Mahler, Michelle

Abstract Introduction: CFT7455 is a highly potent and novel Ikaros Family Zinc Finger Protein 1/3 (IKZF1/3) degrader. In xenograft models, CFT7455 has more potent IKZF1/3 degradation compared to other degraders. Early observations from the FIH clinical trial (NCT04756726) along with supporting translational studies are presented here. Methods: Pre-clinical studies comparing CFT7455 and CC-92480 in both in vitro and xenograft models were performed. The pre-clinical studies’ results coincided with observations from the on-going clinical trial. The clinical trial is an open-label, Phase 1/2, multi-center, FIH study in heavily pretreated relapsed/refractory (R/R) MM and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) patients evaluating safety, tolerability, and PK of CFT7455. Eligible MM patients are R/R to therapy and are not candidates for regimens known to provide clinical benefit. A starting dose of 50 μg QD 21 days on/7 days off (21/7) in 28-day cycles was administered. Results: CFT7455 and CC-92480 showed similar cereblon binding profiles and in vitro IKZF1/3 degradation kinetics, translating into sub-nanomolar GI50 values in proliferation assays across a panel of MM cell lines. In the NCI-H929 xenograft model, 100 μg/kg/day of CFT7455 resulted in durable tumor regressions, while 1000 μg/kg/day of CC-92480 gave tumor stasis. Similar results were seen in a systemic model of MM, MM1.S. Both compounds achieved >95% IKZF3 degradation in tumors 4h post dose. At 48h post dose, CFT7455 was more effective than CC-92480 in maintaining IKZF3 degradation (65% vs. 6% respectively). When levels of CFT7455 and CC-92480 in plasma and tumor were compared, CFT7455 concentrations were > DC80 in tumor 48h post dose, while CC-92480 levels were undetectable in tumor and plasma, demonstrating CFT7455 has longer exposure resulting in sustained IKZF1/3 degradation in pre-clinical models. In cohort A, 5 heavily pre-treated MM patients (pts) received single agent CFT7455. 4 pts have received at least 3 cycles, with 2 pts receiving 5 cycles. Neutropenia (grade 4) was observed in 3/5 pts without coincident fever or infection. Additionally, a 2-4 fold accumulation in plasma CFT7455 exposure at steady state was observed. Early pharmacodynamic (PD) data demonstrates deep persistent degradation of IKZF3 (~100%) and serum free light chain reduction (up to 72%) in response to treatment. Stable disease has been observed in 34 pts, suggesting clinical benefit. Conclusions: While CFT7455 showed clinical benefit at 50 ug with deep target degradation, neutropenia was dose limiting. PK/PD modeling suggests alternative dosing regimens may result in increased tolerability with preserved efficacy, and evaluation of them is underway. Updated results will be presented at the meeting. Citation Format: Sagar Lonial, Shambavi Richard, Jeffrey V Matous, Andrew J. Yee, Urvi Shah, Neha Mehta-Shah, Thomas Martin, Eli Muchtar, Sikander Ailawadhi, Paul G. Richardson, Manisha Bhutani, Samantha Perino, Jason Kirby, Roman V. Agafonov, Prasoon Chaturvedi, Bradley Class, Matthew Schnaderbeck, Michael R. Palmer, Cathleen Gorman, Oliver Schoenborn-Kellenberger, Amanda Hoerres, Stewart L. Fisher, Roy M. Pollock, Adam Crystal, Michelle Mahler, Jesus Bardeja. Pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of a novel IKZF1/3 degrader, CFT7455, enables significant potency advantage over other IKZF1/3 degraders in models of multiple myeloma (MM) and the results of the initial treatment cohort from a first-in-human (FIH) phase 1/2 study of CFT7455 in MM [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr CT186.

Abstract Background: Despite many treatment options, multiple myeloma (MM) remains largely incurable with poor outcomes among patients who progress after treatment with a protease inhibitor, immunomodulatory imide drugs (IMiDs), and/or an anti-CD38 antibody. Multiple targeted therapies have been developed for different subtypes of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL); however, these therapies are typically not curative for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) disease. IMiDs are a standard of care for treatment of MM and have shown activity in some NHL subtypes. However, given that many patients treated with these agents frequently develop disease progression, an unmet need remains. CFT7455 is a next-generation IKZF1/3 degrader, which is more potent and catalytically active than other approved agents targeting the cereblon E3 ligase complex that degrade IKZF1/3. CFT7455 is orally bioavailable and selective for IKZF1 (Ikaros) and IKZF3 (Aiolos). Depletion of these targets from malignant B cells result in tumor cell death, and depletion from the tumor microenvironment results in T-cell activation. In i n vitro and in vivo models of MM and NHL, including anaplastic large cell lymphoma, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), CFT7455 demonstrated greater activity than other agents in similar classes. These results provided rationale for a first-in-human, phase 1 study to evaluate CFT7455. Study Design: This is an open-label, multicenter, phase 1 clinical trial with dose escalation and dose expansion phases. The dose escalation phase, beginning with a starting dose of 50 mcg daily, may include single-participant cohorts at initial dose levels, after which 3-6 patients are enrolled per cohort using a Bayesian logistic regression model. After initial exploration of single-agent CFT7455 in a mixed cohort of patients with R/R MM or select NHLs, dose escalation is split to perform dose determination in R/R MM separate NHL. Once a safe dose of CFT7455 in R/R MM is determined, the combination of CFT7455 with dexamethasone will be explored in R/R MM. CFT7455 is dosed orally in 28-day cycles, on a 21-day on, 7-day off schedule, until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Expansion cohorts of single-agent CFT7455 and CFT7455 plus dexamethasone in R/R MM, and single-agent CFT7455 for peripheral T-cell lymphoma and MCL are planned. Primary objectives include: safety and tolerability, randomized phase 2 dose (RP2D)/maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of CFT7455, and estimation of antitumor activity of CFT7455. Secondary objectives include assessment of pharmacokinetics. Exploratory objectives include characterization of target engagement and IKZF1/3 degradation and assessing the immunomodulatory effects of CFT7455. For MM patients, key inclusion criteria include histologically/cytologically-confirmed MM that is R/R. Patients must not be candidates for regimens known to provide clinical benefit, defined as having received ≥3 prior anti-myeloma regimens including ≥2 consecutive cycles of lenalidomide, pomalidomide, a proteasome inhibitor, a glucocorticoid, and an anti-CD38 antibody. Key exclusion criteria include the presence of central nervous system malignancy, recent venous thromboembolism or inability to undergo its prophylaxis. Plasma cell leukemia is excluded. For NHL patients, key inclusion criteria include histologically/cytologically-confirmed NHL that is R/R. Patients mustn't be candidates for regimens known to provide clinical benefit, defined as the requisite prior lines of therapy according to an indication-specific basis. Key exclusion criteria include the presence of central nervous system malignancy, recent venous thromboembolism or inability to undergo its prophylaxis. Several lymphoma subtypes less likely to benefit are excluded (eg, Richter transformation, Burkitt lymphoma, Sezary syndrome, and lymphoblastic lymphoma). Approximately 164 patients at approximately 13 US sites will be enrolled. This trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov as NCT04756726, enrollment is ongoing. Disclosures Berdeja: Legend Biotech: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; SecuraBio: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celularity: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Acetylon: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy. Ailawadhi: GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Cellectar: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Medimmune: Research Funding. Horwitz: Millennium /Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Tubulis: Consultancy; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Affimed: Research Funding; Aileron: Research Funding; Vividion Therapeutics: Consultancy; ONO Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Acrotech Biopharma: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Forty Seven, Inc.: Research Funding; Trillium Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; SecuraBio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Shoreline Biosciences, Inc.: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding. Matous: Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mehta-Shah: C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kiowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Ono Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Innate Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding. Martin: GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Sanofi: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Richardson: Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Protocol Intelligence: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Richard: Karyopharm, Janssen: Honoraria. Bhutani: Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen, BMS, Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Janssen, MedImmune, Takeda, Celgene, BMS, Cerecor, Celularity: Research Funding. Yee: Takeda: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Palmer: C4 Therapeutics: Current Employment. Gorman: C4 Therapeutics: Current Employment. Schoenborn-Kellenberger: C4 Therapeutics: Current Employment. Bilic: C4 Therapeutics: Current Employment. Crystal: C4 Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Mahler: C4 Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Lonial: Merck: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AMGEN: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction In 2 large phase 3 trials of patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) CLL/SLL, single-agent ibrutinib (ibr) was superior to ofatumumab (ofa) (RESONATE; Byrd. NEJM 2013) and ibr + BR was superior to placebo + BR (HELIOS; Chanan-Khan. ASCO 2015). Both studies evaluated ibr in different pt populations with different relevant comparators (eg, ofa in pts who had relapsed following prior anti-CD20-based chemoimmunotherapy [CIT] and/or with del17p, and BR in pts eligible for CIT). In the absence of head-to-head evaluations of single-agent ibr vs BR or single-agent ibr vs ibr + BR, indirect comparisons can be used for hypothesis testing by potentially providing insights on the relative efficacy of treatments. As such, an indirect comparative analysis of data from RESONATE and HELIOS was performed. Recognizing biases inherent in cross-trial comparisons, including lack of randomization across trials and consequent differences in distributions of important confounding variables (eg, pt characteristics, prognostic factors), we used pt-level data from both studies to risk adjust for confounders using accepted multivariate statistical approaches. Methods In RESONATE, pts received 420 mg oral ibr daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or intravenous ofa for up to 24 weeks. The primary end point was IRC-assessed PFS, with secondary end points of OS and ORR. In HELIOS, pts received BR (≤ 6 cycles) with either 420 mg oral ibr daily or placebo until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Pts with del17p were excluded. The primary end point was IRC-assessed PFS, with secondary end points of ORR and OS. Per protocol amendment in both studies, pts in comparator arms could switch to ibr upon IRC-confirmed progression. The current exploratory analysis was based on the latest available data from each trial (median time on study: RESONATE, 19 months; HELIOS, 17 months) using investigator assessments, but excluding del17p pts from RESONATE. Analyses were performed using data from both the overall CLL/SLL population and only the CLL pts. Separate multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were constructed for PFS and OS, including treatment and clinically relevant prognostic variables as covariates (age, gender, Rai staging, ECOG score, del11q status, refractory status, number of prior lines of therapy, bulky disease, IgVH status). Adjusted HRs and 95% CIs are presented vs single-agent ibr, along with predicted survival curves derived from the multivariate Cox regressions. Results RESONATE and HELIOS enrolled populations with notable differences making naïve comparison flawed. Because HELIOS enrolled only CIT-eligible pts, the trial included younger pts who had received fewer lines of therapy, as well as lower proportions of pts with purine analog refractory disease, del11q, or Rai stage 4 disease. These factors have been previously reported to influence outcomes in pts with R/R CLL/SLL and thus were included as covariates in the statistical models. Other baseline factors (gender, ECOG score, bulky disease, and IgVH status) were not notably different between the trials, but were found to impact PFS and OS and thus were included as additional covariates. In the overall CLL/SLL population, PFS and OS were comparable for single-agent ibr vs ibr + BR, and were significantly improved for single-agent ibr vs BR (Figure 1). Results for only the CLL pts were similar to those shown in Figure 1 for both PFS (ibr + BR vs single-agent ibr: 1.03 [0.61-1.75], p = 0.9042; BR vs single-agent ibr: 7.52 [4.72-11.99], p < 0.0001; single-agent ibr reduced the risk of progression/death by 87% vs BR) and OS (ibr + BR vs single-agent ibr: 1.20 [0.59-2.43], p = 0.6197; BR vs single-agent ibr: 2.24 [1.14-4.40], p = 0.0197; single-agent ibr reduced the risk of death by 55% vs BR). Conclusions The adjusted indirect comparisons reported here suggest superiority of single-agent ibr over BR for PFS and OS in patients with R/R CLL/SLL. The comparisons also suggest that the addition of BR to ibr did not improve PFS or OS compared with single-agent ibr. However, as median PFS has not been reached for either ibr arm, it is too early to draw firm conclusions. Longer follow-up in the ibr arms of these studies will be required to give an indication of whether CIT adds any benefit to ibrutinib for PFS and OS. Overall, these findings provide support for single-agent ibr as an appropriate choice for all pts with previously treated CLL/SLL. Disclosures Hillmen: Roche Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Honoraria, Research Funding. Fraser:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Hoffman LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jones:Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding. Rule:Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement; J&J: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement; Gilead: Research Funding. Dilhuydy:Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Mundipharma: Honoraria. Jaeger:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cymbalista:Karyopharm: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Sun:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ninomoto:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. Mahler:Janssen: Employment, Other: Travel reimbursement. Cheng:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. Diels:Janssen: Employment. Clow:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. Salman:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. James:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. Howes:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership.

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 Introduction Ibrutinib is a first-in-class, once-daily, oral, covalent inhibitor of BTK that has excellent single-agent activity in patients with previously treated CLL/SLL, based on results of published clinical studies. In the HELIOS trial, addition of ibrutinib to BR resulted in an 80% reduction in disease progression or death and confirmed for the first time, in a randomized setting, the benefit of ibrutinib-based therapy compared with standard chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in previously treated patients (Chanan-Khan et al. ASCO 2015). In patients with CLL or SLL, deletion 17p (del17p) and 11q (del11q), complex karyotype, unmutated IgVH, and elevated ZAP70 are known high-risk prognostic factors. The current analysis reports on the efficacy of ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR in patients in the HELIOS trial with relevant high-risk biomarkers. Methods HELIOS is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Patients with active CLL/SLL following ≥ 1 prior therapy were randomized 1:1 to receive BR (≤ 6 cycles) with either ibrutinib (420 mg daily) (n = 289) or placebo (n = 289). Patients with del17p (> 20% of cells) were excluded. Ninety patients in the placebo arm with independent review committee (IRC)-confirmed progressive disease crossed over to ibrutinib, per protocol amendment. The primary end point was IRC-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) was a secondary end point. A total of 287 patients in each arm had data available for at least 1 biomarker, and this population was used for the biomarker analyses. Correlation of biological risk factors at baseline with PFS and OS was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and curves compared using log-rank tests. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using univariate Cox proportional hazards models. Results At a median follow-up of 17 months, IRC-assessed PFS was significantly longer with ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR in the overall study population (median not reached vs 13.3 months, respectively; HR: 0.203; 95% CI: 0.150-0.276; p < 0.0001). All subgroups of patients, including those with adverse prognostic parameters, e.g., del11q, complex karyotype, unmutated IgVH and elevated ZAP70 levels, had a significantly longer PFS with the addition of ibrutinib to BR as compared with placebo + BR (Table 1). As expected, each of these adverse prognostic parameters had a negative impact on PFS in the placebo + BR arm, e.g., the median PFS was shortest in patients with complex karyotype [8.5 months vs 13.8 months in patients without complex karyotype] and in patients with unmutated IgVH (11.3 months vs 22.1 months in patients with mutated IgVH). Interestingly, in the ibrutinib + BR arm, the adverse impact of these risk factors could not be detected (median PFS not reached irrespective of presence of risk factors). For example, in Figure 1 showing the PFS curves stratified by both del11q status and treatment, the outcome for patients in the ibrutinib + BR arm with del11q was similar to those without, with a trend toward better outcome in the del11q patients (e.g., longer PFS - not reached vs 24.9 months), unlike for patients in the placebo + BR arm (11.01 months vs 13.86 months). In patients with del11q, unmutated IgVH, or elevated ZAP70, there were also statistically significant benefits in OS for those receiving ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR (del11q: HR: 0.326, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.122-0.870; p = 0.025; unmutated IgVH: HR: 0.515, 95% CI, 0.298-0.890: p = 0.017; elevated ZAP70, HR 0.536, 95% CI, 0.289-0.994: p = 0.048). Addition of ibrutinib also increased PFS in patient subgroups with other cytogenetic or clinical prognostic markers (such as del13q or bulky disease) compared with placebo. Conclusions All subgroups of patients, irrespective of adverse risk factors, such as del11q, complex karyotype, elevated ZAP70, and unmutated IgVH, benefit from the addition of ibrutinib to BR compared with placebo + BR. The negative impact of these known risk factors is apparent in patients in the placebo + BR arm, but is not seen in patients in the ibrutinib + BR arm. These results suggest that ibrutinib + BR is a suitable treatment regimen for all patients with previously treated CLL/SLL, including those with high-risk prognostic markers. Disclosures Cramer: Janssen: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Hoffman LaRoche: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Other: Travel grant; Glaxo Smith Klein/Novartis: Research Funding; Astellas: Other: Travel grant; Gilead: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding. Fraser:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Hoffman LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria; 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. Dilhuydy:Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Mundipharma: Honoraria. Goy:Allos, Biogen Idec, Celgene, Genentech, and Millennium. Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Mato:Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; TA Therapeutics: Research Funding. Damle:Janssen: Employment. Phelps:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mahler:Janssen: Employment, Other: Travel reimbursement. Salman:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schaffer:Janssen: Employment. Howes:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Balasubramanian:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Equity Ownership; Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Abstract Introduction Ibrutinib is a first-in-class, once-daily, oral, covalent inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) that as a single agent has significantly improved overall survival in patients (pts) with both treatment naïve and relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL). In the phase 3 HELIOS trial, the addition of ibrutinib to bendamustine + rituximab (BR) resulted in an 80% reduction in disease progression or death (HR, 0.203, 95% CI, 0.150-0.276; p < 0.0001) and confirmed for the first time, in a randomized setting, the benefit of ibrutinib-based therapy compared with standard chemoimmunotherapy in previously treated pts (Chanan-Khan, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(2):200-11). Independent Review Committee assessed progression-free survival (PFS) at 18 months was 79% (95% CI: 73%-83%) in the ibrutinib +BR (I+BR) arm and 24% (95% CI: 18%-31%) in the placebo + BR (P+BR) arm. While the activity of ibrutinib is primarily in B-cells where it inhibits BTK-dependent survival pathways, it may also have significant effects on the immune system by exerting an effect on T-cells (by inhibition of interleukin-2-inducible kinase and related shift from Th2 to Th1-based immunity, which in turn affects Treg and Th17 activity) and via normalization of immune function, thus affecting tumor response. Here, we report changes in circulating T-cell immunophenotypes in a subset of pts treated with either I+BR or P+BR in the HELIOS study. Methods HELIOS is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Pts with active CLL/SLL following ≥ 1 prior therapy were randomized 1:1 to receive BR (≤ 6 cycles) with either ibrutinib (420 mg daily; n = 289) or placebo (n = 289). Pts with del17p (> 20% of cells) were excluded. Peripheral