Search

Although BTK inhibitors provide long-term disease-control in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, they need to be combined with BCL2 inhibitors or antibodies to achieve deep responses with undetectable minimal residual disease (uMRD), which allows for time-limited treatment. This trial aims to evaluate the triple combination of obinutuzumab, acalabrutinib, and venetoclax after an optional debulking with bendamustine.This multicentre, open-label, investigator-initiated, phase 2 study evaluates a sequential treatment consisting of a debulking with two cycles of bendamustine for patients with a higher tumour load (70 mg/mBetween Jan 14, 2019, and June 25, 2020, 45 evaluable patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia were enrolled; 13 (29%) were female, 32 (71%) were male, 21 (47%) had already received a targeted agent, and 14 (32%) had del(17)(p13.1) or TP53 mutation. Ethnicity-race data was not collected. At data cutoff (Feb 25, 2021), all patients had completed the induction treatment. 34 patients (76%; 95% CI 61-87, p=0·26) had uMRD in peripheral blood after 6 months of triple therapy. Until data cutoff, 32 (71%) patients started maintenance and nine (28%) were able to stop with uMRD. After a median observation time of 13·8 months (IQR 10·4-18·4), there were two (4%) Richter transformations, but no progressions and no deaths observed. The most common adverse events of grade 3 and 4 during the entire treatment were thrombocytopenia and neutropenia (12 [27%] of 45 patients each), tumour lysis syndrome and infections (five [11%] of 45 patients each, grade 3 adverse events only), infusion-associated reactions (four [9%] of 45 patients) and anaemia (four [9%] of 45 patients).With 76% of patients achieving uMRD in peripheral blood, this trial did not reach the prespecified activity threshold. Triple therapy with obinutuzumab, acalabrutinib, and venetoclax after an optional debulking with bendamustine regimen requires further evaluation in larger trials to define its value compared with double treatment with a BTK or BCL2 inhibitor combined with obinutuzumab or a combination of the two oral targeted drugs. Until these trials show a clear benefit, the use of the triple combination in routine practice cannot be recommended.Acerta, AstraZeneca, F Hoffmann-La Roche, and AbbVie.

The prospective multicentre Phase II PTLD-2 trial (NCT02042391) tested modified risk-stratification in adult SOT recipients with CD20-positive PTLD based on principles established in the PTLD-1 trials: sequential treatment and risk-stratification. After rituximab monotherapy induction, patients in complete remission as well as those in partial remission with IPI p = 0.432). 2-year OS in the low-risk group was 100%. Results with R-CHOP-21 in high-risk patients confirmed previous results. Immunochemotherapy intensification in very-high-risk patients was disappointing.

BACKGROUNDRandomized trials of venetoclax plus anti-CD20 antibodies as first-line treatment in fit patients (i.e., those with a low burden of coexisting conditions) with advanced chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have been lacking.METHODSIn a phase 3, open-label trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1:1 ratio, fit patients with CLL who did not have TP53 aberrations to receive six cycles of chemoimmunotherapy (fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab) or 12 cycles of venetoclax-rituximab, venetoclax-obinutuzumab, or venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib. Ibrutinib was discontinued after two consecutive measurements of undetectable minimal residual disease or could be extended. The primary end points were undetectable minimal residual disease (sensitivity, RESULTSA total of 926 patients were assigned to one of the four treatment regimens (229 to chemoimmunotherapy, 237 to venetoclax-rituximab, 229 to venetoclax-obinutuzumab, and 231 to venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib). At month 15, the percentage of patients with undetectable minimal residual disease was significantly higher in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group (86.5%; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 80.6 to 91.1) and the venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib group (92.2%; 97.5% CI, 87.3 to 95.7) than in the chemoimmunotherapy group (52.0%; 97.5% CI, 44.4 to 59.5; PCONCLUSIONSVenetoclax-obinutuzumab with or without ibrutinib was superior to chemoimmunotherapy as first-line treatment in fit patients with CLL. (Funded by AbbVie and others; GAIA-CLL13 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02950051; EudraCT number, 2015-004936-36.) BACKGROUNDRandomized trials of venetoclax plus anti-CD20 antibodies as first-line treatment in fit patients (i.e., those with a low burden of coexisting conditions) with advanced chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have been lacking.METHODSIn a phase 3, open-label trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1:1 ratio, fit patients with CLL who did not have TP53 aberrations to receive six cycles of chemoimmunotherapy (fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab) or 12 cycles of venetoclax-rituximab, venetoclax-obinutuzumab, or venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib. Ibrutinib was discontinued after two consecutive measurements of undetectable minimal residual disease or could be extended. The primary end points were undetectable minimal residual disease (sensitivity, RESULTSA total of 926 patients were assigned to one of the four treatment regimens (229 to chemoimmunotherapy, 237 to venetoclax-rituximab, 229 to venetoclax-obinutuzumab, and 231 to venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib). At month 15, the percentage of patients with undetectable minimal residual disease was significantly higher in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group (86.5%; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 80.6 to 91.1) and the venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib group (92.2%; 97.5% CI, 87.3 to 95.7) than in the chemoimmunotherapy group (52.0%; 97.5% CI, 44.4 to 59.5; PCONCLUSIONSVenetoclax-obinutuzumab with or without ibrutinib was superior to chemoimmunotherapy as first-line treatment in fit patients with CLL. (Funded by AbbVie and others; GAIA-CLL13 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02950051; EudraCT number, 2015-004936-36.)

