Search

BACKGROUND: Ofatumumab is a humanized type 1 anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody. Preclinical studies show improved complement-mediated cytotoxicity (CMC) compared to rituximab in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). We evaluated the safety and efficacy of combining ofatumumab with HyperCVAD/MA (O-HyperCVAD) in newly diagnosed MCL. STUDY DESIGN: In this single-arm phase II study, 37 patients were treated with the combination of O-HyperCVAD for 4 or 6 cycles, followed by high dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant (HDC-ASCT). Primary objectives were overall response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR) rate at the end of therapy. Secondary objectives included minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Median age was 60 years; ORR was 86% and 73% achieved a CR by modified Cheson criteria. The MRD negativity rate was 78% after 2 cycles of therapy, increasing to 96% at the end of induction; median PFS and OS were 45.5 months and 56 months respectively. Achieving a post-induction CR by both imaging and flow cytometry was associated with improved PFS and OS. Early MRD negativity (post-2 cycles) was also associated with an improved PFS but not OS. There were 3 deaths while on therapy, and grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AEs) were observed in 22% and 68% of the patients. CONCLUSION: The addition of ofatumumab to HyperCVAD/HD-MA led to high rates of MRD negativity by flow cytometry in patients with newly diagnosed MCL. Achieving a CR post-induction by both imaging and flow cytometry is associated with improved overall survival.

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.

To report the activity of venetoclax in patients with relapsed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), we identified 81 patients treated with venetoclax monotherapy (n=50, 62%) or in combination with a BTK inhibitor (n=16, 20%), an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (n=11, 14%), or others at 12 US academic medical centers. Patients had high-risk disease features including Ki67 >30% (61%), blastoid/pleomorphic histology (29%), complex karyotype (34%), and TP53 alterations (49%), and received a median of 3 prior treatments including BTK inhibitors in 91%. Venetoclax alone or in combination resulted in an overall response rate (ORR) of 40% and median progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of 3.7 and 12.5 months, respectively. The receipt of ≤ 3 prior treatments was associated with higher odds of response to venetoclax in a univariable analysis. In a multivariable analysis, having a high-risk MIPI score prior to venetoclax and disease relapse or progression within 24 months of diagnosis were associated with inferior OS whereas the use of venetoclax in combination was associated with superior OS. Although most patients (61%) had low risk for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS), 12.3% of patients developed TLS despite the implementation of several mitigation strategies. In conclusion, venetoclax resulted in good ORR but short PFS in high-risk patients with MCL and may have a better role in earlier lines of treatment and/or in combination with other active agents. TLS remains an important risk in patients with MCL who initiate treatment with venetoclax.

Background Limited data are available on the clinical activity of venetoclax (ven) in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). In 2 small retrospective studies of patients (pts) with MCL previously treated with BTK inhibitors (BTKi), ven resulted in overall response rates (ORRs) of 50-53% and median overall survival (OS) of 9-14 months (Eyre et al, Haematologica 2019; Zhao et al, Am J Hematol 2020). We sought to report the clinical activity of ven and identify factors associated with outcomes in a larger cohort of pts. Methods We included pts with relapsed MCL from 12 US medical centers treated with ven alone or in combination with an antiCD20 monoclonal antibody (mAb) or a BTKi. Response was determined by the local investigator. We defined OS as time from start of ven to death. Pts not experiencing an event were censored at their last known follow up. OS was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method, and univariable (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) models were developed to identify predictors of response and OS. Results Eighty-one pts were included. Pt characteristics (Table) at diagnosis (dx) were: median age 64 years (yrs) (range 38-87), male 79%, stage III/IV 95%, Ki67 >30% in 61% (available n=62), blastoid/pleomorphic histology 29% (available n=75) and ≥3 cytogenetic abnormalities 34% (available n=62). BCL2 expression was present in 93% (available n=40). Frontline treatment (tx) included intensive chemotherapy [defined as including high-dose cytarabine and/or autologous transplant (ASCT) in first remission] in 52% with ASCT in first remission in 32%. Median number of therapies prior to ven was 3 (range 1-8) including antiCD20 mAb 99%, alkylator 93%, BTKi 91%, anthracycline 58%, cytarabine 56%, and lenalidomide 37%. 55% were refractory (defined as stable (SD) or progressive disease (PD)) to last tx prior to ven. ORR to BTKi prior to ven (n=70) was 66% (complete response (CR) 20%) with median duration of tx of 6.4 months (range 0.5-69). BTKi was stopped due to PD 82% and toxicity 18%. Median time from dx to start of ven was 3.9 yrs (range 0.2-17.8). Ven was given as monotherapy in 62% (n=50) and in combination with BTKi 20% (n=16), antiCD20 mAb 14% (n=11), or other 5% (n=4). Ten pts treated with ven in combination with BTKi received prior tx with BTKi with ORR to BTKi of 40% (all PR). Ven highest dose received was 20-100 mg in 12% (n=9), 200 mg 11% (n=8), 400 mg 61% (n=46), and 800 mg 17% (n=13). Median duration of tx with ven was 2.8 months (range 0.1-30). The best response to ven was CR 18%, partial response (PR) 24%, SD 11%, and PD 47% with ORR of 42%; 19 pts (23%) did not have available data for response. ORR was not significantly different with ven monotherapy 36% (13/36) vs ven + antiCD20 mAb 56% (5/9) vs ven + BTKi 43% (6/14) (p=.559), or with ven monotherapy 36% vs combination therapy 50% (13/26) (p=.274). Ven was stopped due to PD 69%, toxicity 9%, allogeneic transplant 3% or other reasons 19%. Laboratory tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) occurred in 10 pts (12%) including 3 (3.7%) with clinical TLS. 38 pts received post-ven tx with median time from stopping ven to next tx of 0.24 months (range 0-2.2); for the 33 pts with available data, the best response to post-ven tx was CR 24%, PR 27%, SD 9% and PD 39% with ORR of 51%. For the 75 pts with available data, median OS was 12.5 months (95% CI 6-17) with 3-year OS of 13.1% (95% CI 1.4-38.0%) (Figure A). Median OS was numerically longer with ven combination (28.7 months, 95% CI 4-not reached) vs monotherapy (8.6 months, 95% CI 4.7-14.4), p=.0825 (Figure B). Median OS did not significantly differ based on response (CR/PR vs SD/PD) to prior tx with BTKi (14.4 vs 9.5 months, p=.53, Figure C) or last tx prior to ven (16.7 vs 12.4 months, p=.14, Figure D). In MVA for response, achieving CR/PR with BTKi prior to ven (vs SD/PD) was associated with response to ven (odds ratio 3.48, 95% CI 1.01-12.05, p=.049). In MVA for OS, ven combination vs monotherapy (HR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03-0.53; p=.006), longer time from dx to start of ven (>4 vs ≤4 yrs) (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02-0.36; p=.001), and higher dose of ven (≥400 mg vs 6 vs ≤6 months) (HR 3.47, 95% CI 1.10-10.99; p=.038) was associated with inferior OS. Conclusions In these high-risk and heavily pretreated pts with MCL, ven resulted in low response rate and poor OS. Ven may have a better role in MCL in earlier lines of therapy and when combined with other agents such as BTKi and/or antiCD20 mAbs. Disclosures Kamdar: Roche: Research Funding. Greenwell:Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; Acrotech Biopharma LLC, Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy. Hess:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS, AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Portell:Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding. Goldsmith:Wugen Inc.: Consultancy. Grover:Genentech: Research Funding; Tessa: Consultancy. Riedell:Morphosys: Research Funding; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Honoraria, Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals/Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Honoraria. Karmali:BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene/Juno: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kumar:AbbVie: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies,: Research Funding. Hill:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kahl:AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC: Consultancy; Roche Laboratories Inc: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Cohen:Genentech, BMS, Novartis, LAM, BioInvent, LRF, ASH, Astra Zeneca, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Janssen, Adicet, Astra Zeneca, Genentech, Aptitude Health, Cellectar, Kite/Gilead, Loxo: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: Venetoclax is not licensed for use in mantle cell lymphoma

Introduction: Ibrutinib is a first-in-class small molecule inhibitor that binds irreversibly to Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) and has shown remarkable efficacy in the treatment of CLL. Current guidelines recommend life-long therapy with administration at a fixed daily dose of 420 mg. However, lower doses of ibrutinib have been demonstrated to adequately abrogate kinase function. Limited clinical data suggests that dose reductions are not associated with inferior outcomes. Hypothetically, judicious dose reductions to manage toxicities could result in improved tolerance and decreased discontinuation rates. Our objective was to study the impact of dose reductions on outcomes in CLL patients treated with ibrutinib in a real-world setting. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of all CLL patients treated with ibrutinib at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center between January 2014 and June 2017. Patients who underwent ibrutinib dose reduction were identified. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared between patients who underwent dose reductions vs those who did not. Reason and timing of dose reduction was also elucidated. Mann-Whitney U and Fisher's Chi Square test were used to compare groups, Kaplan Meier methods were used for time to event analysis, and Cox regression was used to obtain hazard ratios (HR). Overall survival (OS) was calculated as time from start of ibrutinib until death or last follow-up, freedom from progression (PFS) was taken as time from start of ibrutinib until progression or last follow-up. All analyses were performed in SAS v9.4 (Cary, NC). Results: A total of 70 CLL patients treated with ibrutinib were followed for a median period of 21.9 months. Most patients had RR disease (n = 63) and 7 received ibrutinib as frontline therapy. All patients received a fixed dose regimen with the standard dose of 420 mg once daily. Twenty-three (31.3%) patients required dose reductions and received ibrutinib at a median dose of 140 mg . Eleven (47.8%) of these had dose reductions within 3 months of treatment initiation. There was no statistically significant difference in baseline characteristics including age, number of prior lines of treatment, WBC count, hemoglobin or LDH level in the dose reduced group (DRG) and standard dose group (SDG). Patients in the DRG had a lower median platelet count at initiation of ibrutinib than patients in the SDG (86 x 103/mm3 vs 145 x 103/mm3, p Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Objectives The aim of this study was to investigate the contemporary trends and comparative effectiveness of adjunctive inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) placement in patients undergoing catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) for treatment of proximal lower extremity or caval deep vein thrombosis. Background CDT is being increasingly used in the management of proximal deep vein thrombosis. Although a significant number of patients treated with CDT undergo adjunctive IVCF placement, the benefit of this practice remains unknown. Methods The National Inpatient Sample database was used to identify all patients with proximal or caval deep vein thrombosis who underwent CDT (with and without adjunctive IVCF placement) in the United States between January 2005 and December 2013. A propensity score–matching algorithm was then used to derive 2 matched groups of patients (IVCF and no IVCF) for comparative outcomes (mortality and major and minor bleeding) and resource use analysis. Results Of the 7,119 patients treated with CDT, 2,421 (34%) received IVCFs. There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality (0.7% vs 1.0%; p = 0.20), procedure-related hemorrhage (1.4% vs. 1.0%; p = 0.23), or intracranial hemorrhage (0.7% vs. 0.6%; p = 0.70) between the IVCF (n = 2,259) and no-IVCF (n = 2,259) groups, respectively. Patients undergoing IVCF placement had higher rates of hematoma (3.4% vs 2.1%; p = 0.009), higher in-hospital charges ($104,049 ± 75,572 vs. $92,881 ± 80,194; p Conclusions This nationwide observational study suggests that one-third of all patients undergoing CDT receive IVCFs. IVCF use was not associated with a decrease in in-hospital mortality but was associated with higher inpatient charges and longer length of stay.

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

12043 Background: Oral targeted therapies (OTT) have transformed the treatment landscape of Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). However, measuring, defining and optimizing adherence to OTT remains a challenge. Prior studies have reported variable adherence rates (12-100%) to OTT in cancer patients (pts), with suboptimal adherence associated with inferior outcomes. In older adults (OA), geriatric syndromes (GS) such as polypharmacy and cognitive impairment can impact adherence. While geriatric assessment (GA) can predict chemotherapy-related toxicity in OA, its utility in NHL pts on OTT is unknown. In this pilot study, we evaluate the role of GA in predicting adherence and outcomes in NHL pts on OTT. We also report the feasibility of using MEMS Cap, an electronic event monitoring system, to measure adherence in this population. Methods: Pts ≥70 years (yrs) with NHL, initiating/receiving OTT were included. A GA was performed at baseline; pt, disease, and OTT characteristics were recorded. Pts were followed monthly for the first 3 months (mos), then every 3 mos for 1 year. Primary endpoint was treatment adherence rate, measured using both subjective [brief adherence rating scale (BARS)] and objective (pill counts and MEMS cap) methods. Progression free survival (PFS) was measured from time of therapy initiation to disease progression or death. Results: Of the 54 pts screened, 25 were enrolled. Median age was 77 yrs (71-93 yrs), 21 pts had chronic lymphocytic leukemia, 3 had mantle cell lymphoma and 1 had marginal zone lymphoma. Most frequently used OTT were ibrutinib (n = 17) and venetoclax (n = 5). Most pts (72%) were on OTT at study entry. Median time on therapy was 16.4 mos (1.9-44.6 mos). GS included cognitive impairment (28%), depression (24%), polypharmacy (92%) and recent falls (12%); 48% pts had ≥2 GS. Nine pts (36%) had impaired 4-meter gait speed and/or timed-up-and-go; 20 pts (80%) had an adjusted CIRS-G score of ≥6. So far, pts have completed a median follow up of 3.3 mos. BARS was the most consistent measure of adherence used (63/63 visits, 100%). MEMS Cap and pill counts were used at 13% and 8% visits respectively. Only 5 pts used the MEMS Cap, mostly due to packaging incompatibility (44%-pill box, 32%-blister packs). Median adherence was 100% (range, 70%-100%) with no pts missing > 7 days of prescribed doses. Five pts (20%) required dose interruptions, mostly due to adverse events. Six pts discontinued therapy and 2 pts died of unrelated causes. Median PFS was not reached. Chronological age and presence of a GS were not associated with adherence rate or outcomes. Conclusions: Despite presence of ≥2 geriatric syndromes in 48% of older adults with NHL on OTT, self-reported adherence remains high ( > 99%) in this group. The MEMS Cap device has poor applicability in measuring adherence to OTT due to pill package incompatibility and increasing use of virtual/tele visits.

The aim of this study was to investigate the contemporary trends and comparative effectiveness of adjunctive inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) placement in patients undergoing catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) for treatment of proximal lower extremity or caval deep vein thrombosis.CDT is being increasingly used in the management of proximal deep vein thrombosis. Although a significant number of patients treated with CDT undergo adjunctive IVCF placement, the benefit of this practice remains unknown.The National Inpatient Sample database was used to identify all patients with proximal or caval deep vein thrombosis who underwent CDT (with and without adjunctive IVCF placement) in the United States between January 2005 and December 2013. A propensity score-matching algorithm was then used to derive 2 matched groups of patients (IVCF and no IVCF) for comparative outcomes (mortality and major and minor bleeding) and resource use analysis.Of the 7,119 patients treated with CDT, 2,421 (34%) received IVCFs. There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality (0.7% vs 1.0%; p = 0.20), procedure-related hemorrhage (1.4% vs. 1.0%; p = 0.23), or intracranial hemorrhage (0.7% vs. 0.6%; p = 0.70) between the IVCF (n = 2,259) and no-IVCF (n = 2,259) groups, respectively. Patients undergoing IVCF placement had higher rates of hematoma (3.4% vs 2.1%; p = 0.009), higher in-hospital charges ($104,049 ± 75,572 vs. $92,881 ± 80,194; p 0.001) and increased length of stay (7.3 ± 5.6 days vs. 6.9 ± 6.9 days; p = 0.046) compared with the no-IVCF group.This nationwide observational study suggests that one-third of all patients undergoing CDT receive IVCFs. IVCF use was not associated with a decrease in in-hospital mortality but was associated with higher inpatient charges and longer length of stay.

Introduction: Venetoclax (VEN) based therapy has become a standard of care in front line and relapsed-refractory (R/R) CLL based on favorable efficacy and toxicity. Whereas prospective data regarding activity of therapies following ibrutinib (IBR) or idelalisib (IDE) are available in the settings of progression (VEN, non-covalent BTKi) and intolerance (acalabrutinib), how best to manage patients (pts) who discontinue (dc) VEN remains a key unanswered question. With the increased use of VEN in early lines of therapy (LOT; CLL 14, MURANO), the activity of BTK inhibitors (BTKi) and cellular therapies following VEN becomes a critical issue. No prospective study has addressed this question, and currently reported VEN clinical trials have limited information about subsequent treatments. While recent data describe VEN resistance mechanisms (Guieze 2018, Blombery 2019), the impact of VEN resistance on efficacy of post VEN therapies is unknown. To address this gap, we conducted an international study to identify a large cohort of pts who dc VEN and have been subsequently treated. Methods: We conducted an IRB approved multicenter (31 US, EU, South American sites, in partnership with UK CLL Forum and CORE registry), retrospective cohort study of CLL pts who dc VEN for any reason. We examined demographics, dc reasons, responses, survival, adverse events (AEs) and activity of post VEN therapies. Primary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR) and progression free survival (PFS) for the post VEN treatments stratified by treatment type (BTKi, PI3Ki and cellular therapy: CAR-T or alloHSCT). ORR was defined by iwCLL criteria and PFS was defined from VEN dc to disease progression (PD), death, or last follow up for next treatment. Pts were further stratified by BTKi (resistant / intolerant) and PI3Ki exposure prior to VEN. PFS-2 was defined as time from VEN start to tumor progression on IBR or death from any cause. Results: 326 CLL pts who dc VEN in the front line (4%) and R/R settings (96%) were identified. The cohort was 69% male, 87% white, median (med) age 66 (38-91) at VEN start, 27% treated with VEN based combinations (n=88, med 6 cycles anti-CD20 abs). Pre VEN prognostic features: 82% IGHV unmutated (n tested=166), 47% del17p (n=306), 45% TP53 mut (n=217), 39% complex karyotype (n=273), 23% BTK mut (n=79), 18% NOTCH1 mut (n=103), 10% PLCγ2 mut (n=74). Pts received med 3 therapies (0-11) prior to VEN; 40% were BTKi naïve (n=130), 60% were BTKi exposed (196) and 81% were IDE naïve (n=263). Most common reasons for VEN dc were PD (38%), AE (20%), Richter's transformation (RT, 14%), 8% pt preference, and HSCT 5%. Of 326 pts who dc VEN, 188 (58%) were treated with a subsequent LOT, 61 are alive and untreated and 77 died prior to a subsequent LOT. Post VEN sequencing analyses focused on BTKi, PI3Ki and cellular therapy (CAR-T or alloHSCT) activities following VEN dc (Table1). ORR to BTKi was 84% (n=44) vs. 54% (n=30, p Conclusions: In the largest experience of therapies following VEN dc in CLL, we demonstrated that therapy selection following VEN requires consideration of prior novel agent exposure and reasons for discontinuation. For BTKi naïve pts, selection of a covalently binding BTKi results in high ORR and durable remissions. PFS-2 data provide reassurance for using VEN prior to IBR. For BTKi exposed pts, BTK inhibition is not effective in the setting of BTKi resistance but should be considered if prior BTKi intolerance. PI3K inhibition following VEN does not appear to result in durable remissions even in PI3Ki naïve pts, suggesting possible overlap in resistance mechanisms (BTK or VEN with PI3K). We conclude that BTKi in naïve or previously responsive pts and alloHSCT following VEN appear to be the most effective strategies with durable responses. These data suggest that a number of effective regimens exist for post VEN pts, providing support for VEN use earlier in the course of CLL. Disclosures Mato: Acerta: Consultancy; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB member , Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Roeker:AbbVie: Equity Ownership; Abbott Laboratories: Equity Ownership. Eyre:Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Research support, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Travel to Conferences; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel to Conferences ; Takeda: Other: Travel to Conferences . Jacobs:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; JUNO: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Hill:TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Lamanna:Celgene: Consultancy; Infinity/ Verastem: Research Funding; Ming: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Oncternal: Research Funding. Brander:Tolero: Research Funding; MEI: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding. Shadman:AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; BeiGene: Research Funding; TG Therapeutic: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Atara Biotherapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Mustang Bio: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sound Biologics: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ujjani:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Perini:Janssen: Other: Advisory Board; Abbvie: Other: Advisory Board; AstraZeneca: Other: Advisory Board. Pinilla Ibarz:Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Teva: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy. Barrientos:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Skarbnik: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; 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. Pagel:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Choi:Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Rigel: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Oncternal: Research Funding. Coombs:H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding. Barr:Janssen: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Portell:Xencor: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Schuster:AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Nordic Nanovector: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: Combination Therapies of CAR and PD-1 Inhibitors with royalties paid to Novartis, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding. Martinez-Calle:ABBVIE: Other: Travel support. Munir:AbbVie: Honoraria; Alexion: Honoraria; 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. Nabhan:Aptitude Health: Employment. King:Astrazeneca: Other: Advisory board; Genentech: Other: Advisory Board ; Incyte: Other: Advisory Board. Zelenetz:Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics/AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: 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; Beigene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics/AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: 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; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: 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; DAVA Oncology: 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; DAVA Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cheson:Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Symbios: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Epizyme: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding. Fox:Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Atara Biotherapeutics: Consultancy; Adienne: Other: Travel Support. Allan:Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie company: Consultancy; Verastem Oncology, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie, Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy.

e19511Background: CLL is an indolent disease with long disease course and is notable for one of the oldest median ages of onset of all cancers. As such, patients have the potential for many years o...