Dyke, Daniel L. Van

Abstract The diagnosis of acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) relies on the identification of PML::RARA fusion. While the majority of APL cases harbor a typical t(15;17)(q24;q21), atypical genetic mechanisms leading to the oncogenic PML::RARA fusion have been reported yet their frequency and scope remain poorly characterized. We assessed the genetic findings of 831 cases with APL investigated with concurrent chromosome banding analysis and dual‐color dual‐fusion fluorescence in situ hybridization (D‐FISH) analysis at our institution over an 18.5‐year timeframe. Seven hundred twenty‐three (87%) cases had a typical balanced t(15;17) with both testing modalities. Atypical karyotypic results including complex translocations, unbalanced rearrangements and insertional events occurred in 50 (6%) cases, while 6 (0.7%) cases were cryptic by conventional chromosome studies despite PML::RARA fusion by D‐FISH evaluation. Atypical FISH patterns were observed in 48 (6%) cases despite apparently balanced t(15;17) on chromosome banding analysis. Two hundred fifty (30%) cases displayed additional chromosome abnormalities of which trisomy/tetrasomy 8 (37%), del(7q)/add(7q) (12%), and del(9q) (7%) were most frequent. Complex and very complex karyotypes were observed in 81 (10%) and 34 (4%) cases, respectively. In addition, 4 (0.5%) cases presented as an apparently doubled, near‐tetraploid stemline clone. This report provides the largest appraisal of cytogenetic findings in APL with conventional chromosome and PML::RARA D‐FISH analysis. By characterizing the frequency and breadth of typical and atypical results through the lens of these cytogenetic testing modalities, this study serves as a pragmatic source of information for those involved in the investigation of APL in both the clinical and research laboratory settings.

Abstract Introduction: TP53 aberrations, including mutations and deletion of 17p (del17p), are important adverse prognostic markers in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Prevalence of TP53 aberrations ranges from 7-11% in untreated CLL and increases with disease progression and treatment. Among CLL patients with TP53 aberrations, co-occurrence of TP53 mutations with del(17p) is common. CLL patients with TP53 mutations or del(17p) have significantly worse outcomes when compared to wild-type patients. Previous studies, focusing on CLL patients at time of treatment, are mixed as to whether a single or more than one TP53 aberration impacts outcomes. TP53 is less well studied in monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL), an asymptomatic pre-malignant state of CLL. Del(17p) occurs in 3-4% of MBL individuals, and a study of 54 MBL individuals reported a 2% mutation frequency in TP53. Here we estimated prevalence and evaluated the impact of TP53 aberrations in a large cohort MBL or untreated CLL individuals. Methods : Patients with CLL or MBL diagnosed between 2000 and 2019 from the Mayo Clinic CLL Resource with pre-treatment peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) collected within two years of diagnosis were considered. DNA was extracted from PBMCs with purity >80% or with sorted CD5+/CD19+ clonal cells. The entire coding regions of 59 CLL driver genes were paired end sequenced. Median coverage depth was >1000x per nucleotide, allowing for detection of mutations with variant allelic fraction (VAF) as low as 1%. Somatic mutations were called using MuTect2 in tumor-only mode, and high impact mutations (frameshift, nonsense, and splicing variants) and missense mutations in CLL hot spots were selected. Somatic mutations and FISH del(17p) were used to define TP53 state for each patient: 1) wild-type [no TP53 mutations and normal del(17p)], 2) single-hit [one TP53 mutation or del(17p)], or 3) multi-hit [multiple TP53 mutations or TP53 mutation and del(17p)]. Time to first treatment (TTFT) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed by TP53 state. TTFT and OS were defined as time from sample collection to first treatment or death, respectively, or last follow-up date. Median TTFT and OS was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. We used Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals for TTFT and OS associations. The models were adjusted for known adverse prognostic factors including clinical diagnosis (CLL or MBL), age at diagnosis, Rai stage, b2 microglobulin, and IGHV mutation status. Results: Individuals with CLL (N=597) or MBL (N=285) were analyzed for prevalence of TP53 mutations and del(17p). We found 58 CLL patients (9.7%) and 15 MBL individuals (5.3%) had TP53 mutations. The median VAF in CLL was 30.9% (<10% VAF, n=21) and in MBL was 13.5% (<10% VAF, n=7). Del(17p) was present in 37 patients with CLL (6.2%) and 7 individuals with MBL (2.7%). In total, 86 CLL/MBL patients had a TP53 mutation and/or del(17p): 56.8% (48 patients) were single-hit and 44.2% (38 patients) were multi-hit (Fig. 1a). Patients with any TP53 aberration had shorter TTFT than wild-type patients (median 2.3 vs 9.4 years). Among patients with TP53 aberrations, median TTFT was shorter in multi-hit patients (20 events, 1.8 years) compared to single-hit patients (24 events, 3.2 years) (Fig. 1b). In Cox regression, single-hit (HR = 1.7 [1.1-2.6]) and multi-hit (HR = 1.8 [1.1-2.9]) patients had shorter TTFT compared to wild-type patients after adjusting for covariates (Fig. 1c). Multi-hit patients also had shorter OS compared to wild-type patients, while OS in single-hit patients did not significantly differ from wild-type patients (Fig. 1d). Median OS was 5.5 years in multi-hit patients (22 deaths) compared to 15.1 years in wild-type patients (196 deaths) and 14.3 years in single-hit patients (15 deaths). In the OS model adjusted for covariates, multi-hit patients had a significant increased risk (HR = 2.6 [1.6-4.1]), but single-hit patients did not (HR = 1.4 [0.8-2.5]) compared with wild-type patients (Fig. 1e). OS HRs remained stable after censoring at time of treatment. Both TTFT and OS HRs were consistent when mutations with VAF < 10% were excluded. Conclusions: This study suggests single versus multi-hit TP53 aberrations may be important for prognostic outcomes in untreated CLL and MBL patients. Prognostic metrics may need to consider single versus multi-hit TP53 aberrations and include TP53 mutations with low VAF. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Cerhan: Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; Genentech: 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. Kay: MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Targeted Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CytomX Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Sparse data exist regarding I+V in an off-trial setting, particularly in patients (pts) with progression of disease on either I or V as single agent treatment. The 1-year overall survival (OS) rates with V monotherapy following I range from 75%-91% (Eyre et al, BJH 2019; Jones et al, Lancet Oncol 2018); however, longer-term follow-up of these or other patient cohorts treated with V after I has not yet been reported. Effective options in double-refractory pts are lacking when a clinical trial is not feasible. Here, we report our experience with I+V in these patient groups. METHODS After IRB approval, we reviewed the records of pts seen at Mayo Clinic (between 4/2012-1/2021) who received I+V therapy off-trial for CLL progression. Pts treated with I+V for Richter's transformation were excluded. Time to next treatment (TTNT) was measured from I+V treatment start date to the date of next treatment start or last known treatment status with death as a competing risk. OS was measured from I+V start date until date of death or when the patient was last known alive; OS was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS Thirty-three pts with progressive CLL were treated with I+V (median duration 13.3 months [95% CI: 7.1 months-not estimable (NE)]). The median age was 70 years (range 47-86), 6 (18%) were women, and 20 (65%) had del(17p) or TP53 mutation. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 3 (range 1-15). Additional characteristics at the time of I+V start are shown in Table 1. Median follow-up from start of I+V was 23.8 months. Among 22 pts with prior progression on I only (V-naïve), the median duration of I+V was 14.8 months (95% CI 7.6 months-NE). The median duration on either I or V from the start of combination was 20.3 months (95% CI 8.3 months-NE). The median TTNT was 25.1 months (Figure 1A). Four pts proceeded to cellular therapy (alloSCT [n=3], CAR-T [n=1]) while on I+V. Next therapy (n=9) consisted of Richter transformation treatment (n=2), chemotherapy plus continued I+V (n=1), anti-CD20 plus continued I+V (n=1), duvelisib + I (n=1), TP-0903 + I (n=1), reintroduction of I at disease progression after previously stopping I during I+V therapy (n=1), and reintroduction of I (n=1) or V (n=1) at disease progression after previously stopping I+V. Of 9 pts who did not receive subsequent therapy, 4 pts remain on I+V (median duration 16.4 months), 4 pts continued V after discontinuing I (median duration on V from start of I+V was 21.5 months), and 1 pt discontinued I+V following a second cancer diagnosis and died without receiving additional CLL-directed treatment. Eleven pts received I+V in the double-refractory setting; 9 pts had prior disease progression on sequential I then V and 2 pts had prior disease progression on sequential V then I. The median duration of I+V was 7.5 months (95% CI 4.3 months-NE), and the median duration of either agent from I+V start was 10.8 months (95% CI 7.1 months-NE). The median TTNT was 14.0 months (Figure 1A). Eight pts required additional treatment, consisting of PI3K inhibitor (n=2), anti-CD20 added to I+V (n=1), CAR-T (n=1), anti-CD20 with (n=1) or without (n=1) bendamustine added to continued I, and Richter transformation treatment (n=2). One pt continues I+V (17.4 months ongoing) without further treatment. Two pts died from disease progression without receiving additional treatment. The median OS of all 33 pts was 27.4 months (95% CI 25.9 months-NE; Figure 1B). The median OS of the 22 pts with prior progression on I (V-naïve) was 47.1 months (95% CI 27.7 months-NE), and the median OS of the 11 pts with prior progression on I and V separately was 27.0 months (95% CI 15.5 months-NE). In univariate analyses, prior progression on V was a predictor of shorter OS (HR=3.9; 95% CI 1.4-11.2; p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS Combination I+V therapy in heavily pre-treated CLL pts who have disease progression after I provides durable benefit with a median OS approaching 4 years. In the double-refractory setting, repurposing both drugs as combination I+V therapy can be a useful strategy, despite the short-term disease control, for pts where clinical trial options are limited or not available. Further examination of these approaches in larger cohorts and understanding the operative resistance mechanisms in pts with double-refractory disease are key next studies. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Ding: Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; DTRM: Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Chanan-Khan: BeiGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Honoraria; Ascentage, Starton, Cellectar, NonoDev, Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties: Tabi; Ascentage: Research Funding; Cellectar: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals, NonoDev, Starton: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; BieGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Consultancy. Kenderian: Humanigen, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Wang: TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ailawadhi: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Koehler: AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kay: AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Targeted Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Research Funding; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; CytomX Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: 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. OffLabel Disclosure: Combination ibrutinib and venetoclax in patients with relapsed CLL.

Abstract Introduction: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is characterized by multiple copy number alterations (CNA) and mutations that are central to disease pathogenesis, prognosis, risk-stratification, and identification of response or resistance to therapies. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is gold standard in the clinical laboratory for detecting prognostic CNAs in CLL (e.g. deletion 17p13 (del(17p), deletion 11q23 (del(11q), deletion 13q14 (del(13q), and trisomy 12). Most clinical FISH assays have high specificity and sensitivity, but the technique can detect a limited number of alterations per assay. Importantly, next-generation sequencing (NGS) techniques have become more readily available for clinical applications and are increasingly being used for screening not only mutations, but also copy number abnormalities in multiple genes and chromosomal regions of interest in hematologic malignancies. Here, we evaluated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) using a custom targeted NGS assay for detecting common prognostic chromosomal alterations in CLL and high-count monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL), the precursor to CLL. Methods : We designed a SureSelect DNA targeted sequencing panel, covering all exons of 59 recurrently CLL mutated genes and additional amplicons across regions affected by clinically relevant CNAs. All CLL (N=534) and MBL (N=162) patients had pre-treatment peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) collected within two years of diagnosis. DNA was extracted in cases with purity >80% of CD5+/CD19+ cells. Clinical FISH data was available within 100 days of NGS in all untreated CLL and MBL cases. PatternCNV was used to detect clinically relevant CNAs in chromosomes 11, 12, 13 and 17. We performed a principal component analysis on the CNA calls, excluding chromosomes 11, 12, 13, and 17 to identify clusters of samples. Each cluster was then independently rerun with PatternCNV and the results from chromosomes 11, 12, 13, and 17 were extracted and further analyzed. We excluded samples with low tumor metrics identified by FISH (less than 20% of cells with del(17p), del(11q), trisomy 12 and del(13q)). Results: We sequenced a total of 696 patients of whom 162 were MBL and 534 were untreated CLL. The most commonly mutated genes were NOTCH1 (11.0%), TP53 (8.7%), SF3B1 (7.7%), ATM (4.1%), and CHD2 (3.8%). Based on CNA analyses from the NGS data, we identified 59 (9.1%) individuals with del(17p), 88 (13.4%) individuals with del(11q), 128 (20.0%) individuals with trisomy 12, and 329 (53.0%) individuals with del(13q). All 696 individuals had FISH panels conducted, with 39 (5.6%) individuals with del(17p), 68 (9.8%) individuals with (11q), 119 (17.1%) with trisomy 12, and 295 (42.4%) with del(13q). When we compared our CNA analyses with the FISH data, we found high concordance 95.0% for del(17p), 92.7% del(11p), 94.3% for trisomy 12, and 88.2% for del(13q). For del(17p) we found a sensitivity of 93.9%, specificity of 95.4%, PPV of 52.5%, and NPV of 99.7%. Del(11q) revealed a sensitivity of 88.1%, specificity of 94.0%, PPV of 59.1%, and NPV 98.8%. We found a sensitivity of 93.8%, specificity of 95.6%, PPV 82.0%, and NPV of 98.6% for trisomy 12 and for del(13q) we found a sensitivity of 92.6%, specificity of 90.9%, PPV of 91.7%, and NPV of 93.8%. We found lower PPVs in del(17p) and del(11q) likely due to lower prevalence of these chromosomal abnormalities. Conclusion: Here we show a high sensitivity, specificity, and NPV when comparing targeted sequencing with FISH. FISH panel testing is widely used in clinical practice to characterize highly prognostic chromosomal abnormalities in CLL. Comprehensive genetic profiling with NGS has become increasingly important in the work up of hematologic malignancies and provides additional prognostic and predictive information, including clinically relevant mutations such as TP53, SF3B1, and NOTCH1, tumor mutation load and mutations associated with resistance to chemo-immunotherapy and targeted therapies, such as BTK or BCL2 inhibitors, that FISH cannot offer. We show that NGS can infer clinically relevant CNA in cases without FISH testing while also providing additional clinically relevant information. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Cerhan: Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; Genentech: 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. Kay: Genentech: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; 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; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CytomX Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Targeted Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

AbstractBackgroundDespite the unprecedented success of ibrutinib in lymphoma therapy, the development of ibrutinib resistance due to acquired BTK or PLCγ2 mutations has become a new clinical problem. However, not all resistance is mediated by these mutations and these mechanisms are poorly understood due to a lack of study tools that truly recapitulate this clinical scenario.MethodsWe established a novel patient‐derived ibrutinib‐resistant mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) line named MCIR1. Using immunological, molecular, and cytogenetic approaches, we comprehensively characterized MCIR1 and further demonstrated its utility in the study of resistance mechanisms and treatments to overcome this resistance.ResultsWe show that MCIR1 is a bona fide ibrutinib‐resistant MCL cell line with normal BTK‐/PLCγ2 but ibrutinib‐resistant ERK1/2 and AKT1 signaling. RNA‐Seq analysis revealed a robust non‐canonical NF‐kB signaling that drives the ibrutinib resistance. We also demonstrate the potential utility of a MCIR1‐based cell and mouse model for the discovery of new treatments to overcome BTK inhibitor resistance.ConclusionsWe have established the first patient‐derived ibrutinib‐resistant MCL cell line MCIR1 that lacks BTK or PLCγ2 mutations but exhibits a hyperactive non‐canonical NF‐kB pathway. We further demonstrate its utility in the discovery and validation of new drugs to overcome this resistance.

Abstract The utility of the chronic lymphocytic leukemia-international prognostic index (CLL-IPI) in predicting outcomes of individuals with Rai 0 stage CLL and monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL) is unclear. We identified 969 individuals (415 MBL and 554 Rai 0 CLL; median age, 64 years; 65% men) seen at Mayo Clinic between 1 January 2001 and 1 October 2018, and ascertained time to first therapy (TTFT) and overall survival (OS). After a median follow up of 7 years, the risk of disease progression needing therapy was 2.9%/y for MBL (median, not reached) and 5%/y for Rai 0 CLL (median, 10.4 years). Among patients with low, intermediate, and high/very high-risk CLL-IPI risk groups, the estimated 5-year risk of TTFT was 13.5%, 30%, and 58%, respectively, P< .0001 (c-statistic = 0.69); and the estimated 5-year OS was 96.3%, 91.5%, and 76%, respectively, P< .0001 (c-statistic = 0.65). In a multivariable analysis of absolute B-cell count with individual factors of the CLL-IPI, the absolute B-cell count was associated with shorter TTFT (hazard ratio [HR] for each 10 × 109/L increase: 1.31; P< .0001) and shorter OS (HR: 1.1; P = .02). The OS of the entire cohort was similar to that of the age- and sex-matched general population of Minnesota (P = .17), although Rai 0 CLL patients with high and very high-risk CLL-IPI score had significantly shorter OS (P= .01 and P= .0001, respectively). The results of this study demonstrate the ability of CLL-IPI to predict time from diagnosis to first treatment (an end point not affected by therapy) in a large cohort of patients whose only manifestation of disease is a circulating clonal lymphocyte population.

INTRODUCTION T-cell prolymphocytic leukemia (T-PLL) is a rare, aggressive malignancy of mature T-cells. Although responses may been seen with initial alemtuzumab-based therapy, relapse is inevitable and relapsed/refractory disease carries a dismal prognosis. T-PLL has shown in vitro sensitivity to venetoclax, and short-lived clinical responses to venetoclax monotherapy (Smith, Blood Advances 2020; Boidol, Blood 2017) or when given in combination with pentostatin (Alfayez, Leukemia & Lymphoma 2020). Given the lack of standard treatment options, we reviewed the outcomes of patients (pts) with relapsed T-PLL on venetoclax-based therapy. METHODS Using an institutional clinical database of pts with T-PLL seen in the Division of Hematology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, all pts treated with venetoclax or venetoclax-based therapies in a relapsed/refractory setting were identified. Clinical, laboratory, and pathology data, as well as treatment dosing and toxicity were ascertained retrospectively from the medical records. Diagnostic criteria and response definitions were utilized as per the T-PLL International Study Group (Staber, Blood 2019). RESULTS Between 8/2017 and 5/2020, 9 pts with relapsed/refractory T-PLL treated with venetoclax were identified. The median age was 63 years (range 49-75), and one-third were male. Baseline characteristics are detailed in Table 1. Rearrangement of TCL1 family genes was present in all 8 pts evaluated with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Using conventional cytogenetics, a complex karyotype was present in 4/6 pts tested. The median prior lines of therapy was 3 (range 1-4), including alemtuzumab in 8 of 9 pts (intravenous 7/8); and two pts had undergone prior hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (1 allogeneic; 1 autologous) after achieving a complete remission. Additional individual pt details are included in Table 2. Prior to venetoclax therapy initiation, 2 pts had B-symptoms (2 night sweats; 1 fever) and 6 pts had an ECOG score ≥ 2. Lymphadenopathy and splenomegaly were present in 6 and 9 pts, respectively. Extranodal involvement included 3 pts with cutaneous involvement and 5 pts with effusions (4 ascites; 1 pleural). The target maximum dose of venetoclax (800 mg [n=4]; 400 mg [n=1]) was reached by 5 pts at a median of 12 days (range 7-40 days). The other 4 pts had disease progression after a median of 10 days (range 5-22 days) during the dose ramp-up, including 2 pts undergoing rapid dose escalation. Altogether, 6 of the 9 pts initiated venetoclax with a rapid dose escalation. Bendamustine was given with venetoclax in 5/9 pts; median number of cycles 1 (range 1-4) with variable starting dosing (range 60-100 mg/m2). The disease control rate was 56%; best response was partial remission (PR) in 4 (44%) pts and stable disease (SD) in 1 (11%) pt. The 1 pt with SD received venetoclax monotherapy; however, the overall response rate among pts who received the combination of venetoclax and bendamustine was 80% (4/5 pts). One pt with a partial remission met all criteria for complete remission but did not have a confirmatory bone marrow biopsy. Cutaneous disease improved in 2 of 3 pts (both with PR as best response), and effusions improved in 2 of 5 pts (1 PR and 1 SD as best response). Among those in PR, the median decrease in absolute lymphocyte count was 67x109/L and the median decrease in lactate dehydrogenase was 1,162 U/L (normal range 122-222 U/L). Median duration of treatment for all pts was 42 days (range 4-201 days). All pts ultimately died during follow-up with a median overall survival of 53 days (range 4-464 days); Figure 1. All pts experienced at least one adverse event and 8 of 9 pts had a grade ≥ 3 toxicity, most commonly edema (n=7) and neutropenia (n=6). Five pts required dose interruptions due to neutropenia (n=3), tumor lysis syndrome (n=1), and edema (n=1). Three pts had dose reductions, all from 800 mg dosing, due to hematologic toxicity (n=2) and nausea (n=1). No pts discontinued venetoclax as a result of adverse events. CONCLUSION Treatment of pts with relapsed/refractory T-PLL remains a significant unmet need. The 9 pts described herein represent the largest cohort of pts treated with venetoclax-based therapy in this setting to the current date. Despite initial reports of clinical efficacy, our results show that venetoclax (with or without bendamustine) has modest efficacy in the treatment of relapsed/refractory T-PLL after prior alemtuzumab exposure. Disclosures Parikh: TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding. Shah:Dren Bio: Consultancy. Bennani:Verastem: Other: Advisory Board; Affimed: Research Funding; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding. Wang:Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding. Kenderian:MorphoSys: Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Torque: Consultancy; Humanigen: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Mettaforge: Patents & Royalties. Kay:MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Research Funding; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Cytomx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Juno Theraputics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ding:Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: 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; DTRM: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Venetoclax: off-label use in treatment of relapsed/refractory T-cell prolymphocytic leukemia