O’Brien, Susan

Abstract Introduction: Patients diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) exhibit an elevated risk of developing other cancers (OC) relative to the general population. Historically, chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) represented the cornerstone of CLL/SLL management. A systematic review of clinical trials of CIT for CLL that included 28 studies reported 352/3297 (12.6%) patients developed OC (Csanadi 2022). The introduction of targeted agents beginning in the mid-2010's, including Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) and BCL2 inhibitors, has shifted the standard of care toward these novel therapies. In this study, we determined the risk of OC in newly diagnosed CLL/SLL patients cared for at the US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, and Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN. Methods: We identified patients with newly diagnosed CLL/SLL after 1/1/2016 using the VA Central Cancer Registry, MD Anderson, and the Mayo Clinic CLL Databases. The baseline clinical characteristics, CLL treatments, and the occurrence of OC were abstracted by electronic health record (EHR) review. Receipt of CLL directed therapy was categorized into a) CIT only; b) targeted therapy only; c) CIT and targeted therapy; and d) other (including monotherapy with monoclonal antibody therapy). The occurrence of OC was modeled using CLL treatment as a time-dependent variable. Prior and concurrent OC diagnosed within 3 months of CLL/SLL were excluded from analyses, to reduce ascertainment bias. Results: We identified 6844 patients with CLL/SLL who met inclusion criteria. Median follow up was 3.6 years (interquartile range [IQR] 1.9-5.8). The median age at diagnosis of CLL/SLL was 71 years (range, 23 - 102); most patients were white (81%) and male (90%). Although many patients had missing values, among those with available information, IGHV genes were unmutated in 884 (51%), CLL FISH panel showed del17 in 213 (7%), del11q in 389 (13%), trisomy 12 in 674 (23%), and del13q in 1508 patients (50%). A total of 2344 patients received CLL directed therapy during follow-up: 278 (12%) received CIT only, 1809 (77%) received targeted therapy (+/- monoclonal antibody), only 99 (4%) received CIT and targeted therapy and 150 (6%) monoclonal antibody therapy only. Among patients treated with targeted therapies, 950 (50%) received ibrutinib, 381 (20%) received acalabrutinib, 164 (9%) received zanubrutinib, 4 (<1%) received orelabrutinib, 280 (15%) received venetoclax, and 3 (<1%) received sonrotoclax. Other treatments included combinations of a covalent BTKi (cBTKi) and BCL2i in 52 (3%) patients, among others. A total of 583 patients were diagnosed with OC during the study period. Types of OC observed included neoplasms of the prostate (n=129, 22%), lung (n=118, 20%), hematologic malignancies (n=91, 16%), gastrointestinal tract (n=68, 12%), melanoma (n=66, 11%), kidney and bladder (n=44, 8%), head and neck (n=19, 3%), and other/unknown (n=48, 8%). Estimated risk of occurrence of OC was 4.2% (95%CI 3.8-4.8%) at 24 months and 9.7% (95%CI 8.9-10.6%) at 60 months after a diagnosis of CLL/SLL. Multivariable analyses demonstrated that older age (HR: 1.013, 95%CI: 1.00-1.021), male sex (HR: 1.6, 95%CI: 1.1-2.3), and receipt of CLL directed therapy (HR: 1.4, 95%CI: 1.2-1.7) were associated with an increased risk of OC. When considering different types of CLL directed treatments, those who received CIT with or without targeted therapies had the highest risk of development of OC (HR: 1.6, 95%CI: 1.2-2.1). Risk of OC were also increased for those who received CIT only (HR: 1.41, 95%CI: 0.97-2.05) and those who received targeted treatments alone (HR: 1.27, 95%CI: 1.02-1.58). Conclusion: In this large dataset of newly diagnosed patients with CLL/SLL in the past ten years, approximately 10% patients developed OC at 5 years. Receipt of CLL directed therapy was associated with a 40% increased risk of development of OC compared to those patients who did not receive therapy. The risk was highest among patients who received CIT with or without targeted therapy and was still elevated in those who received CIT only or targeted therapy only.

Abstract Patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma progressing after chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy have dismal outcomes. The prespecified post–CAR-T expansion cohort of the ELM-1 study investigated the efficacy and safety of odronextamab, a CD20×CD3 bispecific antibody, in patients with disease progression after CAR-Ts. Sixty patients received IV odronextamab weekly for 4 cycles followed by maintenance until progression. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) by independent central review. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 3 (range, 2-9), 71.7% were refractory to CAR-Ts, and 48.3% relapsed within 90 days of CAR-T therapy. After a median follow-up of 16.2 months, ORR and complete response (CR) rate were 48.3% and 31.7%, respectively. Responses were similar across prior CAR-T products and time to relapse on CAR-T therapy. Median duration of response was 14.8 months and median duration of CR was not reached. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 4.8 and 10.2 months, respectively. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was cytokine release syndrome (48.3%; no grade ≥3 events). No cases of immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome were reported. Grade ≥3 infections occurred in 12 patients (20.0%), 2 of which were COVID-19. Odronextamab monotherapy demonstrated encouraging efficacy and generally manageable safety, supporting its potential as an off-the-shelf option for patients after CAR-T therapy. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02290951.

Introduction: Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) have a higher risk of developing other malignancies compared to the general population (Greene et al, J NCI 1978). Chemoimmunotherapy has previously been the mainstay of treatment and was associated with increased rates of other cancers (OC) (Thompson et al, Blood 2023). Targeted therapies such as Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) and BCL2 inhibitors were approved in the frontline setting in 2016 and 2019, respectively, and are now the standard of care for initial therapy (Shanafelt et al, NEJM 2019; Fischer et al, NEJM 2019). This study aims to compare the incidence of OC in patients with CLL/SLL treated with frontline therapies or managed with active surveillance. Methods: This is a retrospective case-control analysis of patients diagnosed with CLL/SLL during or after 2016 using the Department of US Veteran Affairs Central Cancer Registry (VACCR). Cases were patients with CLL/SLL diagnosed with incident OC, excluding nonmelanoma skin cancers. Frontline treatment with chemoimmunotherapy, monoclonal antibodies alone, or targeted therapies, such as BTKi or BCL2 inhibitor, was the exposure of interest compared to patients on active surveillance. Patients were followed until date of OC, death, or last follow up. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize continuous and categorical variables. Logistic regression was used to analyze the risk of developing OC while adjusting for potential confounders. Results: We identified 5244 patients with CLL/SLL who met inclusion criteria. Median follow up was 3.19 years (interquartile range [IQR] 1.61-5.14). The median age at diagnosis of CLL/SLL was 71.7 years (IQR 66.1-77.3) and most patients were white (78%) and male (97%). 3,460 (66%) patients were managed with active surveillance and 1,784 (34%) patients required frontline treatment: 1,318 (25%) targeted therapy, 329 (6%) chemoimmunotherapy, and 137 (3%) monoclonal antibodies alone. In patients treated with targeted therapies, patients were treated with ibrutinib (776, 59%), acalabrutinib (246, 19%), zanubrutinib (129, 10%), venetoclax (164, 12%), or combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax on a clinical trial (3, <1%). 505 (10%) patients were diagnosed with OC and 4739(90%) patients did not develop OC during the follow up period after diagnosis of CLL/SLL. Types of OC observed included neoplasms of the lung (120, 24%), prostate (105, 21%), gastrointestinal tract (72, 14%), hematologic malignancies (68, 13%), melanoma (45, 9%), kidney and bladder (43, 9%), head and neck (16, 3%), and other/unknown (36, 7%). More patients with OC had a history of tobacco use compared to those diagnosed with CLL/SLL without OC (70% vs 54%, p<0.0001). Fewer patients with OC had a history of alcohol use (60% vs 67%, p<0.0001). In a logistic regression analysis adjusted for age at diagnosis of CLL, race, and tobacco and alcohol use patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy had a higher risk of OC compared to those on observation (OR 2.4, 95% CI: 1.7-3.3, p<0.0001) whereas patients treated with targeted therapies or monoclonal antibodies alone did not have a higher risk of OC (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.9-1.4 and OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.8-2.6, respectively) compared to the patients on active surveillance. A higher proportion of patients with OC were deceased compared to those without OC, 219/505 (43%) vs 1261/4739 (27%), respectively (p<0.0001) at cutoff date. Similar analyses of occurrence of OC in patients followed at tertiary centers including MD Anderson in Houston, Texas and Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota are ongoing and will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion: Initial treatment with targeted therapies or monoclonal antibodies alone was not associated with an increased risk of OC in US veterans diagnosed with CLL/SLL during and after 2016. However, initial treatment with chemoimmunotherapy was associated with a significant increase of OC compared to patients with CLL/SLL managed with active surveillance.

Introduction CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapies are an important option for the management of relapsed/refractory (R/R) DLBCL. Studies suggest that ~50% of pts receiving CAR T-cell therapies will relapse within 6 months, with an estimated overall survival (OS) of only 5 months. Additionally, 25-35% of pts do not receive subsequent treatment, indicating a high unmet need. CD19 loss is a potential mechanism of resistance to CAR T-cell therapies; thus, treatments that target alternate B-cell antigens are an attractive option. Here, we report for the first time the primary analysis of the ELM-1 expansion cohort investigating the efficacy and safety of odronextamab, a CD20×CD3 bispecific antibody, in pts with R/R DLBCL progressing after CAR T-cell therapy (NCT02290951). Methods Pts aged ≥18 with DLBCL and disease progression after CAR T-cell therapy received intravenous odronextamab weekly in 21-day (D) cycles during Cycles (C) 1-4, with steroid prophylaxis and step-up dosing in C1 (described previously), followed by 160 mg on D 1, 8, and 15 of C2-4. After C4, odronextamab maintenance treatment continued at 320 mg Q2W until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Pts with complete response (CR) for ≥9 months transitioned to Q4W dosing. All pts received infection prophylaxis. The primary analysis was conducted when all pts had completed ≥9 months of follow-up. Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR), as assessed by independent central review (ICR) according to the Lugano classification. Key secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and OS. Exploratory endpoints included immune biomarker assessment. Results As of January 22, 2024, 60 pts were treated and evaluable for efficacy and safety, with median follow-up of 16.2 months. Prior CAR T-cell therapies were axi-cel (50%), tisa-cel (12%), liso-cel (10%), and not specified (28%). Median time since prior CAR T-cell therapy was 6.5 months (range 1.2-46.2). Median age was 63 years (range 27-82; aged ≥75 years: 10%), and 65% were male. Pts had received a median of 3 prior lines of therapies (range 2-9); 77% of pts were refractory to their last therapy, 77% were double refractory, and 72% were refractory to prior CAR T-cell therapy. 48% of pts relapsed within 90 D of CAR T-cell therapy, and 67% relapsed within 180 D. Of the 20 pts with available tumor biopsies at baseline, 10 were CD19(-) and only 2 were CD20(-). 92% of pts completed C1 and 52% completed ≥4 C of treatment. The median duration of treatment was 12 weeks (range 0.7-154.1). The ORR and CR rate by ICR were 48% and 32%, respectively, and were consistent across pts with high-risk features and across prior CAR T products. ORR in pts relapsing in ≤90 D was 21% (6/29) and in pts relapsing in ≤180 D was 33% (13/40). ORR was observed even in pts with low CD20. Median DOR was 14.8 months (95% CI 2.8-not estimable [NE]) and median duration of CR was not reached (NR) (95% CI 3.3-NE); the probability of maintaining CR for 24 months was 68%. Median PFS was 4.8 months (95% CI 2.6-5.4) and median OS was 10.2 months (95% CI 4.6-15.8). Median PFS and OS in complete responders was NR. T-cell counts increased at Week 14 and demonstrated a functional phenotype (CD69 expression and TEMRA count), which was confirmed by ex vivo stimulation. T-cell expansion was observed regardless of CAR T product or time from CAR T administration. The most common TEAE was CRS (any grade [G]: 48%; G1: 25%; G2: 23%; G≥3: 0%). G≥3 TEAEs occurred in 77% of pts (most common: neutropenia 17%, anemia 13%, and neutrophil and white blood cell count decrease 10% each). Five pts (8%) permanently discontinued odronextamab due to AEs (COVID-19, pneumonia, encephalopathy, epilepsy, and gait disturbance [n=1 each]). There was one treatment-related death (COVID-19 pneumonia). No cases of ICANS were reported. G≥3 infections occurred in 12 pts (20%); 2 were due to COVID-19. No cases of tumor flare or TLS were reported. Conclusions ELM-1 is the only study to prospectively evaluate efficacy and safety of a CD20×CD3 bispecific antibody in pts with R/R DLBCL progressing after CAR T-cell therapy. Odronextamab monotherapy was associated with encouraging efficacy and generally manageable safety in a setting with limited treatment options and historically dismal outcomes. Efficacy was observed even in pts relapsing in ≤90 D, supporting the potential of odronextamab as an accessible, off-the-shelf option in the post-CAR T setting.

Background Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies have recently been established as an important option for the management of relapsed/refractory (R/R) DLBCL. However, real-world studies suggest that approximately half of all patients (pts) receiving commercial CAR-T therapies will relapse within 6 months. These pts have a poor prognosis, with estimated overall survival (OS) of only 5 months, indicating a significant unmet need. Odronextamab is a novel, off-the-shelf, CD20×CD3 bispecific antibody that has demonstrated activity in both R/R follicular lymphoma and R/R DLBCL. We have previously reported encouraging results with odronextamab from the Phase 1 ELM-1 study (NCT02290951) in pts with R/R DLBCL post CAR-T therapy (Bannerji R, et al. Lancet Haematol. 2022). These results were consistent with the antitumor activity seen in pts with R/R DLBCL from the Phase 2 ELM-2 study (Kim WS, et al. ASH 2022). Here, we present an updated analysis of outcomes in a prespecified cohort of post CAR-T patients from ELM-1. Methods Intravenous odronextamab was administered weekly in 21-day cycles during Cycles (C) 1-4. Revisions to the step-up regimen were reported previously (Bannerji R, et al. Lancet Haematol. 2022). Odronextamab was administered with steroid prophylaxis and step-up doses of 0.7/4/20 mg during C1 to mitigate the risk of cytokine release syndrome (CRS), followed by 160 mg on Days (D) 1, 8, and 15 of C2-4. After C4, odronextamab maintenance treatment continued at 320 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Those pts who achieved a complete response (CR) that was durable for ≥9 months transitioned to dosing with 320 mg every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR), assessed by independent central review (ICR) according to the Lugano classification. Key secondary endpoints included duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), and OS. Immune biomarker assessment was an exploratory endpoint. Results As of Dec 20, 2022, 46 pts were treated (safety-evaluable), with 44 pts evaluable for efficacy. For safety-evaluable pts, median age was 63 years (range 27-82), 67% male, 74% Ann Arbor stage III-IV, and 72% were refractory to CAR-T therapy administered in any prior line. 44 pts were evaluable for efficacy after 4.9 months median duration of follow-up. The ORR and CR rate by ICR were 48% (21/44) and 30% (13/44), respectively. Responses were durable, and both median DoR and median duration of CR were not reached. The probability of maintaining a response for 12 months was 62% and the probability of maintaining a CR for 9 months was 86%.A responder analysis of the subgroup of pts who achieved a CR will be presented. The CAR-T treated pts with DLBCL who were evaluable for biomarker analysis (n=10) had lower T-cell counts at baseline compared with CAR-T naive DLBCL pts (n=41 comparable pts who received odronextamab in ELM-2), yet the fold-change of T-cell expansion at C4D15 was greater in CAR-T treated pts versus CAR-T naive pts. T-cell dynamics, such as changes in activation, exhaustion, and memory subsets, will be presented. Safety was generally consistent with that previously reported. Six (13%) pts permanently discontinued odronextamab due to a treatment-emergent AE (device-related infection, pneumonia, dysphagia, gait disturbance, leukemia, and encephalopathy [n=1 each]). The most common treatment-emergent AE was CRS (any grade, 52%). The highest grade of CRS reported was Grade 2, and low-grade CRS events occurred in 46% of pts with the 0.7/4/20 mg step-up regimen. No cases of ICANS were reported in pts with the 0.7/4/20 mg regimen. Grade ≥3 infections occurred in 10 (22%) pts, with no Grade 5 events. No cases of tumor flare were reported. Conclusions Odronextamab monotherapy demonstrates encouraging antitumor activity in heavily pretreated pts who have progressed after CAR-T therapy, with a generally manageable safety profile. Durable CRs were achieved in this difficult-to-treat setting. These data support the potential role of odronextamab in the treatment paradigm for R/R DLBCL. Further studies to evaluate the optimal sequencing and combinations of odronextamab with CAR-T therapy are warranted.

Abstract Novel treatment strategies are needed for the treatment of Philadelphia chromosome–positive (Ph+) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in older patients. This trial evaluated the feasibility and outcomes with the anti-CD19 bispecific T-cell–engaging antibody, blinatumomab, in combination with dasatinib and steroids. Patients 65 years of age or older with Ph+ or Ph-like ALL (with dasatinib-sensitive fusions/mutations) were eligible and could be newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory. Induction therapy consisted of dasatinib/prednisone. Patients not achieving response by day 56 proceeded to blinatumomab reinduction therapy. Patients achieving response with induction or reinduction therapy proceeded to blinatumomab/dasatinib postremission therapy for 3 cycles followed by dasatinib/prednisone maintenance. All patients received central nervous system prophylaxis with intrathecal methotrexate for a total of 8 doses. Response was assessed at days 28, 56, and 84 and at additional time points based on response parameters. Measurable residual disease was assessed centrally by 8-color flow cytometry at day 28. A total of 24 eligible patients with newly diagnosed Ph+ ALL were enrolled with a median age of 73 years (range, 65-87 years). This combination was safe and feasible. With a median of 2.7 years of follow-up, 3-year overall survival and disease-free survival were 87% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64-96) and 77% (95% CI, 54-90), respectively. Although longer follow-up is needed, these results are encouraging, and future trials are building on this backbone regimen. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02143414.

Abstract Herein, we present the long-term follow-up of the randomized E1912 trial comparing the long-term efficacy of ibrutinib–rituximab (IR) therapy to fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) and describe the tolerability of continuous ibrutinib. The E1912 trial enrolled 529 treatment-naïve patients aged ≤70 years with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Patients were randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) to receive IR or 6 cycles of FCR. With a median follow-up of 5.8 years, median progression-free survival (PFS) is superior for IR (hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; P < .001). IR improved PFS relative to FCR in patients with both immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region (IGHV) gene mutated CLL (HR: 0.27; P < .001) and IGHV unmutated CLL (HR: 0.27; P < .001). Among the 354 patients randomized to IR, 214 (60.5%) currently remain on ibrutinib. Among the 138 IR-treated patients who discontinued treatment, 37 (10.5% of patients who started IR) discontinued therapy due to disease progression or death, 77 (21.9% of patients who started IR) discontinued therapy for adverse events (AEs)/complications, and 24 (6.8% of patients who started IR) withdrew for other reasons. Progression was uncommon among patients able to remain on ibrutinib. The median time from ibrutinib discontinuation to disease progression or death among those who discontinued treatment for a reason other than progression was 25 months. Sustained improvement in overall survival (OS) was observed for patients in the IR arm (HR, 0.47; P = .018). In conclusion, IR therapy offers superior PFS relative to FCR in patients with IGHV mutated or unmutated CLL, as well as superior OS. Continuous ibrutinib therapy is tolerated beyond 5 years in the majority of CLL patients. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02048813.

Abstract Background: The phase 3 head-to-head trial of acalabrutinib (acala) vs ibrutinib (ibr) (NCT02477696) demonstrated noninferior efficacy and improved tolerability with acala in previously treated CLL (Byrd J Clin Oncol 2021). We now report additional data to further characterize BTKi-related adverse events (AEs) and the safety profile of acala and ibr, including measures of AE burden that account for frequency, duration, and drug exposure, which are not captured by incidence alone. Methods: Patients (pts) received oral acala 100 mg BID or ibr 420 mg QD until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Overall incidence, exposure-adjusted (exp-adj) incidence, and exp-adj time with event (sum of event durations [all grades]*100/sum of treatment-emergent period [for all pts in each arm]) were assessed for the most common BTKi-related AEs. Atrial fibrillation (afib)/flutter, hypertension (htn), and bleeding events were further characterized by time to onset, cumulative incidence by Kaplan-Meier method, pt subgroup, and AE management. Results: A total of 533 pts (acala, n=268; ibr, n=265) were randomized; median treatment exposures were 38.3 and 35.5 mo, respectively. Incidence and exp-adj incidence and time with event are reported for the most common AEs and events of clinical interest (ECIs) (Table). Among cardiovascular (CV) ECIs, incidences of any-grade afib/flutter, htn, and bleeding were statistically higher with ibr, with higher exp-adj incidence (2.0-, 2.8-, and 1.6-fold, respectively) and exp-adj time with event (2.8-, 3.7-, and 1.8-fold). Ventricular arrhythmias were reported in 3 ibr-treated pts vs 0 pts in the acala arm. Among other BTKi-related AEs, incidences of any-grade diarrhea, arthralgia, contusion, urinary tract infection (UTI), back pain, muscle spasms and dyspepsia were statistically higher with ibr, with a 1.5- to 4.1-fold higher exp-adj incidence, and a 1.4- to 13.1-fold higher exp-adj time with event (except for UTI, which had a 1.4-fold lower exp-adj time with event for ibr). Incidences of headache and cough were statistically higher with acala, with a 1.6- and 1.2-fold higher exp-adj incidence, respectively, and a 1.4- and 1.1-fold higher exp-adj time with event. The total exp-adj time with event for all any-grade AEs was 37% higher with ibr (234 [acala] vs 320 [ibr] mo/100 person-mo). For any-grade afib/flutter, median time to onset was longer for acala vs ibr (28.8 vs 16.0 mo), and cumulative incidence was lower for acala at 6 mo (2% vs 6%), 12 mo (3% vs 8%), 18 mo (4% vs 10%), and 24 mo (5% vs 12%). Afib/flutter also occurred less frequently with acala vs ibr in subgroups of age (<65 y: 3% vs 7%; ≥65 y: 15% vs 23%), prior line of therapy (1-3: 10% vs 16%; ≥4: 7% vs 19%), and among pts without prior history (6% vs 15%). Cox proportional-hazards (PH) analysis of new-onset afib/flutter showed a 63% rate reduction favoring acala (Figure 1). Among all pts, concomitant medication use for afib/flutter was less common for acala (8%) vs ibr (14%), with antithrombotic use reported in 5% vs 9% of pts, respectively. For any-grade htn, median time to onset was similar for acala and ibr (8.1 vs 7.0 mo), but cumulative incidence was lower for acala at 6 mo (5% vs 12%), 12 mo (6% vs 16%), 18 mo (8% vs 20%), and 24 mo (8% vs 23%). Htn also occurred less frequently with acala vs ibr in subgroups of age (<65 y: 9% vs 23%; ≥65 y: 10% vs 23%), prior line of therapy (1-3: 10% vs 25%; ≥4: 4% vs 11%), and among pts without prior history (7% vs 23%). Cox PH analysis of new-onset htn showed a 77% rate reduction favoring acala (Figure 2). No dose reductions or treatment discontinuations due to htn occurred in either arm. Concomitant medication use for htn was less common for acala (5%) vs ibr (19%). For any-grade bleeding events, the median time to onset was similar for acala vs ibr (1.2 vs 1.2 mo), and cumulative incidence was lower for acala at 6 mo (29% vs 42%), 12 mo (32% vs 45%), 18 mo (34% vs 49%), and 24 mo (38% vs 51%). Bleeding events also occurred less frequently with acala vs ibr in most subgroups of age (<65 y: 26% vs 47%; ≥65 y: 49% vs 55%) and prior line of therapy (1-3: 39% vs 54%; ≥4: 32% vs 30%). Bleeding events were associated with dose reduction in 3 vs 2 pts in the acala vs ibr arms, respectively, and led to treatment discontinuation in 2 vs 4 pts. Conclusions: In this head-to-head trial of BTKis in CLL, event-based analyses demonstrated a higher BTKi-related toxicity burden with ibr, with a lower impact of CV-related toxicity with acala across subgroups. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Seymour: AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mei Pharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: 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, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Byrd: Novartis, Trillium, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics, Syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria; Newave: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vincerx Pharmaceuticals: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hillmen: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; SOBI: Honoraria; BeiGene: Honoraria. Ghia: Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/Juno/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; ArQule/MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kater: Genmab, LAVA: Other: Ad Board, Steering Committee; Janssen, AstraZeneca: Other: Ad Board, steering committee, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Ad Board, Research Funding; BMS, Roche/Genentech: Other: Ad Board, , Research Funding. Chanan-Khan: Ascentage: Research Funding; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals, NonoDev, Starton: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Cellectar: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties: Tabi; BeiGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Honoraria; Ascentage, Starton, Cellectar, NonoDev, Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BieGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Consultancy. Furman: Genentech: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; X4 Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Expert testimony; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Oncotracker: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Verastem: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Honoraria. O'Brien: Amgen, Astellas, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Aptose Biosciences Inc., Vaniam Group LLC, AbbVie, Alexion, Verastem, Juno Therapeutics, Vida Ventures, Autolus, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, NOVA Research Company, Eli Lill: Consultancy; Kite, Regeneron, Acerta, Caribou, Gilead, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics, Pfizer, Sunesis: Research Funding. Brown: Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, SecuraBio, Sun, TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Invectys: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee Service; Abbvie, Acerta/Astra-Zeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Juno/Celgene, Catapult, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Morphosys AG, Nextcea, Novartis, Pfizer, Rigel: Consultancy. Mato: Genmab: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; Nurix: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; MSKCC: Current Employment; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Stilgenbauer: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis: Honoraria; AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis: Other: Research Support; AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis: Consultancy; AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis: Research Funding. Kuptsova-Clarkson: AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; AbbVie: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Miranda: ASTRAZENECA: Current Employment; ASTRAZENECA: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Wagner: AstraZeneca: Current Employment. Higgins: AstraZeneca: Current Employment; PROMETRIKA, LLC: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Sohoni: AstraZeneca: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Ended employment in the past 24 months; Revolution Medicines: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Theravance: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Jurczak: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Celtrion, Celgene, Debbiopharm, Epizyme, Incyte, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, Merck, Mei Pharma, Morphosys, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Sandoz, Takeda, TG Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, Affirmed, Gilead Sciences, Nordic Nanovecto: Research Funding; AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, Sandoz, Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology: Current Employment; Jagiellonian University: Ended employment in the past 24 months; European Medicines Agency, Sandoz-Novartis, Janssen China R&D, BeiGene, Epizyme, Acerta, AstraZeneca: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: The ECOG-ACRIN randomized phase 3 clinical trial E1912 established ibrutinib-rituximab (IR) as the standard of care for CLL patients <= 70 years in the frontline setting by improving the progression free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to previous standard chemo-immunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR) (Shanafelt et al. NEJM 2019). Quality of life (QOL) was an important secondary endpoint on this trial comparing continuous (IR) vs time-limited (FCR) therapy due to the differing profile of treatment-related toxicities over the short and long-term. E1912 patient-reported outcomes (PROs) results are presented here. Methods: Patients enrolled on E1912 completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) and Leukemia subscale at randomization (baseline), 3, 6, and 12 months post-randomization, and every 6 months for 2 years regardless of disease status. The primary outcome was the 31-item FACT-Leukemia Trial Outcome Index (FACT-Leu TOI), calculated by summing items from the FACT-G physical wellbeing (PWB), functional well-being (FWB), and leukemia subscales (score range: 0-124). The primary endpoint was defined as the difference in FACT-Leu TOI change scores from randomization to 12 months (at response evaluation) between patients treated with continuous therapy Arm A (IR) vs time-limited therapy Arm B (FCR). Mean change scores from baseline to each time point were calculated using all cases with data at baseline and the corresponding time point. Comparisons between treatment arms were performed using two-sample t tests. Linear mixed effects models were used to estimate the trajectories of PRO scores. Results: PRO data was extracted on 3/8/2021. PRO data was provided at baseline and 12 months for 233/354 (65.8%) patients on the IR arm and 118/175 (67.4%) patients on the FCR arm. At enrollment, there were no significant differences in the baseline FACT-Leu TOI scores (mean ± SE) between the two arms: IR (93.27 ± 1.03) vs FCR (92.68 ± 1.38; p=0.73). The FACT-Leu TOI score improved from baseline to 12 months in both arms (Table 1 and Figure 1). The change scores from baseline to 12 months, the primary outcome, were not significantly different between IR (7.59 ± 1.09) vs FCR (8.22 ± 1.44; p=0.73). Change in FACT-Leu TOI from baseline to 3 months was 5.77 ± 0.77 and 4.06 ± 1.18 (p=0.22); and from baseline to 6 months was 6.87 ± 0.87 and 8.01 ± 1.44 (p=0.50) in the IR and FCR arms, respectively. After the first 6 months of treatment, the improvement in FACT-Leu TOI scores was maintained in both treatment arms. There was no significant difference in total FACT-Leu TOI score in the continuous therapy (IR) vs time-limited therapy (FCR) arms over the first 36 months post registration. Analysis of FACT subscales showed PWB improved in the IR arm (0.37 ± 0.22) and declined in the FCR arm (-0.92 ± 0.39) from baseline to 3 months (p=0.004 for difference in PWB change between arms) but there was no significant difference between the two arms for change in PWB scores from baseline to 6 and 12 months. There were no significant differences between the two arms for change in FWB and FACT-Leu subscales from baseline to 3, 6 and 12 months. Conclusions: QOL improves in CLL patients age 70 and younger when treated in the frontline setting with IR or FCR. The improvement in QOL is maintained during continuous therapy with ibrutinib and there is no significant decline in QOL over time. Given the improvement in PFS and OS with IR over FCR seen in E1912, the results of this QOL analysis support the use of frontline ibrutinib in previously untreated younger CLL patients. Acknowledgement: This study was conducted by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (Peter J. O'Dwyer, MD and Mitchell D. Schnall, MD, PhD, Group Co-Chairs) and supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under award numbers: U10CA180794, U10CA180820, UG1CA189863, UG1CA190140, UG1CA232760, UG1CA233180, UG1CA233230, UG1CA233253, UG1CA233277, UG1CA233290, UG1CA233339, UG1CA189859, UG1CA233332. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kay: Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CytomX Therapeutics: 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; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Targeted Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. O'Brien: Amgen, Astellas, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Aptose Biosciences Inc., Vaniam Group LLC, AbbVie, Alexion, Verastem, Juno Therapeutics, Vida Ventures, Autolus, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, NOVA Research Company, Eli Lill: Consultancy; Kite, Regeneron, Acerta, Caribou, Gilead, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics, Pfizer, Sunesis: Research Funding. Coutre: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee, Research Funding. Barr: AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Abbvie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Cashen: Secura Bio, ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Mato: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; MSKCC: Current Employment; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB, Research Funding; Nurix: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding. Erba: AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; Astellas; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb company; Daiichi Sankyo Inc; Genentech, a member of the Roche Group; GlycoMimetics Inc; Incyte Corporation; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; Kura Oncology; Nov: Other: Advisory Committee; AbbVie Inc: Other: Independent review committee; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; ALX Oncology; Amgen Inc; Daiichi Sankyo Inc; FORMA Therapeutics; Forty Seven Inc; Gilead Sciences Inc; GlycoMimetics Inc; ImmunoGen Inc; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; MacroGenics Inc; Novartis; PTC Therapeutics: Research Funding; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb company; Incyte Corporation; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Stone: Onconova: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Boston Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Gemoab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Elevate Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syndax: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; BerGen Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Foghorn Therapeutics: Consultancy; Innate: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Actinium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syntrix/ACI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aprea: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Macrogenics: Consultancy. Litzow: Actinium: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Pluristem: Research Funding; Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Astellas: Research Funding; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Tallman: NYU Grand Rounds: Honoraria; Kura: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Innate Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biosight: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncolyze: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KAHR: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orsenix: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi-Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Orsenix: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Honoraria; UC DAVIS: Honoraria; Northwell Grand Rounds: Honoraria; NYU Grand Rounds: Honoraria; Danbury Hospital Tumor Board: Honoraria; Acute Leukemia Forum: Honoraria; Miami Leukemia Symposium: Honoraria; New Orleans Cancer Symposium: Honoraria; ASH: Honoraria; NCCN: Honoraria. Shanafelt: Genentech, Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Wagner: Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson: Other: Spouse, previously held individual stocks;; Celgene-BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Athenex Inc: Consultancy.

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