Purpose: With the advent of highly efficacious time-limited combination treatments of targeted agents in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment has gained importance as a measure for therapeutic success and as a surrogate for progression-free survival. The currently most widely used method is multicolor flow cytometry, which detects circulating CLL cells in the peripheral blood. However, it seems to be less sensitive for the detection of MRD in the lymph node compartment. Patients and Methods: To evaluate whether a cell-free approach can overcome this limitation, we performed serial assessments of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in patients with CLL treated with obinutuzumab, acalabrutinib, and venetoclax in the phase II CLL2-BAAG trial. Patient-specific variability, diversity, joining (VDJ) rearrangements as well as somatic driver mutations were tracked before, during and after treatment by digital droplet PCR in blood plasma. Furthermore, these were systematically compared to matched flow cytometry data. Results: In the 381 sample pairs, ctDNA and flow cytometry yielded highly concordant results. However, clone-specific ctDNA was detected in 44 of 152 samples (29%) that were assessed as undetectable MRD (uMRD) by flow cytometry (defined as less than one CLL cell in 10,000 normal leukocytes). 29 ctDNA-negative samples showed detectable MRD >10–4 by flow cytometry. Also, somatic driver mutations were detected with a similar sensitivity compared with patient-specific VDJ rearrangements in plasma. In patients with predominantly nodal residual disease, ctDNA compared favorably with 4-color flow cytometry and seemed to more accurately reflect the entire disease burden across compartments. Conclusions: On the basis of these findings, ctDNA-based MRD assessment appears to be a promising method to complement cell-based MRD approaches like flow cytometry that focus on circulating CLL cells in the peripheral blood.

Reproducible expert-independent flow-cytometric criteria for the differential diagnoses between mature B-cell neoplasms are lacking. We developed an algorithm-driven classification for these lymphomas by flow cytometry and compared it to the WHO gold standard diagnosis. Overall, 662 samples from 662 patients representing 9 disease categories were analyzed at 9 laboratories using the previously published EuroFlow 5-tube-8-color B-cell chronic lymphoproliferative disease antibody panel. Expression levels of all 26 markers from the panel were plotted by B-cell entity to construct a univariate, fully standardized diagnostic reference library. For multivariate data analysis, we subsequently used canonical correlation analysis of 176 training cases to project the multidimensional space of all 26 immunophenotypic parameters into 36 2-dimensional plots for each possible pairwise differential diagnosis. Diagnostic boundaries were fitted according to the distribution of the immunophenotypes of a given differential diagnosis. A diagnostic algorithm based on these projections was developed and subsequently validated using 486 independent cases. Negative predictive values exceeding 92.1% were observed for all disease categories except for follicular lymphoma. Particularly high positive predictive values were returned in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (99.1%), hairy cell leukemia (97.2%), follicular lymphoma (97.2%), and mantle cell lymphoma (95.4%). Burkitt and CD10 diffuse large B-cell lymphomas were difficult to distinguish by the algorithm. A similar ambiguity was observed between marginal zone, lymphoplasmacytic, and CD10 diffuse large B-cell lymphomas. The specificity of the approach exceeded 98% for all entities. The univariate immunophenotypic library and the multivariate expert-independent diagnostic algorithm might contribute to increased reproducibility of future diagnostics in mature B-cell neoplasms., This work was supported by the EuroFlow Consortium, which received support from the FP6-2004-LIFESCIHEALTH-5 program of the European Commission (grant LSHB-CT-2006-018708) as Specific Targeted Research Project (STREP). The EuroFlow Consortium is part of the European Scientific Foundation for Hemato-Oncology (ESLHO), a Scientific Working Group (SWG) of the European Hematology Association (EHA).

