Wall, Anna

Abstract A041202 (NCT01886872) is a phase 3 study comparing bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) with ibrutinib and the combination of ibrutinib plus rituximab (IR) in previously untreated older patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The initial results showed that ibrutinib-containing regimens had superior progression-free survival (PFS) and rituximab did not add additional benefits. Here we present an updated analysis. With a median follow-up of 55 months, the median PFS was 44 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 38-54) for BR and not yet reached in either ibrutinib-containing arm. The 48-month PFS estimates were 47%, 76%, and 76% for BR, ibrutinib, and IR, respectively. The benefit of ibrutinib regimens over chemoimmunotherapy was consistent across subgroups of patients defined by TP53 abnormalities, del(11q), complex karyotype, and immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region (IGHV). No significant interaction effects were observed between the treatment arm and del(11q), the complex karyotype, or IGHV. However, a greater difference in PFS was observed among the patients with TP53 abnormalities. There was no difference in the overall survival. Notable adverse events with ibrutinib included atrial fibrillation (afib) and hypertension. Afib was observed in 11 patients (pts) on BR (3%) and 67 pts on ibrutinib (18%). All-grade hypertension was observed in 95 pts on BR (27%) and 263 pts on ibrutinib (55%). These data show that ibrutinib regimens prolong PFS compared with BR for older patients with treatment-naïve CLL. These benefits were observed across subgroups, including high-risk groups. Strikingly, within the ibrutinib arms, there was no inferior PFS for patients with abnormalities in TP53, the highest risk feature observed in CLL. These data continue to demonstrate the efficacy of ibrutinib in treatment-naïve CLL.

7500 Background: The Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) ibrutinib +/- anti-CD20 antibody obinutuzumab (IO) is a standard frontline regimen for older adults with CLL. BTKi alone do not often lead to complete response (CR) or undetectable minimal residual disease (uMRD), thus are given indefinitely. Smaller trials showed that IO plus venetoclax (IVO) can induce uMRD CRs which may allow successful discontinuation. Methods: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A041702 is a multicenter trial designed to evaluate if IVO with response-guided discontinuation of I improves progression free survival (PFS) versus IO with indefinite I in treatment-naïve, older CLL pts. IO is given in standard fashion, and in the IVO arm V is added at C3D1 and continued until C14D28. After 14 cycles, pts undergo response evaluation including CT scans and bone marrow biopsy with central MRD assessment by flow cytometry. Pts in IVO arm with uMRD CR discontinue I; all others continue I until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Eligible pts were age ≥70 years (amended to ≥65). Pts had CrCl ≥ 40 mL/min, bilirubin ≤ 1.5 x ULN, and no other life-limiting intercurrent illness. Pts were stratified based on Rai stage and +/- del17p13.1 by FISH, and randomized 1:1 to IO:IVO. With 431 evaluable pts, the trial had 90% power to detect significant improvement in PFS using a one-sided log-rank test with one-sided type 1 error rate of 2.5%. The Alliance DSMB approved release of data on Nov 4, 2022 after meeting the protocol defined futility threshold at the second planned event-driven interim analysis. Data were locked on December 15, 2022. Results: Between January 4, 2019 and July 15, 2022, 465 pts were registered (IO:232, IVO:233). Median age was 74; 67% of pts were men. Rai stage 3-4 was seen in 55% and del17p in 13%. With median follow-up of 14 months, PFS of IO was 87.5% compared to 85% on IVO. Events were observed in 29 pts on IO (4 progressions, 23 deaths, 2 pts started other therapy) and 35 on IVO (7 progressions, 28 deaths). The predefined futility boundary was crossed, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.20 (95% CI: 0.73-1.97) in favor of IO. COVID-19 was the leading cause of death in both arms, (11 COVID-19 deaths on IO, 19 on IVO), with 13 and 11 additional deaths from other causes, respectively. Censoring pts with COVID-19 related deaths, PFS HR is 0.82 (95% CI: 0.44-1.53) in favor of IVO. Grade 3+ toxicity and discontinuation in year 1 of therapy were similar between arms. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that PFS for IVO is not superior to IO for treatment-naive older CLL pts in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. Study treatment is ongoing, and long-term follow-up will determine if there are advantages to IVO, with special attention to MRD and therapy discontinuation. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24 CA196171; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Clinical trial information: NCT03737981 .

Abstract Asparaginase is a key component of pediatric-inspired regimens in young adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Truncation of asparaginase therapy is linked to inferior outcomes in children with ALL. However, a similar correlation in adults is lacking. Here, we studied the prevalence and risk factors associated with pegylated (PEG)-asparaginase discontinuation in young adults with ALL treated on the US intergroup Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 10403 study and examined the prognostic impact of early discontinuation (ED) (defined as <4 of 5 or 6 planned doses) on survival outcomes. The analysis included 176 patients who achieved complete remission and initiated the delayed intensification (DI) cycle. The median number of PEG-asparaginase doses administered before DI was 5 (range, 1-6), with 57 (32%) patients with ED. The ED patients were older (median, 26 vs 23 years; P = .023). Survival was apparently lower for ED patients compared with those receiving ≥4 doses, but this finding was not statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR], 1.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-3.43; P = .06), with corresponding 5-year overall survival (OS) rates of 66% and 80%, respectively. In patients with standard-risk ALL, the ED of PEG-asparaginase adversely influenced OS (HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.02-5.22; P = .04) with a trend toward inferior event-free survival (EFS) (HR, 1.84; 95% CI, 0.92-3.67; P = .08). In contrast, there was no impact of early PEG-asparaginase discontinuation on OS (P = .64) or EFS (P = .32) in patients with high-risk disease based on the presence of high-risk cytogenetics, Ph-like genotype, and/or high white blood cell count at presentation. In conclusion, early PEG-asparaginase discontinuation is common in young adults with ALL and may adversely impact survival of patients with standard-risk ALL.

Abstract In this secondary analysis of Hispanic adolescents and young adults (AYA) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) treated on Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 10403, we evaluated outcomes and geographic enrollment patterns relative to US population data. We used demographic, clinical, and survival data on AYAs enrolled on CALGB 10403 (N = 295, 2007-2012). Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries provided overall survival (OS) for US AYA ALL by ethnicity/race. North American Association of Cancer Registries provided AYA ALL incidence overall and proportion among Hispanics by US state. Of AYAs enrolled on CALGB 10403, 263 (89%) reported ethnicity/race: 45 (17%) Hispanic, 172 (65%) non-Hispanic White (NHW), 25 (10%) non-Hispanic Black (NHB), and 21 (8%) other. Compared with NHWs, Hispanic and NHB patients had lower household income, and Hispanic patients were more likely to harbor high-risk CRLF2 aberrations. Relative to US estimates, where Hispanic patients represented 46% of newly diagnosed AYA ALL patients and experienced inferior OS compared with NHW (P < .001), Hispanic AYAs on CALGB 10403 did as well as NHW patients (3 year OS, 75% vs 74%; P = NS). Hispanic patients also had higher rates of protocol completion (P = .05). Enrollments on CALGB 10403 differed relative to the distribution of Hispanic AYA ALL in the United States: enrollment was highest in the Midwest; t and only 15% of enrollees were from states with a high proportion of Hispanic AYA ALL patients. In summary, Hispanic patients treated on CALGB 10403 did as well as NHWs and better than population estimates. Geographical misalignment between trial sites and disease epidemiology may partially explain the lower-than-expected enrollment of Hispanic AYA ALL patients.

Abstract Great heterogeneity in survival exists for patients newly diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Three scoring systems incorporating simple clinical parameters (age, lactate dehydrogenase, number/sites of involvement, stage, performance status) are widely used: the International Prognostic Index (IPI), revised IPI (R-IPI), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network IPI (NCCN-IPI). We evaluated 2124 DLBCL patients treated from 1998 to 2009 with frontline rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP; or variant) across 7 multicenter randomized clinical trials to determine which scoring system best discriminates overall survival (OS). Median age was 63 years, and 56% of patients were male. Five-year OS estimates ranged from 54% to 88%, from 61% to 93%, and from 49% to 92% using the IPI, R-IPI, and NCCN-IPI, respectively. The NCCN-IPI had the greatest absolute difference in OS estimates between the highest- and lowest-risk groups and best discriminated OS (concordance index = 0.632 vs 0.626 [IPI] vs 0.590 [R-IPI]). For each given IPI risk category, NCCN-IPI risk categories were significantly associated with OS (P ≤ .01); the reverse was not true, and the IPI did not provide additional significant prognostic information within all NCCN-IPI risk categories. Collectively, the NCCN-IPI outperformed the IPI and R-IPI. Patients with low-risk NCCN-IPI had favorable survival outcomes with little room for further improvement. In the rituximab era, none of the clinical risk scores identified a patient subgroup with long-term survival clearly <50%. Integrating molecular features of the tumor and microenvironment into the NCCN-IPI or IPI might better characterize a high-risk group for which novel treatment approaches are most needed.

7544 Background: Great heterogeneity in survival exists for patients (pts) newly diagnosed with aggressive BCL. Three scoring systems based on simple clinical parameters (age, lactate dehydrogenase, number/sites of involvement, stage, performance status) are widely used: the international prognostic index (IPI), revised-IPI (R-IPI), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network IPI (NCCN-IPI). We studied BCL pts treated with R-CHOP to determine which scoring systems best identifies subgroups with poor outcomes that might benefit from new approaches. Methods: Individual pt data from 7 multicenter trials (1998-2009) of pts with BCL (86% DLBCL) treated front-line with R-CHOP (or variant) were analyzed to determine whether IPI, R-IPI, or NCCN-IPI best discriminated overall survival (OS). The concordance index (c-index) from a proportional hazards model, stratifying on trial and induction therapy, quantified predictive accuracy of each scoring system. Results: 2561 pts (median age 63 yrs, 56% male) were classified into IPI, R-IPI, and NCCN-IPI risk groups (Table). With a median follow-up of 5 yrs, NCCN-IPI had the greatest absolute difference in OS estimates between the highest and lowest risk groups at 1, 3, and 5 yrs, and best discriminated OS (c-index = 0.631, Table). Conclusions: In an independent and large cohort of pts, NCCN-IPI performs best in risk-stratifying pts with aggressive BCL, readily distinguishing pts at high and low risk for treatment failure using clinical parameters (5-yr OS between 48 and 92%). Improvement over the simpler IPI appears incremental, and IPI may remain a valuable alternative. Work integrating molecular features of the tumor into the (NCCN-) IPI is in progress to define high risk groups where targeted novel approaches are needed most. [Table: see text]

Introduction: Most patients with newly diagnosed FL treated with rituximab (R) alone or R + chemotherapy will experience prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival (OS), but it remains unclear what factors have the greatest influence on FL-associated and other causes of death in this patient population. We utilized individual patient data from 13 first-line randomized clinical trials from the FLASH database to perform a comprehensive multistate survival analysis to examine and quantify the relationships between clinical characteristics, treatment response, and early, intermediate, and late FL outcomes. Methods: The multistate survival analysis model defined states for "Alive after beginning Induction Treatment (TX)", "Alive after beginning Maintenance TX", "Death due to FL", and "Death from Other Causes" (Figure 1). We used the Aalen-Johansen estimator, a generalization of the Kaplan-Meier estimator, to calculate the likelihood of being in each model state and estimate the course of FL over time. Making no assumptions on the probability distributions and capable of coping with censored observations, the Aalen-Johansen estimator is a convenient and reliable nonparametric estimator for clinical data. Results: Among 7,465 FL patients with median age 56 (range 18-90) years, 49.2% were female; 28.7% Stage I-III, 71.3% Stage IV, and FLIPI was 0-1 (20.0%), 2 (36.8%), ≥ 3 (43.2%). Following initiation of induction treatment, 2-, 5- and 10-year death rates were 1.7%, 3.8%, and 5.8% due to FL, and 0.7%, 2.1%, and 4.8% from other causes (Figure 2). Death rates at 2, 5, and 10 years due to FL and other causes for subgroups based on clinical characteristics and treatment response are shown in Table 1. Notably, patients > 70 years and patients with FLIPI ≥ 3 had worse outcomes and patients achieving CR at 18, 24, and 30 months experienced improved outcomes. Conclusion: This is the largest study using data from randomized trials to quantify the impact of clinical factors on early, intermediate and late mortality by cause of death. We demonstrated that age > 70 years and FLIPI ≥ 3 were linked to increased FL-associated death and response to TX distinguished patients with favorable and poor outcomes. Future analyses should quantify the impact of predictors on the rate/time of FL outcomes in multivariable models. Disclosures Salles: Roche, Janssen, Gilead, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Educational events; BMS: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis, Servier, AbbVie, Karyopharm, Kite, MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Autolus: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events. Hoster:Janssen: Research Funding; Roche Pharma AG: Other: Travel Support. Hiddemann:Bayer: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Vector Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Herold:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Morschhauser:Servier: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; BMS: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Rummel:Roche Pharma AG: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria. Kimby:AbbVie,: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jansen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Other: educational lectures. Vitolo:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Gyan:Pfizer: Honoraria. Ladetto:Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Acerta: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria. Nielsen:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment, Equity Ownership. Flowers:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Optimum Rx: Consultancy; V Foundation: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy;