Citations

BACKGROUND: Chemoimmunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) has been the standard therapy for younger patients with CLL. FCR therapy is particularly effective in patients with immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region (IGHV) mutated CLL. Approximately half of IGHV mutated patients are progression free 8 years after FCR therapy. At the ASH 2018 meeting, we reported the initial results of the ECOG 1912 (E1912) trial, a phase 3 trial comparing the FCR regimen to the combination of ibrutinib and rituximab (IR) for previously untreated CLL patients age 70 or younger who required therapy. With median follow-up of approximately 34 months, the trial demonstrated both a progression-free survival (PFS) and an overall survival (OS) benefit relative to FCR. On sub-set analysis by IGHV mutation status, the difference in PFS was statistically significant for IGHV unmutated patients but, with current follow-up, not IGHV mutated patients. Here, we present updated results for PFS in the E1912 trial. METHODS: As previously reported, eligible patients were treatment-naive individuals with CLL age 70 or younger. Patients with deletion 17p- were excluded from participating in the E1912 trial given their known poor response to FCR therapy. Patients were randomly assigned in a two-to-one ratio to receive ibrutinib (420 mg/day until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity) and rituximab (50 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 2, 325 mg/m2 on day 2 of cycle 2, and then 500 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycles 3-7) or six courses of intravenous fludarabine (25 mg/m2 days 1-3), cyclophosphamide (250 mg/m2 days 1-3) and rituximab (50 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 1, 325 mg/m2 on day 2 of cycle 1, and then 500 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycles 2-6) every 28-days. Adverse events (AEs) were graded according to the NCI Common Toxicity Criteria (version 4). Dose adjustments for cytopenias were based on the IWCLL CLL Working Group grading scale. The primary endpoint of the trial was PFS with OS a secondary endpoint. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: With median follow-up of 45 months, 257 (73%) of 354 patients randomized to IR remain on ibrutinib. With extended follow-up, grade 3 and above treatment-related AEs were observed in 70% of IR and 80% of FCR treated patients (OR=0.56; 95% CI 0.34 - 0.90; p=0.013). Among IR-treated patients, the median time on treatment is currently 43 months (range=0.2-61). Among the 95 patients who have discontinued ibrutinib, the reason for discontinuation was progression or death in 23 (7% of patients who started IR; 24% of those who discontinued treatment), AE or complication in 48 (14% of patients who started IR; 51% of those who discontinued treatment), and withdrawal of consent or other reasons in 24 (7% of patients who started IR; 25% of those who discontinued treatment). On multivariable Cox regression adjusting for Timed Up and Go test score, Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) score, age, gender, ECOG performance status, creatinine clearance, and baseline anemia/thrombocytopenia, only CIRS score (range 0 - 14) predicted discontinuation of ibrutinib for a reason other than progression or death (HR=1.13 per unit increase; 95% CI 1.03 - 1.23; p=0.009). Among the 72 patients who discontinued ibrutinib for a reason other than progression or death, the median time on ibrutinib was 15.1 months (range 0.2-58.2 months). The median time from ibrutinib discontinuation to disease progression or death was 23 months. With current follow-up, we observed 110 PFS events. The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS favored IR over FCR (HR=0.39; 95% CI 0.26-0.57; p<0.0001). Updated analysis of OS will be presented. On sub-group analysis by IGHV mutation status, IR was superior to FCR for IGHV unmutated patients (HR=0.28; 95% CI 0.17-0.48; p<0.0001). With current follow-up the difference is not significant in IGHV mutated patients (HR=0.42; 95% CI 0.16-1.16; p=0.086). Kaplan-Meier estimates for PFS are shown in Figure 1. CONCLUSIONS: Although less than 7% of ibrutinib treated patients progressed while on therapy, roughly 1 in 5 patients have discontinued ibrutinib for a reason other than progression or death. The only parameter significantly associated with discontinuation for a reason other than progression was increased baseline CIRS score. With extended follow-up, the combination of ibrutinib and rituximab continues to provide superior PFS compared to FCR for younger patients with previously untreated CLL. Disclosures Shanafelt: Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Patent: Patents & Royalties: US14/292,075 on green tea extract epigallocatechin gallate in combination with chemotherapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia; Polyphenon E International: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Glaxo-SmithKline: Research Funding; Hospira: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding. Kay:MorphoSys: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Other: DSMB; Celgene: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Agios: Other: DSMB. O'Brien:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas: Consultancy; Aptose Biosciences, Inc: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vaniam Group LLC: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding. Barrientos:AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sandoz: Consultancy; Oncternal Therapeutics: Research Funding. Coutre:Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; BeiGene: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses & Data Safety Monitoring Committee; Genentech: Consultancy. Barr:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cashen:Celgene: Other: Speaker's Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Other: Speaker's Bureau; Novartis: Other: Speaker's Bureau. Mato:AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB member , Research Funding; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Erba:Amgen: Consultancy; MacroGenics: Consultancy, Other: Lecture fees, Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy, Other: Lecture fees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; ImmunoGen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; GlycoMimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, data and safety monitoring board, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: chair, AML Registry Scientific Steering Committee, Speakers Bureau; ImmunoGen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Chair, IRC for phase III studies, Research Funding; GlycoMimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, data and safety monitoring board, Research Funding; Covance: Other: Fees for serving as chair on an independent review board for AbbVie Phase III studies; Covance: Other: Fees for serving as chair on an independent review board for AbbVie Phase III studies; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Chair, IRC for phase III studies, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: chair, AML Registry Scientific Steering Committee, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding. Stone:Arog Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka-Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Fujifilm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celator Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ono Pharmaceutical-Theradex Oncology: Consultancy; Cornerstone Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Takeda: Other: Fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board ; Orsenix: Consultancy; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Fees for serving on a steering committee, and fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Argenx: Other: Fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board ; Roche: Consultancy. Tallman:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncolyze: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Initial therapy for MCL is effective, but most patients eventually relapse. Validated intermediate biomarkers for MCL are important to provide early assessment of treatment efficacy, prognostic information and potentially guide consolidation. The US-Canadian Intergroup trial E1411 randomly assigned patients (pts) to receive induction with BR ± bortezomib (V), followed by consolidation with R ± L. As a planned correlative, MRD was assessed after cycle 3 (I3), end of induction (EOI) and after 4 cycles of consolidation (C4) by two methods: a research version of clonoSEQ® a next generation sequencing (NGS) MRD assay, (Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA) that leverages multiplex PCR followed by NGS to identify and track rearrangements of IgH, V-J, D-J and IgK/L loci as well as translocations in Bcl1/2-IgH, and flow cytometry (FC) (I3 and EOI only) at a central laboratory (Mayo Clinic). While outcomes by treatment arm remain blinded, we report here the results of the MRD assessments by each method and the associated progression free survival (PFS). In E1411, 373 pts, accrued between May 2012 - Sept. 2016, were randomly assigned (stratified by MIPI and age (</≥60)) to receive BR induction x 6 followed by R for 2 years, BVR followed by R, BR followed by LR or BVR followed by LR. Eligible pts were ≥ age 18 and had untreated MCL, ECOG PS 0-2, and adequate hematologic and organ function. Of the 373 pts, 296 (79%) consented to correlatives. Of these, 255 (86%) had baseline NGS samples, and 214 were analyzable. Excluded were 6 patients that were protocol ineligible, 20 without clinical follow-up; only 7 (2.7%) patients were ineligible due to inability to identify a dominant clone necessary to follow MRD by the NGS method. At baseline pre-treatment, NGS detected a dominant clone in bone marrow (BM) or peripheral blood (PB) in 92%, with only 17 (8%) requiring study of biopsy tissue. Of the 296, 240 had baseline FC data, 9 were protocol exclusions, leaving 231 analyzable. FC detected a non-MCL monoclonal B cell lymphocytosis clone in a small number of cases. While NGS may have higher sensitivity, as FC sensitivity is 10-4, for this analysis we used that cutoff for both NGS and FC. Cohen's Kappa statistic compares concordance between MRD pairs, and p-value is from exact McNemar's test. BR-based initial MCL therapy achieved early MRD negativity (< 10-4) in a high proportion of patients. Analyzing PB at mid-induction (I3): by NGS 89% MRD-, 9% MRD+ and 2% indeterminate, whereas by FC 87% MRD-, 12% MRD+ and 1% indeterminate. Concordance was high with 127 MRD- by both methods, 13 MRD+ by both, and 6 NGS-/FC+ (Kappa Statistic = 0.79, p-value = 0.031). By NGS, of 12 pts MRD+ at I3, 7 became MRD- at EOI, and 4 remained MRD+ (1 indeterminate). Analyzing at EOI: MRD- rates were 91% by NGS analysis of PB (147/161) and 90% in BM (96/107), vs 95% (174/183) by FC in PB. As some were indeterminate, only 7% were MRD+ by NGS in BM, 3% by NGS in PB and 5% by FC. In 88 informative samples with EOI NGS in both BM and PB, concordance was high, with 81 negative in both, 1 positive in both and 6 BM+/PB- (Kappa Statistic = 0.23, p-value = 0.031). Of 101 pts with data at all 3 timepoints, I3, EOI, and C4: 7 were MRD+ at I3, 5 of these were MRD- at EOI, but 2 of these 5 were again MRD+ at C4. Of 2 MRD+ EOI, 1 became MRD- at C4. By FC, of 17 patients MRD+ at I3, 11 (65%) became MRD- at EOI. MRD status correlated with progression-free survival (PFS). Due to the low MRD+ rate at EOI and C4, we focus here on MRD status at I3 (10-4 cutoff for both NGS and FC), using a landmark analysis of 4 months on study. Median PFS (Figure) for pts MRD- at I3 mid-induction was 58.9 months by either NGS or FC, while for those MRD+ by NGS it was 26.9 months, vs 29.9 months MRD+ by FC. Conclusions: Both NGS and FC were feasible to assess MRD status in this multi-center trial. Results of NGS and FC are concordant at the 10-4 cutoff. NGS can be more sensitive when adequate material is available, and analysis of this subgroup is ongoing. The high MRD- rate (≥ 90%) at EOI in this BR-based trial and MRD correlation with PFS supports its use as a platform for MCL trials, although consolidation may confound PFS. Early interim MRD testing at cycle 3 identifies a high-risk population who may benefit from alternative treatment strategies. Analysis by treatment arm with longer follow-up, as well as comparison with centrally reviewed PET/CTs included in this study, will help define the most informative method(s), cutoff values, and timing for assessing degree of response in MCL. Figure. Disclosures Smith: Astra-Zeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; EUSA: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Parekh:Foundation Medicine Inc.: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Karyopharm Inc.: Research Funding. Martin:Sandoz: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy. Till:Mustang Bio: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Leonard:Gilead: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bayer Corporation: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc: Consultancy; Bayer Corporation: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Consultancy. Friedberg:Bayer: Honoraria, Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee; Acerta: Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee. Kahl:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy.

89 Background: Monitoring of adverse events (AE) is crucial in clinical trials. Maximum grade per patient (pt) is commonly used but better metrics are needed to aid describing and comparing AE profiles. Methods: We developed and evaluated 2 longitudinal AE summary metrics. 1) Onset time of max grade refers to whether a pt has max grade within pre-specified timeframes for an AE, e.g. onset can be defined as “early” (max grade before the 6th cy) or “late” (≥ 6th cy). 2) Adverse effect load (AEL) is a longitudinal score of worst grade possible excluding death over the entire treatment for an AE. Higher AEL means worst overall experience of AE. We applied these metrics to real trial data. Pts were from 6 mCRC trials included in ARCAD database and received Irinotecan-based (n = 1,119) or Oxaliplatin-based (n = 1,230) treatments that did not include biologicals. AEs were diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, neutropenia/leukopenia, and neuropathy. We used linear model to AEL and logistic model to the other metrics, adjusting for age, sex, and number of metastases. Results: For nausea/vomiting, pts in Oxali-based chemo showed a higher AEL compared to patients in Iri-based (mean (M) [standard deviation (SD)] = 0.04 [0.06] vs. 0.02 [0.04]; p < 0.001) even though less pts had gr ≥ 3 (10.4% vs. 16.2%, resp.; p < 0.001), suggesting a lower-grade but persistent nausea/vomiting for Oxali-based. Among pts with diarrhea max gr 2, pts in Iri-based had higher AEL than with Oxali-based (M [SD] = 0.11 [0.11] vs. 0.08 [0.09]; p = 0.008), indicating more persistent diarrhea for Iri-based trts even among pts with same max grade. For neutropenia/leukopenia, pts in Oxali-based trts experienced higher AEL (M [SD] = 0.09 [0.13] vs. 0.05 [0.11], p < 0.001), and more pts in Oxali-based trts had gr ≥ 3 (70.1% vs. 64.4%; p = 0.002), suggesting that pts in Oxali-based trts experienced worst overall and max grade neutropenia/leukopenia compared to pts in Iri-based. Conclusions: To improve toxicity assessment in clinical trials, AEL and onset time of max grade are new measures that describe the evolution of adverse events over time. Further validation is warranted.

Summary Survival prediction in essential thrombocythaemia (ET) and polycythaemia vera (PV) is currently based on clinically‐derived variables; we examined the possibility of integrating genetic information for predicting survival. To this end, 906 molecularly‐annotated patients (416 Mayo Clinic; 490 University of Florence, Italy), including 502 ET and 404 PV, were recruited. Multivariable analysis identified spliceosome mutations to adversely affect overall ( SF3B1 , SRSF2 in ET and SRSF2 in PV) and myelofibrosis‐free ( U2AF1 , SF3B1 in ET) survival; TP53 mutations predicted leukaemic transformation in ET; “adverse” mutations occurred in 51 (10%) ET and 8 (2%) PV patients. We confirmed the independent survival effect of adverse mutations [hazard ratio (HR) 2·4, 95% CI 1·6–3·5], age >60 years (6·6, 4·6–9·7), male sex (1·8, 1·3–2·4) and leukocytosis ≥11 × 10 9 /l (1·6, 1·1–2·2), in ET, and adverse mutations (7·8, 3·1–17·0), age >67 years (5·4, 3·6–8·1), leukocytosis ≥15 × 10 9 /l (2·8, 1·8–4·2) and thrombosis history (2·0, 1·4–2·9), in PV. HR‐based risk point allocation allowed development of three‐tiered mutation‐enhanced international prognostic systems (MIPSS) which were validated in both cohorts and performance was shown to be superior to conventional scoring systems. Spliceosome mutations enhance survival prediction in ET and PV and identify patients at risk for fibrotic progression. TP53 mutations predict leukaemic transformation in ET.

The presence of KMT2A/AFF1 rearrangement in B-lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) is an independent poor prognostic factor and has been associated with higher rate of treatment failure and higher risk of linage switch under therapy. Blinatumomab has shown promising therapeutic results in refractory or relapsed B-ALL; however, it has potential risk of inducing lineage switch, especially in KMT2A/AFF1 rearranged B-ALL into acute myeloid leukemia and/or myeloid sarcoma. We report a 40-year-old female with KMT2A/AFF1-rearranged B-ALL that was refractory to conventional chemotherapy. Following administration of blinatumomab, she developed a breast mass proven to be myeloid sarcoma, in addition to bone marrow involvement by AML. Approximately six weeks after cessation of blinatumomab, a repeat bone marrow examination revealed B/myeloid MPAL.

Purpose To investigate the biomechanical effects of superior capsule reconstruction with subacromial allograft spacer on superior humeral head translation and subacromial contact pressure. Methods Eight cadaveric shoulder specimens were tested in 4 conditions: (1) intact rotator cuff, (2) supraspinatus tear and superior capsule excision, (3) superior capsule reconstruction with human dermal allograft, and (4) superior capsule reconstruction with subacromial resurfacing using human dermal allograft. In each condition, specimens were tested at 0, 30, 60, and 90° of shoulder abduction in balanced and unbalanced loaded states for subacromial contact pressure and superior humeral head translation. Statistical comparisons were made using a repeated‐measures analysis of variance test, followed by a Tukey post hoc test for pairwise comparisons. A P value <.05 was set as statistically significant. Results Superior humeral head translation and subacromial contact pressure were increased after irreparable rotator cuff tear ( P = .001). There was no significant difference between superior capsule reconstruction and intact cuff in regard to superior humeral head translation and subacromial contact pressure at all abduction angles. Superior capsule reconstruction with subacromial resurfacing decreased superior humeral head translation relative to intact (0°, P = .004; 30°, P = .02; 60°, P = .08; 90°, P = .01), superior capsule reconstruction (0°, P = .001; 30°, P = .003; 60°, P = .019; 90°, P = .001), and cuff‐deficient states ( P = .001). Superior capsule reconstruction with subacromial resurfacing resulted in nonsignificant increases in subacromial contact pressure relative to intact cuff at 0 to 90° abduction angles. Conclusions Superior capsule reconstruction with subacromial resurfacing using human dermal allograft results in decreased superior humeral head translation relative to superior capsule reconstruction with human dermal allograft only, while increasing subacromial contact pressure. Clinical Relevance Superior capsule reconstruction with subacromial resurfacing using human dermal allograft reduces superior humeral head translation while increasing subacromial contact pressure in a cadaveric model.