Roeker, Lindsey E.

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.

Introduction: With a median overall survival (OS) measured in months, successful treatment of Richter's transformation (RT) of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) remains a major unmet medical need. While targeted agents, such as Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) monotherapy, have greatly improved outcomes for patients (pts) with CLL and some B-cell lymphomas, available BTKi therapies have been ineffective for RT, as well as for large cell transformation of indolent B-cell lymphomas and relapsed/refractory (r/r) DLBCL, which rapidly develop mechanisms of resistance by activation of downstream targets of BTKi or upregulation of alternative/parallel pathways. Focusing on a synthetic lethality approach via in vitro and in vivo studies, we discovered that concurrent inhibition of BTK & mTOR targets plus an IMiD synergistically kill malignant B-cells. DTRM-555 is an optimized oral triple combination of a novel irreversible BTKi DTRMWXHS-12 (DTRM-12), everolimus (EV) and pomalidomide (POM). This once daily therapy was tested in a stepwise, phase I, multicenter study in pts with the greatest unmet medical needs. Here we present results for this novel combination therapy in pts with RT, and r/r DLBCL. Methods: We conducted a phase I (3+3 design), first in human trial exploring DTRM-555 in adult pts with B-cell lymphomas with no available standard therapies (NCT02900716) at 6 US cancer centers. Our goal was to determine the optimal dose for DTRM-555. In phase Ia, an MTD was not reached for DTRM-12 monotherapy; In phase Ib and expansion cohorts, we evaluated double (DTRM-12/EV at 200mg/5mg or 300mg/5mg) and triple combinations (DTRM-12/EV/POM at 200mg/5mg/2mg or 300mg/5mg/2mg) administered once daily for 21 days of a 28-day cycle, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was safety and the dose limiting toxicity (DLT) period was cycle 1 (28 days). Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR; Cheson 2014), duration of response (DOR), and DTRM-12 pharmacokinetics. The trial began on 9/27/2016 and completed enrollment with evaluable follow-up data cut-off date on 08/06/2020. Results: 39 pts were enrolled and treated, including 24 with RT (n=12) or r/r DLBCL (n=12). The safety analyses included all 39 pts treated with combination therapies while efficacy analyses were focused on RT and r/r DLBCL. Baseline characteristics (n=39): 66% male, median age 71 years (range 43-94) and 94% white. For the entire study cohort, median number of prior therapies was 3 (range 1-10), 49% had been treated with prior BTKi monotherapy,13% prior CAR-T or stem cell transplant (SCT) and 59% ≥1 prior small molecule targeted agent. For pts with RT and r/r DLBCL (n=24), median prior therapies were 5 (range 1-10) and 2 (range 10), respectively. Table 1 summarizes prior therapies for the 24 RT and r/r DLBCL pts. Table 2 describes Grade 3 and 4 related AEs for 39 pts treated with the combination therapies. AEs were manageable and similar to known AEs for BTKi, EV or POM, with a total of 4 DLTs observed with combination therapies. The most common AEs were hematological events; specifically, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and anemia. The MTD of DTRM-555 was determined to be DTRM-12 200mg, EV 5mg, & POM 2mg. For 11 evaluable RT pts, ORR was 45% (1 CR, 4 PR); 1 RT pt has not undergone first response assessment. For 10 evaluable DLBCL pts, ORR was 60% (2 CR, 4 PR). Responders with RT or r/r DLBCL have durable responses (Figure 1). Kaplan Meier estimated median duration of response for RT and DLBCL pts was 15 months as of the cut-off. Dose dependent DTRM-12 drug plasma levels were observed in all arms with minimal inter-pt variability. Conclusions: This clinical trial met its primary endpoint. The once-daily oral triple combination therapy DTRM-555 has an acceptable safety profile. Encouraging clinical activity was observed in several high-risk, multi-refractory pts with RT (median 5 prior therapies, ORR 45%) or r/r DLBCL (median 2 prior therapies, ORR 60%), including pts previously treated with targeted therapies, cellular therapies, checkpoint inhibitors and other experimental agents. A phase II US expansion study is underway targeting pts with RT, r/r DLBCL, r/r transformed follicular lymphoma and BTKi/BCL2 inhibitor exposed r/r CLL pts. Disclosures Mato: Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Schuster:AlloGene, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Juno/Celgene, Loxo Oncology, Nordic Nanovector, Novartis, Tessa Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis, Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding. Ding:DTRM: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Brander:Tolero: Research Funding; NCCN: Other; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Other; NCCN: Other; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Other, Research Funding; Juno/Celgene/BMS: Other, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; DTRM: Other, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; BeiGene: Other, Research Funding; Ascentage: Other, Research Funding; ArQule: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Other. Tun:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acrotech: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding. He:DTRM Biopharma LLC: Current Employment. Kearney:DTRM Biopharma LLC: Current Employment. Gui:DTRM Biopharma LLC: Current Employment. McKinlay:DTRM Biopharma LLC: Current Employment. Roeker:American Society of Hematology: Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: spouse with minority ownership interest ; Abbott Laboratories: Other: spouse with minority ownership interest . Huntington:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; DTRM: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Astrazeneca: Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding.

Targeted agents have greatly improved outcomes for patients (pts) with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and other B cell lymphomas; however, single agents have been limited by intolerance, resistance and depth/durability of responses. Current novel targeted agent combinations may improve depth of response, but such "full dose" strategies have been associated with significant AEs, dose reductions/interruptions and discontinuations. Our in vitro & in vivo screening/optimization studies identified that concurrent inhibition of BTK & mTOR targets plus IMiD at low doses of each inhibitor can synergistically kill B-cell malignancies and may address drug-resistance. DTRM-555 is an optimized oral triplet combination of a novel BTK inhibitor DTRMWXHS-12 (DTRM-12) with everolimus (EV) & pomalidomide (POM). This once daily therapy was tested in a stepwise, phase I, US multicenter study in patients with highest unmet medical needs including r/r CLL, Richter's transformation (RT) of CLL, DLBCL, transformed B-cell lymphomas. We conducted a 3+3 design phase I, first human trial exploring DTRM-555 in pts ≥18 years, ECOG PS ≤1 with CLL, B-cell NHL, or Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) with no available standard therapy (NCT02900716). Our goal was to determine optimal doses for triplet combination therapy through 3 escalating phases of study: DTRM-12 in escalating doses (50, 100, 200, & 300 mg/day) in Part Ia, DTRM-12 at 200 mg or 300 mg & EV at 5 mg (doublet or DTRM-505) in Part Ib Arm A while DTRM-12 at 200 mg or 300 mg, EV at 5 mg & POM at 2 mg in Part Ib Arm B. For all arms, treatment was administered for 21 consecutive days of a 28-day cycle, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Safety was the primary endpoint, and the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) period was cycle 1. Secondary endpoints included response (iwCLL 2018 or Cheson 2014), progression free survival, duration of response and pharmacokinetics. Intra-patient migration between arms (Mono to doublet to triplet) was permitted if subsequent doses were tolerated. The trial commenced 9/27/2016 and completed enrollment 7/25/2019. Thirty-three pts were enrolled, including 2 screen failures and 4 intra-cohort migrations, with r/r DLBCL (n=8), CLL/SLL (n=5), RT (n=6), FL (n=5), MCL (n=4), MZL/LPL (n=3), HL (n=2). 30 of 31 treated pts were evaluated: 8 pts participated in phase Ia (DTRM-12) while 23 pts were treated on phase Ib combinations (DTRM-505 & DTRM-555). Baseline characteristics: 70% male (n=23), median age 70 years (range 46-94) and 94% white. Median prior therapies were 3 (range 1-10), 53% had been treated with ≥1 prior targeted agent (i.e., CD19/CD3 bispecific antibody, obtinutuzumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, ibrutinib, venetoclax, PI3k-i), CAR-T or HSCT. 35% pts were previously treated with ibrutinib. Table 1 describes Grade (Gr) 3 and 4 AEs (all causality, stratified by treatment arm). Regarding safety, AEs were manageable, with a total of 5 DLTs were observed: 2 (Gr 3 febrile neutropenia, URI) in part Ib arm A, 3 (Gr 4 thrombocytopenia, Gr 3 diarrhea, G3 febrile neutropenia) in Part Ib arm B. No MTD was reached for the mono & doublet arms, with the MTD of the triplet determined to be DTRM-12 200 mg, EV 5 mg, & POM 2 mg. Spider plot (Figure 1a) shows the clinical response for individual CLL and lymphoma pts treated with mono, doublet and triplet therapies. Depth and durability of response improved with combination therapies (vs. mono). Of note, 48% of all patients had a ≥50% reduction in sum of the products of lymph node diameters. Representative PET-CT scans are in Figure 1b-c. Responses in multi-refractory pts are ongoing (including 15+ mos in a pt with r/r DLBCL and 5+ mos PR in a pt aged > 90 yrs with r/r DLBCL; 4+ & 13+ mos PRs in two pts with RT). DTRM-12 plasma concentrations were unaffected by EV & POM (Once Daily Oral Therapies) in Figure 1d. The clinical trial met its primary endpoint as the triple combination DTRM-555 had an acceptable safety profile. Dose dependent drug levels with minimal inter-pt variations were observed in all arms, supporting once daily oral administration of this low-dose combination therapy. Encouraging clinical activity was observed in several high-risk, multi-refractory CLL and lymphoma pts, including those previously treated with ibrutinib. Thus synthetic lethality is a viable treatment approach. A phase II US expansion study is underway targeting pts with transformed lymphomas (follicular or prior CLL) and r/r DLBCL cohorts. Table 1. Disclosures Mato: AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB member , Research Funding; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding. Schuster:DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding. Foss:Mallinckrodt: Consultancy; Acrotech: Consultancy; miRagen: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other: fees for non-CME/CE services ; Eisai: Consultancy; Spectrum: Other: fees for non-CME/CE services . Isufi:Novartis: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Ding:Merck: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding. Brander:Novartis: Consultancy; MEI: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; BeiGene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding. Tun:Mundi-pharma: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. He:DTRM Biopharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kearney:DTRM Biopharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gui:DTRM Biopharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Anderson:Theradex: Employment. Roeker:AbbVie: Equity Ownership; Abbott Laboratories: Equity Ownership. Huntington:Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; DTRM Biopharm: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Everolimus in B cell lymphomas and CLL Pomalidomide in B cell lymphomas and CLL

Abstract Introduction: Given the availability of several active treatment (tx) options for CLL, providers frequently make tx recommendations based on their interpretation of objective data from consensus criteria and clinical trials. There are limited data describing patient (pt) experience, values, and insights when encountering multiple tx choices. The CLL Society, a pt-driven, physician-curated nonprofit organization focused on the unmet needs of the CLL community, sought to explore how CLL pts make tx decisions. Methods: A 64 question survey was distributed online and in paper to CLL pts from Oct-Dec 2017. The survey was developed by CLL experts. The research was IRB-approved. Chi square was used for statistical comparison; all other analyses are descriptive in nature. Results: 1147 pts from 48 states completed the survey. Median age was 65 (range 28-86), 46% male, 96% Caucasian. Who Influences Tx: Of the 79% of pts who have seen a CLL expert, defined as a provider focused on CLL at an academic/research center, 95% rated their provider as very/extremely influential. 83% of pts rated their own opinions as influential, and 59% rated the opinion of a general hematologist/oncologist (gen heme/onc), a provider who sees a variety of cancer types, as influential. Only 27% let their provider unilaterally decide on tx. Of these pts, 19% trusted their provider to select the best tx and 5% didn't have enough understanding to be involved in the decision. 64% were influenced by outside sources of information, such as family members, live CLL support groups, or online sources including pt experts and forums. Factors in Deciding Tx: Of the 67% pts surveyed who have been treated, 73% were offered > 1 tx choice by their provider. In deciding on a specific tx, 94% of respondents stated that it was very/extremely important to know there were tx options beyond their current regimen. The most important factors in selecting tx were response rate (91%), overall survival (88%), progression-free survival (86%), long-term side effects (82%), ability to achieve undetectable MRD (80%), cost/insurance coverage (66%), and location of tx (50%) with significant differences between subgroups (Table 1). Tx was impacted by cost or insurance issues for 16% (n=104). Of these 104 pts, cost/insurance issues resulted in tx delay for 34 and change in tx plan for 24 pts. 16 pts reported that an appeal led to coverage and 16 pts received financial assistance. Pts' willingness to accept potentially curable but high-risk tx was heavily influenced by availability of alternate options. For example, 18% of pts would be willing to consider cytotoxic chemotherapy if alternate options were available vs. 72% if no options were available. Similar patterns were seen with CAR-T tx (28% vs. 79%) and bone marrow transplantation (BMT) (15% vs. 66%) with significant differences between subgroups (Table 2). 82% were willing to take a life-long tx for long-term control without potential for cure. Willingness to accept long-term tx was significantly higher in treated vs. untreated pts (84% vs. 77%, p=.006) and men vs. women (84% vs. 78%, p=.008). Clinical Trial Education: Of those treated by a gen heme/onc, 31% received no education on clinical trials. Only 15% reported good understanding of trial opportunities vs. 52% treated by a CLL expert (p<.001). 9% of pts treated by gen heme/onc were offered clinical trial participation vs. 47% treated by a CLL expert (p<0.001). Pts who declined or would have declined participation cited reasons including preference for "proven" tx (38%), distance from trial site (29%), fear (20%), frequent imaging (20%), overall lack of understanding about trials (15%), and lack of information (14%). Summary: Most respondents want to be and are involved in tx decisions. While providers are influential in decision making, CLL pts also rely on outside sources. Gender, age, and tx status influence which factors drive decision making. Pts select tx based on response rate, survival, side effects, and ability to achieve deep response and want a plan in place for sequencing tx. The majority are willing to consider long-term tx without cure. Few want chemotherapy, CAR-T, or BMT unless they have no other options. A significant opportunity for improvement in education on clinical trial opportunities was identified. This description of pt experience, values, and preferences enriches the informed consent process and may lead to more tailored and patient-centered care. Disclosures Kennard: AbbVie, Gilead, Verastem: Consultancy. Furman:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; Genentech: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Pagel:Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Davids:Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Nabhan:Cardinal Health: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kay:Acerta: Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Siddiqi:Juno Therapeutics: Other: Steering committee. Brander:Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; BeiGene: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Acerta: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; DTRM: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding. Wierda:AbbVie, Inc: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Hill:Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cheson:AbbVie, Roche/Genentech, Pharmacyclics, Acerta, TG Therapeutics: Consultancy. Choi:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Rigel: Consultancy; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie, Inc: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Mato:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Prime Oncology: Honoraria; Portola: Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; Medscape: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 3555 Background: Although treatment-related acute myeloid leukemia (tr-AML) has been identified as an independent marker of poor prognosis, it is important to determine how characteristics of the patient, primary malignancy, or treatment regimen affect the development and outcome of tr-AML. Taxane therapy has become essential in the management of breast cancer in light of its favorable effect on survival in short term studies. However, clinical trials fail to capture acute leukemias related to recently introduced agents since