Wierda, William G.

7006 Background: KTE-X19 is an autologous anti-CD19 CAR T cell therapy under investigation for adult R/R ALL. In an interim analysis of Phase 1 of ZUMA-3, we reported manageable safety and encouraging efficacy of KTE-X19; 72% of pts achieved a complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete bone marrow (BM) recovery (CRi; Wierda et al, ASH 2018. #897). Here, we present end of Phase 1 results. Methods: Adults with R/R B cell ALL, > 5% BM blasts, and ECOG 0-1 received 2, 1, or 0.5 × 106 KTE-X19 cells/kg after conditioning chemotherapy. Revised adverse event management (rAE mgmt) was implemented for additional pts in a 1 × 106 dose cohort: corticosteroids were given earlier at onset of Grade ≥ 2 neurologic events (NEs) and tocilizumab was used only for active toxicity. The primary endpoint was the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) rate. Key additional endpoints were KTE-X19 levels, incidence of AEs, minimal residual disease (MRD), and CR/CRi rate. Results: As of 9/27/18, 45 pts had received KTE-X19 (median follow-up [f/u], 16 mo). The median age was 46 y (range, 18–77); 30 pts (66%) had ≥ 3 prior therapies and the median pre-conditioning BM blasts was 70% (range, 0–97). Six, 23, and 16 pts received 2, 1, and 0.5 × 106 cells/kg, respectively. There were no DLTs in the DLT-evaluable pts. The most common Grade ≥ 3 AEs were hypotension (38%), pyrexia (38%) and thrombocytopenia (31%). There were 2 previously reported KTE-X19–related Grade 5 AEs of cerebral infarction and multiorgan failure, both in the context of CRS. Grade ≥ 3 CRS and NEs occurred in 13 (29%) and 17 (38%) pts, respectively. Of 41 pts with ≥ 2 mo of f/u, 68% had CR/CRi, and 73% had undetectable MRD. Of 19 pts with ≥ 2 mo of f/u treated with 1 × 106 cells/kg, 16 (84%) had a CR/CRi and the median event-free survival was 15 mo. In 9 pts treated with 1 × 106 cells/kg and rAE mgmt, 2 (22%) had Grade 3 CRS and 1 (11%) had Grade 3 NE with no Grade 4/5 events. Conclusions: KTE-X19 dosing and safety mgmt have been successfully refined by testing 3 cell doses and evaluating a new AE mgmt guideline with altered corticosteroids/tocilizumab use for NE/CRS. Pivotal Phase 2 is ongoing at the 1 × 106 dose with rAE mgmt. Clinical trial information: NCT02614066.

Introduction: XmAb13676 is a humanized bispecific antibody that binds both CD20 and CD3 in order to recruit cytotoxic T cells to kill CD20 expressing malignant cells. Interim results of an ongoing first-in-human, dose-escalation study (XmAb13676-01; NCT02924402) in subjects with relapsed/refractory (R/R) non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) are reported here. Methods: The study is a first-in-human, multi-center, open-label, phase 1, dose-escalation study in subjects with R/R NHL and R/R CLL with a standard 3 + 3 design. The primary objectives are to determine safety, tolerability, and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or recommended dose of XmAb13676. Secondary objectives include preliminary anti-tumor activity and PK/PD of XmAb13676. This study is designed in two parts: Part A, escalating dose cohorts that establish an initial priming dose as part of repeated weekly infusions at a fixed dose in a 28-day cycle; and Part B, with a dosing schedule consisting of a priming dose on C1D1 , established in Part A, followed by escalated dose(s) on subsequent weeks. Cytokine Release Syndrome (CRS) prophylaxis with dexamethasone was mandated prior to each administration of XmAb13676. Treatment was continued for 2 cycles or longer if there was evidence of therapeutic benefit. Results: At data cut-off, 44 subjects have been treated, 36 with NHL and 8 with CLL. NHL: Subjects with R/R NHL had a median age of 61.5 years (range 32-89), a median of 3.5 prior therapies (range 1-9) and had been diagnosed a median of 24.6 months (range 6.3-181.2) prior to treatment in the study. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) related to treatment occurring in ˃ 3 subjects are shown in Table 1A. Nine treatment-related serious adverse events (SAE) occurred in 6 subjects. The most common treatment-related SAE was CRS, which occurred in 4 (11.1%) subjects with 1 of the events being Grade 4 and the other events being ≤ Grade 2. Treatment responses were assessed by the Lugano criteria or International Working Group criteria for Waldenström Macroglobulinemia (WM). There have been 7 objective responses: 2 complete responses (CR; DLBCL), 1 Very Good PR (VGPR; WM), and 4 partial responses (PR; 1FL, 3 DLBCL) at doses of 20-125 µg/kg. In the efficacy-evaluable population, at doses of 80-125 µg/kg, objective responses were observed in 6/18 patients. A priming dose of 45 µg/kg has been chosen for Part B. An MTD has not been reached and dose escalation is ongoing in Part B in NHL. CLL: Subjects with R/R CLL had a median age of 76 years (range 62-81), a median of 4.5 prior therapies (range 2-6) and had been diagnosed a median of 76.1 months (range 17.5-328.9) prior to treatment in the study. Treatment-related TEAEs occurring in ˃ 1 subject are shown in Table 1B. Three treatment-related serious adverse events (SAE) occurred in 2 subjects. The treatment related SAEs were CRS (Grade 3), hepatocellular injury (Grade 3), and jaundice cholestatic (Grade 2), each of which occurred in 1 (12.5%) subject. There has been 1 CR reported (Richter transformation) in 5 subjects at 20 µg/kg, the highest dose administered thus far. The treatment response was assessed by the Lugano criteria. An MTD has not been reached and dose escalation is ongoing in Part A in CLL. Conclusions: XmAb13676 demonstrated evidence of clinical activity in heavily pretreated subjects with R/R NHL and R/R CLL treated at doses between 20 and 125 µg/kg. CRS was generally manageable with premedication. The study is ongoing with further optimization of dose and schedule. Disclosures Patel: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sunesis: Consultancy. Chanan-Khan:AbbVie: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Jansen: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Employment; Ascentage: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding. Salles:Novartis, Servier, AbbVie, Karyopharm, Kite, MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche, Janssen, Gilead, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Autolus: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Educational events; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; BMS: Honoraria. Cartron:Gilead: Honoraria; Jansen: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria. Thomas:Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Wierda:KITE pharma: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Miragen: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma Inc: Research Funding; GSK/Novartis: Research Funding; Cyclcel: Research Funding; Loxo Oncology Inc.: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Oncternal Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Liebowitz:Xencor: Employment, Equity Ownership. Pagel:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Ribrag:MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Other: Travel, accommodations, and expenses ; Nanostring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Consultancy, Research Funding; Servier: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AZ: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accommodations, and expenses ; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ArgenX: Research Funding. Saville:Xencor: Employment, Equity Ownership. Johnson:Xencor: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ly:Xencor: Employment, Equity Ownership. Phillips:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

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: Although approximately half of adult patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) achieve long-term survival, those who relapse have poor long-term outcomes (El Fakih et al. Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Ther. 2017; Oriol et al. Haematologica. 2010). The initial report of Phase 1 of ZUMA-3, the Phase 1/2 trial of KTE-C19 for treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) ALL (NCT02614066), has thus far demonstrated promising efficacy among patients infused with KTE-C19, with a 71% complete remission (CR) rate (CR or CR with incomplete hematologic recovery [CRi]), 88% undetectable minimal residual disease (MRD), and manageable toxicity across all doses (Shah et al. ASH 2017. #888). Here, we present updated safety and efficacy data from Phase 1 of ZUMA-3. Methods: Adult patients (≥ 18 y) with R/R ALL (Ph+ allowed), > 5% bone marrow blasts, and ECOG 0-1 received 2, 1, or 0.5 × 106 CAR T cells/kg after low-dose conditioning chemotherapy with fludarabine 25 mg/m2/day for 3 days and a single dose of cyclophosphamide 900 mg/m2 on the third day of conditioning. The primary endpoint for Phase 1 was incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Key secondary endpoints included incidence and time to onset and resolution of adverse events (AEs), rate of undetectable MRD remission in the bone marrow using flow cytometry, and duration of remission. KTE-C19 expansion and persistence were also assessed. Safety analyses included all patients who received KTE-C19, and patients with ≥ 2 months of follow-up were evaluated for efficacy. Results: As of April 12, 2018, 35 patients have received KTE-C19 with a median follow-up of 11 months (range, 2 - 25 months). The median age was 40 years (range, 18 - 69 years), 51% of patients were male, 66% had ECOG 1, 13 patients (37%) had prior blinatumomab, and 60% had received ≥ 3 prior lines of treatment. The median bone marrow blast burden at screening was 70% (range, 5 - 100). Six patients received the 2 × 106 cells/kg dose, 14 received 1 × 106 cells/kg, and 15 received 0.5 × 106 cells/kg. No DLTs were observed in the DLT period. The most common Grade ≥ 3 AEs were hypotension (40%), pyrexia (34%), decreased platelet counts (34%), and anemia (31%). Grade ≥ 3 CRS occurred in 9 patients (26%), with a median time to onset of 5 days (range, 1 - 15 days). There were 2 KTE-C19-related Grade 5 events: 1 cerebral infarction at the 0.5 × 106 cells/kg dose and 1 previously reported multiorgan failure secondary to cytokine release syndrome (CRS) at the 2 × 106 cells/kg dose. Grade ≥ 3 CRS resolved in all patients (not including 2 patients with a Grade 5 event), and the median time to resolution was 11 days (range, 7 - 42 days). Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent neurologic events occurred in 16 patients (46%), and the median time to onset was 7 days (range, 4 - 24 days). With the exception of 2 patients with unresolved neurologic events due to death, Grade ≥ 3 neurologic events resolved in all patients (14/14), with a median time to resolution of 17 days (range, 6 - 53 days). Among the 32 patients evaluable for response, the overall rate of undetectable MRD was 78% (95% CI, 60% - 91%). CR or CRi was achieved by 23 patients (72%), and 1 patient (3%) had blast-free BM. KTE-C19 levels were examined in 23 patients as of July 31, 2017. Robust KTE-C19 expansion was observed across all dose levels assessed. Conclusion: High rates of remission were achieved by adult patients with R/R ALL, with approximately three-quarters of patients achieving CR or CRi with undetectable MRD after a single dose of KTE-C19 in ZUMA-3. The safety profile was generally manageable, and most cases of high-grade CRS and neurologic events resolved. These results demonstrate that KTE-C19 offers clinical benefit for patients with otherwise limited treatment options. Disclosures Wierda: AbbVie, Inc: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Bishop:United Healthcare: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Juneau Therapeutics: Speakers Bureau; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Speakers Bureau. Logan:Adaptive Biotech: Consultancy; Napajen: Consultancy; Shire: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Astellas: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding. Schiller:Astellas Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; bluebird bio: Research Funding. Holmes:Unum: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy. Abedi:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; CIRM: Research Funding; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Research Funding. Arellano:Cephalon: Research Funding. Pagel:Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Mardiros:Kite, a Gilead Company: Employment; Kite, a Gilead Company: Equity Ownership; Mustang Bio: Patents & Royalties; Kite, a Gilead Company: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES. Shen:Zhejiang DTRM Biopharma LLC: Other: Clinical Operations Director. Vezan:Kite Pharma: Employment; Kite, Gilead, Abbv, MRK: Equity Ownership. Jain:Kite Pharma, Amgen: Equity Ownership; Kite Pharma: Employment; Kite Pharma: Patents & Royalties.

Abstract Background SGI-110 is second generation HMA formulated as a dinucleotide of decitabine (DAC) and deoxyguanosine delivered as a small volume, pharmaceutically stable SQ injection allowing longer half-life and more extended decitabine exposure than DAC IV infusion. SGI-110 differentiated pharmacokinetic profile resulted in potent hypomethylation and clinical responses in previously treated MDS and AML patients in the phase 1 trial (Kantarjian et al. 2012). Methods In a randomized Phase 2 study, relapsed/refractory AML, or elderly treatment naïve AML patients who were not suitable for induction chemotherapy (poor major organ function; poor cytogenetics; or secondary AML) were randomized to one of two SQ doses – the biologically effective dose (BED) of 60 mg/m2 QDx5 or 90 mg/m2 QDx5. The primary endpoint of the phase 2 study is the overall remission rate (CR, CRi, and CRp) based on the International Working Group Criteria 2003. Safety findings based on adverse events (AEs) as graded by the CTCAE v4 criteria and pharmacodynamic data on Long Interspersed Nucleotide Element (LINE-1) DNA methylation (an index of global DNA methylation) activity were also assessed and reported. Results As of June 30, 2013, sixty-seven patients (50 relapsed/refractory AML, 17 treatment naïve elderly AML) were treated and had a minimum follow up of 3 months. Patients were randomized to either 60 mg/m2 dose (32 patients) or 90 mg/m2 dose (35 patients). The median age was 66 years (range, 22–84), 69% were male, and ECOG PS of 0/1/2 was reported in 11/47/9 patients respectively. Median number of prior regimens was 2 (range, 0–10). Patients’ characteristics were well balanced between the 2 dose groups. The primary endpoint of overall remissions (CR, CRp, or CRi) was observed in 17/67 patients (25% with 95% CI, 16–37%). There were 8 complete remissions (CR, CRp, or CRi) in 50 patients with relapsed/refractory AML (16% with 95% CI, 7-29%); and 9 complete remissions (CR, CRp, or CRi) in 17 treatment-naïve elderly AML patients (53% with 95% CI, 28-77%). Five patients (4 relapsed/refractory, and one treatment-naïve elderly AML) subsequently received a stem cell transplant. There was no difference in the complete remission rate between 60 and 90 mg/m2 doses (8 remissions in 32 patients at 60 mg/m2, and 9 remissions in 35 patients at 90 mg/m2). LINE-1 DNA methylation data before and after treatment was available in 50 (75%) patients enrolled. LINE-1 demethylation ≥ 10% post treatment was observed in 83% and 78% in the 60 mg/m2 and 90 mg/m2, respectively. The median maximum LINE-1 demethylation for responders is 25% as compared to 19% for non-responders. The most common adverse events (AEs) regardless of relationship to SGI-110 ≥ Grade 3 include febrile neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, leukopenia, neutropenia, and pneumonia. The 90 mg/m2 dose showed a greater frequency of Grade 3/4 related AEs ≥ 10% (anemia, febrile neutropenia, leukopenia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia) compared to the 60 mg/m2 dose. Conclusions SQ SGI-110 is a new HMA which is well tolerated and clinically active in the treatment of AML. Complete remissions and potent demethylation of ≥10% were equally observed at the 2 dose groups of 60 and 90 mg/m2. These data support further phase 3 investigation of this agent in the treatment of AML. Preliminary overall remission rate of 53% in treatment-naïve elderly AML seems to compare favorably with previous results reported for HMA treatment but this needs to be confirmed in a larger number of patients and randomized studies. Disclosures: Kantarjian: Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Jabbour:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Yee:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Kropf:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. O'Connell:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Stock:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Tibes:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Rizzieri:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Walsh:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Griffiths:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Roboz:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding. Savona:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Ervin:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Podoltsev:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Pemmaraju:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Daver:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Garcia-Manero:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Borthakur:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Wierda:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Ravandi:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Cortes:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Brandwein:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Odenike:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Feldman:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Chung:Astex Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Research Funding. Naim:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Choy:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Taverna:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Hao:Astex Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Employment. Dimitrov:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Issa:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract ROR1 is a type-1 tyrosine kinase-like orphan-receptor that ordinarily is expressed during embryogenesis, but that also is found on leukemia cells of patients (pts) with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). In prior studies we found ROR1 served as a receptor for Wnt5a, which could promote survival/growth of CLL cells. We found Wnt5a in the plasma is significantly higher in pts with CLL (3.2±1.6 ng/ml (mean ±S.D.), N = 36) than in healthy adults (0.14±0.16 ng/ml, N=14, p<0.01) and also may be elaborated by accessory cells in the CLL microenvironment. On the other hand, reducing expression of ROR1 on CLL cells via siRNA adversely affected leukemia-cell survival. We hypothesized that expression of ROR1 in CLL could play a role in the pathogenesis and/or progression of this disease. Early studies failed to define differences in the expression level of ROR1 on CLL cells of different pts in a small cohort. However, upon further analyses, we observed heterogeneity in the expression levels of ROR1 among samples of different pts in larger cohort. We investigated whether the level of ROR1 expression was associated with disease progression in a cohort of 1,568 CLL pts followed by CLL Research Corium (CRC). CLL samples were uniformly examined for the expression of ROR1 using the same preparation of an Alexa-647-conjugated anti-ROR1 mAb (4A5) and a standardized procedure by the CRC Tissue Core. We used 10 CLL cases, and tested ROR1 expression at 3 different time-points for each case. We found ROR1 expression was stable over time in all CLL cases. Then, we randomly segregated pt samples into either of two cohorts, one a training set of 797, and the other a validation set of 773 cases. For the 797 cases in the training dataset, we used the profile-likelihood method in a Cox regression model of treatment-free survival (TFS) from diagnosis to determine the optimal threshold level of ROR1 expressionthat could segregate pts into 2 subgroups. In the training cohort, 294 pts were stratified into a "ROR1-Low" subgroup and 503 pts were assigned to a "ROR1-High" subgroup, defining a threshold absolute mean fluorescence intensity of CLL cells stained for ROR1 of 29. The subgroup of pts in the ROR1- High subgroup had a median TFS of 6.0 years, whereas those pts in the ROR1-Low subgroup had a median TFS of 11.0 years. We applied this threshold to segregate the 773 samples of the validation cohort into ROR1-High and ROR1-Low subgroups. We found that high-level expression of ROR1retained its strong predictive adverse effect on TFS in this validation set. The subgroup of pts in the ROR1- High subgroup had a median TFS of 5.7 years, whereas those pts in the ROR1-Low subgroup had a median TFS of 11.8 years. The immunoglobulin heavy-chain variable region (IGHV) mutation status was known for 593 of the 797 samples in the training set (74%) and 586 of the 773 samples in the validation set (76%). A significantly lower percentage of the ROR1-Low cases (34%, or 69 of 203) used unmutated IGHV than did the ROR1-High cases (54%, or 209 of 390) (p<0.001). Nonetheless, using a multivariate Cox regression model with either a non-delayed entry or a delayed entry, we observed that high-level expression of ROR1 had predictive value for short TFS (non-delayed entry HR 1.4, p<0.05; delayed entry HR 1.9, p<0.001) even when the IGHV mutation status was taken into consideration (non-delayed entry HR 2.8, p<0.001; delayed entry HR 2.7, p<0.001). Taken together, this study demonstrates that there is heterogeneity in the expression of ROR1 on CLL B cells. Furthermore, we find that a high level expression of ROR1 is associated with early disease progression in pts with CLL. Table 1. Number of cases with high versus low ROR1 and mutated versus unmutated IGHV in the training and validation cohort Training Dataset Validation Dataset ROR1 MFI distribution (Median) 0~475 (35.5) 0~424(34.6) ROR1Low with Mutated IGHV 139 132 ROR1Low with Unmutated IGHV 64 84 ROR1High with Mutated IGHV 181 156 ROR1High with Unmutated IGHV 209 214 Total With Known IGHV Mutation Status 593 586 Disclosures Keating: Celgene Corp.: Consultancy; Glaxo-Smith-Kline Inc.: Other: Advisory board. Kay:Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Tolero Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Hospira: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Byrd:Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding. Gribben:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche/Genentech: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Kipps:Pharmacyclics Abbvie Celgene Genentech Astra Zeneca Gilead Sciences: Other: Advisor.

Abstract Background: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients exhibit variable times from diagnosis to the need to initiate therapy. Previous studies have demonstrated that the rates of CLL cell proliferation (birth) and elimination (death plus recirculation to solid tissues) could be estimated using the incorporation of deuterium (2H), taken in the form of heavy water (2H2O), into the DNA of dividing cells. In a cross-sectional study of patients with early and late stage CLL, birth rates above 0.35% per day were associated with more aggressive disease. The NIH-sponsored CLL Research Consortium (CRC) conducted a prospective study on patients with early stage disease to assess the relationship between CLL-cell birth rate and the length of time to initiation of initial therapy. Methods: Eligible patients had untreated early stage (Rai 0, 1 or 2) disease, and were no more than 3 years from diagnosis. Additional clinical parameters included age at diagnosis, gender, mutational status of the immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region (IGHV), 70-kD zeta-associated protein (ZAP-70) (binary split at 20%) and CD38 (binary split at 30%) expression, and FISH cytogenetics by the Dohner hierarchy. Heavy water was administered daily for 6 weeks, and peripheral blood was obtained for kinetic measurements at the end of weeks 3, 6, 9, 12, and 16. CLL birth rates for blood samples were measured at the same facility (KineMed, Inc, Emeryville, CA) by quantifying deuterium incorporation into the deoxyribose moiety of DNA of tumor cells, using isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS). Subjects were followed for time to administration of therapy; subjects still without treatment at time of analysis were censored, as were subjects who exited the study to receive treatment outside of the established criteria. To assess the impact of birth rate and other factors on time to first therapy, Kaplan-Meier curves were compared using the logrank test for univariable analyses; stepwise Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to build multivariable models. Results: Between July 2005 and February 2009, 119 subjects were enrolled through the CRC. 107 subjects were eligible. For 10 eligible patients, exit from the study prior to completion of protocol-mandated heavy water consumption (n=5) or technical issues (n=5) made it impossible to obtain estimates of birth rate. The 97 eligible subjects for whom birth rates were available form the basis of this report. 60% of subjects were male; median age 57 years (range 40-85). Median birth rate was 0.32%/day (range 0.07-1.31%/day). 43 subjects (44%) had birth rates higher than the previously reported threshold of 0.35%/day. With a median follow up of 4 years, 33 eligible subjects (34%) required treatment. IGHV status (31 subjects unmutated), elevated ZAP-70 (31 subjects), elevated CD38 (21 subjects), and hierarchical categorization of FISH anomalies (4 del(17p), 5 del(11q), 8 tri(12), 50 del(13q)) were examined for association with differential time to first therapy in univariable analyses. All were associated with earlier need for therapy (p <0.001) except for genomic aberrations defined by FISH (p = 0.96). Birth rate > 0.35%/day was also significantly associated with shorter time to first therapy (p < 0.001). In multivariable modeling, only birth rate and IGHV status met the criteria for inclusion (Wald p-value < 0.05). Hazard ratios were 3.51 (p = 0.002) for birth rate above 0.35%/day and 5.0 for unmutated IGHV status (p < 0.001). The association between elevated birth rate and shorter time to first treatment was observed within subjects with both unmutated and mutated IGHV (see Figure 1). Conclusion: An increased birth rate of CLL cells early in the disease course is a strong predictor of an earlier need for treatment in univariable analysis, as are unmutated IGHV, elevated ZAP-70 expression and elevated CD38 expression. However, only unmutated IGHV and an increased birth rate contribute significantly to the multivariable model. This adds a direct measure of B-cell kinetics to the array of biomarkers available to subjects with CLL. Figure 1 Time to treatment by birth rate and IGHV status Figure 1. Time to treatment by birth rate and IGHV status Disclosures Murphy: KineMed, Inc: Equity Ownership. Emson:KineMed, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Li:KineMed, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. McConnel:KineMed, Inc.: Equity Ownership. Turner:KineMed, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Busch:KineMed, Inc.: Equity Ownership. Hellerstein:KineMed Inc: Consultancy, Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chiorazzi:KineMed, Inc.: Stock options Other.

Abstract In chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), it is recognized that germinal center experience by the cell-of-origin has an influence on the malignant phenotype and impacts clinical behavior. Measurement of the mutational status of the IGHV locus is a commonly used approach that subgroups patients according to this natural history. Other biomarkers correlating with these subgroups, such as ZAP70 expression and ZAP70 DNA methylation, are also used. Recently, we and others have found vast differences in global DNA methylation profiles among CLL cases that classifies distinct subgroups related to their natural history. Here we systematically evaluate various markers of natural history of the cell-of-origin for their ability to discriminate clinical outcomes. IGHV mutational status and ZAP70 expression are currently the most widely used prognostic markers of germinal center experience. These markers are generally concordant, with IGHV-unmutated associating with ZAP70 positivity. To compare their relative prognostic impact, we selected CLL cases from a large sample cohort collected as a prospective study maintained by the CLL Research Consortium that were discordant (IGHV-mutated and ZAP70(+) or IGHV-unmutated and ZAP70(-); n=192). We found a significant difference in time-to-first-treatment (TTFT; P=0.002) and overall survival (OS; P=0.032) between discordant groups, with curves separating according to IGHV as opposed to ZAP70 (Fig.1A). DNA methylation-based classification of CLL according to their natural history has not been compared to IGHV status. This classification strategy subgroups the majority of cases into low-programmed CLL (LP-CLL) or high-programmed (HP-CLL) subgroups that generally correlate with IGHV-unmutated/ZAP70(+) and IGHV-mutated/ZAP70(-), respectively, along with a minority of cases in an intermediate (IP-CLL) subgroup. We used our previously-described DNA methylation assay, based on MassARRAY interrogating 7 genomic loci including ZAP70, to group the 192 samples with discordant IGHV/ZAP70 results with 327 samples analyzed previously from the same cohort. DNA methylation (LP-CLL vs. HP-CLL) outperformed IGHV classification (unmutated vs. mutated) in terms of separating TTFT curves (n=432; LP-CLL vs. HP-CLL median difference=4.8 years, unmutated vs. mutated IGHV median difference=2.9 years) and OS curves (n=491; LP-CLL vs. HP-CLL median difference=12.9 years, unmutated vs. mutated IGHV median difference=6.8 years). To evaluate whether DNA methylation subgroups provide additional prognostic information to IGHV, we compared TTFT and OS within IGHV subtypes. We found that the ability of DNA methylation subgrouping to separate OS curves was maintained in the IGHV-unmutated subtype (P<0.001; Fig.1B) and TTFT in both IGHV-unmutated and mutated subtypes (P<0.001 and P=0.016, respectively). Conversely, IGHV subtypes did not significantly separate outcomes within DNA methylation subgroups (P>0.5 for all). Further investigation of the features of DNA methylation subgroups as defined revealed a strong bias in the frequency of several recurrent adverse prognostic somatic mutations. In particular 17p deletions and EGR2, SF3B1 and XPO1 mutations occurred frequently within the LP-CLL subgroup. We next explored whether the presence of each mutation correlated with clinical outcome within its corresponding DNA methylation subgroup, and found heterogenous results. EGR2 mutations separated TTFT in the LP-CLL subgroup (P=0.0009), but 17p, XPO1 and SF3B1 did not (P>0.3). This suggests that the cell-of-origin should be taken into account to accurately assess the clinical impact of somatic mutations. In summary, we demonstrate that among discordant cases for IGHV/ZAP70, IGHV appears to be a stronger prognostic factor for both TTFT and OS. When then evaluating the relative importance of DNA methylation subgrouping and IGHV status on TTFT and OS, we find that DNA methylation subgrouping is the more powerful prognostic factor. Among the markers of the cell-of-origin, DNA methylation is a strong tool for risk-stratifying patients and should be considered in development of risk prediction models. Figure 1. A) Kaplan-Meier analysis of TTFT of IGHV-mutated and ZAP70(+) versus IGHV-unmutated and ZAP70(-) (P=0.002, median difference=4.4 years). B) Kaplan-Meier analysis of OS in patients with unmutated IGHV separated by DNA methylation subgroup (P<0.001). Figure 1. A) Kaplan-Meier analysis of TTFT of IGHV-mutated and ZAP70(+) versus IGHV-unmutated and ZAP70(-) (P=0.002, median difference=4.4 years). B) Kaplan-Meier analysis of OS in patients with unmutated IGHV separated by DNA methylation subgroup (P<0.001). Disclosures Wierda: Acerta: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding. Brown:Infinity: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Sun BioPharma: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Kipps:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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.

Abstract Abstract 3865 ZAP-70 expression is a prognostic marker differentiating chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients with indolent disease from those rapidly progressing after diagnosis and requiring treatment. We previously demonstrated in four independent clinical cohorts that DNA methylation at a single CpG dinucleotide in the ZAP-70 promoter region impacts on ZAP-70 transcriptional regulation and is prognostic in CLL (Claus et al. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(20):2483–91). Here, we confirm and extend our previous findings by investigating the significance of ZAP-70 methylation relative to established prognostic biomarkers in CLL: IGHV mutation status or expression of ZAP-70 protein or CD38. DNA methylation analysis of the ZAP-70 core promoter region was conducted in mononuclear cells of 295 untreated CLL patients, previously reported by the CRC (Rassenti et al. Blood 2008;112:1923–30) using MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry (MassARRAY, Sequenom). The 295 patients had a median age of 55 years (range 26–82), 69% were male, and 46% were Rai stage 0, 47% stage I/II, and 7% stage III/IV at diagnosis. ZAP-70 protein and CD38 expression were measured by four-color flow cytometry and IGHV mutational status was assessed, as previously described. By hierarchical clustering, the previously identified single CpG dinucleotide (“CpG unit 1”, position +223 relative to the transcription start) separated patients with high methylation levels across the entire region from those with lower methylation levels at this specific site. With a median follow-up of 3.9 years in 50 patients who had not started treatment and 5.6 years among those still alive (n=196), patients with lower methylation levels at CpG unit 1 had shortened time to first treatment (TTT) and overall survival (OS) (both p<0.0001), confirming the prognostic relevance of this site. In our previous study, an optimal cut-off for CpG unit 1 methylation across four data sets was between 10% and 20%. In this cohort, the optimal cut-off across the two endpoints was between 15% and 25%. A natural gap in CpG unit 1 methylation levels occurred between 20% and 25%, adding potential biological significance, as lower values may represent patient cell samples in which both alleles are unmethylated. Applying a 20% cut-off, TTT and OS were significantly different for those with lower and higher methylation levels (both p<0.0001). The 5-year TTT estimates were 22% (95 % CI: 0.16–0.28) and 64% (95% CI: 0.52–0.74), respectively, for patients with low versus high methylation levels; 5-year OS estimates were 80% (95% CI: 0.73–0.85) and 90% (95% CI: 0.81–0.95). Low ZAP-70 methylation was significantly associated with CLL-cell expression of ZAP-70, CD38, or unmutated IGHV status (each p<0.0001). In a model of TTT, expression of ZAP-70 modified the strong effect of ZAP-70 methylation. In patients with CLL cells lacking ZAP-70 expression, high methylation was protective (hazard ratio [HR]=0.37, 95% CI: 0.23–0.58). In contrast, methylation had no significant effect in ZAP-70+ CLL (HR=1.47, 95% CI: 0.81–2.68); TTT was short regardless of methylation levels (Figure 1). IGHV mutation status and expression of CD38 did not provide significant additional prognostic information. The effect modification described for TTT was not observed for OS (p=0.57). Here, ZAP-70 methylation was the strongest risk factor (hazard ratio=0.32, 95% CI: 0.19–0.54; p<0.0001), and expression of ZAP-70, CD38 or unmutated IGHV did not significantly improve the ability to explain differences in OS. Hence, the prognostic value of ZAP-70 CpG unit 1 methylation was confirmed in a large patient cohort with extensive follow-up. We defined a clinically applicable threshold for ZAP-70 methylation assessment and determined its relative value to current prognostic markers in CLL. ZAP-70 methylation predicted longer TTT among patients with CLL cells lacking ZAP-70 expression, but not among those with ZAP-70+ CLL cells, although this could reflect sampling bias due to the small number of patients (n=16) in our cohort with both high methylation and expression of ZAP-70. Lastly, methylation was the strongest risk factor for OS, and neither IGHV mutation status nor expression of ZAP-70 or CD38 significantly improved the ability to predict prognosis. In conclusion, ZAP-70 DNA methylation represents a clinically valuable biomarker for predicting TTT and OS in previously untreated patients with CLL. Disclosures: Gribben: Gilead: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Kay:Celgene: Research Funding.