Citations

Abstract Background Brentuximab vedotin (BV) is an antibody-drug conjugate directed against CD30, a receptor that engages the CD30 ligand expressed on immune cells in the tumor microenvironment, promoting tumor cell growth (Montanari 2014, Hansen 2014). Through disruption of the microtubule network, BV induces apoptotic cell death, and may initiate an antitumor immune response (i.e., immunogenic cell death) through the induction of endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress (Gardai 2015). Nivolumab is a fully human monoclonal PD-1 blocking antibody that prevents tumor immune evasion. Both agents have independent high single-agent response rates in patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), and when used in combination, may exhibit mechanistic synergy. Given the demonstrated efficacy of both BV and nivolumab, together these agents could yield improved CR rates prior to ASCT in pts with R/R HL, and potentially better long-term outcomes. Methods A phase 1/2 study is ongoing to evaluate the safety and antitumor activity of BV administered in combination with nivolumab as first salvage therapy in pts with R/R classical HL after standard frontline chemotherapy (NCT02572167). Adult pts are treated in 21-day cycles for up to 4 cycles (12 weeks). Pts receive 1.8 mg/kg BV on Cycle 1 Day 1, and 3 mg/kg nivolumab on Cycle 1 Day 8. For cycles 2 through 4, BV and nivolumab are administered on Day 1 of each cycle at the same doses. After completion of the Cycle 4 response assessment, pts are eligible to undergo ASCT. Investigator assessment of lymphoma response and progression is per the Lugano Classification Revised Staging System for malignant lymphoma (Cheson 2014). Results Twenty-five pts (60% female) with a median age of 32 years (range, 18-69) have been enrolled to date. Sixty percent of pts have relapsed disease, 36% have primary refractory disease (failure to achieve CR with frontline therapy, or relapse within 3 months of completing frontline therapy), and 1 pt (4%) has unknown status. At the time of enrollment, 32% of pts presented with extranodal disease and 16% with bulky disease. At the time of the data extract, 23 pts had received treatment. An increased incidence of infusion-related reactions (IRRs) was observed at the start of combination treatment in Cycle 2 during the BV infusion leading to 1 dose delay. Premedication with corticosteroids (hydrocortisone 100 mg or equivalent) and antihistamines at Cycles 2-4 was instituted through a protocol amendment. Six pts have completed combination treatment, and all have achieved an objective response (ORR, 100%), with 3 of 6 achieving a complete metabolic response (CmR, 50%). All 6 pts have proceeded directly to ASCT. Median number of CD34+ cells collected was 12.9 x106 cells/kg (range, 5-26) in a mean number of 1.7 apheresis sessions (range, 1-2). Adverse events (AEs) for all pts are summarized prior to ASCT. Eighteen of the 23 treated pts (78%) experienced adverse events (AEs). Fifteen pts (65%) had AEs ≤ Grade 2 in severity and 3 pts (13%) experienced Grade 3 AEs. No pts experienced Grade 4 AEs pre-ASCT. Fatigue was the most common AE occurring in 35% of pts, followed by nausea (26%), rash (22%), dyspnea, myalgia, and pruritus (17% each). One pt experienced a treatment-related serious adverse event (SAE) of dehydration, hypercalcemia, and acute kidney injury. Immune-related adverse events (IrAEs) were experienced by 3 pts; 2 pts who experienced Grade 1 rash treated with topical steroids, and 1 pt who experienced Grade 1 hypothyroidism. No pts have discontinued treatment prematurely. In addition to Reed-Sternberg cells, CD30 is expressed on activated T cells. Preliminary biomarker data indicate a BV-induced decrease in the percentage of CD4+ T regulatory (Treg) cells at C1D8, with no decrease in proliferating CD8+ T cells, and no significant decrease observed in the percentage of CD4+ Th1 cells compared to baseline for 5 of 6 pts (83%). Nivolumab induced a robust expansion of T cells at C1D15. Conclusions Early data suggest the combination of BV and nivolumab is an active and well-tolerated salvage therapy in pts with R/R HL. While an elevated incidence of IRRs has been observed, toxicities with this regimen appear to be tolerable overall. The preliminary antitumor activity suggests this combination may be a promising option for R/R HL pts. Updated results will be shared at the time of presentation. Disclosures Herrera: Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Bartlett:Gilead: Consultancy. Moskowitz:BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Feldman:Abbvie/Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. LaCasce:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Forty Seven Inc.: Consultancy. Ansell:Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding. Fenton:Seattle Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kato:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Fong:Seattle Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Abstract Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a disease of global public health significance with mortality on the rise, despite the preventable nature of its risk factors especially in Africa. It is now the sixth most common cancer worldwide, fifth in males, and ninth in females. HCC incidence and mortality are predicted to increase in African countries constrained by limited resources to combat endemic levels of viral infection and synergistic environmental risk factors. The changing nature of HCC etiology is particularly illustrated here with the traditional risk factors like viral hepatitis coexisting alongside high human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevalence and rapidly increasing urbanization that have promoted a sharp increase in additional risk factors like coinfection, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and obesity. Although there are some differences in etiology between North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa, risk factors like chronic viral hepatitis B and C, aflatoxin exposure, and iron overload predominate. Aggressive hepatitis B genotypes, combined with hepatitis B virus/hepatitis C virus/HIV coinfections and aflatoxin exposure, promote a more aggressive molecular phenotype. In parallel to a better understanding of the molecular etiology of HCC, policy and planning initiatives to address the burden of HCC must be anchored within the reality of the limited resources available. Establishment and coordination of cancer registries across Africa is needed to improve the quality of data necessary to galvanize action. Preventive measures including hepatitis B vaccination programs, measures to prevent maternal-to-child and child-to-child transmission, delivery of universally accessible antiretroviral and antiviral treatments, and reduction of dietary aflatoxin exposure can contribute markedly to reduce HCC incidence. Finally, the development of biomarkers and new therapeutic interventions will need a better understanding of the unique genetic and epigenetic characteristics of HCC on the continent. We present a narrative review of HCC in Africa, discussing present and future trends.

Purpose: Healthcare spending as a percentage of Gross domestic product (GDP) is at all-time high and continues to rise in the United States. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimate that 33% of resources spent on healthcare goes to waste. As part of a ‘high value care’ exercise, we studied if estimating CD4 cell counts and HIV viral load in hospitalized patients with a known diagnosis of HIV led to any meaningful change in HAART regimen and discharge diagnosis. Methods: Retrospective chart review for all patients admitted with a known diagnosis of HIV from January 1, through December 31, 2017. Results: A total of 83 patient encounters were reviewed during the period. The mean age was 54.1 ± 16.4 years, 64.1 % of patients were males. 75 patients (90.3%) were already on highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). The median hospital length of stay (LOS) was 3 days (IQR 2.0 - 5.0). The mean turnaround time for CD4 counts and HIV viral load assay was 2.9 days (95% CI 2.1 – 3.7) and 3.9 days (95% CI, 3.2 – 4.6), respectively. A CD4 count estimation led to no change in HAART regimen. HIV viral load assay testing had no impact on a change in treatment or a change in diagnosis. Conclusions: In our study, testing CD4 counts and HIV viral load for inpatients did not confer any benefit in altering the diagnosis or HAART regimen. We believe that our study identifies a systems level opportunity to add to the concept of ‘Choosing Wisely.’