development of tr-AML occurs years after chemotherapy. Aim: To examine the effect of taxane therapy on clinical outcome of patients who were treated for breast cancer and subsequently developed tr-AML. Methods: This retrospective chart review considers patients diagnosed with AML at Mayo Clinic between 1990 and 2011. Patients were included if they had previously received chemotherapy for breast cancer, or if they had never received any chemotherapy. Demographic data, previous diagnosis and treatment regimen, CBC at diagnosis, pathology and cytogenetic information, therapy used, and response were collected for each patient. IRB approval was obtained. Comparison between two groups was done using t-test; survival estimates using Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed with software JMP 9. Results: A total of 88 adult females with AML were identified. Median age at AML diagnosis was 58 years (range 19–86). Median hemoglobin was 8.9 g/dL (4–14.5), white blood cell count (WBC) 9.7 x109/L (0.6–237), platelets 67 x109/L (1–361), peripheral blood (PB) blasts 13%, bone marrow blasts (BM) 44%, and BM cellularity 90%. Of the 88 patients, 23 (26%) had previously received treatment for breast cancer (tr-AML), the remainder had de novo AML. Taxanes were included in the initial treatment for breast cancer in 14 (61%, median age 57, group 1), compared to 9 (39%) patients with no history of taxane exposure (median age 58, group 2). Median hemoglobin was 9.7 g/dL, WBC 4.5×109/L, platelets 72×109/L, PB blasts 2%, BM blasts 40% in group 1, compared to 8.3, 7.1, 50, 28%, 47%, respectively, in group 2. Cytogenetic analysis of group 1 showed diploidy in 8%, complex karyotypes in 8%, and chromosome 11 abnormalities in 38%, compared to 50%, 0%, 33%, respectively, in group 2. In group 1, 14% had good risk cytogenetics, 57% had intermediate risk, and 29% had poor risk, compared to 17%, 83%, and 0%, respectively, in group 2. Cytogenetic analysis of de novo AML showed diploidy in 71%, complex karyotypes in 14%, and chromosome 11 abnormalities in 0%. Complete remission (CR) was achieved in 79% of group 1 and 83% of group 2 (p 0.8). Differences in survival of group 1 (375 days) and group 2 (222 days) did not reach statistical significance (p 0.12). Median survival was 584 days for patients with de novo AML, 375 days in group 1 (p 0.47), and 222 days in group 2 (p<0.001). Conclusion: In agreement with previous reports, we found that tr-AML is a poor prognostic factor overall (p 0.04). However, patients with a history of breast cancer who had been treated with taxanes as a part of their initial chemotherapy regimen demonstrated similar survival as patients with de novo AML (p 0.47). Tr-AML patients only did significantly worse than patients with de novo AML if they had never received taxanes as part of their breast cancer therapy (p<0.001). Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background While patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) are known to be at an increased risk of developing multiple myeloma, Waldenström macroglobulinemia, and primary amyloidosis, the risk of developing non-hematologic malignancies is less clear. A recent report suggested that MGUS patients have a 1.56-fold increased risk of developing nonhematologic malignancies. An excess risk of developing nonmelanoma skin (RR = 2.04), endocrine (RR = 3.34), breast (RR = 1.32), kidney and urinary tract (1.58), respiratory (RR = 1.42), male reproductive system (RR = 1.32), and GI cancers (RR = 1.25) has been reported for people with MGUS (Blood Oct 13 2011;118(15):4086-4092). This study constructed a cohort by discovering MGUS status through medical workup. Therefore, associations discovered might be related to the reason the test was performed more than the result of the test. This study aimed to determine if there was an increased risk of solid malignancies in persons with MGUS using a large, population-based, systematically screened cohort. Methods The population-based cohort established to estimate the prevalence of MGUS was examined for this study (N Engl J Med 2006; 354:1362-1369). Of the 28,038 residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota age 50 years or older as of January 1, 1995, 21,463 individuals' serum samples were collected. All samples were evaluated with serum electrophoresis and immunofixation to determine MGUS status. The Mayo Clinic Medical Index from 1/1/1975 to last follow up or 5/31/2006 was used to link MGUS status to other diagnoses. All patients diagnosed with a solid malignancy were identified, and