Fraser, Graeme

CCTG CLC.2/Alliance A041202 demonstrated superior progression-free survival at 2 years with ibrutinib alone (87%; HR 0.39) or ibrutinib-rituximab (IR 88%; HR 0.38) compared to chemo-immunotherapy with bendamustine-rituximab (BR 74%) in treatment-naïve patients (pts) with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who were 65 or older (Woyach NEJM 2018). We hypothesized that ibrutinib-based therapies would be more costly than BR but that costs would be offset by less toxicity and improved quality of life (QOL). We completed a prospective trial-based economic analysis to study the direct medical costs and quality-adjusted benefit associated with ibrutinib-based therapies compared to BR in the Canadian (CDN) subset of patients enrolled in CLC.2/Alliance 041202. All CDN pts were invited to participate in the companion analysis. Health utilities were collected using the EuroQOL EQ-5D and calculated using CDN population valuations (Bansback PLOS One 2012). Resource utilization forms were administered to collect off-protocol health care encounters. The planned analysis was a cost-utility analysis from the perspective of a public healthcare system, examining the costs and outcomes (quality-adjusted life years or QALYs) of ibrutinib-based therapy compared to BR. Unit costs were applied to resource data based on publicly available provincial/national databases; all costs were expressed in 2019 US dollars (1 CDN = 0.75 US dollar). Total and disaggregated direct medical costs are presented descriptively. Mean survival was calculated using the restricted mean survival method from randomization to the study time-horizon of 24 months; derived utilities were used to calculate QALYs. A discount rate for costs and benefits (r=0.05) was applied. The analysis was based on estimation (with bootstrapping) of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and/or direct medical costs. A total of 55 pts were enrolled; two pts who did not receive any treatment were censored at day 1 and 3 after randomization and excluded from analysis. Of the 53 analysed, pt demographics were well balanced between treatments and were reflective of the entire population: mean age was 71.6 (SD 6.34) in pts receiving ibrutinib alone (n=17), 72.2 (SD 3.85) in pts receiving IR (n=18), and 71.7 (SD 4.1) in pts receiving BR (n=18). A total of 3 pts, one in each arm, had 17p deletion. Progression-free survival at 2 years for CDN pts was 94% (95% CI 65-99%) for ibrutinib, 100% (95% CI 100-100%) for IR, and 72% (95% CI 45-87%) for BR (Figure 1). At 24 months, 1 pt on the BR arm had crossed over to ibrutinib (as per protocol); there was no overall survival difference between the three arms. On-protocol costs (including protocol treatment, ambulatory care, and imaging) and off-protocol costs (including hospitalizations, concomitant medications, and ambulatory care) are highlighted in Figure 2. On-protocol costs were higher for pts receiving ibrutinib (mean $142,001 USD; SD 48,417) and IR ($164,931; SD 46,208) compared to BR ($38,509; SD 10,351), driven by higher drug acquisition costs associated with ibrutinib (list price $6422 for 420mg/30 days). In contrast, off-protocol costs were modestly higher for pts on BR (mean $3050; SD 3812) compared to the ibrutinib ($2460; SD 3863) or IR ($2890; SD 4206); hospitalizations were the key off-protocol cost drivers and were highest for pts on IR and BR. Overall mean costs over the 2-year time horizon were $144,461 (SD 47,910) for pts on ibrutinib, $167,820 (SD 46,830) for pts on IR, and $41,560 (SD 11,849) for pts on BR. Discounted QALYs were similar between the three treatment arms: 1.66 (0.16) for ibrutinib alone, 1.65 (0.24) for IR, and 1.66 (0.17) for BR. Given the similar quality-adjusted survival between arms at the time of this analysis, a formal ICER was not calculated. Direct medical costs are substantially higher for pts receiving continuous ibrutinib-based therapies, compared to chemo-immunotherapy of fixed duration, in frontline CLL management; the key cost driver is the cost of ibrutinib. The PFS benefit with ibrutinib-based therapy has not translated into an advantage in quality-adjusted survival to date; further follow-up may be required to demonstrate any cost or QOL benefits associated with fewer progression events for those on ibrutinib. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; U10CA180863 and #704970 CCTG. https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01886872 Figure Disclosures Owen: AbbVie, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Astrazeneca, Merck, Servier, Novartis, Teva: Honoraria. Lam:Roche: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Crump:Servier: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Sperlich:Lundbeck Canada: Honoraria. Woyach:Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Morphosys, Karyopharm, Verastem, Abbvie, Lox: Research Funding; Janssen, Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Arqule: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company, AbbVie, Janssen, AstraZeneca, ArQule: Honoraria. Prica:astra zeneca: Honoraria; seattle genetics: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Hay:Roche: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 2859 Introduction: Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia who relapse following purine-analog or bendamustine-based treatments have a poor prognosis. These patients have limited therapeutic options and novel agents with alternative mechanisms of action are needed. In phase 1 and 2 trials, escalating dose regimens of the immunomodulatory agent lenalidomide demonstrated promising activity with relapsed/refractory CLL. Of interest, the data indicate that superior efficacy might be achieved by a starting dose above 2.5 mg daily lenalidomide. A phase 2 trial (CLL-009 study) was developed to investigate the safety of different starting doses of lenalidomide followed by a step-wise dose escalation as tolerated in relapsed/refractory CLL. Methods: In this ongoing trial, eligible subjects with relapsed/refractory CLL who have received at least 1 prior treatment regimen are being enrolled. Subjects are randomized 1 :1 :1 to receive a double-blinded starting dose of 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg oral lenalidomide on days 1–28 of each 28-day cycle. The primary objectives are to determine the safety and efficacy of the different lenalidomide starting doses of 5 mg, 10 mg or 15 mg daily, followed by an intra-patient escalation up to a maximum of 25 mg daily using a Bayesian approach. Based on individual patient tolerability, the daily lenalidomide dose can be escalated every 28 days by 5 mg increments. Dose reductions also occur in 5 mg increments; however, dose levels below 5 mg sequentially include 2.5 mg and 1.25 mg daily. Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) prophylaxis, comprised of oral hydration and allopurinol 300 mg/day is initiated at least 3 days prior to starting study drug and for a minimum of the first 3 treatment cycles. This adaptive design trial is considering joint efficacy and toxicity outcomes to stop randomization of less promising arms. Accrual to a starting dose arm will be stopped if unacceptable toxicities and/or high progression rate are observed in that arm. A total of 90 subjects will be enrolled in the study. Results: To date, 51 subjects with a median age of 63 years (range 39–78) have been enrolled. Subjects to date are primarily male (65%) and Caucasian (84%), and slightly more than half (53%) are ≥ 65 years old. Cytogenetic data is available for 42 subjects; 10 have del(11q), 8 have del(17p), and 24 have del(13q). Overall, 31 subjects had at least one cytogenetic deletion. Based on the Binet and Rai staging systems: 3 (6%), 10 (20%) and 15 (29%) of subjects are stage A, B and C, respectively; and, 6 (12%), 7 (14%) and 7 (14%) subjects are low, intermediate or high-risk disease, respectively. For 3 (6%) subjects the Binet/Rai staging is currently unknown. The most common hematological grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) thus far include neutropenia (41% of patients) and thrombocytopenia (24%). The most common non-hematological grade 3/4 AEs include fatigue (12%) and tumor flare (12%). Only 1 subject (2%) experienced tumor lysis syndrome of grade 1. Over half of the subjects (53%) remain on therapy; 24 (47%) subjects have discontinued treatment. The longest subject has completed 17 cycles, and remains on study medication. The most common reasons for study discontinuation include disease progression (n = 8) and AEs (n = 10). To date, 20 subjects (54% of eligible patients) have successfully dose escalated above their respective starting double blinded dose level, including 3, 3, 2 and 12 subjects undergoing 4, 3, 2, and 1 dose escalations, respectively. As 14 patients are still in the first cycle of the study, a total of 20 subjects have had no dose level reduction or escalations. The average duration of treatment is 4.34 cycles, and the median number of cycles is 3. Efficacy evaluations are completed monthly after 3 months of study drug treatment. By investigator assessment, 34 subjects have been evaluated to date, including 1 (3%) complete response, 12 (35%) partial response, 7 (21%) stable disease, 10 (29%) progressive disease and 4 (12%) not evaluable. Conclusion: The independent Data Monitoring Committee, as of March 24, 2011 (N=41), recommended that accrual into all three treatment arms should continue as planned, suggesting all three starting doses were tolerated. To date, the ORR is 38% (13/34 evaluable subjects), and 54% of subjects (20/37) have dose escalated at least once. In this relapsed/refractory CLL population lenalidomide appears active, and completion of accrual will hopefully demonstrate the appropriate starting dose. Disclosures: Wendtner: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Off Label Use: lenalidomide in cll. Goldberg:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bloor:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Stilgenbauer:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Cymbalista:Roche: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Genzyme: Honoraria. Kipps:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbott Industries: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Igenica: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Purse:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhang:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mei:Celgene: Employment.

Abstract Introduction In 2 large phase 3 trials of patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) CLL/SLL, single-agent ibrutinib (ibr) was superior to ofatumumab (ofa) (RESONATE; Byrd. NEJM 2013) and ibr + BR was superior to placebo + BR (HELIOS; Chanan-Khan. ASCO 2015). Both studies evaluated ibr in different pt populations with different relevant comparators (eg, ofa in pts who had relapsed following prior anti-CD20-based chemoimmunotherapy [CIT] and/or with del17p, and BR in pts eligible for CIT). In the absence of head-to-head evaluations of single-agent ibr vs BR or single-agent ibr vs ibr + BR, indirect comparisons can be used for hypothesis testing by potentially providing insights on the relative efficacy of treatments. As such, an indirect comparative analysis of data from RESONATE and HELIOS was performed. Recognizing biases inherent in cross-trial comparisons, including lack of randomization across trials and consequent differences in distributions of important confounding variables (eg, pt characteristics, prognostic factors), we used pt-level data from both studies to risk adjust for confounders using accepted multivariate statistical approaches. Methods In RESONATE, pts received 420 mg oral ibr daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or intravenous ofa for up to 24 weeks. The primary end point was IRC-assessed PFS, with secondary end points of OS and ORR. In HELIOS, pts received BR (≤ 6 cycles) with either 420 mg oral ibr daily or placebo until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Pts with del17p were excluded. The primary end point was IRC-assessed PFS, with secondary end points of ORR and OS. Per protocol amendment in both studies, pts in comparator arms could switch to ibr upon IRC-confirmed progression. The current exploratory analysis was based on the latest available data from each trial (median time on study: RESONATE, 19 months; HELIOS, 17 months) using investigator assessments, but excluding del17p pts from RESONATE. Analyses were performed using data from both the overall CLL/SLL population and only the CLL pts. Separate multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were constructed for PFS and OS, including treatment and clinically relevant prognostic variables as covariates (age, gender, Rai staging, ECOG score, del11q status, refractory status, number of prior lines of therapy, bulky disease, IgVH status). Adjusted HRs and 95% CIs are presented vs single-agent ibr, along with predicted survival curves derived from the multivariate Cox regressions. Results RESONATE and HELIOS enrolled populations with notable differences making naïve comparison flawed. Because HELIOS enrolled only CIT-eligible pts, the trial included younger pts who had received fewer lines of therapy, as well as lower proportions of pts with purine analog refractory disease, del11q, or Rai stage 4 disease. These factors have been previously reported to influence outcomes in pts with R/R CLL/SLL and thus were included as covariates in the statistical models. Other baseline factors (gender, ECOG score, bulky disease, and IgVH status) were not notably different between the trials, but were found to impact PFS and OS and thus were included as additional covariates. In the overall CLL/SLL population, PFS and OS were comparable for single-agent ibr vs ibr + BR, and were significantly improved for single-agent ibr vs BR (Figure 1). Results for only the CLL pts were similar to those shown in Figure 1 for both PFS (ibr + BR vs single-agent ibr: 1.03 [0.61-1.75], p = 0.9042; BR vs single-agent ibr: 7.52 [4.72-11.99], p < 0.0001; single-agent ibr reduced the risk of progression/death by 87% vs BR) and OS (ibr + BR vs single-agent ibr: 1.20 [0.59-2.43], p = 0.6197; BR vs single-agent ibr: 2.24 [1.14-4.40], p = 0.0197; single-agent ibr reduced the risk of death by 55% vs BR). Conclusions The adjusted indirect comparisons reported here suggest superiority of single-agent ibr over BR for PFS and OS in patients with R/R CLL/SLL. The comparisons also suggest that the addition of BR to ibr did not improve PFS or OS compared with single-agent ibr. However, as median PFS has not been reached for either ibr arm, it is too early to draw firm conclusions. Longer follow-up in the ibr arms of these studies will be required to give an indication of whether CIT adds any benefit to ibrutinib for PFS and OS. Overall, these findings provide support for single-agent ibr as an appropriate choice for all pts with previously treated CLL/SLL. Disclosures Hillmen: Roche Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Honoraria, Research Funding. Fraser:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Hoffman LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jones:Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding. Rule:Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement; J&J: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement; Gilead: Research Funding. Dilhuydy:Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Mundipharma: Honoraria. Jaeger:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cymbalista:Karyopharm: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Sun:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ninomoto:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. Mahler:Janssen: Employment, Other: Travel reimbursement. Cheng:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. Diels:Janssen: Employment. Clow:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. Salman:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. James:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. Howes:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Abstract Introduction Ibrutinib has become a new standard of care in patients with previously treated CLL/SLL based on the phase 3 RESONATE study (Byrd, et al. NEJM 2014) and other trials evaluating ibrutinib mainly as a single agent in CLL. The first randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study (HELIOS) investigating ibrutinib in combination with bendamustine and rituximab (BR) was recently reported (Chanan-Khan, et al. ASCO 2015), with ibrutinib significantly extending progression-free survival and reducing the risk of progression/death by 80%. The study design provides an opportunity to examine the overall safety and management of adverse events (AEs) with ibrutinib and placebo in a blinded manner that previously has not been possible. Here we examine the safety and management of AEs with ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR in HELIOS. Methods Patients with active CLL/SLL following ≥ 1 prior line of systemic therapy were randomized 1:1 to receive BR (≤ 6 cycles) with either ibrutinib 420 mg daily or placebo (n = 289 in each group). Safety was a secondary end point. Results Median exposure to ibrutinib and placebo was 14.7 and 12.8 months, respectively. Rates of infection in the ibrutinib + BR and placebo + BR arms were similar (all-grade, 70.4%; grade ≥ 3, 26.8% vs all-grade, 70.0%; grade ≥ 3, 22.6%, respectively) but exposure-adjusted analysis reveals an overall lower rate of infections with ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR (10.3/100 vs 11.2/100 patient-months), with similar rates of grade ≥ 3 infections (2.4/100 patient-months each arm). Rates of all-grade (grade 3/4) anemia were 22.3% (3.5%) with ibrutinib + BR and 28.9% (8.0%) with placebo + BR. Patients also required fewer transfusions with ibrutinib + BR (23%) vs placebo + BR (29%), the majority of which were red blood cell transfusions. Similar proportions of patients used growth factors in both arms (54% vs 52%, respectively). Grade 3/4 neutropenia was reported at similar rates in both arms (53.7% vs 50.5%, respectively); however, fewer patients discontinued due to treatment-related neutropenia with ibrutinib + BR (1.0%) vs placebo + BR (2.8%). Rates of thrombocytopenia were slightly higher with ibrutinib + BR (30.7%) than placebo + BR (24.0%), but rates of grade 3/4 events were similar between arms (15.0% each arm). Atrial fibrillation (AF) was observed more frequently in patients on ibrutinib + BR than placebo + BR (7.3% vs 2.8% overall and 2.8% vs 0.7% grade 3/4, respectively). However, only 4 patients with grade 3/4 AF discontinued therapy in the ibrutinib arm. No patients with grade 1/2 AF discontinued treatment. One-third of patients held ibrutinib treatment to manage AF, with all restarting at the same dose (420 mg). Median (range) time to onset was 3.0 (0.3-17.5) months with ibrutinib + BR and 2.4 (0.6-18.9) months with placebo + BR. Importantly, in those with a prior history of AF or abnormal heart rhythm, only 7/25 receiving ibrutinib + BR and 2/22 receiving placebo + BR developed AF/atrial flutter on study. The rates of any-grade bleeding were 31.0% and 14.6%, respectively, with the majority being grade 1 (77.5% and 69.0%, respectively). Low rates of grade 3/4 major bleeding were observed in the ibrutinib + BR (2.1%) and placebo + BR (1.7%) arms. Many patients (41.8% ibrutinib + BR, 41.1% placebo + BR) were receiving concomitant anticoagulant/antiplatelet medication. A low rate of treatment-related lymphocytosis was observed in both arms (7.0% ibrutinib + BR, 5.9% placebo + BR). The majority of cases resolved within 2 weeks. Conclusions In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, the addition of ibrutinib to BR was well tolerated and did not significantly impact the safety profile of BR. In addition, ibrutinib was associated with reduced rates of anemia and transfusional support. Consistent with its known toxicity profile, patients in the ibrutinib + BR arm had higher rates of bleeding (mostly grade 1 or 2) and AF; however, few patients discontinued therapy as a result of these AEs. A prior history of AF or abnormal heart rhythm did not lead to recurrent episodes in the majority of cases. Taken together, the results from HELIOS establish the significant efficacy of ibrutinib and also the overall positive risk-benefit profile of ibrutinib + BR. Disclosures Cramer: Janssen: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Hoffman LaRoche: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Other: Travel grant; Glaxo Smith Klein/Novartis: Research Funding; Gilead: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Other: Travel grant. Demirkan:Celgene: Other: Travel reimbursement; Amgen: Consultancy. Fraser:Hoffman LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Santucci Silva:Janssen: Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Travel reimbursement; Hoffman LaRoche: Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding. Janssens:Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy. Goy:Allos, Biogen Idec, Celgene, Genentech, and Millennium. Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Mayer:Janssen: Research Funding. Dilhuydy:Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Mundipharma: Honoraria. Bartlett:Medimmune: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; ImaginAB: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Rule:Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement; Gilead: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement; J&J: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding. Sun:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Phelps:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mahler:Janssen: Employment, Other: Travel reimbursement. Salman:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Howes:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hallek:AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Boehringher Ingelheim: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Recent results from the HELIOS phase 3 study in relapsed/refractory CLL/SLL demonstrated that the addition of ibrutinib to chemoimmunotherapy with bendamustine/rituximab (BR) leads to an 80% reduction in risk of progression or death compared with placebo + BR (Chanan-Khan et al. ASCO 2015). In addition to prolongation of progression-free survival (PFS; median not reached vs 13.3 months; hazard ratio: 0.203, 95% confidence interval: 0.150-0.276, p<0.0001), overall response rate (ORR) and rates of complete response (CR) or CR with incomplete marrow recovery (CRi) were significantly improved with ibrutinib + BR (ORR: 82.7% vs 67.8%; CR/CRi: 10.4% vs 2.8%). Here we report additional analyses on the quality of response with ibrutinib combined with BR. Methods In total, 578 patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory CLL/SLL requiring treatment were randomized 1:1 (289 per arm) to receive BR (≤ 6 cycles) with either ibrutinib (420 mg daily) or placebo. Purine analog refractoriness (yes vs no) and number of prior therapies (1 vs > 1) were stratification factors. Pts with deletion 17p (del17p; > 20% of cells) were excluded. All pts were required to have ≥ 1 abnormal lymph node (LN; defined as a measurable lesion > 1.5 cm). The primary end point was independent review committee (IRC)-assessed PFS. In this analysis, individual parameters of response (LN, spleen, overall radiology, absolute lymphocyte count [ALC], complete blood count [CBC], and bone marrow [BM]) were evaluated. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was assessed by flow cytometry using an 8-color panel (Rawstron AC, et al. Leukemia. 2007;21:956-964); MRD samples were collected at confirmation of suspected CR (bone marrow) and every 3 months thereafter (peripheral blood). Rate of MRD-negative response was defined as the proportion of pts who reached negative disease status (< 0.01%, ie, < 1 CLL cell/10,000 leukocytes) in any sample. Reported MRD rates are based on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Results The ORR assessed by the IRC was 82.7% with ibrutinib + BR vs 67.8% with placebo + BR (p < 0.0001), and was consistent with ORR reported by the treating physician (investigator assessed) (ORR: 86.2% vs 68.9%, p < 0.0001). However, rates of CR/CRi were higher by investigator assessment (21.4%, ibrutinib + BR vs 5.9%, placebo + BR) than IRC (10.4% vs 2.8%). The IRC employed an independent evaluation of radiological scans including stringent evaluation of LN and volumetric assessment of spleen size-the main reasons for the difference in CR/CRi rates between investigator and IRC assessment. At baseline, similar proportions of pts in each arm had bulky disease defined as LN > 5 cm (54%-58%) or abnormal spleen (~40%) as assessed by IRC. Complete resolution of previous CLL/SLL manifestations as assessed by the IRC was achieved more often in the ibrutinib + BR arm in comparison with placebo + BR for LN (34.6% vs 15.2%), spleen (56.7% vs 37.0%), overall radiology (21.1% vs 9.0%), and BM (19.7% vs 5.9%). Rates of normalization of ALC (> 90%) and CBC (> 70%) were high and similar in the 2 arms. MRD was assessed in 120 pts treated with ibrutinib + BR and 57 pts treated with placebo + BR and was negative in 37 pts and 14 pts, respectively, which corresponds with an MRD-negative response rate of 12.8% vs 4.8% for ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR (p = 0.0011). Investigator-determined responses by different levels of MRD are shown in Table 1. The percentage of pts with an MRD level < 1% was higher with ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR (32.2% vs 11.8%). Moreover, the percentage of pts with an MRD level < 0.1% was higher for ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR (24.6% vs 7.6%) suggesting that the depth of response with ibrutinib + BR was superior. Kaplan-Meier plots by MRD level (Figure 1) show that a lower MRD level was associated with a longer PFS. However, pts in the ibrutinib + BR arm had a more sustained response at every MRD level compared with pts in the placebo + BR arm. Conclusions Pts treated with ibrutinib + BR showed not only a higher ORR, but also a greater depth of response, with more CRs and a higher rate of resolution of LN, spleen, and BM involvement. Furthermore, the rate and depth of MRD negativity was improved, and appeared to last longer in pts treated with ibrutinib + BR compared with pts receiving placebo + BR. With a median follow up of 17 months in the ibrutinib + BR arm, no MRD-negative pts and few MRD-positive pts had progressed, thus evaluating a trend in PFS with MRD negativity is currently limited in this arm. Disclosures Cramer: Gilead: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding; Glaxo Smith Klein/Novartis: Research Funding; Astellas: Other: Travel grant; Mundipharma: Other: Travel grant; Janssen: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Hoffman LaRoche: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Combination of bendamustine, obinutuzumab and ibrutinib for treatment of CLL. Fraser:Hoffman LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Demirkan:Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Other: Travel reimbursement. Santucci Silva:Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding; Hoffman LaRoche: Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Travel reimbursement. Janssens:Mundipharma: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy. Goy:Allos, Biogen Idec, Celgene, Genentech, and Millennium. Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Mayer:Janssen: Research Funding. Dilhuydy:Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Mundipharma: Honoraria. Bartlett:Millenium: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; ImaginAB: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Rule:Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement; J&J: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement; Gilead: Research Funding. Sun:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Phelps:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mahler:Janssen: Employment, Other: Travel reimbursement. Salman:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schaffer:Janssen: Employment. Balasubramanian:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Equity Ownership; Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Howes:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hallek:AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Boehringher Ingelheim: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Ibrutinib is a first-in-class, once-daily, oral, covalent inhibitor of BTK that has excellent single-agent activity in patients with previously treated CLL/SLL, based on results of published clinical studies. In the HELIOS trial, addition of ibrutinib to BR resulted in an 80% reduction in disease progression or death and confirmed for the first time, in a randomized setting, the benefit of ibrutinib-based therapy compared with standard chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in previously treated patients (Chanan-Khan et al. ASCO 2015). In patients with CLL or SLL, deletion 17p (del17p) and 11q (del11q), complex karyotype, unmutated IgVH, and elevated ZAP70 are known high-risk prognostic factors. The current analysis reports on the efficacy of ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR in patients in the HELIOS trial with relevant high-risk biomarkers. Methods HELIOS is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Patients with active CLL/SLL following ≥ 1 prior therapy were randomized 1:1 to receive BR (≤ 6 cycles) with either ibrutinib (420 mg daily) (n = 289) or placebo (n = 289). Patients with del17p (> 20% of cells) were excluded. Ninety patients in the placebo arm with independent review committee (IRC)-confirmed progressive disease crossed over to ibrutinib, per protocol amendment. The primary end point was IRC-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) was a secondary end point. A total of 287 patients in each arm had data available for at least 1 biomarker, and this population was used for the biomarker analyses. Correlation of biological risk factors at baseline with PFS and OS was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and curves compared using log-rank tests. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using univariate Cox proportional hazards models. Results At a median follow-up of 17 months, IRC-assessed PFS was significantly longer with ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR in the overall study population (median not reached vs 13.3 months, respectively; HR: 0.203; 95% CI: 0.150-0.276; p < 0.0001). All subgroups of patients, including those with adverse prognostic parameters, e.g., del11q, complex karyotype, unmutated IgVH and elevated ZAP70 levels, had a significantly longer PFS with the addition of ibrutinib to BR as compared with placebo + BR (Table 1). As expected, each of these adverse prognostic parameters had a negative impact on PFS in the placebo + BR arm, e.g., the median PFS was shortest in patients with complex karyotype [8.5 months vs 13.8 months in patients without complex karyotype] and in patients with unmutated IgVH (11.3 months vs 22.1 months in patients with mutated IgVH). Interestingly, in the ibrutinib + BR arm, the adverse impact of these risk factors could not be detected (median PFS not reached irrespective of presence of risk factors). For example, in Figure 1 showing the PFS curves stratified by both del11q status and treatment, the outcome for patients in the ibrutinib + BR arm with del11q was similar to those without, with a trend toward better outcome in the del11q patients (e.g., longer PFS - not reached vs 24.9 months), unlike for patients in the placebo + BR arm (11.01 months vs 13.86 months). In patients with del11q, unmutated IgVH, or elevated ZAP70, there were also statistically significant benefits in OS for those receiving ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR (del11q: HR: 0.326, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.122-0.870; p = 0.025; unmutated IgVH: HR: 0.515, 95% CI, 0.298-0.890: p = 0.017; elevated ZAP70, HR 0.536, 95% CI, 0.289-0.994: p = 0.048). Addition of ibrutinib also increased PFS in patient subgroups with other cytogenetic or clinical prognostic markers (such as del13q or bulky disease) compared with placebo. Conclusions All subgroups of patients, irrespective of adverse risk factors, such as del11q, complex karyotype, elevated ZAP70, and unmutated IgVH, benefit from the addition of ibrutinib to BR compared with placebo + BR. The negative impact of these known risk factors is apparent in patients in the placebo + BR arm, but is not seen in patients in the ibrutinib + BR arm. These results suggest that ibrutinib + BR is a suitable treatment regimen for all patients with previously treated CLL/SLL, including those with high-risk prognostic markers. Disclosures Cramer: Janssen: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Hoffman LaRoche: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Other: Travel grant; Glaxo Smith Klein/Novartis: Research Funding; Astellas: Other: Travel grant; Gilead: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding. Fraser:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Hoffman LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Santucci Silva:Janssen: Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Travel reimbursement; Hoffman LaRoche: Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding. Dilhuydy:Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Mundipharma: Honoraria. Goy:Allos, Biogen Idec, Celgene, Genentech, and Millennium. Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Mato:Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; TA Therapeutics: Research Funding. Damle:Janssen: Employment. Phelps:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mahler:Janssen: Employment, Other: Travel reimbursement. Salman:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schaffer:Janssen: Employment. Howes:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Balasubramanian:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Equity Ownership; Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) with CLL/SLL that have del11q tend to have relatively short remission durations and shorter overall survival (OS) with standard chemotherapy regimens. Ibrutinib (ibr), a first-in-class, oral, once-daily inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) is indicated by the US FDA for the treatment of pts with CLL/SLL and allows for treatment without chemotherapy. In phase 3 studies, treatment with single-agent ibr was superior to treatment with ofatumumab (ofa) in relapsed/refractory (R/R) CLL/SLL (RESONATE; Byrd, N Engl J Med 2013) or chlorambucil (clb) in treatment-naïve (TN) CLL/SLL (RESONATE-2; Burger, N Engl J Med 2015); treatment with ibr + bendamustine/rituximab (BR) was also superior to treatment with BR in R/R CLL/SLL (HELIOS; Chanan-Khan, Lancet Oncol 2016). We examined the outcome of pts in these 3 studies who did or did not have del11q to determine the impact of del11q on clinical outcomes. Methods: In RESONATE, pts with R/R CLL/SLL received ibr 420 mg/day until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity (tox) vs ofa for up to 24 weeks (300 mg week 1, 2000 mg weekly for 7 weeks, 2000 mg every 4 weeks for 16 weeks). In RESONATE-2, pts ≥65 years of age with TN CLL/SLL (excluding del17p) received ibr 420 mg/day until PD or tox vs clb 0.5 mg/kg (up to max of 0.8 mg/kg) on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle (≤12 cycles). In HELIOS, pts with R/R CLL/SLL (excluding del17p) received BR (≤6 cycles) with or without ibr 420 mg/day (starting on day 2 of cycle 1) followed by single-agent ibr or placebo continued until PD or tox. Data from pts in the 3 studies were pooled (ibr pool, comparator pool) and analyzed based on whether or not their CLL/SLL had del11q. We performed a multivariate analysis to examine for risk factors prognostic for survival (del11q del17p, age, sex, race, current Rai stage, baseline ECOG PS, number of prior therapies, cytopenias; no multiplicity adjustment). Results: A total of 1210 pts with del11q data were included in the analysis: 609 in the ibr pool (179 with del11q, 430 without del11q) vs 601 in the comparator pool (149 with del11q, 452 without del11q). Demographics and baseline characteristics were generally similar in pts regardless of del11q status; differences of more than 10% included proportions with bulky disease ≥5 cm (63% vs 49%) and unmutated IGHV (88% vs 72%) in pts with or without del11q, respectively. Median lymphadenopathy and absolute lymphocyte counts were also higher in pts with del11q. At the time of the primary analysis, median treatment durations in the ibr pool were 20.0 mo with del11q and 18.7 mo without del11q; in the comparator pool 5.3 mo with del11q and 8.5 mo without del11q. Overall, ibr-treated pts had higher overall response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR) rates and longer progression-free survival (PFS, Figure) and OS than comparator-treated pts regardless of del11q status. In the ibr pool, the presence of del11q was associated with a trend of longer PFS and OS while in the comparator pool, pts with del11q had shorter PFS (Figure, Table), as compared to pts without del11q. Results were similar when excluding pts with del17p (10% of ibr pool [6%/11% with/without del11q] and 9% of comparator pool [8%/10% with/without del11q]; Table). By multivariate analysis, in the comparator pool, del11q, male sex, >1 prior therapy, presence of cytopenias, and unmutated IGHV (in R/R only) were associated with shorter PFS. However, these differences were not found in the ibr pool. The presence of del11q did not unfavorably impact the tempo of reductions in lymphadenopathy for ibr-treated pts, but did for comparator-treated pts. Adverse events leading to discontinuation were similar in ibr- and comparator-treated pts (12% [9% vs 13% with/without del11q] vs 13% [12% vs 13% with/without del11q]). Deaths within 30 days of last dose occurred in 31 pts (5% [3% vs 6% with/without del11q]) in the ibr pool and 28 pts (5% [6% vs 4% with/without del11q]) in the comparator pool. Conclusions: Treatment with ibr was superior to comparator regardless of del11q status; the benefit of ibr was most marked for pts with CLL/SLL with del11q. Presence of del11q was associated with a trend of longer PFS and OS in ibr-treated pts and shorter PFS and lower ORR in comparator-treated pts. By multivariate analysis, presence of del11q was a prognostic factor for shorter PFS for comparator-treated pts, but not for ibr-treated pts. Disclosures Kipps: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Hillmen:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding. Demirkan:Amgen: Consultancy. Coutre:Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Barrientos:Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Barr:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy. O'Brien:Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Fraser:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Jaeger:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Cramer:Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Astellas: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Gilead: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding. Stilgenbauer:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Hoffman La-Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Salman:Janssen Research & Development: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Solman:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; AbbVie: Equity Ownership. Cheng:Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership; AbbVie: Equity Ownership; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. Phelps:Johnson & Johnson: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ninomoto:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment; Amgen, Inc.: Equity Ownership; AbbVie: Equity Ownership. Howes:Janssen: Employment, Other: Leadership; Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership. James:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment; AbbVie: Equity Ownership. Hallek:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Abstract 3925 Introduction: CLL patients (pts) who relapse following purine-analog or bendamustine-based treatments have a poor prognosis. These pts have limited therapeutic options and novel agents with alternative mechanisms of action are needed. Several phase 1 and 2 trials in rel/ref CLL showed promising activity with escalating dose regimens of lenalidomide (LEN). In other phase II studies improved clinical responses to lenalidomide appeared to correlate with dose levels > 5mg/day. This phase 2 trial investigates the safety of LEN initiated at 3 different starting doses followed by a step-wise dose escalation as tolerated in rel/ref CLL. Methods: In this ongoing trial, eligible pts with rel/ref CLL who have received ≥ 1 prior treatment regimen containing purine-analog or bendamustine are being enrolled. The objectives of this study are to evaluate primarily the safety and secondarily the efficacy of different LEN dose regimens. Pts are randomized 1:1:1 to receive a double-blinded starting dose of 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg oral LEN on days 1–28 of each 28-day cycle. In all 3 treatment arms, the dose is escalated by 5 mg increments every 28 days to reach a maximum dose of 25 mg/d, depending on tolerability. In instances of poor tolerability, dose reductions also occur in 5 mg steps. Pts are stratified by relapsed versus refractory status to their last purine-analog or bendamustine-based treatment regimen and according to age (< 65 vs ≥ 65 years). Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) prophylaxis comprises of oral hydration and allopurinol 300 mg/day and is initiated ≥ 3 days prior to starting study drug and for a minimum of the first 3 treatment cycles. A total of 105 pts are planned for enrollment to the study. Per protocol, unblinded interim analyses were conducted by the independent Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) after 18 subjects completed 1 cycle and continue at 13-week intervals. Results: To date, 95 pts are enrolled at a median age of 64 years (range 32–81). Enrolled pts are primarily male (67%) and Caucasian (92%). Cytogenetic data are available for 73 pts; 21% have del(17p), 55% have del(13q), 25% have del(11q), and of 72 patients evaluable for trisomy 12, 11 patients (15%) tested positive. IGVH is unmutated in 77% of 77 evaluable pts and 44% of 84 evaluable pts are ZAP70-positive. Based on the Binet and Rai staging systems 9 (10%), 25 (26%) and 24 (25%) of subjects are stage A, B and C, respectively; 7 (7%), 12 (13%) and 16 (17%) subjects are low, intermediate or high-risk disease, respectively. For 2 (2%) subjects the Binet/Rai staging is currently unknown. Overall, 19 pts (20%) received prior bendamustine-containing treatment and 71 pts (75%) received prior fludarabine-based treatment. The median number of prior therapies was 3 (range 1–10). Most common hematological grade ≥ 3 AEs include neutropenia (62%) and thrombocytopenia (34%). At baseline, 19% of pts presented with grade 1–2 neutropenia. The most common non-hematological ≥ grade 3 AEs include pneumonia (13%), tumor flare (13%), and fatigue (11%). TLS was reported in 3 pts (3%): grade 1, 3, and 4. In total, 8 grade 5 events were reported, 3 of which were suspected to be related to LEN: 2 cases of pneumonia and 1 death for unknown cause. At the time of the cut-off, 59 pts (62%) have discontinued treatment. Most common reasons for treatment discontinuation include disease progression (n = 20) and AEs (n = 20). To date, 47 pts (49%) have dose escalated above their starting dose levels of which 12 patients escalated to the highest dose level (25 mg daily). 18 subjects have had no dose level reduction or escalations and 1 patient is still in the first cycle of the study. Average duration of treatment is 6.5 cycles, and median number of cycles is 4. Efficacy evaluations are completed monthly after 3 months of study drug treatment. At time of the data reporting, 5 pts were on study drug but did not reach the first assessment at cycle. For the 90 pts evaluable for response, the investigator's assessment indicates 2 pts (2%) reached CR, 36 (40%) achieved PR, 33 (37%) patients had SD, and 19 (21%) pts progressed. Conclusion: The independent DMC, as of 14 June, 2012 (N=95), recommended that accrual into all three treatment arms should continue as planned, suggesting all three starting doses were well tolerated. To date, the ORR is 42% and 49% of pts were dose escalated at least once. In this rel/ref CLL population LEN appears active, and completion of accrual will clarify the appropriate dose at which to initiate therapy. Disclosures: Wendtner: Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Off Label Use: use of lenalidomie in relapsed/refractory CLL. Hallek:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hillmen:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria. Gregory:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Stilgenbauer:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kipps:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Purse:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhang:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mei:Celgene Corporation: Employment.