Thomas, Mary L.

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.

e19132 Background: The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General has an item about patient tolerability of treatment: “I am bothered by side effects of treatment” (GP5). We examined the predictive value of this single item for early treatment discontinuation in clinical trials. Methods: GP5 level prior to protocol therapy (rated using a 5-point Likert scale) and treatment start/end dates and off treatment reason data at each treatment phase were drawn from five phase III clinical trials conducted by ECOG-ACRIN. In the present analysis, GP5 was dichotomized as 0 = “Not at all”/“A little bit” and 1 = “Somewhat”/“Quite a bit”/“Very Much”. Early treatment discontinuation was defined either as receiving less than protocol specified cycles of treatment when maximum cycles specified in the protocol (E1A06 induction, E1912 induction, E1609 induction, E1105 induction, E5103 adjuvant), analyzed using logistic regression via odds ratio [OR]), or treatment cessation for reasons other than progressive disease or death when treatment continued until progression or intolerability (E1A06 maintenance, E1912 maintenance, E1609 maintenance, E1105 maintenance), analyzed using Cox proportional hazard model via hazard ratio [HR]. Results: GP5 prior to treatment was significantly associated with early discontinuation of E1A06 maintenance, E1609 maintenance, E1912 maintenance, and E1912 induction. No significant association was found for other therapies examined in the study. Conclusions: High GP5 level prior to treatment is associated with higher likelihood of early treatment discontinuation in patients who have received previous treatment. The limited predictive value of GP5 for treatment naïve patients is more limited, serial on-treatment assessment should be considered in this setting. Clinical trial information: NCT00602641 . [Table: see text]

Abstract Background: The results of the primary endpoint of the E2906 North American Intergroup phase 3 trial - demonstrating significantly inferior OS after single agent clofarabine versus standard intensive daunorubicin & cytarabine induction and consolidation - strongly support the use of intensive therapy for patients age ≥60 years with newly-diagnosed AML who are fit for treatment. This result was achieved despite similar CR rates (including CRi - CR with incomplete blood count recovery) and similar early (30- & 60-day) induction mortality between study arms, raising the question as to the importance of achieving CR as an endpoint. Therefore, we performed a follow-up analysis to address the factors that contribute to early mortality, the necessity for 2nd induction cycle to achieve CR, and to assess the survival impact of the quality of remission. Methods: E2906 design, study population and results for the primary objective were reported previously (ASH 2015, abstr. #217a). We performed this updated analysis to evaluate clinical risk factors for early mortality and re-induction, and to assess the impact of response quality on OS. Univariate comparisons were made with Fisher's exact test (category) and t-test (continuous variable), and logistic regression models were used to examine risk factors associated with early mortality, and with requiring a 2nd cycle of induction therapy. We performed a landmark analysis (beginning Day 60 after initiation of therapy) to determine the impact of response quality (CR/CRi, morphologic leukemia-free-state (MLFS), and treatment failure - i.e. residual/refractory AML) on OS. Survival comparisons were performed with log-rank test. Results: A total of n=727 patients were registered to E2906, the median age is 68 years (range 60-86) and the median follow-up of surviving patients is now 18.3 months. Adjusting for treatment, cytogenetic risk group, FAB subtype, WBC count, and secondary AML, increasing age (p=0.06) and performance status (PS) >1 (p=0.05) were associated with 30-day mortality and only PS >1 (p=0.06) with 60-day mortality. Treatment arm (p=0.003), adverse cytogenetic risk group (p=0.02), increasing age (p=0.03) and baseline WBC <10K (p=0.03) were each independently associated with higher risk of receiving 2nd cycle induction, but there was no difference in CR/CRi (44.2% vs. 42.2%, p=0.58) or in median OS (13.8 versus 12.0 months, p=0.11) for those receiving 1 vs. 2 induction cycles, respectively. We next performed a landmark analysis (day 60, n=608 evaluable patients) to evaluate OS in relation to the quality of response (Table). We observed an advantage in achieving CR and CR/CRi, although the benefit of CRi diminished greatly after 12 months, and OS after MLFS appeared more similar to treatment failure (Figure, p<0.001). The relative adverse impact of CRi and MLFS (vs. CR) was most pronounced for patients treated with clofarabine, where median OS was shorter for those achieving CRi (12.2m vs. 22.6m standard therapy, p=0.007) and MLFS (6.6m vs. 13.4m standard therapy, p=0.15). Conclusion: This follow-up analysis confirms the importance of CR regardless of the number of cycles of induction therapy required to achieve remission, and identifies risk factors associated with early mortality and with requiring re-induction. At longer follow-up the OS after CRi appears to be inferior to true CR, particularly after clofarabine. We hypothesize that this may be due to higher rates of minimal residual disease in CRi, and studies to determine this are being performed. MLFS is not associated with a better overall survival than frank treatment failure (i.e. residual disease) and therefore its value as a response category is uncertain. These results highlight the role of standard intensive remission induction therapy with the intent of achieving CR, which remains the standard of care for fit older adults. Table. Table. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Foran: karyopharm: Honoraria; novartis: Honoraria; medscape: Honoraria; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; pfizer: Honoraria; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; agios: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding. Melnick:Janssen: Research Funding. Altman:Novartis: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Syros: Honoraria. Al-Kali:Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract This phase 3 prospective randomized trial evaluated the efficacy and long-term safety of erythropoietin (EPO) with or without granulocyte colony-stimulating factor plus supportive care (SC; n = 53) versus SC alone (n = 57) for the treatment of anemic patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. The response rates in the EPO versus SC alone arms were 36% versus 9.6%, respectively, at the initial treatment step, 47% in the EPO arm, including subsequent steps. Responding patients had significantly lower serum EPO levels (45% vs 5% responses for levels < 200 mU/mL vs ≥ 200 mU/mL) and improvement in multiple quality-of-life domains. With prolonged follow-up (median, 5.8 years), no differences were found in overall survival of patients in the EPO versus SC arms (median, 3.1 vs 2.6 years) or in the incidence of transformation to acute myeloid leukemia (7.5% and 10.5% patients, respectively). Increased survival was demonstrated for erythroid responders versus nonresponders (median, 5.5 vs 2.3 years). Flow cytometric analysis showed that the percentage of P-glycoprotein+ CD34+ marrow blasts was positively correlated with longer overall survival. In comparison with SC alone, patients receiving EPO with or without granulocyte colony-stimulating factor plus SC had improved erythroid responses, similar survival, and incidence of acute myeloid leukemia transformation.