disease prevalence was determined for cases and controls. For MGUS patients who progressed to MM or related disorder, only solid malignancy diagnoses made prior to progression was considered. A second analysis was performed in which only malignancies that developed after the MGUS screening or diagnosis date were considered. Results 17,315 patients with 435,021 person-years of follow-up were included in the study. Any patient who was blinded in the initial cohort could not be included. Patients with MGUS (n=605) had a mean follow up of 24.64 years (range 0.11 to 30.57) while controls (n=16,710) had a mean of 25.14 years (range 0.01 to 31.40) of follow up. The risk ratio for developing any solid tumor was 1.08 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.25). Persons with MGUS had a 1.61-fold increased risk of developing respiratory tumors over controls. MGUS patients did not have a significantly increased risk of developing cancer in any other anatomical position studied, including bone, brain, breast, endocrine, eye, gastrointestinal, kidney, skin (melanoma or non-melanoma), oral/nasal/pharyngeal, reproductive, or salivary gland. MGUS patients were not found to be at increased risk of developing tumors with a specific pathology over controls. The second analysis, which considered only tumors that developed after the MGUS screening or diagnosis date, showed that MGUS patients were not at an increased risk of respiratory tumors (RR 1.28, p=0.21). According to this analysis, MGUS patients are at decreased risk of developing non-melanoma skin cancer (RR 0.76, p=0.003). No statistically significant increased risk of any solid tumor was identified through this analysis. Conclusion This study used a systematically screened population-based cohort to determine if patients with MGUS are at an increased risk of developing solid tumors. The analysis suggests that patients with MGUS have a significantly increased risk of developing respiratory malignancies (RR 1.61, p=0.01). However, when only tumors diagnosed after MGUS screening or diagnosis date were considered, this risk was no longer significant (RR 1.28, p=0.21). Contrary to previous reports, we did not find patients with MGUS to be at an increased risk of developing other solid malignancies. The discrepancy between these findings and previously reported increased risk may be related to the elimination of ascertainment bias in this population-based cohort universally screened for the presence or absence of MGUS. Accurately understanding the risks associated with MGUS, a condition affecting 3% percent of the population over 50 years of age, may allow for more informed recommendations for screening and counseling for these patients. Disclosures: Kumar: Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Treatment-related AML (t-AML) accounts for 10 to 20% of all AML cases and carries an especially poor prognosis (Kayser et al. 2011, Godley et al. 2008). Patients diagnosed with t-AML are likely to have abnormal cytogenetic profiles with chromosome changes that are predictive of an aggressive malignancy, poor response to therapy, and decreased overall survival(Smith et al. 2003). The simultaneous use of multiple chemotherapeutic agents of different classes makes it increasingly difficult to predict risk for developing t-AML and determining disease course. An updated analysis of predictive factors for t-AML is needed so clinicians can more accurately inform patients of their prognosis. The aim of this study was to classify t-AML according to primary malignancy, previous chemotherapy exposure, and cytogenetic profile. Methods: A retrospective chart review of patients that were diagnosed with AML at Mayo Clinic from 7/1/1990 to 5/13/2015 was performed following IRB approval. AML patients found to have a previous malignancy treated with chemotherapy were classified as t-AML. Chemotherapeutics were classified as alkylating agents, antimetabolites, anti-tubulin agents, and topoisomerase II inhibitors. Patients diagnosed with a myelodysplastic or myeloproliferative disorder prior to development of AML were excluded from this study. Previous chemotherapy exposures, duration of chemotherapy exposure, complete blood count, chromosome abnormalities, and survival data were collected for t-AML cases. Cytogenetic changes were classified as favorable, intermediate, and adverse according to the system used by Kayser et al. 2011. JMP 10.0 was used for statistical analysis. Results: Out of 584 patients, 64 patients (11%) had a primary malignancy that was treated with chemotherapy prior to being diagnosed with AML. The most common primary malignancies were breast cancer (31%), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (27%), colorectal cancer (8%), and Hodgkin lymphoma (8%). Laboratory findings showed median hemoglobin 9.6 g/dL (4.7-13.8), median white blood cells 3.2 x109 (0.6-126), median platelets 50x109 (3-320), median peripheral blood blasts of 8% (0-91), and median bone marrow blasts 38% (1-94). 