Lamanna, Nicole

Abstract Background: Venetoclax (VEN)+obinutuzumab (VO) is an effective therapy for CLL/SLL requiring regular monitoring for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) during VEN ramp-up. The CLL14 trial of VO reported no TLS during VEN ramp-up; however, there are limited real-world data on monitoring practices and TLS outcomes for different dose levels and monitoring timepoints. This study assessed VEN initiation prophylaxis and monitoring outcomes for patients (pts) with CLL/SLL starting VO in first line (1L) in an outpatient, real-world setting. Methods This interim analysis relied onretrospective observational data from 4 US sites of the CLL Collaborative Study of Real-World Evidence (CORE). Adult pts with CLL/SLL were eligible if they: (1) started VO per-label outside of a clinical trial in 1L, or immediately after exposure in 1L to agents with different mechanisms of action (i.e., BTKi, anti-CD20 only) of <30 days; (2) prior to VEN start, had either (i) low physician-determined tumor burden (TB) (i.e., all lymph nodes [LN] <5 cm and ALC <25 x 109/L), or (ii) medium physician-determined TB (i.e., any LN ≥5-<10 cm or ALC ≥25 x 109/L) with creatinine clearance ≥80 mL/min; (3) had no strong CYP3A inhibitors or prophylactic rasburicase from 3 days prior to VEN start until end of VEN ramp-up; and (4) had VEN ramp-up in an outpatient setting. TB-related labs/imaging was assessed from 2 months prior to obinutuzumab initiation (i.e., index date) until VEN start. VEN characteristics (i.e., dosing, duration), prophylaxis measures (i.e., antihyperuricemics and IV hydration), and TLS-related monitoring and management (i.e., lab results and interventions received) were collected per ramp-up week and TLS monitoring timepoint. Results Of 128 pts in CORE who initiated VO in any line, 72 pts met inclusion criteria (low TB: 57 [79.2%]; medium TB: 15 [20.8%]). Median (IQR) age was 62 (56.0, 68.5) years, 58.3% were male, and 81.9% had ECOG grade ≤1. Among pts tested, 7/68 (10.3%) had del(17p)/TP53 mutation and 43/66 (65.2%) had unmutated IGHV. Median (IQR) time from index to VEN start was 23.0 (22.0, 30.0) days. Most pts completed ramp-up (98.6% [71/72]) and followed a per-label regular dosing schedule (93.1% [67/72]). Prior to VEN ramp-up, all pts received prophylactic antihyperuricemics (allopurinol: 71 [98.6%]; febuxostat: 2 [2.8%]) and prophylactic hydration. In the 2 days prior to a dose escalation for at least 1 week of ramp-up, prophylactic IV hydration was reported for 27 (37.5%) pts based on physician determination. One pt stopped VEN after week 2 due to neutropenia (grade 3+). During ramp-up (median [IQR] of 9 [8, 12] blood tests per pt), no lab or clinical TLS was reported. Of 21 (29.2%) pts who received an intervention following a lab assessment, most had low TB at VEN start (16 [76.2%]). All interventions were either prophylactic or non-TLS-related. Following a lab assessment for at least 1 week of ramp-up, prophylactic IV or escalated oral hydration intervention was reported in 17/21 pts (81.0%) based on physician determination (e.g., to manage impaired baseline renal function in those with low TB, patient request, or institutional practice) (IV hydration: 15 pts; escalated oral hydration: 2 pts). By per-label monitoring timepoints, hydration intervention was given prophylactically following pre-dose lab tests for 7 pts (across weeks 1-5), 6-8 hours post-dose for 5 pts (weeks 1-2), and 24 hours post-dose for 10 pts (weeks 1-2). By per-label monitoring timepoints, other non-TLS-related interventions (i.e., blood transfusion for anemia, insulin for hyperglycemia, and potassium for non-TLS-related hypokalemia) were given following pre-dose lab tests for 2 pts (weeks 1-5) and 24 hours post-dose for 4 pts (weeks 1-2). Conclusion Consistent with the CLL14 trial, no TLS was reported in this real-world, interim analysis of pts with mostly low TB and good renal function at 1L VO initation. All interventions during VEN ramp-up were prophylactic or non-TLS-related, with prophylactic hydration commonly given based on physician preference. These results suggest that VO initiation is manageable in an outpatient setting. Consideration should be given for simplified monitoring requirements including potential removal of 6-8 hour post-dose lab in this population and be further explored in prospective studies. Data collection for this study is ongoing to further contextualize real-world VEN initiation prophylaxis and monitoring outcomes in a larger cohort.

