Hallek, Michael

Abstract Richter transformation (RT) is defined as an aggressive lymphoma emerging in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL). Despite novel therapeutics developed in CLL, RT is associated with poor outcomes. In light of recent progress regarding the diagnostic procedures and therapeutic concepts of RT, an international group of experts, under the coordination of the European Research Initiative on CLL, has developed consensus recommendations for clinical procedures and future research on this disease. Patients with RT typically present with a rapid clinical decline, worsening B-symptoms, elevated lactate dehydrogenase, and/or rapidly enlarging lymphadenopathy. Workup should include a positron emission tomography–computed tomography scan for patients with suspected RT. An excisional biopsy should be taken from an accessible lesion, preferably with the highest fluorodeoxyglucose avidity, and analyzed for the presence of aggressive lymphoma. The molecular relationship to the original CLL clone(s) should be defined. Because no effective standard treatment for RT exists, patients should be treated in a clinical trial. Response of both RT and CLL should be assessed at an early time point, and survival end points should be prioritized in trial design. We hope that these recommendations can help to harmonize clinical and translational research and improve outcomes for patients with RT.

Abstract Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is characterized by the existence of subsets of patients with (quasi)identical, stereotyped B-cell receptor (BcR) immunoglobulins. Patients in certain major stereotyped subsets often display remarkably consistent clinicobiological profiles, suggesting that the study of BcR immunoglobulin stereotypy in CLL has important implications for understanding disease pathophysiology and refining clinical decision-making. Nevertheless, several issues remain open, especially pertaining to the actual frequency of BcR immunoglobulin stereotypy and major subsets, as well as the existence of higher-order connections between individual subsets. To address these issues, we investigated clonotypic IGHV-IGHD-IGHJ gene rearrangements in a series of 29 856 patients with CLL, by far the largest series worldwide. We report that the stereotyped fraction of CLL peaks at 41% of the entire cohort and that all 19 previously identified major subsets retained their relative size and ranking, while 10 new ones emerged; overall, major stereotyped subsets had a cumulative frequency of 13.5%. Higher-level relationships were evident between subsets, particularly for major stereotyped subsets with unmutated IGHV genes (U-CLL), for which close relations with other subsets, termed “satellites,” were identified. Satellite subsets accounted for 3% of the entire cohort. These results confirm our previous notion that major subsets can be robustly identified and are consistent in relative size, hence representing distinct disease variants amenable to compartmentalized research with the potential of overcoming the pronounced heterogeneity of CLL. Furthermore, the existence of satellite subsets reveals a novel aspect of repertoire restriction with implications for refined molecular classification of CLL.

AbstractMost patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) are diagnosed with early-stage disease and managed with active surveillance. The individual course of patients with early-stage CLL is heterogeneous, and their probability of needing treatment is hardly anticipated at diagnosis. We aimed at developing an international prognostic score to predict time to first treatment (TTFT) in patients with CLL with early, asymptomatic disease (International Prognostic Score for Early-stage CLL [IPS-E]). Individual patient data from 11 international cohorts of patients with early-stage CLL (n = 4933) were analyzed to build and validate the prognostic score. Three covariates were consistently and independently correlated with TTFT: unmutated immunoglobulin heavy variable gene (IGHV), absolute lymphocyte count higher than 15 × 109/L, and presence of palpable lymph nodes. The IPS-E was the sum of the covariates (1 point each), and separated low-risk (score 0), intermediate-risk (score 1), and high-risk (score 2-3) patients showing a distinct TTFT. The score accuracy was validated in 9 cohorts staged by the Binet system and 1 cohort staged by the Rai system. The C-index was 0.74 in the training series and 0.70 in the aggregate of validation series. By meta-analysis of the training and validation cohorts, the 5-year cumulative risk for treatment start was 8.4%, 28.4%, and 61.2% among low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients, respectively. The IPS-E is a simple and robust prognostic model that predicts the likelihood of treatment requirement in patients with early-stage CLL. The IPS-E can be useful in clinical management and in the design of early intervention clinical trials.

