=1). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the largest reported cohort of CLL pts re-treated with Ven after a prior Ven-based regimen. The high ORR in this pt population (median 2 prior therapies) suggests that re-treatment is a promising strategy and should be considered in treatment sequencing algorithms. Notably, pts with a CR to Ven2 had a longer median follow up than those with a PR or SD, suggesting a likelihood of deeper responses with time. Given the promising ORR, further research to prospectively validate Ven re-treatment is warranted. Updated data will be presented. Disclosures Allan: Celgene, Genentech, Janssen, TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Acerta, Genentech, Abbvie, Sunesis, Ascentage, Pharmacyclics, Janssen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene: Consultancy. Sail:AbbVie Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Manzoor:Abbvie: Current Employment, Other: may hold stock or stock options. Pu:Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Barr:Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; TG therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Coombs:LOXO Oncology: Honoraria; MEI Pharma: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Octapharma: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Schuster:AlloGene, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Juno/Celgene, Loxo Oncology, Nordic Nanovector, Novartis, Tessa Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis, Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding. Skarbnik:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Consultancy; Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; CLL Society: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Rhodes:Verastem: Consultancy; Abbvie/Genentech: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Barrientos:Janssen: Honoraria; Sandoz: Consultancy; Oncternal Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Roeker:American Society of Hematology: Research Funding; Abbott Laboratories: Other: spouse with minority ownership interest ; AbbVie: Other: spouse with minority ownership interest . Leslie:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; KitePharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kamdar:Roche: Research Funding. Choi:Pharmacyclics/Abbvie: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy. Simkovic:Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: travel expenses. Lansigan:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; BMS Steering Committee for MAGNIFY Program: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spectrum Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Zelenetz:Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Sandoz: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding. Moskowitz:Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Miragen Therapeutics: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Imbrium Therapeutics, L.P.: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Goy:Morphosys: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; MD Anderson: Research Funding; Regional Cancer Care Associates/OMI: Current Employment; Infinity Verastem: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; CALBG: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; PracticeUpdate Oncology: Consultancy; RCCA/OMI: Current Employment; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; COTA: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: leadership role; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; Xcenda: Consultancy; Hackensack UMC and University of Nebraska: Research Funding. Feldman:Pfizer: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Trillium: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Viracta: Research Funding; Rhizen: Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Furman:Verastem: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Oncotarget: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy. Mato:Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB, Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Elderly chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) patients treated outside of trials have notably greater toxicity with the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib compared to younger patients. It is not known whether the same holds true for the B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor venetoclax. We provide a comprehensive analysis of key safety measures and efficacy in 342 patients comparing age categories ≥75 and

Purpose: Clinical trials of venetoclax reported negligible rates of clinical tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) when using an extended dose escalation schedule. We aimed to understand TLS prophylaxis, rates of select adverse events (AE), and impact of dosing modifications in routine clinical practice. Experimental Design: This retrospective cohort study included 297 CLL venetoclax-treated patients outside of clinical trials in academic and community centers. Demographics, baseline disease characteristics, venetoclax dosing, TLS risk and prophylaxis, and AEs were collected. Results: The group was 69% male, 96% had relapsed/refractory CLL, 45% had deletion chromosome 17p, 84% had unmutated IGHV, 80% received venetoclax monotherapy, and median age was 67. TLS risk was categorized as low (40%), intermediate (32%), or high (28%), and 62% had imaging prior to venetoclax initiation. Clinical TLS occurred in 2.7% of patients and laboratory TLS occurred in 5.7%. Pre-venetoclax TLS risk group and creatinine clearance independently predict TLS development in multivariable analysis. Grade 3/4 AEs included neutropenia (39.6%), thrombocytopenia (29.2%), infection (25%), neutropenic fever (7.9%), and diarrhea (6.9%). Twenty-two patients (7.4%) discontinued venetoclax due to an AE. Progression-free survival was similar regardless of number of dose interruptions, length of dose interruption, and stable venetoclax dose. Conclusions: These data provide insights into current use of venetoclax in clinical practice, including TLS rates observed in clinical practice. We identified opportunities for improved adherence to TLS risk stratification and prophylaxis, which may improve safety.

A regimen of escalating doses of thalidomide, in combination with bortezomib and high-dose melphalan (mel/vel/thal), was evaluated as a conditioning regimen for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM) patients with a prior transplant who had relapsed or achieved less than a complete remission following a prior ASCT. Thalidomide was dose escalated starting from 600 mg to 1000 mg on days −5 to −1 in a 3 × 3 design, bortezomib was administered at 1.6 mg/m2 intravenously on days −4 and −1 and melphalan 200 mg/m2 was administered on day −2. No dose-limiting toxicity was seen in the phase I portion of the trial. An additional 20 patients were enrolled at the maximum tolerated dose of thalidomide of 1000 mg daily. The overall response rate was 69% with 38% complete remission. Median PFS and OS were 9.3 and 65.4 months, respectively, with a median follow-up of 17.8 months. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events (AEs) were neutropenic fever (58.6%), mucositis (6.9%), and diarrhea (6.9%). Serious AEs included somnolence (13.8%) and tumor lysis syndrome (3.4%). The addition of high-dose thalidomide to bortezomib and melphalan as conditioning for salvage ASCT was well tolerated and was an effective conditioning regimen.

Purpose Trials of tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia have demonstrated mixed results, and the role of tocilizumab in combination with other treatments is uncertain. Here we evaluated whether tocilizumab plus remdesivir provides greater benefit than remdesivir alone in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial included patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 pneumonia requiring > 6 L/min supplemental oxygen. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) to receive tocilizumab 8 mg/kg or placebo intravenously plus ≤ 10 days of remdesivir. The primary outcome was time from randomization to hospital discharge or “ready for discharge” (defined as category 1, assessed by the investigator on a 7-category ordinal scale of clinical status) to day 28. Patients were followed for 60 days. Results Among 649 enrolled patients, 434 were randomly assigned to tocilizumab plus remdesivir and 215 to placebo plus remdesivir. 566 patients (88.2%) received corticosteroids during the trial to day 28. Median time from randomization to hospital discharge or “ready for discharge” was 14 (95% CI 12–15) days with tocilizumab plus remdesivir and 14 (95% CI 11–16) days with placebo plus remdesivir [log-rank P = 0.74; Cox proportional hazards ratio 0.97 (95% CI 0.78–1.19)]. Serious adverse events occurred in 128 (29.8%) tocilizumab plus remdesivir and 72 (33.8%) placebo plus remdesivir patients; 78 (18.2%) and 42 (19.7%) patients, respectively, died by day 28. Conclusions Tocilizumab plus remdesivir did not shorten time to hospital discharge or “ready for discharge” to day 28 compared with placebo plus remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-021-06507-x.

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is a standard-of-care treatment for many hematologic malignancies. Progression of disease after ASCT is the primary cause of treatment failure. In this Phase Ib trial, we studied the safety and clinical effect of combined checkpoint inhibition therapy (CPIT) with ipilimumab and nivolumab as a consolidation strategy after ASCT for patients with high-risk diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), mature T cell lymphoma (TCL), and multiple myeloma (MM). Starting at 14 to 28 days after ASCT, patients received ipilimumab (1 mg/kg i.v. on day 1 of weeks 1, 4, 7, 10, 16, and 22) and nivolumab (3 mg/kg i.v. on day 1 of weeks 1, 4, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, and 26). Patients received a median of 5 doses of ipilimumab and 8 doses of nivolumab. Thirty-five patients were included in the intent-to-treat population. Ninety-four percent of the patients experienced immune-related adverse events (irAEs) of any grade. Ninety-seven percent of irAEs resolved spontaneously or after holding study drugs and instituting high-dose corticosteroid therapy. Progression-free and overall survival at 18 months post-ASCT for each disease cohort were 85.7% and 100% for primary refractory DLBCL, 28.6% and 57.1% for relapsed DLBCL, not evaluable and 80% for frontline TCL, 25% and 75% for relapsed TCL, 57.1% and 87% for high-risk transplant-naive MM, and 40% and 100% for MM relapsed within 3 years of first ASCT. We conclude that combined CPIT appears to be tolerable as a consolidation strategy after ASCT and in addition to the potential clinical efficacy observed in some subsets of disease, T cell receptor repertoire, T regulatory cell phenotype, and gut microbiota profiles provide a biologic rationale warranting further study of this approach.

7539 Background: For ELEVATE-TN (NCT02475681), we previously reported superior efficacy of acalabrutinib (A) ± obinutuzumab (O) vs O + chlorambucil (Clb) in patients (pts) with treatment-naive (TN) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) at 28.3 and 46.9 months (mo) median follow-up. Now, we report results from a 5-y update. Methods: Pts were randomized to A+O, A, or O+Clb. Pts who progressed on O+Clb could cross over to A monotherapy. Investigator-assessed (INV) progression-free survival (PFS), INV overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety were evaluated. Results: A total of 535 pts (A+O, n=179; A, n=179; O+Clb, n=177) had a median age of 70 y. At a median follow-up of 58.2 mo (range, 0.0–72.0; data cutoff Oct 1, 2021), median PFS was not reached (NR) (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.11) for A+O and A (HR: 0.21) vs 27.8 mo for O+Clb (both P

Ibrutinib demonstrated superior response rates and survival for treatment-naïve chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients in a pivotal study that excluded patients younger than 65 (

Attempts to improve upon the activity of ibrutinib in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) include the addition of targeted therapies. The combination of lenalidomide and rituximab demonstrated an overall response rate (ORR) of 66% with a complete response (CR) of 12% in the relapsed/refractory setting. Based on these data, we conducted a phase 1 study of rituximab (R), lenalidomide (L), and ibrutinib (I) in relapsed/refractory CLL. Patients received R 375 mg/m2 cycles 1 to 6 day 1, L on cycles 1 to 12 days 1 to 21, and I until disease progression. Dose escalation used a standard 3+3 design from a dose level (DL) of L 5 mg (DL1) and increasing to 15 mg (DL3) for a total of 3 dose levels. Twelve patients were enrolled; there were 2 dose-limiting toxicities of grade 4 neutropenia at DL3; thus, DL2 was the recommended phase 2 dose. A high incidence of sustained grade 4 neutropenia occurred at all dose levels, prompting study withdrawal in 5 patients, despite growth factor support. The ORR was 67%; ORR at the RP2D was 100% (1 CR). The 12-month progression-free survival at the RP2D was 83%. Preliminary efficacy data with the triplet did not appear superior to prior reports of the rituximab-lenalidomide doublet or single-agent ibrutinib. Given these findings and the sustained neutropenia, this regimen was not pursued. The study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02200848.

Context: Results from ELEVATE-TN (NCT02475681) at a median follow-up of 28.3 months demonstrated superior efficacy of acalabrutinib (A) ± obinutuzumab (O) compared with O + chlorambucil (Clb) in TN CLL (Sharman et al. Lancet 2020;395:1278-91). Objective: To report the results from a 4-year update of ELEVATE-TN. Design: Randomized, multicenter, open-label, 3-arm, Phase 3 study. Patients: TN CLL. Interventions: Patients received A±O or O+Clb. Crossover to A monotherapy was permitted in patients who progressed on O+Clb. Main Outcome Measures: Investigator-assessed (INV) progression-free survival PFS, INV ORR, OS, and safety were evaluated. Results: 535 patients (A+O, n=179; A, n=179; O+Clb, n=177) were randomized with a median age of 70 y; 14% had del(17p) and/or mutated TP53. At a median follow-up of 46.9 months (range, 0.0–59.4; data cutoff: Sept 11, 2020), median PFS was not reached (NR) for A+O and A patients vs 27.8 months for O+Clb patients (both P Conclusions: With a median follow-up of 46.9 months (~4y), the efficacy and safety of A+O and A monotherapy was maintained, with an increase in CR since the interim analysis (from 21% to 27% [A+O] and from 7% to 11% [A]) and low rates of discontinuation.

Updated analysis confirms sustained poor prognosis of COVID-19 in patients with lymphoma in Latin America: A cohort of 160 patients from GELL. Introduction: Ongoing SARS-COV-2 pandemic has impacted the management of cancer patients worldwide. Several reports have demonstrated inferior outcomes of patients with hematological malignancies, including higher rates of intensive care unit admission, need for mechanical ventilation and death. The impact of COVID-19 is profound in resource-restricted countries, including Latin America. Most cohorts reported have not included patients from Latin America, and there is paucity of data of the outcome of cancer patients with COVID-19 in low- and middle-income countries. Grupo de Estudio De Linfoproliferativos En Latino-America (GELL )is a collaborative network of hematological centers in 13 countries in Latin America. We report updated outcomes of lymphoma patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in Latin America. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study including patients with a diagnosis of lymphoma and COVID-19 infection. Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma were excluded from the analysis We defined active disease as follow: (1) patients with detectable disease either prior to initiating therapy or upon relapse, and/or (2) patients undergoing active cancer treatment. The primary outcome was overall survival at 100 days. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan Meier method. Uni and multivariable analysis were carried out with Cox model. Results: A total of 160 patients were available for analysis. Median age was 60 years old. Hypertension was the most common comorbidity (33%). Most patients had aggressive lymphomas (62%), including 43% of patients with diffuse large B-Cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Follicular lymphomas were observed in 13% of patients and Hodgkin lymphoma in 12.5% of patients. With a median follow-up of 37 days, the 100-day OS was 64% (95CI 56-74%, fig. 1). In univariate analysis, age (HR 1.03, p=0.0025), hypertension (HR 2.01, p=0.017), >1 number of prior lines (HR 2.78, p=0.011), patients currently on treatment (HR 1.83, p=0.043), ferritin >2000 ng/mL (HR 4.74 p=0.00047) were associated with inferior OS. In multivariate analysis, age (HR 1.03, p=0.0026) and patients currently on treatment (HR 1.82, p=0.04) had inferior OS. There was a trend towards inferior outcomes in patients receiving monoclonal antibodies in univariate analysis (HR 1.82, p=0.081) but not in multivariable analysis (HR=1.29, p=0.48). Use of steroids was not statistically related to mortality (HR 1.79, p=0.074). Finally, contrary to other cohorts, no improvement in OS was observed in patients diagnosed later on the pandemic (fig. 2). Conclusion: In this large cohort of Latin American patients with lymphoma malignancies, our updated analysis showed a maintained dismal prognosis with COVID-19 infection. With a median follow up of 37 days, the 100-day OS was 64%. Older age and ongoing active cancer treatment were significantly associated with mortality. The use of monoclonal antibodies and systemic corticosteroids were not statistically associated to poor survival. Current efforts are focused on improving immunization in the Latin American population. There is an unmet need for improving survival in patients with hematologic malignancies and COVID-19 infection. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Perini: Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Otero: ASTRA ZENECA: Current Employment. Abello: Dr Reddy's: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Castillo: Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding.

Introduction: The management of CLL patients historically utilized FD chemoimmunotherapy (CIT), including fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR), or bendamustine and rituximab (BR). That changed with the introduction of Bruton Tyrosine Kinase inhibitors (BTKi) as an option for oral targeted monotherapy delivered continuously until disease progression or intolerance. Recently, novel combinations that include a B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor (BCL2i), such as venetoclax, have been developed as FD therapy. In addition, though not FDA approved, MRD assessment is emerging as a potential tool to guide FD therapy. Understanding the patient and their caregiver perspectives on FD and MRD is critical to providing the best care. Methods: CLL Society developed a web-based survey instrument of multiple-choice questions to assess patient and caregiver awareness, understanding, and preferences with MRD and FD therapies, where FD referred to both time and MRD guided limited duration therapies. Patients and caregivers were invited to participate via message boards, CLL Society's website, email, and online communities. Results: A total of 607 (96%) self-identified US patients and 36 (5%) caregivers, who answered on behalf of patients in their care, completed the survey between 31/AUG/2020 and 31/JAN/2021. The mean patient age was 64 (range, 30-90) years, 54% were female, 169 patients (27%) treatment-naïve, 239 (38%) with one line of prior therapy, and 214 (34%) with two or more. Targeted agents (e.g., venetoclax, ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, idelalisib, and duvelisib) had been used by 401 (64%). FD use with some novel therapies was known of by 565 (90%) patients, while 588 (93%) knew some were used as continuous daily treatment until disease progression or intolerance. If effectiveness and side effects were assumed similar, 485 (77%) preferred FD, and 398 (63%) wanted that finite treatment to be guided by MRD status. Only 42 (7%) preferred continuous therapy until disease progression or intolerance. The chance for continued remission while off treatment was ranked as a very important potential benefit after stopping a FD therapy by 581 (92%) patients. When considering therapy, 589 (93%), 575 (91%), 447 (71%), 415 (66%), 302 (48%), and 288 (46%) rated having overall survival, having future therapeutic options, avoiding chemotherapy, the ability to reach undetectable (u)MRD, minimal lab and office visits, and FD therapy as very important, respectively (Fig. 1). Being tested for MRD at least once was reported by 215 (34%), while 327 (52%) had not been tested, and 88 (14%) were unsure. There were 562 (89%) who were somewhat or very familiar with the term MRD, while 450 (71%) were confident of understanding what MRD testing measures, and 446 (70%) understood its role in CLL. Only 225 (36%) stated they understood different testing methods. While self-rated understanding of the indications for MRD testing was relatively high, some wanted testing done when not clinically indicated, such as when there was persistent CLL by routine laboratory findings, or at the time of diagnosis (Fig. 2). Respondents were mixed in their stated understanding as to which therapies could result in uMRD, with 241 (38%), 197 (32%), and 195 (32%) not knowing if CIT, BCL2i, and BTKi, could lead to uMRD, respectively. Two hundred and sixty-five (42%), 84 (13%), and 57 (9%) believed it was possible for most on a BCL2i, BTKi, or CIT to achieve uMRD, respectively (Fig. 3). If patients had evidence of MRD at the end of treatment, 365 (58%) would request frequent monitoring but would make no immediate treatment decisions based on MRD status, 279 (44%) were unsure, and only 88 (14%) would want further treatment immediately. Conclusions: The results from this patient-based study reveal a high awareness of FD therapies and MRD testing, as well as a clear preference for FD among internet-active patients and caregivers. However, there are gaps in the knowledge base, thus significant educational opportunities. Limitations included the opt-in sample where the survey results may not be projectable to the total CLL population. Moreover, the survey was not designed to assess preferences if either FD or continuous therapy offered improved outcomes. Nonetheless, as the potential role of MRD and FD therapy grows in CLL it will be incumbent on clinicians to ensure patients are well informed and engaged to help them better share therapeutic decisions. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Koffman: AbbVie: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; AstraZeneca: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria; Beigene: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Bristol Myer Squibb: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria; Gilead: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Johnson & Johnson: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; TG Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Regeneron: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Miragen Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Portola Pharma: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; MEI Pharma: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Merck: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Stewart: Johnson & Johnson: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Novartis: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Pacific Biosciences: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Byrd: Novartis, Trillium, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics, Syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria; Vincerx Pharmaceuticals: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Newave: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Danilov: Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; Rigel Pharm: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers-Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; SecuraBio: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Davids: BeiGene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Ascentage Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eli Lilly and Company: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Furman: Beigene: Consultancy; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; X4 Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Oncotracker: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Expert testimony; AstraZeneca: Honoraria. Jain: Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Fate Therapeutics: Research Funding; Beigene: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Cellectis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Honoraria, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Aprea Therapeutics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Research Funding; Servier: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Kay: Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Targeted Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; CytomX Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Lamanna: Juno Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; MingSight Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics, Inc: Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Oncternal Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy. Mato: MSKCC: Current Employment; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB, Research Funding; Nurix: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ujjani: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Atara Bio: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; ACDT: Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria; Loxo: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Pagel: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Incyte/MorphoSys: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/AbbVie: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy.

Background: Targeted therapies including ibrutinib, acalabrutinib and venetoclax (ven) have fundamentally changed the treatment of patients (pts) with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) leading to improved outcomes and durable remissions for many pts. However, CLL remains an incurable disease and a subset of pts will ultimately have progressive CLL following treatment with a covalent Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase inhibitor (cBTKi, e.g., ibrutinib, acalabrutinib) and ven. Data on efficacy of therapies for "double exposed" pts (i.e., pts exposed to both a cBTKi and ven) are extremely limited. Available approved options include chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitors (PI3Ki). However, the landmark clinical trials leading to the approvals of CIT and PI3Kis did not include pts treated with either cBTKi or ven (Furman et al. NEJM 2014, Flinn et al. Blood 2018). Non-covalent BTKis (ncBTKi) and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy have demonstrated promising clinical activity in double exposed CLL pts in clinical trials (Mato et al. Lancet 2021, Siddiqi et al. ASH 2020), but have not yet been compared to other novel agents or CIT in clinical trials or real-world analyses. We sought to describe outcomes of therapies for "double exposed" CLL pts. Methods: A retrospective, international, multicenter study was conducted. CLL pts were included if they received a cBTKi and ven and then a subsequent CLL-directed therapy. Therapies for Richter Transformation were excluded. Investigators identified pts at each site and collected data on demographics, disease characteristics, prior therapies, subsequent therapies and response assessments. Information was collected on up to three subsequent lines of therapy (LOT 1-3) per patient. The primary study endpoint was investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR) per iwCLL 2018 criteria to therapies (LOT 1-3) following both cBTKi and ven. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate progression free survival (PFS). All other analyses were descriptive. Analyses were performed using STATA 17.0. Results: We report outcomes on 125 CLL pts who had prior cBTKi and ven and received a subsequent LOT. Baseline characteristics are presented in Table 1. ORR to prior cBTKi was 84.7% and 69.6% to prior ven. The most common reason for discontinuation of prior cBTKi and ven was CLL progression (71.1% cBTKi, 68.8% ven) followed by toxicity (25.6% cBTKi, 16.8% ven). Most common treatment strategies included ncBTKi (n=45), cBTKi (n=43), CIT (n=23), PI3Ki (n=24), alloSCT (n=17), CAR T-cell therapy (n=9), ven re-treatment (n=6), and other (n=44). ORR for selected agents following cBTKi and ven are presented in Table 2. ORR and PFS estimates were as follows: CAR T-cell therapy (85.7%, median PFS 4 months), alloSCT (76.5%, median PFS 11 months), ncBTKi (75.0%, median PFS not reached), PI3Ki (40.9%, median PFS 5 months), CIT (31.8%, median PFS 3 months) and ven re-treatment (ORR 40%, median PFS 14 months). ORR to cBTKi was 53.7%; however, median PFS for pts who discontinued a previous cBTKi for PD was 1 month versus 7 months for pts who discontinued due to AE. Figure 1 shows Kaplan-Meier estimated PFS for ncBTKi, PI3Ki, alloSCT, and CIT. Conclusions: In the largest series of "double exposed" CLL pts, several key findings warrant further investigation and discussion. Practice patterns are variable and no standard of care exists for CLL pts previously treated with a cBTKi and ven. Additionally, approved standard therapies including CIT combinations and PI3Kis yield poor outcomes with responses which are not durable. The low response rates and short PFS for PI3Ki and CIT call into question the use of these therapies as standard comparator arms in planned randomized trials. At this time, ncBTKi has a high ORR with durable responses (median PFS not reached). There appears to be a promising role for alloSCT in select, fit patients (ORR 76.5%, median PFS 11 months), and CAR T-cell therapy should be further explored in this population (ORR 85.7%, median PFS 4 months). Overall, this study highlights a continued unmet need for therapies for "double exposed" CLL pts. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Thompson: MJH Life Sciences: Honoraria; VJHemOnc: Honoraria; Curio Science: Honoraria. Roeker: Abbot Laboratories: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, LOXO, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics, Vaniam Group, Verastem: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Coombs: LOXO: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria; MEI Pharma: Honoraria. Kamdar: AbbVie: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; SeaGen: Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Other; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; KaryoPharm: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Genetech: Other. Pagel: Epizyme: Consultancy; Incyte/MorphoSys: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/AbbVie: Consultancy; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy. Jacobs: MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; TeneoBio: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Jannsen: Speakers Bureau; SecuraBio: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Hill: Gentenech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte/Morphysis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Brander: AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: informCLL registry steering committee, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; LOXO: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics/Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; NCCN: Other: panel member; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Biosimilars outcomes research panel; ArQule/Merck: Consultancy. Shadman: Mustang Bio, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pharmacyclics, Gilead, Genentech, Abbvie, TG Therapeutics, Beigene, AstraZeneca, Sunesis, Atara Biotherapeutics, GenMab: Research Funding; Abbvie, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Sound Biologics, Pharmacyclics, Beigene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Morphosys, TG Therapeutics, Innate Pharma, Kite Pharma, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Epizyme, Eli Lilly, Adaptimmune , Mustang Bio and Atara Biotherapeutics: Consultancy. Ujjani: AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Loxo: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Atara Bio: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; ACDT: Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria. Battiato: Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Rhodes: AbbVie, Genentech, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics: Other: Consultant; Conquer Cancer Foundation Young Investigator Award: Other: Grant/Research Support. Fakhri: Loxo/Lilly: Research Funding. Barr: Morphosys: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; Abbvie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Portell: TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; SeaGen: Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; BeiGene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Aptitude Health: Honoraria; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; Morphosys: Honoraria; Genentech: Research Funding; VelosBio: Research Funding. Lamanna: AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Oncternal Therapeutics: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Consultancy; MingSight Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics, Inc: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding. Zelenetz: MorphoSys: Honoraria; Verastem: Honoraria; LFR: Other; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; NCCN: Other; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; MEI Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; BMS/Celgene/JUNO: Honoraria, Other; Novartis: Honoraria; SecuraBio: Honoraria; Genentech/Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; MethylGene: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding. Schuster: Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; Genetech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Juno Theraputics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Pharmaclcyclics: Research Funding; Tessa Theraputics: Consultancy; TG Theraputics: Research Funding. Eyre: Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Beigene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead/KITE: Honoraria, Other: Travel support for conferences, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel to conferences. Mato: MSKCC: Current Employment; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Genmab: Research Funding; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Nurix: Research Funding.

Background: BCL-2 inhibition with venetoclax has proved to be highly effective treatment for patients with CLL. However, when administered to patients with CLL who have a high tumor burden, venetoclax is associated with an elevated risk of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS). Because of this risk, venetoclax is initiated with a gradual, 5-week dose ramp-up, requiring close laboratory monitoring over an extended period. Lisaftoclax (APG-2575) is a novel, potent, selective BCL-2 inhibitor under clinical development for hematologic malignancies (HMs). Preliminary data in 18 patients with CLL treated in a first-in-human study suggested the feasibility of an abbreviated ramp-up of lisaftoclax that might also result in a lower incidence of neutropenia (Ailawadhi et al, J Clin Oncol 39, 2021; abstr 7502). Methods: This new study is a global, open-label, multicenter, two-part phase 1b dose escalation and dose expansion study to assess the safety and tolerability of lisaftoclax (Part 1) and lisaftoclax combined with rituximab or acalabrutinib (Part 2), including dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and maximum tolerated dose (MTD). The trial is enrolling adults with (1) histologically confirmed CLL/SLL (by 2018 iwCLL criteria) that is relapsed or refractory to ≥ 1 prior therapy and requires treatment (also by 2018 iwCLL criteria); (2) adequate bone marrow function (in the absence of growth factors), including absolute neutrophils ≥ 1.0 × 10 9/L in patients without bone marrow involvement (not required in CLL/SLL patients with bone marrow involvement); and (3) adequate renal and hepatic function. Exclusion criteria: (1) recent history of allogeneic stem cell transplantation or CAR T-cell therapy (< 90 days); (2) prior treatment with a BCL-2 inhibitor (unless patient discontinued such therapy without disease progression); (3) treatment with vitamin K anticoagulants or previous discontinuation of treatment due to acalabrutinib toxicity (in acalabrutinib plus lisaftoclax cohort); (4) active Richter's syndrome; (5) infection (e.g. HIV, hepatitis); (6) CNS involvement; (7) prior cancer that has recurred within 2 years of screening and requires treatment (apart from adequately treated cervical or breast carcinoma in situ); (8) uncontrolled and other serious concomitant illnesses, including cardiovascular disease and diabetes; (9) failure to recover adequately after surgical procedures; and (10) active graft-vs-host disease or a requirement for immunosuppressive treatment. In a standard "3+3" dose escalation design (Part 1), lisaftoclax is being administered orally once daily in a 28-day cycle, with full doses of 200 to 1,200 mg (by 200-mg increments at 4 dose levels (400, 600, 800, and 1,000 mg) in parallel. The ramp-up is performed in the hospital with close monitoring for TLS and consists of the following doses and days of lisaftoclax treatment: 20 mg on Day 1, 50 mg on Day 2, 100 mg on Day 3, 200 mg on Day 4, 400 mg on Day 5, 600 mg on Day 6, 800 mg on Day 7, and 1,000 mg on Day 8. Patients who experience TLS on any of these days have their dose held until resolution of TLS before proceeding to the next dose. Part 2 includes a further standard 3+3 dose escalation of lisaftoclax combined with rituximab or acalabrutinib (in separate cohorts), with a further planned dose expansion at recommended phase 2 doses of these combination regimens. Primary outcome measures are (1) DLTs observed during cycle 1; and (2) MTD (measured over the same interval). DLT criteria are defined as grade 4 thrombocytopenia or neutropenia lasting > 7 days, grade 3 ≥ thrombocytopenia with bleeding, grade 4 febrile neutropenia, or grade 3 ≥ non-hematologic toxicities. As of July 19, 2021, 71 patients have been enrolled (of 144 planned). Clinicaltrial.gov identifier: NCT04215809. Disclosures Davids: Ascentage Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Eli Lilly and Company: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Siddiqi: Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Juno therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Other: DSM Member, Speakers Bureau; PCYC: Speakers Bureau; Jannsen: Speakers Bureau; Dava Oncology: Honoraria; ResearchToPractice: Honoraria. Pagel: Gilead: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Incyte/MorphoSys: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/AbbVie: Consultancy. Pylypenko: Communal nonprofit enterprise "Cherkasy regional oncology dispensary of Cherkasy oblast council: Current Employment. Kriachok: Takeda, Roche, Abbivie, Janssen, MSD: Consultancy; Takeda, Roche, Abbvie, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Usenko: Abbvie: Honoraria; Acerta: Honoraria; Ascentage: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Il Yang: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Rigel: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; UCB: Honoraria. Chen: Ascentage Pharma (Suzhou) Co., Ltd: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Huang: Ascentage Pharma (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Li: Ascentage Pharma (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ahmad: Ascentage Pharma Group Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Mudenda: Ascentage Pharma Group Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Yang: Ascentage Pharma (Suzhou) Co., Ltd: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Leadership and other ownership interests, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Zhai: Ascentage Pharma (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Leadership and other ownership interests, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma Group Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Leadership and other ownership interests, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding.

Ibrutinib, idelalisib, and venetoclax are approved for treating CLL patients in the United States. However, there is no guidance as to their optimal sequence.We conducted a multicenter, retrospective analysis of CLL patients treated with kinase inhibitors (KIs) or venetoclax. We examined demographics, discontinuation reasons, overall response rates (ORR), survival, and post-KI salvage strategies. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS).A total of 683 patients were identified. Baseline characteristics were similar in the ibrutinib and idelalisib groups. ORR to ibrutinib and idelalisib as first KI was 69% and 81%, respectively. With a median follow-up of 17 months (range 1-60), median PFS and OS for the entire cohort were 35 months and not reached. Patients treated with ibrutinib (versus idelalisib) as first KI had a significantly better PFS in all settings; front-line [hazard ratios (HR) 2.8, CI 1.3-6.3, P = 0.01], relapsed-refractory (HR 2.8, CI 1.9-4.1, P0.001), del17p (HR 2.0, CI 1.2-3.4, P = 0.008), and complex karyotype (HR 2.5, CI 1.2-5.2, P = 0.02). At the time of initial KI failure, use of an alternate KI or venetoclax had a superior PFS when compared with chemoimmunotherapy. Furthermore, patients who discontinued ibrutinib due to progression or toxicity had marginally improved outcomes if they received venetoclax (ORR 79%) versus idelalisib (ORR 46%) (PFS HR .6, CI.3-1.0, P = 0.06).In the largest real-world experience of novel agents in CLL, ibrutinib appears superior to idelalisib as first KI. Furthermore, in the setting of KI failure, alternate KI or venetoclax therapy appear superior to chemoimmunotherapy combinations. The use of venetoclax upon ibrutinib failure might be superior to idelalisib. These data support the need for trials testing sequencing strategies to optimize treatment algorithms.

Introduction: Interleukin-1 receptor-associated kinase 4 (IRAK4) is essential for toll-like receptor (TLR) and interleukin-1 receptor (IL-1R) signaling in immune cells including B lymphocytes. It forms the Myddosome complex with the MYD88 adaptor protein, with IRAK4 being essential for downstream signaling, maximal activation of NFkB with inflammatory and immune response and tumor promotion [Treon 2012; Rhyasen 2015]. CA-4948 is a novel small molecule, oral inhibitor of IRAK4, first-in-class and only suppressor of the TLR pathway currently tested in hematological malignancies. When combined with the BTK inhibitor ibrutinib that blocks parallel BCR signaling and NF-kB activating pathway, it has shown synergy in in-vivo B-cell NHL models, providing strong rationale for clinical evaluation [Booher 2018]. Recent preclinical studies demonstrated the role of IRAK4 activation as a driver of secondary, adaptive tumor resistance and survival mechanisms of hematological and solid tumor malignancies [Melgar 2019] that could be blocked by CA-4948 to delay or reverse resistance. Study Design and Methods: This is a multicenter, open-label trial of oral CA-4948 combined with ibrutinib in adult patients with relapsed or refractory hematologic malignancies. (NCT03328078). It has 2 parts: a dose escalation (Part A2), and expansion basket of 4 cohorts (Part B). Part A2: Is a truncated 3+3 design: CA-4948 starting is 200 mg BID with subsequent escalation to 300 mg BID. Both dose are safe and active against NHL as seen in the nearly completed monotherapy Part A1 of this trial Patients will receive CA-4948 with ibrutinib at the labeled dose for the respective NHL subtype (560 mg or 420 mg) until toxicity or progression. Primary objectives are safety/tolerance (MTD, RP2D); 2nd objectives are pharmacokinetics and preliminary efficacy; exploratory objectives include biomarker correlations (e.g., MYD88-L265P mut, IRAK4 pathway, NFκB inhibition). Part B basket has four cohorts: 1 -MZL, 2 - ABC-DLBCL, 3 - PCNSL, and 4 - NHL with adaptive ibrutinib resistance. Cohorts 1-3 must be BTK-inhibitor naïve. Cohort 4 includes ibrutinib treated NHLs after developing adaptive, secondary resistance. All will receive the combination of ibrutinib and CA-4948. Cohort 4 patients will be allowed a Samples sizes, statistical considerations: Approx. 18 patients in Part A2. In Part B, a Simon 2-Step design will be applied to each cohort. Early stopping rule for futility after approx. 20 patients in Stage 1: full accrual with Stage 2 will add about 25 patients. Successful signal efficacy identification in a cohort may support further expansion or a subsequent controlled trial. The safety population will include all patients in the study who received any test dose. The efficacy population will have a valid baseline and post-baseline disease assessment. Safety assessments include TEAEs, safety labs, vitals, physical exams, PK, and ECGs; efficacy assessments: tumor imaging, para-protein determination, and histo/cyto-morphologic examinations. Part A2 inclusion: Histopathologically confirmed B-cell NHL as per the WHO 2016 classification. Eligible NHL subtypes: FL, MZL, MCL, DLBCL (including extranodal lymphomas of leg, testicle, or other sites, excluding mediastinal lymphoma), CLL/SLL, primary or secondary CNS lymphoma, and WM/LPL. Patients with FL, MCL, MZL, WM/LPL, or CLL/SLL should meet clinical treatment criteria. Part B inclusion: Cohorts 1-3 include patients with MZL, ABC-DLBCL, or PCNSL who are BTK-inhibitor naïve. Cohort 4 will include ibrutinib pre-treated MCL, MZL, CLL/SLL, WM/LPL, ABC-DLBCL, or PCNSL with adaptive resistance. Exclusions for both Parts A2 and B: Significant acute or chronic toxicity from prior anti-cancer therapy that has not resolved to Grade ≤ 1, as determined by NCI CTCAE v 4.03 within 7 days prior to start of study or serious co-morbidities. Disclosures Nowakowski: NanoString: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Leslie:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; KitePharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Joffe:AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lunning:Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acrotech: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Curis: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Aeratech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria. Patel:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Landsburg:Takeda: Research Funding; Triphase: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Curis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fenske:Medical College of Wisconsin: Current Employment. Ramchandren:Merck, Seattle Genetics, Janssen, Genentech: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Sandoz-Novartis, Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Skarbnik:Alexion: Consultancy; Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Speakers Bureau; CLL Society: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Tun:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acrotech: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding.

Although novel agents (NAs) have improved outcomes for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), a subset will progress through all available NAs. Understanding outcomes for potentially curative modalities including allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHCT) following NA therapy is critical while devising treatment sequences aimed at long-term disease control. In this multicenter, retrospective cohort study, we examined 65 patients with CLL who underwent alloHCT following exposure to ≥1 NA, including baseline disease and transplant characteristics, treatment preceding alloHCT, transplant outcomes, treatment following alloHCT, and survival outcomes. Univariable and multivariable analyses evaluated associations between pre-alloHCT factors and progression-free survival (PFS). Twenty-four-month PFS, overall survival (OS), nonrelapse mortality, and relapse incidence were 63%, 81%, 13%, and 27% among patients transplanted for CLL. Day +100 cumulative incidence of grade III-IV acute graft-vs-host disease (GVHD) was 24%; moderate-severe GVHD developed in 27%. Poor-risk disease characteristics, prior NA exposure, complete vs partial remission, and transplant characteristics were not independently associated with PFS. Hematopoietic cell transplantation–specific comorbidity index independently predicts PFS. PFS and OS were not impacted by having received NAs vs both NAs and chemoimmunotherapy, 1 vs ≥2 NAs, or ibrutinib vs venetoclax as the line of therapy immediately pre-alloHCT. AlloHCT remains a viable long-term disease control strategy that overcomes adverse CLL characteristics. Prior NAs do not appear to impact the safety of alloHCT, and survival outcomes are similar regardless of number of NAs received, prior chemoimmunotherapy exposure, or NA immediately preceding alloHCT. Decisions about proceeding to alloHCT should consider comorbidities and anticipated response to remaining therapeutic options.

Background: Acalabrutinib is a selective, covalent Bruton tyrosine-kinase inhibitor with activity in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. We compare the efficacy of acalabrutinib with or without obinutuzumab against chlorambucil with obinutuzumab in patients with treatment-naive chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Methods: ELEVATE TN is a global, phase 3, multicentre, open-label study in patients with treatment-naive chronic lymphocytic leukaemia done at 142 academic and community hospitals in 18 countries. Eligible patients had untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and were aged 65 years or older, or older than 18 years and younger than 65 years with creatinine clearance of 30–69 mL/min (calculated by use of the Cockcroft-Gault equation) or Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics score greater than 6. Additional criteria included an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 2 or less and adequate haematologic, hepatic, and renal function. Patients with significant cardiovascular disease were excluded, and concomitant treatment with warfarin or equivalent vitamin K antagonists was prohibited. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) centrally via an interactive voice or web response system to receive acalabrutinib and obinutuzumab, acalabrutinib monotherapy, or obinutuzumab and oral chlorambucil. Treatments were administered in 28-day cycles. To reduce infusion-related reactions, acalabrutinib was administered for one cycle before obinutuzumab administration. Oral acalabrutinib was administered (100 mg) twice a day until progressive disease or unacceptable toxic effects occurred. In the acalabrutinib-obinutuzumab group, intravenous obinutuzumab was given on days 1 (100 mg), 2 (900 mg), 8 (1000 mg), and 15 (1000 mg) of cycle 2 and on day 1 (1000 mg) of cycles 3–7. In the obinutuzumab-chlorambucil group, intravenous obinutuzumab was given on days 1 (100 mg), 2 (900 mg), 8 (1000 mg), and 15 (1000 mg) of cycle 1 and on day 1 (1000 mg) of cycles 2–6. Oral chlorambucil was given (0·5 mg/kg) on days 1 and 15 of each cycle, for six cycles. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival between the two combination-therapy groups, assessed by independent review committee. Crossover to acalabrutinib was allowed in patients who progressed on obinutuzumab-chlorambucil. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of treatment. Enrolment for this trial is complete, and the study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02475681. Findings: Between Sept 14, 2015, and Feb 8, 2017, we recruited 675 patients for assessment. 140 patients did not meet eligibility criteria, and 535 patients were randomly assigned to treatment. 179 patients were assigned to receive acalabrutinib-obinutuzumab, 179 patients were assigned to receive acalabrutinib monotherapy, and 177 patients were assigned to receive obinutuzumab-chlorambucil. At median follow-up of 28·3 months (IQR 25·6–33·1), median progression-free survival was longer with acalabrutinib-obinutuzumab and acalabrutinib monotherapy, compared with obinutuzumab-chlorambucil (median not reached with acalabrutinib and obinutuzumab vs 22·6 months with obinutuzumab, hazard ratio [HR] 0·1; 95% CI 0·06–0·17, p

Purpose: Venetoclax-based therapy is a standard-of-care option in first-line and relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Patient management following venetoclax discontinuation remains nonstandard and poorly understood. Experimental Design: To address this, we conducted a large international study to identify a cohort of 326 patients who discontinued venetoclax and have been subsequently treated. Coprimary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival for the post-venetoclax treatments stratified by treatment type [Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi), PI3K inhibitor (PI3Ki), and cellular therapies]. Results: We identified patients with CLL who discontinued venetoclax in the first-line (4%) and relapsed/refractory settings (96%). Patients received a median of three therapies prior to venetoclax; 40% were BTKi naïve (n = 130), and 81% were idelalisib naïve (n = 263). ORR to BTKi was 84% (n = 44) in BTKi-naïve patients versus 54% (n = 30) in BTKi-exposed patients. We demonstrate therapy selection following venetoclax requires prior novel agent exposure consideration and discontinuation reasons. Conclusions: For BTKi-naïve patients, selection of covalently binding BTKis results in high ORR and durable remissions. For BTKi-exposed patients, covalent BTK inhibition is not effective in the setting of BTKi resistance. PI3Kis following venetoclax do not appear to result in durable remissions. We conclude that BTKi in naïve or previously responsive patients and cellular therapies following venetoclax may be the most effective strategies. See related commentary by Rogers, p. 3501

CART cell therapy has changed the treatment landscape for relapsed/refractory aggressive lymphomas. In this article, we review the CART constructs most studied in lymphoma and their applicability.Results of ZUMA-1, JULIET and TRANSCEND trials will be reviewed. Real-world data will also be reviewed.CART cell therapy is evolving and becoming safer. Increased uptake of this modality outside of clinical trials is expected.

Venetoclax (VEN) is approved for relapsed/refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) as monotherapy (VENmono) or in combination with rituximab. Whether VEN plus anti-CD20 (VENcombo) is superior to VENmono is unknown. We conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort analysis comparing 321 CLL patients treated with VENmono vs VENcombo across the United States and the United Kingdom. We examined demographics, baseline characteristics, dosing, adverse events, response rates, and outcomes. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), estimated by Kaplan-Meier method, in patients treated with VENmono vs VENcombo. Univariate and bivariate analyses were performed with COX regression. Three hundred twenty-one CLL patients were included (3 median prior treatments, 78% prior ibrutinib). The overall response rates (ORRs) were similar (VENmono, 81% ORR, 34% complete remission [CR] vs VENcombo, 84% ORR, 32% CR). With a median follow-up of 13.4 months, no differences in PFS and OS were observed between the groups. In unadjusted analyses, the hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS and OS for VENmono vs VENcombo were HR 1.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6-1.8; P = .7) and HR 1.2 (95% CI, 0.6-2.3; P = .5), respectively. When adjusting for differences between the cohorts, the addition of an anti-CD20 antibody in combination with VEN did not impact PFS (HR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.5-2.0; P = .9) or OS (HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.4-2.6; P = .8). We demonstrate comparable efficacy between VENmono and VENcombo in a heavily pretreated, high-risk, retrospective cohort, in terms of both response data and survival outcomes. Prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.

7509 Background: Early results from ELEVATE-TN (NCT02475681) at a median follow-up of 28.3 mo demonstrated superior efficacy of acalabrutinib (A) ± obinutuzumab (O) compared with O + chlorambucil (Clb) in patients (pts) with treatment-naïve (TN) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) (Sharman et al. Lancet 2020;395:1278-91). Results from a 4-year update are reported here. Methods: Pts received A±O or O+Clb. Crossover to A monotherapy was permitted in pts who progressed on O+Clb. Investigator-assessed (INV) progression-free survival (PFS), INV overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety were evaluated. Results: 535 pts (A+O, n=179; A, n=179; O+Clb, n=177) were randomized with a median age of 70 y; 63% had unmutated IGHV and 9% del(17p). At a median follow-up of 46.9 mo (range, 0.0–59.4; data cutoff: Sept 11, 2020), the median PFS was not reached (NR) for A+O and A pts vs 27.8 mo for O+Clb pts (both P

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) that accounts for ∼6% of NHL cases in the USA [1]. Median overall survival (OS), now ∼4–5 years, has improved substantiall...

Escalating doses of bortezomib with high-dose melphalan was evaluated as as a conditioning regimen for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). MM patients with less than a partial remission (PR) (or 50% reduction) compared to their pretransplantation paraprotein parameters after a prior ASCT with melphalan conditioning, or who were in relapse after a prior autologous transplantation, were eligible for study. Bortezomib was dose escalated in steps of 1, 1.3, and 1.6 mg/m2 (3 × 3 design) on days −4 and −1 before transplantation with melphalan 200 mg/m2 given on day −2. Thirty-two patients were enrolled: 12 in the phase I dose escalation phase and an additional 20 in phase II to gain additional experience with the regimen. Twenty-four (75%) patients were Durie Salmon stage III, and 12 (37.5%) had >2 prior lines of therapy. The overall response rate (≥PR) was 44% with 22% complete remission. Two-year overall survival and progression-free survival were 76% and 39%, respectively, with a median follow-up of 31.7 months. The most common grade 3 and 4 nonhematologic adverse events were neutropenic fever (25%), nausea (18.8%), and mucositis (9.4%). Serious adverse events included intensive care unit admission (9.4%), seizure (3.1%), prolonged diarrhea (3.1%), and Guillain-Barre syndrome (3.1%). Two patients (6%) died of sepsis. There was no emergent peripheral neuropathy nor increase in any pre-existing peripheral neuropathy. The addition of bortezomib to melphalan as conditioning for salvage ASCT was well tolerated. More importantly, it can provide durable remission for patients who have a suboptimal response to prior single-agent melphalan conditioning for ASCT, without requiring a reduction in the dose of melphalan. Larger randomized prospective studies to determine the effect of combination conditioning are being conducted.

B-cell receptor kinase inhibitor (KI) therapy represents a paradigm shift in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) management, but data on practice patterns after KI discontinuation and optimal sequencing are limited. We conducted a multicenter, retrospective, comprehensive analysis on 178 patients with CLL (ibrutinib = 143; idelalisib = 35) who discontinued KI therapy. We examined responses, toxicity, post-KI therapies, and overall survival (OS). Patients had a median of 3 prior therapies (range 0-11); del17p (34%), p53 mutation (27%), del11q (33%), and complex karyotype (29%). Overall response rate (ORR) to first KI was 62% (complete response 14%). The most common reasons for KI discontinuation were toxicity (51%), CLL progression (29%), and Richter transformation (RT) (8%). Median progression-free survival (PFS) and OS from KI initiation were 10.5 and 29 months, respectively. Notably, initial KI choice did not impact PFS or OS; however, RT portended significantly inferior OS (P = .0007). One hundred fourteen patients received subsequent salvage therapy following KI discontinuation with an ORR to subsequent KI at 50% and a median PFS of 11.9 months. Median PFS in KI-intolerant patients treated with an alternate KI was not reached vs 7 months for patients with CLL progression. In summary, these data demonstrate that toxicity was the most common reason for KI discontinuation, that patients who discontinue KI due to toxicity can respond to an alternate KI, and that these responses may be durable. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02717611 and #NCT02742090.

Most patients eligible for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation will require identification of an alternate (unrelated or mismatched related) donor. We explored the transplantation outcomes for a sequential series of 54 patients undergoing haploidentical donor transplantation (HAPLO) compared to those from a control group of patients receiving cells from matched or mismatched unrelated donors (URD) selected by diagnosis and stem cell source. Patients undergoing HAPLO transplantations received graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis with post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (Cy). Day 15 neutrophil recovery was lower after HAPLO than in URD recipients (43% versus 77%, P .001), as was day 30 platelet recovery (67% versus 84%, P = .043). HAPLO patients receiving bone marrow achieved neutrophil engraftment at a median of 17 days and platelet engraftment at a median of 29 days, compared with 16 days and 24 days, respectively, for recipients of peripheral blood stem cells. The incidence of graft failure was similar for both HAPLO and URD recipients (P = .42). HAPLO recipients were more likely to reach donor CD3 chimerism95% by day 28 after transplantation (88% versus 62%, P = .003). The cumulative incidence of grades II to IV acute GVHD (aGVHD) at 6 months after transplantation did not differ for these 2 groups (63% for HAPLO and 53% for URD recipients; P = .269), nor did the cumulative incidence of severe grade III/IV aGVHD (13% for HAPLO and 8% for URD recipients; P = .44). The cumulative incidence of moderate or severe chronic GVHD at 2 years did not differ, with probabilities of 24% for HAPLO and 18% for URD recipients (P = .43). The cumulative incidence of cytomegalovirus reactivation by day 100 after transplantation did not differ (45% for HAPLO and 46% for URD recipients; P = .96). The HAPLO recipients experienced a lower incidence of Epstein-Barr virus reactivation by day 100 (6% versus 32%, P .001) but a higher incidence of Human Herpesvirus-6 reactivation (35% versus 10%, P = .001). Relapse risk, regimen-related mortality, progression-free survival, and overall survival probabilities did not differ between these 2 groups. These data support the use of HAPLO transplantation with post-transplantation Cy as an alternate transplantation technique for patients lacking HLA-matched sibling donors. Transplantation of peripheral blood stem cells does not appear to enhance the speed of neutrophil recovery. The different patterns of viral reactivation require additional studies to explain.

Background: Acalabrutinib is a highly selective, covalent irreversible Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor with minimal activity against other kinases. Acalabrutinib has demonstrated durable responses as a single agent or combined with O in treatment-naïve (TN) CLL. Here, interim results are presented for the multicenter, open-label Phase 3 ELEVATE-TN study (NCT02475681), which evaluated the efficacy and safety of acalabrutinib + O vs acalabrutinib alone vs O + Clb in pts with TN CLL. Methods: Eligible pts had TN CLL requiring treatment per iwCLL criteria and were aged ≥65 y or 6, creatinine clearance Results: From 9/14/2015-2/8/2017, 535 pts were randomized to the acalabrutinib + O (n=179), acalabrutinib (n= 179), or O + Clb (n=177) arms. The median age was 70 y (range, 41-91); 69% had high- and 12% had very high-risk CLL IPI scores. At a median follow-up of 28 mo, acalabrutinib + O significantly prolonged PFS vs O + Clb (median not reached [NR] vs 22.6 mo; HR 0.10, 95% CI 0.06-0.18, P IRC-assessed ORR was higher with acalabrutinib + O (94%; 95% CI, 89.3%-96.5%) vs O + Clb (79%; 95% CI, 71.9%-83.9%; P The median treatment duration was 27.7 mo for acalabrutinib + O (range, 2.3-40.3) and acalabrutinib (range, 0.3-40.2) and 5.6 mo (range, 0.9-7.4) for O + Clb. Common adverse events (AEs) are shown in the Table. AEs were similar between the acalabrutinib-containing arms. Infusion reactions were less frequent with acalabrutinib + O (13%) than with O + Clb (40%). AEs led to treatment discontinuation in 20 pts (11%) on acalabrutinib + O, 16 pts (9%) on acalabrutinib, and 25 pts (14%) on O + Clb. With >2 y of follow-up, 79.3% of pts in both the acalabrutinib-containing arms remain on single-agent acalabrutinib. AEs of interest (acalabrutinib + O or acalabrutinib vs O + Clb) were atrial fibrillation (any grade: 3% or 4% vs 1%), bleeding (any grade/Grade ≥3: 43%/2% or 39%/2% vs 12%/0%), and hypertension (Grade ≥3: 3% or 2% vs 3%). Conclusions: Acalabrutinib + O and acalabrutinib monotherapy significantly improved PFS vs O + Clb, with tolerable safety in pts with TN CLL. Despite cross over for disease progression in the O + Clb arm, a trend toward improved OS was observed in both acalabrutinib arms, though longer follow-up is needed. Disclosures Sharman: AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Banerji:CIHR: Research Funding; LLSC: Research Funding; Research Manitoba: Research Funding; CCMF: Research Funding; CancerCare Manitoba/University of Manitoba: Employment; CAPhO: Honoraria; BIOGEN: Other: Licensing fee; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute: Other: Licencing fee; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Licensing fee, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Herishanu:Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Munir:Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Other: TBC; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alexion: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria. Walewska:Gilead: 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, Other: Travel grant, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel grant, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Other: Travel grant; Novartis: Other: travel grant. Follows:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Karlsson:Skane University Hospital: Employment. Ghia:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; ArQule: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Dynamo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Corbett:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tauranga Hospital: Employment; Pathlab Waikato: Equity Ownership. Walker:Peninsula Health (public hospital): Employment; Alfred health (public hospital): Employment; Roche: Other: Travel grant. Jurczak:Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Loxo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celtrion: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding. Salles:Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis, Servier, AbbVie, Karyopharm, Kite, MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Roche, Janssen, Gilead, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Autolus: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Educational events. Janssens:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; idem consultancy: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Cymbalista:AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Sunesis: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Wierda:Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Cyclcel: Research Funding; KITE pharma: Research Funding; Loxo Oncology Inc.: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma Inc: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Miragen: Research Funding; Oncternal Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; GSK/Novartis: Research Funding. Coutre:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Research Funding; BeiGene: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses & Data Safety Monitoring Committee; Genentech: Consultancy. Pagel:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Skarbnik:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Verastem Oncology: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; CLL Society: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Kamdar:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; University of Colorado: Employment; Celgene: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Woyach:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Loxo: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding. Izumi:AstraZeneca: Equity Ownership; Acerta Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties: Acalabrutinib patents. Munugalavadla:Acerta Pharma: Employment; Gilead Sciences: Equity Ownership; AstraZeneca: Equity Ownership. Patel:Acerta Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership; AstraZeneca: Equity Ownership. Wang:Acerta Pharma: Employment; AstraZeneca: Equity Ownership. Wong:Acerta Pharma: Employment. Byrd:Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Introduction In clinical practice, a hematopoietic progenitor cell (HPC) dose of 2 million CD34+ cells/kg is the desired minimum needed for timely neutrophil and platelet (PLT) engraftment in autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Patients frequently receive higher HPC doses with the median pre-cryopreservation dose at our center being 5 million CD34+ cells/kg adjBW25%. Cryopreservation (CP) and thawing leads to cell loss through mechanisms including activation of the caspase pathway. The degree of loss in post-CP HPC doses can range from 20 to 85%; hence the cell dose that is able to effectuate engraftment is determined by the percentage of surviving cells in the initial pre-CP cell dose. This effective residual vital dose (ERVD) is the product of the pre-CP cell dose and the post thaw viability percentage. Objective Correlate viability, HPC cell dose and the ERVD to engraftment. Method We conducted a retrospective review of autologous HCT patients at our center to correlate the ERVD with engraftment. Twenty-five patients, ages 32 to 76, receiving 27 transplants had HPC infusions during 1 or 2 sessions within 3 days of each other. Diagnoses were multiple myeloma (MM) (n=20) and lymphoma (n=7). Engraftment of neutrophils and PLTs was defined using CIBMTR definitions. Viability was assessed by 7AAD on CD34+ cells. Data was analyzed with Excel Correlation Function which calculates the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient for 2 sets of values. Results The median neutrophil and PLT engraftment times were 11 and 16.5 days, respectively. Correlation of the HPC dose of the total population with neutrophil engraftment data, revealed the r value to be -0.31 for all patients, -0.20 for lymphoma patients, and -0.32 for MM patients. Cell dose correlation with PLT engraftment revealed the r value to be -0.43 for the total population (Figure 1), -0.52 for the lymphoma subset, and -0.55 for the MM subset. We found a moderately strong correlation of ERVD with PLT engraftment with an r value of -0.56 for the entire population, i.e. as ERVD increased, time to PLT engraftment decreased (Figure 2). When separated by diagnosis (MM vs lymphoma) the ERVD correlated moderately with PLT engraftment, r value of -0.57 amongst the MM subset and -0.88 for the lymphoma subset (Figure 3). Neutrophil engraftment had a weaker correlation with the ERVD, r value of -0.33 for the entire population, -0.41 for the MM subset, and -0.68 for the lymphoma subset. Conclusion Based on our data, the ERVD has a moderately strong correlation with PLT and neutrophil engraftment in a population of MM and lymphoma patients undergoing autologous HCT. The correlation was stronger for PLT engraftment and strongest amongst patients with lymphoma. To achieve our median engraftment times for neutrophils and PLTs the optimal ERVD of approximately 3 Million CD34/Kg adjBW25% is suggested.

Duvelisib (also known as IPI-145) is an oral, dual inhibitor of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase δ and γ (PI3K-δ,γ) being developed for treatment of hematologic malignancies. PI3K-δ,γ signaling can promote B-cell proliferation and survival in clonal B-cell malignancies, such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL). In a phase 1 study, duvelisib showed clinically meaningful activity and acceptable safety in CLL/SLL patients. We report here the results of DUO, a global phase 3 randomized study of duvelisib vs ofatumumab monotherapy for patients with relapsed or refractory (RR) CLL/SLL. Patients were randomized 1:1 to oral duvelisib 25 mg twice daily (n = 160) or ofatumumab IV (n = 159). The study met the primary study end point by significantly improving progression-free survival per independent review committee assessment compared with ofatumumab for all patients (median, 13.3 months vs 9.9 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.52; P < .0001), including those with high-risk chromosome 17p13.1 deletions [del(17p)] and/or TP53 mutations (HR = 0.40; P = .0002). The overall response rate was significantly higher with duvelisib (74% vs 45%; P < .0001) regardless of del(17p) status. The most common adverse events were diarrhea, neutropenia, pyrexia, nausea, anemia, and cough on the duvelisib arm, and neutropenia and infusion reactions on the ofatumumab arm. The DUO trial data support duvelisib as a potentially effective treatment option for patients with RR CLL/SLL. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02004522.