Koehler, Amber B.

7526 Background: Stem cell transplant (SCT) was considered to be beneficial in CLL patients with Richter transformation (RT). We report a single center experience of SCT for RT. Methods: CLL patients with biopsy-confirmed RT to DLBCL who underwent SCT were identified from Mayo Clinic CLL database, and clinical information was abstracted by chart review. Survival analysis was done with the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Twenty-four of 204 RT patients underwent SCT, 20 autologous and 4 allogeneic. The median lines of prior CLL therapy was 1 (range 0-4). Only 4 patients were exposed to ibrutinib prior to RT. The median age at RT diagnosis was 62 (range 41-73). Five of 17 (29%) patients had bulky disease (≥ 5 cm), 12 of 20 (60%) had elevated LDH, and 6 of 15 (40%) had TP53 disruption (del(17p) or TP53 mutation). The median lines of RT therapy prior to SCT was 2 (range 1-4); treatments included R-CHOP-like alone (n = 7), platinum-based alone (n = 1), both R-CHOP-like and platinum-based (n = 11), novel agents (n = 2), and high dose MTX-based (n = 3). Response prior to SCT was CR in 12 (50%) and PR in 12 (50%) patients. The median time from RT diagnosis to SCT was 6.8 months (range 3.3-42.3). After a median follow-up of 52.7 months after SCT, there were 10 RT relapses, 4 CLL progression, and 11 deaths (7 RT, 1 CLL and 3 unrelated). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 28.5 months (95% CI 8.3-NA; 1-year PFS 61.8%, 2-year PFS 50.5%). The median post-SCT survival was 56.3 months (95% CI 30.6-76.6; 2-year survival 82.0%, 4-year survival 65.6%). Elevated LDH was associated with worse PFS (median 8.9 months vs NA, P= 0.014) and a trend of worse post-SCT survival (53.7 vs 67.4 months, P= 0.153). Other factors including age, prior CLL treatment (untreated vs treated), bulky disease, response prior to SCT, and TP53 disruption were not associated with PFS or post-SCT survival. Among the 4 allogeneic SCT patients, 1 had RT relapse 10.5 months after SCT and was treated with venetoclax, ibrutinib and obinutuzumab and remained alive at last follow-up (12.9 months after SCT). All 3 other patients remained in remission and alive at last follow up (15.6, 16.1 and 108.5 months after SCT, respectively). Conclusions: SCT may benefit select RT patients. The role of SCT in the novel agent era needs further study.

7522 Background: Ibrutinib therapy is associated with an increased risk (~15%) of AF. An accurate risk assessment model for the development of AF in pts starting ibrutinib is not established, and outcomes after AF are not well described. Methods: An IRB approved retrospective review of CLL pts treated with ibrutinib at Mayo Clinic between Oct 2012 and Nov 2018 was conducted. Results: 299 pts were identified with a total of 565 years of ibrutinib exposure (Table). After a median follow-up of 24 months (range 0–70 months), 51 pts developed treatment-emergent AF (13 [25%] CTCAE 3 or higher). Our study assessed 3 clinical prediction models, the Framingham (Schanbel:Lancet 2009), Italian (Visentin:Blood 2018;132:3118), and Shanafelt (Shanafelt:Leuk Lymp; 2017) risk scores. Based on a lower Akaike information criteria, the Italian score was best able to predict risk of treatment emergent AF (2-year risk of AF with score 0 6%; 1-2 8%; 3-4 26%; 5+ 47%). Thirty (61%) pts were treated with medical therapy for AF (27 rate control; 2 rhythm control; 1 both). 16 (31%) pts underwent interventional therapy (3 AV node ablation; 11 cardioversion; and 2 pacemaker). Twelve (23%) pts temporarily held ibrutinib and resumed their original dose, 22 (43%) pts continued reduced dose ibrutinib and 11 (22%) continued their initial ibrutinib dose. Six (12%) pts permanently discontinued ibrutinib. Of 51 pts with treatment-emergent AF, 41 (80%) had a CHA2DS2-VASc score of ≥2 (41% received anticoagulation alone; 12% received antiplatelet therapy alone; 10% received both). No pt developed a thrombotic stroke after treatment-emergent AF. Two major bleeds, (1 GI and 1 intracranial) occurred, one in a pt on concomitant antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy, and one in a pt receiving neither. The development of AF was associated with shorter event-free survival (HR 2.5, 95%CI 1.5-4.2, p<.001) and shorter overall survival (HR 3.5, 95%CI 2.0-6.3, p<.001). Conclusions: The Italian score was the best predictor of AF development in this cohort of ibrutinib treated pts. Although the vast majority of pts who develop AF after ibrutinib are able to continue therapy, the occurrence of AF appears to be associated with shorter EFS and OS. [Table: see text]

Targeted agents have greatly improved outcomes for patients (pts) with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and other B cell lymphomas; however, single agents have been limited by intolerance, resistance and depth/durability of responses. Current novel targeted agent combinations may improve depth of response, but such "full dose" strategies have been associated with significant AEs, dose reductions/interruptions and discontinuations. Our in vitro & in vivo screening/optimization studies identified that concurrent inhibition of BTK & mTOR targets plus IMiD at low doses of each inhibitor can synergistically kill B-cell malignancies and may address drug-resistance. DTRM-555 is an optimized oral triplet combination of a novel BTK inhibitor DTRMWXHS-12 (DTRM-12) with everolimus (EV) & pomalidomide (POM). This once daily therapy was tested in a stepwise, phase I, US multicenter study in patients with highest unmet medical needs including r/r CLL, Richter's transformation (RT) of CLL, DLBCL, transformed B-cell lymphomas. We conducted a 3+3 design phase I, first human trial exploring DTRM-555 in pts ≥18 years, ECOG PS ≤1 with CLL, B-cell NHL, or Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) with no available standard therapy (NCT02900716). Our goal was to determine optimal doses for triplet combination therapy through 3 escalating phases of study: DTRM-12 in escalating doses (50, 100, 200, & 300 mg/day) in Part Ia, DTRM-12 at 200 mg or 300 mg & EV at 5 mg (doublet or DTRM-505) in Part Ib Arm A while DTRM-12 at 200 mg or 300 mg, EV at 5 mg & POM at 2 mg in Part Ib Arm B. For all arms, treatment was administered for 21 consecutive days of a 28-day cycle, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Safety was the primary endpoint, and the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) period was cycle 1. Secondary endpoints included response (iwCLL 2018 or Cheson 2014), progression free survival, duration of response and pharmacokinetics. Intra-patient migration between arms (Mono to doublet to triplet) was permitted if subsequent doses were tolerated. The trial commenced 9/27/2016 and completed enrollment 7/25/2019. Thirty-three pts were enrolled, including 2 screen failures and 4 intra-cohort migrations, with r/r DLBCL (n=8), CLL/SLL (n=5), RT (n=6), FL (n=5), MCL (n=4), MZL/LPL (n=3), HL (n=2). 30 of 31 treated pts were evaluated: 8 pts participated in phase Ia (DTRM-12) while 23 pts were treated on phase Ib combinations (DTRM-505 & DTRM-555). Baseline characteristics: 70% male (n=23), median age 70 years (range 46-94) and 94% white. Median prior therapies were 3 (range 1-10), 53% had been treated with ≥1 prior targeted agent (i.e., CD19/CD3 bispecific antibody, obtinutuzumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, ibrutinib, venetoclax, PI3k-i), CAR-T or HSCT. 35% pts were previously treated with ibrutinib. Table 1 describes Grade (Gr) 3 and 4 AEs (all causality, stratified by treatment arm). Regarding safety, AEs were manageable, with a total of 5 DLTs were observed: 2 (Gr 3 febrile neutropenia, URI) in part Ib arm A, 3 (Gr 4 thrombocytopenia, Gr 3 diarrhea, G3 febrile neutropenia) in Part Ib arm B. No MTD was reached for the mono & doublet arms, with the MTD of the triplet determined to be DTRM-12 200 mg, EV 5 mg, & POM 2 mg. Spider plot (Figure 1a) shows the clinical response for individual CLL and lymphoma pts treated with mono, doublet and triplet therapies. Depth and durability of response improved with combination therapies (vs. mono). Of note, 48% of all patients had a ≥50% reduction in sum of the products of lymph node diameters. Representative PET-CT scans are in Figure 1b-c. Responses in multi-refractory pts are ongoing (including 15+ mos in a pt with r/r DLBCL and 5+ mos PR in a pt aged &gt; 90 yrs with r/r DLBCL; 4+ & 13+ mos PRs in two pts with RT). DTRM-12 plasma concentrations were unaffected by EV & POM (Once Daily Oral Therapies) in Figure 1d. The clinical trial met its primary endpoint as the triple combination DTRM-555 had an acceptable safety profile. Dose dependent drug levels with minimal inter-pt variations were observed in all arms, supporting once daily oral administration of this low-dose combination therapy. Encouraging clinical activity was observed in several high-risk, multi-refractory CLL and lymphoma pts, including those previously treated with ibrutinib. Thus synthetic lethality is a viable treatment approach. A phase II US expansion study is underway targeting pts with transformed lymphomas (follicular or prior CLL) and r/r DLBCL cohorts. Table 1. Disclosures Mato: AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB member , Research Funding; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding. Schuster:DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding. Foss:Mallinckrodt: Consultancy; Acrotech: Consultancy; miRagen: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other: fees for non-CME/CE services ; Eisai: Consultancy; Spectrum: Other: fees for non-CME/CE services . Isufi:Novartis: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Ding:Merck: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding. Brander:Novartis: Consultancy; MEI: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; BeiGene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding. Tun:Mundi-pharma: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. He:DTRM Biopharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kearney:DTRM Biopharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gui:DTRM Biopharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Anderson:Theradex: Employment. Roeker:AbbVie: Equity Ownership; Abbott Laboratories: Equity Ownership. Huntington:Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; DTRM Biopharm: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Everolimus in B cell lymphomas and CLL Pomalidomide in B cell lymphomas and CLL

Background: The 2018 iwCLL guidelines recommend close observation of early stage CLL pts who do not meet indications for therapy ("watch and wait" strategy). Prior attempts at early therapeutic intervention in unselected early-stage CLL pts using alkylating agents such as chlorambucil and chemoimmunotherapy failed to show a significant benefit; and these therapies were associated with substantial toxicities. The introduction of Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors has revolutionized the treatment landscape of CLL. The German CLL Study group recently presented results of the CLL12 study which demonstrated a significant improvement in event-free survival (EFS) among untreated early stage high risk CLL pts who received ibrutinib compared to placebo (median EFS not reached vs. 47.8 months, respectively; Langerbeins, EHA, 2019). Acalabrutinib is a more selective second-generation BTK inhibitor that has fewer adverse events in pts with CLL, and has shown equally impressive clinical activity for CLL pts. We are conducting an investigator initiated randomized phase 2 study to compare acalabrutinib with or without obinutuzumab (a glycoengineered anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody approved in the treatment of CLL) among high risk early stage CLL pts. Study Design: All pts with newly diagnosed (<2 years from registration) previously untreated early stage CLL who do not meet the 2018 iwCLL guidelines for initiation of therapy are eligible for enrollment in this study. Pts undergo risk stratification according to the CLL-International prognostic index (CLL-IPI) which consists of the following 5 variables: age >65 years (1 point), Rai stage I-IV (1 point), del17p and/or TP53 mutation (4 points), unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain (IGHV) genes (2 points), and serum β2-microglobulin >3.5 g/dL (2 points). Pts with high (4-6) and very high (7-10) risk CLL-IPI are randomly (1:1) assigned to acalabrutinib 100 mg orally twice daily (Arm A) or acalabrutinib with obinutuzumab at a standard approved schedule (Arm B). Treatment with acalabrutinib is continued for a minimum of 2 years unless the patient has unacceptable side effects or withdraws consent. Pts with low (0-1) and intermediate (2-3) risk CLL-IPI score are assigned to an observation arm with follow-up once every 6 months for 2 years, and then according to routine clinical practice (Arm C). Endpoints: The primary endpoint of the intervention arms (Arms A and B) is the achievement of minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative complete remission in the bone marrow after 2 years of therapy. MRD is assessed using an 8-color flow cytometry with a detection limit of 0.01%. The primary endpoint of the observation arm (Arm C) is time to first therapy. Secondary endpoints for all arms are: progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. Statistical design: A randomized trial comparing the experimental arm (acalabrutinib plus obinutuzumab) against the control arm (acalabrutinib alone) will be conducted as described by Rubinstein. A sample size of 36 pts per arm provides 80% power to detect an improvement in MRD-negative complete response rate from 10% to 30%, using a one-sided test at a significance level of 0.10 (EAST 6.4). We anticipate accruing an additional 8 high/very high risk pts (4 in each arm) to account for ineligibility, cancellation, or major treatment violation. The total enrollment for Arms A and B will be 80 pts. We will enroll 40 pts to Arm C; for a total enrollment of 120 pts. Key correlatives: Comprehensive profiling to assess the innate and adaptive immune system in paired peripheral blood and bone marrow will be conducted in all pts registered to Arms A and B at baseline, 12 and 24 months after enrollment. In addition, bone marrow hematopoietic function will be assessed in all pts at these time points. We will employ a CLL focused custom 61-gene panel to estimate tumor mutational burden as well as mutational profiles for each patient at baseline, 12, and 24 month time points, as well at the time of disease progression. Preliminary results: The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT03516617. The trial opened to accrual at all three Mayo Clinic sites (Rochester, MN; Jacksonville, FL; and Scottsdale, AZ) in September 2018. Twenty-eight pts have been registered; the baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. The trial is expected to complete enrollment in September 2020; and the primary analysis will be available in September 2022. Disclosures Parikh: Janssen: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria. Ding:DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Ailawadhi:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Kenderian:Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Humanigen: Other: Scientific advisory board , Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding. Chanan-Khan:Mayo Clinic: Employment; Ascentage: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Jansen: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Kay:Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Other: DSMB; Celgene: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Agios: Other: DSMB; MorphoSys: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board. OffLabel Disclosure: Drug: Acalabrutinib Purpose: treatment of CLL

INTRODUCTION Mutations in BTK and PLCG2 have been reported to occur in ~80% of CLL patients (pts) who have progression of disease on ibrutinib therapy (Woyach, JCO 2017; Ahn, Blood 2017). These mutations are described as appearing months before actual relapse and thus considered as a potential predictive biomarker for future relapse (Quinquenel, Blood 2019). However, the outcomes of these pts after disease progression are not well described. In this study, we seek to investigate time to next therapy and overall survival (OS) following progression among CLL pts on ibrutinib therapy with and without these resistance mutations. METHODS Between 10/2012 and 6/2019, we identified 34 pts in the Mayo Clinic clinical CLL resource who progressed while receiving ibrutinib therapy and also had testing for BTK and PLCG2 mutation performed as part of routine clinical practice at either NeoGenomics Laboratories or The Ohio State University. OS was calculated from time of ibrutinib progression to last known alive or death date; OS was plotted using Kaplan Meier methods and was compared using the log-rank test between various groups (e.g., mutation positive vs negative; CLL progression vs Richter's). Cumulative incidence of time to next treatment in those who had a treatment after progression was adjusted for the competing risk of death. RESULTS Of 34 pts who progressed while receiving ibrutinib, 26 pts experienced CLL progression and 8 pts had Richter's transformation; baseline characteristics in Table 1A. The presence of a BTK or PLCG2 mutation was found in 20/34 (59%) pts (specific mutations in Table 1B). BTK mutation alone was present in 9 pts, 7 pts had PLCG2 mutation alone, and 4 pts had both mutations. Median time between a positive test and start of next therapy was 4 months (range 1-19 months) and did not vary between BTK vs PLCG2 mutations. Among the 26 pts with CLL progression, 18 (69%) pts had a mutation present: BTK alone (n=8), PLCG2 alone (n=6), both (n=4). Therapy following progression on ibrutinib in these pts was as follows: venetoclax (n=16; 11 pts who continued ibrutinib in combination), idelalisib (n=4), investigational treatments (n=2), continued ibrutinib alone (n=2), dose-adjusted EPOCH-R (etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab; n=1), and unknown (n=1). Twelve of the 26 pts with CLL progression on ibrutinib, including 8 pts with a prior resistance mutation detected, had subsequent progression of disease on the aforementioned next line therapy. Treatment of these patients consisted of the following: restarted ibrutinib in addition to current treatment of venetoclax (n=5), venetoclax (n=2), pembrolizumab (n=2; 1 pt with continued ibrutinib), obinutuzumab with continued ibrutinib (n=1), gemcitabine and vinorelbine with continued ibrutinib (n=1), and no further treatment (n=1). Among the 8 pts with Richter's transformation as the initial progression event on ibrutinib after mutation testing, 1 pt had a BTK mutation and 1 pt had a PLCG2 mutation. Treatments following progression on ibrutinib included multi-agent chemoimmunotherapy (n=3; 2 pts received rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone [R-CHOP] with continued ibrutinib and 1 pt received doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine [ABVD] alone), pembrolizumab (n=3; 1 pt in combination with continued ibrutinib), venetoclax in combination with continued ibrutinib (n=1), and venetoclax and obinutuzumab (n=1). The median time to next treatment (second line of treatment beyond ibrutinib) for the 31 pts who started another therapy following progression on ibrutinib was 16.7 months (95% CI 9.6-NE; Figure 1A) and was not significantly different for pts with or without a resistance mutation (p=0.57). Median OS for all 26 pts with CLL progression was 28.7 month and there was no difference according to presence or absence of a resistance mutation (median 28.7 months vs 18.2 months, p=0.53; Figure 1B). The 8 pts with Richter's transformation had a median OS of 7.1 months (95% CI 2.0-NE). CONCLUSION Approximately 60% of pts tested in this progression cohort had a BTK or PLCG2 mutation at time of or preceding progression on ibrutinib therapy. OS and time to next therapy did not differ statistically between pts with mutated vs non-mutated clones; however, caution should be applied with the conclusions given the limited sample size. Disclosures Ding: DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Kenderian:Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Humanigen: Other: Scientific advisory board , Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding. Kay:MorphoSys: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Other: DSMB; Celgene: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Agios: Other: DSMB. Parikh:Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding.

Background: The 2008 International Working Group for CLL (IWCLL) criteria define MBL as a clonal B-cell disorder with a peripheral blood B-cell count of <5 x 109/L, in the absence of cytopenias(s), lymphadenopathy and/or organomegaly on physical examination, and no other concomitant lymphoproliferative disorder. In the presence of palpable lymphadenopathy and/or organomegaly, and a B-cell count of < 5 x 109/L, a diagnosis of small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) is established. A study by Gentile et al (Am J Hematol. 2013) reported that 29 out of 62 individuals with clinically identified MBL (42%) had lymphadenopathy identified on CT imaging. Notably, however, after a median follow-up of 35 months, the rate of progression among cases of MBL with lymphadenopathy identified on CT imaging was only 6.9% (2/29 patients), which was no different than in cases of MBL without lymphadenopathy on CT imaging (rate of progression, 9%; 3/33 patients). Our study sought to 1) determine if lymphadenopathy and/or organomegaly detected by imaging studies performed for unrelated reasons in individuals with MBL can identify a subset with shorter time to first CLL therapy (TFT) and overall survival (OS); and 2) compare outcomes of individuals with MBL who have incidentally detected lymphadenopathy/splenomegaly and SLL patients. Methods: We used the Mayo Clinic CLL Database to identify individuals with high-count MBL (absolute B-cell count: 0.5 - 4.9 x 109/L) and divided them into the following three cohorts: a) Cohort A: no imaging studies available at MBL diagnosis; b) Cohort B: imaging studies done within one year of MBL with no evidence of lymphadenopathy and/or organomegaly; and c) Cohort C: imaging studies done within one year of MBL with lymphadenopathy and/or organomegaly, attributable to MBL. All individuals with MBL were first seen at Mayo Clinic after 1/1/2002; those with a concomitant lymphoproliferative disorder within 3 months of diagnosis were excluded. Patients with SLL seen during the same time interval were identified as a comparison cohort. We compared the baseline characteristics (Kruskal Wallis for continuous and Chi-square for categorical variables) and TFT and OS across the three MBL cohorts, and patients with SLL. Cumulative incidence of TFT was adjusted for the competing risk of death. Age- and sex-adjusted OS was analyzed using inverse weights methods. Results: 657 individuals with high-count MBL with a median follow-up of 6.7 years were identified: 415 (63%) individuals were in Cohort A, 142 (22%) in Cohort B, and 100 in (15%) Cohort C. Compared to Cohort B, individuals in Cohort C were more likely to have unmutated IGHV, high expression of CD38, and higher beta-2 microglobulin level (Table 1). SLL patients were younger, had higher rate of unmutated IGHV, and had high expression of CD49d compared to MBL individuals in Cohort C (Table 1). There was suggestive evidence of a difference in TFT between Cohorts B and C (estimated 10-year treatment rate 28.3% vs. 41.6%; p=0.16; HR 1.62 95% CI 0.84-3.15). TFT was significantly shorter in SLL patients compared to those with Cohort C (estimated 10-year treatment rate 71% vs. 41.6%, respectively, P<0.001; Figure 1A). There was a trend toward shorter OS in Cohort C compared to Cohort B (estimated 10-year OS rate 53.7% vs. 64.2%, respectively, P=0.09; Figure 1B). In contrast, there was no difference in OS among MBL individuals in Cohort C compared to those with SLL (estimated 10-year OS rate 56.9% vs. 62.6%, P=0.72). Summary/Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that individuals with MBL who have incidentally identified lymphadenopathy/splenomegaly at diagnosis are more likely to have an unfavorable risk profile, shorter TFT and OS compared to patients who did not have lymphadenopathy/splenomegaly at MBL diagnosis. Additionally, these individuals have a longer TFT but similar OS compared to SLL patients seen during the same time interval. If externally validated, these findings have significant implications for individuals with newly diagnosed MBL. Disclosures Ding: Merck: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding. Kenderian:Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Humanigen: Other: Scientific advisory board , Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding. Kay:MorphoSys: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Other: DSMB; Celgene: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Agios: Other: DSMB. Parikh:AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding.

Background:We have previously reported that ∼50% of CLL patients (pts) experience rapid flare of disease when they discontinue ibrutinib therapy due to progression of disease (CLL or Richter's transformation [RT]) (Hampel et al, JCO suppl, 2018). This lead to the clinical practice of overlapping venetoclax with ibrutinib for combination therapy in this setting to prevent ibrutinib withdrawal.Aims:To evaluate the role of continuing ibrutinib beyond the start of salvage venetoclax in pts who have progression of disease on ibrutinib monotherapy, both in preventing ibrutinib withdrawal associated with ibrutinib discontinuation and in disease response.Methods:We identified all CLL pts at Mayo Clinic (3/2017–11/2018) who had disease progression on ibrutinib therapy, where venetoclax was added as subsequent treatment while ibrutinib was continued. CLL‐specific characteristics, treatment timeline and toxicities, and disease course following combination therapy were ascertained. All pts started venetoclax according to the weekly ramp‐up per the package instructions.Results:Eighteen pts treated with the addition of venetoclax to ibrutinib therapy were identified; indications were CLL progression (n = 13) and RT (n = 5). BTK or PLCG2 mutations were present in 8/13 pts. Median duration of follow‐up was 9.6 months after the start of combination therapy.The target venetoclax dose was reached by 5 weeks in 13 pts; reasons for delaying or stopping dose escalation included diarrhea (n = 2), sepsis (n = 2), and neutropenia (n = 1). No patient experienced a disease flare during venetoclax ramp‐up.The median duration of combination ibrutinib and venetoclax therapy was 3 months (range, 0–14 months). Of 18 pts who started combination therapy with ibrutinib and venetoclax, ibrutinib was discontinued in 10 pts. Reasons included hematopoietic stem cell transplant (n = 2), planned stop after adequate disease control (n = 4), financial reasons (n = 1), toxicity (neutropenia n = 1, immune thrombocytopenia/bleeding risk n = 1), and death (n = 1). Only 1 patient experienced ibrutinib withdrawal, which occurred following planned discontinuation after clinical complete response (CR) with a 41 day overlap and toleration of venetoclax 400 mg daily; management with re‐initiation of ibrutinib was effective in regaining disease control. Of 9 pts who stopped ibrutinib, 4 pts had a slow taper over 2–8 weeks, and 2 pts also received corticosteroids at the time of ibrutinib discontinuation.Among the other 8 pts who did not discontinue ibrutinib, 6 pts remain on the combination with venetoclax (median duration 6.5 months, range 3–14 months), and 2 pts continued on ibrutinib following venetoclax discontinuation due to disease progression (both pts received further combination of ibrutinib with multi‐agent chemotherapy).The overall response rate (ORR) to combination therapy with ibrutinib and venetoclax was 81% (CR/clinical CR n = 9, partial response n = 4, stable disease n = 1, and primary refractory disease n = 2). The duration of combination therapy was <4 weeks in 2 pts, precluding response assessment. The estimated 12‐month event‐free survival was 54% (95% CI 33–87%), and the estimated 12‐month overall survival from start of combination therapy was 79% (95% CI 60–100%); see Figure 1.Summary/Conclusion:Among CLL pts who develop progression of disease on ibrutinib monotherapy, continued ibrutinib therapy with addition of venetoclax was feasible, ameliorated ibrutinib withdrawal, and was associated with high ORR.image