Schuh, Anna

Abstract Introduction: Ibrutinib (Imbruvica®), an oral, first-in-class covalent BTK inhibitor, is a new treatment option approved by FDA for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients (pts) with ≥1 prior therapy. We previously reported results from the phase III trial, in which ibrutinib (ibr) significantly improved progression-free and overall survival vs ofatumumab (ofa) in pts with relapsed/refractory CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) (Byrd et al. NEJM, 2014). Here, we report measures of patient well-being, including hematologic, immunologic, and quality of-life parameters, at interim analysis (IA). Methods: Pts with CLL/SLL after ≥1 prior therapy were randomized 1:1 to ibr 420 mg/day until progression or unacceptable toxicity, or to ofa for up to 24 weeks. At IA, secondary efficacy endpoints of hematologic improvement (sustained improvement ≥56 days without transfusions or growth factors) and FACiT-Fatigue (FACiT-F) outcomes were analyzed, along with exploratory endpoints assessing disease-related symptoms (DRS), serum immunoglobulin, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) by EORTC QLQ-C30, and medical resource utilization (MRU). Results: Of 391 enrolled pts (ibr n=195; ofa n=196), 63% had cytopenia(s) at baseline: 45% had anemia (hemoglobin ≤11 g/dL), 35% thrombocytopenia (platelets ≤100×109/L), and 20% neutropenia (absolute neutrophil counts [ANC] ≤1.5×109/L). On the ibr arm, 69% of pts with baseline cytopenias experienced sustained improvement in blood counts compared to 43% on ofa (P<0.0001, table). There was no decrement in serum immunoglobulins (IgA, IgG, IgM) during follow-up. IgA levels increased on the ibrutinib arm only (mean change from baseline: 41% at week 24). Immune cells CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell and NK-cell levels remained relatively stable during treatment. Mean change in FACiT-F score from baseline are shown in the figure for ibr and ofa arms. At week 24, clinically meaningful (≥3 points) improvement in FACiT-F occurred in more pts on ibr than ofa (59% vs 46%, P=0.06); clinically meaningful deterioration was reported by 14% vs 24% (P=0.08), respectively. A larger proportion of ibr vs ofa pts showed clinically meaningful improvement on EORTC-QLQ-C30 global health scores (46% vs 40%). Clinically meaningful improvement (≥10 points) from baseline to week 24 in ibr vs ofa pts was observed for fatigue (median 11 vs 0). A 50% reduction in lymph node based on IRC-assessed CT was observed in 93% (177/190 evaluable) of ibr pts compared with 17% (29/174 evaluable) of ofa pts (P< 0.0001). Splenic response based on IRC-assessed CT was reported for 85% (138/163 evaluable) of ibr pts compared with 54% (82/151 evaluable) of ofa pts. Baseline DRS were comparable between groups; however, improvement by at least 1 grade (G) post-baseline was observed in ibr relative to ofa pts for weight loss (100% vs 93%), fatigue (88% vs 72%), night sweats (95% vs 86%), and anorexia (100% vs 64%), respectively. Cumulative MRU was comparable for growth factors and transfusions, with ibr pts having longer median treatment duration: 8.6 months for ibr vs 5.3 for ofa. Hospitalizations in the first 30 days occurred in 2% ibr vs 15% ofa pts. After adjusting for treatment exposure duration, diarrhea, grade 1-2 bleeding events (e.g petechiae), and atrial fibrillation were among those noted to be more frequent on the ibrutinib arm while events such as fatigue, infusion reaction, and peripheral sensory neuropathy were seen more commonly with ofa. Major hemorrhage events were uncommon, observed in 2 patients on the ibr arm vs 3 on ofa arm without adjusting for exposure time. Exposure-adjusted analysis showed no difference in any-grade infection and a 43% relative reduction for grade 3 or higher infections for ibr. Conclusions: Ibr compared to ofa when administered to previously treated CLL/SLL pts led to improvements in hematologic function and disease burden. A survival benefit with ibr, together with sustained improvements in hematologic endpoints and PRO suggest that ibr enhances quality of life while prolonging survival. Table. Sustained hematologic improvement Parameter, n (%) ITT population Pts with cytopenias at baseline Ibr n=195 Ofa n=196 P value Ibr n=195 Ofa n=196 P value Platelets 60 (31) 19 (10) <0.0001 53/74 (72) 14/64 (22) <0.0001 ANC 52 (27) 19 (10) <0.0001 26/41 (63) 12/38 (32) 0.0047 Hemoglobin 42 (22) 32 (16) 0.1883 42/89 (47) 32/86 (37) 0.1815 Figure. Improvement in FACiT-F by treatment arm. Figure. Improvement in FACiT-F by treatment arm. Disclosures Barrientos: Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Brown:Sanofi, Onyx, Vertex, Novartis, Boehringer, GSK, Roche/Genentech, Emergent, Morphosys, Celgene, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Gilead: Consultancy. Kay:Genetech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Hospira: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Coutre:Janssen, Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Tam:Pharmacyclics and Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mulligan:Roche, Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Jaeger:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Devereux:Pharmacyclics, Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Robak:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Schuh:Roche, Gilead, GSK, NAPP, Celgene: Honoraria. Bloor:GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dearden:Roche, GSK, Gilead, Janssen, Napp: Honoraria. Jones:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kierschniak:Pharmacyclics, GmbH: Employment. Eckert:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Suzuki:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Hsu:Pharmacyclics: Employment. James:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Byrd:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Hillmen:Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Gilead, Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Despite recent advances in available treatments, chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) remains an incurable disease, and the vast majority of patients (pts) will relapse and require additional lines of therapy. Thus, prolonging remission is a key treatment goal in CLL. This multicenter, randomized, double-blinded phase 3 trial (NCT00774345) was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide (LEN) vs placebo (PBO) as maintenance therapy in previously treated CLL pts. Methods: Eligible CLL pts must have had at least a partial response (PR) to second-line therapy. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive either LEN 2.5 mg once daily on days 1-28 of the first 28-day cycle, or matching PBO. If LEN was well tolerated, escalation to 5 mg/day was permitted from cycle 2, and further escalation to 10 mg/day at cycle 7 and thereafter. Pts were stratified by their response at the end of second-line therapy (PR, nodular PR, complete response [CR], or CR with incomplete bone marrow recovery; vs minimal residual disease [MRD]-negative CR by flow cytometry); age (≤ 70 vs > 70 years); and presence of at least one of the following poor prognostic factors: del(11q), del(17p), unmutated IGHV, or b2M > 0.4 mg/L (Yes vs No vs Unknown). Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS; IRAC assessed) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included: safety, tumor response, duration of response, second PFS (PFS2, time from randomization to second disease progression or death), and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Results: Overall, 314 pts were enrolled (LEN, n = 160; PBO, n = 154). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the treatment arms: median age was 63 years (range 37-82) and 63 years (range 37-84), 71.9% and 72.1% were male, 9.4% and 11.7% had MRD-negative CR to second-line treatment, and 47.5% and 47.4% had at least one poor prognostic factor, in the LEN and PBO arms, respectively. On review of the primary analysis, 30 Sept 2015 data cutoff, the required number of progression events to complete the co-primary analysis had occurred, and the data monitoring committee recommended that the study be unblinded. Median follow-up time was 31.5 months, and the median PFS was significantly longer for LEN vs PBO: 33.9 vs 9.2 months, respectively (HR 0.40 [95% CI 0.29, 0.55]; P < 0.001). At the time of the analysis there were 86 deaths and there was no significant difference in the OS (HR 0.96 [95% CI 0.63, 1.48]; P = 0.856). Subsequent CLL therapy was received by 35.7% of pts in the LEN arm and 58.4% of pts in the PBO arm, of these pts 16% in the LEN arm and 20% in the PBO arm were treated with a BTK or PI3K inhibitor. Median PFS2 was significantly longer for LEN vs PBO: 57.5 vs 32.7 months, respectively (HR 0.46 [95% CI 0.29, 0.70]; P <0.001). Median number of treatment cycles received was 18 vs 9 cycles, for LEN vs PBO, respectively; a higher proportion of pts in the LEN arm started ≥25 cycles vs the PBO arm (38.9% vs 24.0%, respectively). Median dose intensity in the LEN arm was 4.2 mg/day. The most common adverse events (AEs) of all grades were neutropenia (66.2% vs 30.5%) and diarrhea (40.8% vs 16.2%) in the LEN vs PBO arm, respectively. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 1.9% vs 0%, deep vein thrombosis in 1.9% vs 0%, and pulmonary embolism in 2.5% vs 0.6% of pts in the LEN vs PBO arm, respectively. Most common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (59.9% vs 22.7%), thrombocytopenia (16.6% vs 6.5%), and diarrhea (8.3% vs 0.6%) in the LEN vs PBO arm, respectively; all other grade 3/4 AEs occurred in <5% of pts in either arm. While there was a significant difference in the incidence of neutropenia, the rate of grade 3/4 infections was 16.6% for LEN vs 10.4% for PBO-treated pts. There were 13 (8.3%) vs 14 (9.1%) pts with at least one invasive second primary malignancy (SPM) in the LEN vs PBO arm, respectively. Hematologic invasive SPMs occurred in 7 vs 2 pts, and solid tumor invasive SPMs occurred in 7 vs 12 pts, in the LEN vs PBO arm, respectively. Overall, 44 pts in the LEN arm and 41 pts in the PBO arm died; 1 pt died on treatment in the LEN arm, and 2 pts in the PBO arm. There was no clinically meaningful difference in HRQoL for LEN vs PBO, as measured by FACT-Leu and EQ-5D, during maintenance treatment. Conclusions: LEN maintenance therapy significantly improved PFS from 9.2 to 33.9 months following second-line treatment in pts with CLL. The incidence of invasive SPMs was similar in both arms, and LEN maintenance treatment had an expected and acceptable safety profile. Disclosures Foà: Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Gilead,: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer, Ariad: Speakers Bureau; Genentech, Janssen, BMS: Consultancy. Schuh:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Celgene, Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Zaritskey:Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Semochkin:Celgene, Sandoz, Novartis, Astellas, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Celgene, Bayer Healthcare, Astellas Pharma Inc.: Research Funding; City Clinical Hospital 52, Moscow, Russia: Consultancy. Simpson:Amgen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene, Roche, Janssen: Honoraria. Vokurka:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Zhang:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Purse:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership.