Citations

Abstract Cerebral small vessel disease is a leading cause of stroke and a major contributor to cognitive decline and dementia, but our understanding of specific genes underlying the cause of sporadic cerebral small vessel disease is limited. We report a genome-wide association study and a whole-exome association study on a composite extreme phenotype of cerebral small vessel disease derived from its most common MRI features: white matter hyperintensities and lacunes. Seventeen population-based cohorts of older persons with MRI measurements and genome-wide genotyping (n = 41 326), whole-exome sequencing (n = 15 965), or exome chip (n = 5249) data contributed 13 776 and 7079 extreme small vessel disease samples for the genome-wide association study and whole-exome association study, respectively. The genome-wide association study identified significant association of common variants in 11 loci with extreme small vessel disease, of which the chr12q24.11 locus was not previously reported to be associated with any MRI marker of cerebral small vessel disease. The whole-exome association study identified significant associations of extreme small vessel disease with common variants in the 5′ UTR region of EFEMP1 (chr2p16.1) and one probably damaging common missense variant in TRIM47 (chr17q25.1). Mendelian randomization supports the causal association of extensive small vessel disease severity with increased risk of stroke and Alzheimer’s disease. Combined evidence from summary-based Mendelian randomization studies and profiling of human loss-of-function allele carriers showed an inverse relation between TRIM47 expression in the brain and blood vessels and extensive small vessel disease severity. We observed significant enrichment of Trim47 in isolated brain vessel preparations compared to total brain fraction in mice, in line with the literature showing Trim47 enrichment in brain endothelial cells at single cell level. Functional evaluation of TRIM47 by small interfering RNAs-mediated knockdown in human brain endothelial cells showed increased endothelial permeability, an important hallmark of cerebral small vessel disease pathology. Overall, our comprehensive gene-mapping study and preliminary functional evaluation suggests a putative role of TRIM47 in the pathophysiology of cerebral small vessel disease, making it an important candidate for extensive in vivo explorations and future translational work.

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Oncogenic FGFR2 alterations (fusions/rearrangements, amplifications, mutations) are key drivers in cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) and multiple solid tumors. Current pan-FGFR inhibitor (FGFRi) therapy is limited by off-isoform toxicity and acquired FGFR2 kinase domain resistance mutations. RLY-4008 is a highly selective and potent oral inhibitor designed to target both FGFR2 driver and resistance mutations. We initiated a first-in-human study in advanced solid tumors patients (pts) to define the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and efficacy of RLY-4008 (NCT04526106). METHODS: Adult pts received RLY-4008 QD or BID on a 4-week cycle following a BOIN escalation design. Adverse events (AEs), PK, ctDNA and anti-tumor activity (RECIST 1.1) were assessed. RESULTS: As of 16AUG21, 45 pts (35 CCA; 10 other) have been treated with RLY-4008 at total daily doses of 30-200 mg (18 pts BID; 27 pts QD). 44 pts had oncogenic FGFR2 alterations (26 fusions/13 mutations/5 amplifications). The median number of prior anti-neoplastic therapies was 3 (range 1-15). 94% (33/35) of CCA pts had prior chemotherapy and 69% (24/35) had prior FGFRi. 