blood was collected at the start of the study, at Cycle 1, Day 15 (C1D15) and at the end of treatment/time of progressive disease (EOT/PD). From these samples, peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) were separated and cryopreserved. PBMC were subjected to flow-cytometric analysis of T-cell subsets including CD4, CD8 and markers indicative of Treg cells (CD25+CD127low) and Th17 cells (CCR4+CCR6+). In addition, expression of T-cell checkpoints ICOS, PD-1 and OX-40 by CD4 and CD8 cells were evaluated as an indicator of cell activation or activation/exhaustion. The findings from the HELIOS study reported here are based on analysis of paired samples (C1D1 and C1D15) of 29 CLL cases from the I+BR arm and 22 cases from the P+BR arm. The Mann-Whitney U test was applied to determine the significance of the differences in each of T-cell subtype between the two arms. Results Overall, there was a net increase in the percentage of CD3+ cells with treatment in both the I+BR-treated pts and P+BR-treated pts, which was observed as early as Day 15 (+12.0% and +11.42% of total lymphocytes, respectively, at C1D15 compared with C1D1; Figure 1). The EOT/PD samples showed a continued increase in the percentage of CD3+ cells in the I+BR pts, the majority of whom (11/12) were responders, while the opposite trend was observed in the P+BR patients (8/21 responders). Focusing on the early changes in the analysis of T-cell subsets, a pronounced decrease in the percentage of Th17 CD4+ cells was noted in the I+BR pts (mean: -2.49%) but in the P+BR pts, an increase of this subset (mean: +2.66%) was observed (p = 0.011; Figure 2). When comparing other CD4+ subsets, decreases in Treg cells were seen in both pt groups, with a corresponding increase in the T-cell activation marker ICOS. Less significant changes were observed in the other T-cell markers studied, however, a trend to increased PD-1 was seen in the P+BR pts but not in the I+BR pts. The safety profile in these pts was consistent with previous reports for the study. Conclusions These results suggest that the addition of ibrutinib to BR helped restore T-cell proportions in this subset of cases and it is noteworthy that this effect was visible even within 15 days of initiation of therapy. Data from the I+BR pts showed a pronounced decrease in the percentage of Th17 CD4+ cells, which are primarily pro-tumorigenic but may sometimes have anti-tumor effects, and a concomitant decrease in the percentage of Treg cells, which may explain the overall increase in T-cell activation. These findings may also be related to the observed increase in PFS with the addition of ibrutinib to BR reported in the trial. Disclosures Damle: Janssen Research & Development: Employment. Schaffer:Janssen Research & Development: Employment. Chaturvedi:Janssen Research & Development: Employment. Phelps:Johnson & Johnson: Employment, Equity Ownership. Aquino:Janssen Research & Development: Employment. Mahler:Janssen Research & Development: Employment. Salman:Janssen Research & Development: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Howes:Janssen Research & Development: Employment. Loscertales:Janssen Research & Development: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Trneny:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Research & Development: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Balasubramanian:Janssen Research & Development: Employment.

SummaryIbrutinib, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is approved for treatment of various B‐cell malignancies. In ibrutinib clinical studies, low‐grade haemorrhage was common, whereas major haemorrhage (MH) was infrequent. We analysed the incidence of and risk factors for MH from 15 ibrutinib clinical studies (N = 1768), including 4 randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Rates of any‐grade bleeding were similar for single‐agent ibrutinib and ibrutinib combinations (39% and 40%). Low‐grade bleeding was more common in ibrutinib‐treated than comparator‐treated patients (35% and 15%), and early low‐grade bleeding was not associated with MH. The proportion of MH in RCTs was higher with ibrutinib than comparators (4.4% vs. 2.8%), but after adjusting for longer exposure with ibrutinib (median 13 months vs. 6 months), the incidence of MH was similar (3.2 vs. 3.1 per 1000 person‐months). MH led to treatment discontinuation in 1% of all ibrutinib‐treated patients. Use of anticoagulants and/or antiplatelets (AC/AP) during the study was common (~50% of patients) and had an increased exposure‐adjusted relative risk for MH in both the total ibrutinib‐treated population (1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.2–3.0) and RCT comparator‐treated patients (2.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.0–5.6), indicating that ibrutinib may not alter the effect of AC/AP on the risk of MH in B‐cell malignancies.