Mandrekar, Sumithra J.

Abstract Introduction Race-ethnic disparities in clinical trial enrollment have the potential to bias findings, limit generalizability, misdirect drug development, and reduce equitable access to novel therapy. The degree to which such disparities exist within acute myeloid leukemia (AML) North American cooperative group trials, biobanks, and correlative studies remain unclear, as are the factors that influence biobank and correlative study participation among trial enrollees. In addition, the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) mandate for Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) to designate catchment areas has not been explored as a mechanism through which AML enrollment disparities can be addressed. Methods We analyzed enrollment data from the 9 Alliance/CALGB AML treatment trials, 2 biobank protocols, and 2 correlative studies active from 1998-2013 and with published results. Trial enrollees could consent to biobank and/or correlative study participation. We compared participation rates of United States (US) enrollees for the mutually exclusive racial-ethnic groups of non-Hispanic (NH)-white, NH-Black, NH-Asian, NH-Native American, and Hispanic using X 2 testing, with NH-white as the comparator and reporting odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Rates were adjusted by national incidence according to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program and the US Census. Testing was repeated for the 55% of participants enrolled at 15 NCI CCCs recruiting ≥10 patients, where incidence was adjusted for catchment area size and demographics. Logistic regression models, clustered by trial, were performed to assess the following predictors for biobank and correlative study participation among trial enrollees: race-ethnicity (NH-white vs non-white), site type (CCC status), age (10-year increments), sex, neighborhood urbanity (urban vs rural) and poverty (<20% vs ≥20% below poverty line) by zip code, and distance from site (10-mile increments). Results There were 3041 trial enrollees at US sites; participant characteristics and demographics by race-ethnicity are shown in Table 1. 93.9% of patients participated in a biobanking study and 60.0% in a correlative study. National incidence adjusted enrollment odds by race-ethnicity are shown in the Figure (top); NH-Black, NH-Asian, and Hispanic persons were enrolled at significantly lower rates than NH-whites; NH-Native American enrollment was significantly higher. Enrollment odds were even lower for NH-Black, NH-Asian, and Hispanic enrollees at CCC sites when adjusted by catchment area incidence (Figure; bottom). Among trial enrollees, there were no univariable predictors of biobank participation, however, male sex (OR 1.12; 95% CI 1.01, 1.37; p=0.04) and NH-white race-ethnicity (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.12,1.57; p<0.001) were associated with correlative study participation. Multivariable models of correlative study participation, with predictors selected based on univariable significance, are shown in Table 2 for all trial enrollees and when restricted to biobank enrollees; in both cases, NH-white race predicted participation. Conclusions Across 15 years of AML cooperative group studies, there were several enrollment disparities by race-ethnicity, which were more pronounced at CCC sites. Over 90% of trial enrollees participated in biobanking, with no race-ethnic differences seen. However, correlative study participation among trial enrollees was higher for NH-whites. Taken together, these data suggest that efforts should focus on increasing trial and correlative study participant diversity-but not biobanking-within NCI-designated CCC catchment areas. Reasonable next steps include identifying key structural, provider, and patient-based barriers to trial and correlative study participation at CCC sites and developing inclusive, multilevel interventions to address them. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Eisfeld: Karyopharm (spouse): Current Employment. Stock: Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; amgen: Honoraria; agios: Honoraria; jazz: Honoraria; kura: Honoraria; kite: Honoraria; morphosys: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria; syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pluristeem: Consultancy, Honoraria. Stone: AbbVie Inc, Actinium Pharmaceuticals Inc, Aprea Therapeutics, BerGenBio ASA, ElevateBio, Foghorn Therapeutics, GEMoaB, GlaxoSmithKline, Innate Pharma, Syndax Pharmaceuticals Inc, Syros Pharmaceuticals Inc, Takeda Oncology: Other: Advisory Committee; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc, Novartis;: Research Funding; ACI Clinical, Syntrix Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Oncology: Other: Data Safety & Monitoring. DeAngelo: Abbvie: Research Funding; Blueprint: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Autolus: Consultancy; Forty-Seven: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Glycomimetrics: Research Funding. Byrd: 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; Novartis, Trillium, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics, Syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Abstract Background CLL International Prognostic Index (CLL-IPI) is a weighted scoring system combining five prognostic factors that was developed for risk stratification of TN CLL in the era of chemoimmunotherapy [CLL-IPI Working Group. Lancet Oncol 2016]. Recently, the four-factor model (CLL4) was validated in patients (pts) receiving ibrutinib, primarily for the treatment of relapsed or refractory CLL [Ahn et al. J Clin Oncol 2021]. Data on model performance are limited when ibrutinib is used as first-line therapy. Here we evaluated CLL4 and CLL-IPI in TN CLL pts aged 65 years or older in the Alliance A041202 trial (NCT01886872) [Woyach et al. N Engl J Med 2018]. Methods Pts were randomized to bendamustine plus rituximab (BR group) or ibrutinib-based therapy with or without rituximab (I/IR group). The CLL4 score was determined for individual pts by assigning 1 point each to the presence of TP53 aberration, β-2 microglobulin (B2M) ≥5 mg/L, elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and prior treatment, and summing over points; risk categories were low (0-1), intermediate (2), and high (3-4). We utilized the first three factors of CLL4 since all pts were previously untreated. The CLL-IPI score was determined based on the presence of TP53 aberration (4 points), B2M >3.5 mg/L (2 points), unmutated IGHV (2 points), age >65 years (1 point), and Rai stage I-IV (1 point), and summing over points; risk categories were low (0-1), intermediate (2-3), high (4-6), and very high (7-10). Two of five CLL-IPI risk factors contributed little information since all pts had Rai stage I-IV and nearly all had age >65 years. The primary endpoint for risk stratification was progression-free survival (PFS). We used Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards models for analyses. Results Of 547 pts randomized, 472 pts had a complete set of data required for the calculation of CLL4 scores. The median age was 71 years, and 92% were older than 65 years. 12% had TP53 aberration including deletion 17p and TP53 mutation. Of 334 pts with known IGHV status, 61% had unmutated IGHV. The median follow-up for PFS was 4.5 years. In these 472 pts, 359 (76%) were low risk, 99 (21%) intermediate risk, and 14 (3%) high risk. In the BR group, PFS was significantly shorter for intermediate/high risk CLL4 than low risk (HR 2.43, 95% CI 1.55-3.79, p=0.0001). However, differences in PFS were less apparent for the I/IR group (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.00-2.56, p=0.05). In 334 pts in whom CLL-IPI scores could be calculated, 6 (2%) were low risk, 38 (11%) intermediate risk, 262 (78%) high risk, and 28 (8%) very high risk. In the BR group, PFS was significantly shorter for high risk CLL-IPI than intermediate risk (HR 3.73, 95% CI 1.16-12.04, p=0.03) and for very high risk CLL-IPI than high risk (HR 6.05, 95% CI 2.80-13.08, p<0.0001). However, there were no significant PFS differences for the I/IR group (high risk CLL-IPI vs intermediate risk: HR 1.33, 95% CI 0.53-3.33, p=0.54; very high risk CLL-IPI vs high risk: HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.48-3.02, p=0.69). We next assessed individual components of the prognostic models in the 334 pt subset including both BR and I/IR groups (Table). Variables significantly associated with PFS were B2M, elevated LDH, and unmutated IGHV when controlling for the treatment group. In contrast, TP53 aberration conferred a poor prognosis in the BR group, but not in the I/IR group (interaction test, p=0.008), indicating first-line therapy with ibrutinib can improve the outcome of TP53 aberrant CLL to levels seen in pts without the aberration. In a multivariable model, the interaction between TP53 aberration and the treatment group remained significant. All adverse risk factors except elevated LDH maintained their independent prognostic value. Conclusions Neither CLL4 nor CLL-IPI effectively discriminated PFS of older adults receiving ibrutinib-based therapy for TN CLL. When given as a first-line treatment, ibrutinib can overcome the poor prognostic impact of TP53 aberration. IGHV mutation status and B2M had independent prognostic value in our dataset. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; Pharmacyclics, An AbbVie Company Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01886872 Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Ruppert: Telios Pharma: Consultancy. Wiestner: Merck: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; Nurix: Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding. Blachly: INNATE: Consultancy, Honoraria; KITE: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria. Byrd: 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; Novartis, Trillium, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics, Syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria. Stone: AbbVie: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Actinium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aprea: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Syntrix/ACI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Innate: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; 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; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onconova: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Gemoab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Elevate Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Foghorn Therapeutics: Consultancy; Boston Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Syndax: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Macrogenics: Consultancy. Woyach: AbbVie Inc, ArQule Inc, Janssen Biotech Inc, AstraZeneca, Beigene: Other: Advisory Committee; Gilead Sciences Inc: Other: Data & Safety; AbbVie Inc, ArQule Inc, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Janssen Biotech Inc, Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company,: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Loxo Oncology Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly & Company: Research Funding.

Abstract Background The phase 3 trial A041202 solidified the Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib as a standard of care for older patients with previously untreated CLL by showing superior progression-free survival (PFS) as compared with bendamustine plus rituximab. While ibrutinib is highly effective in previously untreated CLL, there do remain disadvantages to this therapy, specifically the low rate of complete response (CR) and therefore need for continuous administration, which increases cost and toxicity. In older patients especially, toxicities with ibrutinib are common; with median duration of ibrutinib treatment of 32 months, 17% of patients had atrial fibrillation and 29% had grade 3 or higher hypertension on the A041202 study. Thus, strategies to decrease the exposure time to ibrutinib are of interest. Venetoclax is an inhibitor of BCL2 which has shown efficacy as a single agent and in combination with monoclonal antibodies, specifically the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody obinutuzumab for patients with previously untreated CLL. One significant advantage to venetoclax is the ability to produce CRs and minimal residual disease negative (MRD-) responses. In this study, we compare ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab (IO) to ibrutinib plus venetoclax plus obinutuzumab (IVO) with a response-dependent discontinuation. Study Design and Methods A041702 (NCT03737981) is a randomized phase 3 study led by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology that is currently enrolling through the national clinical trials network (NCTN). Eligible patients are those patients with CLL or SLL age 70 or older who are previously untreated and in need of therapy. Patients with del17p on FISH must be age 65 or older. Previous treatment of autoimmune complications with steroids or rituximab are allowed. Patients must have intermediate or high risk Rai stage, ECOG performance status 0-2, ANC ≥ 1000/mm 3 unless due to marrow involvement and plt ≥ 30,000/mm 3. CrCl must be ≥ 40 mL/min and AST/ALT ≤ 2.5x upper limit of normal. Patients with hepatitis B must have undetectable viral load, and patients must not have an intercurrent illness which is expected to limit survival to < 5 years. Warfarin and strong inhibitors or inducers of CYP3A4/5 are not permitted. Patients are initially pre-registered to the study and submit a peripheral blood sample for central FISH analysis of del(17p). Patients who are registered are randomized 1:1 to Arm 1 (IO) or Arm 2 (IVO), stratified upon Rai stage and presence of del(17p). IO consists of I daily starting cycle 1 day 1, and O dosed as standard starting cycle 1 day 1 and continuing to cycle 6 day 1. IVO consists of IO as in Arm 1, with V starting cycle 3 day 1 with standard 5-week ramp-up and continuing until cycle 14 day 28. At the end of 14 cycles, both arms undergo response evaluation with central peripheral blood and bone marrow MRD testing. Patients on IO then continue I indefinitely. Patients on IVO who are in a bone marrow MRD- CR discontinue all therapy, and those who are not continue I indefinitely. The primary objective of the study is to compare PFS between IO and IVO using the strategy of response-dependent discontinuation. There is 90% power to detect a hazard ratio for PFS of 0.55 (corresponding to 5-year PFS rates of 70% and 82.187% for IO and IVO, respectively), at a one-sided significance level of 0.025 by a log-rank test. This design requires 128 events and 431 total evaluable patients assuming uniform accrual over the course of 3 years and minimum follow-up of 5 years. The study includes two interim analyses for superiority when 50% and 75% of the expected number of events have been observed and three interim analyses for futility when 25%, 50%, and 75% of the expected number of events have been observed. Conclusions A041702 is an ongoing phase 3 clinical trial using a novel response-dependent discontinuation method. Results of this study have the potential to change the standard of care for older patients with previously untreated CLL. The study is expected to accrue until third quarter 2022, and we welcome participation from sites throughout the NCTN. Disclosures Woyach: AbbVie Inc, ArQule Inc, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Janssen Biotech Inc, Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company,: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Loxo Oncology Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly & Company: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences Inc: Other: Data & Safety; AbbVie Inc, ArQule Inc, Janssen Biotech Inc, AstraZeneca, Beigene: Other: Advisory Committee. Ruppert: Telios Pharma: Consultancy. Hill: AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gentenech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte/Morphysis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ding: DTRM: Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stone: Syndax: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Gemoab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aprea: Consultancy; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Foghorn Therapeutics: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Elevate Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onconova: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Innate: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BerGen Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boston Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Syntrix/ACI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Macrogenics: Consultancy. Byrd: Vincerx Pharmaceuticals: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Newave: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis, Trillium, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics, Syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Abstract Introduction: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A041202 is a NCI National Clinical Trials Network phase 3 study (NCT01886872) comparing BR (Arm 1) with ibrutinib (Arm 2) and the combination of ibrutinib plus rituximab (Arm 3) to determine whether ibrutinib-containing regimens are superior to chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in terms of progression-free survival (PFS), and whether rituximab adds benefit to ibrutinib therapy. Initial results showed that ibrutinib-containing regimens had superior PFS to CIT, and that rituximab added to ibrutinib did not improve PFS over ibrutinib alone. Pts and Methods: Eligible pts on A041202 were those age ≥ 65 years with previously untreated, symptomatic CLL. Pts had a CrCl > 40 mL/min, bilirubin < 1.5 x ULN, and no significant life-limiting intercurrent illness or need for warfarin treatment. Pts were stratified on Rai stage, Zap-70 methylation performed centrally, and del(17)(p13.1) or del(11)(q22.3) by local interphase cytogenetics and were randomized 1:1:1 to each arm. Pts on Arm 1 who progressed could cross over to Arm 2. Here we present an updated analysis after the third planned interim analysis of Arms 2 and 3 versus Arm 1, and at the second planned interim analysis for Arms 3 vs 2. PFS and OS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and corresponding hazard ratios with p-values were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. These data encompass patient visits through April 2020 and were locked 15 February 2021. Results: Between 12/9/2013 and 5/16/2016, 547 pts were randomized (Arms 1: 183, 2: 182, and 3: 182). Baseline characteristics have previously been reported; briefly, median age was 71 years, 53% had unmethylated Zap-70, 61% were IGHV unmutated (performed in 66% of patients), 6% had del(17p) and 20% del(11q) by central FISH. Stimulated karyotype was performed centrally and revealed ≥ 3 abnormalities in 27%, and ≥ 5 in 11% of patients. With median follow-up of 55 months (mo), median PFS was 44 mo (95% CI 38-54) in Arm 1 and has not been reached in Arms 2 or 3 [Arm 2 vs 1 hazard ratio (HR): 0.36, 95% CI 0.26-0.52, p<0.0001; Arm 3 vs 1 HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.25-0.51, p<0.0001; Arms 3 vs 2 HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.66-1.48, p=0.96]. 48-month PFS estimates were 47%, 76% and 76% in Arms 1, 2, and 3 respectively (Figure 1). At this time, there are no significant differences in overall survival (OS) among arms (p=0.49). 48-month OS estimates were 84%, 85%, and 86% in Arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Figure 2). The benefit of ibrutinib regimens over CIT, with no additional benefit of rituximab when combined with ibrutinib, was consistent for all subgroups of patients defined by TP53 abnormalities, del(11q), complex karyotype, and IGHV (Figure 3). No significant interaction effects were observed between treatment arm and del(11q), complex karyotype, or IGHV. However, greater benefit of ibrutinib regimens over CIT was observed among patients with TP53 abnormalities than without (p<0.001). Thus in Arm 1, PFS was significantly worse for those with TP53 abnormalities vs without (HR 5.32, 95% CI 3.05-9.27, p<0.0001), but in Arms 2 and 3 combined, there was no significant difference in PFS by presence/absence of TP53 abnormalities (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.51-1.91, p=0.98). Notable adverse events with ibrutinib include atrial fibrillation or flutter (afib) and hypertension (HTN). All grade afib was seen in 11 pts on BR (6%) and 67 pts on ibrutinib (19%). All grade HTN was seen in 95 pts on BR (54%) and 263 pts on ibrutinib (73%). Conclusions: This update of the A041202 trial continues to show that ibrutinib regimens prolong PFS over BR for older patients with treatment-naïve CLL. With longer follow-up, these benefits continue to be seen across subgroups, including those associated with higher risk disease. Strikingly, within the ibrutinib arms, there does not appear to be inferior PFS for patients with abnormalities in TP53, the highest risk feature seen in CLL, and a predictor of inferior PFS with ibrutinib in relapsed CLL. This differentiates ibrutinib (and perhaps BTKi in general) from other targeted therapy paradigms for treatment-naïve CLL. Similar to prior studies, rates of afib and HTN continue to increase with time on therapy. These data support the use of ibrutinib as initial therapy in CLL, and strengthen the rationale for use of ibrutinib for high risk disease. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171, https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org, Pharmacyclics, Inc Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Woyach: Gilead Sciences Inc: Other: Data & Safety; AbbVie Inc, ArQule Inc, Janssen Biotech Inc, AstraZeneca, Beigene: Other: Advisory Committee; AbbVie Inc, Loxo Oncology Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly & Company: Research Funding; AbbVie Inc, ArQule Inc, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Janssen Biotech Inc, Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company,: Consultancy. Ruppert: Telios Pharma: Consultancy. Ding: Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bartlett: ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Seagen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Autolus: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Brander: Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Biosimilars outcomes research panel; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics/Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LOXO: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; NCCN: Other: panel member; ArQule/Merck: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: informCLL registry steering committee, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Barr: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Abbvie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Rogers: Pharmacyclics LLC: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Research Funding; ovartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Research Funding. Parikh: Pharmacyclics, MorphoSys, Janssen, AstraZeneca, TG Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, AbbVie, and Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Verastem Oncology, and AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Coutre: Acerta: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee, Research Funding; Genentech: 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; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, 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; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Larson: Epizyme: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; CVS/Caremark: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding. Erba: 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; 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. Litzow: Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Pluristem: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Blachly: INNATE: Consultancy, Honoraria; KITE: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria. Owen: Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Abramson: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seagen Inc.: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Brown: 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; Invectys: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee Service; Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, SecuraBio, Sun, TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Stone: Onconova: Consultancy; Syntrix/ACI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syndax: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Elevate Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boston Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gemoab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Innate: 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; AbbVie: Consultancy; Actinium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aprea: Consultancy; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Macrogenics: Consultancy. Byrd: Novartis, Trillium, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics, Syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria; Vincerx Pharmaceuticals: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Newave: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

PURPOSE:This randomized, double-blind study sought to understand whether cancer clinical trial consent form verbosity detracts from patients' decision making on trial enrollment.METHODS:This trial tested mock consent forms of 2,000, 4,000, and 6,000 words. The first two comprised the two experimental arms and the third the control arm. Phase II was conducted to identify the promising arm, which, in phase III, was compared with the control arm. Each consent form described the same trial. Eligible adult patients reported a cancer history and English literacy. The primary end point used a patient-reported Likert scale to assess the relationship between information in the consent form and trial decision making.RESULTS:In phase II, 93 patients were accrued and prompted the selection of the 2,000-word consent form for phase III. In phase III, 182 patients were recruited, resulting in 240 total evaluable patients to compare the 2,000-word versus the 6,000-word arm (control). For the primary end point, 103 (84%) and 107 (91%) patients in the 2,000- and 6,000-word arms, respectively, strongly agreed or agreed with the following: “The information in this consent form helped me make a decision about whether or not to enroll in the trial” (two-sided, P = .14). Median time to read each consent form was 8 and 12 minutes, respectively (two-sided, P < .0001). Among those assigned these consent forms, 84% and 73%, respectively (two-sided, P = .04) signed or expressed a willingness to sign.CONCLUSION:This study's primary end point was not met. However, secondary outcomes suggest a need to further study the efficiency and efficacy of shorter consent forms for cancer clinical trial enrollment.

CCTG CLC.2/Alliance A041202 demonstrated superior progression-free survival at 2 years with ibrutinib alone (87%; HR 0.39) or ibrutinib-rituximab (IR 88%; HR 0.38) compared to chemo-immunotherapy with bendamustine-rituximab (BR 74%) in treatment-naïve patients (pts) with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who were 65 or older (Woyach NEJM 2018). We hypothesized that ibrutinib-based therapies would be more costly than BR but that costs would be offset by less toxicity and improved quality of life (QOL). We completed a prospective trial-based economic analysis to study the direct medical costs and quality-adjusted benefit associated with ibrutinib-based therapies compared to BR in the Canadian (CDN) subset of patients enrolled in CLC.2/Alliance 041202. All CDN pts were invited to participate in the companion analysis. Health utilities were collected using the EuroQOL EQ-5D and calculated using CDN population valuations (Bansback PLOS One 2012). Resource utilization forms were administered to collect off-protocol health care encounters. The planned analysis was a cost-utility analysis from the perspective of a public healthcare system, examining the costs and outcomes (quality-adjusted life years or QALYs) of ibrutinib-based therapy compared to BR. Unit costs were applied to resource data based on publicly available provincial/national databases; all costs were expressed in 2019 US dollars (1 CDN = 0.75 US dollar). Total and disaggregated direct medical costs are presented descriptively. Mean survival was calculated using the restricted mean survival method from randomization to the study time-horizon of 24 months; derived utilities were used to calculate QALYs. A discount rate for costs and benefits (r=0.05) was applied. The analysis was based on estimation (with bootstrapping) of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and/or direct medical costs. A total of 55 pts were enrolled; two pts who did not receive any treatment were censored at day 1 and 3 after randomization and excluded from analysis. Of the 53 analysed, pt demographics were well balanced between treatments and were reflective of the entire population: mean age was 71.6 (SD 6.34) in pts receiving ibrutinib alone (n=17), 72.2 (SD 3.85) in pts receiving IR (n=18), and 71.7 (SD 4.1) in pts receiving BR (n=18). A total of 3 pts, one in each arm, had 17p deletion. Progression-free survival at 2 years for CDN pts was 94% (95% CI 65-99%) for ibrutinib, 100% (95% CI 100-100%) for IR, and 72% (95% CI 45-87%) for BR (Figure 1). At 24 months, 1 pt on the BR arm had crossed over to ibrutinib (as per protocol); there was no overall survival difference between the three arms. On-protocol costs (including protocol treatment, ambulatory care, and imaging) and off-protocol costs (including hospitalizations, concomitant medications, and ambulatory care) are highlighted in Figure 2. On-protocol costs were higher for pts receiving ibrutinib (mean $142,001 USD; SD 48,417) and IR ($164,931; SD 46,208) compared to BR ($38,509; SD 10,351), driven by higher drug acquisition costs associated with ibrutinib (list price $6422 for 420mg/30 days). In contrast, off-protocol costs were modestly higher for pts on BR (mean $3050; SD 3812) compared to the ibrutinib ($2460; SD 3863) or IR ($2890; SD 4206); hospitalizations were the key off-protocol cost drivers and were highest for pts on IR and BR. Overall mean costs over the 2-year time horizon were $144,461 (SD 47,910) for pts on ibrutinib, $167,820 (SD 46,830) for pts on IR, and $41,560 (SD 11,849) for pts on BR. Discounted QALYs were similar between the three treatment arms: 1.66 (0.16) for ibrutinib alone, 1.65 (0.24) for IR, and 1.66 (0.17) for BR. Given the similar quality-adjusted survival between arms at the time of this analysis, a formal ICER was not calculated. Direct medical costs are substantially higher for pts receiving continuous ibrutinib-based therapies, compared to chemo-immunotherapy of fixed duration, in frontline CLL management; the key cost driver is the cost of ibrutinib. The PFS benefit with ibrutinib-based therapy has not translated into an advantage in quality-adjusted survival to date; further follow-up may be required to demonstrate any cost or QOL benefits associated with fewer progression events for those on ibrutinib. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; U10CA180863 and #704970 CCTG. https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01886872 Figure Disclosures Owen: AbbVie, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Astrazeneca, Merck, Servier, Novartis, Teva: Honoraria. Lam:Roche: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Crump:Servier: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Sperlich:Lundbeck Canada: Honoraria. Woyach:Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Morphosys, Karyopharm, Verastem, Abbvie, Lox: Research Funding; Janssen, Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Arqule: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company, AbbVie, Janssen, AstraZeneca, ArQule: Honoraria. Prica:astra zeneca: Honoraria; seattle genetics: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Hay:Roche: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding.

This article introduces the adverse event (AE) burden score. The AE burden by treatment cycle is a weighted sum of all grades and AEs that the patient experienced in a cycle. The overall AE burden score is the total AE burden the patient experienced across all treatment cycles. AE data from two completed Alliance multi-center randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials, with different AE profiles (NCCTG 97-24-51: 176 patients, and A091105: 83 patients), were utilized for illustration. Results of the AE burden score analyses corroborated the trials’ primary results. In 97-24-51, the overall AE burden for patients on the treatment arm was 2.2 points higher than those on the placebo arm, with a higher AE burden for patients who went off treatment early due to AE. Similarly, in A091105, the overall AE burden was 1.6 points higher on the treatment arm. On the placebo arms, the AE burden in 97-24-51 remained constant over time; and increased in later cycles in A091105, likely attributable to the increase in disease morbidity. The AE burden score enables statistical comparisons analogous to other quantitative endpoints in clinical trials, and can readily accommodate different trial settings, diseases, and treatments, with diverse AE profiles.