56% (9/16) CCA pts with prior FGFRi and evaluable ctDNA had ≥1 FGFR2 resistance mutation at baseline, most commonly at positions 549 (8/9), 617 (3/9), or 564 (2/9). RLY-4008 had rapid absorption (Tmax 1-7h), half-life to support QD dosing (18-34 h), dose-dependent exposure (AUC; Cmax) and predicted FGFR2 occupancy >85% across dose levels. The MTD has not been defined, and QD dose exploration continues to select the optimal biologically efficacious dose. AEs occurring in >20% of pts include stomatitis (49%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE, 38%), dry mouth (29%), and nail toxicities (22%), majority of which were ≤Gr 2. 6 pts had Gr 1-2 retinopathy, which resolved in all cases. 5 AEs were considered dose limiting toxicities: 4 in BID (rash/PPE/mucositis/hyperbilirubinemia) and 1 in QD (retinopathy). No Gr 4/5 drug-related AEs were seen. 25 pts remain on treatment (range 1-37 weeks). RLY-4008 showed broad anti-tumor activity across dose levels and FGFR2 alterations with radiographic tumor reductions of ≥10% in 59% pts (19/32; -11% to -83%). Activity was seen in FGFRi-naïve, FGFR2-fusion+ CCA with PRs in 50% of pts (3/6, 2 confirmed and 1 pending confirmation; -56% to -83%). Activity was also seen in FGFRi pre-treated FGFR2-fusion+ CCA pts (N=16) with 16 SD, including 9 pts with tumor reduction ≥10% (from -12% to -35%). Of the FGFRi pre-treated FGFR2-fusion+ CCA patients with detectable FGFR2 resistance mutations in ctDNA at baseline, 78% (7/9) were undetectable at C2D1. CONCLUSION: RLY-4008 demonstrates promising safety, tolerability, and clinical activity in FGFR2-altered solid tumor pts, including those who progressed on prior FGFRi therapy. Consistent with the FGFR2-selective mechanism, minimal off-isoform toxicity (FGFR1-hyperphosphatemia; FGFR4-diarrhea) was seen. These encouraging data validate selective targeting of FGFR2 and suggest that RLY-4008 has potential to overcome resistance to FGFRi. Citation Format: Lipika Goyal, Mitesh Borad, Vivek Subbiah, Amit Mahipal, Suneel Kamath, Kabir Mody, Robin Katie Kelley, Richard Kim, Vaibhav Sahai, Anthony El-Khoueiry, Efrat Dotan, Oleg Schmidt-Kittler, Jinshan Shen, Kai Yu Jen, Alicia Deary, Wei Guo, Mahesh Padval, Cori Ann J. Sherwin, Charles Ferte, Beni Wolf, Alison M. Schram. First results of RLY-4008, a potent and highly selective FGFR2 inhibitor in a first-in-human study in patients with FGFR2-altered cholangiocarcinoma and multiple solid tumors [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC Virtual International Conference on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2021 Oct 7-10. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2021;20(12 Suppl):Abstract nr P02-02.

Abstract IntroductionSimulation technology has an established role in teaching technical skills to cardiology fellows, but their impact on teaching trainees to interpret coronary angiographic (CA) images has not been systematically studied. The aim of this randomized controlled study was to test whether structured simulation training in addition to traditional methods would improve CA image interpretation skills in a group of novices to advanced medical trainees.MethodsWe prospectively randomized 105 subjects comprising of medical students (N=20), residents (N=68) and fellows (N=17) from the University of Arizona. Subjects were randomized into a simulation training group which received simulation training in addition to didactic teaching (n=53) and a control training group which received didactic teaching alone (n=52). The change in pre and post-test score (delta score) was analyzed by a two-way ANOVA for education status and training arm.ResultsSubjects improved in their post-test scores with a mean change of 4.6 ± 4.0 points. Subjects in the simulation training arm had a higher delta score compared to control (5.4 ± 4.2 versus 3.8 ± 3.7, p=0.04), with greatest impact for residents (6.6 ± 4.0 versus 3.5 ± 3.4) with a p=0.02 for interaction of training arm and education status.ConclusionsSimulation training complements traditional methods to improve CA interpretation skill, with greatest impact on novice trainees. This highlights the importance of incorporating high-fidelity simulation training early in cardiovascular fellowship curricula.

