Blachly, James S.

Abstract Hairy cell leukemia (HCL) and HCL variant (HCLv) are distinct, rare, and chronic splenic B-cell lymphomas/leukemias that partially overlap in clinicopathologic presentation but differ in genetic basis, prognosis, and management. HCL is caused by the BRAF-V600E kinase–activating mutation in >95% of the patients, usually has excellent responses to chemotherapy with purine analogues, and is also amenable to BRAF inhibitor–based targeted treatments. In contrast, HCLv lacks BRAFV600E mutation, requires combined therapy with purine analogues in addition to rituximab, and generally shows less durable responses. Here, an international team of hematologists, experts on these rare diseases, was convened by the Hairy Cell Leukemia Foundation to update the previous guidelines (published in 2017) by providing a summary of current methods to diagnose and manage patients with HCL and HCLv as well as a prospective on newer targeted therapies to further improve outcomes.

Abstract Introduction: Nucleophosmin 1 mutations (NPM1-m) drive leukemogenesis in approximately 30% of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cases. Ziftomenib is a potent, highly selective, oral, investigational menin inhibitor that has demonstrated clinical activity as both monotherapy and in combination for adults with NPM1-m or lysine methyltransferase 2A-rearranged (KMT2A-r) AML. KOMET-007 (NCT05735184) is an ongoing, open-label, dose-escalation (phase 1a) and expansion (phase 1b) study of ziftomenib in combination with standard chemotherapies in NPM1-m or KMT2A-r AML. Here we present phase 1b safety and clinical activity in patients with newly diagnosed NPM1-m AML who received the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of ziftomenib 600 mg in combination with venetoclax and azacitidine (Ven/Aza). Methods: Adults (≥18 years) with newly diagnosed NPM1-m AML who were not eligible for intensive chemotherapy were enrolled in phase 1b and received ziftomenib 600 mg once daily plus standard doses of Ven/Aza. Ziftomenib was orally administered once daily continuously from Cycle 1 Day 8 onward. Phase 1b primary endpoints were adverse events (AEs) and complete remission (CR) per ELN 2022. Secondary endpoints included composite CR (CRc; defined as CR with full, partial, or incomplete hematologic recovery), overall response, and duration of response. Local measurable residual disease (MRD) was assessed by next-generation sequencing, RT-qPCR, and multiparameter flow cytometry. Results: As of June 25, 2025, 39 patients with newly diagnosed NPM1-m AML were enrolled and treated with ziftomenib 600 mg once daily plus Ven/Aza in phase 1b. Median age was 75 years (range 53–93), 54% were female, 46% had ECOG PS 0–1; 12 (31%) had FLT3 co-mutations and 9 (23%) had IDH co-mutations. Median duration of follow-up was 16.3 weeks (range 1.6–41.1). Twenty-nine patients (74%) had grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs, most commonly (≥20% of patients) decreased neutrophil count (31%) and decreased platelet count (23%). Grade ≥3 ziftomenib-related AEs occurred in 14 patients (36%), most commonly decreased neutrophil count (15%) and decreased platelet count (13%). No ziftomenib treatment discontinuations occurred due to AEs. Differentiation syndrome occurred in 1 (3%) patient (grade 2), which successfully resolved with protocol-specified mitigation. One patient (3%) had investigator-assessed ziftomenib-associated QTc prolongation (grade 3); however, there were concomitant significant electrolyte abnormalities and event resolved with electrolyte repletion. At time of data cutoff, 31 NPM1-m patients were response-evaluable (≥1 response assessment or death). CRc rate was 84% (26/31) after a median time to first CRc of 3.5 weeks (range 2.4–9.4), with local MRD-negativity rates among tested CRc responders of 54% (13/24) after a median time to first MRD-negativity of 8.4 weeks (range 2.9–17.4). CR rate was 58% (18/31) and overall response rate was 94% (29/31), with responses and MRD-negativity rates continuing to evolve. During continuous ziftomenib administration in patients who achieved CRc, median time to neutrophil recovery (≥1×109/L) was 36 days, and median time to platelet recovery (≥100×109/L) was 28 days. The median duration of response and median overall survival were not reached as of the data cutoff, at a median follow-up of 16.3 weeks. The study is ongoing, with 81% (25/31) of NPM1-m patients still on-study and 77% (24/31) still on ziftomenib treatment. Updated safety and clinical activity results will be presented.Conclusions: In the ongoing KOMET-007 study, ziftomenib RP2D of 600 mg once daily combined with Ven/Aza was well tolerated and demonstrated robust clinical activity in patients with newly diagnosed NPM1-m AML, including 84% CRc after a median of 3.5 weeks and 54% CRc MRD-negativity after a median of 8.4 weeks. Low rates of ziftomenib-related cytopenia and no additional myelosuppression were observed with this combination. One case each of differentiation syndrome (grade 2) and investigator-assessed QTc (grade 3) were successfully resolved. Taken together, these data support the RP2D determination and advancement of this ziftomenib-based combination in the KOMET-017 (NCT07007312) randomized phase 3 study in patients with newly diagnosed NPM1-m AML.

Abstract A041202 (NCT01886872) is a phase 3 study comparing bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) with ibrutinib and the combination of ibrutinib plus rituximab (IR) in previously untreated older patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The initial results showed that ibrutinib-containing regimens had superior progression-free survival (PFS) and rituximab did not add additional benefits. Here we present an updated analysis. With a median follow-up of 55 months, the median PFS was 44 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 38-54) for BR and not yet reached in either ibrutinib-containing arm. The 48-month PFS estimates were 47%, 76%, and 76% for BR, ibrutinib, and IR, respectively. The benefit of ibrutinib regimens over chemoimmunotherapy was consistent across subgroups of patients defined by TP53 abnormalities, del(11q), complex karyotype, and immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region (IGHV). No significant interaction effects were observed between the treatment arm and del(11q), the complex karyotype, or IGHV. However, a greater difference in PFS was observed among the patients with TP53 abnormalities. There was no difference in the overall survival. Notable adverse events with ibrutinib included atrial fibrillation (afib) and hypertension. Afib was observed in 11 patients (pts) on BR (3%) and 67 pts on ibrutinib (18%). All-grade hypertension was observed in 95 pts on BR (27%) and 263 pts on ibrutinib (55%). These data show that ibrutinib regimens prolong PFS compared with BR for older patients with treatment-naïve CLL. These benefits were observed across subgroups, including high-risk groups. Strikingly, within the ibrutinib arms, there was no inferior PFS for patients with abnormalities in TP53, the highest risk feature observed in CLL. These data continue to demonstrate the efficacy of ibrutinib in treatment-naïve CLL.

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

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

Abstract Hairy cell leukemia (HCL) is a rare B-cell malignancy, and there is a need for novel treatments for patients who do not benefit from purine analogs. Ibrutinib, an oral agent targeting Bruton tyrosine kinase in the B-cell receptor signaling pathway, is highly effective in several malignancies. Its activity in HCL was unknown, so we conducted a multisite phase 2 study of oral ibrutinib in patients with either relapsed classic or variant hairy cell leukemia. The primary outcome measure was the overall response rate (ORR) at 32 weeks, and we also assessed response at 48 weeks and best response during treatment. Key secondary objectives were characterization of toxicity and determination of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Thirty-seven patients were enrolled at 2 different doses (24 at 420 mg, 13 at 840 mg). The median duration of follow-up was 3.5 years (range, 0-5.9 years). The ORR at 32 weeks was 24%, which increased to 36% at 48 weeks. The best ORR was 54%. The estimated 36-month PFS was 73% and OS was 85%. The most frequent adverse events were diarrhea (59%), fatigue (54%), myalgia (54%), and nausea (51%). Hematologic adverse events were common: anemia (43%), thrombocytopenia (41%), and neutropenia (35%). Ibrutinib can be safely administered to patients with HCL with objective responses and results in prolonged disease control. Although the initial primary outcome objective of the study was not met, the observation of objective responses in heavily pretreated patients coupled with a favorable PFS suggests that ibrutinib may be beneficial in these patients. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01841723.

Abstract BACKGROUND: The study of rare diseases is limited by the uncommon nature of the conditions as well as the widely dispersed patient populations. Current rare disease registries such as the National Organization of Rare Diseases utilize centralized platforms for data collection; however because of their broad nature, these do not always capture unique, disease specific elements. Hairy Cell Leukemia (HCL) is a rare leukemia globally with approximately 900 new cases diagnosed in the US each year. The HCL Foundation undertook creation of a Patient Data Registry that collects data from multiple HCL Centers of Excellence (COE) around the globe to better understand the complications, treatment outcomes, disease subtypes, comorbid conditions, epidemiology, and quality of life of patients with HCL. METHODS: Investigators at The Ohio State University Department of Biomedical Informatics and Division of Hematology in collaboration with the HCL Foundation developed a Patient Data Registry (PDR) for the longitudinal capture of high quality research data. This system differs from other registries in that it uses a federated( rather than centralized) architecture, wherein data is queried and integrated in an on-demand manner from local registry databases at each participating site. Further, the data collected for use in the registry combines both automated exports from existing electronic health records (EHRs) as well as additional data entered via a set of web-based forms. All manually entered data comes from source documents, and data provenance spanning electronic and manually entered data is maintained via multiple technical measures. Patients may be enrolled at HCL COE, or, if they do not have access to a COE they may enroll via a web-based portal (www.hairycellleukemia.org). At this time due to regulatory requirements the web-based portal is available to US patients only. All data are de-identified (see Figure 1: De-Identification Workflow) which reduces regulatory burden and increases opportunities for data access and re-use. End users have access to data via a project-specific query portal. RESULTS: The Patient Data Registry has been deployed at The Ohio State University, Royal Marsden Hospital, and MD Anderson Cancer Center, and is undergoing deployment at the University of Rochester. Up to 25 international HCL COE may participate. In addition, US patients are actively entering the registry via the web-based portal. To date, 227 patients have been consented to the registry with 119 of these being via the web-based entry point. CONCLUSION: We created an international and web-based patient data registry which will enable researchers to study outcomes in HCL in ways not previously possible given the rarity of the disease. This work was made possible by research funding from the Hairy Cell Leukemia Foundation. Figure De-Identification Workflow Figure. De-Identification Workflow Disclosures Andritsos: Hairy Cell Leukemia Foundation: Research Funding. Anghelina:Hairy Cell Leukemia Foundation: Research Funding. Lele:Hairy Cell Leukemia Foundation: Research Funding. Burger:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Delgado:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis/GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding. Jones:AbbVie: 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, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Lozanski:Beckman Coulter: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding. Montserrat:Morphosys: Other: Expert Testimony; Vivia Biotech: Equity Ownership; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Expert Testimony; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses. Parikh:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Park:Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Robak:Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Tam:janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Heckler:Hairy Cell Leukemia Foundation: Research Funding. Payne:Hairy Cell Leukemia Foundation: Research Funding.

AbstractAlterations in global DNA methylation patterns are a major hallmark of cancer and represent attractive biomarkers for personalized risk stratification. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) risk stratification studies typically focus on time to first treatment (TTFT), time to progression (TTP) after treatment, and overall survival (OS). Whereas TTFT risk stratification remains similar over time, TTP and OS have changed dramatically with the introduction of targeted therapies, such as the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib. We have shown that genome-wide DNA methylation patterns in CLL are strongly associated with phenotypic differentiation and patient outcomes. Here, we developed a novel assay, termed methylation-iPLEX (Me-iPLEX), for high-throughput quantification of targeted panels of single cytosine guanine dinucleotides from multiple independent loci. Me-iPLEX was used to classify CLL samples into 1 of 3 known epigenetic subtypes (epitypes). We examined the impact of epitype in 1286 CLL patients from 4 independent cohorts representing a comprehensive view of CLL disease course and therapies. We found that epitype significantly predicted TTFT and OS among newly diagnosed CLL patients. Additionally, epitype predicted TTP and OS with 2 common CLL therapies: chemoimmunotherapy and ibrutinib. Epitype retained significance after stratifying by biologically related biomarkers, immunoglobulin heavy chain mutational status, and ZAP70 expression, as well as other common prognostic markers. Furthermore, among several biological traits enriched between epitypes, we found highly biased immunogenetic features, including IGLV3-21 usage in the poorly characterized intermediate-programmed CLL epitype. In summary, Me-iPLEX is an elegant method to assess epigenetic signatures, including robust classification of CLL epitypes that independently stratify patient risk at diagnosis and time of treatment.