Awan, Farrukh T.

AbstractCancer treatment has been transformed by checkpoint blockade therapies, with the highest anti-tumor activity of anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1) antibody therapy seen in Hodgkin lymphoma. Disappointingly, response rates have been low in the non-Hodgkin lymphomas, with no activity seen in relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with PD-1 blockade. Thus, identifying more powerful combination therapy is required for these patients. Here, we preclinically demonstrate enhanced anti-CLL activity following combinational therapy with anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) and avadomide, a cereblon E3 ligase modulator (CELMoD). Avadomide induced type I and II interferon (IFN) signaling in patient T cells, triggering a feedforward cascade of reinvigorated T-cell responses. Immune modeling assays demonstrated that avadomide stimulated T-cell activation, chemokine expression, motility and lytic synapses with CLL cells, as well as IFN-inducible feedback inhibition through upregulation of PD-L1. Patient-derived xenograft tumors treated with avadomide were converted to CD8+ T cell-inflamed tumor microenvironments that responded to anti-PD-L1/PD-1-based combination therapy. Notably, clinical analyses showed increased PD-L1 expression on T cells, as well as intratumoral expression of chemokine signaling genes in B-cell malignancy patients receiving avadomide-based therapy. These data illustrate the importance of overcoming a low inflammatory T-cell state to successfully sensitize CLL to checkpoint blockade-based combination therapy.

Abstract Myeloid cell factor-1 (Mcl-1) is an anti-apoptotic member of the Bcl-2 protein family that associates with tumor cell survival and drug resistance in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Increased Mcl-1 expression is associated with failure to achieve remission after chemotherapy with fludarabine and chlorambucil in CLL patients. However, the influence of Mcl-1 expression has not been examined in CLL trials using treatment regimens that contain rituximab, which has shown substantially improved outcomes for a large subset of patients and have become a mainstay in the therapy of newly diagnosed CLL. We previously reported that combination chemoimmunotherapy with pentostatin, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (PCR) has significant clinical activity with low accompanying toxicity in previously untreated CLL patients, and is especially well tolerated in older patients in whom the use of fludarabine may be associated with prohibitive toxicities. As part of this study, we prospectively investigated association of Mcl-1 protein expression with response and progression-free survival. Eligible patients received a regimen consisting of pentostatin (2 mg/m2), cyclophosphamide (600 mg/ m2), and rituximab (375 mg/m2) given intravenously on day 1 of a 21-day cycle for a maximum of 6 cycles. Responses were assessed according to NCI 1996 criteria and included bone marrow evaluation and two-color flow cytometry two months after completion of therapy. Flow cytometry-negative status was defined as less than or equal to 1% CD5+/CD19+ cells. Of the 64 patients evaluated in this trial, clinical responses were seen in 58 (91%), with 26 (41%) complete responses (CR), 14 (22%) nodular partial responses (nPR), and 18 (28%) partial responses (PR). Lysates from peripheral blood cells obtained pre-treatment were analyzed for Mcl-1 expression by immunoblot. Mcl-1 as a continuous variable was not found to be associated with other commonly described risk factors. However, Recursive Partitioning Analysis (RPA) was devised employing Mcl-1 expression as a continuous variable, which revealed an optimal cut point of 0.85. At this cutoff, flow cytometry-negative status was significantly different between the two groups (p=0.01) and median PFS was significantly higher (p=0.02) in patients with Mcl-1 levels of <0.85 (50.8 vs. 18.7 months). No difference by Mcl-1 expression was noted in other pre-treatment or response parameters. Our data describes the first prospective validation of Mcl-1 over-expression adversely influencing both the likelihood of attaining a flow cytometry-negative complete remission and extended progression free survival. Mcl-1 expression was also independent of other risk factors, indicating additional benefit for this measure in assessing patients. Mcl-1 expression may therefore predict poor response to chemoimmunotherapy, and these findings advocate pursuing therapeutic agents targeting this important anti-apoptotic protein.

Background: The DIAL study is testing the efficacy of dual immunomodulation in patients with advanced aggressive B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL). Sponsored by the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP), the trial combines the use of a programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitor (nivolumab) with an agonist of the CD27 receptor (varlilumab) in a randomized phase 2 design. CD27, a co-stimulatory receptor, regulates T cell activation in the context of T cell receptor (TCR) engagement through interaction with CD70. T cell exhaustion plays a major role in immune evasion in B-NHL. Varlilumab is an agonistic IgG1 monoclonal antibody that recognizes CD27 leading to prevention or reversal of exhaustion in pre-clinical models. Varlilumab also demonstrates direct anti-tumoral activity in xenograft models of human lymphoma cell lines via antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity. Phase 1 data supports the safety and tolerability of single-agent varlilumab in advanced hematologic malignancies (NCT01460134). We hypothesize that CD27 activation synergizes with PD-1 inhibition resulting in a superior anti-lymphoma effect compared to PD-1 blockade alone. The study will also evaluate the effect of these agents on tumor and immune cells using immunohistochemistry (IHC), mass cytometry (CyTOF), multiplex ELISA, imaging mass cytometry (IMC), and whole exome sequencing. Methods: The trial is enrolling patients with advanced aggressive B-NHL. Standard inclusion criteria and prior treatment with at least 2 lines of standard therapy are required. Prior autologous stem cell transplant and/or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy is allowed. Patients with active CNS disease are excluded. Eligible patients are randomized to treatment with single-agent nivolumab (group 1) or dual immunotherapy with nivolumab and varlilumab. Group 1 is allowed to cross-over at the time of progression. Nivolumab will be administered intravenously (IV) every 2 weeks (240 mg) for 4 months followed by monthly dosing thereafter (480 mg). Varlilumab will be given IV every 4 weeks (3 mg/kg). Response assessment will be done by PET-CT scan every 12 weeks. Primary outcome is overall response rate (ORR) according to the LYRIC criteria. The trial will enroll 48 patients per arm, allowing 80% power to detect at least 20% increase in ORR in the experimental arm (group 2) assuming a 25% ORR in the control arm (group 1). The trial is registered (NCT03038672) and open to participation to members of the Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network (ETCTN) and Early Drug Development Opportunity Program (EDDOP). Figure Disclosures Tun: BMS: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mundi-pharma: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding. Bartlett:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Autolus: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Kline:Merck: Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding. Awan:Janssen: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Lazaryan:Kadmon: Consultancy. Ansell:Affimed: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding. Diefenbach:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; MEI: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Given the availability of several active treatment (tx) options for CLL, providers frequently make tx recommendations based on their interpretation of objective data from consensus criteria and clinical trials. There are limited data describing patient (pt) experience, values, and insights when encountering multiple tx choices. The CLL Society, a pt-driven, physician-curated nonprofit organization focused on the unmet needs of the CLL community, sought to explore how CLL pts make tx decisions. Methods: A 64 question survey was distributed online and in paper to CLL pts from Oct-Dec 2017. The survey was developed by CLL experts. The research was IRB-approved. Chi square was used for statistical comparison; all other analyses are descriptive in nature. Results: 1147 pts from 48 states completed the survey. Median age was 65 (range 28-86), 46% male, 96% Caucasian. Who Influences Tx: Of the 79% of pts who have seen a CLL expert, defined as a provider focused on CLL at an academic/research center, 95% rated their provider as very/extremely influential. 83% of pts rated their own opinions as influential, and 59% rated the opinion of a general hematologist/oncologist (gen heme/onc), a provider who sees a variety of cancer types, as influential. Only 27% let their provider unilaterally decide on tx. Of these pts, 19% trusted their provider to select the best tx and 5% didn't have enough understanding to be involved in the decision. 64% were influenced by outside sources of information, such as family members, live CLL support groups, or online sources including pt experts and forums. Factors in Deciding Tx: Of the 67% pts surveyed who have been treated, 73% were offered > 1 tx choice by their provider. In deciding on a specific tx, 94% of respondents stated that it was very/extremely important to know there were tx options beyond their current regimen. The most important factors in selecting tx were response rate (91%), overall survival (88%), progression-free survival (86%), long-term side effects (82%), ability to achieve undetectable MRD (80%), cost/insurance coverage (66%), and location of tx (50%) with significant differences between subgroups (Table 1). Tx was impacted by cost or insurance issues for 16% (n=104). Of these 104 pts, cost/insurance issues resulted in tx delay for 34 and change in tx plan for 24 pts. 16 pts reported that an appeal led to coverage and 16 pts received financial assistance. Pts' willingness to accept potentially curable but high-risk tx was heavily influenced by availability of alternate options. For example, 18% of pts would be willing to consider cytotoxic chemotherapy if alternate options were available vs. 72% if no options were available. Similar patterns were seen with CAR-T tx (28% vs. 79%) and bone marrow transplantation (BMT) (15% vs. 66%) with significant differences between subgroups (Table 2). 82% were willing to take a life-long tx for long-term control without potential for cure. Willingness to accept long-term tx was significantly higher in treated vs. untreated pts (84% vs. 77%, p=.006) and men vs. women (84% vs. 78%, p=.008). Clinical Trial Education: Of those treated by a gen heme/onc, 31% received no education on clinical trials. Only 15% reported good understanding of trial opportunities vs. 52% treated by a CLL expert (p<.001). 9% of pts treated by gen heme/onc were offered clinical trial participation vs. 47% treated by a CLL expert (p<0.001). Pts who declined or would have declined participation cited reasons including preference for "proven" tx (38%), distance from trial site (29%), fear (20%), frequent imaging (20%), overall lack of understanding about trials (15%), and lack of information (14%). Summary: Most respondents want to be and are involved in tx decisions. While providers are influential in decision making, CLL pts also rely on outside sources. Gender, age, and tx status influence which factors drive decision making. Pts select tx based on response rate, survival, side effects, and ability to achieve deep response and want a plan in place for sequencing tx. The majority are willing to consider long-term tx without cure. Few want chemotherapy, CAR-T, or BMT unless they have no other options. A significant opportunity for improvement in education on clinical trial opportunities was identified. This description of pt experience, values, and preferences enriches the informed consent process and may lead to more tailored and patient-centered care. Disclosures Kennard: AbbVie, Gilead, Verastem: Consultancy. Furman:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; Genentech: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Pagel:Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Davids:Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Nabhan:Cardinal Health: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kay:Acerta: Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: 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; Morpho-sys: 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; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Siddiqi:Juno Therapeutics: Other: Steering committee. Brander:Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; BeiGene: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; 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. Wierda:AbbVie, Inc: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Hill:Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cheson:AbbVie, Roche/Genentech, Pharmacyclics, Acerta, TG Therapeutics: Consultancy. Choi:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Rigel: Consultancy; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie, Inc: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Mato:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Prime Oncology: Honoraria; Portola: Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; Medscape: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding.

Abstract Background Leventhal’s Self-regulatory Model proposes that somatic characteristics of a health threat (e.g., symptom severity), and prior experience with the threat (e.g., unsuccessful treatment), are determinants of illness perceptions. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is appropriate for test of these postulates, having three phases differing in symptom severity and prior treatment experiences: indolent disease requiring no treatment (active surveillance; AS), symptomatic disease requiring a first treatment (FT), and highly symptomatic disease in those who have relapsed and/or failed to respond to prior treatments (relapsed/refractory; RR). Purpose To test symptom severity and prior treatment experiences as determinants of illness perceptions, illness perceptions were characterized and contrasted between CLL groups. Methods Three hundred and thirty CLL patients (AS, n = 100; FT, n = 78; RR, n = 152) provided illness perception data on one occasion during a surveillance visit (AS) or prior to beginning treatment (FT, RR). Results Analysis of variance with planned comparisons revealed that consequences, identity, and concern were least favorable among RR patients, followed by FT, then AS (ps < .01). AS patients endorsed the lowest levels of coherence (ps < .01), and the most chronic illness timeline (ps < .01). FT patients endorsed the highest levels of personal and treatment control (ps < .01). Conclusions Data provide preliminary empirical support for Self-regulatory Model postulates that symptom severity and prior disease experiences influence illness perceptions. Unique knowledge needs for AS patients and elevated psychological/physical symptoms for later-stage CLL patients may warrant clinical attention.

Abstract Myeloid cell leukemia-1 (Mcl-1) is an antiapoptotic member of the Bcl-2 protein family. Increased Mcl-1 expression is associated with failure to achieve remission after treatment with fludarabine and chlorambucil in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). However, the influence of Mcl-1 expression has not been examined in CLL trials using chemoimmunotherapy. We investigated Mcl-1 protein expression prospectively as part of a phase 2 study evaluating the efficacy of pentostatin, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab in patients with untreated CLL. No significant difference by Mcl-1 expression was noted in pretreatment or response parameters. However, in patients with higher Mcl-1 expression, both minimal residual disease-negative status and progression-free survival was found to be significantly reduced (57% vs 19%, P = .01; 50.8 vs 18.7 months; P = .02; respectively). Mcl-1 expression may therefore be useful in predicting poor response to chemoimmunotherapy. These findings further support pursuing treatment strategies targeting this important antiapoptotic protein. (Because the trials described were conducted before the requirement to register them was implemented, they are not registered in a clinical trial database.)