Mato, Anthony R.

PURPOSE Among Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors, acalabrutinib has greater selectivity than ibrutinib, which we hypothesized would improve continuous therapy tolerability. We conducted an open-label, randomized, noninferiority, phase III trial comparing acalabrutinib and ibrutinib in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). METHODS Patients with previously treated CLL with centrally confirmed del(17)(p13.1) or del(11)(q22.3) were randomly assigned to oral acalabrutinib 100 mg twice daily or ibrutinib 420 mg once daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was independent review committee–assessed noninferiority of progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS Overall, 533 patients (acalabrutinib, n = 268; ibrutinib, n = 265) were randomly assigned. At the data cutoff, 124 (46.3%) acalabrutinib patients and 109 (41.1%) ibrutinib patients remained on treatment. After a median follow-up of 40.9 months, acalabrutinib was determined to be noninferior to ibrutinib with a median PFS of 38.4 months in both arms (95% CI acalabrutinib, 33.0 to 38.6 and ibrutinib, 33.0 to 41.6; hazard ratio: 1.00; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.27). All-grade atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter incidence was significantly lower with acalabrutinib versus ibrutinib (9.4% v 16.0%; P = .02); among other selected secondary end points, grade 3 or higher infections (30.8% v 30.0%) and Richter transformations (3.8% v 4.9%) were comparable between groups and median overall survival was not reached in either arm (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.15), with 63 (23.5%) deaths with acalabrutinib and 73 (27.5%) with ibrutinib. Treatment discontinuations because of adverse events occurred in 14.7% of acalabrutinib-treated patients and 21.3% of ibrutinib-treated patients. CONCLUSION In this first direct comparison of less versus more selective Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors in CLL, acalabrutinib demonstrated noninferior PFS with fewer cardiovascular adverse events.

7500 Background: Increased selectivity of the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) acalabrutinib (Aca) vs ibrutinib (Ib) may improve tolerability. We conducted an open-label, randomized, noninferiority, phase 3 trial to compare Aca vs Ib in patients (pts) with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Methods: Previously treated CLL pts with del(17p) or del(11q) by central lab were randomized to receive oral Aca 100 mg BID or Ib 420 mg QD (stratified by del(17p) status, ECOG PS [2 vs ≤1], and number of prior therapies [1–3 vs ≥4]) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by IRC; secondary endpoints of all grade atrial fibrillation (AF), grade ≥3 infection, Richter transformation, and overall survival (OS) were assessed in hierarchical order. Results: 533 pts (Aca, n=268; Ib, n=265) were randomized (median age 66 y; median 2 prior therapies; del(17p) 45.2%; del(11q) 64.2%). At a median follow-up of 40.9 mo (range 0.0–59.1), Aca was noninferior to Ib with a median PFS of 38.4 mo in both arms (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.79–1.27). Aca was statistically superior to Ib in all-grade AF incidence (9.4% vs 16.0%; P=0.023). Among the other secondary endpoints, incidences of grade ≥3 infection (Aca: 30.8%, Ib: 30.0%) and Richter transformation (Aca: 3.8%, Ib: 4.9%) were comparable between arms. Median OS was not reached in either arm (HR 0.82 [95% CI 0.59–1.15]), with 63 (23.5%) deaths in the Aca arm and 73 (27.5%) in the Ib arm. Among any-grade AEs in ≥20% of pts in either arm, Aca was associated with a lower incidence of hypertension (9.4%, 23.2%), arthralgia (15.8%, 22.8%), and diarrhea (34.6%, 46.0%) but a higher incidence of headache (34.6%, 20.2%) and cough (28.9%, 21.3%). AEs led to treatment discontinuation in 14.7% of Aca- vs 21.3% of Ib-treated pts. Among any-grade events of clinical interest, cardiac, hypertension, and bleeding events were less frequent with Aca (Table). Conclusions: In this first head-to-head trial of BTKis in CLL, Aca demonstrated non-inferior PFS with less cardiotoxicity and fewer discontinuations due to AEs vs Ib. Clinical trial information: NCT02477696. [Table: see text]

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

AbstractHealth‐related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is important in guiding treatment decisions. However, the impact of CLL treatment initiation on HRQoL is unclear. We assessed HRQoL using the FACT‐Leu and EQ‐5D‐3L questionnaires in the Connect® CLL Registry, a large, US‐based, multicenter, prospective observational study of CLL patients enrolled between 2010 and 2014, prior to the introduction of novel therapies. Among 889 patients initiating first‐line therapy with chemoimmunotherapy or rituximab monotherapy, questionnaire completion rates were 95.7% and 95.8% at enrollment, and 70.8% and 69.4% at 12 months, for FACT‐Leu Total and EQ‐5D‐3L, respectively. For 849 patients completing all five FACT‐Leu components, average total scores were 135.7 at enrollment and 141.6 at 12 months. Among 526 patients with FACT‐Leu Total scores at enrollment and 12 months, clinically meaningful (≥11‐point) improvements or reductions were observed in 179 (34.0%) and 88 (16.7%) patients, respectively. Mean EQ‐5D‐3L index scores were 0.87 at enrollment and 12 months. Among 513 patients completing EQ‐5D‐3L at enrollment and 12 months, clinically meaningful (≥0.06‐point) improvements or reductions were observed in 125 (24.4%) and 116 (22.6%) patients, respectively. In the Connect® CLL Registry, HRQoL remained stable or slightly improved after 12 months of follow‐up.

Abstract Optimal treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) remains unclear. The Connect CLL Registry, a United States–based multicenter prospective observational cohort study, enrolled 1494 patients between 2010 and 2014 from predominantly community-based settings. Patients were grouped by line of therapy (LOT) at enrollment. With a median follow-up of 46.6 months (range, 0-63.0 months), median overall survival (OS) was not reached in LOT1, 63.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 46.0-63.0 months) in LOT2, and 38.0 months (95% CI, 33.0-47.0 months) in LOT≥3. Bendamustine and rituximab (BR; 33.5%); fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR; 21.4%); and rituximab monotherapy (18.5%) were the most common regimens across LOTs. Median event-free survival (EFS) was similar in patients treated with BR (59.0 months) and FCR (55.0 months) in LOT1; median OS was not reached. In multivariable analysis, BR or FCR vs other treatments in LOT1 was associated with improved EFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; P < .0001) and OS (0.67; P = .0162). Using the Kaplan-Meier product limit, ibrutinib vs other treatments improved OS in LOT2 (HR, 0.279; P = .009), LOT3 (0.441; P = .011), and LOT≥4 (0.578; P = .043). Prognostic modeling of death at 2 years postenrollment identified 3 risk groups: low (mortality rate, 6.2%), medium (14.5%), and high (27.4%). The most frequent adverse events across LOTs were pneumonia (11.6%) and febrile neutropenia (6.2%). These data suggest that advantages of LOT1 FCR over BR seen in clinical trials may not translate to community practice, whereas receiving novel LOT2 agents improved outcomes. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01081015.

BACKGROUND: Chemoimmunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) has been the standard therapy for younger patients with CLL. FCR therapy is particularly effective in patients with immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region (IGHV) mutated CLL. Approximately half of IGHV mutated patients are progression free 8 years after FCR therapy. At the ASH 2018 meeting, we reported the initial results of the ECOG 1912 (E1912) trial, a phase 3 trial comparing the FCR regimen to the combination of ibrutinib and rituximab (IR) for previously untreated CLL patients age 70 or younger who required therapy. With median follow-up of approximately 34 months, the trial demonstrated both a progression-free survival (PFS) and an overall survival (OS) benefit relative to FCR. On sub-set analysis by IGHV mutation status, the difference in PFS was statistically significant for IGHV unmutated patients but, with current follow-up, not IGHV mutated patients. Here, we present updated results for PFS in the E1912 trial. METHODS: As previously reported, eligible patients were treatment-naive individuals with CLL age 70 or younger. Patients with deletion 17p- were excluded from participating in the E1912 trial given their known poor response to FCR therapy. Patients were randomly assigned in a two-to-one ratio to receive ibrutinib (420 mg/day until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity) and rituximab (50 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 2, 325 mg/m2 on day 2 of cycle 2, and then 500 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycles 3-7) or six courses of intravenous fludarabine (25 mg/m2 days 1-3), cyclophosphamide (250 mg/m2 days 1-3) and rituximab (50 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 1, 325 mg/m2 on day 2 of cycle 1, and then 500 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycles 2-6) every 28-days. Adverse events (AEs) were graded according to the NCI Common Toxicity Criteria (version 4). Dose adjustments for cytopenias were based on the IWCLL CLL Working Group grading scale. The primary endpoint of the trial was PFS with OS a secondary endpoint. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: With median follow-up of 45 months, 257 (73%) of 354 patients randomized to IR remain on ibrutinib. With extended follow-up, grade 3 and above treatment-related AEs were observed in 70% of IR and 80% of FCR treated patients (OR=0.56; 95% CI 0.34 - 0.90; p=0.013). Among IR-treated patients, the median time on treatment is currently 43 months (range=0.2-61). Among the 95 patients who have discontinued ibrutinib, the reason for discontinuation was progression or death in 23 (7% of patients who started IR; 24% of those who discontinued treatment), AE or complication in 48 (14% of patients who started IR; 51% of those who discontinued treatment), and withdrawal of consent or other reasons in 24 (7% of patients who started IR; 25% of those who discontinued treatment). On multivariable Cox regression adjusting for Timed Up and Go test score, Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) score, age, gender, ECOG performance status, creatinine clearance, and baseline anemia/thrombocytopenia, only CIRS score (range 0 - 14) predicted discontinuation of ibrutinib for a reason other than progression or death (HR=1.13 per unit increase; 95% CI 1.03 - 1.23; p=0.009). Among the 72 patients who discontinued ibrutinib for a reason other than progression or death, the median time on ibrutinib was 15.1 months (range 0.2-58.2 months). The median time from ibrutinib discontinuation to disease progression or death was 23 months. With current follow-up, we observed 110 PFS events. The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS favored IR over FCR (HR=0.39; 95% CI 0.26-0.57; p<0.0001). Updated analysis of OS will be presented. On sub-group analysis by IGHV mutation status, IR was superior to FCR for IGHV unmutated patients (HR=0.28; 95% CI 0.17-0.48; p<0.0001). With current follow-up the difference is not significant in IGHV mutated patients (HR=0.42; 95% CI 0.16-1.16; p=0.086). Kaplan-Meier estimates for PFS are shown in Figure 1. CONCLUSIONS: Although less than 7% of ibrutinib treated patients progressed while on therapy, roughly 1 in 5 patients have discontinued ibrutinib for a reason other than progression or death. The only parameter significantly associated with discontinuation for a reason other than progression was increased baseline CIRS score. With extended follow-up, the combination of ibrutinib and rituximab continues to provide superior PFS compared to FCR for younger patients with previously untreated CLL. Disclosures Shanafelt: Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Patent: Patents & Royalties: US14/292,075 on green tea extract epigallocatechin gallate in combination with chemotherapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia; Polyphenon E International: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Glaxo-SmithKline: Research Funding; Hospira: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding. Kay:MorphoSys: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Other: DSMB; Celgene: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Agios: Other: DSMB. O'Brien:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas: Consultancy; Aptose Biosciences, Inc: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vaniam Group LLC: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding. Barrientos:AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sandoz: Consultancy; Oncternal Therapeutics: Research Funding. Coutre:Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; BeiGene: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses & Data Safety Monitoring Committee; Genentech: Consultancy. Barr:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cashen:Celgene: Other: Speaker's Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Other: Speaker's Bureau; Novartis: Other: Speaker's Bureau. Mato:AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB member , Research Funding; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Erba:Amgen: Consultancy; MacroGenics: Consultancy, Other: Lecture fees, Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy, Other: Lecture fees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; ImmunoGen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; GlycoMimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, data and safety monitoring board, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: chair, AML Registry Scientific Steering Committee, Speakers Bureau; ImmunoGen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Chair, IRC for phase III studies, Research Funding; GlycoMimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, data and safety monitoring board, Research Funding; Covance: Other: Fees for serving as chair on an independent review board for AbbVie Phase III studies; Covance: Other: Fees for serving as chair on an independent review board for AbbVie Phase III studies; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Chair, IRC for phase III studies, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: chair, AML Registry Scientific Steering Committee, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding. Stone:Arog Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka-Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Fujifilm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celator Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ono Pharmaceutical-Theradex Oncology: Consultancy; Cornerstone Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Takeda: Other: Fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board ; Orsenix: Consultancy; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Fees for serving on a steering committee, and fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Argenx: Other: Fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board ; Roche: Consultancy. Tallman:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncolyze: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

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

Abstract Introduction: CLL pts who qualify for participation in clinical trials are often thought of as a highly selected population. Therefore whether safety and efficacy data from these trials can be generalized to all CLL pts treated in the community setting is unknown. Prospective, observational studies can provide significant insight into pt and disease characteristics as well as practice patterns in different clinical settings. Here we report on baseline demographics and clinical characteristics for 1495 pts who participated in the Connect CLL observational study and were followed prospectively. Methods: Connect®CLL is a non study-specific intervention treatment registry which collects data on the management and outcomes of CLL pts in clinical, academic and community practices in the US. Clinical information was prospectively collected for pts treated in community (n=1312), academic (n=155), or government (n=28) centers in the US between March 2010 – Jan 2014. Pts eligible for treatment or on treatment not more than 2 months were eligible for enrollment. Here we report on the baseline demographics and clinical characteristics of a large CLL cohort stratified by AG, LOT and type of treatment center. Results: In total,1,495 pts were accrued with a median age at enrollment of 69 (range 22–99). Pts were Caucasian (92.2%), African American (6.9%), and male (63.7%). Median duration from diagnosis until initial therapy was 3.7 years (range 0-32). Age of enrolled pts was as follows; 527 pts age <65 years (AG1; 35%); 511 age 65–75 (AG2; 34%); and 457 age ≥75 (AG3; 31%) at the time of enrollment. Eight hundred and ninety-four pts (60%) were treated with front-line therapy (LOT1); 259 pts (17%) treated with second-line therapy (LOT2); and 342 pts (23%) treated beyond second-line therapy (LOT≥3). Patient age: Pt age was associated with significant variation in several clinical variables: Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) score ≥3 (AG 1-3 35/46/52%; p<0.0001), ECOG PS = 0 (AG1-3 60, 48, 33%, p<0.0001) and mean creatinine clearance (CrCl) decreased (AG 1-3 101/74/53 mL/min; p<0.0001). Line of therapy: Differences in baseline characteristics were observed between pts enrolled at LOT1 (previously untreated) and LOT2/≥3 (relapsed). Median age of pts accrued at LOT1 was 68 vs. 70 years for pts enrolled at LOT2/≥3 (p=0.007). ECOG PS = 0 was more frequent at LOT1 (50%) vs. LOT2/≥3 (42%) (p=0.0057). CCI ≥3 at LOT1 was 41% vs 48% at LOT2/≥3 (p=0.0072). When adjusted for differences in age, logistic regression also demonstrated significant differences in performance status (PS=0; p=0.02) and CCI (p=0.03) stratified by LOT. Treating institution: Baseline characteristics also differed by type of treating institution. Median age was 63 vs 70 at academic vs non-academic (p<0.0001). Pts treated at academic sites also had lower CCI (CCI≤2; 72.9% vs 54.2%, academic vs non-academic) and higher median CrCl (86.4 vs 71.4) (p=0.0017). In this registry, only 16% of patients under age 75 had CCI <= 2, CrCl >= 70 mL/min, ECOG 0-1; 18% of patients on LOT1 and 12% of pts on LOT=2 would satisfy these criteria. They represent 36% of eligible pts from academic treating institutions and 13% from community/government centers. Only 20% of patients on LOT1 would satisfy enrollment criteria for CLL8 (FCR vs. FC; Hallek; Lancet 2010) CLL 10 (BR vs FCR; NCT00769522). which did not have enrollment restrictions for age. Conclusions:Baseline characteristics of pts with CLL vary by age, LOT, and type of treatment center. In this large prospective observational study, our data confirms that older pts typically have a worse ECOG PS, more medical comorbidities, more advanced disease when initiating therapy and a lower probability of being treated at an academic medical center. Based on inclusion criteria used for entry in either CLL10 or CLL8, fewer than 20% of pts satisfy age, renal clearance, and fitness profile to be considered suitable for aggressive chemoimmunotherapy in the front line setting. This observation supports the notion that current clinical trial data might not always be applicable to the general CLL population seen in the community and argues for designing clinical trials that are more generalizable to the broader pt population. Disclosures Sharman: Gilead: Research Funding; Calistoga: Honoraria; Phamacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding. Mato:Millennium: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau. Kay:Celgene: Research Funding. Kipps:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Lamanna:Genentech-Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Infinity: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Weiss:Celgene: Consultancy; Phamacyclics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Nabhan:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Flinn:Celgene: Research Funding. Grinblatt:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kozloff:Celgene: Consultancy. Farber:Alexion: Equity Ownership, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sullivan:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Street:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Swern:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Flowers:TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Phamacyclics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech: Unpaid consultancy Other; Millennium: Research Funding, Unpaid consultancy, Unpaid consultancy Other; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Prescription Solutions: Consultancy; Celgene: Unpaid consultancy Other.