Supplementary Data from Circulating Tumor DNA–Based MRD Assessment in Patients with CLL Treated with Obinutuzumab, Acalabrutinib, and Venetoclax

Purpose:With the advent of highly efficacious time-limited combination treatments of targeted agents in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment has gained importance as a measure for therapeutic success and as a surrogate for progression-free survival. The currently most widely used method is multicolor flow cytometry, which detects circulating CLL cells in the peripheral blood. However, it seems to be less sensitive for the detection of MRD in the lymph node compartment.Patients and Methods:To evaluate whether a cell-free approach can overcome this limitation, we performed serial assessments of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in patients with CLL treated with obinutuzumab, acalabrutinib, and venetoclax in the phase II CLL2-BAAG trial. Patient-specific variability, diversity, joining (VDJ) rearrangements as well as somatic driver mutations were tracked before, during and after treatment by digital droplet PCR in blood plasma. Furthermore, these were systematically compared to matched flow cytometry data.Results:In the 381 sample pairs, ctDNA and flow cytometry yielded highly concordant results. However, clone-specific ctDNA was detected in 44 of 152 samples (29%) that were assessed as undetectable MRD (uMRD) by flow cytometry (defined as less than one CLL cell in 10,000 normal leukocytes). 29 ctDNA-negative samples showed detectable MRD >10–4 by flow cytometry. Also, somatic driver mutations were detected with a similar sensitivity compared with patient-specific VDJ rearrangements in plasma. In patients with predominantly nodal residual disease, ctDNA compared favorably with 4-color flow cytometry and seemed to more accurately reflect the entire disease burden across compartments.Conclusions:On the basis of these findings, ctDNA-based MRD assessment appears to be a promising method to complement cell-based MRD approaches like flow cytometry that focus on circulating CLL cells in the peripheral blood.

The sensitivity of conventional techniques for reliable quantification of minimal/measurable residual disease (MRD) in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is limited to MRD 10−4. Measuring MRD −4 could help to further distinguish between patients with CLL with durable remission and those at risk of early relapse. We herein present an academically developed immunoglobulin heavy-chain variable (IGHV) leader-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) assay for the quantification of MRD in CLL. We demonstrate, based on measurements in contrived MRD samples, that the linear range of detection and quantification of our assay reaches beyond MRD 10−5. If provided with sufficient DNA input, MRD can be detected down to MRD 10−6. There was high interassay concordance between measurements of the IGHV leader-based NGS assay and allele-specific oligonucleotide quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (r = 0.92 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.86-0.96]) and droplet digital PCR (r = 0.93 [95% CI, 0.88-0.96]) on contrived MRD samples. In a cohort of 67 patients from the CLL11 trial, using MRD 10−5 as a cutoff, undetectable MRD was associated with superior progression-free survival (PFS) and time to next treatment. More important, deeper MRD measurement allowed for additional stratification of patients with MRD −4 but ≥10−5. PFS of patients in this MRD range was significantly shorter, compared with patients with MRD −5 (hazard ratio [HR], 4.0 [95% CI, 1.6-10.3]; P = .004), but significantly longer, compared with patients with MRD ≥10−4 (HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.23-0.87]; P = .018). These results support the clinical utility of the IGHV leader-based NGS assay.

PURPOSE The CLL14 study has established one-year fixed-duration treatment of venetoclax and obinutuzumab (Ven-Obi) for patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia. With all patients off treatment for at least three years, we report a detailed analysis of minimal residual disease (MRD) kinetics and long-term outcome of patients treated in the CLL14 study. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to receive six cycles of obinutuzumab with 12 cycles of venetoclax or 12 cycles of chlorambucil (Clb-Obi). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end point. Key secondary end points included rates of undetectable MRD and overall survival. To analyze MRD kinetics, a population-based growth model with nonlinear mixed effects approach was developed. RESULTS Of 432 patients, 216 were assigned to Ven-Obi and 216 to Clb-Obi. Three months after treatment completion, 40% of patients in the Ven-Obi arm (7% in the Clb-Obi arm) had undetectable MRD levels < 10−6 by next-generation sequencing in peripheral blood. Median MRD doubling time was longer after Ven-Obi than Clb-Obi therapy (median 80 v 69 days). At a median follow-up of 52.4 months, a sustained significant PFS improvement was observed in the Ven-Obi arm compared with Clb-Obi (median not reached v 36.4 months; hazard ratio 0.33; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.45; P < .0001). The estimated 4-year PFS rate was 74.0% in the Ven-Obi and 35.4% in the Clb-Obi arm. No difference in overall survival was observed (hazard ratio 0.85; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.35; P = .49). No new safety signals occurred. CONCLUSION Appearance of MRD after Ven-Obi is significantly slower than that after Clb-Obi with more effective MRD reduction. These findings translate into a superior long-term efficacy with the majority of Ven-Obi–treated patients remaining in remission.

Post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders (PTLD) exclusively affecting the central nervous system—primary CNS-PTLD (pCNS-PTLD)—are rare. There is no standard therapy, and previous case series have included heterogeneous treatment approaches. We performed a retrospective, multi-centre analysis of 14 patients with pCNS-PTLD after solid organ transplantation (SOT) treated in the prospective German PTLD registry with reduction of immunosuppression (RI), whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT), and concurrent systemic rituximab between 2001 and 2018. Twelve of fourteen patients were kidney transplant recipients and median age at diagnosis was 65 years. Thirteen of fourteen cases (93%) were monomorphic PTLD of the diffuse large B-cell lymphoma type, and 12/13 were EBV-associated. The median dose of WBRT administered was 40 Gy with a median fraction of 2 Gy. The median number of administered doses of rituximab (375 mg/m2) IV was four. All ten patients evaluated responded to treatment (100%). Median OS was 2.5 years with a 2-year Kaplan–Meier estimate of 63% (95% confidence interval 30–83%) without any recorded relapses after a median follow-up of 2.6 years. Seven of fourteen patients (50%) suffered grade III/IV infections under therapy (fatal in two cases, 14%). During follow-up, imaging demonstrated grey matter changes interpreted as radiation toxicity in 7/10 evaluated patients (70%). The combination of RI, WBRT, and rituximab was an effective yet toxic treatment of pCNS-PTLD in this series of 14 patients. Future treatment approaches in pCNS-PTLD should take into account the significant risk of infections as well as radiation-induced neurotoxicity.

The placebo controlled CLLM1 trial evaluated the efficacy of lenalidomide maintenance treatment in patients with high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in first remission after chemoimmunotherapy (CIT). Upon observation of three cases with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in overall 56 lenalidomide treated patients (5.4%), the study treatment was prematurely stopped. Using next generation sequencing of B cell and T cell receptor (TR) rearrangements, we here report common clonal B cell ancestry between CLL and ALL in one of those three patients, in whom both diseases shared the same VDJ- as well as crosslineage TR rearrangements. Chromosomal/mutation analyses indicated that in this patient the ALL developed from a common B cell precursor which lacks genomic lesions acquired in the CLL subclone, but shares a BIRC3 frameshift deletion (p.L421fs*). In two cases we found independent IGH rearrangements indicating de novo ALL development from a different B cell clone. A retrospective cohort analysis of >1600 CLL patients treated with first-line CIT in previously reported phase 2-3 studies of the German CLL study group, yielded a significantly lower cumulative incidence of ALL at 12.6 cases/100,000 patient years, compared to 1345.5 cases/100,000 patient-years observed in the lenalidomide arm of the CLLM1 study. Given our results and increasing knowledge on the biological effects of lenalidomide in bone marrow precursor cells, we discuss the potential involvement of lenalidomide in the pathogenesis of ALL in CLL patients.

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is characterized by the existence of subsets of patients with (quasi)identical, stereotyped B-cell receptor (BcR) immunoglobulins. Patients in certain major stereotyped subsets often display remarkably consistent clinicobiological profiles, suggesting that the study of BcR immunoglobulin stereotypy in CLL has important implications for understanding disease pathophysiology and refining clinical decision-making. Nevertheless, several issues remain open, especially pertaining to the actual frequency of BcR immunoglobulin stereotypy and major subsets, as well as the existence of higher-order connections between individual subsets. To address these issues, we investigated clonotypic IGHV-IGHD-IGHJ gene rearrangements in a series of 29 856 patients with CLL, by far the largest series worldwide. We report that the stereotyped fraction of CLL peaks at 41% of the entire cohort and that all 19 previously identified major subsets retained their relative size and ranking, while 10 new ones emerged; overall, major stereotyped subsets had a cumulative frequency of 13.5%. Higher-level relationships were evident between subsets, particularly for major stereotyped subsets with unmutated IGHV genes (U-CLL), for which close relations with other subsets, termed “satellites,” were identified. Satellite subsets accounted for 3% of the entire cohort. These results confirm our previous notion that major subsets can be robustly identified and are consistent in relative size, hence representing distinct disease variants amenable to compartmentalized research with the potential of overcoming the pronounced heterogeneity of CLL. Furthermore, the existence of satellite subsets reveals a novel aspect of repertoire restriction with implications for refined molecular classification of CLL. Key Points: • In a series of 29 856 CLL patients, the incidence of BcR stereotypy peaked at 41%. • Higher-order relations exist between stereotyped subsets, particularly for those from U-CLL, for which satellite subsets were identified.

Genetic parameters are established prognostic factors in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) treated with chemoimmunotherapy, but are less well studied with novel compounds. We assessed immunoglobulin heavy variable chain (IGHV) mutation status, common genomic aberrations, and gene mutations in 421 untreated patients within the CLL14 trial (NCT02242942), comparing obinutuzumab+chlorambucil (GClb) vs obinutuzumab+venetoclax (VenG). The incidences of genomic aberrations considering the hierarchical model were del(17p) 7%, del(11q) 18%, +12 18%, and del(13q) 35%, whereas IGHV was unmutated in 60% of patients. NOTCH1 mutations were most common (23%), followed by SF3B1 (16%), ATM (13%), and TP53 (10%). Although the overall response rate (ORR) for GClb was lower in patients with del(17p), del(11q), mutated TP53, ATM, and BIRC3, none of these parameters reduced complete remission (CR) rate and ORR with VenG. At a median follow-up of 28 months, del(17p) and mutated TP53 were the only abnormalities with an effect on progression-free survival (PFS) for both treatment groups: GClb (hazard ratio [HR], 4.6 [P < .01]; HR, 2.7 [P < .01], respectively) and VenG (HR, 4.4 [P < .01]; HR, 3.1 [P < .01], respectively). No other factors affected outcome with VenG, whereas for GClb del(11q), BIRC3, NOTCH1, and unmutated IGHV were associated with shorter PFS. Multivariable analysis identified del(17p), del(11q), unmutated IGHV, and mutated TP53, BIRC3, and SF3B1 as independent prognostic factors for PFS with GClb, whereas for VenG, only del(17p) was significant. VenG was superior to GClb across most genetic subgroups. Patients with adverse genetic markers had the strongest benefit from VenG, particularly subjects with unmutated IGHV, which was identified as a predictive factor in a multivariable treatment-interaction analysis.

Background: The introduction of targeted agents has revolutionized the treatment of CLL but only few patients achieve complete remissions and minimal residual disease negativity with ibrutinib monotherapy. Methods: This multicentre, investigator-initiated phase-II study evaluates a sequential treatment with two cycles of bendamustine debulking for patients with a higher tumour load, followed by ofatumumab and ibrutinib induction and maintenance treatment. An all-comer population, irrespective of prior treatment, physical fitness and genetic factors was included. The primary endpoint was the investigator assessed overall response rate at the end of induction treatment. Findings: Of 66 patients enrolled, one patient with early treatment discontinuation was excluded from the efficacy analysis as predefined by the protocol. Thirty-nine patients (60%) were treatment-naive and 26 patients (40%) had relapsed/refractory CLL, 21 patients (32%) had a del(17p) and/or TP53 mutation and 45 patients (69%) had an unmutated IGHV status. At the end of the induction, 60 of 65 patients (92%) responded and 9 (14%) achieved minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity (

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

Despite considerable treatment advances with targeted therapies for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) deemed high-risk [del(17p) and/or TP53 mutation], the outcome is still inferior compared with other CLL patients. Combining multiple agents with distinct mechanisms of action may further improve outcomes. CLL2-GIVe is an open-label, multicenter trial which enrolled patients with previously untreated CLL with del(17p) and/or TP53 mutation. Patients received induction therapy with obinutuzumab (GA-101), ibrutinib, and venetoclax (GIVe) for cycles 1 through 6 and consolidation therapy with venetoclax and ibrutinib for cycles 7 through 12. Ibrutinib monotherapy was continued for cycles 13 through 36 in patients not reaching a complete response (CR) with serial undetectable minimal residual disease (uMRD) after consolidation. The primary endpoint was CR rate at cycle 15 (final restaging). Secondary endpoints included MRD, survival, and safety. All 41 patients enrolled between September 2016 and August 2018 received study treatment and were included in efficacy and safety populations. With a CR rate of 58.5% at cycle 15, the primary endpoint was met (95% CI: 42.1-73.7; P < .001). At final restaging, 78.0% of patients had uMRD in peripheral blood (PB); 65.9% of patients had uMRD in bone marrow (BM). Estimated progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates at 24 months were both 95.1%. Adverse events were reported in all patients; most were low grade (grade ≥3: 23.9%). Two deaths were reported (cardiac failure and ovarian carcinoma), neither related to study treatment. The CLL2-GIVe treatment regimen has a manageable safety profile and is a first-line treatment of good efficacy for patients with high-risk CLL.

Introduction: The CLL2-BCG trial is a prospective, open-label, multicenter phase-II study based on the "sequential triple-T" (tailored, targeted, total eradication of CLL) concept proposed earlier [Hallek M., Blood 2013; 122(23): 3723-34]. This concept consists of sequentially applied combinations of targeted agents and aims for achieving undetectable minimal residual disease (MRD). It uses a sequential application of bendamustine (Ben) for debulking, followed by obinutuzumab (Obi) plus idelalisib (Ide) as induction and maintenance therapy for an all-comer population of physically fit and unfit, treatment-naïve (t-n) and relapsed/refractory (r/r) CLL patients (pts) irrespective of high-risk genetic markers. Methods: Pts with an absolute lymphocyte count ≥ 25.000/µl and/or lymph nodes ≥ 5 cm were to receive 2 cycles of Ben as debulking (70 mg/m² d1&2 q28 d), unless contraindicated. In the induction phase Obi 1000 mg was administered on d 1, 8 and 15 of cycle 1 and d1 of cycles 2-6; Ide was added in cycle 2 (150 mg twice daily). In the maintenance phase, daily dosing of Ide was continued and Obi was administered every 3 months until achieving a MRD-negative complete response or for up to 24 months. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR) at the end of induction therapy, secondary endpoints included MRD assessment, safety and survival. Due to an increased incidence of opportunistic infections in other Ide trials, amendment 2 in March 2016 limited the recruitment to r/r CLL pts with high-risk features such as presence of a deletion 17p/TP53 mutation and/or ineligibility for ibrutinib treatment (refractoriness, intolerance or contraindications). Slow enrolment led to recruitment stop in September 2019. Results: Between May 2015 and September 2019, 48 pts were enrolled. Sixteen pts were t-n and 32 had r/r CLL with a median of 2 prior lines (range: 1-10); most common were BR and FCR, 6 pts each had received ibrutinib and venetoclax containing therapies. Median age was 66 (range 41-83) years, median CIRS score was 2 (0-13). Twenty-three pts (48%) were defined unfit by a CIRS score >6 (7 pts) and/or an impaired renal function with a Creatinine Clearance Thirty-eight patients (79%, 16 t-n and 22r/r) received Ben debulking. However, 8 pts never started the induction phase due to protocol amendment 2. Forty pts (10 t-n, 30 r/r) received induction treatment (FAS [full analysis set]), 33 completed the full 6 cycles (PP [per protocol] collective). Twenty-seven (7 t-n, 20 r/r) continued in a maintenance phase. At the end of induction, 32 of 40 pts (FAS) and 28 of 33 pts with 6 induction cycles (PP) responded (ORR 80% and 85%, respectively); undetectable MRD levels ( As of June 8th 2020, 603 adverse events (AEs) were reported in the entire cohort; 313 (52%) were related to study drug and 127 (21%) were serious adverse events. 286 (47%) occurred in the induction treatment (see table 1). Of these, 69 (24%) were CTC grade 3 and 18 (6%) CTC grade 4, 4 had a fatal outcome. Most common AEs in the induction were infusion-related reactions, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, nasopharyngitis, headache, and fatigue [Table 2]. Summary/Conclusion: Sequential treatment with Ben debulking, followed by Obi and Ide induction and maintenance achieved responses and even undetectable MRD levels in CLL patients with high-risk disease and extensive prior therapy. However, the study also confirmed the known toxicities of Ide. In light of the current, alternative therapeutic options, the BCG regimen reported here should be used with caution, but represents an alternative treatment option if ibrutinib and venetoclax have failed. Disclosures Cramer: Gilead: Other: travel support, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Beigene: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: travel support; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding. Von Tresckow:Celgene: Other: travel grants; AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding. Fink:AbbVie: Other: travel grants; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding. Tausch:Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Knauf:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; AMGEN: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria. Al-Sawaf:BeiGene: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: personal fees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: personal fees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: personal fees. Langerbeins:AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding. Fischer:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Honoraria, Other: travel grants; AbbVie: Honoraria. Kreuzer:Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ritgen:Gilead: Other: travel grants; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel grants; F. Hoffman-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kneba:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding. Wendtner:Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Hoffmann-LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding. Stilgenbauer:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding. Eichhorst:Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; ArQule: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; BeiGene: 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; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding. Hallek:F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Background The BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax has shown activity in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), but its efficacy in combination with other agents in patients with CLL and ...

Post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders (PTLD) exclusively affecting the central nervous system-primary CNS-PTLD (pCNS-PTLD)-are rare. There is no standard therapy, and previous case series have included heterogeneous treatment approaches. We performed a retrospective, multi-centre analysis of 14 patients with pCNS-PTLD after solid organ transplantation (SOT) treated in the prospective German PTLD registry with reduction of immunosuppression (RI), whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT), and concurrent systemic rituximab between 2001 and 2018. Twelve of fourteen patients were kidney transplant recipients and median age at diagnosis was 65 years. Thirteen of fourteen cases (93%) were monomorphic PTLD of the diffuse large B-cell lymphoma type, and 12/13 were EBV-associated. The median dose of WBRT administered was 40 Gy with a median fraction of 2 Gy. The median number of administered doses of rituximab (375 mg/m

Central nervous system (CNS) involvement remains a challenge in the diagnosis and treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). In this study, we identify CD79a (also known as Igα), a signaling component of the preB cell receptor (preBCR), to be associated with CNS-infiltration and –relapse in B-cell precursor (BCP)-ALL patients. Furthermore, we show that downregulation of CD79a hampers the engraftment of leukemia cells in different murine xenograft models, particularly in the CNS., Lenk et al find that the preB cell receptor (preBCR) is associated with infiltration and relapse of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in the central nervous system (CNS). They also show that downregulation of preBCR component CD79a reduces the engraftment of leukemia cells in different murine xenograft models, particularly in the CNS.

Venetoclax plus obinutuzumab has been established as a fixed-duration treatment regimen for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. We compared the long-term efficacy after treatment cessation of the combination of venetoclax plus obinutuzumab with chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab in patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia.CLL14 is a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial done at 196 sites in 21 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, and coexisting conditions with a cumulative illness rating scale greater than 6, a creatinine clearance of 30-69 mL/min, or both. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a web and voicemail system with allocation concealment and based on a computer-generated randomisation schedule with a block size of six and stratified by Binet stage and geographical region. Patients received either venetoclax plus obinutuzumab (oral venetoclax initiated on day 22 of cycle 1 [28-day cycles], with a 5-week dose ramp-up [20 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg, and 200 mg, then 400 mg daily for 1 week], thereafter continuing at 400 mg daily until completion of cycle 12; combined with intravenous obinutuzumab for six cycles starting with 100 mg on day 1 and 900 mg on day 2 [or 1000 mg on day 1], 1000 mg on days 8 and day 15 of cycle 1, and subsequently 1000 mg on day 1 of cycles 2 through 6) or chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (oral chlorambucil at 0·5 mg/kg bodyweight on days 1 and 15 of each cycle for 12 cycles combined with the same obinutuzumab regimen). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. Patient enrolment is complete, and the study is registered with ClinicalTrails.gov, NCT02242942.Between Aug 7, 2015, and Aug 4, 2016, 432 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either venetoclax plus obinutuzumab (n=216) or chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (n=216). All patients had been off treatment for at least 24 months at data collection. At a median follow-up of 39·6 months (IQR 36·8-43·0), patients given venetoclax plus obinutuzumab had a significantly longer progression-free survival than did patients given chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (HR 0·31, 95% CI 0·22-0·44; p0·0001). Median progression-free survival was not reached (95% CI not estimable to not estimable) in the venetoclax plus obinutuzumab group vs 35·6 months (33·7-40·7) in the chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab group. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event in both groups was neutropenia (112 [53%] of 212 patients in the venetoclax plus obinutuzumab group versus 102 [48%] of 214 patients in the chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab group). Serious adverse events occurred in 115 (54%) of 212 patients in the venetoclax plus obinutuzumab group and 95 (44%) of 214 patients in the chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab group. Venetoclax or chlorambucil treatment-related deaths were reported in one (1%) of 212 patients in the venetoclax plus obinutuzumab group (n=1 sepsis) and two (1%) of 214 patients in the chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab group (n=1 septic shock, n=1 metastatic skin squamous carcinoma).2 years after treatment cessation, venetoclax plus obinutuzumab continues to significantly improve progression-survival compared with chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab, thereby providing a limited duration treatment option for patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia.F Hoffmann-La Roche and AbbVie.

