Citations

Purpose To assess the correlations between United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) performance, American College of Physicians Internal Medicine In-Training Examination (IM-ITE) performance, American Board of Internal Medicine Internal Medicine Certification Exam (IM-CE) performance, and other medical knowledge and demographic variables. Method The study included 9,676 postgraduate year (PGY)-1, 11,424 PGY-2, and 10,239 PGY-3 internal medicine (IM) residents from any Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education–accredited IM residency program who took the IM-ITE (2014 or 2015) and the IM-CE (2015–2018). USMLE scores, IM-ITE percent correct scores, and IM-CE scores were analyzed using multiple linear regression, and IM-CE pass/fail status was analyzed using multiple logistic regression, controlling for USMLE Step 1, Step 2 Clinical Knowledge, and Step 3 scores; averaged medical knowledge milestones; age at IM-ITE; gender; and medical school location (United States or Canada vs international). Results All variables were significant predictors of passing the IM-CE with IM-ITE scores having the strongest association and USMLE Step scores being the next strongest predictors. Prediction curves for the probability of passing the IM-CE based solely on IM-ITE score for each PGY show that residents must score higher on the IM-ITE with each subsequent administration to maintain the same estimated probability of passing the IM-CE. Conclusions The findings from this study should support residents and program directors in their efforts to more precisely identify and evaluate knowledge gaps for both personal learning and program improvement. While no individual USMLE Step score was as strongly predictive of IM-CE score as IM-ITE score, the combined relative contribution of all 3 USMLE Step scores was of a magnitude similar to that of IM-ITE score.

TPS8619 Background: Chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) treatment approaches such as FCR have markedly improved outcomes for CLL pts when administered as initial or second-line therapy. Despite this progress, virtually all pts relapse and effective salvage regimens that induce durable remissions or can be administered safely to elderly pts or those with comorbidities are lacking. BTK, an essential mediator of B-cell receptor signaling, is a novel target in CLL. Ibrutinib, a first-in class inhibitor of BTK, promotes apoptosis and inhibits proliferation, migration and adhesion in CLL cells. Phase II data of ibrutinib monotherapy in RR CLL demonstrated an estimated PFS and OS of 75% and 83% respectively at 26 months (Byrd Abst #189 ASH 2012). These findings confirmed BTK as an important target in CLL and supported initiation of a pivotal phase III study in pts with RR CLL/SLL. Methods: PCYC-1112-CA is an ongoing international Phase 3 randomized controlled study of ibrutinib versus ofatumumab for treatment of pts with RR CLL/SLL. The study is enrolling 350 planned pts in 9 countries. Pts are randomized 1:1 to receive ibrutinib 420 mg orally once daily or ofatumumab per the package insert at 300 mg for the first dose, then 2000 mg for a total of 12 doses over 24 weeks. Pts are stratified based on del 17p and disease refractory to purine analogs. Key inclusion criteria include RR CLL/SLL with >= 1 prior line of therapy including pts who experienced a short remission duration to purine analog based CIT, pts who are older or have comorbidities, and pts with del 17p. Pts must have active disease meeting criterion for requiring therapy and measurable nodal disease by CT. Key exclusion criteria include Richter’s transformation, stem cell transplantation within 6 months, GVHD or immunosuppression, platelet count <30,000 cells/ul or use of warfarin The primary objective of the study is PFS evaluated by an IRC. Other outcomes include ORR, OS, hematologic improvement, and safety. An independent DMC is monitoring the study. Clinical trial information: NCT01744691.

ROR1 is a transmembrane receptor with tightly controlled expression during development. It is present on multiple tumor types but not on normal adult tissues. Hematological malignancies are often ROR1-positive, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), and diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Given its unique pattern of expression, ROR1 represents a tumor-specific therapeutic target. The anti-ROR1 antibody, UC-961, is ahumanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody (mAb) that binds with high affinity to a specific extracellular epitope of human ROR1 receptor and can block Wnt5a-induced ROR1 signaling. Nonclinical studies document that UC-961 does not react with normal adult human tissues and selectively binds to tumor cells. Because of the antibody high specificity, rapid internalization, and trafficking to lysosomes, UC-961 appears ideally suited to serve as the targeting moiety for an anti-ROR1 ADC. Accordingly, we have developed VLS-101, a UC-961-linker-monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE) ADC that preserves the high-affinity binding and specificity of UC-961 and allows for ROR1-targeted intracellular release of MMAE. RS is an aggressive lymphoma, typically of DLBCL type, arising as transformation of CLL. Despite, progressive improvements in the therapy of CLL, very few effective treatment options exist for patients with RS. Using our recently established RS patient-derived xenografts (RS-PDXs), we explored the expression and signaling properties of ROR1 in RS and investigated the ex-vivo and in vivo effects of VLS-101. When assessed by flow cytometry (FACS), immunohistochemistry (IHC), and reverse-transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), 3 of 4 RS-PDXs showed ROR1 positivity (2 highly positive: 99% and 80% of cells; 1 medium/low positive: 25% of cells by FACS). The extent of ROR1 expression correlated among the 3 assays methods and was consistent with ROR1 expression data reported for non-RS DLBCL samples. When engaged by its ligand Wnt-5a, ROR1 activated downstream targets, Rac1 and RhoA, and induced phosphorylation of the p65 subunit of NF-kB and Jnk in RS cells. When cells purified from RS-PDX tumor masses were exposed to VLS-101 ex-vivo, the drug induced time- and dose-dependent apoptosis, as shown by increases in annexin V/propidium iodide and by Caspase-3 and PARP cleavage. VLS-101 efficacy was then assessed in vivo in both subcutaneous and systemic RS-PDX models. When palpable masses had formed in subcutaneous models, mice were randomly assigned to vehicle or VLS-101, bi-weekly treated for 3 consecutive weeks, and then compared for tumor growth and survival. In the 3 ROR1-expressing RS-PDX models, VLS-101 caused highly significant disease regressions. Complete regressions were observed even in RS-PDXs without universal ROR1 expression, suggesting a MMAE bystander effect. After treatment discontinuation, VLS-101-treated animals showed no tumor regrowth for several months and had significantly extended survival. Data were confirmed in systemic ROR1-expressing RS models in which tumor cells were intravenously injected and allowed to engraft for ~14 days before starting treatment. VLS-101 was administered with the same schedule adopted for the subcutaneous model. VLS-101 eliminated RS cells in bone marrow, peripheral blood, and spleen, increasing survival in VLS-101-treated animals relative to controls (approximately 20-50 days, depending on the RS-PDX model). Of note, no in vivo VLS-101 efficacy was observed in the ROR1-negative RS-PDX, confirming the specificity of VLS-101 targeting. VLS-101 showed no adverse effects on animal well-being or body weight. Collectively, these results indicate that ROR1 is expressed on RS cells where it can transduce pro-survival signals and can be diagnostically evaluated for selective targeting. Nonclinical data document that the MMAE-containing ADC, VLS-101, can cause RS-PDX apoptosis in vitro and can safely and selectively induce complete tumor regressions in in vivo models of RS derived from patient tumors with heavy prior clinical treatment and variable levels of ROR1 expression. Building on these types of results, a Phase 1 clinical trial of VLS-101 (NCT03833180) is ongoing in patients with lymphoid cancers. Disclosures Vaisitti: VelosBio Inc.: Research Funding; Verastem Inc: Research Funding. Jessen:VelosBio Inc.: Employment. Vo:VelosBio Inc: Employment. Ko:VelosBio Inc: Employment. Allan:Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie company: Consultancy; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie, Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem Oncology, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy. Furman:Acerta Pharma: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Oncotracker: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Miller:VelosBio Inc.: Employment. Lanutti:VelosBio Inc.: Employment. Deaglio:iTeos Therapeutics: Research Funding; Verastem Inc: Research Funding; VelosBio Inc.: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: The drug used in this project is an anti-ROR1-toxin-conjugated antibody

Abstract Introduction: Given the availability of several active treatment (tx) options for CLL, providers frequently make tx recommendations based on their interpretation of objective data from consensus criteria and clinical trials. There are limited data describing patient (pt) experience, values, and insights when encountering multiple tx choices. The CLL Society, a pt-driven, physician-curated nonprofit organization focused on the unmet needs of the CLL community, sought to explore how CLL pts make tx decisions. Methods: A 64 question survey was distributed online and in paper to CLL pts from Oct-Dec 2017. The survey was developed by CLL experts. The research was IRB-approved. Chi square was used for statistical comparison; all other analyses are descriptive in nature. Results: 1147 pts from 48 states completed the survey. Median age was 65 (range 28-86), 46% male, 96% Caucasian. Who Influences Tx: Of the 79% of pts who have seen a CLL expert, defined as a provider focused on CLL at an academic/research center, 95% rated their provider as very/extremely influential. 83% of pts rated their own opinions as influential, and 59% rated the opinion of a general hematologist/oncologist (gen heme/onc), a provider who sees a variety of cancer types, as influential. Only 27% let their provider unilaterally decide on tx. Of these pts, 19% trusted their provider to select the best tx and 5% didn't have enough understanding to be involved in the decision. 64% were influenced by outside sources of information, such as family members, live CLL support groups, or online sources including pt experts and forums. Factors in Deciding Tx: Of the 67% pts surveyed who have been treated, 73% were offered > 1 tx choice by their provider. In deciding on a specific tx, 94% of respondents stated that it was very/extremely important to know there were tx options beyond their current regimen. The most important factors in selecting tx were response rate (91%), overall survival (88%), progression-free survival (86%), long-term side effects (82%), ability to achieve undetectable MRD (80%), cost/insurance coverage (66%), and location of tx (50%) with significant differences between subgroups (Table 1). Tx was impacted by cost or insurance issues for 16% (n=104). Of these 104 pts, cost/insurance issues resulted in tx delay for 34 and change in tx plan for 24 pts. 16 pts reported that an appeal led to coverage and 16 pts received financial assistance. Pts' willingness to accept potentially curable but high-risk tx was heavily influenced by availability of alternate options. For example, 18% of pts would be willing to consider cytotoxic chemotherapy if alternate options were available vs. 72% if no options were available. Similar patterns were seen with CAR-T tx (28% vs. 79%) and bone marrow transplantation (BMT) (15% vs. 66%) with significant differences between subgroups (Table 2). 82% were willing to take a life-long tx for long-term control without potential for cure. Willingness to accept long-term tx was significantly higher in treated vs. untreated pts (84% vs. 77%, p=.006) and men vs. women (84% vs. 78%, p=.008). Clinical Trial Education: Of those treated by a gen heme/onc, 31% received no education on clinical trials. Only 15% reported good understanding of trial opportunities vs. 52% treated by a CLL expert (p<.001). 9% of pts treated by gen heme/onc were offered clinical trial participation vs. 47% treated by a CLL expert (p<0.001). Pts who declined or would have declined participation cited reasons including preference for "proven" tx (38%), distance from trial site (29%), fear (20%), frequent imaging (20%), overall lack of understanding about trials (15%), and lack of information (14%). Summary: Most respondents want to be and are involved in tx decisions. While providers are influential in decision making, CLL pts also rely on outside sources. Gender, age, and tx status influence which factors drive decision making. Pts select tx based on response rate, survival, side effects, and ability to achieve deep response and want a plan in place for sequencing tx. The majority are willing to consider long-term tx without cure. Few want chemotherapy, CAR-T, or BMT unless they have no other options. A significant opportunity for improvement in education on clinical trial opportunities was identified. This description of pt experience, values, and preferences enriches the informed consent process and may lead to more tailored and patient-centered care. Disclosures Kennard: AbbVie, Gilead, Verastem: Consultancy. Furman:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; Genentech: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Pagel:Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Davids:Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, 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; Celgene: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Nabhan:Cardinal Health: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kay:Acerta: Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: 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; Morpho-sys: 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; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Siddiqi:Juno Therapeutics: Other: Steering committee. Brander:Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; BeiGene: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Acerta: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; DTRM: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding. Wierda:AbbVie, Inc: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Hill:Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cheson:AbbVie, Roche/Genentech, Pharmacyclics, Acerta, TG Therapeutics: Consultancy. Choi:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Rigel: Consultancy; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie, Inc: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Mato:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Prime Oncology: Honoraria; Portola: Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; Medscape: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Several prognostic models for overall survival (OS) in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have been developed, but none were derived for patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) CLL treated in the era of novel agents. We used a comprehensive approach to derive and validate a novel risk model for OS in 2,475 pts with R/R CLL who received therapy in randomized phase 3 trials evaluating ibrutinib (IBR), idelalisib (IDELA), and venetoclax (VEN) vs control arms, or the Mayo Clinic CLL Database (MCCD). Methods: In collaboration with Janssen, Gilead, Pharmacyclics, and Genentech/Roche, the analysis included 2,475 pts from 6 multicenter randomized phase 3 trials or the MCCD. Trials included were: IBR plus bendamustine-rituximab (BR) vs placebo plus BR (HELIOS: NCT01611090), IBR vs ofatumumab (RESONATE: NCT01578707), IDELA plus BR vs placebo plus BR (Study 115: NCT01569295); IDELA plus rituximab vs placebo plus rituximab (Study 116: NCT01539512); IDELA plus ofatumumab vs ofatumumab (Study 119: NCT01659021); VEN plus rituximab vs BR (MURANO: NCT02005471). All pts had R/R CLL and required treatment by iwCLL criteria. The model-building dataset (n=969) included pts from HELIOS and RESONATE, and was randomly assigned to the IBR/chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) training dataset (n=727) and IBR/CIT internal-validation dataset(n=242). Three independent external validation datasets included IDELA/CIT (n=897), VEN/CIT (n=389), and MCCD (n=220). We applied univariate and multivariate analyses (MVA) to 28 candidate clinical/laboratory and genetic prognostic factors to derive the risk model in the training dataset. The primary endpoint was OS. We assessed the need for separate models for targeted agents by interactions with treatment in univariate analyses. We proceeded to develop a single model for all pts with R/R CLL, as only one candidate factor (del(13q), interaction p value <0.1) demonstrated a marginal differential effect. We evaluated cutoffs for dichotomized covariates and for definition of risk groups after the final factors were selected. We fit a Cox regression on the training and internal/external validation datasets using the risk categories as the covariate to test the difference among the groups, and calculated the C-statistic as a measure of discrimination. Results: Of 11 selected factors with a significant univariate effect on OS (p<0.1), 6 were independently prognostic in the MVA of OS (p<0.05): Baseline β2-microglobubulin (B2M), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), hemoglobin (HGB), IGHV mutational status, number of prior therapies, and time from initiation of last therapy. We excluded number of prior therapies from the model, reasoning that its optimal cutoff might change with advances in CLL therapies. IGHV did not remain significant (p=0.0592) in MVA of 5 remaining prognostic factors. Notably, del(17p) was not independently prognostic for OS. The final risk model consisted of 4 prognostic factors: B2M ≥5 mg/L, LDH elevated, HGB <110 mg/L for women or <120 mg/L for men, and time from initiation of last therapy <24 months. Because hazard ratios for each factor were similar (range, 0.55-0.68) with overlapping confidence intervals, 1 point was assigned to each factor. The resulting score separated pts into low (score 0-1), intermediate (score 2-3), and high risk (score 4) groups. Our risk model was prognostic for OS in the IBR/CIT training dataset (C-statistic 0.74 [95% CI 0.60-0.85]; log-rank p<0.0001) and was validated in the IBR/CIT internal validation (C-statistic 0.79 [95% CI 0.56-0.97]; log-rank p<0.0001), as well as in all 3 external validations: IDELA/CIT dataset (CS=0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.81; log-rank p<0.001); VEN/CIT dataset (CS=0.76, 95% CI 0.66-0.85; log-rank p=0.01); MCCD (CS=0.61, 95% CI 0.56-0.66; log-rank p<0.001). Conclusions: We present the first validated risk model for OS in R/R CLL in the era of targeted therapies. Our model consists of 4 readily available factors (B2M ≥5 mg/L, LDH elevated, HGB <110 mg/L for women or <120 mg/L for men, and time from initiation of last therapy <24 months), identifies 3 prognostic groups with significantly different OS, and has been validated for pts treated with all FDA approved targeted therapies: IBR, IDELA, and VEN. This identifies a well-defined cohort of pts with R/R disease with an unmet clinical need who are suitable for prospective trials targeting these pts. An exploratory analysis regarding prediction of MRD is ongoing. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Darif: Jannsen: Employment. Londhe:Jannsen: Employment. Xing:Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Employment. Mun:Genentech: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kay:Cytomx Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shanafelt:Mayo Clinic: Patents & Royalties: Physician Well-being Index, Medical Student Well-being Index, Well-being index; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Furman:Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Hillmen:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sharman:Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Seymour:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jones:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ferrante:Jannsen: Employment. Dreiling:Gilead: Employment. Mobasher:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Other: Ownership interests non-PLC; Genentech Inc: Employment. Stark:Genentech: Employment. Reddy:Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership; Pharmacyclics: Employment. Howes:Janssen: Employment. James:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Bhargava:Gilead: Employment. Zelenetz:Novartis/Sandoz: Consultancy; Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Background The ubiquitin proteasome system (UPS) maintains homeostasis in eukaryotic cells by degrading and recycling proteins associated with DNA transcription and cell cycle regulation. In tumor cells with a high protein turnover rate, particularly in immunoglobulin secreting cancers such as Waldenströms Macroglobulinemia (WM), proteasomes are critical for sustained cell proliferation. Proteasome inhibitors (PI) such as bortezomib and carfilzomib target the B5 subunit of the proteasome catalytic core and disrupt its activity leading to accumulation of polyubiquitinated proteins. Although highly effective in WM, persistent use of bortezomib eventually leads to emergence of a bortezomib resistant (BR) subclone. Point mutation in the PSMB5 gene (encoding the B5 subunit) leading to altered binding kinetics is identified as a potential underlying mechanism of PI resistance. Despite these adaptive modifications that support resistance to PI resistance, the UPS as a whole remains a relevant target with vulnerable sites that can be therapeutically exploited. The 19S cap of the proteasome contains deubiquitinating enzymes (DUBS) that function to deubiquitinate proteins prior to their entry into the proteasomal core. Using a novel DUB-inhibitor b-AP15, which blocks the UCHL5 and USP14 DUBS, D’Arcy et al demonstrated that disruption of these DUBS does not alter proteasomal activity yet induces robust tumor cell death in various cancers. Aim Investigation of b-AP15 in preclinical models of BR WM and characterization of associated downstream signaling interactions. Methods For these studies, we developed and used BR variants of the most commonly used WM cell lines (variants termed BCWM.1/BR, RPCI-WM1/BR and MWCL-1/BR). Proteasomal activity was measured in these cells using synthetic fluorogenic peptide substrates and apoptosis was measured by annexin-v/PI staining. For gene expression profiling (GEP), the Nanostring nCounter mRNA quantification assay was utilized. Results We treated all BR WM clones with either single agent bortezomib (10nM), carfilzomib (10nM), b-AP15 (100nM) or all three agents in combination and assessed their effect on chymotrypsin-like, caspase-like and trypsin-like proteasomal activity. b-AP15, either alone or in combination with the other PI, did not alter proteasomal activity, nor did it abrogate the inhibition of chymotrypsin-like activity of other PI. Although proteasomal activity was not disrupted, we observed an increase in high molecular weight ubiquitinated proteins on immunoblot analysis. We hypothesized that despite the BR cells resistance to B5-targeting PI, they would remain sensitive to UPS inhibition if targeted through DUB inhibition. We treated BR cells with b-AP15 at concentrations ranging from 50nM - 1.25uM and observed that b-AP15 induced robust WM cell death in a dose and time dependent manner. Apoptosis was more pronounced in MWCL-1/BR cells and optimal cell death (55%) was observed at 500nM; however a commitment towards cellular demise was evident by PARP-1 and caspase cleavage as early as 3 hrs. Use of a pan-caspase inhibitor resulted in rescuing of the BR WM cells from b-AP15 mediated death and demonstrated a caspase-dependent death process. In order to gain further mechanistic insight into the processes that regulates response to b-AP15, we performed GEP and immunoblot of BR WM cells treated with 50nM of b-AP15. We observed an increase in phospho-p38 protein, which belongs to the MAPK family and regulates IL8 secretion. When BR WM cells were treated with a p38 inhibitor in combination with b-AP15, a significant decrease in cell viability was noted relative to b-AP15 (100nM) alone. Furthermore, GEP and network analysis identified key regulator genes associated with p53, cell cycle and MAPK signaling. Summary We provide first evidence that inhibition of the DUBS, UCHL5 and USP14 with b-AP15 results in caspase-dependent apoptosis of BR WM cells. Our investigation uncovers important molecular interactions that may dictate the BR cells responsiveness to DUB-inhibition by b-AP15. These observations validate the pervasive role of the UPS and confirm alternate therapeutics targets using our unique BR WM models. We are grateful to the Waterfall Waldenström Macroglobulinemia Research Fund, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society and the International Waldenström Macroglobulinemia Foundation for their continued support. Disclosures: Martin: Teva: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Abstract 4919 Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia (WM) is characterized by the presence of lymphoplasmacytic cells in the bone marrow and the secretion of IgM monoclonal antibody in the serum. Several conventional therapies are available but the disease remains incurable. Recently, bortezomib (a proteasomal inhibitor) has shown promising anti-WM activity with enhanced responses when combined with traditional therapies. Resistance to bortezomib therapy is an important event that is associated with continued treatment. In order to understand the mechanism of bortezomib resistance in WM we exposed BCWM.1 (a known WM cell line) in vitro to increasing concentrations of bortezomib over prolonged periods of time and isolated the bortezomib resistant clone (BCWM.1/BR). This clone was compared with its parent wild type cell line (BCWM.1/WT). Investigation to understand the susceptibility of BCWM.1/Br cells to various therapeutic agents showed that these cells are resistant to many of the agents such as melaphalan, fludarabine or doxorubicin. Interestingly, verapamil, a broad spectrum inhibitor of multidrug resistance, failed to reverse the resistance induced by bortezomib indicating that bortezomib resistance is not because of an activation of multidrug resistance in these cells. While BCWM.1/WT cells showed an IC50 of 7.8nM when treated for 72h with bortezomib, the BCWM.1/BR cells were not inhibited at any concentration of the compound up to 100nM. Furthermore, the cells with the acquired resistance showed a 4 fold increase in the proteasomal activity as measured by the release of a fluorescent product (7-Amino-4-methylcoumarin (AMC)) from its peptide substrate, suc-LLVY-AMC. Biochemical analysis further revealed that many of the proteasomal components are altered in BCWM.1/BR cells as compared to their parental control cells. Interestingly, protein levels of two of the proteasomal catalytic subunits, PSMB5 and PSMB9 are upregulated in resistant cells suggesting a reason for the enhanced proteasomal activity of these cells. The resistant cells showed an altered gene expression profile that indicates a transformation of the parental wild type cell line to acquire resistance. A comparative analysis of the signal transduction pathways operated in these cells showed that many of the activation and cell survival pathways that are present in BCWM.1 cells are inhibited in the resistant cells. For example, BCWM.1 cells show a constitutive activation of AKT and ERK1/2 which are inhibited in the resistant cells thus making them insensitive to the inhibitors of these pathways. Similarly, HSP27 which was earlier shown to contribute to bortezomib induced resistance was completely inhibited in BCWM.1 resistant cells. Interestingly, there is an increase in Bcl-2 protein in BCWM.1/BR cells as compared to WT cells indicating that the resistant cells might be dependent on Bcl-2 family for their survival. Inhibition of Bcl-2 induced potent apoptosis in BCWM.1/BR cells. Thus the results presented here indicate that acquired bortezomib resistance in BCWM.1 cells alters their proteasomal activity, cellular signaling pathways to make them resistant to many of the known therapies but these cells retain the Bcl-2 mediated pathway for targeting thus inhibitors of Bcl-2 may be used in therapy against bortezomib-resistant WM. Disclosures Chanan-Khan: Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) with deletion 17p (del17p) CLL follow an aggressive clinical course and experience poor outcomes with chemoimmunotherapy. Ibrutinib, an oral inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK), is approved for pts with CLL with ≥1 prior therapy and for pts with del17p CLL (including first-line). In the phase 2 RESONATE-17 study (PCYC-1117), ibrutinib demonstrated high efficacy with a favorable risk-benefit profile in del17p CLL/SLL (O'Brien, ASH 2014). We evaluate the baseline genetic features and prognostic factors of these pts to determine their impact on outcome. Methods: Pts with del17p CLL or SLL defined by peripheral blood FISH who failed ≥1 therapy received 420 mg oral ibrutinib once daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Using the primary analysis data cut, the overall response rate (ORR; iwCLL 2008 criteria by investigators), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were assessed by subgroup. Results: Among 144 treated pts (137 CLL, 7 SLL), the median age was 64 (range 36-89). At baseline, 63% of pts had Rai stage III or IV disease, and 39% had received ≥3 prior therapies. Baseline cytogenetics included del11q (16%), del13q (74%), and trisomy 12 (17%), in addition to del17p in all pts. Of 116 pts with valid baseline genomic samples, IGHV status was unmutated in 84%; genomic variants that included mutations, rearrangements, insertions, deletions, and copy number variants affecting coding regions were identified as follows: ATM (14%), BIRC3 (3%), BTK (1%), MYC (2%), MYD88 (2%), NOTCH1 (16%), PLCG2 (3%), SF3B1 (27%), and TP53 (92%), which were consistent with previously identified mutations in pts with CLL (Wang, NEJM 2011; Winkelmann, Haematologica 2015). At a median follow-up of 11.5 months, the investigator-assessed ORR including partial response with lymphocytosis (PR-L) for all treated pts was 83% (17% PR-L). Median PFS and OS were not reached, with 12-month PFS and OS rates of 79% and 84%. Any-grade adverse events (≥15%) included diarrhea (36%), fatigue (31%), cough (24%), arthralgia (22%), nausea (19%), hypertension (19%), anemia (19%), pyrexia (17%), decreased appetite (17%), muscle spasms (17%), neutropenia (17%), and peripheral edema (15%). Serious AEs occurred in 40% of pts (38% ≥ grade 3). ORR, 12-month PFS, and 12-month OS are presented by subgroup for baseline characteristics, cytogenetics, and genomic variants (Table). There were no substantial differences in response rates and survival outcomes in the subgroups with and without baseline cytogenetic aberrations or genomic variants (Table). Response rates were similar for pts with and without NOTCH1 or SF3B1 variants. Of 11 pts with del17p CLL who developed Richter transformation, baseline aberrations included ATM (n=2), SF3B1 (n=3), and/or NOTCH1 (n=3); none had BIRC3 variants. Overall at baseline, there were 3 pts with a PLCG2 mutation (L163F, H193Q, P236L), and 1 with a BTK mutation (R236Q); all achieved a best overall response of PR-L or better. None had received prior therapy with a BTK or PI3K inhibitor. Two pts had a baseline MYD88 mutation (L265P, L142F) with a best overall response of PR in 1 pt. Two pts had baseline MYC amplifications with 5 of 5 exons amplified to 6 and 7 copies, respectively; 1 pt achieved a best overall response of PR. Conclusions: These results provide further evidence of ibrutinib's robust clinical activity and encouraging survival outcomes in this high-risk population regardless of baseline cytogenetic aberrations or genomic variants. The prognostic role of these clinical characteristics and genetic anomalies will continue to be elucidated with longer term follow-up of this population. Figure 1. Investigator-assessed efficacy outcomes by subgroups Figure 1. Investigator-assessed efficacy outcomes by subgroups Disclosures Stilgenbauer: AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Jones:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Coutre:AbbVie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mato:Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; TA Therapeutics: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Hillmen:AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding. Tam:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Osterborg:Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Siddiqi:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Thirman:Gilead: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding. Furman:Gilead: Consultancy; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Li:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. Eckert:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. Chang:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. James:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. Chu:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. Hallek:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. O'Brien:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 3701 Background: Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia (WM) is an indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (B-NHL) characterized by production of a monoclonal IgM paraprotein and variable CD20 expression due to the downregulation of CD20 as B cells differentiate into plasma cells. Rituximab monotherapy (R) achieves an overall response rate (ORR) of 25–50% in therapy naïve and relapsed WM and is associated with IgM flares in 25–75% of patients (pts) that potentially lead to hyperviscosity due to a rapid rise in IgM. Ofatumumab (OFA) is a fully human monoclonal anti-CD20 antibody approved for the treatment of fludarabine and alemtuzumab-refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and has demonstrated activity in indolent B-NHL. Since OFA is active in CLL, with its low CD20 expression, we initiated a phase II single-arm trial of OFA in pts with WM. We report primary endpoint data from this study. Methods: Pts (age ≥ 18 years) with WM requiring therapy by 2nd International Workshop on WM (IWWM) criteria were eligible. Cycle 1 (C1) of therapy consisted of OFA 300 mg week 1 and 1000 mg weeks 2–4 (Treatment Group A [TGA]) or OFA 300 mg week 1 and 2000 mg weeks 2–5 (TGB). Premedication included acetaminophen and antihistamine (all infusions) and glucocorticoid (infusions 1 and 2). Pts with grade 3–4 infusion-related adverse events (AEs) during weeks 1 and 2 also received glucocorticoid during weeks 3–5. Pts with stable disease (SD) or a minor response (MR) at week 16 of cycle 1 were eligible to receive a re-dosing cycle (C2) consisting of OFA 300 mg week 1 and 2000 mg weeks 2–5. The primary endpoint was ORR assessed by 3rd IWWM criteria. Toxicity was assessed according to NCI-CTCAE, v 3.0. Results: Thirty-seven pts were enrolled between March 2009 and February 2011. Median age was 63 years (range 43–85); 22 pts were male. Median IgM level was 3.11 g/dL (range 0.81–8.64); median hemoglobin (hgb) was 9.8 g/dL (range 5.3–13.2). Nine pts were treatment naïve; 28 pts had received a median of 3 prior therapies (range 1–5) including R (25 pts) and purine analog (14 pts). The first 15 pts were enrolled in TGA and the next 22 pts in TGB; pt characteristics were similar in both groups. Thirty-four pts completed C1; 1 pt withdrew after 1 dose and 2 pts received only 3 doses due to serious AEs (SAEs). Eleven pts achieved partial response (PR) and 7 achieved MR after C1 (ORR=49%; 95% CI [32%, 66%]). Twelve pts received C2, after which 4 pts improved their response (1 MR to PR, 1 SD to PR, 2 SD to MR) and 1 nonevaluable pt attained MR. After C1 and C2, the ORR was 59% (13 PR, 9 MR; 95% CI [42%, 75%]). Responses were seen in 67% (6/9) of therapy naïve pts, 57% (16/28) of relapsed pts, 52% (13/25) of pts who had prior R, 75% (9/12) of R-naïve pts, 64% (16/25) of pts with IgM < 4 g/dL and 50% (6/12) of pts with IgM ≥ 4 g/dL. ORR was 47% (7/15) in TGA and 68% (15/22) in TGB. ORR in TGA was negatively affected by prior R exposure and IgM ≥ 4 g/dL, whereas ORR in TGB was not affected by prior therapy, prior R or IgM level. Fifteen of 26 (58%) pts with hgb < 11.0 g/dL experienced ≥ 3.0 g/dL increase in hgb (range 3.0–7.1). Infusion-related events occurred with dose 1 in 30 (81%) pts and with dose 2 in 21 (57%) pts; all infusion events were grade 1–2 except 4 grade 3 events (1 rash, 1 chest pain, 1 chest discomfort, 1 back pain). Fifteen pts developed 22 infections including 8 upper respiratory tract, 4 urinary tract (UTI) and 4 sinus infections; all infections were grade 1–2 except 1 grade 3 UTI. One pt developed grade 3 febrile neutropenia. In total, there were 14 grade 3–4 AEs (all grade 3). Five pts developed 8 SAEs possibly related to OFA. One pt withdrew due to grade 3 hemolytic anemia. Two pts with baseline IgM of 6.63 and 4.75 g/dL required plasmapheresis for grade 3 renal insufficiency and hyperviscosity symptoms, respectively, with resolution of symptoms and were able to complete C1. Two pts developed IgM flare, defined as > 25% rise in IgM followed by subsequent MR or PR. Conclusions: OFA is clinically active in pts with WM, with an acceptable toxicity profile and a lower incidence (5%) of IgM flare. The ORR to OFA was 59% (TGA 47%, TGB 68%) including a 50% ORR (TGA 17%, TGB 83%) in pts with IgM ≥ 4.0 g/dL. Pts' anemia responded to OFA with 58% of pts with baseline hgb < 11.0 g/dL experiencing ≥ 3.0 g/dL increase in hgb. TGB achieved ORR > 60% in all pt groups regardless of prior therapy or baseline IgM level. A higher dose of OFA appeared to be more effective in pts previously exposed to R or with baseline IgM ≥ 4.0 g/dL. Further study of OFA in WM is warranted. Disclosures: Furman: Genentech: Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: • Ofatumumab is an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of fludarabine- and alemtuzumab-refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and is currently under development for the treatment of B-cell malignancies (chronic lymphocytic leukemia, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, Waldenstroms macroglobulinemia and follicular lymphoma), as well as autoimmune diseases (rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis). Eradat:Millennium: Speakers Bureau; Genentech, A Roche Company: Speakers Bureau. DiRienzo:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment. Leonard:GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy. Advani:GSK: Research Funding. Switzky:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment. Liao:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment. Shah:GSK: Employment. Lisby:Genmab A/S: Employment. Lin:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment.

Abstract Background Waldenströms macroglobulinemia (WM) is a lymphoplasmacytic subtype of Non-Hodgkins lymphoma in which specific molecular changes lead to unrestricted cell proliferation and overproduction of immunoglobulin-M. These processes require exquisite coordination between growth promoting transcription factors (NFkB) and cell homeostatic systems. The bioavailability of various transcription factors and cell cycle proteins is primarily regulated by the ubiquitin proteasome system (UPS). Moreover, the proteolytic machinery ensures proper elimination of unwanted or misfolded proteins, which when disrupted leads to protein accumulation and apoptotic cell death. The 26S proteasome is a barrel shaped structure with a 20S catalytic core that is flanked by 19S caps on either side. 26S proteasomes are critical for WM cell survival, which is clinically evident, as up to 80% of WM patients treated with the proteasome inhibitor (PI) bortezomib have derived significant benefit. Traditional PI such as bortezomib and carfilzomib have been designed to target the B5 catalytic core within the 26S proteasome. However, proteasomes are capable of altering conformation of their proteolytic subunits in response to inflammation and stress, which can lower the effectiveness of these PI. The 19S cap is the regulatory complex and functions in unfolding and deubiquitinating the proteins before their entry into the 20S complex using constitutive deubiquitinating enzymes (DUBS). Recently, it has been demonstrated that inhibition of the DUBS, UCHL5 and USP14 results in cell death in a variety of tumor types but more so in cancer cells that rapidly divide or have a high protein turnover rate. Aim To define the anti-WM activity of the novel DUB inhibitor, b-AP15 in preclinical models of WM. Methods The WM cell lines BCWM.1, RPCI-WM1 and MWCL-1 were used for experiments in this analysis. Proteasomal activity was measured using synthetic fluorogenic peptide substrates. Apoptosis was determined by annexin-V/PI staining and mitochondrial membrane permeability (MOMP) was assessed using TMRM followed by flow cytometry. Protein profiling was done via immunoblot analysis. Results As reported by D’Arcy et al in their characterization of the b-AP15 molecule, inhibition of UCHL5 and USP14 by b-AP15 does not disrupt proteasomal activity conferred by the b-catalytic subunits. We confirmed these findings by treating WM cells with single agent bortezomib (10nM), carfilzomib (10nM), b-AP15 (100nM) or all three agents in combination to assess chymotrypsin-like, caspase-like and trypsin-like proteasomal activity using fluorogenic peptide substrates. Further, when used in combination with the other PI, PI-mediated chymotrypsin-like activity remained inhibited in the presence of b-AP15. Next, we sought to determine if b-AP15 treatment could induce WM cell death. Annexin-v staining showed that b-AP15 (500uM) induced apoptosis in all WM cell lines (28 – 60% cell death) with variable responses noted among the 3 models. Treatment with b-AP15 increased MOMP while also inducing the cleavage of caspases-9 and 3 and PARP-1 suggesting that the anti-WM activity of b-AP15 is mediated through the intrinsic apoptotic pathway. As components of the NFkB signaling cascade lie downstream to the UPS, we examined the effects of b-AP15 on this pathway. When treated with the DUB-inhibitor, nuclear translocation of NFkB was reduced in a time dependent manner. Interestingly, treatment with b-AP15 increased the phosphorylation of the mitogen activated protein kinase-p38 (p38) in all the WM cell lines tested. Treatment of WM cells with b-AP15 in presence of the p38 inhibitor, SB203580, resulted in a synergistic induction of cell death. Conclusion b-AP15 is a novel DUB inhibitor that disrupts two regulatory enzymes (UCHL5 and USP14) present in the 19S proteasomal cap. Results presented here demonstrate that b-AP15 induces apoptosis in in vitro models of WM and with in vivo analysis underway, is a potential therapeutic in WM. We would like to acknowledge the Waterfall Waldenström Macroglobulinemia Research Fund, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society and the International Waldenström Macroglobulinemia Foundation for their continued support. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.