Citations

Abstract Background: Indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL), including follicular lymphoma (FL) and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), is typically responsive to initial chemoimmunotherapy, but relapse is expected. Single-agent rituximab is FDA approved and frequently administered for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) low-grade or follicular CD20-positive B-cell NHL. Lenalidomide is an immunomodulatory agent with preclinical and clinical antilymphoma activity alone and in combination with rituximab. We compared the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide plus rituximab (R2) to rituximab (plus placebo) in patients with R/R iNHL. Methods: AUGMENT (NCT01938001) is a multicenter, double-blind, randomized phase III study of R2 vs rituximab/placebo (control) in patients with FL grade 1-3a or MZL who were previously treated with ≥ 1 prior systemic therapy with documented relapsed or refractory disease but not refractory to rituximab (refractory was defined as < partial response to rituximab or rituximab-chemotherapy OR disease progression < 6 months after last rituximab dose). Patients were stratified by prior rituximab treatment (yes vs no), time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2 vs > 2 years), and histology (FL vs MZL), and then randomized 1:1 to R2 or control for up to 1 year. R2 patients received oral lenalidomide 20 mg/day (d), d1-21/28 for 12 cycles plus rituximab IV 375 mg/m2 weekly in cycle 1 and d1 of cycles 2-5. Control patients received rituximab and placebo on the same schedule. Dose modifications were pre-specified in the protocol to manage toxicities. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per 2007 IWG criteria without PET as assessed by Independent Review Committee (IRC; central review). Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), duration of response (DOR), time-to-next antilymphoma treatment (TTNLT), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: A total of 358 patients were randomized (n = 178 R2; n = 180 control), median age was 63 years (range, 26 - 88), 34% FLIPI score ≥ 3, and histologies of 82% FL/18% MZL. Median number of prior systemic treatments was 1 (range, 1 - 12); 84% received prior rituximab and 51% had prior antilymphoma therapy within 2 years of enrollment. At median follow-up of 28.3 months, the study met its primary endpoint of PFS with HR = 0.46 (95% CI, 0.34 - 0.62; P < 0.0001) (Figure 1). Median PFS was 39.4 months for R2 vs 14.1 months for control. IRC-assessed ORR for R2 was 78% vs 53% for control (P < 0.0001). CR was 34% for R2 vs 18% for control (P = 0.001). Median DOR was 36.6 and 21.7 months for R2 and control arms, respectively. TTNLT was improved for R2 vs control with HR = 0.54 (95% CI, 0.38 - 0.78; P = 0.0007). OS data were not mature with 16 deaths reported in the R2 arm vs 26 deaths in control (HR = 0.61 [95% CI, 0.33 - 1.13]). Selected all-grade treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of interest more common in the R2 vs control arm (≥ 10% difference) were infections (63% vs 49%), cutaneous reactions (32% vs 12%), constipation (26% vs 14%), thrombocytopenia (15% vs 4%), and tumor flare reaction (11% vs 1%). Grade 3/4 TEAEs were reported in 69% R2 and 32% control patients. More frequent grade 3/4 TEAEs in the R2 vs control arm were primarily attributable to increased neutropenia (50% vs 13%) and leukopenia (7% vs 2%). Grade 5 TEAEs were reported in 2 patients in each arm. TEAEs leading to discontinuation of lenalidomide occurred in 9% of patients vs 5% for rituximab + placebo. Neutropenia was the only TEAE leading to discontinuation of lenalidomide in > 1 patient (n = 5). Seventy-one percent of R2 patients completed all 12 cycles of planned treatment vs 61% of control. Disease progression was the leading reason for discontinuation of lenalidomide/placebo (n = 21 R2, n = 54 control). Conclusions: R2 demonstrated superior efficacy over rituximab monotherapy (plus placebo) as measured by the primary endpoint of progression-free survival as well as secondary endpoints of ORR, CR, DOR, and TTNLT in patients with R/R FL grade 1-3a and MZL. At this early analysis, fewer deaths have been observed in the R2 arm. Despite additional hematologic toxicity, greater efficacy of the R2 regimen (and fewer early progressions) allowed more patients to complete the planned therapy and delayed the need for subsequent treatment. R2 represents an important new treatment option in patients with previously treated FL/MZL, with meaningful advantages over single-agent rituximab. Disclosures Leonard: Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy; Biotest: Consultancy; United Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Trněný:F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Sandoz: Honoraria. Izutsu:Otsuka: Honoraria; Bristol- Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Nihon Medi-Physics: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Mundhi: Honoraria; HUYA Bioscience International: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Honoraria; Eisai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Zenyaku: Research Funding; Celltrion: Research Funding; MSD: Honoraria; Ono: Honoraria, Research Funding; Symbio: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Solasia: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Meiji Seika: Honoraria; Shionogi: Honoraria; Asahi Kasei: Honoraria. Fowler:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Zhu:Beijing Cancer Hospital (Peking University Cancer Hospital): Employment. Scheliga:INCA - Instituto Nacional Do Cancer, Brazil: Employment. Pinto:Servier: Consultancy; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Scheinberg:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau. Flinn:Trillium: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Calithera: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Moreira:Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto FG, EPE, Porto, Portugal: Employment. Liu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kalambakas:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fustier:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gribben:Cancer Research UK: Research Funding; Unum: Equity Ownership; Novartis: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Wellcome Trust: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria; NIH: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Medical Research Council: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria.

