Citations

Abstract Background CD19, a B cell-specific marker, is expressed in the majority of patients with B-lineage leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. SGN-CD19A is a novel antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) composed of a humanized anti-CD19 monoclonal antibody conjugated to the microtubule-disrupting agent monomethyl auristatin F (MMAF) via a maleimidocaproyl linker. Methods This first-in-human, phase 1, open-label, dose-escalation study is investigating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of SGN-CD19A in adult and pediatric patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell leukemia or highly aggressive lymphoma (NCT 01786096). Eligible patients must have B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) or lymphoma (B-LBL), Burkitt leukemia or lymphoma, and be relapsed or refractory to at least 1 prior systemic regimen. A modified continual reassessment method is used for dose allocation and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) estimation for both pediatric and adult patients. The study is evaluating 2 schedules of IV SGN-CD19A administration: weekly (Days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles; 0.3-4.5 mg/kg) or every 3weeks (q3week; 0.5-6 mg/kg). Results To date, 49 patients with relapsed or refractory leukemia (n=40) or lymphoma (n=9) have been treated. Median age of adult (n=38) and pediatric patients (n=11) was 37 and 11 years (range, 18-74 and 1-16), respectively. Patients received a median of 2 prior therapies (range 1-9); 14 patients (29%) previously received an allogeneic stem cell transplant. On the weekly schedule, 39 patients (28 adult, 11 pediatric) have been treated, and the median number of cycles is 2.5 (adults; range, 1-12) or 1 (pediatric; range, 1-4). On the q3week schedule, 10 adult patients have been treated, and the median number of cycles is 2.5 (range, 1-4) to date. Six patients remain on study treatment (3 on each schedule), and enrollment is ongoing. The toxicity profiles were similar across both dosing schedules (0.3-2.3 mg/kg weekly and 4-5 mg/kg q3week) and across adult and pediatric patients. The most frequently reported drug-related AEs included pyrexia, nausea, chills, vomiting, blurred vision, and dry eye. Frequent infusion-related reactions were observed early in the study, and recommendation for premedication was instituted. Ocular events were also observed and treated with ophthalmic steroids; steroid eye drop prophylaxis was instituted with each dose. Corneal findings consistent with superficial microcystic keratopathy were observed in 13 adult patients (34%) and in 1 pediatric patient (9%). Grade 3/4 corneal AEs have been observed in 4 adult patients; the majority of these events have resolved or improved to Grade 1 or 2. Steroid eye drop prophylaxis has reduced the incidence of Grade 3/4 events at this interim analysis. Three DLTs were observed: acidosis in a pediatric patient at 1 mg/kg weekly, cytokine release syndrome in an adult patient at 2 mg/kg weekly, and asymptomatic Grade 4 AST elevation in an adult patient at 5 mg/kg q3week. MTD has not yet been determined. SGN-CD19A ADC pharmacokinetic profiles indicate target-mediated drug disposition in patients with leukemia. Plasma ADC exposures generally increased with doses and were lower than those in patients with lymphoma. To date, no objective responses were observed in 9 efficacy-evaluable pediatric patients or in 3 adult patients with Burkitt lymphoma/leukemia. However, in efficacy-evaluable adult patients with B-ALL/B-LBL, objective responses were observed in 6 of 25 patients treated on the weekly schedule (3 CR, 2 CRp, 1 PR), and in 4 of 8 patients treated on the q3week schedule (2 CR, 2 CRp). Of 8 B-ALL patients with CR/CRp, 6 were MRD negative. Conclusions MTDs have not yet been identified, and dose escalation continues on weekly and q3week schedules. SGN-CD19A has been generally well tolerated. At this interim analysis, objective responses were observed in 30% (10 of 33) of heavily pretreated adult B-ALL/B-LBL patients dosed weekly or q3week. Evidence of activity in relapsed/refractory patients and lack of overlapping toxicities suggest opportunities for combination with conventional anti-leukemic therapies in lymphoblastic malignancies. Disclosures Fathi: Ariad: Consultancy; Exelixis: Research Funding; Takeda pharmaceuticals International Co.: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Off Label Use: SGN-CD19A is an investigational agent being studied in patients with B-cell malignancies. SGN-CD19A is not approved for use. . Chen:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau, Travel expenses Other. Trippett:OSI Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. O'Brien:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. DeAngelo:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Shah:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; SWOG: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; NCCN: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy. Cooper:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Foran:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Hale:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Pressey:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Silverman:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Tibes:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Kim:Bayer: Consultancy; Eli Lily: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Albertson:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sandalic:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhao:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Borate:Genoptix: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) with CLL/SLL that have del11q tend to have relatively short remission durations and shorter overall survival (OS) with standard chemotherapy regimens. Ibrutinib (ibr), a first-in-class, oral, once-daily inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) is indicated by the US FDA for the treatment of pts with CLL/SLL and allows for treatment without chemotherapy. In phase 3 studies, treatment with single-agent ibr was superior to treatment with ofatumumab (ofa) in relapsed/refractory (R/R) CLL/SLL (RESONATE; Byrd, N Engl J Med 2013) or chlorambucil (clb) in treatment-naïve (TN) CLL/SLL (RESONATE-2; Burger, N Engl J Med 2015); treatment with ibr + bendamustine/rituximab (BR) was also superior to treatment with BR in R/R CLL/SLL (HELIOS; Chanan-Khan, Lancet Oncol 2016). We examined the outcome of pts in these 3 studies who did or did not have del11q to determine the impact of del11q on clinical outcomes. Methods: In RESONATE, pts with R/R CLL/SLL received ibr 420 mg/day until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity (tox) vs ofa for up to 24 weeks (300 mg week 1, 2000 mg weekly for 7 weeks, 2000 mg every 4 weeks for 16 weeks). In RESONATE-2, pts ≥65 years of age with TN CLL/SLL (excluding del17p) received ibr 420 mg/day until PD or tox vs clb 0.5 mg/kg (up to max of 0.8 mg/kg) on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle (≤12 cycles). In HELIOS, pts with R/R CLL/SLL (excluding del17p) received BR (≤6 cycles) with or without ibr 420 mg/day (starting on day 2 of cycle 1) followed by single-agent ibr or placebo continued until PD or tox. Data from pts in the 3 studies were pooled (ibr pool, comparator pool) and analyzed based on whether or not their CLL/SLL had del11q. We performed a multivariate analysis to examine for risk factors prognostic for survival (del11q del17p, age, sex, race, current Rai stage, baseline ECOG PS, number of prior therapies, cytopenias; no multiplicity adjustment). Results: A total of 1210 pts with del11q data were included in the analysis: 609 in the ibr pool (179 with del11q, 430 without del11q) vs 601 in the comparator pool (149 with del11q, 452 without del11q). Demographics and baseline characteristics were generally similar in pts regardless of del11q status; differences of more than 10% included proportions with bulky disease ≥5 cm (63% vs 49%) and unmutated IGHV (88% vs 72%) in pts with or without del11q, respectively. Median lymphadenopathy and absolute lymphocyte counts were also higher in pts with del11q. At the time of the primary analysis, median treatment durations in the ibr pool were 20.0 mo with del11q and 18.7 mo without del11q; in the comparator pool 5.3 mo with del11q and 8.5 mo without del11q. Overall, ibr-treated pts had higher overall response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR) rates and longer progression-free survival (PFS, Figure) and OS than comparator-treated pts regardless of del11q status. In the ibr pool, the presence of del11q was associated with a trend of longer PFS and OS while in the comparator pool, pts with del11q had shorter PFS (Figure, Table), as compared to pts without del11q. Results were similar when excluding pts with del17p (10% of ibr pool [6%/11% with/without del11q] and 9% of comparator pool [8%/10% with/without del11q]; Table). By multivariate analysis, in the comparator pool, del11q, male sex, >1 prior therapy, presence of cytopenias, and unmutated IGHV (in R/R only) were associated with shorter PFS. However, these differences were not found in the ibr pool. The presence of del11q did not unfavorably impact the tempo of reductions in lymphadenopathy for ibr-treated pts, but did for comparator-treated pts. Adverse events leading to discontinuation were similar in ibr- and comparator-treated pts (12% [9% vs 13% with/without del11q] vs 13% [12% vs 13% with/without del11q]). Deaths within 30 days of last dose occurred in 31 pts (5% [3% vs 6% with/without del11q]) in the ibr pool and 28 pts (5% [6% vs 4% with/without del11q]) in the comparator pool. Conclusions: Treatment with ibr was superior to comparator regardless of del11q status; the benefit of ibr was most marked for pts with CLL/SLL with del11q. Presence of del11q was associated with a trend of longer PFS and OS in ibr-treated pts and shorter PFS and lower ORR in comparator-treated pts. By multivariate analysis, presence of del11q was a prognostic factor for shorter PFS for comparator-treated pts, but not for ibr-treated pts. Disclosures Kipps: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Hillmen:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding. Demirkan:Amgen: Consultancy. Coutre:Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Barrientos:Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Barr:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy. O'Brien:Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Fraser:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Jaeger:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Cramer:Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Astellas: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Gilead: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding. Stilgenbauer:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Hoffman La-Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Salman:Janssen Research & Development: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Solman:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; AbbVie: Equity Ownership. Cheng:Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership; AbbVie: Equity Ownership; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. Phelps:Johnson & Johnson: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ninomoto:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment; Amgen, Inc.: Equity Ownership; AbbVie: Equity Ownership. Howes:Janssen: Employment, Other: Leadership; Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership. James:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment; AbbVie: Equity Ownership. Hallek:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Background: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is primarily a disease of the elderly, with the majority of patients (pts) older than 65 y at diagnosis (US SEER). Historically, younger, more fit pts were eligible for aggressive chemoimmunotherapy treatments, but older age and comorbid conditions can limit options due to tolerability concerns. Ibrutinib (ibr), a first-in-class, oral, once-daily inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase, is indicated by the US FDA for the treatment of pts with CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) and allows for treatment without chemotherapy. Results from the phase 3 RESONATE (PCYC-1112) and RESONATE-2 (PCYC-1115) trials established ibr as a standard option in relapsed/refractory (R/R) and treatment-naïve (TN) CLL/SLL. This analysis examines safety and efficacy from these studies by age. Methods: RESONATE randomized 391 pts with R/R CLL/SLL to receive ibr (n=195; 420 mg once daily) until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity or intravenous ofatumumab (n=196; 300 mg at week 1, 2000 mg weekly for 7 w and then every 4 w for 16 w). RESONATE-2 randomized TN pts aged ≥65 y to receive ibr (n=136; 420 mg once daily) until PD or chlorambucil (clb; n=133; 0.5 mg/kg to a maximum of 0.8 mg/kg) on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle for up to 12 cycles. Pt data from both studies were grouped by age (ibr and comparators [comp]) and analyzed for effect of age on outcome. Results: Ibr group included 136 TN pts: 65 to <75 y (termed mid, n=90) and ≥75 y (termed old, n=46), and 195 R/R pts: <65 y (termed young, n=77), 65 to <75 y (mid, n=75), and ≥75 y (old, n=43). Table 1 lists key baseline pt characteristics. For ibr, median follow-up was 28.6 mo for TN and 36.1 mo for R/R pts. PFS is shown in Figure 1. For TN ibr pts, the 24-mo PFS rates were 88% (mid) and 89% (old), whereas clb pts aged ≥75 y did worse than those aged 65 to <75 y (23% vs 40%). For R/R pts, the 24-mo PFS was 75% (young), 77% (mid), and 62% (old). For ibr, median OS was not reached for any age subgroup (R/R or TN). The CR+CRi rates for TN ibr pts were 19% (mid) and 17% (old) and for R/R pts were 6% (young), 9% (mid), and 9% (old). Median treatment duration and the most common grade ≥3 AEs are listed in Table 2. The most frequent any-grade adverse events (AEs) were diarrhea, fatigue, cough, upper respiratory tract infection, nausea, pyrexia, and anemia for all pts and age subgroups. For ibr, grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 64% (mid) and 83% (old) of TN pts, and 70% (young), 84% (mid), and 84% (old) of R/R pts. The prevalence of common grade ≥3 AEs was typically highest in the first 12 mo of ibr therapy, and decreased thereafter for all age groups. Pts ≥75 y had a higher rate of grade ≥3 neutropenia and urinary tract infection in both TN and R/R populations. R/R ibr pts <65 y experienced a lower frequency of grade ≥3 pneumonia and atrial fibrillation (AF) than older subgroups. Any grade AF occurred in 11% (mid) and 9% (old) of TN ibr pts, and 1% (young), 20% (mid), and 14% (old) of R/R ibr pts. For ibr, dose reduction due to AE occurred in 9% (mid) and 22% (old) of TN pts and 6% (young), 20% (mid), and 12% (old) of R/R pts. 107 (79%) TN ibr pts remain on treatment: 81% (mid) and 74% (old); 99 (51%) R/R pts remain on treatment: 49% (young), 59% (mid), and 40% (old). For ibr, discontinuation due to AE occurred in 11% (mid) and 13% (old) of TN pts, and 6% (young), 11% (mid), and 19% (old) of R/R pts. The most common AE leading to discontinuation of ibr was infection(TN: n=4, RR: n=5). Conclusions: The PFS rate for TN ibr pts was similar regardless of age subgroup, whereas it was shorter for clb-treated pts ≥75 y compared with those 65 to <75 y. In the R/R population, ibr pts ≥75 y tended to have shorter PFS compared to those <75 y. There was no perceivable difference in CR rate by age within the TN and R/R ibr populations. The rates of grade ≥3 AEs tended to be higher in pts ≥75 y for both ibr and comp arms. Age did not impact discontinuation rates due to AE for TN pts treated with ibr, but increased with age for R/R pts. This study is limited by the number of pts ≤65 y who were only eligible for the R/R trial. This analysis supports single-agent ibrutinib as a treatment option regardless of pt age, but reinforces the need for close toxicity monitoring, especially in older pts. Disclosures Woyach: Karyopharm: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding. Hillmen:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding. Brown:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Infinity: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sun Biopharma: Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, or other expenses. Coutre:Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Barr:AbbVie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. O'Brien:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Devereux:Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau. Reddy:KITE: 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: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mulligan:GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Zhou:AbbVie: Equity Ownership; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. Ninomoto:AbbVie: Equity Ownership; Amgen: Equity Ownership; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. James:Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment; AbbVie: Equity Ownership. Burger:Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Portola: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Roche: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses.

Abstract Background: Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with deletion of the short arm of chromosome 17 (del 17p) follow an aggressive clinical course and demonstrate a median survival of less than 2 years in the relapsed/refractory (R/R) setting. Ibrutinib (ImbruvicaTM), a first-in-class Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, has been approved for previously treated patients with CLL and for patients with del 17p CLL. We report results from the primary analysis of the Phase II RESONATETM-17 (PCYC-1117-CA) study, designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of single-agent ibrutinib for treatment of patients with R/R del 17p CLL or small lymphocytic leukemia (SLL). Methods: Patients with del 17p CLL or SLL who failed at least one therapy were enrolled to receive 420 mg oral ibrutinib once daily until progression. All patients receiving at least one dose of ibrutinib were included in the analysis. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) per an independent review committee (IRC). Other endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety of ibrutinib. Results: Among 144 treated patients (137 with CLL, 7 with SLL), the median age was 64 (48% 65 years or older) and all had del 17p. Baseline characteristics included 63% of patients with Rai Stage III or IV disease, 49% with bulky lymphadenopathy of at least 5 cm, and 10% with lymphadenopathy of least 10 cm. The median baseline absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) was 32.9 x 109/L with 57% of patients with a baseline ALC at least 25.0 x 109/L. Baseline beta-2 microglobulin levels were at least 3.5 mg/L in 78% of patients (range 1.8-19.8 mg/L), and lactate dehydrogenase levels were at least 350 U/L in 24% of patients (range 127-1979 U/L). A median of 2 prior therapies (range 1-7) was reported. Investigator-assessed ORR was 82.6% including 17.4% partial response with lymphocytosis (PR-L). Complete response (CR)/complete response with incomplete bone marrow recovery (CRi) were reported in 3 patients. IRC-assessed ORR is pending. At a median follow up of 13.0 months (range 0.5-16.7 months), the median PFS (Figure 1) and DOR by investigator determination had not been reached. At 12 months, 79.3% were alive and progression-free, and 88.3% of responders were progression-free. Progressive disease was reported in 20 patients (13.9%). Richter transformation was reported in 11 of these patients (7.6%), 7 of the cases occurring within the first 24 weeks of treatment. Prolymphocytic leukemia was reported in 1 patient. The most frequently reported adverse events (AE) of any grade were diarrhea (36%; 2% Grade 3-4), fatigue (30%; 1% Grade 3-4), cough (24%; 1% Grade 3-4), and arthralgia (22%; 1% Grade 3-4). Atrial fibrillation of any grade was reported in 11 patients (7.6%; 3.5% Grade 3-4). Seven patients reported basal or squamous cell skin cancer and 1 patient had plasma cell myeloma. Most frequently reported Grade 3-4 AEs were neutropenia (14%), anemia (8%), pneumonia (8%), and hypertension (8%). Major hemorrhage was reported in 7 patients (4.9%, all Grade 2 or 3). Study treatment was discontinued in 16 patients (11.1%) due to AEs with 8 eventually having fatal events (pneumonia, sepsis, myocardial or renal infarction, health deterioration). At the time of data cut, the median treatment duration was 11.1 months, and 101 of 144 patients (70%) continued treatment with ibrutinib. Conclusions: In the largest prospective trial dedicated to the study of del 17p CLL/SLL, ibrutinib demonstrated marked efficacy in terms of ORR, DOR, and PFS, with a favorable risk-benefit profile. At a median follow up of 13 months, the median DOR had not yet been reached; 79.3% of patients remained progression-free at 12 months, consistent with efficacy observed in earlier studies (Byrd, NEJM 2013;369:32-42). The PFS in this previously treated population compares favorably to that of treatment-naïve del 17p CLL patients receiving fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) (Hallek, Lancet 2010;376:1164-74) or alemtuzumab (Hillmen, J Clin Oncol 2007;10:5616-23) with median PFS of 11 months. The AEs are consistent with those previously reported for ibrutinib (Byrd, NEJM 2014;371:213-23). These results support ibrutinib as an effective therapy for patients with del 17p CLL/SLL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures O'Brien: Amgen, Celgene, GSK: Consultancy; CLL Global Research Foundation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Emergent, Genentech, Gilead, Infinity, Pharmacyclics, Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys, Acerta, TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Jones:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Coutre:Janssen, Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Mato:Pharamcyclics, Genentech, Celegene, Millennium : Speakers Bureau. Hillmen:Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Gilead, Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Tam:Pharmacyclics and Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Siddiqi:Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Furman:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Brown:Sanofi, Onyx, Vertex, Novartis, Boehringer, GSK, Roche/Genentech, Emergent, Morphosys, Celgene, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Gilead: Consultancy. Stevens-Brogan:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Li:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Fardis:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Clow:Pharmacyclics: Employment. James:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Chu:Pharmacyclics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hallek:Janssen, Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Stilgenbauer:Pharmacyclics, Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Ibrutinib (Imbruvica®), an oral, first-in-class covalent BTK inhibitor, is a new treatment option approved by FDA for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients (pts) with ≥1 prior therapy. We previously reported results from the phase III trial, in which ibrutinib (ibr) significantly improved progression-free and overall survival vs ofatumumab (ofa) in pts with relapsed/refractory CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) (Byrd et al. NEJM, 2014). Here, we report measures of patient well-being, including hematologic, immunologic, and quality of-life parameters, at interim analysis (IA). Methods: Pts with CLL/SLL after ≥1 prior therapy were randomized 1:1 to ibr 420 mg/day until progression or unacceptable toxicity, or to ofa for up to 24 weeks. At IA, secondary efficacy endpoints of hematologic improvement (sustained improvement ≥56 days without transfusions or growth factors) and FACiT-Fatigue (FACiT-F) outcomes were analyzed, along with exploratory endpoints assessing disease-related symptoms (DRS), serum immunoglobulin, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) by EORTC QLQ-C30, and medical resource utilization (MRU). Results: Of 391 enrolled pts (ibr n=195; ofa n=196), 63% had cytopenia(s) at baseline: 45% had anemia (hemoglobin ≤11 g/dL), 35% thrombocytopenia (platelets ≤100×109/L), and 20% neutropenia (absolute neutrophil counts [ANC] ≤1.5×109/L). On the ibr arm, 69% of pts with baseline cytopenias experienced sustained improvement in blood counts compared to 43% on ofa (P<0.0001, table). There was no decrement in serum immunoglobulins (IgA, IgG, IgM) during follow-up. IgA levels increased on the ibrutinib arm only (mean change from baseline: 41% at week 24). Immune cells CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell and NK-cell levels remained relatively stable during treatment. Mean change in FACiT-F score from baseline are shown in the figure for ibr and ofa arms. At week 24, clinically meaningful (≥3 points) improvement in FACiT-F occurred in more pts on ibr than ofa (59% vs 46%, P=0.06); clinically meaningful deterioration was reported by 14% vs 24% (P=0.08), respectively. A larger proportion of ibr vs ofa pts showed clinically meaningful improvement on EORTC-QLQ-C30 global health scores (46% vs 40%). Clinically meaningful improvement (≥10 points) from baseline to week 24 in ibr vs ofa pts was observed for fatigue (median 11 vs 0). A 50% reduction in lymph node based on IRC-assessed CT was observed in 93% (177/190 evaluable) of ibr pts compared with 17% (29/174 evaluable) of ofa pts (P< 0.0001). Splenic response based on IRC-assessed CT was reported for 85% (138/163 evaluable) of ibr pts compared with 54% (82/151 evaluable) of ofa pts. Baseline DRS were comparable between groups; however, improvement by at least 1 grade (G) post-baseline was observed in ibr relative to ofa pts for weight loss (100% vs 93%), fatigue (88% vs 72%), night sweats (95% vs 86%), and anorexia (100% vs 64%), respectively. Cumulative MRU was comparable for growth factors and transfusions, with ibr pts having longer median treatment duration: 8.6 months for ibr vs 5.3 for ofa. Hospitalizations in the first 30 days occurred in 2% ibr vs 15% ofa pts. After adjusting for treatment exposure duration, diarrhea, grade 1-2 bleeding events (e.g petechiae), and atrial fibrillation were among those noted to be more frequent on the ibrutinib arm while events such as fatigue, infusion reaction, and peripheral sensory neuropathy were seen more commonly with ofa. Major hemorrhage events were uncommon, observed in 2 patients on the ibr arm vs 3 on ofa arm without adjusting for exposure time. Exposure-adjusted analysis showed no difference in any-grade infection and a 43% relative reduction for grade 3 or higher infections for ibr. Conclusions: Ibr compared to ofa when administered to previously treated CLL/SLL pts led to improvements in hematologic function and disease burden. A survival benefit with ibr, together with sustained improvements in hematologic endpoints and PRO suggest that ibr enhances quality of life while prolonging survival. Table. Sustained hematologic improvement Parameter, n (%) ITT population Pts with cytopenias at baseline Ibr n=195 Ofa n=196 P value Ibr n=195 Ofa n=196 P value Platelets 60 (31) 19 (10) <0.0001 53/74 (72) 14/64 (22) <0.0001 ANC 52 (27) 19 (10) <0.0001 26/41 (63) 12/38 (32) 0.0047 Hemoglobin 42 (22) 32 (16) 0.1883 42/89 (47) 32/86 (37) 0.1815 Figure. Improvement in FACiT-F by treatment arm. Figure. Improvement in FACiT-F by treatment arm. Disclosures Barrientos: Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Brown:Sanofi, Onyx, Vertex, Novartis, Boehringer, GSK, Roche/Genentech, Emergent, Morphosys, Celgene, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Gilead: Consultancy. Kay:Genetech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Hospira: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Coutre:Janssen, Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Tam:Pharmacyclics and Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mulligan:Roche, Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Jaeger:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Devereux:Pharmacyclics, Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Robak:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Schuh:Roche, Gilead, GSK, NAPP, Celgene: Honoraria. Bloor:GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dearden:Roche, GSK, Gilead, Janssen, Napp: Honoraria. Jones:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kierschniak:Pharmacyclics, GmbH: Employment. Eckert:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Suzuki:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Hsu:Pharmacyclics: Employment. James:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Byrd:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Hillmen:Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Gilead, Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Several B-cell malignancies, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and multiple myeloma (MM), are known to have a familial component to disease risk. Although several common inherited genetic variants have been found to be associated with risk of these malignancies, a large proportion of the heritability remains unexplained. Here we set out to identify rare high-penetrance susceptibility variants for CLL and MM using the established Mayo Clinic family study of B-cell malignancies. Methods: We performed exome sequencing on germ line DNA of 106 families with either two or more members with CLL (n=93 families) or two or more members with MM or monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) (n=13 families) using Aglient capture kits. All samples were sequenced on an Illumina HiSeq2000. Bioinformatics analyses leveraged the following software packages: Novoalign, Picard, The Genome Analysis Toolkit (GATK), and the Biological Reference Repository (bioR). Quality control filters were implemented; subjects with mis-specified relationships were removed as were variants with <95% call rate or <20x coverage, and those variants identified as sequencing artifacts. To identify potentially functional single nucleotide variants, the following was required a) uncommon in public databases, b) cosegregating variants in multiple families, c) variants to be highly conserved and in coding regions, and d) functional prediction status of deleterious (SIFT score), damaging (PolyPhen score), and a moderate, or high variant impact (SNPEffect). The association of these variants with risk was then evaluated in large samples of cases and controls in genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Results: In the CLL familial cohort, there were 443 individuals (160 with CLL, 73 with monoclonal B cell lymphocytosis (MBL), and 210 relatives without CLL or MBL) sequenced; and in the MM cohort, there were 39 individuals (13 with MM, 13 with MGUS and 13 without MM or MGUS) sequenced. A total of 61,992 single nucleotide variants passed quality control filters in the CLL cohort and 39,456 single nucleotide variants in the MM cohort. From these, we identified 32 variants in the CLL cohort and 39 variants in the MM cohort that were cosegregating in multiple CLL or MM families, respectively, and were predicted to affect protein structure or function. Of these, one CLL variant was within 1 Mb of a known GWAS-discovered locus. Moreover, there were seven CLL and four MM variants that were within 1 Mb of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that had statistical significance between p<10-4 and p<10-6 in GWAS. Finally, there were 3 variants found to be common between CLL and MM families (see Table). Conclusions: Through whole exome sequencing, we identified a number of rare, highly penetrant predisposition variants for CLL and MM. Several of these variants were common to both B-cell malignancies providing evidence of shared genetic components; one variant may be a functional driver of the GWAS-discovered loci. These identified variants provide a list for future validation studies. Table: Exome variants common in both Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia and Multiple Myeloma SNP ID rs41314099 rs61754114 rs143025033 Chromosome 17 6 7 Gene WSCD1 BACH2 TNS3 Penetrance (CLL) 0.70 0.75 0.80 Penetrance (MM) 1.00 0.80 0.75 Allele Frequency (CLL) 0.015 0.025 0.017 Allele Frequency (MM) 0.077 0.077 0.058 1000 Genome Frequency (European) 0.010 0.020 0.010 SIFT Term Deleterious Deleterious Deleterious PolyPhen Term Probably Damaging Probably Damaging Probably Damaging SNP: Single Nucleotide Polymorphism; CLL: Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia; MM: Multiple Myeloma; Penetrance is defined as proportion of individuals carrying the alternate allele that are also affected; SIFT: Sorting Intolerant From Tolerant, predicts whether an amino acid substitution affects protein function; PolyPhen: Polymorphism Phenotyping, predicts possible impact of an amino acid substitution on the structure of a human protein Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract BACKGROUND. The detection of minimal residual disease (MRD) at the level of 0.01%/10-4 or above is a strong independent predictor of reduced progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with CLL treated with chemoimmunotherapy. Although newer agents such as B-cell receptor pathway inhibitors can result in prolonged survival without achieving complete response, there remains a important role for MRD analysis in assessing therapeutic strategies aimed at disease eradication and cure. This is particularly important in front-line trials for fit patients which now require at least five years of follow-up if PFS is used as an endpoint. The feasibility of using MRD as a surrogate or intermediate endpoint for accelerated approval of new treatments is under review by regulatory agencies but further prospective validation is required. At the same time technology is rapidly evolving and high-throughput sequencing (HTS) technologies now detect MRD at the 0.0001%/10-6 level. It is therefore important to determine the most effective approaches for quantifying MRD that are compatible with previous studies but sufficiently sensitive for current treatments. AIMS. This collaborative project had two objectives. First, to identify the simplest and most flexible flow cytometry panel capable of detecting MRD at the 0.01%/10-4 or lower, that is compatible with published data and independent of instrument/reagent manufacturer. Second, to compare the flow cytometry approach with HTS analysis using the ClonoSEQ assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA). METHODS AND RESULTS. A core panel of antibodies for MRD detection was identified by testing an 8-marker combination in 52 samples (27 post-treatment and 25 dilution study) and re-analysing data with serial exclusion of single markers to determine redundancy. A 1-tube core panel of CD19, CD20, CD5, CD43, CD79b, and CD81 was identified and validated against the previously published 2-tube 6-marker and 4-tube 4-marker ERIC panels in 76 samples (19 post-treatment and 57 dilution study). The results showed good concordance (for log-transformed data above the LoQ, linearity=0.977, Pearson correlation co-efficient=0.983, average difference=0.026 log, 95% limit of agreement 0.20log) and a limit of detection of 0.001%/10-5 for the 1-tube core panel. Inter-operator variation was similar to CML MRD monitoring with both experienced operators, or inexperienced cytometrists after ~1 hour of specific education, achieving a 95% limit of agreement less than 0.3log in samples with MRD levels ranging from 0.0001 – 100%. The flow cytometry approach was compared with the ClonoSEQ HTS assay in 109 samples (21 dilution study and 88 post-treatment samples, complete data currently available on 13/88). The assay was applicable to the vast majority CLL patients, often with two clonal markers. There was 94% concordance at the 0.01% (10-4) threshold (15 samples with ≥0.01% CLL by both methods, 14 samples with <0.01% by both methods, 1 sample with 0.03% CLL by HTS and <0.003% CLL by flow cytometry, and 1 sample with 0.005% CLL by HTS and 0.012% by flow cytometry. HTS detected CLL IGH sequences in 22% (7/31) samples with no detectable CLL cells by flow cytometry (i.e. CLL level 0.0001-0.001%, 3/13 patient samples and 4/18 dilution samples). HTS demonstrated a relatively high variability in quantification, as seen in previous studies, but with a clear superiority in the limit of detection and good linearity (linearity=0.905, Pearson correlation co-efficient=0.870, average difference=0.078 log, 95% limit of agreement 1.5 log). CONCLUSIONS. The 1-tube 6-marker flow cytometry core panel is compatible with published studies, manufacturer-independent and flexible, providing directly quantitative results to 0.001%/10-5 without requiring a pre-treatment sample. HTS requires further work to standardise the quantitative analysis and prospective validation but the ClonoSEQ assay is applicable to >95% of CLL patients, does not require viable cells and is extremely sensitive, detecting residual disease in a significant proportion of cases with <0.01% CLL. The results indicate that flow cytometry and HTS are complementary technologies with a combined approach offering the most reliable way of quantifying CLL at the 0.01%/10-4 threshold while allowing higher sensitivity in clinical trials aimed at disease eradication. Disclosures Rawstron: Roche: Honoraria; Biogen Idec: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; BD Biosciences: Intrasure reagent Patents & Royalties; Celgene: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria. Williamson:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sanders:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Employment, Equity Ownership. Robins:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Hallek:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Hillmen:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding.

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

BackgroundLymphatic dysfunction is hypothesized to be an underlying factor in the pathophysiology of yellow nail syndrome (YNS) (yellow nails, lymphedema, pleural effusions, and frequently chronic rhinosinusitis [CRS]). It is unclear why some YNS patients develop CRS. We quantified lymphatic and total vasculature of sinonasal mucosa in YNS patients and compared it to controls from CRS patients with (CRSwNP) or without polyps (CRSsNP).MethodsImmunohistochemistry was performed on archival sinonasal mucosal samples from 5 patients with YNS and 14 controls with antibodies against podoplanin and CD31, markers of lymphatics. Morphometric assessment was performed on digital images using ImageJ software.ResultsIn YNS, the number of lymphatics/mm2 ranged from 7 to 18/mm2 (controls: 6 to 43/mm2, p = 0.343), with a mean perimeter between 92 and 201 µm (controls: 42 to 280 µm, p = 0.482). Total vasculature density was higher than lymphatics, ranging between 189 and 1159 vessels/mm2, average 669 (controls: 139 to 1467/mm2, average 503, p = 0.257) with smaller average perimeter, 40 to 117 µm, mean 64.8 µm (controls: 42 to 92 µm, mean 65.3 µm, p = 0.965). Lymphatics constituted only a small fragment of the total vasculature, ranging from 1.15% to 4.76%, average 2.34% (controls: 0.81% to 10.58%, average 4.88%, p = 0.156). CRSwNP patients had significantly higher lymphatic density (p = 0.011) and ratio of lymphatics to total vasculature (p = 0.045) than patients with YNS or CRSsNP.ConclusionThis is the first histological analysis of sinus mucosa in patients with YNS. Vascular type, density, size, and distribution in the sinonasal mucosa of YNS patients are not statistically significantly different from those of the CRSsNP group. Lymphatic density and ratio to total vasculature is higher in CRSwNP patients.

Background: New technology and healthcare delivery approaches may help improve blood pressure (BP) control. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can demonstrate effectiveness of these emerging approaches, both overall and especially within underserved populations, but RCTs are expensive. Our objective is to establish a national platform to support BP control surveillance and efficient RCTs. Methods: The PCORnet BP Control Laboratory, designed and launched in partnership with the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American Medical Association (AMA), leverages electronic health record (EHR) systems throughout the US, the National Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Network (PCORnet), and the NIH-funded Eureka Research Platform, which enables direct-to-participant research including collection of patient-reported outcomes and mHealth data from wearable devices and smartphones. We will use these resources to 1) Conduct national surveillance through quarterly EHR data queries to calculate and track institution- and clinic-level BP control metrics across 23 PCORnet institutions, overall and within key subgroups, and support participation in the AHA/AMA’s Target:BP recognition program (BP Track); 2) Compare effectiveness of a Full Support versus Self-Guided version of the AMA’s Measure Accurately, Act Rapidly, and Partner with Patients (MAP) program at improving BP control in a cluster randomized trial of 24 safety net clinics (BP MAP); and 3) Compare effectiveness of Smartphone-linked versus standard home BP monitoring at reducing systolic BP in an individual-level, direct-to-participant RCT of 2000 patients with uncontrolled BP (BP Home). Results: Preliminary BP Track queries demonstrate an overall BP control rate of 56%, lower control in Black patients (51%), substantial heterogeneity in clinic-level metrics (e.g., 33% vs. 64% BP control), and low rates of medication intensification (9% prescribed a new medication class when BP was high). BP Track will launch PCORnet-wide queries in June; BP MAP in May; and BP Home in August 2019. Conclusions: Feasibility testing is underway to determine if the PCORnet BP Control Laboratory will be useful for investigators interested in conducting efficient RCTs of BP control interventions.