Dilhuydy, Marie‐Sarah

Introduction Venetoclax + rituximab resulted in a 2-year progression-free survival estimate of 85% in the mostly 2nd-line, post-chemotherapy setting of the MURANO clinical trial (Seymour NEJM 2018). Short remissions with venetoclax in patients (pts) with prior cBTKi treatment (tx) for CLL are reported. However, these cohorts have included heavily pre-treated pts. Here, we report outcomes with venetoclax-based regimens in a contemporary cohort with cBTKi-exposed CLL and no prior chemotherapy. Methods We conducted a retrospective study of pts who received venetoclax for relapsed CLL after prior cBTKi tx at Mayo Clinic and across 8 centers in France. Pts with any prior chemotherapy tx were excluded. Pts were grouped as cBTKi-resistant (CLL disease progression on cBTKi) and cBTKi-exposed (any prior cBTKi tx but without disease progression). Overall survival (OS) was analyzed as the time from initiation of venetoclax until date of death or last known to be alive. Time to next therapy or death (TTNTD) after venetoclax was defined as the time from venetoclax initiation until the earliest date of next tx or death. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate associations of factors with OS and TTNTD. Results A total of 85 pts received venetoclax, including: venetoclax monotherapy (n=13, 15%), venetoclax + rituximab (n=45, 53%), and venetoclax + obinutuzumab (n=27, 32%). Patient characteristics at the time of venetoclax start were as follows: median age 69 years (interquartile range [IQR] 62-77), 59 (69%) male, 45% (33/73 evaluated) with TP53 disruption (del(17p) or TP53 mutation), 82% (46/56 evaluated) with unmutated IGHV, and 41% (15/37 evaluated) with complex karyotype (CK; ≥3 clonal structural or numerical abnormalities on karyotype). The median prior lines of therapy was 1 (IQR 1, 2); 32 (38%) pts had received prior anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody and 8 (9%) pts had received 2 prior cBTKi. Prior cBTKi tx was stopped for a reason other than disease progression in 46 (54%) pts (cBTKi-exposed) and due to CLL progression in 39 (46%) pts (cBTKi-resistant). TP53 disruption, unmutated IGHV, and CK were more common in the cBTKi-resistant subgroup. Among pts with cBTKi-resistant CLL, 60% (12/20 evaluated) had a BTK and/or PLCG2 mutation. Median follow-up from start of venetoclax-based therapy was 20 months. The median TTNTD and OS for the entire cohort was 36 (95% CI 29-not evaluable [NE]) and 68 (95% CI 39-NE) months, respectively. Among the 46 pts with cBTKi-exposed CLL, the median duration of prior cBTKi tx was 6.7 months (IQR 1.8, 23.7). The median TTNTD and OS from venetoclax start were both 78 months in pts with cBTKi-exposed CLL. The 24-month TTNTD and OS estimates were 73% and 81%, respectively. Among the 39 pts with cBTKi-resistant CLL, the median duration of prior cBTKi tx was 42.3 months (IQR 23.4, 60.1). The median TTNTD from venetoclax start in pts with cBTKi-resistant CLL was 30 months. The 24-month TTNTD estimate was 65% in the cBTKi-resistant subgroup, 53% with venetoclax monotherapy (n=5), 62% with venetoclax + rituximab (n=30), and 100% venetoclax + obinutuzumab (n=4). The median OS from venetoclax initiation was 39 months overall in pts with cBTKi-resistant CLL. The 24-month OS estimate was 84% in the cBTKi-resistant subgroup overall, 53% with venetoclax monotherapy, 87% with venetoclax + rituximab, and 100% with venetoclax + obinutuzumab. On a univariate analysis in the whole cohort, only TP53 disruption was associated with shorter TTNTD (HR 2.23; 95% CI 1.02-4.87; P=0.04) and only older age was associated with shorter OS (HR 1.05; 95% CI 1.007-1.095, P=0.02). On a univariate analysis in the cBTKi-resistant subgroup, only TP53 disruption was associated with shorter TTNTD (HR 6.68; 95% CI 1.51-29.46; P=0.01) and OS (HR 7.95; 95% CI 1.02-61.97; P=0.04). Duration of prior cBTKi exposure (as a continuous variable) was not associated with survival outcomes in the cBTKi-resistant subgroup. Conclusions Pts with chemotherapy-naïve, cBTKi-treated CLL had worse than expected outcomes with venetoclax-based tx in a mostly 2nd-line tx cohort, particularly pts with cBTKi-resistant CLL. The frequency of high-risk disease features, shorter duration of disease control with their initial cBTKi tx, and small cohort size warrant caution in generalizing these results to all pts with cBTKi-resistant disease. Novel tx trial strategies in 1st- and 2nd-line settings remain a high priority for high-risk pts.

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.

SummaryIbrutinib, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is approved for treatment of various B‐cell malignancies. In ibrutinib clinical studies, low‐grade haemorrhage was common, whereas major haemorrhage (MH) was infrequent. We analysed the incidence of and risk factors for MH from 15 ibrutinib clinical studies (N = 1768), including 4 randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Rates of any‐grade bleeding were similar for single‐agent ibrutinib and ibrutinib combinations (39% and 40%). Low‐grade bleeding was more common in ibrutinib‐treated than comparator‐treated patients (35% and 15%), and early low‐grade bleeding was not associated with MH. The proportion of MH in RCTs was higher with ibrutinib than comparators (4.4% vs. 2.8%), but after adjusting for longer exposure with ibrutinib (median 13 months vs. 6 months), the incidence of MH was similar (3.2 vs. 3.1 per 1000 person‐months). MH led to treatment discontinuation in 1% of all ibrutinib‐treated patients. Use of anticoagulants and/or antiplatelets (AC/AP) during the study was common (~50% of patients) and had an increased exposure‐adjusted relative risk for MH in both the total ibrutinib‐treated population (1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.2–3.0) and RCT comparator‐treated patients (2.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.0–5.6), indicating that ibrutinib may not alter the effect of AC/AP on the risk of MH in B‐cell malignancies.