The quantitative assay for free light chains (FLC) is a recently introduced commercial product (FREELITETM, The Binding Site, Ltd.) that has been reported to be sensitive and specific for detecting and monitoring free light chain diseases such as primary systemic amyloidosis (AL), light chain deposition disease (LCDD), non-secretory multiple myeloma (NSMM), and LCMM (light chain multiple myeloma). We have prospectively evaluated the test performance in clinical practice. Results : In 2003, our Clinical Laboratory received samples for FLC assays from 1020 Mayo Clinic patients. The majority of these patients (88%) had plasma cell disorders (PCD). All 120 patients who did not have PCD had normal K/L FLC ratios. Among these, 52 had non-AL amyloidosis: localized amyloid (23), hereditary (16), senile (6), secondary (3), and amyloid of unknown type (4). The 68 other patients who did not have a PCD were being tested because of peripheral neuropathy, rule out AL, anemia, proteinuria, lymphoproliferative disease, and a number of other indications with small numbers of patients (n=13). Among the monoclonal gammopathy patients were 330 with MM, 269 AL, 115 MGUS, 72 SMM, 22 plasmacytomas, 20 NSMM, 9 macroglobulinemia, 7 LCDD, and a variety of other diagnoses with smaller numbers of patients. The sensitivity of the K/L FLC ratio was 100% in LCDD (7/7) and 70% in NSMM (14/20). The 6 NSMM patients with normal K/L FLC ratios had all been treated with SCT and 5 of the 6 had achieved hematologic remission by bone marrow plasma cells. Among the 110 AL patients who had not been previously treated and who had a FLC assay performed within 120 days of diagnosis, the sensitivity of the K/L FLC ratio was 92% compared to 71% for serum IFE and 84% for urine IFE. Using all 3 assays, there was 99.1% (109/110) sensitivity for detecting monoclonal light chain in AL. Conclusion : The performance of the FLC assay in this prospective analysis matches the results from published retrospective validation studies.

Abstract Background: Myeloablative hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) provides a cure for children with hemoglobinopathies, but transplant related early and late morbidity remains a challenge. Toxicities associated with myeloablative chemotherapy include early complications such as mucositis, hemorrhagic cystitis, seizures, and hepatic injury. Late effects such as infertility and compromised linear growth impair long-term quality of life, often decreasing enthusiasm for the procedure. Reduced intensity preparative regimens are especially attractive in children with non-malignant disorders to mitigate these toxicities but have been associated with increased risk of graft rejection. The primary objective of this study was to determine the toxicity and efficacy of a non-myeloablative preparative regimen using alemtuzumab, fludarabine, and melphalan followed by HCT from HLA matched related donors (MRD) in children with hemoglobinopathies. Methods: Following institutional review board approval, and parent and/or patient consent, participants were enrolled at 18 centers. Children < 21 years of age with severe sickle cell disease (SCD) manifestations, or transfusion dependent (> 8 red blood cell transfusions per year) thalassemia with a MRD and a performance status > 40 were eligible for inclusion. The preparative regimen included alemtuzumab (total dose 48 mg) IV (between days –22 and –19), fludarabine (30 mg/m2/day) (days –8 to –4) and melphalan (140 mg/m2) on day -3. Graft versus host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis included a calcineurin inhibitor (tapered after day 100, and methotrexate (7.5 mg/m2 on days 1, 3 and 6) or mycophenolate mofetil. Five patients also received methylprednisone (1 mg/kg/day) between days 1 and 28; this practice was discontinued in 2007. Results: A total of 52 children (43 with SCD and 9 with thalassemia), median age 11 years (range, 10m - 20y) underwent HCT between March 2003 and July 2014. Of these, 46 received bone marrow, 5 received marrow and cord blood (CB), and 1 received CB alone. Median follow up was 35.5 months (range, 3 – 136). Forty-nine children were alive at last follow up (Figure 1); 48 were symptom-free; one CB recipient had disease recurrence following graft rejection and successfully underwent a 2nd HCT. No hepatic veno-occlusive disease was noted. Three deaths 6, 11 and 21 months post HCT were from GVHD related causes [bronchiolitis obliterans (n=1); infection with GVHD (n=2)]. The cumulative incidence of graft failure and transplant related mortality was 1.9% and 5.7% respectively. The mean time to engraftment of neutrophils (ANC >500/cu mm) and platelets (>50,000/cu mm) was 13.0 (range 5-21) and 25.9 (range 8-120) days respectively. Three patients had neurologic toxicity (seizures/PRES) post HCT. At the time of last follow up, 35 patients (67%) were complete donor chimera (>90% donor) and 16 (31%) were mixed chimera (28-89% donor). Acute GVHD (grade 1-3) was noted in 30.8%. Four had grade I, 6 had grade II, and 6 had grade III GVHD. No patient developed grade IV aGVHD. Chronic GVHD was noted in 13%. Of 43 patients that were alive without disease and >6 months post HSCT, 38 had successfully discontinued all immune suppression and maintained donor chimerism post withdrawal. Immune reconstitution was robust by the end of the first year post transplant; infectious complications (23 of 30 CMV+ recipients had reactivation) were noted primarily in the first 3 months post HSCT. Conclusions: Children with hemoglobinopathies undergoing MRD HCT tolerated this non-myeloablative preparative regimen well, with minimal early toxicities. The event-free survival rate was comparable to those achieved with myeloablative regimens. Withdrawing immunosuppression was not associated with graft loss or recurrent GVHD. GVHD complications resulted in a low mortality rate. Alternative GVHD prophylaxis may further improve event-free survival. No gonadal toxicity (determined by hormone levels) has been identified to date in 15 HCT recipients of pubertal age (>13 years). Follow up however is early and in progress to determine long-term toxicities. These results support consideration of reduced intensity conditioning regimens for HCT in children with hemoglobinopathies as an alternative to standard myeloablative regimens. Figure 1: Overall/Event-free survival following non-myeloablative conditioning andMRD transplants for hemoglobinopathy Figure 1:. Overall/Event-free survival following non-myeloablative conditioning andMRD transplants for hemoglobinopathy Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background: The 2016 revision to the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of myeloid neoplasms has specifically categorized germline mutations that are associated with myeloid clonal evolution (Arber et al. Blood 2016). This group consists of myeloid neoplasms with an isolated germline predisposition (CEBPA, DDX41), myeloid neoplasms associated with congenital thrombocytopenia (ETV6, RUNX1, ANKRD26) and germline myeloid neoplasms with multi-organ dysfunction (GATA2, chromosomal breakage disorders, telomere biology disorders etc). We carried out this study to describe the clinical spectrum of germline disorders with predisposition to myeloid neoplasms as categorized by the 2016 WHO classification revision. Methods: After Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, the adult and pediatric bone marrow failure syndrome database (1990-2016) and the electronic medical record were queried for germline disorders involving GATA2, CEBPA, DDX41, ETV6, RUNX1, ANKRD26, Down syndrome and Noonan syndrome. Chromosomal breakage assays (Diepoxybutane/Mitomycin-C), flow-fluorescent in-situ hybridization (FISH) for telomere length assessment, Fanconi anemia complementation assays and Sanger/Next Generation sequencing (NGS) for the aforementioned germline disorders with myeloid predisposition were carried out in Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-certified laboratories. These disorders were then classified based on the 2016 WHO classification revision. Results : 54 individuals (37 families) were included in the study. Eleven (20%) patients belonging to 5 families were identified as having germline mutations with a preexisting platelet disorder: ETV6 (n=1), ANKRD26 (n=5), RUNX1 (n=5). Forty-three (79%) patients (32 families) had inherited syndromes with multi-organ dysfunction: GATA2 (n=11, 26%), bone marrow failure syndromes (n=14, 33%) and telomere biology disorder (n=14, 33%). There was one patient with neurofibromatosis with a germline PTPN11 mutation who developed juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia, while there were three patients with Down syndrome; 2 with transient abnormal myelopoiesis and one who developed acute megakaryocytic leukemia. The clinical phenotype, prevalence and characteristics of myeloid clonal evolution and outcomes are presented in Table 1. No patients with germline CEBPA or DDX41 mutations were identified. Patients with germline platelet disorders did not have any prominent non-hematological manifestations. Erythrocytosis (20%) with long-standing thrombocytopenia (100%) was a unique feature associated with ANKRD26 mutations. Non-hematologic clues such as human papillomavirus (HPV)-driven warts, primary lymphedema (Emberger syndrome) and frequent atypical infections with monocytopenia were