Mayer, Jiřı́

PURPOSE The combination of the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib with bendamustine-rituximab for first-line treatment of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) prolonged progression-free survival (PFS), but without improvement in overall survival (OS), likely because of toxicity. Acalabrutinib was shown to be efficacious and less toxic than ibrutinib in a head-to-head trial in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and therefore might lead to better outcomes in MCL. METHODS Patients 65 years and older with previously untreated MCL received acalabrutinib (100 mg twice daily) or placebo (until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity), plus six cycles of bendamustine (90 mg/m 2 once daily; days 1 and 2) and rituximab (375 mg/m 2 as a single dose; day 1) followed by rituximab maintenance in responding patients for 2 years. Crossover to acalabrutinib at disease progression was permitted. The primary end point was PFS per the independent review committee; overall response rate and OS were secondary end points. RESULTS In total, 598 patients were randomly assigned, with 299 in each arm. At a median follow-up of 49.8 months using the reverse Kaplan-Meier method, the median PFS was 66.4 months in the acalabrutinib arm and 49.6 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.94]; P = .0160). Benefit was seen across all subgroups, including those with high-risk features. Overall response/complete response rates were 91.0%/66.6% and 88.0%/53.5% in the acalabrutinib and placebo arms, respectively. OS was not significantly different (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.65 to 1.13]; P = .27). Grade 3 or greater adverse events were reported in 88.9% and 88.2% in the acalabrutinib and placebo arms, respectively. CONCLUSION The combination of acalabrutinib with bendamustine-rituximab significantly improved PFS. Clinical benefit of acalabrutinib with bendamustine-rituximab was achieved with manageable toxicity.

Introduction: The primary analysis of the phase 3 ECHO trial (NCT02972840) demonstrated that acalabrutinib plus bendamustine-rituximab (ABR) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo plus bendamustine-rituximab (PBR) in older patients (pts) with previously untreated mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) (Wang et al. EHA 2024, Abstract #LB3439). Here we present additional efficacy and safety results from the ECHO trial. Methods: Pts aged ≥65 years (y) with previously untreated MCL and ECOG PS ≤2 were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive ABR or PBR. Acalabrutinib (100 mg twice daily) or placebo was administered until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. Induction with BR was administered for 6 cycles followed by rituximab maintenance (A±R maintenance, cycles 7-30) in pts achieving a partial or complete response (PR or CR). Pts progressing on PBR could cross over to receive acalabrutinib monotherapy. PFS (primary endpoint) was assessed by independent review committee. Minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate (10-5) was assessed in peripheral blood (every 24 weeks [wks], at CR, and at PD) and bone marrow (at CR) by NGS-based ClonoSEQ assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies). Results: Among the 598 pts randomized to ABR or PBR (299 in each arm), high-risk baseline characteristics included high-risk simplified MIPI score in 24.1% and 24.4%, blastoid histology in 8.7% and 6.7%, pleomorphic histology in 5.0% and 6.0%, centrally tested Ki-67 ≥30% in 46.5% and 49.2%, and known TP53 mutation in 7.4% and 9.7%, respectively. PFS hazard ratios (HRs) for subgroups were 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-1.19) in pts with high-risk simplified MIPI score, 0.68 (95% CI 0.29-1.58) in pts with blastoid histology, 0.64 (95% CI 0.25-1.66) in pts with pleomorphic histology, 0.69 (95% CI 0.49-0.98) in pts with Ki-67 ≥30%, and 0.88 (95% CI 0.42-1.78) in pts with known TP53 mutation. In the ABR arm, median PFS was 22.2 months (mo) among pts who discontinued acalabrutinib during induction for reasons other than PD or death, 29.4 mo in pts who discontinued acalabrutinib during A±R maintenance (cycles 7-30) for reasons other than PD or death, and not reached in pts who received acalabrutinib for 31 cycles or more. Among evaluable patients who were MRD negative at the end of induction (24 wks), the rate of conversion to MRD positive during maintenance was lower in the ABR arm (5.85%; n=11/188) than in the PBR arm (15%; n=26/171). Conversely, among evaluable pts who were MRD positive at the end of induction (24 wks), 37.5% (n=3/8) in the ABR arm and 20% (n=3/15) in the PBR arm converted to MRD negative during maintenance. Overall rates of AEs were similar in each arm during induction, but were higher in ABR during A±R maintenance (cycles 7-30) and more so in the monotherapy phase (cycle 31+). Grade ≥3 TEAEs (ABR vs PBR) were 70.0% vs 68.7% during induction, 64.9% vs 62.9% during A±R maintenance (cycles 7-30), and 57.0% vs 45.3% during monotherapy (cycle 31+). Similarly, rates of TEAEs leading to discontinuation of acalabrutinib/placebo were 8.1% vs 8.8% during induction, 23.9% vs 19.0% during A±R maintenance (cycles 7-30), and 25.9% vs 13.7% during monotherapy (cycle 31+). Exposure-adjusted incidence rates per 100 person-years reduced the difference between ABR and PBR for clinically relevant TEAE rates (32.6 vs 29.3 for grade ≥3 serious TEAEs; 4.2 vs 4.0 for grade 5 TEAEs; 15.5 vs 12.4 for TEAEs leading to acalabrutinib/placebo discontinuation), possibly due to longer median exposure to acalabrutinib (28.6 vs 24.6 mo). Conclusion: Acalabrutinib in combination with BR provides a significant PFS benefit in pts with previously untreated MCL, including those with high-risk features. Furthermore, the addition of acalabrutinib to BR provided a greater PFS effect among pts in the ABR arm with the longest exposure to acalabrutinib. The PFS improvement may be partially driven by the contribution of acalabrutinib to sustained MRD-negative status and deepened responses after the end of induction. ABR provides this clinical benefit without excess toxicity as shown by attenuated differences between arms in exposure-adjusted incidence rates, suggesting that higher AE rates in the ABR arm are likely due in part to the longer duration of acalabrutinib treatment vs placebo. These data emphasize the benefits of acalabrutinib in frontline MCL treatment in high-risk pts and the additional benefit of continuous therapy.