501 Background: Targeted treatment options have significantly improved outcomes for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), but oncology healthcare professionals (HCPs) who provide care for fewer numbers of patients with CLL are challenged to remain current with continuously changing treatment paradigms. To assess ongoing educational needs, we analyzed the treatment choices made by HCPs in an online survey for select cases of poor-prognosis CLL and compared these with the choices of experts in CLL treatment for the same clinical scenarios. Methods: As part of a CME program, HCPs could access an online algorithm to enter specific characteristics of a CLL case scenario and receive treatment recommendations from 5 US-based CLL experts. Experts made recommendations in July 2024 for 146 possible case patients built into the algorithm. After entering their case characteristics, HCPs were asked to enter their planned treatment prior to viewing the expert recommendations. We compared expert and HCP treatment choices across various case scenarios that were entered into the algorithm, with a focus on previously untreated CLL with del(17p)/mutated TP53 or R/R CLL. Results: Between August 2024 and February 2025, 346 cases were entered into the algorithm by 174 HCPs. Among responding HCPs, 38% were based in the UK/EU, 24% in the US, and 10% in Asia; 62% treated ≤10 patients with CLL per month and 49% sought recommendations for a specific patient in their practice. Among 231 cases of previously untreated CLL entered, 91 (39%) sought recommendations for del(17p)/mutated TP53 disease. For cases with no major comorbidities and previously untreated CLL with del(17p)/mutated TP53 , all experts recommended acalabrutinib or zanubrutinib; in 19 cases submitted by HCPs practicing in locations where second-generation BTK inhibitors (BTKi) are approved for CLL (including the US, EU, and Japan), 58% planned 1 of these treatments for this case scenario, 17% planned ibrutinib-based therapy, and 11% planned venetoclax-based therapy. Among case scenarios requiring third-line therapy after progressing with 2 regimens including a covalent BTKi and venetoclax plus an anti-CD20 Ab (with progression <2 years after completing treatment), all experts would recommend a noncovalent BTKi (eg, pirtobrutinib), with 1 expert indicating they would also consider CAR T-cell therapy. For the same case scenario among 6 US-based HCPs, 1 planned pirtobrutinib and 3 planned CAR T-cell therapy. Overall, after reviewing expert recommendations, 61% of HCP respondents whose planned treatment differed from the experts indicated that they would change their approach, and 20% indicated barriers to implementing the recommendations. Conclusions: Our findings provide insight into potential educational needs among HCPs who manage patients with CLL, suggesting that targeted expert-led education could benefit these HCPs.

Background:Richter transformation (RT) occurs in up to 10% of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), typically presents as an aggressive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and is associated with poor survival. RT has no approved standard therapy; and clinical trial enrollment is the preferred first line of therapy. Pirtobrutinib, a highly selective, non-covalent (reversible) BTKi, that inhibits both wildtype and C481-mutant BTK with equal low nM potency, has favorable oral pharmacology that enables continuous BTK inhibition throughout the dosing interval. Pirtobrutinib demonstrated durable overall response rates (ORR) and was well tolerated in patients (pts) with poor-prognosis B-cell malignancies regardless of prior therapy. Here we provide updated safety and efficacy of pirtobrutinib in RT pts from the phase 1/2 BRUIN trial (NCT03740529). Methods: Pts with previously treated, histologically confirmed RT were eligible in the global, multicenter, phase 1/2 BRUIN study. Pts with untreated RT became eligible after Amendment 10. All but one patient received the recommended phase 2 dose of 200 mg daily. Key endpoints included investigator-assessed ORR, DoR per Lugano 2014 criteria, OS, and safety. A data cut of 05 May 2023 was utilized. To assess clonal relationship, IGH rearrangement studies were done on tissue biopsies with RT involvement, and baseline blood or bone marrow (BM) samples with CLL involvement. Results: Among all pts with RT (N=82) the median age was 67 (range, 26-95) and the median total number of lines of prior systemic therapy was 4 (range, 0-13). Pts with prior treatment had a median of 2 CLL-directed therapies and 2 RT-directed therapies. Eight pts did not have a previous line of RT-directed therapy, and 1 patient received neither RT- nor CLL-directed therapy. Common prior RT- and CLL-directed therapies (RT, CLL) included: chemotherapy (76%, 52%), cBTKi (34%, 62%), anti-CD20 antibody (78%, 66%), BCL2i (38%, 49%), stem cell transplant (SCT; 6%, 7%), and CAR-T (11%, 4%). Of 29 pts with bone marrow screening, 41.4% had CLL alone present in BM, 13.8% had DLBCL present and 24.1% had both CLL and DLBCL present. For 39 pts with available PET data, the median SUVmax was 19.1 (range, 2.6-41.2). For all 82 pts, the ORR was 50.0% (95% CI, 38.7-61.3) including complete (13.4%, n=11) and partial (36.6%, n=30) responses. For 61 pts who received prior cBTKi therapy, the ORR was 45.9% (95% CI 33.1-59.2). Among 28 pts with an RT-directed cBTKi and 51 pts with prior CLL-directed cBTKi, the ORR was 42.9% (95% CI, 24.5-62.8) and 43.1% (95% CI, 29.3-57.8), respectively. In 50 pts who discontinued prior cBTKi due to disease progression, the ORR was 42.0% (95% CI, 28.2-56.8). At median follow-up time of 9.7 months, the median DoR for all 82 RT pts was 7.4 months (95% CI, 3.1-19.1) and the estimated rate at 12 months was 45.9% (95% CI, 28.3-61.8). The median time on treatment for the 41pts who responded to treatment was 8.3 months. Eight pts stopped pirtobrutinib to pursue curative-intent allogeneic SCT and DoR was censored at the last preceding disease assessment. At a median survival follow-up of 18.3 months, the median OS for the entire RT cohort was 12.5 months (95% CI, 6.9-20.5). At 18 months, the OS rate was 44.3% (95% CI, 32.5-55.4). Frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) in the RT cohort (n=82) were neutropenia/decreased neutrophil count (29.3%, n=24), fatigue (24.4%, n=20) and diarrhea, dyspnea, thrombocytopenia, and pyrexia (18.3% each, n=15). Common grade ≥3 TEAEs were neutropenia/decreased neutrophil count (23.2%, n=19), thrombocytopenia (11.0%, n=9), plus anemia and sepsis (9.8% each, n=8). Any grade hypertension (3.7%, n=3) or atrial fibrillation (1.2%, n=1) were infrequent. Three pts (3.7%) had treatment-related AEs leading to dose reductions, but no pt had a treatment-related AE leading to pirtobrutinib discontinuation. Analyses of clonality will be presented. Conclusions: Continued follow-up from BRUIN demonstrates encouraging response and OS in pts with RT. Pirtobrutinib remains well-tolerated with low rates of discontinuation and manageable safety profile. While RT remains a challenging diagnosis, pirtobrutinib represents a potential treatment option that warrants further investigation.

PURPOSE Pirtobrutinib is a highly selective, noncovalent (reversible) Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi). We report the safety and efficacy of pirtobrutinib in patients with covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (cBTKi) pretreated mantle-cell lymphoma (MCL), a population with poor prognosis. METHODS Patients with cBTKi pretreated relapsed/refractory (R/R) MCL received pirtobrutinib monotherapy in a multicenter phase I/II trial (BRUIN; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03740529 ). Efficacy was assessed in the first 90 consecutively enrolled patients who met criteria for inclusion in the primary efficacy cohort. The primary end point was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary end points included duration of response (DOR) and safety. RESULTS The median patient age was 70 years (range, 46-87), the median prior lines of therapy was 3 (range, 1-8), 82.2% had discontinued a prior cBTKi because of disease progression, and 77.8% had intermediate- or high-risk simplified MCL International Prognostic Index score. The ORR was 57.8% (95% CI, 46.9 to 68.1), including 20.0% complete responses (n = 18). At a median follow-up of 12 months, the median DOR was 21.6 months (95% CI, 7.5 to not reached). The 6- and 12-month estimated DOR rates were 73.6% and 57.1%, respectively. In the MCL safety cohort (n = 164), the most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were fatigue (29.9%), diarrhea (21.3%), and dyspnea (16.5%). Grade ≥3 TEAEs of hemorrhage (3.7%) and atrial fibrillation/flutter (1.2%) were less common. Only 3% of patients discontinued pirtobrutinib because of a treatment-related adverse event. CONCLUSION Pirtobrutinib is a first-in-class novel noncovalent (reversible) BTKi and the first BTKi of any kind to demonstrate durable efficacy after prior cBTKi therapy in heavily pretreated R/R MCL. Pirtobrutinib was well tolerated with low rates of treatment discontinuation because of toxicity.