AbstractPurposeDue to the employment of quadratic programming using soft constraints to implement dose volume constraints and the “trial‐and‐error” procedure needed to achieve a clinically acceptable plan, conventional dose volume constraints (upper limit) are not adequately effective in controlling small and isolated hot spots in the dose/linear energy transfer (LET) distribution. Such hot spots can lead to adverse events. In order to mitigate the risk of brain necrosis, one of the most clinically significant adverse events in patients receiving intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for base of skull (BOS) cancer, we propose per‐voxel constraints to minimize hot spots in LET‐guided robust optimization.Methods and materialsTen BOS cancer patients treated with IMPT were carefully selected by meeting one of the following conditions: (1) diagnosis of brain necrosis during follow‐up; and (2) considered high risk for brain necrosis by not meeting dose constraints to the brain. An optimizing structure (BrainOPT) and an evaluating structure (BrainROI) that both contained the aforementioned hot dose regions in the brain were generated for optimization and evaluation, respectively. Two plans were generated for every patient: one using conventional dose‐only robust optimization, the other using LET‐guided robust optimization. The impact of LET was integrated into the optimization via a term of extra biological dose (xBD). A novel optimization tool of per‐voxel constraints to control small and isolated hot spots in either the dose, LET, or combined (dose/LET) distribution was developed and used to minimize dose/LET hot spots of the selected structures. Indices from dose‐volume histogram (DVH) and xBD dose‐volume histogram (xBDVH) were used in the plan evaluation. A newly developed tool of the dose‐LET‐volume histogram (DLVH) was also adopted to illustrate the underlying mechanism. Wilcoxon signed‐rank test was used for statistical comparison of the DVH and xBDVH indices between the conventional dose‐only and the LET‐guided robustly optimized plans.ResultsPer‐voxel constraints effectively and efficiently minimized dose hot spots in both dose‐only and LET‐guided robust optimization and LET hot spots in LET‐guided robust optimization. Compared to the conventional dose‐only robust optimization, the LET‐guided robust optimization could generate plans with statistically lower xBD hot spots in BrainROI (VxBD,50 Gy[RBE], p = 0.009; VxBD,60 Gy[RBE], p = 0.025; xBD1cc, p = 0.017; xBD2cc, p = 0.022) with comparable dose coverage, dose hot spots in the target, and dose hot spots in BrainROI. DLVH analysis indicated that LET‐guided robust optimization could either reduce LET at the same dose level or redistribute high LET from high dose regions to low dose regions.ConclusionPer‐voxel constraint is a powerful tool to minimize dose/LET hot spots in IMPT. The LET‐guided robustly optimized plans outperformed the conventional dose‐only robustly optimized plans in terms of xBD hot spots control.

Abstract With the development of various strategies of anti-CD19 immunotherapy for treatment of B cell malignancies, it remains to be elucidated whether CD19 targeting with a monoclonal antibody impairs subsequent CD19 targeted chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CART19) therapy. In this study, we evaluated the potential interference between the CD19 targeting monoclonal antibody tafasitamab and CART19 treatment (using a construct similar to the FDA approved therapy, FMC63-41BBζ, tisagenlecleucel) in preclinical lymphoma and leukemia models. For in vitro assays, the CD19 + cell lines JeKo-1 (mantle cell lymphoma), Nalm6 (acute lymphoblastic leukemia), and OCI-Ly7 (diffuse large B cell lymphoma) were used. When CART19 were co-cultured with CD19 + tumor cells in the presence of increasing concentrations of tafasitamab (10-400 µg/mL) or the isotype control, an impairment of CART19 functions at the highest concentration of tafasitamab was observed. However, when tafasitamab was cocultured with tumor cells overnight and removed from the culture by washing, there was no impairment of CART19 anti-tumor activity or effector functions compared to a pre-culture with isotype control. We then aimed to validate these findings in xenograft mouse models by determining whether prior tafasitamab treatment impairs subsequent CART cell function. First, a two-step JeKo-1 xenograft model was created through inoculation of 1x10 6 luciferase + JeKo-1 cells to immunocompromised NOD-SCID-γ -/- (NSG) mice via tail vein injection. One week later, tumor burden was assessed by bioluminescence imaging (BLI) and mice were randomized to receive either 1) PBS (Group 1) or 2) 10 mg/kg of tafasitamab (Group 2) (Fig. 1A). Treatment was performed until the mice reached the endpoint due to the high tumor load. When reaching the endpoint, mice were euthanized and spleen was harvested. Splenic cells were then injected to naïve NSG mice. Two weeks after the inoculation of splenic cells (PBS or tafasitamab treated), mice were imaged with BLI and randomized according to their tumor burden to receive 2x10 6 of 1) untransduced T cells (UTD) or 2) CART19 (i.v.) (Fig. 1B). Mice, treated with CART19 demonstrated potent anti-tumor effects and showed prolonged survival compared to UTD control mice. Interestingly, CART19-treated mice inoculated with Group 2 splenic cells (pretreated with tafasitamab) showed a significantly better tumor control and overall survival compared with mice engrafted Group 1 splenic cells (PBS pretreatment) (Fig. 1C). This finding led us to further investigate the effects of prior tafasitamab therapy on subsequent CART19 treatment. In this context, we studied the sequential treatment with tafasitamab and CART19 in an additional JeKo-1 xenograft model (Fig. 1D). In brief, NSG mice were inoculated with luciferase + JeKo-1 on day -14. On day -8, mice were imaged and randomized to the PBS (Group I) or tafasitamab (10 mg/kg) group. On day -1 tafasitamab treated mice were imaged again, randomized to the tafasitamab discontinuation (Group II) or continuation (Group III). Treatment with PBS was continued in Group I. All groups were administered with 1x10 6 of CART19 on day 0. Cotreatment of JeKo-1 xenografts with tafasitamab and CART19 led to impaired anti-tumor activity presumably as a result of CD19 binding competition between tafasitamab and CART19 (Group III). Mice treated with tafasitamab followed by CART19 had improved tumor control compared to mice treated with PBS followed by CART19 (Fig. 1E-F). Serial peripheral blood analysis demonstrated that mice from Group I showed the highest CART19 expansion on day 10. Strikingly, Group II exhibited weak CART19 expansion at day 10, but strongest expansion on day 23 (Fig. 1G). We therefore hypothesized that prior treatment with tafasitamab results in modulation of CART19 cell activation. To test this hypothesis, spleens of satellite mice were harvested 24 hours after CART19 administration. Flow cytometric analysis revealed that the mice from Group II showed significantly lower CD69 and HLA-DR expression on CART19 cells compared with Group I, and reduced apoptosis as measured by the Annexin assay (Fig. 1H-I). In summary, concomitant treatment of tafasitamab and CART19 led to impaired anti-tumor activity while, in contrast, sequential treatment of tafasitamab and CART19 did not inhibit CART19 anti-tumor activity but rather promoted anti-tumor effects in xenograft models. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Sakemura: Humanigen: Patents & Royalties. Augsberger: MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Schanzer: MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Patra-Kneuer: MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Heitmüller: MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Steidl: MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Endell: MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Ding: DTRM: Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Parikh: Pharmacyclics, MorphoSys, Janssen, AstraZeneca, TG Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, AbbVie, and Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Verastem Oncology, and AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kay: Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Targeted Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Juno Therapeutics: 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; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CytomX Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding. Nowakowski: Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cox: Humanigen: Patents & Royalties. Kenderian: Humanigen, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Background The phase 3 trial A041202 solidified the Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib as a standard of care for older patients with previously untreated CLL by showing superior progression-free survival (PFS) as compared with bendamustine plus rituximab. While ibrutinib is highly effective in previously untreated CLL, there do remain disadvantages to this therapy, specifically the low rate of complete response (CR) and therefore need for continuous administration, which increases cost and toxicity. In older patients especially, toxicities with ibrutinib are common; with median duration of ibrutinib treatment of 32 months, 17% of patients had atrial fibrillation and 29% had grade 3 or higher hypertension on the A041202 study. Thus, strategies to decrease the exposure time to ibrutinib are of interest. Venetoclax is an inhibitor of BCL2 which has shown efficacy as a single agent and in combination with monoclonal antibodies, specifically the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody obinutuzumab for patients with previously untreated CLL. One significant advantage to venetoclax is the ability to produce CRs and minimal residual disease negative (MRD-) responses. In this study, we compare ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab (IO) to ibrutinib plus venetoclax plus obinutuzumab (IVO) with a response-dependent discontinuation. Study Design and Methods A041702 (NCT03737981) is a randomized phase 3 study led by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology that is currently enrolling through the national clinical trials network (NCTN). Eligible patients are those patients with CLL or SLL age 70 or older who are previously untreated and in need of therapy. Patients with del17p on FISH must be age 65 or older. Previous treatment of autoimmune complications with steroids or rituximab are allowed. Patients must have intermediate or high risk Rai stage, ECOG performance status 0-2, ANC ≥ 1000/mm 3 unless due to marrow involvement and plt ≥ 30,000/mm 3. CrCl must be ≥ 40 mL/min and AST/ALT ≤ 2.5x upper limit of normal. Patients with hepatitis B must have undetectable viral load, and patients must not have an intercurrent illness which is expected to limit survival to < 5 years. Warfarin and strong inhibitors or inducers of CYP3A4/5 are not permitted. Patients are initially pre-registered to the study and submit a peripheral blood sample for central FISH analysis of del(17p). Patients who are registered are randomized 1:1 to Arm 1 (IO) or Arm 2 (IVO), stratified upon Rai stage and presence of del(17p). IO consists of I daily starting cycle 1 day 1, and O dosed as standard starting cycle 1 day 1 and continuing to cycle 6 day 1. IVO consists of IO as in Arm 1, with V starting cycle 3 day 1 with standard 5-week ramp-up and continuing until cycle 14 day 28. At the end of 14 cycles, both arms undergo response evaluation with central peripheral blood and bone marrow MRD testing. Patients on IO then continue I indefinitely. Patients on IVO who are in a bone marrow MRD- CR discontinue all therapy, and those who are not continue I indefinitely. The primary objective of the study is to compare PFS between IO and IVO using the strategy of response-dependent discontinuation. There is 90% power to detect a hazard ratio for PFS of 0.55 (corresponding to 5-year PFS rates of 70% and 82.187% for IO and IVO, respectively), at a one-sided significance level of 0.025 by a log-rank test. This design requires 128 events and 431 total evaluable patients assuming uniform accrual over the course of 3 years and minimum follow-up of 5 years. The study includes two interim analyses for superiority when 50% and 75% of the expected number of events have been observed and three interim analyses for futility when 25%, 50%, and 75% of the expected number of events have been observed. Conclusions A041702 is an ongoing phase 3 clinical trial using a novel response-dependent discontinuation method. Results of this study have the potential to change the standard of care for older patients with previously untreated CLL. The study is expected to accrue until third quarter 2022, and we welcome participation from sites throughout the NCTN. Disclosures Woyach: AbbVie Inc, ArQule Inc, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Janssen Biotech Inc, Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company,: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Loxo Oncology Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly & Company: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences Inc: Other: Data & Safety; AbbVie Inc, ArQule Inc, Janssen Biotech Inc, AstraZeneca, Beigene: Other: Advisory Committee. Ruppert: Telios Pharma: Consultancy. Hill: AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gentenech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte/Morphysis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ding: DTRM: Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stone: Syndax: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Gemoab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aprea: Consultancy; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Foghorn Therapeutics: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Elevate Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onconova: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Innate: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BerGen Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boston Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Syntrix/ACI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Macrogenics: Consultancy. Byrd: Vincerx Pharmaceuticals: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Newave: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis, Trillium, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics, Syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Abstract Introduction: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A041202 is a NCI National Clinical Trials Network phase 3 study (NCT01886872) comparing BR (Arm 1) with ibrutinib (Arm 2) and the combination of ibrutinib plus rituximab (Arm 3) to determine whether ibrutinib-containing regimens are superior to chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in terms of progression-free survival (PFS), and whether rituximab adds benefit to ibrutinib therapy. Initial results showed that ibrutinib-containing regimens had superior PFS to CIT, and that rituximab added to ibrutinib did not improve PFS over ibrutinib alone. Pts and Methods: Eligible pts on A041202 were those age ≥ 65 years with previously untreated, symptomatic CLL. Pts had a CrCl > 40 mL/min, bilirubin < 1.5 x ULN, and no significant life-limiting intercurrent illness or need for warfarin treatment. Pts were stratified on Rai stage, Zap-70 methylation performed centrally, and del(17)(p13.1) or del(11)(q22.3) by local interphase cytogenetics and were randomized 1:1:1 to each arm. Pts on Arm 1 who progressed could cross over to Arm 2. Here we present an updated analysis after the third planned interim analysis of Arms 2 and 3 versus Arm 1, and at the second planned interim analysis for Arms 3 vs 2. PFS and OS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and corresponding hazard ratios with p-values were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. These data encompass patient visits through April 2020 and were locked 15 February 2021. Results: Between 12/9/2013 and 5/16/2016, 547 pts were randomized (Arms 1: 183, 2: 182, and 3: 182). Baseline characteristics have previously been reported; briefly, median age was 71 years, 53% had unmethylated Zap-70, 61% were IGHV unmutated (performed in 66% of patients), 6% had del(17p) and 20% del(11q) by central FISH. Stimulated karyotype was performed centrally and revealed ≥ 3 abnormalities in 27%, and ≥ 5 in 11% of patients. With median follow-up of 55 months (mo), median PFS was 44 mo (95% CI 38-54) in Arm 1 and has not been reached in Arms 2 or 3 [Arm 2 vs 1 hazard ratio (HR): 0.36, 95% CI 0.26-0.52, p<0.0001; Arm 3 vs 1 HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.25-0.51, p<0.0001; Arms 3 vs 2 HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.66-1.48, p=0.96]. 48-month PFS estimates were 47%, 76% and 76% in Arms 1, 2, and 3 respectively (Figure 1). At this time, there are no significant differences in overall survival (OS) among arms (p=0.49). 48-month OS estimates were 84%, 85%, and 86% in Arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Figure 2). The benefit of ibrutinib regimens over CIT, with no additional benefit of rituximab when combined with ibrutinib, was consistent for all subgroups of patients defined by TP53 abnormalities, del(11q), complex karyotype, and IGHV (Figure 3). No significant interaction effects were observed between treatment arm and del(11q), complex karyotype, or IGHV. However, greater benefit of ibrutinib regimens over CIT was observed among patients with TP53 abnormalities than without (p<0.001). Thus in Arm 1, PFS was significantly worse for those with TP53 abnormalities vs without (HR 5.32, 95% CI 3.05-9.27, p<0.0001), but in Arms 2 and 3 combined, there was no significant difference in PFS by presence/absence of TP53 abnormalities (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.51-1.91, p=0.98). Notable adverse events with ibrutinib include atrial fibrillation or flutter (afib) and hypertension (HTN). All grade afib was seen in 11 pts on BR (6%) and 67 pts on ibrutinib (19%). All grade HTN was seen in 95 pts on BR (54%) and 263 pts on ibrutinib (73%). Conclusions: This update of the A041202 trial continues to show that ibrutinib regimens prolong PFS over BR for older patients with treatment-naïve CLL. With longer follow-up, these benefits continue to be seen across subgroups, including those associated with higher risk disease. Strikingly, within the ibrutinib arms, there does not appear to be inferior PFS for patients with abnormalities in TP53, the highest risk feature seen in CLL, and a predictor of inferior PFS with ibrutinib in relapsed CLL. This differentiates ibrutinib (and perhaps BTKi in general) from other targeted therapy paradigms for treatment-naïve CLL. Similar to prior studies, rates of afib and HTN continue to increase with time on therapy. These data support the use of ibrutinib as initial therapy in CLL, and strengthen the rationale for use of ibrutinib for high risk disease. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171, https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org, Pharmacyclics, Inc Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Woyach: Gilead Sciences Inc: Other: Data & Safety; AbbVie Inc, ArQule Inc, Janssen Biotech Inc, AstraZeneca, Beigene: Other: Advisory Committee; AbbVie Inc, Loxo Oncology Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly & Company: Research Funding; AbbVie Inc, ArQule Inc, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Janssen Biotech Inc, Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company,: Consultancy. Ruppert: Telios Pharma: Consultancy. Ding: Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bartlett: ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Seagen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Autolus: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Brander: Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Biosimilars outcomes research panel; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics/Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LOXO: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; NCCN: Other: panel member; ArQule/Merck: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: informCLL registry steering committee, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Barr: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Abbvie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Rogers: Pharmacyclics LLC: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Research Funding; ovartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Research Funding. Parikh: Pharmacyclics, MorphoSys, Janssen, AstraZeneca, TG Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, AbbVie, and Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Verastem Oncology, and AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Coutre: Acerta: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Larson: Epizyme: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; CVS/Caremark: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding. Erba: AbbVie Inc: Other: Independent review committee; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; ALX Oncology; Amgen Inc; Daiichi Sankyo Inc; FORMA Therapeutics; Forty Seven Inc; Gilead Sciences Inc; GlycoMimetics Inc; ImmunoGen Inc; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; MacroGenics Inc; Novartis; PTC Therapeutics: Research Funding; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb company; Incyte Corporation; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; Astellas; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb company; Daiichi Sankyo Inc; Genentech, a member of the Roche Group; GlycoMimetics Inc; Incyte Corporation; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; Kura Oncology; Nov: Other: Advisory Committee. Litzow: Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Pluristem: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Blachly: INNATE: Consultancy, Honoraria; KITE: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria. Owen: Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Abramson: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seagen Inc.: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Brown: Abbvie, Acerta/Astra-Zeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Juno/Celgene, Catapult, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Morphosys AG, Nextcea, Novartis, Pfizer, Rigel: Consultancy; Invectys: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee Service; Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, SecuraBio, Sun, TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Stone: Onconova: Consultancy; Syntrix/ACI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syndax: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Elevate Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boston Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gemoab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Innate: Consultancy; BerGen Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Foghorn Therapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Actinium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aprea: Consultancy; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Macrogenics: Consultancy. Byrd: Novartis, Trillium, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics, Syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria; Vincerx Pharmaceuticals: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Newave: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.