Abstract Introduction:The prognosis is poor for patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) who experience early relapse within 2 years of initial diagnosis and for those who are double refractory to both rituximab and chemotherapy (Casulo et al. J Clin Oncol 2015). Avadomide, a cereblon-modulating agent that promotes degradation of the hematopoietic transcription factors Aiolos and Ikaros, is being examined in this setting. Avadomide demonstrated promising clinical activity in combination with obinutuzumab or rituximab in relapsed or refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and FL (Michot et al. Blood 2017; Ribrag et al. Blood 2017). Herein, we report FL subgroup analyses for the avadomide plus rituximab combination (Arm D) of the CC-122 DLBCL-001 study in both lenalidomide-naïve and treated patients. Methods: CC-122-DLBCL-001 (NCT02031419) is aphase Ib dose escalation/expansion study of avadomide, CC-223, and CC-292 given orally as doublets, and as triplets in combination with rituximab, as well as avadomide plus rituximab doublets, in patients with R/R DLBCL or FL after ≥1 prior line of therapy. In the dose expansion phase of the study, patients received avadomide once daily (QD) for 5 days/week (5/7 d), with a fixed dose of intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m2/cycle (28-day cycle). The study endpoints were safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, preliminary efficacy (overall response rate [ORR] and complete response [CR]), and blood pharmacodynamic markers of avadomide. Results: As of May 1, 2018, 37 patients with FL were enrolled in the Arm D expansion group, including 29 in cohort 1 (no prior lenalidomide) and 8 in cohort 2 (≥2 cycles of prior lenalidomide). Baseline patient characteristics were similar between the two cohorts. In the total FL population, the median age was 61 years (range, 41-81 years), 54% were male, and 46% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1. The median number of prior systemic anticancer regimens was 3 (range, 1-8). At disease diagnosis, three patients (8%) had bulky disease (≥7 cm in single dimension) and 7 (19%) had high Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index scores. Twenty-three patients (62%) were refractory to rituximab and 11 (30%) were double-refractory to rituximab and an alkylating agent. As of the data cutoff, 27 patients (71%) were ongoing and no evaluable patients had experienced a dose-limiting toxicity. The most common (≥10%) any-grade adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (46%) and anemia (24%). Grade 3/4 AEs occurring in >1 patient were neutropenia (32%); fatigue, dizziness, and anemia (8% each); febrile neutropenia and diarrhea (5% each). Six patients (16%) experienced serious AEs related to study drugs. One patient died during the study (sepsis considered possibly related to study treatment). Avadomide dose reduction occurred in 7 (19%) patients. Among all FL patients, the ORR was 65% with 8 patients (22%) achieving a CR. Response rates appeared to be independent of prior lenalidomide treatment, with an ORR of 62% (CR=14%) in cohort 1 and an ORR of 75% (CR=50%) in cohort 2. The median follow up for progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.3 months and 49% of patients had <6 months of PFS follow up. In the total FL population, 6-month and 12-month PFS rates were 83 (95% CI, 64-93) and 66 (37-84), respectively. Conclusions: Avadomide combined with rituximab was well tolerated. AEs were generally consistent with the known safety profile of avadomide and toxicities associated with rituximab. Moreover, this combination showed promising efficacy in patients with R/R FL independent of prior treatment with lenalidomide. These findings support the role of avadomide plus an anti-CD20 antibody as a novel chemotherapy-free treatment for this difficult to treat patient population. Disclosures Nastoupil: TG Therappeutics: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ribrag:Amgen: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Other: travel; epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria; Infinity: Consultancy, Honoraria; NanoString Technologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; pharmamar: Other: travel; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; argenX: Research Funding. Chavez:Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Humanigen: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Witzig:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Andorsky:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Corradini:Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Lecturer; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board & Lecturer; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board & Lecturer; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board & Lecturer; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board & Lecturer; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board & Lecturer; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board & Lecturer; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board & Lecturer; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board & Lecturer; Sandoz: Other: Advisory Board. Flinn:ArQule: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Calithera: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding. Sangha:Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Lilly: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Lundbeck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche/Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BI: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Uttamsingh:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hagner:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gandhi:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hege:Mersana: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SITC: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties: multiple; Arcus Biosicences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pourdehnad:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kuruvilla:Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation: Research Funding; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Canada: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction B progenitor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) is a leading cause of childhood cancer death. Many chimeric genes have been identified and led to a refined classification of B-ALL and tailored therapies. Still, up to 30% of B-ALL cannot be classified into established subtypes, and the outcome for many is poor. Methods To identify novel subtypes of B-ALL, we performed integrative genomic analysis including transcriptome sequencing (RNA-seq) of 1,988 cases from St. Jude, Children's Oncology Group and adult cooperative group studies and analyzed chromosomal rearrangements, gene-expression profiles (GEP), somatic mutations and chromosome-level copy-number alterations. Cases lacking known or putative subtype-defining alterations underwent whole genome sequencing. Effects on proliferation and transformation of novel lesions were assessed by retroviral expression in cell lines and point-mutation knock-in mice using CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing. Results Using integrated genetic alterations and gene expression profiling, we classified 23 B-ALL subtypes (Table and Figure). Three groups included cases with similar GEP as canonical subtypes (ETV6-RUNX1, KMT2A-rearranged, and ZNF384-rearranged), but lacking the expected drivers (e.g., ETV6-RUNX1-like, n=42). Eighteen cases (0.9%) had rearrangements of BCL2, MYC and/or BCL6 showing a distinct GEP; they were mostly adults (n=16) with very poor outcome. These alterations, rarely seen in ALL, are identical to those observed in "double/triple hit" lymphoma, and are of pre-B immunophenotype. Eight cases with tightly clustered GEP comprised a novel subtype defined by IKZF1 N159Y missense mutation. N159Y is in the DNA-binding domain of IKZF1, and is known to perturb IKZF1 function, with distinct nuclear mislocalization and induction of aberrant intercellular adhesion. We identified two subtypes with distinct GEP characterized by PAX5 alterations. One, herein termed PAX5 altered (PAX5alt), comprised 148 (7.4%) cases, was characterized by diverse PAX5 alterations including rearrangements (n=57), sequence mutations (n=46) and/or focal intragenic amplifications (n=8). These PAX5 alterations were found in 73.6% of PAX5alt cases and different alteration types were mutually exclusive. Other PAX5 alterations, including deletions and large-scale amplifications were also assessed using SNP array, but were not enriched in the PAX5alt group. Clinically, PAX5alt pediatric and adult patients had favorable (96.8±3.2%) and intermediate (42.1±10.2%) 5-year overall survival (OS), respectively. The other GEP distinct subtype comprised 44 cases, all with PAX5 P80R missense mutations. In 30 of these cases, PAX5 P80R was homozygous due to deletion of the wild-type (WT) PAX5 allele or copy-neutral loss of heterozygosity. Of the other 14 cases with heterozygous PAX5 P80R mutations, 13 had a second frameshift (n=7), nonsense (n=2) or deleterious missense (n=4) PAX5 mutation. Four of the remaining 1,944 cases also had the PAX5 P80R mutation, but all were heterozygous with preservation of a WT PAX5 allele, consistent with the notion that homozygous or compound heterozygous PAX5 P80R mutation is the hallmark of this subtype. Adult PAX5 P80R cases (n=14) showed better 5-year OS (61.9±13.4%) than those in PAX5alt subtype (42.1±10.2%). To examine the effects of PAX5 P80R on B-cell maturation, WT PAX5, PAX5 P80R, V26G and P34Q were expressed in Pax5-/- lineage-depleted bone marrow cells. Expression of WT PAX5, PAX5 V26G and P34Q resulted in near complete rescue of B cell differentiation; however, expression of PAX5 P80R blocked the differentiation at the pre-pro-B stage of B-cell maturation. Further, Pax5 P80R heterozygous or homozygous mice developed pre-B-ALL with a median latency of 166 and 87 days, respectively, with heterozygous mice acquiring alterations on the second allele. In contrast, Pax5+/- mice, and those harboring G183S mutation observed in familial leukemia, do not spontaneously develop B-ALL. Conclusions These results show the utility of transcriptome sequencing in defining subtypes and founding genetic alterations in B-ALL, provide a revised taxonomy of the disease across the age spectrum, and reinforce the central role of PAX5 as a checkpoint in B lymphoid maturation and leukemogenesis. Disclosures McKay: ImmunoGen Inc.: Employment. Tallman:Orsenix: Other: Advisory board; AROG: Research Funding; BioSight: Other: Advisory board; Cellerant: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Other: Advisory board; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding. Stock:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Konopleva:Stemline Therapeutics: Research Funding. Relling:Shire Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Mullighan:Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas: Consultancy; Amgen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract The International ALL trial, conducted jointly by the MRC in the UK and ECOG in the US (UKALL XII/E2993), recruited 1929 patients between 1993 and 2006. All patients aged 16 to 64 years with newly diagnosed ALL, received the identical two phases of induction therapy. Patients with an HLA-identical sibling were assigned to a sibling allogeneic transplant and those who were Ph-positive could also get an unrelated-donor transplant. Patients who did not have a donor were to be randomized between a single autologous transplant, after conditioning with etoposide/total body irradiation, versus consolidation/maintenance therapy for 2.5 years. Following randomization, but prior to receiving the assigned or randomized therapy, all patients received intensification with 3 cycles of high-dose methotrexate. After excluding patients assigned to an allogeneic transplant, 1028 patients were eligible for randomization but, as in other major transplant studies, only 457 were randomized. The rationale underlying the randomization was based on the fact that protracted consolidation/maintenance therapy in adults, extrapolated from the pediatric experience, had never been prospectively evaluated in the era of intensive chemotherapy. Given that the mortality from autotransplant is not higher than chemotherapy (Goldstone et al. Blood. 2008), it was postulated that if a single autologous transplant is at least as good as standard protracted chemotherapy that may make it the preferable option, except possibly in females in whom fertility may be an issue. The overall survival and the event-free survival were significantly superior among the chemotherapy patients (p = .05) as previously reported (Goldstone et al. Blood. 2008). Because the literature contains reports suggesting a trend in favor of autologous transplantation in some patients with ALL (Dhédiu et al. Leukemia, 2006), an analysis was performed to see if any subgroup of patients could be identified in whom: 1. chemotherapy may not be superior to autologous transplant and 2. autologous transplant may be superior. The table lists a detailed analysis of overall survival looking at various age groups, B- versus T-lineage, the rapidity with which a complete remission was achieved –after phase I or only after phase II of induction. Detailed analysis was also performed by cytogenetics looking at those with standard risk versus those with high risk abnormalities [ t(9;22), t(4;11), t(8;14)] and low hypodiploidy/near triploidy or a complex karyotype (Moorman et al. Blood. 2007)]. In all groups, the chemotherapy group was at least as efficacious as the autograft group, and in some was even significantly superior to autologous transplantation. There is no evidence that other risk factors, such as relapse rate or treatment-related mortality, influenced these overall survival data. In addition, the tests for heterogeneity were not significant across any group. In conclusion, the overall survival was longer in patients randomized to chemotherapy, although the superiority was not statistically significant in most of the groups. There is no clinical indication for autologous transplantation at any age and particularly this should not be considered for patients over age 50, those with high-risk cytogenetics or T-lineage, and late remitters, for whom it might appear most attractive. Overall Survival (OS) at 5 years in 457 Randomized Patients Chemo Auto Subgroups n OS n OS P (log rank) Age (years) < 20 50 58% 43 46% > 0.1 20–29 61 52% 70 43% > 0.1 30–39 46 39% 46 32% > 0.1 40–49 38 31% 35 31% > 0.1 50 + 33 38% 35 31% > 0.1 B-lineage 169 46% 158 35% 0.03 T-lineage 45 54% 54 49% > 0.1 Time to CR phase I 193 48% 190 41% 0.1 phase II 26 36% 29 19% 0.08 Cytogenetics standard-risk 109 51% 122 44% > 0.1 high-risk 29 23% 27 7% 0.02

Abstract Abstract 2864 Introduction: Clinical trials have illuminated a number of unique treatment strategies for patients with CLL. The impact of these strategies on routine practice remains unknown as trial participants may not reflect the same population encountered outside of a clinical trial setting. Many questions remain regarding the sequencing of therapies based on age and performance status. By characterizing current patterns of care; patients, treating physicians, and regulatory agencies will be able to understand the current landscape of CLL treatment. The Connect® CLL registry was designed to report the natural history and real world management of patients receiving therapy for CLL. In this first report, we characterize the therapeutic approaches used for the treatment of patients with CLL of different age groups (i.e. < 65 years, 65–75 years, and ≥ 75 years) and with an ECOG PS status score of 0 compared to 1 or greater. Methods: Connect® CLL is a prospective, longitudinal, observational, multi-center registry conducted in community and academic research centers in the United States. At present, 237 sites are actively participating with a projected study enrollment of 1500 patients. Eligible patients are to be enrolled within 2 months of being initiated on any line of therapy; whether initial therapy or salvage therapy. Each patient will be followed for up to 60 months. Clinical data, physician choices, patient-reported health-related quality of life, response and survival are to be collected approximately every 3 months during participation. Results: A total of 607 patients have been enrolled (4% from academic sites) with a median age of 70 years. 198 were < 65 years old (age group 1), 187 were between 65–75 years old (age group 2), and 222 were ≥ 75 years old (age group 3). ECOG status varied across the three age groups, with an ECOG status score of ≥ 1 for 39%, 52%, and 70% of patients respectively. Treatment patterns varied across the age groups and by ECOG status in the 496 patients reporting therapies. The most commonly recorded first-line regimens independent of age included fludarabine (F) cyclophosphamide (C) and rituximab (R) (33%), bendamustine (B) +/− R (19%), F +/− R (15%), or investigational therapy (15%). For second-line regimens and beyond, the most frequently recorded regimen was B +/− R (30%), FCR (23%), other F-based regimens (13%), or investigational therapy (8%). The use of FCR for first-line treatment decreased significantly with increasing age group, (45%, 32%, 20%, for age group 1, 2, 3 respectively, p=0.04, spearman correlation) while use of F +/− R remained level across the age groups (14%, 15%, 15%, respectively). Compared to age group 1, first-line therapy with B +/− R in age groups 2 and 3 (15%, 22%, 21%, respectively) was higher but did not achieve statistical significance. B +/− R represented the most common treatment for all age groups (37%, 26%, 29%, respectively) as second line therapy but did not vary by age (P=0.35). The use of chlorambucil was infrequent in all age groups, but was more common in age group 3 patients compared to the others (P=0.01), in both first-line (2%, 4%, 12%, respectively) and subsequent lines of therapy (0%, 1%, 8%, respectively). Treatment assignments did not vary by ECOG PS score for patients in age group 1. First-line therapy for patients with an ECOG PS score of 0 in age groups 2 and 3 consisted of FCR (32% and 15%, respectively), F +/− R (19% and 15%, respectively), B +/− R (16% and 15%, respectively), and alkylating agents (3% and 23%, respectively). Patients in age groups 2 and 3 with ECOG PS score ≥ 1 received B +/− R regimen (33% and 22%, respectively), FCR (23% and 21%, respectively), F +/− R (14% and 10%, respectively) and alkylating agents (7% and 9%, respectively) as first-line therapy. Further description and clarification on the various treatment regimens based on the three age groups and by ECOG PS score will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion: The Connect® CLL Registry is the largest prospective, multicenter registry in the United States evaluating management for patients with CLL. With the currently available data, we characterize the extent to which age and performance status are associated with treatment selection in both first-line and subsequent lines of therapy in routine practice. As enrollment increases and additional follow-up is completed, the data will provide more extensive and real world overview of the current treatment strategies used in CLL patients. Disclosures: Sharman: Celgene - consulting: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Calistoga: Honoraria; Portola pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Flowers:Consultancy: Celgene, Prescription Solutions, Spectrum (future), Seattle Genetics, Millennium (future), Genentech (unpaid): Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Weiss:Celgene: Consultancy. Grinblatt:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kay:Genenetech, Celgene, Hospira,: Research Funding. Kipps:Igenica: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbot Industries: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Lamanna:Celgene Corporation: Advisory board. Pashos:United BioSource Corporation: Research Funding. Flinn:Celgene: Research Funding. Kozloff:Celgene: Consultancy. Lerner:Celgene Connect: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Swern:Celgene: Employment. Sullivan:Celgene: Employment. Street:Celgene: Employment. Keating:Celgene Connect: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Abstract 1159 Background. Heparin induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an immune disorder where platelets are activated by antibodies to a complex of platelet factor 4 antigen and heparin (PF4/H), leading to thrombocytopenia (HIT) and, potentially, thrombosis (HITT). Documentation of anti-PF4/H antibodies in addition to the appropriate clinical findings is essential for making a diagnosis of HIT. In the post-cardiac bypass surgery setting, however, the frequency of elevated anti-PF4/H antibodies is high, whereas the frequency of clinical HIT or HITT is relatively uncommon. Several studies have shown that the presence of anti-PF4/H antibodies may be associated with an increased frequency of adverse outcomes, even in the absence of clinical HIT. The primary objective of this study was to determine the relationship between a positive PF4/H antibody in the postoperative setting with adverse thromboembolic events occurring up to 3 months after cardiac surgery. Methods. Patients undergoing cardiac surgery who were not going to be treated with chronic anticoagulation postoperatively were eligible for this multi-center prospective cohort study. Data were collected daily during hospitalization, and then at 30 and 90 days after surgery using a structured interview format with a standardized questionnaire that included all thrombotic as well as hemorrhagic events, platelet counts, and utilization of antithrombotics in the postoperative setting. The primary outcome variable was a composite endpoint comprising arterial and venous thrombotic events and other miscellaneous events compatible with HIT, as well as death attributable to an event compatible with HIT. Citrated plasma was collected at baseline, pre-discharge (∼4–5 days after surgery), and the 30 day follow-up visit, processed, and stored at −80°C for testing. Laboratory analyses included an anti-PF4/H antibody ELISA (GTI, Waukesha, WI) on all samples, a high-heparin confirmatory test on samples with an OD reading >0.40, and a serotonin release assay (SRA) on all postoperative samples with an OD reading >0.40. A sample size of 800 patients was estimated in order to detect a 3% difference in thromboembolic events assuming a 2 to 10-fold increase risk attributable to seropositivity. Chi-squared testing was used to test the relationship between the primary outcome and postoperative anti-PF4/H levels. Results. Informed consent was obtained from 1030 eligible patients between August 2006 and May 2009, and laboratory and follow-up data were analyzable for 1016 patients. Thirty-day antibody data were available for 888 patients, and fully complete laboratory and 90-day follow-up data were available for 815 patients. The average age was 62 ± 12 years, and 73% of participants were male. A total of 769 patients underwent coronary artery bypass grafting and 237 underwent valve repair or replacement. During the entire study period, there were 17 (1.7%) deaths, 46 thromboembolic events in 44 patients (4.3%), and 25 hemorrhagic events in 24 patients (2.4%). Using an OD cutoff of 0.40 for the ELISA, 339 patients (33.4%) were positive for anti-PF4/H antibodies at the time of discharge, and 630 patients (62%) were positive by day 30. There was no correlation between seropositivity for anti-PF4/H antibodies at the day of discharge or at day 30 and the primary outcome (p=0.47 and 0.73, respectively). Incorporating the high-heparin confirmatory step did not improve the relationship between positive antibody results and the primary outcome. Using a higher cut-off value for the anti-PF4/H antibody ELISA of 1.0 decreased the number of patients with positive results (96 patients at the time of discharge [9.4%] and 221 patients at the 30-day follow-up visit [21.8%]), but this did not improve the relationship between antibody positivity at the day of discharge or day 30 and the primary clinical endpoint, since most patients with the primary endpoint had an ELISA OD below 1.0 (75th percentile of 0.90; 90th percentile of 1.22). Similarly, using the SRA did not identify a relationship between assay results and outcome. Conclusions. The presence of anti-PF4/H antibodies in the postoperative setting following cardiac bypass surgery is not associated with an increased risk for thromboembolic complications. Positive anti-PF4/H results in this clinical setting should be interpreted with caution and only in the context of clinical suspicion for HIT. Disclosures: Ortel: Instrumentation Laboratory: Consultancy; Eisai: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding. Welsby:CSL Behring: Speaker; CSL Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NovoNordisk: Principal Investigator. Heit:Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Ortho-McNeil Janssen: Honoraria; Covidien: Honoraria.

Abstract Background: Radioimmunotherapy (RIT) is an emerging clinical treatment option for patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). Yttrium 90 (90Y) ibritumomab tiuxetan (Zevalin®) RIT was approved by the FDA in February 2002 for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory low-grade, follicular, or transformed B-cell NHL, including patients with rituximab-refractory follicular NHL. In 4 registrational trials of 90Y ibritumomab tiuxetan conducted between 1996 and 1999, 211 patients with B-cell NHL were treated. Of these 211 patients, 153 patients (73%) had follicular lymphoma (FL). With ongoing follow-up, long-term durable responses have been observed, but until now have not been more fully characterized. Methods: Responding patients with time to progression (TTP) of ≥12 months were identified and characterized as long-term responding (LTR) patients. Results: In the 4 registrational trials, 78 of the 211 patients (37%) were identified as LTR patients. Characteristics of these LTR patients were as follows: median age 58 years (range, 24 to 80), 44% >60 years old, 55% male, 76% with follicular lymphoma, and 41% with lymphomatous marrow involvement. LTR patients had a median of 2 prior regimens (range, 1–9): 59% had ≥2 prior therapies, 33% had ≥3 prior therapies, and 37% had no response to their last prior therapy. Thirty percent of LTR patients had bulky disease (tumor size >5 cm) and 83% had stage III/IV disease. At the time of this analysis, the median duration of response (DR) and TTP for LTR patients were 28 months (range 11–80) and 29 months (range 12–82), respectively, with a median follow-up of 50 months (range 13–82). The median DR to the last prior therapy for LTR patients was 12 months. The complete response rate (confirmed [CR] and unconfirmed [CRu]) among LTR patients was 65%, and the median DR and TTP were 29 and 31 months, respectively, for CR/CRu patients. In ongoing responders the median DR is 52 months (range 48–80). Among the 153 patients with FL, 59 (39%) were identified as LTR patients. Compared to the overall LTR patients, LTR patients with FL had similar disease characteristics, DR, TTP, and CR/CRu rates. Conclusions: Ongoing follow-up indicates that 90Y ibritumomab tiuxetan frequently produces durable long-term responses (TTP ≥12 months) in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell NHL. Failure to respond to the therapy immediately prior to treatment with 90Y ibritumomab tiuxetan does not appear to affect the ability to achieve long-term responses with 90Y ibritumomab tiuxetan. Durable long-term responses were achieved in 37% of all patients and 39% of patients with FL treated in 4 registrational trials of 90Y ibritumomab tiuxetan at 30 centers in the US. Of these LTR patients, a high proportion were >60 years old and had received ≥3 prior therapies.

The critical importance of specific proteins including Bcl-2, Mcl-1, XIAP, Bax, Caspase-3, Traf-1, and ZAP70 in predicting disease progression, prognosis, and response to therapy in CLL have been extensively studied through in vitro experiments. We now report molecular data obtained from a large prospective clinical trial involving 278 previously untreated patients with CLL. This ECOG-led intergroup trial involved participation from CALGB and SWOG, and currently provides quantitative information regarding protein levels on 217 cases assessed immediately prior to treatment. NCI criteria for therapy in CLL were met before patients were randomized to receive either Fludarabine or Fludarabine plus Cytoxan. On-study analyses included: interphase cytogenetics by Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH), p53 mutational analysis, immunoglobulin variable heavy chain (IgVH) gene rearrangement, and quantitative analysis of the aforementioned specific proteins. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells were obtained from each patient at registration before starting therapy. Lysates were prepared from the patient cells and separated by SDS-PAGE. Proteins were detected by immunoblot analysis using the multiple antigen detection method previously developed by our group. Detection was performed by an enhanced chemiluminescence method and quantified by densitometry. Expression levels were calculated relative to expression in the Jurkat T cell line (for ZAP70) or the RS11846 lymphoblastoid cell line (for apoptosis-related proteins). Using a two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test, molecular data were compared with FISH and IgVH mutational status. Patients with either p53 mutations or del(17p) had significantly lower levels of XIAP (p=0.022). Patients with del(11q) had significantly higher Bcl-2/Bax ratios (p=0.052). Patients with trisomy 12 had lower levels of Bcl-2 (p=0.066); higher Mcl-1 (p=0.026); higher Bax (p=0.09); and higher Caspase-3 (p=0.019) levels. Interestingly, these specimens also had lower ratios of Bcl-2/Bax (p=0.0016). Patients with del(13q) had significantly higher levels of Bcl-2 (p=0.0059) lower levels of Caspase-3 (p=0.047), and higher Bcl-2/Bax ratios (p=0.0569). IgVH mutated patients had significantly lower levels of Caspase-3 using either a 98% cut-off (p=0.0008) or the 97% cut-off (p<0.0001). Finally, patients with higher ZAP70 protein expression had significantly higher levels of Caspase-3 (p=0.0099) and Traf-1 (p=0.016). In 163 patients evaluable for both response and the molecular studies, either elevation of Bcl-2 protein (p= 0.01) or an abnormality of p53 (either del 17p or a p53 mutation) (p=0.08) correlated significantly with attainment of a complete remission. Potential opportunities to predict response to therapy in CLL will hopefully identify those patients likely to benefit from therapy. Based upon our previous work, these molecular parameters can be modulated both in vitro and in vivo. Therefore, understanding the relationship of these important proteins to therapeutic response can facilitate strategic plans to circumvent drug resistance to chemotherapy and immunotherapy in CLL.

Several prognostic factors including un-mutated VH mutational status, select interphase cytogenetic abnormalities [del(11q22.3), del(17p13.1)] and p53 mutations have been associated with shorter interval time from diagnosis to symptomatic disease requiring treatment, shortened progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Limited prospective data exists relative to the relevance of these biologic markers on PFS following treatment with modern therapies for CLL. E2997 is a randomized phase III trial of 278 previously untreated, symptomatic CLL patients who received fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (FC) versus fludarabine (F). We analyzed the response rates and PFS of the patients for whom interphase cytogenetics, VH mutational status, and p53 mutational status studies have been completed. FC therapy had a higher complete response (CR) (23% versus 5%, p<0.002), overall response [OR] (73% versus 50%, p<0.002), and median PFS (33.5 months versus 15 months, p<.0001) as compared to F. The CR and OR was not different based upon interphase cytogenetics or VH mutational status for the entire group of patients or when analyzed by arm of treatment. However, the OR for pts with del(17) or p53 mutations was lower in both the FC arm (69%, versus 76% in patients with normal p53) and F arm (27%, versus 54% in normal p53). Using the Dohner hierarchical classification [del(17p)>del(11q)>del(6q)>tri12>normal> del(13q14)], the relationship of interphase cytogenetics, VH mutational status and p53 mutational status with PFS is summarized below: Median PFS on FC (months) Median PFS on F (months) NR = median not reached; p53 mut+ = mutation present del(17p) 11.9 8.2 del(11q) 30.6 12.8 del(6q) 26.9 26.7 tri 12 NR 20.3 normal NR 11.2 del(13q) NR 21.2 del(17p)/p53 mut+ 11.9 8.9 no del(17p)/p53 mut+ NR 17.8 VH<98% NR 21.2 VH>98% 21.4 13.4 Using the interphase cytogenetic groups, there was a significant difference in PFS for both the FC (p=0.04) and F (p=0.01) treatment arms. Similarly, the presence of a p53 mutation or deletion [del(17p)] predicted for shorter PFS for both FC (p=0.005) and F (p=0.02) therapies. PFS did not statistically differ among VH mutational groups for either arm. We next investigated a Cox proportional hazards analysis to assess the impact of multiple molecular features and treatment arm on PFS. Treatment with F (hazard ratio 3.14, p<0.0001), presence of del(17p) or p53 mutation (hazard ratio 3.13, p=0.0001), and presence of del(11q) (hazard ratio 2.067, p=0.019) were highly significant in the model. Finally, VH unmutated status and del(11q) were highly associated. In conclusion, our data demonstrate that high risk genomic features including p53 mutations, del(17p), and del(11q) are highly predictive of shortened PFS. Our data provide support for a risk-stratified therapy approach for the treatment of CLL.

Abstract Deletions or mutations of the tumor suppressor p53 have been associated with more aggressive disease in many types of cancer including CLL, and are more commonly found in relapsed or refractory patients. We studied symptomatic patients (pts) enrolled on ECOG 2997, a randomized phase III trial of fludarabine monotherapy (F) versus fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide (CF) for previously untreated CLL. A total of 235 pretreatment samples were analyzed for p53 mutations in exons 5–9 using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE), followed by confirmation of mutations using automated sequencing. Cytogenetic analysis was also performed on 243 patient samples by Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH) using a probe to detect deletions in 17p13.1, the chromosomal location of the p53 gene. In the analysis by DGGE, a total of 25 pts (10.6%) were found to have p53 mutations. In 22 cases there was a single mutation, and in three cases there were two mutations. Mutations in exon 6 were the most common, and in each of the cases with two mutations, one of these was in exon 6. Results by exon are as follows: Exon 5 (1 pt, 0.4%), Exon 6 (15 pts, 6.4%), Exon 7 (5 pts, 2.1%), Exon 8 (3 pts, 1.3%), Exon 9 (4 pts, 1.7%). The interphase cytogenetic analysis included 24 of the 25 pts with a p53 mutation by DGGE. Of the 19 (7.8%) pts with del(17p13.1) as the leading cytogenetic anomaly, seven were cases that also had mutations in p53 by DGGE. The remaining 17 pts with mutations in p53 by DGGE had as leading cytogenetic anomaly: del(11q) (2 pts); trisomy 12 (3 pts), normal cytogenetics (2 pts), and del(13q) (10 pts). Results from both the DGGE and FISH analyses were combined to identify a group of 37 pts with either del(17p) or p53 mutation. This constituted 16% of the 230 pts in which either FISH or p53 mutational analysis was performed. Immunocytochemistry staining for p53 was performed on all pts, and no correlation was found between over-expression of p53 protein with mutation and/or deletion of this gene. The pts were then assessed by treatment arm for response and progression-free survival (PFS), relative to patients without p53 abnormality either by DGGE or FISH analysis. In the FC group: 13 pts had either a p53 mutation or del(17p), nine (69%) of whom achieved a CR or a PR, versus 56/74 (76%) of those with normal p53 (p=0.73). In the F group: 15 pts had either a p53 mutation or del(17p), of whom four (27%) achieved a CR or a PR, versus 38/70 (54%) of those with normal p53 (p=0.09). Pts with a detectable abnormality in p53 had a significantly reduced PFS, regardless of whether they received fludarabine alone (p=0.02) or fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide (p=0.005). This study suggests that routine immunocytochemistry staining should not be substituted for p53 mutational studies. While some short responses were observed in patients with p53 mutation and/or deletion receiving fludarabine and/or fludarabine cyclophosphamide, the time to progression was significantly shorter, emphasizing the prognostic significance of p53 abnormalities for this disease.