7015 Background: Besides clinical staging, a number of biomarkers predicting OS in CLL have been identified. The multiplicity of markers, limited information on their independent value, and a lack of understanding of how to interpret discordant markers are major barriers to use in routine clinical practice. We developed an integrated prognostic index using the database of the German CLL Study Group (GCLLSG), which was subsequently validated in a cohort of untreated CLL patients (pts) from the Mayo Clinic. Methods: The analysis was based on a dataset collected between 1997 and 2006 in 3 GCLLSG phase III trials. The external validation was performed on a series of newly diagnosed CLL pts managed at Mayo Clinic. Results: The GCLLSG dataset (1,948 physically fit pts at early and advanced stage; median age: 60 yr (range 30-81); median observation time 63.4 mo) was used as a training dataset. 7 parameters were identified as independent predictors for OS: sex, age, ECOG status, del 17p, del 11q, IGHV mutation status, thymidine kinase and β2-microglobulin. By using a weighted grading a prognostic index was derived separating four different pts groups: low risk (score 0 - 2), intermediate risk (score 3-5), high risk (score 6-10) and very high risk (score 11-14) with significant different OS rates (95.2%, 86.9%, 67.7% and 18.7% OS after 5 yr for the low, intermediate, high and very high risk group respectively (p<0.001). This prognostic index was validated in a cohort of 676 newly diagnosed, untreated pts from the Mayo Clinic (median age 61.5 yr (range 32 - 89); median observation time 47.0 mo). The 4 risk groups were reproduced with 98.3%, 95.4%, 75.4% and 10.8% OS after 5 yr. The prognostic index predicts OS independent of Rai/Binet stage and provides accurate estimations regarding time to first treatment (TTF). C-statistic is 0.75. Conclusions: Using a multi-step process including external validation, we developed a comprehensive prognostic index combining clinical, serum, and molecular information into a single risk score for pts with untreated CLL. The prognostic index provides more accurate prediction of both TTF and OS. To our knowledge it is the first prognostic model in CLL to reach the C-statistic threshold (c > 0.70) necessary to have utility at the level of the individual.

Abstract The IGHV4-34 gene is very frequent (~10%) in the B cell receptor immunoglobulin (BcR IG) gene repertoire of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Over 30% of IGHV4-34 CLL cases can be assigned to different subsets with stereotyped BcR IG. The largest is subset #4 which represents ~1% of all CLL and ~10% of IGHV4-34 CLL and is considered a prototype for indolent disease. The BcR IG of a great majority (~85%) of IGHV4-34 CLL cases carry a significant load of somatic hypermutation (SHM), often with distinctive SHM patterns. This holds especially true for stereotyped subsets and is suggestive of particular modes of interactions with the selecting antigen(s). In detail, subsets #4 and #16, both involving IgG-switched cases (IgG-CLL), exhibit the greatest sequence similarity in SHM profiles, whereas they differ in this respect from IgM/D subsets #29 and #201. Prompted by these observations, here we explored the extent that these subset-biased SHM profiles in different IGHV4-34 stereotyped subsets were reflected in distinct demographics, clinical presentation, genomic aberrations and outcomes. Within a multi-institutional series of 20,331 CLL patients, 1790 (8.8%) expressed IGHV4-34 BcR IG. Following established bioinformatics approaches for the identification of BcR IG stereotypy, 573/1790 IGHV4-34 CLL cases (32%) were assigned to stereotyped subsets; of these, 340 cases (19% of all IGHV4-34 CLL and 60% of stereotyped IGHV4-34 cases) belonged to subsets #4, #16, #29 and #201, all concerning IGHV-mutated CLL (M-CLL). Clinicobiological information was available for 275/340 patients: #4, n=150; #16, n=44; #29, n=39; and #201, n=42. Comparisons between subsets revealed no differences in gender and age distribution. Interestingly, however, 36-43% of each subset cases were young for CLL (defined as patients aged ≤55 years), which is higher compared to general CLL cohorts, where young patients generally account for ~25% of cases. In contrast, significant differences were identified between subsets regarding: (i) disease stage at diagnosis, with >90% of IgG subsets #4 and #16 diagnosed at Binet stage A versus 83% in subset #201 and 74% in subset #29 (p=0.029); (ii) CD38 expression, ranging from 1% in subset #4 to 10% in subset #201 (p=0.013); (iii) the distribution of del(13q), peaking at a remarkable 92% in subset #29 versus only 37% in subset #16 (p<0.0001). Regarding other genomic aberrations, they were either absent (NOTCH1 mutations) or rare (SF3B1 mutations, trisomy 12, del(11q), TP53 aberrations due to either del(17p) and/or TP53 mutations). The sole exception concerned a high frequency (14%) of TP53 aberrations in subset #29 (p<0.05 compared with the other subsets), which is notable for M-CLL cases in general. Time to first treatment (TTFT) could be analyzed in 228 cases. IgG subsets #4 and #16 had significantly (p=0.036) longer TTFT (median TTFT: not yet reached) compared to the IgM/D subsets #29 and #201 (median TTFT: 11 and 12 years, respectively). In conclusion, we have identified distinct clinicobiological profiles for different stereotyped IGHV4-34 M-CLL subsets, highlighting subsets #4 and #16 as particularly indolent, which is important for both medical and social reasons, especially considering that a significant proportion of patients in these subsets are diagnosed at younger ages. Our findings support the notion that BcR IG stereotypy refines prognostication in CLL, superseding the crude immunogenetic distinction based on SHM load only. Additionally, the observed heterogeneity suggests that not all M-CLL are equal, prompting further research into the underlying biological background with the ultimate aim of tailored patient management. Disclosures Tausch: Gilead: Other: Travel support. Shanafelt:Glaxo-Smith_Kline: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Polyphenon E Int'l: Research Funding; Hospira: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmactckucs: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding. Niemann:Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Novartis: Other: Travel grant. Langerak:InVivoScribe: Patents & Royalties: Licensing of IP and Patent on BIOMED-2-based methods for PCR-based Clonality Diagnostics.; DAKO: Patents & Royalties: Licensing of IP and Patent on Split-Signal FISH. Royalties for Dept. of Immunology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, NL; Roche: Other: Lab services in the field of MRD diagnostics provided by Dept of Immunology, Erasmus MC (Rotterdam). Hallek:Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Boehringher Ingelheim: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding. Ghia:Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) with deletion 17p (del17p) CLL follow an aggressive clinical course and experience poor outcomes with chemoimmunotherapy. Ibrutinib, an oral inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK), is approved for pts with CLL with ≥1 prior therapy and for pts with del17p CLL (including first-line). In the phase 2 RESONATE-17 study (PCYC-1117), ibrutinib demonstrated high efficacy with a favorable risk-benefit profile in del17p CLL/SLL (O'Brien, ASH 2014). We evaluate the baseline genetic features and prognostic factors of these pts to determine their impact on outcome. Methods: Pts with del17p CLL or SLL defined by peripheral blood FISH who failed ≥1 therapy received 420 mg oral ibrutinib once daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Using the primary analysis data cut, the overall response rate (ORR; iwCLL 2008 criteria by investigators), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were assessed by subgroup. Results: Among 144 treated pts (137 CLL, 7 SLL), the median age was 64 (range 36-89). At baseline, 63% of pts had Rai stage III or IV disease, and 39% had received ≥3 prior therapies. Baseline cytogenetics included del11q (16%), del13q (74%), and trisomy 12 (17%), in addition to del17p in all pts. Of 116 pts with valid baseline genomic samples, IGHV status was unmutated in 84%; genomic variants that included mutations, rearrangements, insertions, deletions, and copy number variants affecting coding regions were identified as follows: ATM (14%), BIRC3 (3%), BTK (1%), MYC (2%), MYD88 (2%), NOTCH1 (16%), PLCG2 (3%), SF3B1 (27%), and TP53 (92%), which were consistent with previously identified mutations in pts with CLL (Wang, NEJM 2011; Winkelmann, Haematologica 2015). At a median follow-up of 11.5 months, the investigator-assessed ORR including partial response with lymphocytosis (PR-L) for all treated pts was 83% (17% PR-L). Median PFS and OS were not reached, with 12-month PFS and OS rates of 79% and 84%. Any-grade adverse events (≥15%) included diarrhea (36%), fatigue (31%), cough (24%), arthralgia (22%), nausea (19%), hypertension (19%), anemia (19%), pyrexia (17%), decreased appetite (17%), muscle spasms (17%), neutropenia (17%), and peripheral edema (15%). Serious AEs occurred in 40% of pts (38% ≥ grade 3). ORR, 12-month PFS, and 12-month OS are presented by subgroup for baseline characteristics, cytogenetics, and genomic variants (Table). There were no substantial differences in response rates and survival outcomes in the subgroups with and without baseline cytogenetic aberrations or genomic variants (Table). Response rates were similar for pts with and without NOTCH1 or SF3B1 variants. Of 11 pts with del17p CLL who developed Richter transformation, baseline aberrations included ATM (n=2), SF3B1 (n=3), and/or NOTCH1 (n=3); none had BIRC3 variants. Overall at baseline, there were 3 pts with a PLCG2 mutation (L163F, H193Q, P236L), and 1 with a BTK mutation (R236Q); all achieved a best overall response of PR-L or better. None had received prior therapy with a BTK or PI3K inhibitor. Two pts had a baseline MYD88 mutation (L265P, L142F) with a best overall response of PR in 1 pt. Two pts had baseline MYC amplifications with 5 of 5 exons amplified to 6 and 7 copies, respectively; 1 pt achieved a best overall response of PR. Conclusions: These results provide further evidence of ibrutinib's robust clinical activity and encouraging survival outcomes in this high-risk population regardless of baseline cytogenetic aberrations or genomic variants. The prognostic role of these clinical characteristics and genetic anomalies will continue to be elucidated with longer term follow-up of this population. Figure 1. Investigator-assessed efficacy outcomes by subgroups Figure 1. Investigator-assessed efficacy outcomes by subgroups Disclosures Stilgenbauer: AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Jones:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Coutre:AbbVie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: 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. Mato:Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; TA Therapeutics: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Hillmen:AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding. Tam:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Osterborg:Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Siddiqi:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Thirman:Gilead: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding. Furman:Gilead: Consultancy; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Li:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. Eckert:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. Chang:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. James:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. Chu:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. Hallek:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. O'Brien:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Ibrutinib has become a new standard of care in patients with previously treated CLL/SLL based on the phase 3 RESONATE study (Byrd, et al. NEJM 2014) and other trials evaluating ibrutinib mainly as a single agent in CLL. The first randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study (HELIOS) investigating ibrutinib in combination with bendamustine and rituximab (BR) was recently reported (Chanan-Khan, et al. ASCO 2015), with ibrutinib significantly extending progression-free survival and reducing the risk of progression/death by 80%. The study design provides an opportunity to examine the overall safety and management of adverse events (AEs) with ibrutinib and placebo in a blinded manner that previously has not been possible. Here we examine the safety and management of AEs with ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR in HELIOS. Methods Patients with active CLL/SLL following ≥ 1 prior line of systemic therapy were randomized 1:1 to receive BR (≤ 6 cycles) with either ibrutinib 420 mg daily or placebo (n = 289 in each group). Safety was a secondary end point. Results Median exposure to ibrutinib and placebo was 14.7 and 12.8 months, respectively. Rates of infection in the ibrutinib + BR and placebo + BR arms were similar (all-grade, 70.4%; grade ≥ 3, 26.8% vs all-grade, 70.0%; grade ≥ 3, 22.6%, respectively) but exposure-adjusted analysis reveals an overall lower rate of infections with ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR (10.3/100 vs 11.2/100 patient-months), with similar rates of grade ≥ 3 infections (2.4/100 patient-months each arm). Rates of all-grade (grade 3/4) anemia were 22.3% (3.5%) with ibrutinib + BR and 28.9% (8.0%) with placebo + BR. Patients also required fewer transfusions with ibrutinib + BR (23%) vs placebo + BR (29%), the majority of which were red blood cell transfusions. Similar proportions of patients used growth factors in both arms (54% vs 52%, respectively). Grade 3/4 neutropenia was reported at similar rates in both arms (53.7% vs 50.5%, respectively); however, fewer patients discontinued due to treatment-related neutropenia with ibrutinib + BR (1.0%) vs placebo + BR (2.8%). Rates of thrombocytopenia were slightly higher with ibrutinib + BR (30.7%) than placebo + BR (24.0%), but rates of grade 3/4 events were similar between arms (15.0% each arm). Atrial fibrillation (AF) was observed more frequently in patients on ibrutinib + BR than placebo + BR (7.3% vs 2.8% overall and 2.8% vs 0.7% grade 3/4, respectively). However, only 4 patients with grade 3/4 AF discontinued therapy in the ibrutinib arm. No patients with grade 1/2 AF discontinued treatment. One-third of patients held ibrutinib treatment to manage AF, with all restarting at the same dose (420 mg). Median (range) time to onset was 3.0 (0.3-17.5) months with ibrutinib + BR and 2.4 (0.6-18.9) months with placebo + BR. Importantly, in those with a prior history of AF or abnormal heart rhythm, only 7/25 receiving ibrutinib + BR and 2/22 receiving placebo + BR developed AF/atrial flutter on study. The rates of any-grade bleeding were 31.0% and 14.6%, respectively, with the majority being grade 1 (77.5% and 69.0%, respectively). Low rates of grade 3/4 major bleeding were observed in the ibrutinib + BR (2.1%) and placebo + BR (1.7%) arms. Many patients (41.8% ibrutinib + BR, 41.1% placebo + BR) were receiving concomitant anticoagulant/antiplatelet medication. A low rate of treatment-related lymphocytosis was observed in both arms (7.0% ibrutinib + BR, 5.9% placebo + BR). The majority of cases resolved within 2 weeks. Conclusions In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, the addition of ibrutinib to BR was well tolerated and did not significantly impact the safety profile of BR. In addition, ibrutinib was associated with reduced rates of anemia and transfusional support. Consistent with its known toxicity profile, patients in the ibrutinib + BR arm had higher rates of bleeding (mostly grade 1 or 2) and AF; however, few patients discontinued therapy as a result of these AEs. A prior history of AF or abnormal heart rhythm did not lead to recurrent episodes in the majority of cases. Taken together, the results from HELIOS establish the significant efficacy of ibrutinib and also the overall positive risk-benefit profile of ibrutinib + BR. Disclosures Cramer: Janssen: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Hoffman LaRoche: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Other: Travel grant; Glaxo Smith Klein/Novartis: Research Funding; Gilead: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Other: Travel grant. Demirkan:Celgene: Other: Travel reimbursement; Amgen: Consultancy. Fraser:Hoffman LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Santucci Silva:Janssen: Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Travel reimbursement; Hoffman LaRoche: Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding. Janssens:Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy. Goy:Allos, Biogen Idec, Celgene, Genentech, and Millennium. Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Mayer:Janssen: Research Funding. Dilhuydy:Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Mundipharma: Honoraria. Bartlett:Medimmune: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; ImaginAB: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Rule:Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement; Gilead: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement; J&J: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding. Sun:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Phelps:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mahler:Janssen: Employment, Other: Travel reimbursement. Salman:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Howes:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hallek:AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Boehringher Ingelheim: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Recent results from the HELIOS phase 3 study in relapsed/refractory CLL/SLL demonstrated that the addition of ibrutinib to chemoimmunotherapy with bendamustine/rituximab (BR) leads to an 80% reduction in risk of progression or death compared with placebo + BR (Chanan-Khan et al. ASCO 2015). In addition to prolongation of progression-free survival (PFS; median not reached vs 13.3 months; hazard ratio: 0.203, 95% confidence interval: 0.150-0.276, p<0.0001), overall response rate (ORR) and rates of complete response (CR) or CR with incomplete marrow recovery (CRi) were significantly improved with ibrutinib + BR (ORR: 82.7% vs 67.8%; CR/CRi: 10.4% vs 2.8%). Here we report additional analyses on the quality of response with ibrutinib combined with BR. Methods In total, 578 patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory CLL/SLL requiring treatment were randomized 1:1 (289 per arm) to receive BR (≤ 6 cycles) with either ibrutinib (420 mg daily) or placebo. Purine analog refractoriness (yes vs no) and number of prior therapies (1 vs > 1) were stratification factors. Pts with deletion 17p (del17p; > 20% of cells) were excluded. All pts were required to have ≥ 1 abnormal lymph node (LN; defined as a measurable lesion > 1.5 cm). The primary end point was independent review committee (IRC)-assessed PFS. In this analysis, individual parameters of response (LN, spleen, overall radiology, absolute lymphocyte count [ALC], complete blood count [CBC], and bone marrow [BM]) were evaluated. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was assessed by flow cytometry using an 8-color panel (Rawstron AC, et al. Leukemia. 2007;21:956-964); MRD samples were collected at confirmation of suspected CR (bone marrow) and every 3 months thereafter (peripheral blood). Rate of MRD-negative response was defined as the proportion of pts who reached negative disease status (< 0.01%, ie, < 1 CLL cell/10,000 leukocytes) in any sample. Reported MRD rates are based on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Results The ORR assessed by the IRC was 82.7% with ibrutinib + BR vs 67.8% with placebo + BR (p < 0.0001), and was consistent with ORR reported by the treating physician (investigator assessed) (ORR: 86.2% vs 68.9%, p < 0.0001). However, rates of CR/CRi were higher by investigator assessment (21.4%, ibrutinib + BR vs 5.9%, placebo + BR) than IRC (10.4% vs 2.8%). The IRC employed an independent evaluation of radiological scans including stringent evaluation of LN and volumetric assessment of spleen size-the main reasons for the difference in CR/CRi rates between investigator and IRC assessment. At baseline, similar proportions of pts in each arm had bulky disease defined as LN > 5 cm (54%-58%) or abnormal spleen (~40%) as assessed by IRC. Complete resolution of previous CLL/SLL manifestations as assessed by the IRC was achieved more often in the ibrutinib + BR arm in comparison with placebo + BR for LN (34.6% vs 15.2%), spleen (56.7% vs 37.0%), overall radiology (21.1% vs 9.0%), and BM (19.7% vs 5.9%). Rates of normalization of ALC (> 90%) and CBC (> 70%) were high and similar in the 2 arms. MRD was assessed in 120 pts treated with ibrutinib + BR and 57 pts treated with placebo + BR and was negative in 37 pts and 14 pts, respectively, which corresponds with an MRD-negative response rate of 12.8% vs 4.8% for ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR (p = 0.0011). Investigator-determined responses by different levels of MRD are shown in Table 1. The percentage of pts with an MRD level < 1% was higher with ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR (32.2% vs 11.8%). Moreover, the percentage of pts with an MRD level < 0.1% was higher for ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR (24.6% vs 7.6%) suggesting that the depth of response with ibrutinib + BR was superior. Kaplan-Meier plots by MRD level (Figure 1) show that a lower MRD level was associated with a longer PFS. However, pts in the ibrutinib + BR arm had a more sustained response at every MRD level compared with pts in the placebo + BR arm. Conclusions Pts treated with ibrutinib + BR showed not only a higher ORR, but also a greater depth of response, with more CRs and a higher rate of resolution of LN, spleen, and BM involvement. Furthermore, the rate and depth of MRD negativity was improved, and appeared to last longer in pts treated with ibrutinib + BR compared with pts receiving placebo + BR. With a median follow up of 17 months in the ibrutinib + BR arm, no MRD-negative pts and few MRD-positive pts had progressed, thus evaluating a trend in PFS with MRD negativity is currently limited in this arm. Disclosures Cramer: Gilead: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding; Glaxo Smith Klein/Novartis: Research Funding; Astellas: Other: Travel grant; Mundipharma: Other: Travel grant; Janssen: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Hoffman LaRoche: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Combination of bendamustine, obinutuzumab and ibrutinib for treatment of CLL. Fraser:Hoffman LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Demirkan:Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Other: Travel reimbursement. Santucci Silva:Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding; Hoffman LaRoche: Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Travel reimbursement. Janssens:Mundipharma: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy. Goy:Allos, Biogen Idec, Celgene, Genentech, and Millennium. Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Mayer:Janssen: Research Funding. Dilhuydy:Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Mundipharma: Honoraria. Bartlett:Millenium: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; ImaginAB: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Rule:Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement; J&J: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement; Gilead: Research Funding. Sun:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Phelps:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mahler:Janssen: Employment, Other: Travel reimbursement. Salman:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schaffer:Janssen: Employment. Balasubramanian:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Equity Ownership; Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Howes:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hallek:AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Boehringher Ingelheim: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding.

Abstract The existence of stereotyped B cell receptor immunoglobulins (BcR IG) in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) strongly implicated antigen selection in disease ontogeny. We have previously shown that the stereotyped fraction encompasses ~30% of all CLL and includes multiple subsets with distinct BcR IG configuration and variable size. Eventually, certain major subsets emerged as distinct clinical entities, exemplified by subset #2 (IGHV3-21/IGLV3-21, ~2.5-3% of all CLL, mixed somatic hypermutation (SHM) status) of a particularly aggressive clinical course, thus, sharply contrasting subset #4 (IGHV4-34/IGKV2-30, ~1% of all CLL, mutated IGHV genes, M-CLL), a prototype for indolent disease. Here, taking advantage of a multi-institutional cohort of 21,123 CLL IG rearrangements, almost three times the size of the largest previous study, and the availability of validated, purpose-built immunoinformatics methods, we reappraised BcR IG stereotypy especially focusing on major subsets and the degree of their sequence similarity to related minor subsets. Stereotypy discovery was performed with ARResT/Teiresias, while stereotypy assignment to existing subsets previously deemed as major was performed with ARResT/AssignSubsets (http://bat.infspire.org/arrest/). In the present study, a subset was characterized as major if representing > 0.2% of the cohort (i.e. at least 50 cases). Minor subsets closely related to major ones (termed satellite) were identified applying the following criteria: (i) usage of IGHV genes from the same phylogenetic clan; (ii) VH CDR3 length difference ranging from -2 to +2 compared to the respective major subset; (iii) shared VH CDR3 sequence motif; and, (iv) -2 to +2 difference in the offset of the VH CDR3 motif compared to the respective major subset. In total, 7378/21123 (34.9%) IG sequences were grouped into subsets with stereotyped VH CDR3, with the previously characterized 19 major subsets accounting collectively for 2594 sequences (12.3%) of the cohort: of these, 12 included cases with unmutated IGHV genes (U-CLL), 6 concerned M-CLL and 1 (subset #2) included cases with mixed SHM status. Four additional subsets exceeded 50 cases, and, thus, were also considered as 'major'. These results reinforce the notion that not all CLL will end up being stereotyped but rather that a plateau for stereotypy exists at ~1/3 of the cohort. Subset #2 was the largest subset (n=572, 2.7%), while subset #1 (IGHV clan I (IGHV1,5,7 subgroups)/IGKV1(D)-39) was the most frequent subset within U-CLL (n=515, 2.4%) and subset #4 the most common M-CLL subset (n=192, 0.9%), hence displaying remarkable consistency regarding their frequency in all cohorts published since the pioneering studies. Altogether, Teiresias and AssignSubsets gave concordant results for previously identified major subsets, illustrating the validity of our approach. Satellite subsets were sought for individually for each major subset. In general, few satellite subsets were identified, most of which concerned U-CLL major subsets. That notwithstanding, notable cases of satellite subsets were exemplified by major subset #1 and its satellite subset #99 from which it differed only in VH CDR3 length (13 aminoacids in subset #1 versus 14 in subset #99); interestingly, both subsets displayed equally aggressive clinical course. Another example concerned subset #8 (IGHV4-39/IGKV1(D)-39, U-CLL), an aggressive subset with very high risk for Richter's transformation, that, except for a one-aminoacid difference in VH CDR3 length, was otherwise identical to satellite subset #215, also displaying clinical aggressiveness. Overall, our results confirm that major subsets can be robustly identified and are consistent in relative size, hence representing distinct disease subgroups amenable to compartmentalized research with the potential of overcoming the pronounced heterogeneity of CLL. Most major subsets display unique sequence motifs, however satellite subsets exist, especially within U-CLL. Considering ever-increasing evidence that major stereotyped subsets may represent distinct disease subgroups, the existence of satellite subsets reveals a novel aspect of repertoire restriction and has implications for refined molecular classification of CLL. Disclosures Shanafelt: Genentech: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithkKine: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Hospira: Research Funding. Gaidano:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Niemann:Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Langerak:F. Hofmann-LaRoche, Genentech: Research Funding; InVivoScribe Technologies: Patents & Royalties: Royalties are provided to European Network (EuroClonality). Jaeger:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kater:Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Stilgenbauer:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding. Hallek:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Rosenquist:Gilead Sciences: Speakers Bureau. Ghia:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Stamatopoulos:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.