Abstract Introduction: The management of CLL patients historically utilized FD chemoimmunotherapy (CIT), including fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR), or bendamustine and rituximab (BR). That changed with the introduction of Bruton Tyrosine Kinase inhibitors (BTKi) as an option for oral targeted monotherapy delivered continuously until disease progression or intolerance. Recently, novel combinations that include a B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor (BCL2i), such as venetoclax, have been developed as FD therapy. In addition, though not FDA approved, MRD assessment is emerging as a potential tool to guide FD therapy. Understanding the patient and their caregiver perspectives on FD and MRD is critical to providing the best care. Methods: CLL Society developed a web-based survey instrument of multiple-choice questions to assess patient and caregiver awareness, understanding, and preferences with MRD and FD therapies, where FD referred to both time and MRD guided limited duration therapies. Patients and caregivers were invited to participate via message boards, CLL Society's website, email, and online communities. Results: A total of 607 (96%) self-identified US patients and 36 (5%) caregivers, who answered on behalf of patients in their care, completed the survey between 31/AUG/2020 and 31/JAN/2021. The mean patient age was 64 (range, 30-90) years, 54% were female, 169 patients (27%) treatment-naïve, 239 (38%) with one line of prior therapy, and 214 (34%) with two or more. Targeted agents (e.g., venetoclax, ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, idelalisib, and duvelisib) had been used by 401 (64%). FD use with some novel therapies was known of by 565 (90%) patients, while 588 (93%) knew some were used as continuous daily treatment until disease progression or intolerance. If effectiveness and side effects were assumed similar, 485 (77%) preferred FD, and 398 (63%) wanted that finite treatment to be guided by MRD status. Only 42 (7%) preferred continuous therapy until disease progression or intolerance. The chance for continued remission while off treatment was ranked as a very important potential benefit after stopping a FD therapy by 581 (92%) patients. When considering therapy, 589 (93%), 575 (91%), 447 (71%), 415 (66%), 302 (48%), and 288 (46%) rated having overall survival, having future therapeutic options, avoiding chemotherapy, the ability to reach undetectable (u)MRD, minimal lab and office visits, and FD therapy as very important, respectively (Fig. 1). Being tested for MRD at least once was reported by 215 (34%), while 327 (52%) had not been tested, and 88 (14%) were unsure. There were 562 (89%) who were somewhat or very familiar with the term MRD, while 450 (71%) were confident of understanding what MRD testing measures, and 446 (70%) understood its role in CLL. Only 225 (36%) stated they understood different testing methods. While self-rated understanding of the indications for MRD testing was relatively high, some wanted testing done when not clinically indicated, such as when there was persistent CLL by routine laboratory findings, or at the time of diagnosis (Fig. 2). Respondents were mixed in their stated understanding as to which therapies could result in uMRD, with 241 (38%), 197 (32%), and 195 (32%) not knowing if CIT, BCL2i, and BTKi, could lead to uMRD, respectively. Two hundred and sixty-five (42%), 84 (13%), and 57 (9%) believed it was possible for most on a BCL2i, BTKi, or CIT to achieve uMRD, respectively (Fig. 3). If patients had evidence of MRD at the end of treatment, 365 (58%) would request frequent monitoring but would make no immediate treatment decisions based on MRD status, 279 (44%) were unsure, and only 88 (14%) would want further treatment immediately. Conclusions: The results from this patient-based study reveal a high awareness of FD therapies and MRD testing, as well as a clear preference for FD among internet-active patients and caregivers. However, there are gaps in the knowledge base, thus significant educational opportunities. Limitations included the opt-in sample where the survey results may not be projectable to the total CLL population. Moreover, the survey was not designed to assess preferences if either FD or continuous therapy offered improved outcomes. Nonetheless, as the potential role of MRD and FD therapy grows in CLL it will be incumbent on clinicians to ensure patients are well informed and engaged to help them better share therapeutic decisions. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Koffman: AbbVie: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; AstraZeneca: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria; Beigene: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Bristol Myer Squibb: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria; Gilead: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Johnson & Johnson: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; TG Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Regeneron: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Miragen Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Portola Pharma: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; MEI Pharma: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Merck: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Stewart: Johnson & Johnson: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Novartis: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Pacific Biosciences: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. 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. Danilov: Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; Rigel Pharm: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers-Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; SecuraBio: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Davids: BeiGene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Ascentage Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eli Lilly and Company: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Furman: Beigene: Consultancy; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; X4 Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Oncotracker: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Expert testimony; AstraZeneca: Honoraria. Jain: Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Fate Therapeutics: Research Funding; Beigene: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Cellectis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Honoraria, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Aprea Therapeutics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Research Funding; Servier: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Kay: Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Targeted Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Behring: 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; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: 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; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; CytomX Therapeutics: 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; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Sunesis: 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. Lamanna: Juno Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; MingSight Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics, Inc: Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Oncternal Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy. Mato: MSKCC: Current Employment; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB, Research Funding; Nurix: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ujjani: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Atara Bio: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; ACDT: Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria; Loxo: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Pagel: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Incyte/MorphoSys: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/AbbVie: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy.

Abstract The management of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has undergone unprecedented changes over the last decade. Modern targeted therapies are incorporated into clinical practice. Unfortunately, patients have begun to develop resistance or intolerance to multiple classes. Symptomatic patients previously treated with a BTK inhibitor (BTKi) and venetoclax represent a new and rapidly growing unmet need in CLL. Here, we define unmet needs in a modern treatment context. We also critically review the literature for PI3K inhibitors and chemoimmunotherapy and lack of data to support their utility following BTKis and venetoclax. Finally, we suggest opportunities to ensure the continued innovation for patients with CLL.