Kiselev, Pavel

Abstract Introduction: Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) constitutes ~40% of hematologic malignancies and, in 2020, resulted in 19,940 deaths in the USA. The most common NHL subtypes are diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), including primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL), and follicular lymphoma (FL). Although a majority of patients respond to standard-of-care therapy, many patients with NHL eventually relapse, highlighting the need for additional treatments. Real-world data regarding the safety and efficacy of emerging therapies in the relapsed/refractory (R/R) population, and the association between treatment patterns and patient outcomes, are limited. These data could provide unique insights to clinical and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes in patients with DLBCL, FL, or PMBCL treated with emerging therapies, especially novel options such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapies. Methods: The Connect ® Lymphoma Disease Registry (NCT04982471) is a US-based, multicenter, prospective observational cohort study of patients with R/R NHL (DLBCL, FL, and PMBCL). Approximately 2100 patients ≥ 18 years of age from ~200 community oncology (~80%) or academic (~20%) sites will be enrolled over a ~3-year period. Patients with histologically confirmed NHL subtypes will be enrolled into 1 of 4 cohorts: first R/R DLBCL, second R/R DLBCL, first R/R FL, or first R/R PMBCL (Figure). Patients will be required to have begun second- (first R/R) or third- (second R/R) line systemic treatment within 60 days prior to enrollment. Patients receiving treatment for any active malignancy other than DLBCL, FL, or PMBCL at the time of enrollment, or who are diagnosed with any other malignancy in the 6 months prior to enrollment, will be excluded. All treatment and management decisions will be determined by the practicing clinicians. Patients may undergo hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, CAR T cell therapy, or other treatments at other sites while participating in this study. Patients will be followed from enrollment for up to 5 years or until death, withdrawal of consent, loss to follow-up, or study termination, whichever occurs first. Data collection will occur at enrollment (baseline) and then every ~3 months. The main objectives of the Connect ® Registry are to describe patient characteristics, practice patterns, and factors associated with treatment choice, sequencing, and effectiveness in NHL subtypes. Secondary objectives include describing treatment regimen safety, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) including HRQoL, and healthcare resource utilization outcomes. Exploratory objectives include tumor and blood biomarker evaluation and understanding the availability of social support and its impact on long-term treatment decision-making. Case report forms will be used to collect clinical and treatment data, including baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment details and response, and socioeconomic factors. Outcome measures for efficacy will be progression-free survival, event-free survival, objective response rate, time to next treatment, and overall survival. The availability of social support will be assessed via a specific questionnaire administered at baseline. General (EQ-5D-5L) and disease-specific (FACT-Lym) questionnaires will also be administered. Patients may also optionally agree to release tumor biopsies and blood samples for biomarker analysis. Clinicians will be required to report serious adverse events (AEs), secondary primary malignancies, and confirmed COVID-19 infections within 24 hours. Non-serious AEs of interest include grade 1-3 cytokine release syndrome, grade 1-3 neurotoxicity, grade 3 colitis, grade 3 arrhythmia, grade 3 hemorrhage. Other AEs of interest to be collected include grade 3 hypogammaglobulinemia, prolonged grade 3 cytopenia, and grade 3 infections. Data collected in the Connect ® Registry will increase understanding of the association between emerging therapies and patient outcomes for R/R DLBCL, FL, and PMBCL. Study support: Bristol Myers Squibb Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Flowers: Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Biopharma: Consultancy; Ziopharm: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Nektar: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Iovance: Research Funding; Allogene: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; Kite: Research Funding; EMD: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Adaptimmune: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Epizyme, Inc.: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; 4D: Research Funding; Denovo: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Guardant: Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; SeaGen: Consultancy; Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas: CPRIT Scholar in Cancer Research: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Andorsky: Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Other: served on steering committees; Epizyme: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Burke: SeaGen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; X4 Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Kymera: Consultancy. Cerhan: Genentech: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration. Grinblatt: Astellas Pharma, Inc.: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Toomey: Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Zelenetz: Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Verastem: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; MEI Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; SecuraBio: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; LFR: Other; Genentech/Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; NCCN: Other; MethylGene: Research Funding; Beigene: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene/JUNO: Honoraria, Other; Amgen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Sullivan: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Flick: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment. Kiselev: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Kaplan: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment. Ahn: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment.

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.

Abstract Introduction: Rituximab (R) improves survival in CLL when added to intensive chemotherapy (such as fludarabine and cyclophosphamide [FCR]), and has been shown to improve progression-free survival when given as maintenance therapy following first- or second-line chemoimmunotherapy. However, early phase 2 studies demonstrated only modest activity of R monotherapy (R mono), particularly at standard dose, and its use as a single agent for pts with CLL has remained controversial. Here we describe the characteristics and outcomes of pts with CLL receiving R mono in a real-world setting. Methods: The Connect CLL registry (NCT01081015), a multicenter, prospective observational cohort study, enrolled 1,494 pts with CLL between 2010-2014 from 179 community, 17 academic, and 3 government sites throughout the USA. Pts were ≥ 18 years and were enrolled ≤ 2 months after initiating any line of therapy (LOT). Pts were treated according to individual physician/patient decision making, and adherence to IWCLL standards cannot be determined. Bone marrow biopsy and CT scans were at the physician's discretion; responses were physician assessed and not centrally reviewed. For this analysis, pts were stratified by first (LOT1) or subsequent LOT (LOT≥2), and by treatment with R mono or other treatments (Tx). Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate event-free survival (EFS; event defined as death, progression/relapse, or transformation). A log-rank test was used to evaluate differences in EFS. A multivariate analysis of EFS in LOT1 pts was performed using the Cox regression model. Results: Of the pts enrolled, 105 (11.8%) pts in LOT1 and 81 (13.4%) pts in LOT≥2 received R mono. Of the pts receiving other Tx, 620/784 pts (79%) in LOT1 and 333/524 pts (64%) in LOT≥2 received R in combination. In LOT1, pts receiving R mono were older than pts receiving other Tx (74 vs 67 years; P < 0.0001); in LOT≥2 median ages were comparable (71 vs 70 years). Pts receiving R mono were more likely to have Rai stage 0-1 CLL than pts receiving other Tx, both in LOT1 (63.9% vs 51.8%; P = 0.05) and LOT≥2 (70.4% vs 49.9%; P = 0.005). The proportion of pts receiving R mono vs other Tx with a CCI score of ≥ 4 was similar in LOT1 (25.7% vs 22.8%) and LOT≥2 (32.1% vs 28.4%). Median absolute lymphocyte count at enrollment was lower in pts on R mono vs other Tx in LOT1 (27.7 vs 46.1 x 109/L) but similar in LOT≥2 (35.6 vs 30.2 x 109/L). A lower proportion of pts receiving R mono had FISH/cytogenetics performed at enrollment than pts receiving other Tx in LOT1 (48.6% vs 67.0%; P = 0.0002) and LOT≥2 (30.9% vs 49.6%; P = 0.002). The most common Tx regimens in LOT1 were FCR (25.9%), bendamustine plus R ([BR] 21.0%), R mono (11.8%), fludarabine plus R ([FR] 6.3%), and chlorambucil (4.6%); and in LOT≥2, BR (27.6%), R mono (13.4%), FCR (8.6%), bendamustine (7.4%), FR (4.1%), and ofatumumab (4.0%). The most common reason to initiate treatment in any LOT was bone marrow failure (LOT1, 44.8% vs 39.3%; LOT≥2, 37.0% vs 31.5%; R mono vs other Tx). Duration of therapy was shorter for pts receiving R mono vs other Tx in LOT1 (1.4 vs 4.1 months) and LOT≥2 (1.6 vs 3.3 months). In LOT1, responses were lower in pts on R mono vs other Tx: overall response rate (ORR) was 38.1% vs 64.2% (complete response [CR], 16.2% vs 41.2%; P < 0.0001). In LOT≥2, ORR was 25.9% vs 24.6% for pts on R mono vs other Tx (CR, 9.9% vs 11.5%; P = 0.68). Partial response did not differ significantly between pts receiving R mono vs other Tx in LOT1 and LOT≥2. Pts receiving R mono in LOT1 had inferior median EFS vs other Tx (34 vs 50 months; log-rank P = 0.04); however, after adjusting for factors such as ECOG status and del(17p) status, there was no difference in EFS (HR 0.932; P = 0.79). In pts in LOT≥2, median EFS was similar for R mono and other Tx (15 months for both groups; P = 0.93). Conclusions: Pts receiving R mono as frontline CLL therapy were older than pts receiving other Tx. They also had lower stage disease and lower lymphocyte counts, a shorter duration of treatment, and inferior response rates. Pts receiving R mono in relapsed CLL, more closely approximated pts receiving other Tx in terms of age. Despite the shorter duration of therapy for pts receiving R mono in LOT1 and LOT≥2, both groups had similar ORR and EFS in LOT≥2. These data reinforce the idea that R mono is inadequate as frontline therapy in progressive CLL, and demonstrate the opportunity for improvement in relapsed/refractory disease with novel agents relative to traditional chemoimmunotherapy approaches. Disclosures Sharman: Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Davids:Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: 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; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie, Janssen, Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Farber:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Grinblatt:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Lamanna:Gilead: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Pronai: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Mato:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; ProNAi: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Theradex: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Nabhan:Astellas: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Cardinal Health: Consultancy; Infinity: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sullivan:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Flick:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kiselev:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Bhushan:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Swern:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Flowers:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Optum Rx, Seattle Genetics, Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria; Spectrum, Janssen, Infinity, AbbVie, Acerta, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction The natural history of patients (pts) with CLL varies considerably. Some pts may have asymptomatic, indolent disease, while others may require therapy soon after diagnosis. Clinical staging systems cannot identify early-stage pts at risk for inferior survival. Genetic and molecular markers can provide additional information regarding prognosis and response prediction, however their utilization is limited in routine practice (Mato, ASCO 2015) and results can be conflicting. There is a need to identify characteristics of early-stage CLL pts at highest risk of early progression and/or death. Such characteristics, if readily available and reproducible, may identify such pts as candidates for early-intervention studies; particularly in the era of kinase inhibitor therapy. The Connect CLL registry is the largest prospective study describing real-world management of a diverse cohort of 1494 CLL pts. In this analysis, we evaluate key factors that are associated with early CLL-associated mortality in clinical practice. Methods Connect CLL is a multicenter, observational cohort study aimed at understanding patterns of CLL management without a study-specific intervention. Eligible pts were adults with a clinical diagnosis of CLL, enrolled between 2010-2014 at 179 community (n=1311), 17 academic (n=155), and 3 government (n=28) sites within ≤ 2 months of initiating either a first line of therapy (LOT1), or a second-line or subsequent LOT (LOT≥2). The goal of this analysis was to assess potential predictors of death occurring within 18 months following initiation of frontline therapy (LOT1). Because CLL usually presents as an indolent disease associated with a prolonged clinical course, we chose to define early mortality as any death occurring ≤ 18 months following enrollment. Univariate logistic regression was performed against potential predictor variables including several clinical characteristics and comorbid conditions, race, treatment (Tx) site, insurance type, geographic region, presence of prior malignancies, genetic prognostic factors (FISH and cytogenetics) at enrollment, cell surface markers (Zap70, CD38), reasons for Tx initiation and Tx choice for LOT1 (BR or FCR). IgVH mutation status and genetic mutations (P53, Notch1, etc.) were not included as these tests were not readily performed in community practice. Predictors that were found to be significant at the 0.15 significance level were included in the multivariable logistic regression using a stepwise variable selection process, to identify factors associated with early mortality. Results 1344 pts completed 18 months of follow-up (n=1111) or died (n=233) within the first 18 months of study enrollment. Of these, 801 pts were enrolled in LOT1 (median time from diagnosis to LOT1 was 1.3 yrs; IQR, 0.1-3.7 yrs). 82 of 801 pts (10.2%) died within 18 months of LOT1 initiation; 41% of pts with available clinical information who died, were defined as early-stage (Rai stage 0-1). Of 26 potential predictors evaluated, 12 were associated with early mortality among LOT1 pts at the 0.15 significance level in univariate analyses including site, race, age>75, CD-38, del(17p), ECOG PS, CCI group, RAI stage, creatinine clearance, insurance status, reasons for Tx initiation, anemia and lymphocytosis. In multivariable logistic regression analyses we identified 4 independent predictors of mortality within 18 months of LOT1 initiation (Table): pt age, CD38 expression, baseline decreased hemoglobin (as a reason for Tx initiation), and race. Conclusions In CLL pts with Rai stage 0-1, we have identified 4 factors which are associated with increased risk of death within 18 months of initiation of frontline therapy. Interestingly, neither choice of FCR vs BR chemoimmunotherapy nor the presence of del(17p)/del(11q) were predictors of early mortality. Using these results, we are currently designing a model to predict early mortality in early-stage pts. Once validated, these results may provide a framework for trials targeting the "early stage, symptomatic" CLL pts for novel interventions. Table. Multivariable Analysis: Predictors of Early Mortality Odds ratio estimate 95% CI P -value LOT1, n=781 Age ≥75 years, yes vs no 2.2 1.4-3.5 0.0012 CD38 expression, positive vs negative/not specified 1.8 1.1-2.9 0.0182 Anemia as reason for treatment, yes vs no 2.1 1.3-3.4 0.0040 Race, other vs Caucasian 1.9 1.0-3.8 0.0501 Disclosures Farber: Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Mato:TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pronai Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy. Nabhan:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kipps:Pharmacyclics Abbvie Celgene Genentech Astra Zeneca Gilead Sciences: Other: Advisor. Flowers:Spectrum: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; OptumRx: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; OptumRx: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Celegene: Other: Unpaid consultant, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Celegene: Other: Unpaid consultant, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding. Kay:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Hospira: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: 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 Corporation: 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. Grinblatt:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kozloff:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy. Sullivan:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Flick:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kiselev:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Bhushan:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Swern:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sharman:TG Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding; Calistoga: Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Results of several large clinical trials have demonstrated inferior outcomes when CLL patients (pts) with del(17p), or to a lesser extent del(11q), are treated with chemoimmunotherapy. Despite recent advances in targeted therapies, management of unfavorable-risk CLL pts remains challenging. The Connect CLL registry is the largest prospective study describing real-world management of a diverse cohort of CLL pts. Here we describe the management of genetically unfavorable-risk CLL pts enrolled in the Connect CLL Registry, and test associations between del(17p)/del(11q) mutations and treatment choice, timing of therapy, and outcomes. Methods: Connect CLL is a longitudinal, multicenter, observational cohort study of 1,494 CLL pts enrolled between 2010-2014 at 179 community (n=1,311), 17 academic (n=155), and 3 government (n=28) sites within ≤ 2 months of initiating any line of therapy (LOT). For this study, pts were categorized into 3 risk-groups based on FISH or cytogenetic results at enrollment: unfavorable risk [either del(17p)/del(11q) positive]; favorable risk [absence of del(17p)/del(11q)]; and unknown risk (testing not performed). Analyses were stratified by LOT at enrollment (LOT1 vs LOT≥2). The risk of an EFS defining event was compared across risk-groups stratified by LOT, including only pts who had been followed for ≥ 2 years (yr) or those who had an EFS defining event (death, progression/relapse, transformation) within 2 yr, using multivariable (MV) logistic regression. Logistic regression analyses of 18 potential predictors were performed, and significant predictors (0.10 significance level) were then included in a MV logistic regression model to identify factors associated with inferior 2 yr EFS. Results: Of 1,494 pts enrolled, 225 had unfavorable risk [del(17p), n = 94; del(11q), n = 131], 621 favorable risk, and 648 unknown risk. For pts enrolled at LOT1 (n = 889), 141 had unfavorable risk, 425 favorable risk, and 323 unknown risk. Baseline characteristics for unfavorable-risk pts in LOT1 included: median age 69 yr (62% age ≥ 65 yr); 91% White; 53% Rai stage ≥ 2; 86% community sites; 0.9 yr median time from dx to LOT1; 8% family history CLL. With the exception of age, unfavorable-risk pts treated at LOT1 with FCR (median age 63) and BR (median age 74) had similar demographic characteristics. Median time from dx to LOT1 was 1.0, 1.3, and 2.0 yr for unfavorable risk, favorable, and unknown-risk pts, respectively (P < 0.001 for comparison of the 3 risk-subgroups). Reasons for initiating treatment in unfavorable-risk pts were lymphadenopathy (42%), bone marrow failure (36%), and lymphocytosis (33%) (similar across the 3 risk-subgroups). The three most common therapies for unfavorable-risk pts in LOT1 were FCR (36%), BR (21%), and FR (6%). Favorable-risk (FCR 26%, BR 24%, and R 10%) and unknown-risk pts (FCR 22%, BR 18%, and R 17%) were treated similarly in LOT1. Median time from dx to LOT≥2 was 3.5 yr in unfavorable-risk pts (vs 4.1 yr in favorable and 4.6 yr in unknown risk pts; P = 0.04 for comparison of the 3 risk-groups). For unfavorable-risk pts in LOT≥2, BR (26%), R (11%), and FCR (10%) were most commonly prescribed. At any LOT, only 10% of unfavorable-risk pts participated in a clinical trial and 4% underwent allogeneic SCT. Overall, 33% (LOT1) and 68% (LOT≥2) of pts experienced an EFS defining event within 2 yrs. Pts with unfavorable risk (vs favorable risk) had significantly worse outcomes, with a higher-risk of death/progression/relapse/transformation within 2 yr (LOT1: 42% vs 29%, respectively, P = 0.008; and LOT≥2: 80% vs 61%, P = 0.004). Unfavorable-risk pts treated with either FCR or BR at LOT1 had similar risk of an EFS defining event (odds ratio [OR] 0.9, CI 0.6-1.5). Results from MV analyses of LOT1 pts identified unfavorable risk (OR 1.9; 95% CI 1.1-3.1; P = 0.0168) and age ≥ 75 years (OR 2.6; 95% CI 1.5-4.3; P = 0.007) as independent predictors of inferior EFS at 2 yr. Conclusions: Although similar treatment approaches were used among the 3 risk-subgroups, pts with unfavorable-risk CLL had inferior outcomes at LOT1 and LOT≥2. These results, from a real-world setting, validate the findings for unfavorable risk pts from large clinical trials. These data underscore the importance of performing genetic risk stratification on all CLL pts, and support consideration of clinical trials and/or B cell receptor targeted agents for unfavorable risk CLL pts when treatment is considered. Disclosures Mato: Janssen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Pronai Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Nabhan:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Flowers:Celegene: Other: Unpaid consultant, Research Funding; Celegene: Other: Unpaid consultant, Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; OptumRx: Consultancy; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; OptumRx: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding. Kay:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Tolero Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Hospira: Research Funding. Kipps:Pharmacyclics Abbvie Celgene Genentech Astra Zeneca Gilead Sciences: Other: Advisor; Pharmacyclics Abbvie Celgene Genentech Astra Zeneca Gilead Sciences: Other: Advisor. Grinblatt:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. 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; Infinity: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kozloff:Genentech: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy. Sullivan:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Flick:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kiselev:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Bhushan:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Swern:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sharman:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Calistoga: Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding.

Key Points Early progression of disease within 2 years of initial therapy independently predicts inferior survival in CLL. Early progression of disease is a robust clinical end point and a useful posttreatment risk stratification tool.

Abstract The majority of pts with newly diagnosed CLL are classified with Rai stage 0 or 1 disease and typically experience an indolent clinical course. However, little is known regarding the reasons for initiating therapy in this population or patterns of initial treatment in the contemporary era of our practicing community. We utilized data from the Connect CLL registry, a US-based multi-center, prospective observational cohort study that is aimed at understanding patterns of CLL management without a study-specific intervention. Eligible pts were adults with a clinical diagnosis of CLL who initiated therapy ≤2 months prior to enrollment, and were enrolled from academic (n=155), community (n=1311), or government (n=28) sites between 2010-2014. Descriptive statistics were applied to examine data on demographics, baseline characteristics, treatment selection, early treatment outcomes, and reasons for initiating therapy that were reported for pts with Rai 0/1 CLL receiving first-line therapy. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to evaluate predictors of complete response (CR) and event-free survival (EFS) defined as the occurrence of the first of disease progression, relapse or death within 24 months of enrollment. Among 684 pts who received first-line therapy at enrollment and for whom Rai stage was available, 363 had Rai 0/1 CLL. This group had a median age of 68 years (range 41-90); 94% were white, 60% male, 98% insured, and 93% were treated in community practices; 47% had Rai stage 0 disease (54% Binet A); 33% had ≥1 constitutional symptoms; 96% had ECOG performance status of 0 or 1; 35% had conventional cytogenetics and 53% had FISH analysis performed. Among pts for whom cytogenetic or FISH analysis were performed, 159 (72%) were abnormal, of them 37 pts (23%) had del(11q), 104 pts (65%) had del(13q), 33 pts (21%) had trisomy 12, and 20 pts (13%) had del(17p) by conventional cytogenetics and/or FISH, including 8% with del(17p) by FISH. The median time from diagnosis to initiation of therapy was 2.5 years (range 0-20 years) for Rai 0/1 pts compared with 0.5 years for pts enrolled with Rai stage ≥2 (range 0-32). The most common reasons for initiating therapy (with >1 reason possible) in Rai 0/1 CLL were: bulky or progressive or lymphadenopathy (40%), progressive lymphocytosis (39%), any disease-related symptom (weight loss, fatigue, fever, night sweats; 28%), anemia (20%), and thrombocytopenia (15%); 42% of pts had >1 reason for initiation. The most common first-line regimens used in this cohort were: fludarabine/cyclophosphamide/rituximab (FCR; 29%), bendamustine/rituximab (BR; 20%), and rituximab alone (12%). Of the 317 pts who either responded to treatment during the first 24 months of enrollment or were followed ≥24 months, 143 pts (45%) achieved CR (investigator assessed as per protocol) and 264 (83%) achieved CR or partial response. Female gender (odds ratio [OR] = 2.22), treatment with BR or FCR (OR = 3.41), and time from diagnosis to therapy (OR = 0.92; with each year increase in time from diagnosis to initiation of therapy, relative odds of CR decreases by 8%), were independent predictors of CR. Of the 311 evaluable pts, 82 pts (26%) experienced an EFS event during the 24 months on study, of which 19 (23%) were deaths and 48 (59%) were progressions. Age ≥75 years (OR = 4.46), lymphocytosis as a reason for therapy initiation (OR = 1.89), and male gender (OR = 1.73) were independent predictors of an EFS event within 24 months. The Connect CLL registry represents the largest comprehensive prospective cohort of CLL pts collected from multiple practices across the US. In concordance with other studies, pts with Rai 0/1 initiated therapy approximately 2.5 years following CLL diagnosis and included a cohort of pts with poor prognostic FISH characteristics. Although chemoimmunotherapy was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of CR, progressive lymphocytosis as a reason for initiating therapy (and not any form of treatment) was more likely to predict an early EFS event. Approaches using novel agents or combination therapies aimed towards addressing pts with progressive lymphocytosis should be considered in future studies. Disclosures Flowers: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; OptumRx: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celegene: Other: Unpaid consultant, Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding. Nabhan:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kay:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Hospira: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharma: Research Funding. Mato:AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pronai Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy. 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 Corporation: 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. Grinblatt:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kipps:Pharmacyclics Abbvie Celgene Genentech Astra Zeneca Gilead Sciences: Other: Advisor; Pharmacyclics Abbvie Celgene Genentech Astra Zeneca Gilead Sciences: Other: Advisor. Kozloff:Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy. Sullivan:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Flick:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kiselev:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Bhushan:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Swern:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sharman:TG Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding; Calistoga: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding.

SummaryThe clinical course of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) is heterogeneous, and treatment options vary considerably. The Connect® CLL registry is a multicentre, prospective observational cohort study that provides a real‐world perspective on the management of, and outcomes for, patients with CLL. Between 2010 and 2014, 1494 patients with CLL and that initiated therapy, were enrolled from 199 centres throughout the USA (179 community‐, 17 academic‐, and 3 government‐based centres). Patients were grouped by line of therapy at enrolment (LOT). We describe the clinical and demographic characteristics of, and practice patterns for, patients with CLL enrolled in this treatment registry, providing patient‐level observational data that represent real‐world experiences in the USA. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analyses were performed on 49·3% of patients at enrolment. The most common genetic abnormalities detected by FISH were del(13q) and trisomy 12 (45·7% and 20·8%, respectively). Differences in disease characteristics and comorbidities were observed between patients enrolled in LOT1 and combined LOT2/≥3 cohorts. Important trends observed include the infrequent use of genetic prognostic testing, and differences in patient characteristics for patients receiving chemoimmunotherapy combinations. These data represent experiences of patients with CLL in the USA, which may inform treatment decisions in everyday practice.