seen in patients with germline GATA2 mutations, and preceded myeloid clonal evolution (morphologic, cytogenetic and molecular). Notably, the age at presentation and penetrance of myeloid transformation was variable, with individuals from the same family developing symptoms during the first decade of life and others remaining asymptomatic to date (fifth decade). Somatic ASXL1 mutations were detected in all 3 (100%) patients with GATA2 mutations and in one patient with ANKRD26 mutation that developed myeloid clonal evolution. In our study myeloid clonal evolution was seen in 40% with RUNX1 mutations, 27% with GATA2 mutations, and 20% with ANKRD26 mutations. We could not calculate the same for bone marrow failure syndromes as the total number of cases seen are still being assessed. Outcomes with allogeneic stem cell transplantation were favorable in appropriately selected patients (Table 1). Conclusion : The 2016 WHO revision to the classification of myeloid neoplasms highlights the importance of recognition and molecular characterization of germline mutations (syndromic and non-syndromic) with risk for myeloid clonal evolution. While some of these disorders (GATA2, Fanconi anemia, telomere biology disorders) may have important non-hematological clues, many present with isolated thrombocytopenia (RUNX1, ETV6). The age and frequency of myeloid evolution is highly variable. Acquisition of somatic ASXL1 mutations at the time of clonal myeloid transformation highlights the role of epigenetic dysregulation in disease evolution. Disclosures Kenderian: Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Persistence of minimal residual disease (MRD) after induction, consolidation and salvage therapies is an independent poor prognostic marker in AML. The bone marrow (BM) microenvironment is a protective niche that promotes chemotherapy resistance of leukemia cells. This residual subset of chemotherapy-resistant cells present during remission eventually contributes to the leukemia relapse/persistence. Adhesion of AML cells to BM stroma is dependent on the CXCR4 receptor binding to its ligand CXCL12. High levels of CXCR4 expression correlate with poor survival in AML. It is postulated that blocking the CXCL12/CXCR4 axis will dislodge AML cells from the protective microenvironment and, when combined with chemotherapy, may improve the response to therapy. BL-8040 (BKT140) is a short peptide which inhibits the binding of CXCR4 to CXCL12, resulting in mobilization of leukemic blasts from the BM to the peripheral blood (PB). BL-8040 has strong affinity for the CXCR4 receptor with long receptor occupancy and as a single agent induces differentiation and apoptosis of leukemia cells in preclinical models. A clinical trial assessing the safety and efficacy of BL-8040 in combination with cytarabine (Ara-C) for the treatment of relapsed/refractory AML patients was recently completed (NCT01838395). Here we report results from correlative studies done on samples from patients who participated in this trial. Objective: To assess BL-8040 single agent anti leukemia effects in relapsed/refractory AML. Method: Patients received a once daily SC dose of BL-8040 monotherapy on days 1-2 followed by the same dose of BL-8040 plus Ara-C (1.5g/m2 for patients ≥60; 3g/m2 for patients <60) per day on days 3-7. Six dose levels of BL-8040 (0.5 - 2.0 mg/kg) were tested. PD parameters such as mobilization of leukemic blasts and induction of differentiation and apoptosis were assessed after monotherapy with BL-8040 using frequent PB sampling and BM aspirates at baseline and on day 3 prior to Ara-C administration. Results: 45 patients (including 3 receiving compassionate use BL-8040) with a median age of 61 yrs were treated. The majority of patients had poor risk disease with 24% secondary AML and 17% with prior allogeneic stem-cell transplantation. Most patients were heavily pretreated with 19% relapsing after a short first remission (CR1 ≤12 months), 17% had ≥2 relapses and 45% refractory to 1-2 inductions. The CR+CRi rate was 38% in subjects receiving BL-8040 dose ≥1.0 mg/kg (n=39). Ongoing follow-up (FU) of responding patients (expansion phase; N=19) shows median EFS of 9.3 months (range 4.3-12.8 months). At the time of this analysis 10/19 patients are alive with a FU range of 0.96 - 12.8 months. FACS analysis revealed that BL-8040 monotherapy triggered an average 4.3-fold increase of immature AML blasts (CD45+Low/CD34+/CD117+/HLA-DR+) in PB (i.e., mobilization). Response to treatment was associated with more robust mobilization of AML blasts following BL-8040 monotherapy (responders 9.5 vs non-responders 1.7 fold median). Preferential mobilization of AML blasts over normal cells (4.7 fold vs. 1.4 fold, respectively) was confirmed by FISH analysis in a subset of patients with informative cytogenetic abnormalities. Induction of granulocytic differentiation of immature leukemia progenitors (2.5 fold) in the BM following BL-8040 monotherapy was noted. Finally, induction of AML blasts apoptosis (40% increase) by BL-8040 alone was evident by FACS in day 3 (pre-araC) bone marrow biopsies. Conclusions: The data demonstrate that sustained blockade of the CXCR4-CXCL12 axis with BL-8040 is safe and well tolerated and when given in combination with Ara-C improves the response rate achieved historically with Ara-C alone. In addition, treatment with BL-8040 as a single agent rapidly and efficiently induces mobilization, differentiation and cell death of AML blasts. This selective effect on chemotherapy-resistant cells may be translated into reduction of residual disease arguing for incorporation into front-line trials and such studies are ongoing. Disclosures Foran: Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; medscape: Honoraria; karyopharm: Honoraria; pfizer: Honoraria; novartis: Honoraria; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; agios: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding. DiPersio:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Peled:Biokine Therapeutics: Employment. Abraham:Biokine Therapeutics Ltd: Employment. Pereg:BioLineRx Ltd: Employment. Vainstein:BioLineRx Ltd.: Employment. Oberkovitz:BioLineRx Ltd.: Employment. Aharon:BioLineRx Ltd.: Employment. Cortes:ARIAD: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Ibrutinib has become a new standard of care in patients with previously treated CLL/SLL based on the phase 3 RESONATE study (Byrd, et al. NEJM 2014) and other trials evaluating ibrutinib mainly as a single agent in CLL. The first randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study (HELIOS) investigating ibrutinib in combination with bendamustine and rituximab (BR) was recently reported (Chanan-Khan, et al. ASCO 2015), with ibrutinib significantly extending progression-free survival and reducing the risk of progression/death by 80%. The study design provides an opportunity to examine the overall safety and management of adverse events (AEs) with ibrutinib and placebo in a blinded manner that previously has not been possible. Here we examine the safety and management of AEs with ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR in HELIOS. Methods Patients with active CLL/SLL following ≥ 1 prior line of systemic therapy were randomized 1:1 to receive BR (≤ 6 cycles) with either ibrutinib 420 mg daily or placebo (n = 289 in each group). Safety was a secondary end point. Results Median exposure to ibrutinib and placebo was 14.7 and 12.8 months, respectively. Rates of infection in the ibrutinib + BR and placebo + BR arms were similar (all-grade, 70.4%; grade ≥ 3, 26.8% vs all-grade, 70.0%; grade ≥ 3, 22.6%, respectively) but exposure-adjusted analysis reveals an overall lower rate of infections with ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR (10.3/100 vs 11.2/100 patient-months), with similar rates of grade ≥ 3 infections (2.4/100 patient-months each arm). Rates of all-grade (grade 3/4) anemia were 22.3% (3.5%) with ibrutinib + BR and 28.9% (8.0%) with placebo + BR. Patients also required fewer transfusions with ibrutinib + BR (23%) vs placebo + BR (29%), the majority of which were red blood cell transfusions. Similar proportions of patients used growth factors in both arms (54% vs 52%, respectively). Grade 3/4 neutropenia was reported at similar rates in both arms (53.7% vs 50.5%, respectively); however, fewer patients discontinued due to treatment-related neutropenia with ibrutinib + BR (1.0%) vs placebo + BR (2.8%). Rates of thrombocytopenia were slightly higher with ibrutinib + BR (30.7%) than placebo + BR (24.0%), but rates of grade 3/4 events were similar between arms (15.0% each arm). Atrial fibrillation (AF) was observed more frequently in patients on ibrutinib + BR than placebo + BR (7.3% vs 2.8% overall and 2.8% vs 0.7% grade 3/4, respectively). However, only 4 patients with grade 3/4 AF discontinued therapy in the ibrutinib arm. No patients with grade 1/2 AF discontinued treatment. One-third of patients held ibrutinib treatment to manage AF, with all restarting at the same dose (420 mg). Median (range) time to onset was 3.0 (0.3-17.5) months with ibrutinib + BR and 2.4 (0.6-18.9) months with placebo + BR. Importantly, in those with a prior history of AF or abnormal heart rhythm, only 7/25 receiving ibrutinib + BR and 2/22 receiving placebo + BR developed AF/atrial flutter on study. The rates of any-grade bleeding were 31.0% and 14.6%, respectively, with