95% of patients diagnosed with t-AML had been previously treated with an alkylating agent. Additional exposure to an anti-metabolite trended towards a more adverse cytogenetic profile (χ2=5.0, p=0.08) but there was not a statistically significant decrease in overall survival (KM analysis, p=0.31). The median overall survival for patients diagnosed with t-AML was 10.2 months compared to 19.2 months for patients with de-novo AML (KM analysis, p=0.04). Adverse cytogenetic profiles were associated with decreased survival (KM analysis, p <0.0001). However, there was no difference in overall survival between patients with t-AML that had intermediate cytogenetics and those with de-novo AML (KM analysis, p=0.36). None of the chemotherapy classes other than antimetabolites were associated with poor cytogenetics or survival when combined with an alkylating agent. Conclusion: Over half of all patients classified as having t-AML in this study received prior chemotherapy for breast cancer or non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Cytogenetic classification of t-AML into favorable, intermediate and adverse groups is useful in predicting disease course. Interestingly, t-AML patients with intermediate risk cytogenetics had similar overall survival to patients with de-novo AML. This suggests that the poor outcomes observed in patients with t-AML is predominantly due to the subset with adverse cytogenetics. Thus, cytogenetic analysis remains the best indicator of overall survival regardless of chemotherapy exposure. Additional work is needed to delineate the risk associated with the aforementioned chemotherapy classes. Disclosures Al-Kali: Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 934 Background: An increased risk of developing myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has been observed for over 40 years in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). While treatment for MM has been implicated as the cause of excess MDS/AML, the risk may also be related to the underlying plasma cell proliferative disease process or an inherent predisposition to other hematologic malignancies in patients with plasma cell disorders. A recent study found an increased risk of AML/MDS for patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) where there is no confounding chemotherapy effect to consider (Mailankody S, Blood2011; 118:4086-92). However, that report is subject to detection bias (i.e. association is related to reason for electrophoretic testing rather than the result of the test) since the population was not uniformly screened for MGUS. The purpose of this study was to determine if there was an increased risk of AML/MDS and other acute leukemias in persons with MGUS in a large population-based cohort systematically screened for the presence or absence of MGUS. Methods: The study utilized the population-based cohort established to estimate the prevalence of MGUS in the general population (N Engl J Med 2006; 354:1362-9). Serum samples were collected from 21,463 of the 28,038 residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota age 50 years or older as of 1/1/1995. Serum electrophoresis and immunofixation were used to determine MGUS status by testing all serum samples for the presence of a monoclonal protein. MGUS status was then linked to diagnoses entered in the Mayo Clinic Medical Index from 1/1/1975 to last follow up or 5/31/2006. For any patient in whom the diagnosis of AML/MDS or acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) was in doubt, the diagnosis was verified by medical record review. For MGUS patients who progressed to MM or related disorder, only diagnosis of leukemia made prior to progression was considered. Results: 17,315 patients who consented to serum analysis were included in this study; blinded patients included in the original cohort could not be evaluated. The final study cohort represents 435,021 person-years of follow-up. Mean follow up for patients with MGUS (n=605) was 24.64 years (range 0.11–30.57); controls (n=16,710) had a mean follow up of 25.14 years (range 0.01–31.40). MGUS patients had a significantly higher risk of developing acute leukemia (AML/ALL) or MDS compared to controls, risk ratio 2.20 (95% CI 1.23–3.92), p=0.008 (see Table). There was a higher risk of developing AML/MDS compared to controls, risk ratio 1.80 (95% CI .09-3.59), p=0.09. The risk of developing MDS was statistically significant (RR=2.10, p=0.049). MGUS patients had a 4.18-fold increased risk of developing ALL (p=0.010) and a 2.35-fold increased risk of developing any acute leukemia (p=0.050) over the general population. In subset analysis, patients with IgA/IgG MGUS had a 1.99-fold increased risk of developing MDS (p=0.108), while patients with an IgM M spike had a 2.81-fold increased risk of developing MDS over controls (p=0.152). Though MDS was observed in patients with IgA, IgG, and IgM M-spikes, AML was only observed only in patients with IgA or IgG isotypes (n=2/484). Conclusion: Our population-based study suggests MGUS is associated with a 1.8-fold increased risk of developing MDS/AML over the general population. The risk of AML/MDS is more modest than the 8-fold increased risk suggested in a previous report (Mailankody S, Blood2011; 118:4086-92). The smaller risk ratios in our study are likely related to our population-based cohort design that uniformly screened for the presence or absence of MGUS, and thereby minimized any amplification of risk that can occur in the presence of ascertainment bias. We also found a significant increase in the risk of ALL in persons with MGUS that requires further study. Our study supports the hypothesis that there may be an inherent increased risk of acute leukemia and MDS in patients with plasma cell disorders that is independent of myeloma therapy. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Background: Familial transthyretin amyloidosis is a disease caused by misfolded transthyretin aggregates that can impair multiple organ systems. Liver transplantation is the first-line treatment for familial transthyretin amyloidosis. Research Question: Our objective is to study outcomes and survival among patients with familial transthyretin amyloidosis after transplantation. Design: All patients undergoing orthotopic liver transplant for familial transthyretin amyloidosis at Mayo Clinic between 1997 and 2012 were reviewed. Baseline clinical characteristics, organs transplanted, and posttransplant clinical course were assessed. Results: Of the 40 patients, 7 patients had the V30M mutation and 33 had other mutations. Nineteen patients received liver only, 19 liver and heart, and 2 combined liver, heart, and kidney transplants. The 5-year overall survival was 85% for those receiving multiple organ transplant and 52% for those receiving liver transplant only ( P = .057). There was no difference in overall survival based on mutation (V30M vs other mutations), but survival was confounded by varied disease involvement and organs transplanted. Those who had early death (≤24 months from liver transplant) had a higher incidence of baseline peripheral neuropathy, autonomic neuropathy, lower modified BMI, and higher alkaline phosphatase. Discussion: Outcomes of orthotopic liver transplant in familial transthyretin amyloidosis are variable due to heterogeneity in mutations and patient status at the time of transplant. Familial transthyretin amyloidosis can progress, despite liver transplantation. Patients receiving combined liver, heart/kidney transplant demonstrated improved survival compared to liver transplant alone.

Shapiro syndrome and periodic hypothermia have been reported approximately fifty times in the literature. Shapiro syndrome is defined as the constellation of periodic hypothermia and hyperhidrosis along with agenesis of the corpus callosum by Shapiro et al. in 1969. Periodic hypothermia is a more broad diagnosis with a number of proposed mechanisms; it occurs in patients without structural brain abnormalities. Hematologic abnormalities beyond iron-deficiency anemia have not been documented in any of the reported cases of Shapiro syndrome or periodic hypothermia. Though accidental and therapeutic hypothermia have been associated with thrombocytopenia, this is, to our knowledge, the first reported case of periodic intrinsic hypothermia causing bicytopenia. In this report, we present the case of a patient with Shapiro syndrome who experienced cyclic bicytopenia mirroring hypothermic episodes. We address the differential diagnosis of bicytopenia, review the mechanisms proposed for cytopenias related to hypothermia, and propose possible mechanisms for the finding in this case.