Lozanski, Gerard

Abstract Background : Effective therapy for classical hairy cell leukemia (c-HCL) refractory to purine nucleoside analog (PNA) treatment is limited, and there are no accepted treatment standards for variant hairy cell leukemia (v-HCL). Ibrutinib, an oral small molecule inhibitor of Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK), has shown single-agent efficacy and acceptable tolerability in patients with various B-cell malignancies, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia, mantle cell lymphoma, and Waldenstrom's. While BTK is expressed in HCL cells, the clinical activity of ibrutinib in this disease has not been previously assessed. We conducted a single-arm, multi-center phase 2 study (NCI #9268) of single-agent ibrutinib to characterize the overall response rate (complete + partial response) and safety of single-agent ibrutinib treatment for HCL. Methods : Patients with c-HCL (unfit for or relapsed after PNA) and v-HCL (relapsed or treatment-naïve) were eligible. Enrolled patients required treatment, had ECOG ≤ 2, no active infection, and preserved end-organ function. Patients received continuous once daily ibrutinib in 28-day cycles. Using a Simon 2-stage design, the first 13 patients were treated at 420 mg daily, and a second cohort of 13 patients was accrued at the 840 mg dose-level. Ultimately, the pre-specified number of objective responses was reached at the 420 mg dose-level, and accrual to the second stage of the design continues at that dose. Response, including bone marrow biopsy with immunohistochemistry for minimal residual disease (MRD), was assessed after 8 and 12 cycles. Patients experiencing clinical benefit may continue ibrutinib until unacceptable toxicity or progressive disease. Results: As of 15 May 2016, 28 patients had been enrolled and were evaluable for response: 420 mg/day (n=15) and 840 mg/day (n=13). Enrolled patients (1 treatment-naïve v-HCL, 10 relapsed v-HCL, 17 relapsed c-HCL) included 22 male and 6 female patients with median age 65 years (range: 43-78). Relapsed patients received median 4 prior therapies (range: 1-11); all had prior PNA, 81% had prior rituximab, and 3 c-HCL patients had prior vemurafenib. Response data are summarized by dose and histology in the table. To date, the ORR is 46% [4 CR (all c-HCL) and 9 PR (6 c-HCL)], with objective responses more commonly observed in patients with c-HCL. Eight additional patients (29%) with stable disease have experienced clinical benefit (resolution of symptoms, improvement in peripheral blood cell counts) not meeting criteria for PR, most commonly attributable to persistent thrombocytopenia, and continue on treatment. At median follow-up of 22 months, 20 patients (71%) remain on treatment, 3 patients (1 v-HCL, 2 c-HCL) have progressed, 2 patients (c-HCL) with severe neutropenia at baseline (c-HCL) had early deaths from pneumonia, 1 (c-HCL) discontinued during cycle 8 for failure to resolve baseline neutropenia, and 2 other patients (v-HCL) have discontinued for adverse events. Estimated 24-month progression-free survival (PFS) was 79% (95% CI: 57-91%) and the median PFS has not been reached. Redistribution lymphocytosis was observed in patients with circulating disease at baseline. Soluble interleukin-2 receptor (sIL2R) level was increased at baseline in all c-HCL patients for whom data were available and correlated with response. In general, toxicity did not differ by dose level or disease histology. The most frequent (>10%) grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were lymphopenia (21%), neutropenia (18%), lung infection (18%), thrombocytopenia (14%), hypophosphatemia (11%), and hypertension (11%). Common grade 1/2 non-hematologic toxicities included myalgia (57%), diarrhea (54%), fatigue (50%), nausea/vomiting (46%), bruising (46%), and rash (46%); grade 1/2 atrial fibrillation (no grade ≥3) was observed in 5 patients. Grade ≥3 infection was observed in 25%, but no grade ≥3 bleeding AEs were reported. Conclusions: Ibrutinib can induce remission in both c-HCL and v-HCL patients, including heavily pre-treated patients, but complete remissions have only been observed in c-HCL to date. The drug is generally well-tolerated during long-term administration, and durable clinical benefit is observed in the majority of treated patients even when objective response criteria are not met. Table 1. Table 1. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Jones: Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; 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, Research Funding. Lozanski:Stemline Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding; Beckman Coulter: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding.

Background The phase 3 trial A041202 solidified the Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib as a standard of care for older patients with previously untreated CLL by showing superior progression-free survival (PFS) as compared with bendamustine plus rituximab. While ibrutinib is highly effective in previously untreated CLL, there do remain disadvantages to this therapy, specifically the low rate of complete response (CR) and therefore the need for continuous administration, which increases cost and toxicity. In older patients especially, toxicities with ibrutinib are common; 17% of patients had atrial fibrillation and 29% had grade 3 or higher hypertension on the A041202 study. Thus, strategies to decrease the exposure time to ibrutinib are of interest. Venetoclax is an inhibitor of BCL2 that has shown efficacy as a single agent and in combination with monoclonal antibodies, specifically the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody obinutuzumab for patients with previously untreated CLL. One significant advantage to venetoclax is the ability to produce CRs and minimal residual disease negative (MRD-) responses. In this study, we compare ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab (IO) to ibrutinib plus venetoclax plus obinutuzumab (IVO) with a response-dependent discontinuation. While other studies have been designed with the goal of discontinuation of ibrutinib through combinations with venetoclax, no other study has been presented using a response-dependent discontinuation strategy. Study Design and Methods A041702 is a randomized phase 3 study led by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology that is currently enrolling through the NCI National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN). CLL patients age 70 years or older who are previously untreated and in need of therapy are eligible. Previous treatment of autoimmune complications with steroids or rituximab is allowed. Patients must have intermediate- or high-risk Rai stage, ECOG performance status 0-2, ANC ≥ 1000/mm3 unless due to marrow involvement, and platelets ≥ 30,000/mm3. CrCl must be ≥ 40 mL/min and AST/ALT ≤ 2.5x upper limit of normal. Patients with hepatitis B must have undetectable viral load, and patients must not have an intercurrent illness that is expected to limit survival to < 5 years. Warfarin and strong inhibitors or inducers of CYP3A4/5 are not permitted. Patients are initially preregistered to the study and submit a peripheral blood sample for central FISH analysis of del(17p). Patients who are registered are randomized 1:1 to Arm 1 (IO) or Arm 2 (IVO), and are stratified by Rai stage and presence of del(17p). IO consists of I daily starting cycle 1 day 1, and O dosed as standard starting cycle 1 day 1 and continuing to cycle 6 day 1. IVO consists of IO as in Arm 1, with V starting cycle 3 day 1 with standard 5-week ramp-up and continuing until cycle 14 day 28. At the end of 14 cycles, patients in both arms undergo response evaluation with central peripheral blood and bone marrow MRD testing. Patients on IO then continue I indefinitely. Patients on IVO who are in a bone marrow MRD- CR discontinue all therapy, and those who are not continue I indefinitely. The primary objective of the study is to compare PFS between IO and IVO using the strategy of response-dependent discontinuation. There is 90% power to detect a hazard ratio for PFS of 0.55 (corresponding to 5-year PFS rates of 70% and 82.187% for IO and IVO, respectively), at a one-sided significance level of 0.025 by a log-rank test. This design requires 128 events and 431 total evaluable patients assuming uniform accrual over the course of 3 years and minimum follow-up of 5 years. The study includes two interim analyses for superiority when 50% and 75% of the expected number of events have been observed and three interim analyses for futility when 25%, 50%, and 75% of the expected number of events have been observed. Conclusions A041702 is an ongoing phase 3 clinical trial using a novel response-dependent discontinuation method. Results of this study have the potential to change the standard of care for older patients with previously untreated CLL. The study is expected to accrue for 3 years beginning January 2019, and we welcome participation from sites throughout the NCTN. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, UG1CA189823, U24CA196171; U10CA180820 (ECOG-ACRIN); https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03737981 Disclosures Woyach: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Loxo: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding. Lozanski:Beckman Coulter: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding; Genentec: Research Funding. Ding:Merck: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding. Hill:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stone:Argenx, Celgene, Takeda Oncology: Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board/Committee: ; Novartis, Agios, Arog: Research Funding; AbbVie, Actinium, Agios, Argenx, Arog, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Biolinerx, Celgene, Cornerstone Biopharma, Fujifilm, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Ono, Orsenix, Otsuka, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sumitomo, Trovagene: Consultancy. Byrd:Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; Acerta: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Research Funding; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Introduction. Our previous flow cytometry-based comparison of HIV(+) and HIV(-) autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto-HSCT) recipient immunomes at 56, 180 and 365 days post-transplant to each other and to healthy controls (HCs) showed that both sets of auto-HSCT recipient immunomes approached HCs over time, but retained significant differences. HIV(+), but not HIV(-), auto-AHCT recipients retained pro-inflammatory features consistent with chronic HIV infection. Here, we report the results of a quantitative and functional analysis of immune reconstitution in HIV(+) patients treated with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HSCT), in comparison with HIV(+) auto-HSCT recipients and HCs. Methods. Blood samples were collected for analysis at days 56, 180 and 365 post-transplant from HIV(+) transplant recipients and at 1 time point from HCs. Whole blood analysis was performed by five-color flow cytometry across 100 immune marker combinations. Comparisons were made between HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients (n=17, acute myeloid leukemia, acute lymphocytic leukemia, myelodysplastic syndrome, Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma that received myeloablative or reduced intensity conditioning on the BMT-CTN-0903/AMC-080 trial), HIV(+) auto-HSCT recipients (n=36, aggressive B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma or Hodgkin lymphoma that received myeloablative conditioning on the BMT-CTN-0803/AMC-071 trial) and 71 HCs. Unsupervised principal component analysis (PCA) examined differences in immune cell proportions, identified by flow cytometry across 100 cell subsets at each time point. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests compared median absolute counts and median proportions of cell subsets. An independent feature importance score analysis (FIS) identified contributions of immune cell populations expressing specific immune marker combinations to the differences between HIV(+) auto-HSCT recipients, HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients and HCs. Functional responsiveness of HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients' T cells to stimulation with CD3- and CD28-directed antibodies, NK cells to stimulation with IL-12 and IL-18 and monocytes to stimulation with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) was assessed in a preliminary mass cytometry on peripheral blood mononuclear cells isolated at the same time points (n=2) and compared to HCs (n=2). Results. PCA showed that immunomes of HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients and HIV(+) auto-HSCT recipients clustered together with each other, but away from HCs at all time points throughout the post-transplant year. FIS identified: 1) 13 cell subsets that defined the difference between HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients (all visits) and HCs, and 2) 11 immune cell subsets that defined the difference between HIV(+) auto-HSCT recipients (all visits) and HCs; in both of these comparisons, activated CD3+/HLA-DR+ T cells had the greatest impact on the difference between HIV(+) and HC immunomes. At 1 year, both HIV(+) transplant recipient cohorts had higher absolute numbers of activated T cells, effector T cells and CD8+ T cells than HCs (Wilcoxon rank-sum test, p<0.0031). HIV(+) autologous and allogeneic HSCT recipients also had lower numbers of CD4+ T cells, naïve T cells and activated NK cells compared to HCs (p<0.0031). FIS also identified 20 immune cell subsets that defined the difference between HIV(+) autologous and allogeneic HSCT recipients immunomes at 1 year, with CD8+/CD27- effector T cell subset exerting the highest impact on the difference. Preliminary functional mass cytometry analysis of 2 HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients and 2 HCs showed that: 1) IFNʏ production by CD8+ T cells was increased above that of HCs at all time points. 2) Expanded populations of CD4+/T-bet+ cytotoxic cells expressing granzyme B and perforin, and CD8+ cytotoxic T cells expressing granzyme B and perforin, persisted in HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients at all time points, but not in HCs. 3) NK cells retained an ability to produce IFNʏ in response to stimulation with IL-12 and IL-18 in HIV(+) allo-SCT recipients. 4) Monocytes showed an enhanced production of TNFα in response to stimulation with LPS in HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients compared to HCs at 1 year post-HSCT. Conclusion. Chronic HIV infection confers the pro-inflammatory immune features on the phenotypic and functional profiling of the T lymphocyte immunome of stem cell transplant recipients, irrespective of allogeneic or autologous stem cell donor source. Disclosures Devine: Bristol Myers: Other: Grant for monitoring support & travel support; Kiadis Pharma: Other: Protocol development (via institution); Magenta Therapeutics: Other: Travel support for advisory board; My employer (National Marrow Donor Program) has equity interest in Magenta. Noy:Janssen: Consultancy; Medscape: Honoraria; Prime Oncology: Honoraria; NIH: Research Funding; Pharamcyclics: Research Funding; Raphael Pharma: Research Funding. Popat:Bayer: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy. Hofmeister:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nektar: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imbrium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Navarro:Atara Biotherapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Behbehani:Fluidigm corporation: Other: Travel funding. Lozanski:Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Beckman Coulter: Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding; Genentec: Research Funding. Baiocchi:Prelude: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: The most effective initial therapy for older adults with CLL has not yet been established due to the lack of comparison of chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) and targeted therapy with the Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib. CIT has been the gold standard since studies showing that addition of CD20 antibody to chemotherapy prolongs survival. Bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) is one standard, more aggressive CIT regimen for patients (pts) age 65 or older. While ibrutinib has been FDA approved for untreated CLL since 2016, it has only been compared to chlorambucil, which is relatively ineffective, and never before to aggressive CIT. Additionally, the benefit of the addition of rituximab to ibrutinib in this setting has not been prospectively studied in a phase 3 trial. As part of a randomized phase 3 trial, the Alliance sought to answer these important clinical questions. Pts and Methods: Alliance A041202 is a multicenter NCI National Clinical Trials Network phase 3 study comparing BR (Arm 1) with ibrutinib (Arm 2) and the combination of ibrutinib plus rituximab (Arm 3) to determine whether ibrutinib-containing regimens are superior to CIT in terms of PFS. Additionally, this study sought to determine if adding rituximab to ibrutinib would prolong PFS over ibrutinib alone. At time of progression, pts on Arm 1 could cross over to Arm 2. Eligible pts were those age ≥ 65 years with previously untreated, symptomatic CLL. Pts had a CrCl ≥ 40 mL/min, bilirubin ≤ 1.5 x ULN, and no significant life-limiting intercurrent illness or need for warfarin treatment. Pts were stratified based upon Rai stage, Zap-70 methylation performed centrally, and del(17)(p13.1) or del(11)(q22.3) by local interphase cytogenetics and were randomized 1:1:1 to each arm. With 166 pts per arm, the trial was powered to detect an improvement in 2-year PFS from 61% in Arm 1 to 75% in Arms 2 or 3 (HR=0.586) using two one-sided log-rank tests with type I error rate of 2.5% and 90% power. The Alliance Data and Safety Monitoring Board approved the data release after meeting the protocol-defined efficacy threshold at a planned interim analysis with a one-sided critical value of 0.001538. These data were locked July 2, 2018; updated results will be presented at the meeting. Results: Between 12/9/2013 and 5/16/2016, 547 pts were registered and randomized (Arms 1: 183, 2: 182, and 3: 182). Median age was 71 years and 67% of pts were men. High-risk Rai stage (stage III/IV) was seen in 54%, unmethylated Zap-70 in 53%, and del(17p) or del(11q) by local FISH in 28%. Local vs centralized FISH was performed for del(11q) and del(17p) with agreement between local and central results in 94% (Kappa=0.80) and 97% (Kappa=0.76) of pts, respectively. 525 (96%) pts were eligible and included in the primary PFS analysis (Arms 1: 176, 2: 178, and 3: 171). With median follow-up of 32 months (mo), median PFS was 41 mo in Arm 1 and has not been reached in Arms 2 or 3 (HR comparing Arm 2 to 1 is 0.40 with one-sided p&lt;0.0001; HR comparing Arm 3 to 1 is 0.41 with one-sided p&lt;0.0001; HR comparing Arm 3 to 2 is 1.01 with one-sided p=0.48). 2-year PFS estimates were 74%, 87% in 2, and 88% in Arms 1, 2, and 3 respectively. At this time, there are no significant differences in overall survival (OS) among arms (p=0.87), median OS has not been reached for any arm, and 2-year OS estimates were 95%, 90%, and 94% in Arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Adverse events (AEs) were compared among arms using Fisher's exact tests. Grade 3+ treatment-emergent AEs were seen in 428 of 537 evaluable pts with 61%, 41%, and 38% of pts experiencing Grade 3+ heme AEs (p&lt;0.0001) and 60%, 72%, and 71% of pts experiencing Grade 3+ non-heme AEs (p=0.03) in Arms 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Grade 5 AEs were seen in 5 (2.8%), 14 (7.8%), and 14 (7.7%) pts (p=0.07). Unexplained or unwitnessed death over the entire observation period was seen in 2 (1.1%), 7 (3.9%), and 4 (2.2%) pts (p=0.24) in Arms 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Conclusions: This international phase 3 trial demonstrates that ibrutinib produces superior PFS to standard CIT in older pts with CLL and justifies it as a standard of care treatment for pts age 65 and older. The addition of rituximab does not prolong PFS with ibrutinib. While ibrutinib represents a major therapeutic advance, toxicities and also cost justify future efforts to reduce the need for long-term continuous treatment. Support: K23CA178183, R01CA183444, U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171, Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01886872 Figure. Figure. Disclosures Ding: Merck: Research Funding. Bartlett:Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; ImaginAB: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding. Brander:BeiGene: 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; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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. Barr:AbbVie, Gilead: Consultancy. Parikh:Gilead: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Coutre:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lozanski:Novartis: Research Funding; BI: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Stem Line: Research Funding; Coulter: Research Funding; Beckman: Research Funding. Larson:Ariad/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; BristolMyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Erba:Amgen: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Juno: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Astellas: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee. Owen:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Teva: Honoraria. Abramson:Bayer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Humanigen: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy.

Abstract Deletions or mutations of the tumor suppressor p53 have been associated with more aggressive disease in many types of cancer including CLL, and are more commonly found in relapsed or refractory patients. We studied symptomatic patients (pts) enrolled on ECOG 2997, a randomized phase III trial of fludarabine monotherapy (F) versus fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide (CF) for previously untreated CLL. A total of 235 pretreatment samples were analyzed for p53 mutations in exons 5–9 using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE), followed by confirmation of mutations using automated sequencing. Cytogenetic analysis was also performed on 243 patient samples by Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH) using a probe to detect deletions in 17p13.1, the chromosomal location of the p53 gene. In the analysis by DGGE, a total of 25 pts (10.6%) were found to have p53 mutations. In 22 cases there was a single mutation, and in three cases there were two mutations. Mutations in exon 6 were the most common, and in each of the cases with two mutations, one of these was in exon 6. Results by exon are as follows: Exon 5 (1 pt, 0.4%), Exon 6 (15 pts, 6.4%), Exon 7 (5 pts, 2.1%), Exon 8 (3 pts, 1.3%), Exon 9 (4 pts, 1.7%). The interphase cytogenetic analysis included 24 of the 25 pts with a p53 mutation by DGGE. Of the 19 (7.8%) pts with del(17p13.1) as the leading cytogenetic anomaly, seven were cases that also had mutations in p53 by DGGE. The remaining 17 pts with mutations in p53 by DGGE had as leading cytogenetic anomaly: del(11q) (2 pts); trisomy 12 (3 pts), normal cytogenetics (2 pts), and del(13q) (10 pts). Results from both the DGGE and FISH analyses were combined to identify a group of 37 pts with either del(17p) or p53 mutation. This constituted 16% of the 230 pts in which either FISH or p53 mutational analysis was performed. Immunocytochemistry staining for p53 was performed on all pts, and no correlation was found between over-expression of p53 protein with mutation and/or deletion of this gene. The pts were then assessed by treatment arm for response and progression-free survival (PFS), relative to patients without p53 abnormality either by DGGE or FISH analysis. In the FC group: 13 pts had either a p53 mutation or del(17p), nine (69%) of whom achieved a CR or a PR, versus 56/74 (76%) of those with normal p53 (p=0.73). In the F group: 15 pts had either a p53 mutation or del(17p), of whom four (27%) achieved a CR or a PR, versus 38/70 (54%) of those with normal p53 (p=0.09). Pts with a detectable abnormality in p53 had a significantly reduced PFS, regardless of whether they received fludarabine alone (p=0.02) or fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide (p=0.005). This study suggests that routine immunocytochemistry staining should not be substituted for p53 mutational studies. While some short responses were observed in patients with p53 mutation and/or deletion receiving fludarabine and/or fludarabine cyclophosphamide, the time to progression was significantly shorter, emphasizing the prognostic significance of p53 abnormalities for this disease.

Abstract BACKGROUND: The study of rare diseases is limited by the uncommon nature of the conditions as well as the widely dispersed patient populations. Current rare disease registries such as the National Organization of Rare Diseases utilize centralized platforms for data collection; however because of their broad nature, these do not always capture unique, disease specific elements. Hairy Cell Leukemia (HCL) is a rare leukemia globally with approximately 900 new cases diagnosed in the US each year. The HCL Foundation undertook creation of a Patient Data Registry that collects data from multiple HCL Centers of Excellence (COE) around the globe to better understand the complications, treatment outcomes, disease subtypes, comorbid conditions, epidemiology, and quality of life of patients with HCL. METHODS: Investigators at The Ohio State University Department of Biomedical Informatics and Division of Hematology in collaboration with the HCL Foundation developed a Patient Data Registry (PDR) for the longitudinal capture of high quality research data. This system differs from other registries in that it uses a federated( rather than centralized) architecture, wherein data is queried and integrated in an on-demand manner from local registry databases at each participating site. Further, the data collected for use in the registry combines both automated exports from existing electronic health records (EHRs) as well as additional data entered via a set of web-based forms. All manually entered data comes from source documents, and data provenance spanning electronic and manually entered data is maintained via multiple technical measures. Patients may be enrolled at HCL COE, or, if they do not have access to a COE they may enroll via a web-based portal (www.hairycellleukemia.org). At this time due to regulatory requirements the web-based portal is available to US patients only. All data are de-identified (see Figure 1: De-Identification Workflow) which reduces regulatory burden and increases opportunities for data access and re-use. End users have access to data via a project-specific query portal. RESULTS: The Patient Data Registry has been deployed at The Ohio State University, Royal Marsden Hospital, and MD Anderson Cancer Center, and is undergoing deployment at the University of Rochester. Up to 25 international HCL COE may participate. In addition, US patients are actively entering the registry via the web-based portal. To date, 227 patients have been consented to the registry with 119 of these being via the web-based entry point. CONCLUSION: We created an international and web-based patient data registry which will enable researchers to study outcomes in HCL in ways not previously possible given the rarity of the disease. This work was made possible by research funding from the Hairy Cell Leukemia Foundation. Figure De-Identification Workflow Figure. De-Identification Workflow Disclosures Andritsos: Hairy Cell Leukemia Foundation: Research Funding. Anghelina:Hairy Cell Leukemia Foundation: Research Funding. Lele:Hairy Cell Leukemia Foundation: Research Funding. Burger:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Delgado:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis/GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding. Jones: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, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Lozanski:Beckman Coulter: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding. Montserrat:Morphosys: Other: Expert Testimony; Vivia Biotech: Equity Ownership; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Expert Testimony; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses. Parikh:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Park:Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Robak:Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Tam:janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Heckler:Hairy Cell Leukemia Foundation: Research Funding. Payne:Hairy Cell Leukemia Foundation: Research Funding.

Abstract BACKGROUND. The detection of minimal residual disease (MRD) at the level of 0.01%/10-4 or above is a strong independent predictor of reduced progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with CLL treated with chemoimmunotherapy. Although newer agents such as B-cell receptor pathway inhibitors can result in prolonged survival without achieving complete response, there remains a important role for MRD analysis in assessing therapeutic strategies aimed at disease eradication and cure. This is particularly important in front-line trials for fit patients which now require at least five years of follow-up if PFS is used as an endpoint. The feasibility of using MRD as a surrogate or intermediate endpoint for accelerated approval of new treatments is under review by regulatory agencies but further prospective validation is required. At the same time technology is rapidly evolving and high-throughput sequencing (HTS) technologies now detect MRD at the 0.0001%/10-6 level. It is therefore important to determine the most effective approaches for quantifying MRD that are compatible with previous studies but sufficiently sensitive for current treatments. AIMS. This collaborative project had two objectives. First, to identify the simplest and most flexible flow cytometry panel capable of detecting MRD at the 0.01%/10-4 or lower, that is compatible with published data and independent of instrument/reagent manufacturer. Second, to compare the flow cytometry approach with HTS analysis using the ClonoSEQ assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA). METHODS AND RESULTS. A core panel of antibodies for MRD detection was identified by testing an 8-marker combination in 52 samples (27 post-treatment and 25 dilution study) and re-analysing data with serial exclusion of single markers to determine redundancy. A 1-tube core panel of CD19, CD20, CD5, CD43, CD79b, and CD81 was identified and validated against the previously published 2-tube 6-marker and 4-tube 4-marker ERIC panels in 76 samples (19 post-treatment and 57 dilution study). The results showed good concordance (for log-transformed data above the LoQ, linearity=0.977, Pearson correlation co-efficient=0.983, average difference=0.026 log, 95% limit of agreement 0.20log) and a limit of detection of 0.001%/10-5 for the 1-tube core panel. Inter-operator variation was similar to CML MRD monitoring with both experienced operators, or inexperienced cytometrists after ~1 hour of specific education, achieving a 95% limit of agreement less than 0.3log in samples with MRD levels ranging from 0.0001 – 100%. The flow cytometry approach was compared with the ClonoSEQ HTS assay in 109 samples (21 dilution study and 88 post-treatment samples, complete data currently available on 13/88). The assay was applicable to the vast majority CLL patients, often with two clonal markers. There was 94% concordance at the 0.01% (10-4) threshold (15 samples with ≥0.01% CLL by both methods, 14 samples with <0.01% by both methods, 1 sample with 0.03% CLL by HTS and <0.003% CLL by flow cytometry, and 1 sample with 0.005% CLL by HTS and 0.012% by flow cytometry. HTS detected CLL IGH sequences in 22% (7/31) samples with no detectable CLL cells by flow cytometry (i.e. CLL level 0.0001-0.001%, 3/13 patient samples and 4/18 dilution samples). HTS demonstrated a relatively high variability in quantification, as seen in previous studies, but with a clear superiority in the limit of detection and good linearity (linearity=0.905, Pearson correlation co-efficient=0.870, average difference=0.078 log, 95% limit of agreement 1.5 log). CONCLUSIONS. The 1-tube 6-marker flow cytometry core panel is compatible with published studies, manufacturer-independent and flexible, providing directly quantitative results to 0.001%/10-5 without requiring a pre-treatment sample. HTS requires further work to standardise the quantitative analysis and prospective validation but the ClonoSEQ assay is applicable to >95% of CLL patients, does not require viable cells and is extremely sensitive, detecting residual disease in a significant proportion of cases with <0.01% CLL. The results indicate that flow cytometry and HTS are complementary technologies with a combined approach offering the most reliable way of quantifying CLL at the 0.01%/10-4 threshold while allowing higher sensitivity in clinical trials aimed at disease eradication. Disclosures Rawstron: Roche: Honoraria; Biogen Idec: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; BD Biosciences: Intrasure reagent Patents & Royalties; Celgene: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria. Williamson:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sanders:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Employment, Equity Ownership. Robins:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Hallek:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Hillmen:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding.

AbstractHairy cell leukemia is an uncommon hematologic malignancy characterized by pancytopenia and marked susceptibility to infection. Tremendous progress in the management of patients with this disease has resulted in high response rates and improved survival, yet relapse and an appropriate approach to re-treatment present continuing areas for research. The disease and its effective treatment are associated with immunosuppression. Because more patients are being treated with alternative programs, comparison of results will require general agreement on definitions of response, relapse, and methods of determining minimal residual disease. The development of internationally accepted, reproducible criteria is of paramount importance in evaluating and comparing clinical trials to provide optimal care. Despite the success achieved in managing these patients, continued participation in available clinical trials in the first-line and particularly in the relapse setting is highly recommended. The Hairy Cell Leukemia Foundation convened an international conference to provide common definitions and structure to guide current management. There is substantial opportunity for continued research in this disease. In addition to the importance of optimizing the prevention and management of the serious risk of infection, organized evaluations of minimal residual disease and treatment at relapse offer ample opportunities for clinical research. Finally, a scholarly evaluation of quality of life in the increasing number of survivors of this now manageable chronic illness merits further study. The development of consensus guidelines for this disease offers a framework for continued enhancement of the outcome for patients.

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.)