Citations

Abstract Abstract 1379 Background: Although chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) has substantially improved response rates, treatment free survival, and overall survival in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), only 40–50% of patients achieve a complete remission and the majority have residual disease when evaluated using sensitive assays for minimal residual disease (MRD). While this observation created interest in consolidation therapy, previous alemtuzumab based consolidation trials have demonstrated excess morbidity/mortality. We conducted a lenalidomide based consolidation trial for patients with previously untreated CLL who received 6 cycles of induction with pentostatin, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (PCR). Methods: Eligible patients were previously untreated and had CLL in need of treatment according to the NCI-WG criteria (Blood 111:5446). Treatment schema consisted of 6 cycles of pentostatin (2 mg/m2), cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m2) and rituximab (375 mg/m2) given every 21 days (Blood 109:405). All patients completing 6 cycles of PCR, underwent complete restaging and evaluation for MRD using sensitive flow cytometry (Leukemia 21:956). Following restaging and adequate recovery of blood counts, patients received 6 mos of lenalidomide consolidation by continuous daily administration. The starting lenalidomide dose was 5 mg/day with escalation to 10 mg/day after the first cycle as tolerated. Patients again underwent complete restaging and MRD evaluation after 6 mos of lenalidomide. At the time of this restaging, MRD negative patients entered observation. Those with residual disease continued on lenalidomide and underwent repeat MRD assessment every 3 mos with cessation of lenalidomide when an MRD negative state achieved. Results: 45 patients were enrolled at Mayo Clinic between 3/2008 and 11/2009. 44 patients were eligible for treatment: 71% male, median age 65 (range: 44–78); intermediate Rai risk 61%; high Rai risk 39%. On prognostic testing 32% were CD38+, 52% Zap-70 +, 52% IGHV unmutated, and 16% had high risk FISH (del 17p13; del 11q22). 38 of 44 eligible patients (86%) completed 6 cycles of PCR induction. Adverse events deemed at least possibly related to PCR induction included 19 (43%) patients with grade 3+ hematologic toxicity and 9 (20%) with grade 3+ non-hematologic toxicity. The Overall response rate to induction was 98% with 15 CR/CRi, 3 CCR, 9 nPR, and 16 PR. Four patients with CR were also MRD negative at the completion of induction. Of 38 patients who completed induction, 34 initiated lenalidomide consolidation. Thus, by protocol intent to treat analysis, 34/44 (77%) patients starting CIT with PCR were able to receive consolidation therapy. The remaining patients were unable to initiate consolidation due to: failure to complete induction (6 patients), disease progression (1), adverse event (1) and patient refusal (2). Among the 34 patients who initiated consolidation, the median number of cycles of lenalidomide received was 5.5 (range: 1–19). Adverse events deemed at least possibly related to lenalidomide consolidation included 22 (65%) patients with grade 3+ hematologic toxicity and 4 (12%) with grade 3+ non-hematologic toxicity. Among the 34 patients who received at least 1 cycle of lenalidomide, 4 patients have improved the quality of their response to date with 11 patients still on lenalidomide at the time of this report. After median follow-up of 16 mos, 42/44 patients are alive and median duration of response has not been reached. To date 3/44 (7%) of patients have progressed to require additional treatment. Finally, since eligibility was nearly identical to our historic trial of PCR without lenalidomide consolidation, we compared the 44 patients in the present trial to the 64 patients previously treated on our PCR trial (Blood 109:405). Demographic and prognostic characteristics of the patients in the two studies were similar. With the caveat it represents comparison across phase II trials, the proportion of patients free of retreatment at 12 mos was 97% (95%CI: 91–100) for PCR-L vs. 78% (95%CI: 68–89) for PCR (Figure 1). Conclusion: We report here the first results of lenalidomide based consolidation for CLL patients receiving first-line CIT induction. Although lenalidomide consolidation appears to improve the quality of response and prolong time to retreatment, longer follow-up is necessary to determine the clinical benefit of this strategy. Disclosures: Shanafelt: Celgene: Research Funding; Hospira: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide. Kay:Celgene: Research Funding; Hospira: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is one of the most common lymphoid malignancies, accounting for ~11% of all hematologic neoplasms. Over the last 15 years, a series of phase 3 trials have established that chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) improves both progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with chemotherapy alone. FCR is the gold standard for young fit patients with treatment naïve CLL. In parallel with the advances in CIT, a profound increase in the understanding of CLL B-cell biology led to new therapeutic approaches.1 Among these, ibrutinib (an irreversible inhibitor of Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase [BTK]) has had the largest impact on clinical practice to date. Initial trials of ibrutinib demonstrated robust and durable efficacy in patients with relapsed/refractory disease. Subsequent phase 3 trials showed improved PFS and OS with ibrutinib relative to chlorambucil in previously untreated, older CLL patients. Despite these advances, the efficacy of ibrutinib as a first-line treatment for younger CLL patients (i.e. <70) relative to the most efficacious CIT regimens, such as FCR, is unknown. METHODS: Eligible patients were treatment-naive individuals with CLL who were age <70 and required therapy. Patients with deletion 17p- were excluded from participating given the poor response of these patients to FCR therapy. Participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive ibrutinib (420 mg/day until disease progression) and rituximab (50 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 2; 325 mg/m2 on day 2 of cycle 2; 500 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycles 3-7) or six courses of intravenous fludarabine (25 mg/m2 ) and cyclophosphamide (250 mg/m2) days 1-3 with rituximab (50 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 1; 325 mg/m2 on day 2 of cycle 1; 500 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycles 2-6) every 28-days. The planned accrual was 519 patients. Hematologic toxicity was graded according to the 2008 IWCLL Working Group scale. All other adverse events were graded according to the NCI Common Toxicity Criteria (version 4). The primary endpoint was PFS with a secondary endpoint of overall survival (OS). Analysis was by intention to treat. The first planed interim analysis for PFS was scheduled to occur 24-27 months after full accrual with the first interim analysis for OS scheduled to occur if the boundary for PFS was crossed. The primary analysis was a stratified logrank test applied to all patients as randomized. Treatment effect p-values are one-sided. The study was approved by the Central Institutional Review Board for the National Cancer Institute, conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02048813). RESULTS: A total of 529 patients were accrued between January 31, 2014 and June 9, 2016. 354 patients were assigned to ibrutinib and rituximab (IR) and 175 to FCR. Nineteen patients did not start protocol therapy. The first interim analysis was performed September 2018. With median follow-up of 33.4 months, we observed 77 PFS events and 14 deaths. The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS favored IR over FCR (HR=0.352; 95% CI 0.223-0.558; p<0.0001) which crossed the pre specified boundary. The HR for OS also favored the IR arm (HR=0.168, 95% CI 0.053-0.538; p=0.0003, pre-specified boundary for superiority p=0.0005). Kaplan-Meier estimates for PFS and OS are shown in Figure 1A and 1B. In subgroup analysis for PFS, IR was superior to FCR independent of age, sex, performance status, disease stage or the presence/absence of del11q23. With current follow-up, IR was also superior to FCR for IGHV unmutated patients (HR=0.262; 95% CI 0.137-0.498; p<0.0001) but not IGHV mutated patients (HR=0.435; 95% CI 0.140-0.1350; p=0.07). Grade 3 and 4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 58% of IR and 72% of FCR treated patients (p=0.0042). Specifically, FCR was more frequently associated with grade 3 and 4 neutropenia (FCR: 69 [44%] of 158 vs. IR: 80 [23%] of 352; p<0·0001) and infectious complications (FCR: 28/158 [17.7%] vs. IR: 25/352 [7.1%]; p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of ibrutinib and rituximab provides superior PFS and OS relative to FCR for patients with previously untreated CLL age <70. These findings have immediate practice changing implications and establish ibrutinib-based therapy as the most efficacious first-line therapy for patients with CLL. Disclosures Shanafelt: Mayo Clinic: Patents & Royalties: Physician Well-being Index, Medical Student Well-being Index, Well-being index; Celgene: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Kay:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. O'Brien:Amgen: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Aptose Biosciences Inc.: Consultancy; Vaniam Group LLC: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Barrientos:Pharmacyclics/AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Erba:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding. Stone:Juno: Consultancy; Macrogenics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; FujiFilm: Consultancy; Sumitomo: Consultancy; Ono/Theradex: Consultancy; Otzuka/Astex: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Actinium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Argenx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celator / Jazz: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cornerstone: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Tallman:ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Other: Advisory board; BioSight: Other: Advisory board; AbbVie: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding; AROG: Research Funding; Orsenix: Other: Advisory board.

AbstractTrisomies of odd numbered chromosomes are seen in nearly half of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and typically correlate with a hyperdiploid state and better overall survival (OS). We compared DNA ploidy of monoclonal plasma cells (as a surrogate for the presence of trisomies) assessed simultaneously by PCPRO (plasma cell proliferative index), a novel method that estimates DNA index by multi‐parametric flow cytometry to fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in 1703 patients with plasma cell disorders. The distribution of ploidy was hyperdiploid: 759 (45%), diploid 765 (45%), hypodiploid: 71 (4%), tetraploid/near‐tetraploid: 108 (6%). FISH identified trisomies in 82% (621/756) of patients with hyperdiploidy by PCPRO and no trisomy by FISH was observed in 88% (730/834) of patients without hyperdiploidy. 95% (795/834) of patients without hyperdiploidy on PCPRO had one or less trisomy by FISH. Sensitivity and specificity of PCPRO for detecting hyperdiploidy was 86% (621/725) and 84% (730/865), respectively. Sensitivity increased to 94% (579/618) for patients with more than one trisomy. Newly diagnosed MM patients with hyperdiploidy on PCPRO (147/275) had better OS compared to nonhyperdiploid patients (median not reached vs 59 months, P = 0.008) and better progression free survival (median: 33 vs 23 months, P = 0.03). Within the hyperdiploidy group, patients with high‐hyperdiploidy (DNA index: 1.19‐1.50) versus those with low‐hyperdiploidy (DNA index: 1.05‐1.18) had superior OS (3 year OS of 88% vs 68% P = 0.03). Ploidy assessment by flow cytometry can provide rapid, valuable prognostic information and also reduces the number of copy number FISH probes required and hence the cost of FISH.

The prevalence, clinicopathologic correlates, and outcomes of previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients with IGH‐BCL2 and IGH‐BCL3 translocations are not well known. Using the Mayo Clinic CLL database, we identified patients seen between March 1, 2002 and September 30, 2016 who had FISH testing performed within 3 years of CLL diagnosis. The prognostic profile, time to first therapy (TTT), and overall survival (OS) of patients with IGH‐BCL2 and IGH‐BCL3 translocation were compared to patients without these abnormalities (non‐IGH group). Of 1684 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 38 (2.2%) had IGH‐BCL2, and 16 (0.9%) had IGH‐BCL3 translocation at diagnosis. Patients with IGH‐BCL3 translocation were more likely to have high and very‐high CLL‐International Prognostic Index, compared to patients with IGH‐BCL2 translocation and the non‐IGH group. The 5‐year probability of requiring therapy was significantly higher for IGH‐BCL3 compared to IGH‐BCL2 and non‐IGH groups (84% vs 33% vs 29%, respectively, P < 0.0001). The 5‐year OS was significantly shorter for IGH‐BCL3 compared to IGH‐BCL2 and non‐IGH groups (45% vs 89% vs 86%, respectively, P < 0.0001). On multivariable analyses, IGH‐BCL3 translocation was associated with a shorter TTT (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.7; P = 0.005) and shorter OS (HR = 5.5; P < 0.0001); IGH‐BCL2 translocation did not impact TTT and OS. In conclusion, approximately 3% of all newly diagnosed CLL patients have either an IGH‐BCL2 or IGH‐BCL3 translocation. Patients with IGH‐BCL3 translocations have a distinct prognostic profile and outcome. These results support the inclusion of an IGH probe during the routine evaluation of FISH abnormalities in newly diagnosed CLL.

Abstract JAK2 mutations in myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) are associated with the germline GGCC (46/1) haplotype. In 2010, we reported an association between shortened survival in primary myelofibrosis (PMF) and nullizygosity for the JAK2 46/1 haplotype. In the current study, we have increased the number of informative cases from 130 to 414 (median age 63 years; 63% males), in order to revisit with the phenotypic and prognostic relevance of the JAK2 46/1 haplotype in PMF. JAK2 46/1 haplotype was documented in 69% of the study patients, including 25% in homozygous and 44% in heterozygous state. Driver mutation frequency in patients homozygous/heterozygous/nullizygous for the 46/1 haplotype was 78%/60%/56% JAK2, 10%/20%/18% type 1‐like CALR, 3%/2%/5% type 2‐like CALR, 4%/8%/7% MPL, and 6%/10%/14% triple‐negative (P = .02). In univariate analysis, nullizygosity for the JAK2 46/1 haplotype was associated with inferior overall survival (HR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1‐1.9), most pronounced in JAK2 (P <.001), as opposed to CALR/MPL mutated (P = .48) or triple‐negative cases (P = .27). Multivariable analysis that included karyotype, driver mutational status and high‐molecular risk mutations confirmed the independent prognostic contribution of nullizygosity for the 46/1 haplotype (P = .02; HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1‐1.8). Nullizygosity for 46/1 also remained significant in the context of the genetically‐inspired GIPSS risk model (P = .04), but not in the context of the integrated genetics‐clinical MIPSS70+ version 2.0 model (P = .4). Leukemia‐free survival was not affected by the 46/1 haplotype (P = .6). The current study confirms the association of nullizygosity for the JAK2 GGCC (46/1) haplotype with inferior survival in JAK2‐mutated PMF.

AbstractIn the last decade, several prognostic models for primary myelofibrosis (PMF) have been introduced and shown to be effective in predicting overall survival. The main objective for this study was to identify clinical and genetic markers of very long (20+ years) survival in PMF. A total of 1282 patients with PMF were considered (median age 65 years, range 19‐92; 63% males); 26 (2%) patients (median age 51 years, range 28‐71; 38% males) survived their disease for at least 20 years (long‐lived patients) and 626 (49%) patients (median age 68 years, range 27‐92; 66% males) died within 5 years of their diagnosis (short‐lived patients). Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified 7 variables that were associated with survival beyond 20 years: age ≤ 70 years (P = .002); female sex (P = .03); hemoglobin level ≥ 10 g/dL for women and ≥ 11 g/dL for men (P = .03), leukocyte count ≤25 × 109/L (P = .009), platelet count ≥100 × 109/L (P = .002), circulating blasts <2% (P = .03) and absence of constitutional symptoms (P = .04). Five‐year mortality was independently predicted by high‐molecular risk mutations (P < .001); unfavorable or very high risk karyotype (P < .001); absence of type 1/like CALR mutation (P < .001); age > 70 years (P < .001); constitutional symptoms (P < .001); hemoglobin level < 10 g/dL for women and < 11 g/dL for men (P < .001); leukocyte count >25 × 109/L (P = .004); and circulating blasts ≥2% (P = .001). This study suggests that genetic risk factors in PMF are associated with early mortality while survival beyond 20 years could be predicted by easily accessible clinical variables, including age, sex, blood counts, and symptoms.

Abstract Systemic mastocytosis (SM) is a clinically heterogeneous disease with prognosis chiefly assigned based on World Health Organization (WHO) morphologic subclassification. We assessed the feasibility of developing contemporary risk models for SM based on clinical and integrated clinical-genetics information. Diagnosis of SM was per WHO criteria, and karyotype and next-generation sequencing data were available in a subset of the total 580 patients (median age, 55 years; range, 18-88 years) seen at the Mayo Clinic between 1968 and 2015. Morphologic subcategories were indolent/smoldering in 291 (50%) and “advanced” in 289 (50%): SM with an associated hematological neoplasm in 199, aggressive SM in 85, and mast cell leukemia in 5. Multivariable analysis of clinical variables identified age &gt;60 years, advanced SM, thrombocytopenia &lt;150 × 109/L, anemia below sex-adjusted normal, and increased alkaline phosphatase (ALP) as independent risk factors for survival; respective hazard ratios (HRs) 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were 2.5 (1.9-3.4), 2.7 (1.8-4.0), 2.5 (1.9-3.4), 2.2 (1.6-3.1), and 2.1 (1.5-3.0). In addition, ASXL1 (HR, 4.5; 95% CI, 2.6-7.6), RUNX1 (HR, 4.3; 95% CI, 1.3-10.8), and NRAS (HR, 5.0, 95% CI, 1.5-13.2) mutations were independently associated with inferior survival. Combined clinical, cytogenetic, and molecular risk factor analysis confirmed the independent prognostic contribution of adverse mutations (2.6, 1.6-4.4), advanced SM (4.0, 1.8-10.0), thrombocytopenia (2.8, 1.7-4.5), increased ALP (2.1, 1.2-4.0), and age &gt;60 years (2.2, 1.3-3.6). These data were subsequently used to develop clinical and hybrid clinical-molecular risk models. The current study advances 2 complementary risk models for SM and highlights the independent prognostic contribution of mutations.