8045 Background: The PTLD-1 trials have established risk-stratified sequential treatment of B-cell PTLD. After rituximab induction, patients (pts) in complete remission (25 %) received rituximab consolidation, while all others received R-CHOP. The PTLD-2 trial tests modified risk-stratification including clinical risk factors. These are the results of the 2nd scheduled interim analysis (40/60 planned pts). Methods: The prospective, multicenter phase II PTLD-2 trial (NCT02042391) enrols treatment-naïve adult SOT recipients with CD20-positive PTLD. Key exclusion criteria are CNS involvement, ECOG > 2, pregnancy, and severe organ dysfunction or severe, active infection. Treatment consists of rituximab (1400 mg SC; first application 375 mg/m2 IV) on days 1, 8, 15 and 22. After restaging, pts in CR as well as those in PR with ≤ 2 IPI risk factors at diagnosis (low-risk group) continue with four three-weekly courses of rituximab. Most other pts (high-risk group) receive 4 cycles of R-CHOP-21, while thoracic SOT recipients who progress under rituximab (very-high-risk group) receive six cycles of alternating R-CHOP-21 and R-DHAOx. The primary endpoint (event-free survival in the low-risk group) is not analyzed here. Secondary endpoints presented here are response and overall response (ORR) by computed tomography, overall survival (OS), time to progression (TTP) and treatment-related mortality (TRM) overall and by risk group. Results: 40 pts were recruited at 12 centers (2015 – 2019). 21/40 were kidney, 11 lung, 4 liver, 3 heart, and 1 liver/kidney transplant recipients. Median age was 54 years. 38/40 PTLD were monomorphic and 15/40 EBV-associated. 38 pts were evaluated for response at interim staging: 13 were allocated to the low-risk, 17 to the high-risk and 8 to the very-high-risk group. ORR was 28/30 (93 %, CR: 16/30 [53 %]). With a median follow-up of 1.9 years, the 1-year/3-year Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimates of TTP and OS in the intention-to-treat population (40 pts) were 85 %/80 % and 70 %/70 %, respectively. In the low-risk group, the 2-year KM estimate of OS was 100 %. The frequency of infections (all grades) was 50 %, and TRM occurred in 3/40 pts (8 %). Conclusions: One third of enrolled pts were treated in the low-risk group and the recruitment goal for evaluation of the primary endpoint will likely be reached. Interim efficacy and toxicity data with rituximab SC and modified risk-stratification are encouraging despite the inclusion of 35 % thoracic SOT recipients. Clinical trial information: NCT02042391 .

Obinutuzumab (GA101) and ibrutinib show excellent efficacy for treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Preclinical investigations and a complementary safety profile were in support of testing their combined use. The exploratory CLL2-BIG-trial evaluated a sequential combination therapy following a recently proposed strategy. Two courses of bendamustine were used for debulking in patients with a high tumor load, followed by six courses of induction therapy with ibrutinib and GA101, followed by an MRD-triggered maintenance phase. The results of a pre-planned analysis at the end of the induction phase are presented. 61 patients were included, 30 previously untreated and 31 with relapsed/refractory CLL. 44 patients received bendamustine. During induction, neutropenia (14.8%) and thrombocytopenia (13.1%) were the most common CTC grade 3 and 4 events. One fatality (duodenitis) occurred. The overall response rate was 100%. 54.1% of patients achieved a partial remission, 41% a clinical complete remission (cCR) without confirmation by CT scan or bone marrow (BM) biopsy according to protocol and 4.9% a cCR with incomplete recovery of the BM. 29 patients (47.5%) had no detectable (