the majority being grade 1 (77.5% and 69.0%, respectively). Low rates of grade 3/4 major bleeding were observed in the ibrutinib + BR (2.1%) and placebo + BR (1.7%) arms. Many patients (41.8% ibrutinib + BR, 41.1% placebo + BR) were receiving concomitant anticoagulant/antiplatelet medication. A low rate of treatment-related lymphocytosis was observed in both arms (7.0% ibrutinib + BR, 5.9% placebo + BR). The majority of cases resolved within 2 weeks. Conclusions In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, the addition of ibrutinib to BR was well tolerated and did not significantly impact the safety profile of BR. In addition, ibrutinib was associated with reduced rates of anemia and transfusional support. Consistent with its known toxicity profile, patients in the ibrutinib + BR arm had higher rates of bleeding (mostly grade 1 or 2) and AF; however, few patients discontinued therapy as a result of these AEs. A prior history of AF or abnormal heart rhythm did not lead to recurrent episodes in the majority of cases. Taken together, the results from HELIOS establish the significant efficacy of ibrutinib and also the overall positive risk-benefit profile of ibrutinib + BR. Disclosures Cramer: Janssen: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Hoffman LaRoche: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Other: Travel grant; Glaxo Smith Klein/Novartis: Research Funding; Gilead: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Other: Travel grant. Demirkan:Celgene: Other: Travel reimbursement; Amgen: Consultancy. Fraser:Hoffman LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Santucci Silva:Janssen: Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Travel reimbursement; Hoffman LaRoche: Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding. Janssens:Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy. Goy:Allos, Biogen Idec, Celgene, Genentech, and Millennium. Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Mayer:Janssen: Research Funding. Dilhuydy:Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Mundipharma: Honoraria. Bartlett:Medimmune: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; ImaginAB: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Rule:Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement; Gilead: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement; J&J: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding. Sun:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Phelps:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mahler:Janssen: Employment, Other: Travel reimbursement. Salman:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Howes:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hallek:AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Boehringher Ingelheim: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Recent results from the HELIOS phase 3 study in relapsed/refractory CLL/SLL demonstrated that the addition of ibrutinib to chemoimmunotherapy with bendamustine/rituximab (BR) leads to an 80% reduction in risk of progression or death compared with placebo + BR (Chanan-Khan et al. ASCO 2015). In addition to prolongation of progression-free survival (PFS; median not reached vs 13.3 months; hazard ratio: 0.203, 95% confidence interval: 0.150-0.276, p<0.0001), overall response rate (ORR) and rates of complete response (CR) or CR with incomplete marrow recovery (CRi) were significantly improved with ibrutinib + BR (ORR: 82.7% vs 67.8%; CR/CRi: 10.4% vs 2.8%). Here we report additional analyses on the quality of response with ibrutinib combined with BR. Methods In total, 578 patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory CLL/SLL requiring treatment were randomized 1:1 (289 per arm) to receive BR (≤ 6 cycles) with either ibrutinib (420 mg daily) or placebo. Purine analog refractoriness (yes vs no) and number of prior therapies (1 vs > 1) were stratification factors. Pts with deletion 17p (del17p; > 20% of cells) were excluded. All pts were required to have ≥ 1 abnormal lymph node (LN; defined as a measurable lesion > 1.5 cm). The primary end point was independent review committee (IRC)-assessed PFS. In this analysis, individual parameters of response (LN, spleen, overall radiology, absolute lymphocyte count [ALC], complete blood count [CBC], and bone marrow [BM]) were evaluated. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was assessed by flow cytometry using an 8-color panel (Rawstron AC, et al. Leukemia. 2007;21:956-964); MRD samples were collected at confirmation of suspected CR (bone marrow) and every 3 months thereafter (peripheral blood). Rate of MRD-negative response was defined as the proportion of pts who reached negative disease status (< 0.01%, ie, < 1 CLL cell/10,000 leukocytes) in any sample. Reported MRD rates are based on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Results The ORR assessed by the IRC was 82.7% with ibrutinib + BR vs 67.8% with placebo + BR (p < 0.0001), and was consistent with ORR reported by the treating physician (investigator assessed) (ORR: 86.2% vs 68.9%, p < 0.0001). However, rates of CR/CRi were higher by investigator assessment (21.4%, ibrutinib + BR vs 5.9%, placebo + BR) than IRC (10.4% vs 2.8%). The IRC employed an independent evaluation of radiological scans including stringent evaluation of LN and volumetric assessment of spleen size-the main reasons for the difference in CR/CRi rates between investigator and IRC assessment. At baseline, similar proportions of pts in each arm had bulky disease defined as LN > 5 cm (54%-58%) or abnormal spleen (~40%) as assessed by IRC. Complete resolution of previous CLL/SLL manifestations as assessed by the IRC was achieved more often in the ibrutinib + BR arm in comparison with placebo + BR for LN (34.6% vs 15.2%), spleen (56.7% vs 37.0%), overall radiology (21.1% vs 9.0%), and BM (19.7% vs 5.9%). Rates of normalization of ALC (> 90%) and CBC (> 70%) were high and similar in the 2 arms. MRD was assessed in 120 pts treated with ibrutinib + BR and 57 pts treated with placebo + BR and was negative in 37 pts and 14 pts, respectively, which corresponds with an MRD-negative response rate of 12.8% vs 4.8% for ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR (p = 0.0011). Investigator-determined responses by different levels of MRD are shown in Table 1. The percentage of pts with an MRD level < 1% was higher with ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR (32.2% vs 11.8%). Moreover, the percentage of pts with an MRD level < 0.1% was higher for ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR (24.6% vs 7.6%) suggesting that the depth of response with ibrutinib + BR was superior. Kaplan-Meier plots by MRD level (Figure 1) show that a lower MRD level was associated with a longer PFS. However, pts in the ibrutinib + BR arm had a more sustained response at every MRD level compared with pts in the placebo + BR arm. Conclusions Pts treated with ibrutinib + BR showed not only a higher ORR, but also a greater depth of response, with more CRs and a higher rate of resolution of LN, spleen, and BM involvement. Furthermore, the rate and depth of MRD negativity was improved, and appeared to last longer in pts treated with ibrutinib + BR compared with pts receiving placebo + BR. With a median follow up of 17 months in the ibrutinib + BR arm, no MRD-negative pts and few MRD-positive pts had progressed, thus evaluating a trend in PFS with MRD negativity is currently limited in this arm. Disclosures Cramer: Gilead: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding; Glaxo Smith Klein/Novartis: Research Funding; Astellas: Other: Travel grant; Mundipharma: Other: Travel grant; Janssen: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Hoffman LaRoche: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Combination of bendamustine, obinutuzumab and ibrutinib for treatment of CLL. Fraser:Hoffman LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Demirkan:Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Other: Travel reimbursement. Santucci Silva:Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding; Hoffman LaRoche: Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Travel reimbursement. Janssens:Mundipharma: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy. Goy:Allos, Biogen Idec, Celgene, Genentech, and Millennium. Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Mayer:Janssen: Research Funding. Dilhuydy:Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Mundipharma: Honoraria. Bartlett:Millenium: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; ImaginAB: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Rule:Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement; J&J: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement; Gilead: Research Funding. Sun:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Phelps:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mahler:Janssen: Employment, Other: Travel reimbursement. Salman:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schaffer:Janssen: Employment. Balasubramanian:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Equity Ownership; Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Howes:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hallek:AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Boehringher Ingelheim: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding.