Winter, Allison

ABSTRACTAlthough recent studies have demonstrated the efficacy of chimeric antigen receptor T‐cell (CAR‐T) therapy in relapsed large B‐cell lymphoma (LBCL) with MYC rearrangement (R‐MYC), the data comparing CAR‐T to autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (auto‐HCT) in such patients who achieve a complete or partial response (CR/PR) after salvage therapies are limited. We compared the clinical outcomes of patients with R‐MYC LBCL (including double and triple hit lymphomas) who underwent CAR‐T or auto‐HCT after achieving a CR/PR with salvage therapies using the Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research registry. Among the 252 patients (auto‐HCT = 98, CAR‐T = 154), relative to auto‐HCT, CAR‐T was associated with significantly lower overall survival (OS) (Hazard Ratio [HR] 2.09, 95% CI 1.38–3.15, p < 0.001) on multivariate analysis. There were no differences in progression‐free survival (PFS) (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.81–1.8 p = 0.36), risk of relapse (HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.71–1.69 p = 0.68), nonrelapse mortality (NRM) (HR 1.74, 95% CI 0.64–4.7 p = 0.28) while the post‐relapse survival was longer in auto‐HCT relative to CAR‐T (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.21–3.06 p = 0.01). On propensity score matched analysis accounting for differences in characteristics across the two cohorts, we detected no significant differences in OS (HR 1.72, 95% CI 0.92–3.21 p = 0.09), PFS (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.64–1.68 p = 0.88), NRM (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.35–4.2 p = 0.76), relapse (HR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.54–1.6 p = 0.8) and post‐relapse survival (HR 2.25, 95% CI 0.98–5.17, p = 0.06). These data, although retrospective, support consideration for auto‐HCT in patients with R‐MYC LBCL who achieve a CR/PR after salvage therapies, particularly in regions with no or limited access to CAR‐T.

Introduction BCL-2 inhibition with venetoclax (ven) was a major advance in CLL treatment, but the 5-week dose ramp-up to mitigate the risk of tumor lysis syndrome and drug-drug interactions (DDIs) challenge treatment optimization. Lisaftoclax is an investigational, oral BCL-2i with a short half-life, allowing it to be ramped-up on a daily schedule. We present updated results of a phase 1b/2 study of lisaftoclax alone or combined with acalabrutinib or rituximab in pts with treatment-naïve (TN; lisaftoclax-acalabrutinib arm), relapsed/refractory, or prior ven-treated CLL/SLL (NCT04215809). Methods Pts were treated with a rapid 4- to 6-day daily ramp-up of lisaftoclax from 20 mg to a target dose of 400, 600, or 800 mg, receiving daily oral lisaftoclax alone or, plus continuous acalabrutinib or 6 cycles of rituximab in 28-day cycles, starting on Cycle 1 Day 8 (C1D8) until disease progression, complete response by C24, or unacceptable toxicity. Intensive blood samples were collected for pharmacokinetic (PK) and exposure-response (E-R) analyses. Results From March 20, 2020, to June 27, 2024, 176 pts were enrolled: 46 in monotherapy and 39 and 91 in rituximab and acalabrutinib combination cohorts, respectively; 154/176 (87.5%) were R/R and 22/176 (12.5%) TN. The median (range) age was 63 (34-80) years; 67% were male; 25.6% had del(17p) and/or TP53 mutation; and 70.6% had unmutated IGHV. Median (range) duration of treatment with lisaftoclax was 16.5 (1-54; monotherapy), 24 (3-39; rituximab), and 27 (1-43; acalabrutinib) months. In R/R pts, the median (range) number of prior lines of therapy was 2 (1-15), and 14 (9%) pts had been treated with ven. Prior ven pts had a median (range) age of 65 (51-78); 79% were male; of evaluable pts, 50% had del(17p), 36% TP53 mut, 64% del(11q), 38% complex karyotype (≥ 3 abnormalities), and 92% unmutated IGHV; 57% were BTKi naïve; and the median (range) number of prior therapies was 3 (1-6). Incidence and severity of TEAEs were similar across cohorts. Common (&gt;10%) any-grade TEAEs in all cohorts combined were neutropenia (59 [33.5%]), diarrhea (38 [21.6%]), anemia (27 [15.3%]), and thrombocytopenia (26 [14.8%]). Grade ≥ 3 TEAEs were neutropenia in 15 (32.6%), 10 (25.6%), and 22 (24%) pts and anemia in 10 (21.7%), 5 (12.8%), and 12 (13.2%) pts in monotherapy, rituximab, and acalabrutinib combination cohorts, respectively. Comprehensive E-R analyses indicated that lisaftoclax had similar systemic exposure as monotherapy or when combined with acalabrutinib or rituximab; lisaftoclax had no DDI when combined with acalabrutinib or rituximab. No discontinuations were attributed to lisaftoclax TRAEs. Forty-four (95.7%) pts in monotherapy discontinued treatment. Most discontinuations were due to progressive disease (n = 41 [23.3%]) and 13 (7.4%), AEs; 9 (5.1%) pts withdrew consent; 7 (4%) achieved complete response or MRD negativity after ≥ 24 cycles; 5 (2.8%) died; and 18 (10.2%) discontinued for other reasons. Clinical (n = 2) and laboratory (n = 3) TLS was observed in 5 (2.8%) pts on lisaftoclax (by Howard/Cairo-Bishop criteria), with cases rapidly resolving to resume lisaftoclax safely. ORR for lisaftoclax plus acalabrutinib in 87 pts was 96.6%, and the median DOR (95% CI, 23-NR) and median PFS (95% CI, 34-NR) were not reached. The 12- and 18-month PFS rates were 89% and 86%, respectively. Fourteen R/R CLL ven-exposed pts received lisaftoclax plus acalabrutinib, of whom 9 had progressed on ven, 3 relapsed after completing ven, and 2 discontinued due to ven intolerance. Median (range) duration of treatment was 16 (3-25) months. Safety profile was similar to that of other study cohorts. ORR was 85.7% (12/14), 100% (8/8), and 66.7% (4/6) in the ven-exposed, ven-exposed but BTKi-naïve, and ven- and BTKi-exposed pts, respectively. The median duration of response (DOR) and progression-free survival (PFS) were not reached. The 12- and 18-month PFS rates were 84% and 73%, respectively. Conclusions Our data suggest that lisaftoclax combined with acalabrutinib is effective for pts with prior ven exposure, including those with progression on ven. In this updated analysis with longer follow-up, no DDIs or new safety findings were observed in TN or R/R CLL/SLL pts treated with lisaftoclax monotherapy/combinations. We continue to accrue pts with prior ven exposure to further evaluate this promising signal. A global registrational phase 3 study GLORA (NCT06104566) is recruiting.

Background: Data on the clinical activity of venetoclax (ven) in lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma (LPL) are primarily limited to a phase 2 trial of ven monotherapy for a 2-year duration in 32 patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory IgM LPL who received a median of 2 prior treatments (tx), including 16 pts with prior BTK inhibitors (BTKi) (Castillo et al, JCO 2021). Overall response rate (ORR) was 84% and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 30 months (mos). We report the clinical activity of ven and prognostic factors associated with outcomes in a larger cohort. Methods: We included pts with LPL treated with ven alone at 9 US centers. The primary outcome was ORR, which included minor response (MR), partial response (PR), very good PR (VGPR), and complete response (CR) per IWWM-7. Secondary outcomes included PFS, overall survival (OS), safety of ven, and predictors of ORR, PFS, and OS. Results: Sixty-two pts were included. Twenty pts (32%) received ven on a clinical trial. At ven initiation, median age was 65 years (range 38 - 87) , 61% were male, serum monoclonal (M) protein was IgM in 50 pts (91%) (IgG/IgA in 3 (5%), absent in 2 (4%), missing n=7), median hemoglobin (Hb) was 10.4 g/dL (range 5.7-16.4), and median serum IgM was 2580 mg/dL (range 5-9300). Mutations of MYD88 and CXCR4 were present in 52 (95%; missing n = 7) and 19 (38%; missing n = 12) pts, respectively. Median lines of tx (LOT) before ven was 3 (range 1-11, 58% ≥3) including antiCD20 monoclonal antibody n=54 (87%), BTKi n=48 (77%), proteasome inhibitor n=40 (65%), and bendamustine n=31 (50%). Pts who received ven on a clinical trial were less heavily pretreated (median prior LOT = 1.5, 20% ≥3) compared with pts treated off trial (median prior LOT = 4, 76% ≥3). ORR to prior BTKi was 71% (CR 4%, VGPR 10%, PR 35%, MR 21%) (missing n=5), with a median duration of tx of 14 mos (range 0.5-119). BTKi was stopped due to progressive disease (PD) in 60% and toxicity in 40%. ORR to most recent tx before ven was 58% (CR 3%, VGPR 8%, PR 32%, MR 15%); 21% SD, 7% PD, and 15% missing. BTKi was the most frequently used tx immediately before ven (48%). Six pts (10%) required plasmapheresis up to 30 days before starting ven. Median time from diagnosis to ven initiation was 5.9 years (range 0.3-23). Ven starting dose was 200 mg in 33 pts (55%), 20 mg in 11 (18%), and 100 mg in 10 (17%) (other n=6, missing n=2). Ten pts (17%) were admitted for ven tx initiation. Maximum ven dose was 400 mg in 16 (27%) and 800 mg in 38 pts (63%) (other n=6, missing n=2). ORR to ven (missing n=3) was 73% (95% confidence interval [CI] 63-86%) (CR 2%, VGPR 21%, PR 44%, MR 7%); 23% were refractory (SD 13%, PD 10%). Median time to best response was 4 mos (range 0.5-30). Median time to peak Hb was 5 mos (range 0.1-24) and to nadir serum M protein level was 8 mos (range 0.5-34). With a median follow-up of 21.9 mos (range 2.3-70.4), the median and 3-year PFS were 30.4 mos (95% CI 11.0-38.6) and 40% (95% CI 25-54%), respectively (Figure). Median and 3-year OS were not reached (NR) (95% CI NR-NR) and 83% (95% CI 70-91%), respectively. Lymphoma was the most common cause of death (n=8/11, 73%). In univariable analyses (UVA), tx with ven on a clinical trial was associated with higher ORR (90% vs 64%; odds ratio = 8.67, 95% CI 1.04-72.16, p=.046) and superior PFS (median 39 mos (95% CI, 28.4-NR) vs 11 mos (95% CI 6.4-NR), p=.028) without a significant difference in OS. Other factors evaluated in UVA to assess association with ORR, PFS and OS were age at ven start, response to last prior tx, prior tx with BTKi, and CXCR4 mutation status. Of these, receipt of prior tx with BTKi was associated with inferior PFS (HR=2.7, 95% CI 1.1-6.5, p=.024), whereas age &gt;65 years at ven start (HR=8.6, 95% 1.1-67.8, p=0.042) and receipt of ≥3 prior tx (HR=12.0, 95% 1.5-95.9, p=.019) were associated with inferior OS. Four pts (7%) developed laboratory tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) including 2 (3%) with clinical TLS. TLS occurred at the 400 or 800 mg dose in 3 pts (missing n=1). Ven dose interruptions and/or reductions occurred in 39%. Three pts (5%) had febrile neutropenia. Ven was stopped due to PD in 21 pts (34%), planned tx completion in 15 (24%) (median tx duration = 25 mos, range 24-28), toxicity 6 (10%), and other 4 (6%); 16 pts (26%) remain on ven. Median duration of tx for those who stopped ven was 12 mos (range 1-33). Conclusion: Ven is an effective tx option for pts with relapsed or refractory LPL. Compared with the phase 2 study, ORR and PFS were lower in this cohort of more heavily pretreated pts.

AbstractCheckpoint inhibitor (CPI) therapy with anti–PD-1 antibodies has been associated with mixed outcomes in small cohorts of patients with relapsed aggressive B-cell lymphomas after CAR-T failure. To define CPI therapy efficacy more definitively in this population, we retrospectively evaluated clinical outcomes in a large cohort of 96 patients with aggressive B-cell lymphomas receiving CPI therapy after CAR-T failure across 15 US academic centers. Most patients (53%) had diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, were treated with axicabtagene ciloleucel (53%), relapsed early (≤180 days) after CAR-T (83%), and received pembrolizumab (49%) or nivolumab (43%). CPI therapy was associated with an overall response rate of 19% and a complete response rate of 10%. Median duration of response was 221 days. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 54 and 159 days, respectively. Outcomes to CPI therapy were significantly improved in patients with primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma. PFS (128 vs 51 days) and OS (387 vs 131 days) were significantly longer in patients with late (&gt;180 days) vs early (≤180 days) relapse after CAR-T. Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 19% of patients treated with CPI. Most patients (83%) died, commonly because of progressive disease. Only 5% had durable responses to CPI therapy. In the largest cohort of patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma treated with CPI therapy after CAR-T relapse, our results reveal poor outcomes, particularly among those relapsing early after CAR-T. In conclusion, CPI therapy is not an effective salvage strategy for most patients after CAR-T, where alternative approaches are needed to improve post–CAR-T outcomes.

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

Abstract Background: Bendamustine and rituximab (BR) is a commonly chosen frontline treatment for grade 1-2 (G 1-2) follicular lymphoma (FL). This regimen resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) and less toxicity compared to R-CHOP in the STiL trial [Rummel et al., 2013] and similar results were observed when comparing BR vs. R-CHOP/R-CVP in the confirmatory BRIGHT trial [Flinn et al., 2014, updated ASCO 2017]. Importantly, patients (pts) with grade 3A (G 3A) FL were excluded from these studies, yet the conclusions are often extrapolated to the treatment of G 3A pts. Notably, G 3A pts were included in the GALLIUM trial which used both bendamustine as well as CHOP backbones. Several retrospective studies of FL pts treated with frontline R-CHOP have demonstrated equivalent or improved overall survival (OS) for G 3A relative to G 1-2 FL (Koch et al., 2016, Mustafa et al., 2017, Yuan et al., 2017, Maeshima et al., 2013). Early disease progression after diagnosis and treatment with frontline R-CHOP has been identified as a strong predictor of poor OS in FL pts [Casulo et al. 2015], but has not been assessed in pts treated with frontline BR. We retrospectively evaluated outcomes of a large cohort of FL pts treated with frontline BR and stratified the results based on histologic grade and early vs. late progression. Methods: We reviewed medical records of adult (age >18) pts with FL treated with frontline BR at 18 US cancer centers. There was no central pathology review; each academic institution confirmed the diagnosis and grade of FL. Pts with unknown grade, grade 3B, or cutaneous FL were excluded. Baseline characteristics between grades were evaluated with the Chi-Square test for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney U for continuous variables. Outcomes were calculated from time of initiation of BR. Patients were grouped according to whether or not they had progression of disease within 24 months of BR initiation (POD24). OS and PFS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Results: 687 pts were included (616 G 1-2, 71 G 3A). Median age at diagnosis was 60 years (range 21-94) with 53% men. The median time from diagnosis to treatment with BR was 1 month (range 0-139). The median duration of follow up for the entire cohort was 39 months. Characteristics including age, gender, ethnicity, ECOG, stage, LDH, and FLIPI are shown in the Table, and did not significantly differ between G 1-2 and G 3A pts. Rates of complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) to BR were similar between G 1-2 and G 3A (72%/22% vs. 66%/21%, respectively, p=0.114) but progressive disease (PD) was higher in G 3A pts (11.9%) relative to G 1-2 (4.8%, p=0.025). As shown in the Figure (A and B), 3-year PFS and OS was significantly longer for G 1-2 vs. G 3A pts (75% vs. 65%, log rank p= 0.035 and 90% vs. 86%, log rank p=0.007, respectively). Seventy-six (12.3%) of the 616 G 1-2 pts and 13 (18.3%) of the 71 G 3A pts experienced POD24 (p=0.19). For pts with both G 1-2 and G 3A FL, POD24 was associated with inferior OS (3-year OS 95% vs. 57% for G 1-2 pts, log rank p<0.0001 and 3-year OS 93% vs. 37% for G 3A pts, log rank p<0.0001) compared to patients without POD24. Conclusions: G 3A FL pts have an inferior OS and are significantly more likely to have PD to frontline BR compared to G 1-2, which differs from the published experience with R-CHOP. Similar to outcomes after frontline treatment with R-CHOP, POD24 after frontline BR for FL is associated with very poor OS. Future studies are needed to address optimal frontline management of pts with G3A as well as for pts with any grade FL with POD24 after frontline BR. Disclosures Nastoupil: Novartis: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therappeutics: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno: Honoraria. Cerhan:Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Maurer:Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding. Smith:Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Lossos:Affimed: Research Funding. Portell:TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Kite: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding. Calzada:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Cohen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: 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; Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy. Ghosh:Spectrum: Consultancy; SGN: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics, an Abbvie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; PCYC: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Forty seven Inc: Research Funding. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck, Takeda, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Bayer: Research Funding. Caimi:Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory Board Participation; Genentech: Other: Advisory Board PArticipation, Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory Board Participation. Danilov:Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding. Martin:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Kamdar:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy. Kahl:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Hill:Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Introduction Transformation of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) into Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is a rare, but recognized complication of CLL. The prognosis of CLL with HL Transformation (HT) appears significantly worse than de novo HL, but most series are small and there are limited published data. These reports have prompted several groups to recommend aggressive therapy with stem cell transplantation (SCT) in first complete remission (CR1). We describe the largest reported series of HT patients (pts) with analyses of the clinicobiologic characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes based upon our multi-institutional clinical experience. Methods Pts diagnosed with HT from 01/2000 - 01/2018 were retrospectively identified in 13 tertiary cancer centers. Clinicobiologic characteristics, treatment type, and survival outcomes for each pt were analyzed. Overall survival (OS) was measured from the time of HT diagnosis until time of death. OS estimates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The log-rank test was used to calculate differences in survival. Results Ninety-four pts with HT were identified. Median age at HT was 67 years (yrs; range, 38-85) and 81% of the pts were male. Median time from CLL diagnosis to HT was 5.5 yrs (range, 0-20.2; 7 pts with simultaneous diagnosis of CLL and HL). At initial CLL diagnosis, 31%, 34%, 21%, 10%, and 4% were Rai Stage 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. At CLL diagnosis, 67% (25/37) had an un-mutated IgVH gene, 36% (21/59) had del(13q), 32% (14/44) had trisomy 12, 24% (14/59) had del(11q), and 15% (9/61) had del(17p). Prior to HT diagnosis, pts had a median of 2 (range, 0-12) therapies for CLL. Seventeen (18%) had no prior CLL treatments. Forty-three (46%) and 25 (27%) patients had received purine analogue- and ibrutinib-based therapy prior to HT, respectively. Baseline characteristics at HT are described in Table 1. As initial therapy for HL, the majority of pts (61%, n = 62) received ABVD-based regimens (adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) at full (n = 48) or reduced (n = 14) doses. Of these, CD20 monoclonal antibody was added in 6 and Bruton-tyrosine kinase inhibitor was added in 2. Ten (11%) received a brentuximab-based regimen. Seven (7%) received an RCHOP-based regimen (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone). Six patients (6%) received no therapy for HT due to frailty. Subsequent therapy included autologous SCT and allogeneic SCT in 7 (7%) and 11 (12%) of patients, respectively. Two (2%) and 5 (5%) pts received their autologous and allogeneic SCT while in CR1, respectively. The median number of treatments for HT per pt was 1 (range, 0-5) with 59 (61%) pts only receiving one line of therapy. After HT diagnosis, pts had a median follow-up of 1.6 yrs (range, 0.0 - 15.1). Two-yr OS after HT diagnosis was 72% (95%CI 62 - 83%). The pts who received any CLL directed therapy (n = 80) prior to HT had a significantly lower estimated 2-yr OS of 69% (95%CI 58 - 82%) compared with pts who did not receive any prior CLL-directed therapy (n = 17; 93%; 95%CI 82-100%; p 0.02; Figure 1). Pts who received purine-analogue-based therapy for their CLL prior to HT had a significantly lower estimated 2-yr OS of 60% (95%CI 46 - 79%) compared with pts who did not receive purine-analogue-based CLL-directed therapy prior to HT (n = 51; 83%; 95%CI 73 - 96%; p 0.009; Figure 2). Although limited by small sample size, the pts who underwent SCT for HT in CR1 had a similar 2-yr OS (n = 7; 67%; 95%CI 38-100%) to pts who did not undergo SCT for HT in CR1 (n = 87; 72%; 95%CI 63 - 84%; p 0.46; Figure 3). Conclusions In this retrospective analysis, we describe the largest reported series of pts with HT from CLL. Two-yr survival in pts with HT was shorter than what is historically expected in patients with de novo HL, but longer than what is expected in CLL pts who transform to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Pts with HT who have received prior CLL-directed therapies (specifically purine-analogue-based treatments) are estimated to have a shorter 2-yr OS, likely due to underlying immunosuppression. The majority of pts (61%) only received 1 line of HL therapy and only 20% went on to receive SCT (7% while in CR1), indicating that these patients can have prolonged OS after achieving response to first-line therapy for HT and may not require SCT in CR1. Further study of this rare population is required to determine optimum management. Disclosures Kander: AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Parikh:Gilead: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Shadman:Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Mustang Biopharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Beigene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Qilu Puget Sound Biotherapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy. Pagel:Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Mato:Portola: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Prime Oncology: Honoraria; Regeneron: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Medscape: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hill:Amgen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Danilov:Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding. Phillips:Abbvie: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Brander:Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Acerta: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; DTRM: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; BeiGene: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding. Smith:BMS: Consultancy; Portola: Honoraria. Davids:Surface Oncology: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy; Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy; Sunesis: 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; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: 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; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding.