Skarbnik, Alan P

Abstract Introduction: Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) was approved in the United States for the treatment of CLL in 3/2024 for patients who have received two prior lines of therapy including a covalent BTK inhibitor and a BCL-2 inhibitor. Data regarding outcomes of liso-cel is limited to reports from the registrational TRANSCEND-CLL 004 clinical trial which had strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. This work investigates the real-world efficacy and safety of liso-cel for patients with CLL and its efficacy in specific sub-populations. Methods: This is a multi-institutional retrospective study (Collaborative Assessment of Real-World Evidence of Lisocabtagene Maraleucel in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory CLL/SLL [CARE CAR-T CLL]) of patients with CLL who received commercial liso-cel in the United States. Patients with Richter transformation were excluded. Response was defined by iwCLL criteria. Patients who did not undergo a marrow biopsy but met other criteria for a complete response (CR) were categorized as unconfirmed CR (CRu). CRS and ICANS were graded per ASTCT criteria. Results: A total of 30 patients were identified with a median age of 67 years (range 44 – 80). Twenty of thirty patients (67%) had either del17p and/or mutated TP53, and 8/30 (27%) had complex karyotype (≥ 3 abnormalities) at time of liso-cel infusion. Patients received a median of 6 prior lines of therapy (range 1 - 12), and 24 (80%) were previously treated with chemotherapy. All patients had previous exposure to a covalent BTK inhibitor and a BCL-2 inhibitor. Twenty-seven (90%) of patients had prior exposure to pirtobrutinib. Twenty-nine patients (96.7%) received bridging treatment that was stopped after leukapheresis with 1 patient in CR and 25 patients in PR at time of liso-cel. Eighteen patients (60%) were treated with pirtobrutinib as the last line of treatment prior to liso-cel. Median length of time on pirtobrutinib prior to liso-cel infusion was 4 months (interquartile range [IQR], 2 – 8 months). Twelve (66.7%) patients stopped pirtobrutinib between leukapheresis and lymphodepletion, and 6 continued after liso-cel. Best CR/CRu rate was 60.0% (CR, n = 17/30; CRu, n = 1/30), and best overall response rate (ORR) was 83.3% (25/30) with median time to best response of 30 days (IQR, 28 – 30 days). Of the 18 patients who received pirtobrutinib as their last line of therapy, 13 (72%) achieved a CR/CRu. Meanwhile, of the 12 patients who did not receive pirtobrutinib as their last line of therapy, only 5 (28%) achieved a CR. Measurable residual disease testing (MRD) by flow cytometry was done in 14/30 patients, and 9 patients (64%) had achieved undetectable MRD (uMRD). MRD by next generation sequencing (NGS) was done in 17 patients, and 7 (41%) patients had uMRD. Twenty-seven of 30 patients (90%) were alive at time of data collection. Median follow-up was 3.3 months (IQR, 1.2 – 8.9 months). Twenty-six patients (87%) experienced any grade cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and 3 patients experienced grade 3 CRS (10%). Twelve patients (40%) experienced any grade immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), and 4 patients (13%) experienced grade 3 ICANS. There were no grade 4 or 5 CRS or ICANS. One patient experienced grade 3 immune effector cell-associated hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis-like syndrome (IEC-HS). At day 30, patients had a median absolute neutrophil count of 1.7K/μL (IQR, 0.8 – 3.6K/μL), hemoglobin of 11.7 g/dL (IQR, 8.6 – 13.1 g/dL), and platelet count of 72K/μL (IQR, 29 – 119K/μL). Conclusion: Real-world analysis of liso-cel for patients with relapsed/refractory CLL showed CR and ORR of 60.0% and 83.3%, respectively. Despite having a heavily pre-treated and chemotherapy-exposed population and with over half the patients having high-risk features, these response rates are higher than what was described in the TRANSCEND-CLL 004 clinical trial. These results are limited by the short follow-up period and the variability in response assessment typical of a retrospective study. As we increase our sample size, we will also be interested if the use of the non-covalent BTK inhibitor pirtobrutinib prior to liso-cel is associated with a higher CR rate, mimicking the findings of the sub-cohort analysis of TRANSCEND-CLL 004 where the concurrent use of ibrutinib led to higher CR rates. Further updates and patients from additional collaborators will be presented at the meeting.

Abstract Background: Venetoclax (VEN)+obinutuzumab (VO) is an effective therapy for CLL/SLL requiring regular monitoring for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) during VEN ramp-up. The CLL14 trial of VO reported no TLS during VEN ramp-up; however, there are limited real-world data on monitoring practices and TLS outcomes for different dose levels and monitoring timepoints. This study assessed VEN initiation prophylaxis and monitoring outcomes for patients (pts) with CLL/SLL starting VO in first line (1L) in an outpatient, real-world setting. Methods This interim analysis relied onretrospective observational data from 4 US sites of the CLL Collaborative Study of Real-World Evidence (CORE). Adult pts with CLL/SLL were eligible if they: (1) started VO per-label outside of a clinical trial in 1L, or immediately after exposure in 1L to agents with different mechanisms of action (i.e., BTKi, anti-CD20 only) of <30 days; (2) prior to VEN start, had either (i) low physician-determined tumor burden (TB) (i.e., all lymph nodes [LN] <5 cm and ALC <25 x 109/L), or (ii) medium physician-determined TB (i.e., any LN ≥5-<10 cm or ALC ≥25 x 109/L) with creatinine clearance ≥80 mL/min; (3) had no strong CYP3A inhibitors or prophylactic rasburicase from 3 days prior to VEN start until end of VEN ramp-up; and (4) had VEN ramp-up in an outpatient setting. TB-related labs/imaging was assessed from 2 months prior to obinutuzumab initiation (i.e., index date) until VEN start. VEN characteristics (i.e., dosing, duration), prophylaxis measures (i.e., antihyperuricemics and IV hydration), and TLS-related monitoring and management (i.e., lab results and interventions received) were collected per ramp-up week and TLS monitoring timepoint. Results Of 128 pts in CORE who initiated VO in any line, 72 pts met inclusion criteria (low TB: 57 [79.2%]; medium TB: 15 [20.8%]). Median (IQR) age was 62 (56.0, 68.5) years, 58.3% were male, and 81.9% had ECOG grade ≤1. Among pts tested, 7/68 (10.3%) had del(17p)/TP53 mutation and 43/66 (65.2%) had unmutated IGHV. Median (IQR) time from index to VEN start was 23.0 (22.0, 30.0) days. Most pts completed ramp-up (98.6% [71/72]) and followed a per-label regular dosing schedule (93.1% [67/72]). Prior to VEN ramp-up, all pts received prophylactic antihyperuricemics (allopurinol: 71 [98.6%]; febuxostat: 2 [2.8%]) and prophylactic hydration. In the 2 days prior to a dose escalation for at least 1 week of ramp-up, prophylactic IV hydration was reported for 27 (37.5%) pts based on physician determination. One pt stopped VEN after week 2 due to neutropenia (grade 3+). During ramp-up (median [IQR] of 9 [8, 12] blood tests per pt), no lab or clinical TLS was reported. Of 21 (29.2%) pts who received an intervention following a lab assessment, most had low TB at VEN start (16 [76.2%]). All interventions were either prophylactic or non-TLS-related. Following a lab assessment for at least 1 week of ramp-up, prophylactic IV or escalated oral hydration intervention was reported in 17/21 pts (81.0%) based on physician determination (e.g., to manage impaired baseline renal function in those with low TB, patient request, or institutional practice) (IV hydration: 15 pts; escalated oral hydration: 2 pts). By per-label monitoring timepoints, hydration intervention was given prophylactically following pre-dose lab tests for 7 pts (across weeks 1-5), 6-8 hours post-dose for 5 pts (weeks 1-2), and 24 hours post-dose for 10 pts (weeks 1-2). By per-label monitoring timepoints, other non-TLS-related interventions (i.e., blood transfusion for anemia, insulin for hyperglycemia, and potassium for non-TLS-related hypokalemia) were given following pre-dose lab tests for 2 pts (weeks 1-5) and 24 hours post-dose for 4 pts (weeks 1-2). Conclusion Consistent with the CLL14 trial, no TLS was reported in this real-world, interim analysis of pts with mostly low TB and good renal function at 1L VO initation. All interventions during VEN ramp-up were prophylactic or non-TLS-related, with prophylactic hydration commonly given based on physician preference. These results suggest that VO initiation is manageable in an outpatient setting. Consideration should be given for simplified monitoring requirements including potential removal of 6-8 hour post-dose lab in this population and be further explored in prospective studies. Data collection for this study is ongoing to further contextualize real-world VEN initiation prophylaxis and monitoring outcomes in a larger cohort.

Introduction: Complex karyotype (CK, ≥3 chromosome (chr) abnormalities (abn)) is an important adverse prognostic indicator in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). CK at diagnosis (dx) of CLL, particularly with major structural chr abn (i.e. unbalanced translocation, add, marker, ring chr), called type-2 CK (CK2), has been associated with an increased risk of Richter transformation (RT) (Visentin Haematologica 2022). RT is defined as development of aggressive lymphoma, most often large B-cell lymphoma, in the setting of CLL. In patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory CLL treated with ibrutinib, CK as a continuous variable and the presence of polyploidy were independent predictors for RT. CK is a common finding at the time of RT, and high-CK (≥5) has been associated with short survival in RT, although previous studies predominantly included pts with prior chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) administration for their CLL. The prognostic significance of CK in pts with RT whose prior CLL-directed therapies include only non-CIT, as is the current standard of care for CLL, has not been evaluated. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective analysis of pts from 14 academic centers. Pts with RT diagnosed between 6/2011 to 6/2023, who had CLL-directed treatment that did not include prior CIT, with stimulated karyotype data available, were included. Pts who did not receive treatment for their CLL prior to developing RT were not included. Baseline pt, disease, and cytogenetics data were collected via chart review at time of CLL diagnosis and at the development of RT. Karyotype abn up to 20 were counted on both CLL tissue (peripheral blood or bone marrow) and RT tissue using IWGMC guidelines (Chun Leuk Res 2010). CK was categorized as CK1 (balanced abn, deletion, aneusomies) or CK2. Polyploidy was defined as ≥58 chrs. Karyotype was considered evolved if one or more chr abn were seen in a follow-up sample of CLL tissue that were not seen at CLL dx.TP53 disruption was defined as presence of del(17p) or TP53 mutation. Overall survival (OS) was measured from RT dx and estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression model was used to identify prognostic factors associated with OS. Results: A total of 64 eligible pts were identified. Median age at RT dx was 65 years (range 40-89) and 71.9% of pts were male. Of those evaluated (n=49), 79.6% had unmutated IGVH. Median number of therapies for CLL prior to RT was 1 (range 1-5) and included BTK inhibitor (n=37), BCL2 inhibitor (n=3), both (n=18), or other non-CIT treatment (n=6). At CLL diagnosis, 54.7% of pts had a CK, and the median number of chr abn was 3 (range 0-20). Of those with CK, 96.9% had a CK2, and 6.3% had a polyploid subclone. TP53 disruption was found in 46% of pts. At time of RT, chr analysis of CLL tissue was available for 38 pts and showed 78.9% had a CK, and the median number of chr abn was 8 (range 0-20). Polyploidy was found in 29.6%. TP53 disruption (46 pts evaluated) was found in 52.2%. Karyotype evolution from dx (35 pts evaluated) occurred in 74.3% of pts. In RT tissue, of those evaluated (n=29), 96.6% were clonally related to the preceding CLL. MYC translocation (45 pts evaluated) occurred in 17.8%. CK (20 pts evaluated) was found in 70%, with a median number of chr abn of 8 (range 0-20). Of those with CK, 33.3% had a polyploid subclone. With a median follow-up of 17.8 months (range 2.1-83.0) there were 42 deaths, with a median OS of 14.3 months (range 6.9-29.1). For this subset of patients with karyotype data available who would go on to develop RT, an exploratory univariable analysis for OS from RT found that increasing number of chr abn as a continuous variable at CLL dx was associated with worse OS (HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.02-1.19, p=0.01). Similarly, at RT, increasing number of chr abn in CLL tissue (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02-1.16, p=0.01) and in RT tissue (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.01-1.18, p=0.03) was also prognostic of survival. Karyotype evolution in CLL tissue at RT (HR 3.02, 95% CI 1.02-8.94, p=0.05) was borderline significant for worse OS. Conclusions: Our multi-center study identified increasing number of chr abn at CLL diagnosis and at time of RT, and clonal evolution in the CLL tissue, are associated with worse OS in pts with RT whose CLL was treated without CIT. Limitations include incomplete cytogenetics data across the cohort and potential variability across institutions in cytogenetics laboratory practices. This provides further evidence for the clinical utility of chr analysis in the modern era of CLL therapy.

Abstract Although Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis) are generally well tolerated and less toxic than chemotherapy alternatives used to treat lymphoid malignancies, BTKis like ibrutinib have the potential to cause new or worsening hypertension (HTN). Little is known about the optimal treatment of BTKi-associated HTN. Randomly selected patients with lymphoid malignancies on a BTKi and antihypertensive drug(s) and with at least 3 months of follow-up data were sorted into 2 groups: those diagnosed with HTN before BTKi initiation (prior-HTN), and those diagnosed with HTN after BTKi initiation (de novo HTN). Generalized estimating equations assessed associations between time varying mean arterial pressures (MAPs) and individual anti-HTN drug categories. Of 196 patients included in the study, 118 had prior-HTN, and 78 developed de novo HTN. Statistically significant mean MAP reductions were observed in patients with prior-HTN who took β blockers (BBs) with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), (−5.05 mmHg; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.0 to −0.0596; P = .047), and patients diagnosed with de novo HTN who took either an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) with HCTZ (−5.47 mmHg; 95% CI, 10.9 to −0.001; P = .05). These regimens also correlated with the greatest percentages of normotensive MAPs. Treatment of HTN in patients taking a BTKi is challenging and may require multiple antihypertensives. Patients with prior-HTN appear to benefit from combination regimens with BBs and HCTZ, whereas patients with de novo HTN appear to benefit from ACEi/ARBs with HCTZ. These results should be confirmed in prospective studies.

Background: Richter Transformation (RT) refers to the development of an aggressive lymphoma in the setting of chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL). Small molecule inhibitors (SMI), such as the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) and BCL2 inhibitors (BCL2i), have revolutionized the treatment of CLL/SLL. Prior studies evaluated outcomes of patients (pts) with RT in an era where chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) was typically used to treat CLL/SLL. Now that SMI are standard of care, fewer pts with CLL/SLL receive CIT, therefore we sought to determine which variables predict survival in pts who developed RT without prior CIT exposure for CLL/SLL. Methods: We conducted an international multicenter retrospective study of pts from 11 academic centers. Pts with RT occurring as large B-cell lymphoma who did not previously receive CIT (e.g., fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, bendamustine, chlorambucil) for their CLL/SLL were included. We collected pt, disease, and treatment (tx) characteristics. RT was categorized into 3 groups: “Concurrent RT,” defined as RT and CLL/SLL diagnosed simultaneously (within 3 months [mos]); “RT w/o prior CLL/SLL tx,” defined as RT and CLL/SLL diagnosed >3 mos apart with the CLL/SLL never treated; and “RT with prior non-CIT tx for CLL/SLL” defined as having received prior CLL/SLL tx. Overall survival (OS) was measured from RT diagnosis (Dx) and estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression model was used to identify prognostic factors associated with OS. Results: 242 pts were identified. At CLL/SLL Dx, 66% of pts had unmutated IGHV, 37% had del17p/ TP53 disruption, and 20% had trisomy 12. At RT Dx, 56% of the RT with prior non-CIT tx for CLL/SLL group had a del17p/ TP53 disruption versus 27% for the concurrent RT group and 18% for the RT w/o prior CLL/SLL tx groups. Median time from CLL/SLL Dx to RT Dx was 47 mos (range 3-394) for RT w/o prior CLL/SLL tx and 46 mos (range 4-218) for RT with prior non-CIT tx for CLL/SLL. Pts with prior non-CIT tx for CLL/SLL received a median of 1 (range 1-5) prior tx. 86% of pts previously received a BTKi or a BCL2i for tx of CLL/SLL (54% BTKi only, 5% BCL2i only, 27% both). The remaining 14% had been treated with an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (MoAb), steroids, lenalidomide, radiation, or alemtuzumab. 85% of pts developed RT while on active tx with SMI. Median age at RT Dx was 69 years (range 37-92). At RT Dx, 38% and 21% of pts had del17p/ TP53 disruption, and trisomy 12 in CLL/SLL tissue, respectively. At RT Dx, there was no difference in highest SUV on PET (median 16, range 2.9-65.6), LDH (median 325, range 103-8162, ULN range 180-271), largest lymph node in diameter (median 4.9 cm, range 0-17.1), Ki-67 (median 80%, range 5%-100%), rate of GCB subtype (27%), presence of MYC translocation (20%), or CLL/SLL and RT clonal relationship (81%) for those pts tested amongst the 3 groups ( Table). The most common 1 st line tx for RT was CIT with or w/o radiation and/or steroids (76%), followed by CIT plus SMI (13%), SMI single agent or combination (7%), and other (4%, which includes anti-CD20 MoAb). Median follow-up from RT Dx was 42.3 mos; the median OS for the entire cohort was 25.8 mos (95% CI: 16.8-49.1). Pts with RT after non-CIT tx for CLL/SLL had a significantly worse OS (median 8.2 mos [95% CI: 5.6-14.3]) than pts with concurrent RT (median 46.3 mos [95% CI: 23.8-96.9]) and RT w/o prior CLL/SLL tx (median 63.5 mos [95% CI: 28.3-70.3]) ( Figure). From an exploratory univariable analysis, we found RT after non-CIT tx for CLL/SLL compared to concurrent RT (HR 2.32 [95% CI: 1.55-3.46]), RT Dx age (HR for 5-year increase 1.14 [95% CI: 1.05-1.23]), del17p/ TP53 disruption (HR 2.27 [95% CI: 1.45-3.56]), and LDH (HR for 2-fold increase 1.37 [95% CI: 1.20-1.58]) were prognostic for worse OS. Conclusions: This is the largest cohort of pts who developed RT having received only SMI with no CIT for their CLL reported, thus reflecting the current treatment landscape. Despite being CIT-naïve, pts in our series who received tx for their CLL/SLL and then developed RT had a short OS, underscoring the need to develop better therapies for these pts. In contrast, as in other published analyses (Wang Haematologica 2020), pts w/o prior tx for CLL/SLL had more favorable outcomes, with a median OS of approximately 5 years. Further analysis to determine PFS and OS by tx for RT for pts who have been treated with SMI for their CLL/SLL is ongoing.

Abstract Introduction: The management of CLL patients historically utilized FD chemoimmunotherapy (CIT), including fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR), or bendamustine and rituximab (BR). That changed with the introduction of Bruton Tyrosine Kinase inhibitors (BTKi) as an option for oral targeted monotherapy delivered continuously until disease progression or intolerance. Recently, novel combinations that include a B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor (BCL2i), such as venetoclax, have been developed as FD therapy. In addition, though not FDA approved, MRD assessment is emerging as a potential tool to guide FD therapy. Understanding the patient and their caregiver perspectives on FD and MRD is critical to providing the best care. Methods: CLL Society developed a web-based survey instrument of multiple-choice questions to assess patient and caregiver awareness, understanding, and preferences with MRD and FD therapies, where FD referred to both time and MRD guided limited duration therapies. Patients and caregivers were invited to participate via message boards, CLL Society's website, email, and online communities. Results: A total of 607 (96%) self-identified US patients and 36 (5%) caregivers, who answered on behalf of patients in their care, completed the survey between 31/AUG/2020 and 31/JAN/2021. The mean patient age was 64 (range, 30-90) years, 54% were female, 169 patients (27%) treatment-naïve, 239 (38%) with one line of prior therapy, and 214 (34%) with two or more. Targeted agents (e.g., venetoclax, ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, idelalisib, and duvelisib) had been used by 401 (64%). FD use with some novel therapies was known of by 565 (90%) patients, while 588 (93%) knew some were used as continuous daily treatment until disease progression or intolerance. If effectiveness and side effects were assumed similar, 485 (77%) preferred FD, and 398 (63%) wanted that finite treatment to be guided by MRD status. Only 42 (7%) preferred continuous therapy until disease progression or intolerance. The chance for continued remission while off treatment was ranked as a very important potential benefit after stopping a FD therapy by 581 (92%) patients. When considering therapy, 589 (93%), 575 (91%), 447 (71%), 415 (66%), 302 (48%), and 288 (46%) rated having overall survival, having future therapeutic options, avoiding chemotherapy, the ability to reach undetectable (u)MRD, minimal lab and office visits, and FD therapy as very important, respectively (Fig. 1). Being tested for MRD at least once was reported by 215 (34%), while 327 (52%) had not been tested, and 88 (14%) were unsure. There were 562 (89%) who were somewhat or very familiar with the term MRD, while 450 (71%) were confident of understanding what MRD testing measures, and 446 (70%) understood its role in CLL. Only 225 (36%) stated they understood different testing methods. While self-rated understanding of the indications for MRD testing was relatively high, some wanted testing done when not clinically indicated, such as when there was persistent CLL by routine laboratory findings, or at the time of diagnosis (Fig. 2). Respondents were mixed in their stated understanding as to which therapies could result in uMRD, with 241 (38%), 197 (32%), and 195 (32%) not knowing if CIT, BCL2i, and BTKi, could lead to uMRD, respectively. Two hundred and sixty-five (42%), 84 (13%), and 57 (9%) believed it was possible for most on a BCL2i, BTKi, or CIT to achieve uMRD, respectively (Fig. 3). If patients had evidence of MRD at the end of treatment, 365 (58%) would request frequent monitoring but would make no immediate treatment decisions based on MRD status, 279 (44%) were unsure, and only 88 (14%) would want further treatment immediately. Conclusions: The results from this patient-based study reveal a high awareness of FD therapies and MRD testing, as well as a clear preference for FD among internet-active patients and caregivers. However, there are gaps in the knowledge base, thus significant educational opportunities. Limitations included the opt-in sample where the survey results may not be projectable to the total CLL population. Moreover, the survey was not designed to assess preferences if either FD or continuous therapy offered improved outcomes. Nonetheless, as the potential role of MRD and FD therapy grows in CLL it will be incumbent on clinicians to ensure patients are well informed and engaged to help them better share therapeutic decisions. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Koffman: AbbVie: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; AstraZeneca: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria; Beigene: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Bristol Myer Squibb: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria; Gilead: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Johnson & Johnson: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; TG Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Regeneron: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Miragen Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Portola Pharma: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; MEI Pharma: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Merck: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Stewart: Johnson & Johnson: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Novartis: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Pacific Biosciences: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Byrd: Novartis, Trillium, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics, Syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria; Vincerx Pharmaceuticals: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Newave: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Danilov: Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; Rigel Pharm: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers-Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; SecuraBio: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Davids: BeiGene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Ascentage Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eli Lilly and Company: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Furman: Beigene: Consultancy; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; X4 Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Oncotracker: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Expert testimony; AstraZeneca: Honoraria. Jain: Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Fate Therapeutics: Research Funding; Beigene: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Cellectis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Honoraria, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Aprea Therapeutics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Research Funding; Servier: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Kay: Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Targeted Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; CytomX Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; 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, Research Funding. Lamanna: Juno Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; MingSight Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics, Inc: Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Oncternal Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy. Mato: MSKCC: Current Employment; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB, Research Funding; Nurix: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ujjani: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Atara Bio: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; ACDT: Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria; Loxo: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Pagel: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Incyte/MorphoSys: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/AbbVie: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy.

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 (< 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 > 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 The management of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has undergone unprecedented changes over the last decade. Modern targeted therapies are incorporated into clinical practice. Unfortunately, patients have begun to develop resistance or intolerance to multiple classes. Symptomatic patients previously treated with a BTK inhibitor (BTKi) and venetoclax represent a new and rapidly growing unmet need in CLL. Here, we define unmet needs in a modern treatment context. We also critically review the literature for PI3K inhibitors and chemoimmunotherapy and lack of data to support their utility following BTKis and venetoclax. Finally, we suggest opportunities to ensure the continued innovation for patients with CLL.