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 Background: The majority of pts with MF present with a mutation in exon 14 of the JAK2 gene (JAK2V617F). Studies have suggested that in pts with MF and this mutation, a lower AB is associated with a myelodepletive phenotype and shortened survival (Tefferi, Leukemia 2008; Guglielmelli Blood 2009; reviewed in Vannucchi, Ther Adv Hematol 2011). For example, in a Cox proportional hazard model for factors predictive of overall survival (OS) in pts with primary MF, a JAK2V617F AB of <25% was associated with a shortened OS (p=0.002; Guglielmelli, Blood 2009). In the phase III trials of ruxolitinib (RUX) therapy in JAK inhibitor-naïve MF, RUX-treated pts had a median decrease in AB of 16% (maximal) in COMFORT-I followed up to 216 weeks and 7% in COMFORT-II at 48 weeks. The median AB at the start of therapy was not reported for COMFORT-I and in COMFORT-II was 84.5% (Cervantes, Blood 2013; Deininger, Blood2015). Methods: In this communication, we report on clinical correlates of quantitative baseline JAK2 mutational status and the effect of treatment on JAK2V617Fmutational burden in the PERSIST-1 trial. This trial enrolled JAK inhibitor-naïve pts with primary or secondary MF without restrictions on baseline platelet counts, randomized 2:1 between PAC and BAT (excluding JAK2 inhibitors) arms. Stratifications included Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) risk category, and baseline platelet counts (<50,000/μL, 50,000-100,000/μL, >100,000/μL). Following the 24-week primary analysis, crossover was allowed by physician/pt choice and 90/107 BAT-treated pts (84%) crossed over to receive PAC. Baseline characteristics have been previously reported (Mesa, ASCO 2016) and included 203/327 (62%) pts with Primary MF, 42 (13%) with post-essential thrombocythemia MF and 81 (25%) with post-polycythemia vera MF. 320 of 327 pts had informative PCR testing for JAK2V617F. We report the baseline characteristics of pts with high (≥50%) AB of JAK2V617F, low (<50%) AB of JAK2V617Fand those without a detectable mutation at baseline (<0.1%), as well as the effect of PAC and BAT on AB and correlation with outcome measures. Results: 131 (40.9%) had AB >50% (high AB), 115 (35.9%) had an AB ≥0.1% and ≤50% (low AB), and 74 (23.1%) had AB <0.1% (wild-type JAK2). Median AB values were 80.3% for the high AB group and 30.3% for the low AB group. Baseline characteristics that were significantly different between high and low AB pts are shown in the Table. No differences were noted in the DIPSS risk category or baseline percentage of blasts between pts with low or high AB. There were a higher percentage of pts with a lower AB in the PAC arm (64% vs. 48%; p=0.01). PAC therapy resulted in a median decrement in AB at Week 24 of −15.8% vs −7.9% for pts in the BAT arm (Figure). The median greatest reduction from baseline in AB in PAC-treated pts was −31.6%. Decrease in AB was strongly correlated with spleen volume reduction (p=0.003) and trended towards correlation with improvement in total symptom score (p=0.07) in PAC-treated, but not in BAT-treated pts. Overall survival was shorter in PAC-treated pts with a minimal AB reduction vs pts with greater decreases in AB. Conclusions: In the PERSIST-1 trial, pts with a JAK2V617FAB of <50% had substantially different disease and demographic characteristics when compared with those pts with a >50% AB despite similar distribution of DIPSS scores. In this trial, reduction in AB associated with PAC, but not BAT correlated with clinical benefit. Disclosures Vannucchi: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Baxalta: Speakers Bureau; Shire: Speakers Bureau. Mead:Baxalta: Consultancy, Honoraria. Perkins:Novartis Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Mayer:CTI BioPharma Corp.: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding. Schouten:Sanofi: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Farber:Alexion: Equity Ownership; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Speakers Bureau. Kiladjian:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; AOP Orphan: Consultancy, Research Funding. Nangalia:Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Dean:CTI BioPharma Corp.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhou:CTI BioPharma Corp.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Singer:CTI BioPharma Corp.: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Leadership . Mesa:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Genetech: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding. Harrison:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CTI BioPharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Baxter: Consultancy, Honoraria; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau.