Citations

Abstract Background: The phase 3 head-to-head trial of acalabrutinib (acala) vs ibrutinib (ibr) (NCT02477696) demonstrated noninferior efficacy and improved tolerability with acala in previously treated CLL (Byrd J Clin Oncol 2021). We now report additional data to further characterize BTKi-related adverse events (AEs) and the safety profile of acala and ibr, including measures of AE burden that account for frequency, duration, and drug exposure, which are not captured by incidence alone. Methods: Patients (pts) received oral acala 100 mg BID or ibr 420 mg QD until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Overall incidence, exposure-adjusted (exp-adj) incidence, and exp-adj time with event (sum of event durations [all grades]*100/sum of treatment-emergent period [for all pts in each arm]) were assessed for the most common BTKi-related AEs. Atrial fibrillation (afib)/flutter, hypertension (htn), and bleeding events were further characterized by time to onset, cumulative incidence by Kaplan-Meier method, pt subgroup, and AE management. Results: A total of 533 pts (acala, n=268; ibr, n=265) were randomized; median treatment exposures were 38.3 and 35.5 mo, respectively. Incidence and exp-adj incidence and time with event are reported for the most common AEs and events of clinical interest (ECIs) (Table). Among cardiovascular (CV) ECIs, incidences of any-grade afib/flutter, htn, and bleeding were statistically higher with ibr, with higher exp-adj incidence (2.0-, 2.8-, and 1.6-fold, respectively) and exp-adj time with event (2.8-, 3.7-, and 1.8-fold). Ventricular arrhythmias were reported in 3 ibr-treated pts vs 0 pts in the acala arm. Among other BTKi-related AEs, incidences of any-grade diarrhea, arthralgia, contusion, urinary tract infection (UTI), back pain, muscle spasms and dyspepsia were statistically higher with ibr, with a 1.5- to 4.1-fold higher exp-adj incidence, and a 1.4- to 13.1-fold higher exp-adj time with event (except for UTI, which had a 1.4-fold lower exp-adj time with event for ibr). Incidences of headache and cough were statistically higher with acala, with a 1.6- and 1.2-fold higher exp-adj incidence, respectively, and a 1.4- and 1.1-fold higher exp-adj time with event. The total exp-adj time with event for all any-grade AEs was 37% higher with ibr (234 [acala] vs 320 [ibr] mo/100 person-mo). For any-grade afib/flutter, median time to onset was longer for acala vs ibr (28.8 vs 16.0 mo), and cumulative incidence was lower for acala at 6 mo (2% vs 6%), 12 mo (3% vs 8%), 18 mo (4% vs 10%), and 24 mo (5% vs 12%). Afib/flutter also occurred less frequently with acala vs ibr in subgroups of age (<65 y: 3% vs 7%; ≥65 y: 15% vs 23%), prior line of therapy (1-3: 10% vs 16%; ≥4: 7% vs 19%), and among pts without prior history (6% vs 15%). Cox proportional-hazards (PH) analysis of new-onset afib/flutter showed a 63% rate reduction favoring acala (Figure 1). Among all pts, concomitant medication use for afib/flutter was less common for acala (8%) vs ibr (14%), with antithrombotic use reported in 5% vs 9% of pts, respectively. For any-grade htn, median time to onset was similar for acala and ibr (8.1 vs 7.0 mo), but cumulative incidence was lower for acala at 6 mo (5% vs 12%), 12 mo (6% vs 16%), 18 mo (8% vs 20%), and 24 mo (8% vs 23%). Htn also occurred less frequently with acala vs ibr in subgroups of age (<65 y: 9% vs 23%; ≥65 y: 10% vs 23%), prior line of therapy (1-3: 10% vs 25%; ≥4: 4% vs 11%), and among pts without prior history (7% vs 23%). Cox PH analysis of new-onset htn showed a 77% rate reduction favoring acala (Figure 2). No dose reductions or treatment discontinuations due to htn occurred in either arm. Concomitant medication use for htn was less common for acala (5%) vs ibr (19%). For any-grade bleeding events, the median time to onset was similar for acala vs ibr (1.2 vs 1.2 mo), and cumulative incidence was lower for acala at 6 mo (29% vs 42%), 12 mo (32% vs 45%), 18 mo (34% vs 49%), and 24 mo (38% vs 51%). Bleeding events also occurred less frequently with acala vs ibr in most subgroups of age (<65 y: 26% vs 47%; ≥65 y: 49% vs 55%) and prior line of therapy (1-3: 39% vs 54%; ≥4: 32% vs 30%). Bleeding events were associated with dose reduction in 3 vs 2 pts in the acala vs ibr arms, respectively, and led to treatment discontinuation in 2 vs 4 pts. Conclusions: In this head-to-head trial of BTKis in CLL, event-based analyses demonstrated a higher BTKi-related toxicity burden with ibr, with a lower impact of CV-related toxicity with acala across subgroups. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Seymour: AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mei Pharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: 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; 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, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Byrd: Novartis, Trillium, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics, Syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria; Newave: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vincerx Pharmaceuticals: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hillmen: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; SOBI: Honoraria; BeiGene: Honoraria. Ghia: Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/Juno/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; ArQule/MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kater: Genmab, LAVA: Other: Ad Board, Steering Committee; Janssen, AstraZeneca: Other: Ad Board, steering committee, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Ad Board, Research Funding; BMS, Roche/Genentech: Other: Ad Board, , Research Funding. Chanan-Khan: Ascentage: Research Funding; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals, NonoDev, Starton: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Cellectar: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties: Tabi; BeiGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Honoraria; Ascentage, Starton, Cellectar, NonoDev, Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BieGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Consultancy. Furman: Genentech: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; X4 Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Expert testimony; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Oncotracker: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Verastem: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Honoraria. O'Brien: Amgen, Astellas, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Aptose Biosciences Inc., Vaniam Group LLC, AbbVie, Alexion, Verastem, Juno Therapeutics, Vida Ventures, Autolus, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, NOVA Research Company, Eli Lill: Consultancy; Kite, Regeneron, Acerta, Caribou, Gilead, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics, Pfizer, Sunesis: Research Funding. Brown: Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, SecuraBio, Sun, TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Invectys: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee Service; Abbvie, Acerta/Astra-Zeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Juno/Celgene, Catapult, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Morphosys AG, Nextcea, Novartis, Pfizer, Rigel: Consultancy. Mato: Genmab: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; Nurix: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; MSKCC: Current Employment; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Stilgenbauer: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis: Honoraria; AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis: Other: Research Support; AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis: Consultancy; AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis: Research Funding. Kuptsova-Clarkson: AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; AbbVie: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Miranda: ASTRAZENECA: Current Employment; ASTRAZENECA: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Wagner: AstraZeneca: Current Employment. Higgins: AstraZeneca: Current Employment; PROMETRIKA, LLC: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Sohoni: AstraZeneca: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Ended employment in the past 24 months; Revolution Medicines: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Theravance: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Jurczak: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Celtrion, Celgene, Debbiopharm, Epizyme, Incyte, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, Merck, Mei Pharma, Morphosys, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Sandoz, Takeda, TG Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, Affirmed, Gilead Sciences, Nordic Nanovecto: Research Funding; AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, Sandoz, Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology: Current Employment; Jagiellonian University: Ended employment in the past 24 months; European Medicines Agency, Sandoz-Novartis, Janssen China R&D, BeiGene, Epizyme, Acerta, AstraZeneca: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: The ECOG-ACRIN randomized phase 3 clinical trial E1912 established ibrutinib-rituximab (IR) as the standard of care for CLL patients <= 70 years in the frontline setting by improving the progression free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to previous standard chemo-immunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR) (Shanafelt et al. NEJM 2019). Quality of life (QOL) was an important secondary endpoint on this trial comparing continuous (IR) vs time-limited (FCR) therapy due to the differing profile of treatment-related toxicities over the short and long-term. E1912 patient-reported outcomes (PROs) results are presented here. Methods: Patients enrolled on E1912 completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) and Leukemia subscale at randomization (baseline), 3, 6, and 12 months post-randomization, and every 6 months for 2 years regardless of disease status. The primary outcome was the 31-item FACT-Leukemia Trial Outcome Index (FACT-Leu TOI), calculated by summing items from the FACT-G physical wellbeing (PWB), functional well-being (FWB), and leukemia subscales (score range: 0-124). The primary endpoint was defined as the difference in FACT-Leu TOI change scores from randomization to 12 months (at response evaluation) between patients treated with continuous therapy Arm A (IR) vs time-limited therapy Arm B (FCR). Mean change scores from baseline to each time point were calculated using all cases with data at baseline and the corresponding time point. Comparisons between treatment arms were performed using two-sample t tests. Linear mixed effects models were used to estimate the trajectories of PRO scores. Results: PRO data was extracted on 3/8/2021. PRO data was provided at baseline and 12 months for 233/354 (65.8%) patients on the IR arm and 118/175 (67.4%) patients on the FCR arm. At enrollment, there were no significant differences in the baseline FACT-Leu TOI scores (mean ± SE) between the two arms: IR (93.27 ± 1.03) vs FCR (92.68 ± 1.38; p=0.73). The FACT-Leu TOI score improved from baseline to 12 months in both arms (Table 1 and Figure 1). The change scores from baseline to 12 months, the primary outcome, were not significantly different between IR (7.59 ± 1.09) vs FCR (8.22 ± 1.44; p=0.73). Change in FACT-Leu TOI from baseline to 3 months was 5.77 ± 0.77 and 4.06 ± 1.18 (p=0.22); and from baseline to 6 months was 6.87 ± 0.87 and 8.01 ± 1.44 (p=0.50) in the IR and FCR arms, respectively. After the first 6 months of treatment, the improvement in FACT-Leu TOI scores was maintained in both treatment arms. There was no significant difference in total FACT-Leu TOI score in the continuous therapy (IR) vs time-limited therapy (FCR) arms over the first 36 months post registration. Analysis of FACT subscales showed PWB improved in the IR arm (0.37 ± 0.22) and declined in the FCR arm (-0.92 ± 0.39) from baseline to 3 months (p=0.004 for difference in PWB change between arms) but there was no significant difference between the two arms for change in PWB scores from baseline to 6 and 12 months. There were no significant differences between the two arms for change in FWB and FACT-Leu subscales from baseline to 3, 6 and 12 months. Conclusions: QOL improves in CLL patients age 70 and younger when treated in the frontline setting with IR or FCR. The improvement in QOL is maintained during continuous therapy with ibrutinib and there is no significant decline in QOL over time. Given the improvement in PFS and OS with IR over FCR seen in E1912, the results of this QOL analysis support the use of frontline ibrutinib in previously untreated younger CLL patients. Acknowledgement: This study was conducted by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (Peter J. O'Dwyer, MD and Mitchell D. Schnall, MD, PhD, Group Co-Chairs) and supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under award numbers: U10CA180794, U10CA180820, UG1CA189863, UG1CA190140, UG1CA232760, UG1CA233180, UG1CA233230, UG1CA233253, UG1CA233277, UG1CA233290, UG1CA233339, UG1CA189859, UG1CA233332. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kay: Oncotracker: 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: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Targeted Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. O'Brien: Amgen, Astellas, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Aptose Biosciences Inc., Vaniam Group LLC, AbbVie, Alexion, Verastem, Juno Therapeutics, Vida Ventures, Autolus, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, NOVA Research Company, Eli Lill: Consultancy; Kite, Regeneron, Acerta, Caribou, Gilead, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics, Pfizer, Sunesis: Research Funding. Coutre: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee, Research Funding. Barr: AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Abbvie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Cashen: Secura Bio, ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Mato: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; MSKCC: Current Employment; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB, Research Funding; Nurix: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding. Erba: AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; Astellas; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb company; Daiichi Sankyo Inc; Genentech, a member of the Roche Group; GlycoMimetics Inc; Incyte Corporation; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; Kura Oncology; Nov: Other: Advisory Committee; AbbVie Inc: Other: Independent review committee; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; ALX Oncology; Amgen Inc; Daiichi Sankyo Inc; FORMA Therapeutics; Forty Seven Inc; Gilead Sciences Inc; GlycoMimetics Inc; ImmunoGen Inc; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; MacroGenics Inc; Novartis; PTC Therapeutics: Research Funding; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb company; Incyte Corporation; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Stone: Onconova: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Boston Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Gemoab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Elevate Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syndax: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; BerGen Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Foghorn Therapeutics: Consultancy; Innate: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Actinium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syntrix/ACI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aprea: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Macrogenics: Consultancy. Litzow: Actinium: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Pluristem: Research Funding; Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Astellas: Research Funding; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Tallman: NYU Grand Rounds: Honoraria; Kura: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Innate Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biosight: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncolyze: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KAHR: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orsenix: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi-Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Orsenix: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Honoraria; UC DAVIS: Honoraria; Northwell Grand Rounds: Honoraria; NYU Grand Rounds: Honoraria; Danbury Hospital Tumor Board: Honoraria; Acute Leukemia Forum: Honoraria; Miami Leukemia Symposium: Honoraria; New Orleans Cancer Symposium: Honoraria; ASH: Honoraria; NCCN: Honoraria. Shanafelt: Genentech, Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Wagner: Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson: Other: Spouse, previously held individual stocks;; Celgene-BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Athenex Inc: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is characterized by multiple copy number alterations (CNA) and mutations that are central to disease pathogenesis, prognosis, risk-stratification, and identification of response or resistance to therapies. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is gold standard in the clinical laboratory for detecting prognostic CNAs in CLL (e.g. deletion 17p13 (del(17p), deletion 11q23 (del(11q), deletion 13q14 (del(13q), and trisomy 12). Most clinical FISH assays have high specificity and sensitivity, but the technique can detect a limited number of alterations per assay. Importantly, next-generation sequencing (NGS) techniques have become more readily available for clinical applications and are increasingly being used for screening not only mutations, but also copy number abnormalities in multiple genes and chromosomal regions of interest in hematologic malignancies. Here, we evaluated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) using a custom targeted NGS assay for detecting common prognostic chromosomal alterations in CLL and high-count monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL), the precursor to CLL. Methods : We designed a SureSelect DNA targeted sequencing panel, covering all exons of 59 recurrently CLL mutated genes and additional amplicons across regions affected by clinically relevant CNAs. All CLL (N=534) and MBL (N=162) patients had pre-treatment peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) collected within two years of diagnosis. DNA was extracted in cases with purity >80% of CD5+/CD19+ cells. Clinical FISH data was available within 100 days of NGS in all untreated CLL and MBL cases. PatternCNV was used to detect clinically relevant CNAs in chromosomes 11, 12, 13 and 17. We performed a principal component analysis on the CNA calls, excluding chromosomes 11, 12, 13, and 17 to identify clusters of samples. Each cluster was then independently rerun with PatternCNV and the results from chromosomes 11, 12, 13, and 17 were extracted and further analyzed. We excluded samples with low tumor metrics identified by FISH (less than 20% of cells with del(17p), del(11q), trisomy 12 and del(13q)). Results: We sequenced a total of 696 patients of whom 162 were MBL and 534 were untreated CLL. The most commonly mutated genes were NOTCH1 (11.0%), TP53 (8.7%), SF3B1 (7.7%), ATM (4.1%), and CHD2 (3.8%). Based on CNA analyses from the NGS data, we identified 59 (9.1%) individuals with del(17p), 88 (13.4%) individuals with del(11q), 128 (20.0%) individuals with trisomy 12, and 329 (53.0%) individuals with del(13q). All 696 individuals had FISH panels conducted, with 39 (5.6%) individuals with del(17p), 68 (9.8%) individuals with (11q), 119 (17.1%) with trisomy 12, and 295 (42.4%) with del(13q). When we compared our CNA analyses with the FISH data, we found high concordance 95.0% for del(17p), 92.7% del(11p), 94.3% for trisomy 12, and 88.2% for del(13q). For del(17p) we found a sensitivity of 93.9%, specificity of 95.4%, PPV of 52.5%, and NPV of 99.7%. Del(11q) revealed a sensitivity of 88.1%, specificity of 94.0%, PPV of 59.1%, and NPV 98.8%. We found a sensitivity of 93.8%, specificity of 95.6%, PPV 82.0%, and NPV of 98.6% for trisomy 12 and for del(13q) we found a sensitivity of 92.6%, specificity of 90.9%, PPV of 91.7%, and NPV of 93.8%. We found lower PPVs in del(17p) and del(11q) likely due to lower prevalence of these chromosomal abnormalities. Conclusion: Here we show a high sensitivity, specificity, and NPV when comparing targeted sequencing with FISH. FISH panel testing is widely used in clinical practice to characterize highly prognostic chromosomal abnormalities in CLL. Comprehensive genetic profiling with NGS has become increasingly important in the work up of hematologic malignancies and provides additional prognostic and predictive information, including clinically relevant mutations such as TP53, SF3B1, and NOTCH1, tumor mutation load and mutations associated with resistance to chemo-immunotherapy and targeted therapies, such as BTK or BCL2 inhibitors, that FISH cannot offer. We show that NGS can infer clinically relevant CNA in cases without FISH testing while also providing additional clinically relevant information. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Cerhan: Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Parikh: Pharmacyclics, MorphoSys, Janssen, AstraZeneca, TG Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, AbbVie, and Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Verastem Oncology, and AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kay: Genentech: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CytomX Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Targeted Oncology: 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; Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract BACKGROUND Validation of the 2016 LANO MRI scorecard for leptomeningeal metastasis failed for multiple reasons. The objective of this joint EORTC Brain Tumor Group and RANO effort was to validate the feasibility of the revised MRI scorecard for assessing response in leptomeningeal metastasis. METHODS Coded paired cerebrospinal MRI of 20 patients with leptomeningeal metastases from solid cancers at baseline and follow-up after treatment and instructions for assessment were provided via the EORTC imaging platform. The kappa coefficient (K) was used to evaluate inter-observer pairwise agreement. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS V9.4 software (Cary, NC). The sponsor of the study was the University Hospital Zurich (2018-00192). RESULTS Thirty-five raters participated, including 9 neuroradiologists, 17 neurologists, 4 radiation oncologists, 3 neurosurgeons and 2 medical oncologists. Among leptomeningeal metastases-related items at baseline, the best median concordance was noted for hydrocephalus (K=0.63), and the worst median for spinal linear enhancing disease (K=0.46). The median concordance for overall response was moderate (K=0.44). Notably, the interobserver agreement for the presence of parenchymal brain metastases at baseline was minimal (K=0.29). Significant differences were observed when considering the specialty of the raters. Only 394 of 700 ratings (56%) were fully completed. Among 394 fully completed ratings, perfect concordance was noted in 293 ratings (74%) when comparing the overall response according to the guidelines provided in the scorecard and the overall response provided by the raters. The main discordances were noted for partial response according to the rater versus stable disease according to the guidelines (n=44), followed by progression according to the raters versus stable disease according to the guidelines (n=23). CONCLUSION Electronic case report forms with "blocking solutions" are probably required to enforce completeness and quality of scoring. These results confirm the necessity of central review and the need for training of MRI assessment in clinical trials.

Abstract The management of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has undergone unprecedented changes over the last decade. Modern targeted therapies are incorporated into clinical practice. Unfortunately, patients have begun to develop resistance or intolerance to multiple classes. Symptomatic patients previously treated with a BTK inhibitor (BTKi) and venetoclax represent a new and rapidly growing unmet need in CLL. Here, we define unmet needs in a modern treatment context. We also critically review the literature for PI3K inhibitors and chemoimmunotherapy and lack of data to support their utility following BTKis and venetoclax. Finally, we suggest opportunities to ensure the continued innovation for patients with CLL.

Background The National Patient‐Centered Clinical Research Network Blood Pressure Control Laboratory Surveillance System was established to identify opportunities for blood pressure (BP) control improvement and to provide a mechanism for tracking improvement longitudinally. Methods and Results We conducted a serial cross‐sectional study with queries against standardized electronic health record data in the National Patient‐Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) common data model returned by 25 participating US health systems. Queries produced BP control metrics for adults with well‐documented hypertension and a recent encounter at the health system for a series of 1‐year measurement periods for each quarter of available data from January 2017 to March 2020. Aggregate weighted results are presented overall and by race and ethnicity. The most recent measurement period includes data from 1 737 995 patients, and 11 956 509 patient‐years were included in the trend analysis. Overall, 15% were Black, 52% women, and 28% had diabetes. BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) was observed in 62% (range, 44%–74%) but varied by race and ethnicity, with the lowest BP control among Black patients at 57% (odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66–0.94). A new class of antihypertensive medication (medication intensification) was prescribed in just 12% (range, 0.6%–25%) of patient visits where BP was uncontrolled. However, when medication intensification occurred, there was a large decrease in systolic BP (≈15 mm Hg; range, 5–18 mm Hg). Conclusions Major opportunities exist for improving BP control and reducing disparities, especially through consistent medication intensification when BP is uncontrolled. These data demonstrate substantial room for improvement and opportunities to close health equity gaps.

AbstractIntroductionActive engagement in research and scholarly output is challenging for pharmacists following residency training.ObjectivesTo determine the current structure of institutional support for pharmacy research, describe barriers to increasing staff research support and scholarly output, and benchmark best practices.MethodsA national survey was developed and distributed to the Vizient Consortium Director of Pharmacy listserv. The survey was conducted between October 2, 2019 and January 31, 2020 and incorporated 23 base questions assessing seven domains: financial support, study design/conduct support, interdisciplinary support, staff incentives, pharmacy research oversight, best practices, and barriers to research support.ResultsThe survey was distributed to 253 directors of pharmacy and 49 (19%) distinct responses were obtained. Most responders (71%) reported less than 25% of clinical staff were involved in research. Responses indicated most departmental research was driven by residents: 43% reported postgraduate year one (PGY1) and postgraduate year two (PGY2) residents were responsible for at least 75% of research projects. The greatest barriers to conducting research included time (72%), funding (33%), and knowledge/experience (32%). Research support included access to statisticians for data analysis (63%) or study design (57%), development of a pharmacy research committee (55%), and financial support or stipends (45%).ConclusionDespite institutional financial and educational support, the most commonly reported barriers to conducting pharmacy research were time, funding, and knowledge or experience of staff pharmacists.

Objective: To evaluate geographic and temporal trends in Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) billing and reimbursements across female otolaryngologists (ORL). Methods: We performed a cross-sectional, retrospective analysis of the 2017 Medicare Physician and Other Suppliers Aggregate File. We analyzed differences in the number of services, patients, reimbursements, unique Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes used, and services billed per patient among female ORLs. Results: Female ORLs accounted for 15.2% of the 8453 Medicare-reimbursed ORLs. Female ORLs who graduated between 2000 and 2010 were reimbursed a median of $58 031.9 (IQR: $32 286.5-$91 512.2) and performed a median of 702 (IQR: 359.5-1221.5) services, significantly less than those who graduated between 1990 and 1999 (median: $67 508.9; IQR: 37 018.0-110 471.5; P < .001; median: 1055.5; IQR: 497.3-1944; P < .001). Female ORLs who graduated between 2000 and 2010 saw a median of 232 patients (IQR: 130.5-368), significantly less than those who graduated between 1990 and 1999 (median: 308; IQR: 168.3-496; P < .001) patients, significantly more than those. Female ORLs in urban settings performed a median of 795 (IQR: 364-1494.3) services and billed for a median of 42 (IQR: 28-58) unique codes, significantly fewer than their counterparts in rural settings (median: 1096; IQR: 600-2192.5; P = .002; median: 54; IQR: 31.5-64.5; P = .001). Conclusions: Medicare reimbursements and billing patterns across female ORLs varied by graduation decade and geography. Female ORLs further along in their careers may be reimbursed more with greater clinical volume and productivity. Those practicing in urban settings may have practices with decreased procedural diversity and lower clinical volume compared to their counterparts in rural areas.