Huntington, Scott F.

e15708 Background: AFTT is characterized by physical, nutritional, and psychosocial decline. In GIC, AFTT arises from malnutrition, disease progression, or treatment-related toxicity resulting in poor quality of life. We evaluated the association between AFTT and IM, length of stay (LOS), and hospital charges (HC) in hospitalized GIC patients. Methods: The National Inpatient Sample (2016-21) was used to identify adult hospitalizations with GIC using ICD-10 codes, which were stratified as primary or secondary diagnoses by AFTT. Clinical characteristics and primary outcomes including IM, LOS, and HC were extracted. Multivariable regression models adjusting for demographics, insurance, comorbidity burden, census tract income, and hospital teaching status were evaluated. Results: Among 2,732,505 GIC hospitalizations, colorectal (46.9%) and pancreatic (20.4%) cancer predominated; 121,035 (4.4%) had AFTT. Patients with AFTT vs non-AFTT, were older (mean = 69.3 vs 66.5 yrs), more often male (58.1% vs 57%), and from the lowest income quartile (27.7% vs 26%). AFTT cohort had higher comorbidity burden (mean CCI = 7.24 vs 6.26), more Black patients (19.1% vs 12.8%), higher Medicare use (62.7% vs 56.0%), increased palliative care consultation (37.4% vs 13.6%), risk of malnutrition, AKI, and dementia (all p< 0.001). AFTT was associated with higher IM, longer LOS, and lower HC. Higher age, males, and self-pay were associated with increased IM and HC, but shorter LOS. Lower CCI was associated with reduced IM, LOS, HC, whereas urban hospitals showed lower IM but higher LOS and HC. Black patients had higher IM and LOS but lower HC, contrary to Hispanic patients. Conclusions: The grave impact of AFTT and variability in survival and practice patterns is driven multifactorially, raising concerns about inequitable care access and differences in healthcare utilization. Standardized guidelines and multidisciplinary interventions are urgently needed to combat AFTT in GIC. Predictor IM aOR (95% CI) LOS Adj. Ratio (95% CI) HC Adj. Ratio (95% CI) AFTT Status (vs. Non-AFTT) 1.96 (1.93-2.00) 1.13 (1.12-1.14) 0.86 (0.85-0.86) Age (/year increase) 1.02 (1.02-1.02) 1.00 (1.00-1.00) 1.00 (1.00-1.00) Sex (vs. Female) Male 1.18 (1.17-1.19) 0.99 (0.98-0.99) 1.05 (1.05-1.06) CCI Score (vs. High, ≥5) Low (≤2) Mid (3-4) 0.33 (0.32-0.33) 0.48 (0.47 - 0.48) 0.87 (0.87 - 0.88) 0.93 (0.93 - 0.94) 0.93 (0.93 - 0.94) 1.02 (1.02 - 1.02) Insurance (vs. Medicare) Private Medicaid Self-Pay 1.03 (1.01 - 1.05) Ref in model 1.29 (1.24 - 1.33) 0.92 (0.91 - 0.92) 0.96 (0.95 - 0.97) 0.98 (0.97 - 1.00) 1.03 (1.02 - 1.03) 1.06 (1.05 - 1.06) 0.96 (0.95 - 0.97) Race (vs. White) Black 1.03 (1.00 - 1.06) 1.07 (1.06 - 1.08) 0.95 (0.94 - 0.96) Facility Status (vs. Rural) Urban Non-Teaching Urban Teaching 0.87 (0.85 - 0.89) 0.78 (0.77 - 0.80) 1.10 (1.09 - 1.11) 1.18 (1.17 - 1.19) 1.64 (1.63 - 1.65) 1.86 (1.84 - 1.87)

Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis) and BCL2 inhibitor (BCL2i)–containing regimens significantly improve survival outcomes in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL). Results from randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that time-limited treatment with BCL2i-containing regimens resulted in higher rates of undetectable measurable residual disease (uMRD) than BTKi monotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy (CIT). Pirtobrutinib (a noncovalent BTKi) and lisocabtagene maraleucel (CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy) are newer options for relapsed or refractory disease after prior therapy with BTKi and BCL2i-contining regimens. Histologic transformation of CLL/SLL to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (Richter transformation) is associated with a poor prognosis. Molecular analysis to determine whether there is clonal relationship between CLL/SLL and transformed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma is useful to select an appropriate treatment option. These NCCN Guideline Insights highlight significant updates to the NCCN Guidelines for the treatment of CLL/SLL and Richter transformation.

Background: Physical function (PF) is an important outcome that can inform cancer treatment tolerability from a clinical and regulatory perspective. PF can be assessed through different modalities: patient-reported (PRO), clinician-reported (ClinRo), performance tests (PerfO), and digital sensors (wearables). No standard approach for PF measurement has been defined, and each modality bears unique implementation challenges. The Integrating 4 Measures to Assess Physical Function study (In4M, NCT05214144) characterized the performance of these PF modalities in patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, with a goal of guiding an assessment strategy in future cancer trials. Here we present feasibility results of the In4M study in patients with lymphoma. Methods: In4M is a prospective observational study with longitudinal PF assessment of PROs, ClinRo, PerfO, and wearable sensor data for over 9 months in patients initiating chemotherapy for lymphoma or breast cancer at Mayo Clinic and Yale University. Patient-reported PF was assessed using several validated ePRO instruments, ClinRo utilized clinician-reported Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, PerfO was measured via 6-minute walk test (6MWT), and digital sensor data was obtained from a wearable (Fitbit) provided to all participants. We evaluated the feasibility of implementing these PF modalities through compliance outcomes and a study-specific exit survey. Descriptive statistics included medians and interquartile ranges (IQR) for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables. We used a mixed model to estimate mean number of Fitbit compliant days per week. Results: Among 66 patients with lymphoma in the study (median age was 57 years; 52% were male), 90% self-reported as White, 4.9% as Black, 1.6% as Asian, 1.6% as American Indian or Alaska Native, and 1.6% as multiple races. Ethnicity was reported as non-Hispanic/Latino by 93% of patients. Education status was reported as more than high school by 92% of patients, and 49% reported full-time employment at time of enrollment. The overall ePROs completion rate was 80.7% for the entire study period. Baseline ePRO completion rate was 93.9%. Completion rate while undergoing chemotherapy was 91.3% and 75.4% in the post-treatment follow-up. The median time to complete ePROs was 4.1 minutes (IQR 2.8-5.9), ranging from 3.1 minutes for surveys with 37 questions to 5.6 minutes for surveys with 55 questions (survey length varied by timepoint). The baseline 6MWT was completed by 91% of patients. The most common reasons for not completing the baseline 6MWT were: patient refusal (50%, 3/6), patient not physically present (33%, 2/6), and unable to complete due to fatigue (17%, 1/6). The 3-month 6MWT was completed by 66% (40/61) of patients, with the most common reasons for missingness being: patient not physically present (38%, 8/21) and unable to complete due to fatigue (14%, 3/21). When considering the days when Fitbit was used, the median wear time was 21.3 hours (IQR 18.9-22.5) per day. The proportion of compliant days (&gt;10 hours of wear time during waking hours) was 53% (IQR 20-84). The median of participants' average compliant days per week was 5.4 (IQR 4.3-6.1) days/week after enrollment, with a slight downward trend over time (-0.017 compliant days per week [95% CI: -0.021, -0.012, p &lt;0.001] over each consecutive week in the study). The exit survey was completed by 39 (59%) patients. Most participants (85%) indicated they did not find the ePRO surveys burdensome to complete. Using the Fitbit (charging and syncing) was found to be manageable by most patients (87% and 84%, respectively). 60.8% of patients did not find the wearable bothersome to use, while the main themes reported by the remaining patients were related to the operation of the wearable itself (functions, small text size, forgetting login information) or discomfort (band material, wearing at night). Conclusion: Multi-modal assessment of PF with PRO, ClinRo, PerfO and wearable sensor data in patients with lymphoma undergoing treatment is feasible. Designing lymphoma therapeutic trials that incorporate at least one PF assessment modality, or assessment with a parsimonious combination of modalities, is achievable and may yield valuable insights into treatment tolerability for clinical and regulatory purposes.

1564 Background: Physical function (PF) is a core outcome in cancer trials that can inform treatment tolerability. PF can be assessed across modalities including by patient (pt) report, clinician (clin) report, performance tests and digital sensors. The optimal approach for PF measurement has not been defined. Methods: In4M is a prospective observational study evaluating PF in pts initiating chemotherapy for breast cancer or lymphoma followed over 9 months. We used an electronic platform (Hugo) to aggregate serially assessed pt-reported PF, clin- and pt-reported ECOG performance status (PS), 6-minute walk test (6MWT) and wearable (Fitbit) data. We evaluated feasibility in all pts; associations among PF measures and the ability of PF measures to detect change were evaluated in pts with both baseline (BL) and 3-month (3M) data. We used Pearson correlations to assess the relationship of average daily steps with measures of PF. To assess change, we compared each PF measure from BL to 3M using a 2-sided α=.05 paired t-test. Results: Of the208 pts enrolled, 193 (93%) and 159 (76%) completed surveys, and 121 (58%) and 124 (60%) provided wearable data (evaluable: ≥1 day data) at BL and 3M, respectively. When requiring a stringent BL with 4+ days of data with ≥1 weekend day to be evaluable, 88 (42%) and 120 (58%) provided wearable data at BL and 3M. At both BL and 3M, pt-reported PF was generally more highly correlated with wearable-derived daily steps than clin-reported PF and 6MWT were (Table). Significant declines in PF were observed for pt- and clin-reported PF (all p<0.05), but not other modalities. Conclusions: Longitudinalassessment of multi-modal PF data including pragmatic wearable data collection was feasible in pts receiving chemotherapy. Pt-reported PF was the only modality that was both correlated with step count and able to detect change. Additional wearable metrics, correlations among PF measurements and outcomes, and clinically meaningful change scores will be reported. Optimal PF measurement may improve future reporting of treatment tolerability. Clinical trial information: NCT05214144 . [Table: see text]

Abstract Preclinical studies have shown augmented activity when combining Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) with inhibitors of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) and immunomodulatory agents (IMiD). We conducted a phase 1, open‐label study at five centers in USA to evaluate the safety of triplet BTKi/mTOR/IMiD therapy. Eligible patients were adults aged 18 years or older with relapsed/refractory CLL, B cell NHL, or Hodgkin lymphoma. Our dose escalation study used an accelerated titration design and moved sequentially from single agent BTKi (DTRMWXHS‐12), doublet (DTRMWXHS‐12 + everolimus), and then to triplet therapy (DTRMWXHS‐12 + everolimus + pomalidomide). All drugs were dosed once daily on days 1–21 of each 28‐day cycle. The primary goal was to establish the recommended phase 2 dose of the triplet combination. Between September 27, 2016, and July 24, 2019, a total of 32 patients with a median age of 70 years (range 46 to 94 years) were enrolled. No MTD was identified for monotherapy and the doublet combination. The MTD for the triplet combination was determined to be DTRMWXHS‐12 200 mg + everolimus 5 mg + pomalidomide 2 mg. Responses across all studied cohorts were seen in 13 of 32 (41.9%). Combining DTRMWXHS‐12 with everolimus and pomalidomide is tolerable and shows clinical activity. Additional trials could confirm benefit of this all‐oral combination therapy for relapsed/refractory lymphomas.

Introduction: With a median overall survival (OS) measured in months, successful treatment of Richter's transformation (RT) of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) remains a major unmet medical need. While targeted agents, such as Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) monotherapy, have greatly improved outcomes for patients (pts) with CLL and some B-cell lymphomas, available BTKi therapies have been ineffective for RT, as well as for large cell transformation of indolent B-cell lymphomas and relapsed/refractory (r/r) DLBCL, which rapidly develop mechanisms of resistance by activation of downstream targets of BTKi or upregulation of alternative/parallel pathways. Focusing on a synthetic lethality approach via in vitro and in vivo studies, we discovered that concurrent inhibition of BTK & mTOR targets plus an IMiD synergistically kill malignant B-cells. DTRM-555 is an optimized oral triple combination of a novel irreversible BTKi DTRMWXHS-12 (DTRM-12), everolimus (EV) and pomalidomide (POM). This once daily therapy was tested in a stepwise, phase I, multicenter study in pts with the greatest unmet medical needs. Here we present results for this novel combination therapy in pts with RT, and r/r DLBCL. Methods: We conducted a phase I (3+3 design), first in human trial exploring DTRM-555 in adult pts with B-cell lymphomas with no available standard therapies (NCT02900716) at 6 US cancer centers. Our goal was to determine the optimal dose for DTRM-555. In phase Ia, an MTD was not reached for DTRM-12 monotherapy; In phase Ib and expansion cohorts, we evaluated double (DTRM-12/EV at 200mg/5mg or 300mg/5mg) and triple combinations (DTRM-12/EV/POM at 200mg/5mg/2mg or 300mg/5mg/2mg) administered once daily for 21 days of a 28-day cycle, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was safety and the dose limiting toxicity (DLT) period was cycle 1 (28 days). Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR; Cheson 2014), duration of response (DOR), and DTRM-12 pharmacokinetics. The trial began on 9/27/2016 and completed enrollment with evaluable follow-up data cut-off date on 08/06/2020. Results: 39 pts were enrolled and treated, including 24 with RT (n=12) or r/r DLBCL (n=12). The safety analyses included all 39 pts treated with combination therapies while efficacy analyses were focused on RT and r/r DLBCL. Baseline characteristics (n=39): 66% male, median age 71 years (range 43-94) and 94% white. For the entire study cohort, median number of prior therapies was 3 (range 1-10), 49% had been treated with prior BTKi monotherapy,13% prior CAR-T or stem cell transplant (SCT) and 59% ≥1 prior small molecule targeted agent. For pts with RT and r/r DLBCL (n=24), median prior therapies were 5 (range 1-10) and 2 (range 10), respectively. Table 1 summarizes prior therapies for the 24 RT and r/r DLBCL pts. Table 2 describes Grade 3 and 4 related AEs for 39 pts treated with the combination therapies. AEs were manageable and similar to known AEs for BTKi, EV or POM, with a total of 4 DLTs observed with combination therapies. The most common AEs were hematological events; specifically, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and anemia. The MTD of DTRM-555 was determined to be DTRM-12 200mg, EV 5mg, & POM 2mg. For 11 evaluable RT pts, ORR was 45% (1 CR, 4 PR); 1 RT pt has not undergone first response assessment. For 10 evaluable DLBCL pts, ORR was 60% (2 CR, 4 PR). Responders with RT or r/r DLBCL have durable responses (Figure 1). Kaplan Meier estimated median duration of response for RT and DLBCL pts was 15 months as of the cut-off. Dose dependent DTRM-12 drug plasma levels were observed in all arms with minimal inter-pt variability. Conclusions: This clinical trial met its primary endpoint. The once-daily oral triple combination therapy DTRM-555 has an acceptable safety profile. Encouraging clinical activity was observed in several high-risk, multi-refractory pts with RT (median 5 prior therapies, ORR 45%) or r/r DLBCL (median 2 prior therapies, ORR 60%), including pts previously treated with targeted therapies, cellular therapies, checkpoint inhibitors and other experimental agents. A phase II US expansion study is underway targeting pts with RT, r/r DLBCL, r/r transformed follicular lymphoma and BTKi/BCL2 inhibitor exposed r/r CLL pts. Disclosures Mato: Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Schuster:AlloGene, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Juno/Celgene, Loxo Oncology, Nordic Nanovector, Novartis, Tessa Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis, Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding. Ding:DTRM: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Brander:Tolero: Research Funding; NCCN: Other; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Other; NCCN: Other; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Other, Research Funding; Juno/Celgene/BMS: Other, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; DTRM: Other, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; BeiGene: Other, Research Funding; Ascentage: Other, Research Funding; ArQule: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Other. Tun:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acrotech: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding. He:DTRM Biopharma LLC: Current Employment. Kearney:DTRM Biopharma LLC: Current Employment. Gui:DTRM Biopharma LLC: Current Employment. McKinlay:DTRM Biopharma LLC: Current Employment. Roeker:American Society of Hematology: Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: spouse with minority ownership interest ; Abbott Laboratories: Other: spouse with minority ownership interest . Huntington:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; DTRM: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Astrazeneca: Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding.

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

Abstract Background: Synthetic lethality (SL) is characterized by the chemical inhibition of multiple aberrant genes to differentially kill malignant cells. We investigated small-molecule combinations for SL through in vitro and in vivo screening and optimization studies (as in the granted patents in USA and China) and demonstrated the synergistic potential of best-in-class combinations of targeted agents, drug repositioning, immune modulation and low-dose combinations. We hypothesize that BTK and mTOR inhibition coupled with an IMID will target multiple key signaling pathways, improve differential apoptosis and target acquired drug resistance. DTRM-555, an optimized mechanism-based combination, consists of the clinically differentiated BTK inhibitor DTRMWXHS-12 (or DTRM-12), everolimus (EV) and pomalidomide (POM). In xenograft tumor models, DTRM-555 administered orally has demonstrated superior efficacy over monotherapy at very low dose combinations of the three agents (1/18 of DTRM-12, 1/6 of EV, and 1/6 of POM). DTRM-12 monotherapy has been safe and well tolerated in simultaneous phase Ia trials (US and China) with preliminary efficacy across 50 mg through 400 mg once daily (QD). Here we report the US clinical results of the oral combination therapies DTRM-505 (DTRM-12 plus EV) and DTRM-555 (DTRM-12 plus EV plus POM) for the first time (NCT02900716). Methods: The safety and anti-tumor activity of the oral doublet therapy DTRM-505 and the oral triplet therapy DTRM-555 are evaluated using a "3+3" study design. Enrollment was conducted concurrently with a phase Ia study of DTRM-12 monotherapy; with DTRM-505 opened for accrual when monotherapy DTRM-12 cleared the 200-mg dose level. Eligible patients are at least 18 years old, having ECOG performance status less than 2 with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), follicular lymphoma (FL) or classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). Study treatment is administered daily for 21 consecutive days over a 28-day cycle. The dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) period was defined during the first cycle of therapy, and treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients underwent tumor evaluations every 2 months and response was recorded using revised response criteria (IWCLL and Cheson 2014). Results: Between 9/2016 and 7/2018, 19 patients have been treated with DTRM-12 monotherapy in the USA (6 pts, 50-300 mg) and China (13 pts, 50-400 mg). Patients have tolerated up to 23+ cycles of DTRM-12 monotherapy. Seven patients, including DLBCL, CLL, MCL, FL and cHL, have been treated with oral doublet therapy DTRM-505 for 2 to 12 cycles. Three patients (2 DLBCL, 1 FL) have been treated with oral triplet therapy DTRM-555, including one patient transitioned from the doublet DTRM-505 under an exploratory arm. No patient has discontinued due to an adverse event (AE) and no DLT has occurred. Recurring AEs are mostly grade 1 or 2 and responses have been seen with DTRM-505 and DTRM-555 across diverse lymphoma histologies (See Tables). All patients evaluable for response demonstrated partial response to DTRM-505 and DTRM-555, with 2/7 (doublet) and 3/3 (triplet) patients remaining on therapy. Conclusion: The maximum tolerated dose has not been reached for DTRM-12 monotherapy and for the current fixed dose doublet and triplet combinations. Toxicities have been mild and repeated cycles of study treatment have been well tolerated without delays of subsequent treatment cycles. Enrollment continues for refractory lymphoma patients to demonstrate the safety and efficacy for the first-in-class oral triplet therapy DTRM-555. Disclosures Huntington: Janssen: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Schuster:Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; OncLive: Honoraria; Dava Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Physician's Education Source, LLC: Honoraria; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Honoraria, 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. He:Zhejiang DTRM Biopharma Co. Ltd.: Other: Founder and CEO; Zhejiang DTRM Biopharma LLC: Other: Founder and CEO. Shen:Zhejiang DTRM Biopharma LLC: Other: Clinical Operations Director. Kennard:AbbVie, Gilead, Verastem: Consultancy. Dwivedy Nasta:Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Debiopharm: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Rafael/WF: Research Funding; Aileron: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Merck: Other: DSMC; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Landsburg:Takeda: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Porter:Novartis: Other: Advisory board, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Genentech: Other: Spouse employment; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board. Svoboda:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy. Song:Peking University Cancer Hospital (Beijing Cancer Hospital): Employment. Zhu:Beijing Cancer Hospital: Employment. Brander:Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: 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; BeiGene: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding. Ding:Merck: Research Funding. Mato:Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; Prime Oncology: Honoraria; Medscape: Honoraria.