Citations

Abstract INTRODUCTION Sparse data exist regarding I+V in an off-trial setting, particularly in patients (pts) with progression of disease on either I or V as single agent treatment. The 1-year overall survival (OS) rates with V monotherapy following I range from 75%-91% (Eyre et al, BJH 2019; Jones et al, Lancet Oncol 2018); however, longer-term follow-up of these or other patient cohorts treated with V after I has not yet been reported. Effective options in double-refractory pts are lacking when a clinical trial is not feasible. Here, we report our experience with I+V in these patient groups. METHODS After IRB approval, we reviewed the records of pts seen at Mayo Clinic (between 4/2012-1/2021) who received I+V therapy off-trial for CLL progression. Pts treated with I+V for Richter's transformation were excluded. Time to next treatment (TTNT) was measured from I+V treatment start date to the date of next treatment start or last known treatment status with death as a competing risk. OS was measured from I+V start date until date of death or when the patient was last known alive; OS was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS Thirty-three pts with progressive CLL were treated with I+V (median duration 13.3 months [95% CI: 7.1 months-not estimable (NE)]). The median age was 70 years (range 47-86), 6 (18%) were women, and 20 (65%) had del(17p) or TP53 mutation. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 3 (range 1-15). Additional characteristics at the time of I+V start are shown in Table 1. Median follow-up from start of I+V was 23.8 months. Among 22 pts with prior progression on I only (V-naïve), the median duration of I+V was 14.8 months (95% CI 7.6 months-NE). The median duration on either I or V from the start of combination was 20.3 months (95% CI 8.3 months-NE). The median TTNT was 25.1 months (Figure 1A). Four pts proceeded to cellular therapy (alloSCT [n=3], CAR-T [n=1]) while on I+V. Next therapy (n=9) consisted of Richter transformation treatment (n=2), chemotherapy plus continued I+V (n=1), anti-CD20 plus continued I+V (n=1), duvelisib + I (n=1), TP-0903 + I (n=1), reintroduction of I at disease progression after previously stopping I during I+V therapy (n=1), and reintroduction of I (n=1) or V (n=1) at disease progression after previously stopping I+V. Of 9 pts who did not receive subsequent therapy, 4 pts remain on I+V (median duration 16.4 months), 4 pts continued V after discontinuing I (median duration on V from start of I+V was 21.5 months), and 1 pt discontinued I+V following a second cancer diagnosis and died without receiving additional CLL-directed treatment. Eleven pts received I+V in the double-refractory setting; 9 pts had prior disease progression on sequential I then V and 2 pts had prior disease progression on sequential V then I. The median duration of I+V was 7.5 months (95% CI 4.3 months-NE), and the median duration of either agent from I+V start was 10.8 months (95% CI 7.1 months-NE). The median TTNT was 14.0 months (Figure 1A). Eight pts required additional treatment, consisting of PI3K inhibitor (n=2), anti-CD20 added to I+V (n=1), CAR-T (n=1), anti-CD20 with (n=1) or without (n=1) bendamustine added to continued I, and Richter transformation treatment (n=2). One pt continues I+V (17.4 months ongoing) without further treatment. Two pts died from disease progression without receiving additional treatment. The median OS of all 33 pts was 27.4 months (95% CI 25.9 months-NE; Figure 1B). The median OS of the 22 pts with prior progression on I (V-naïve) was 47.1 months (95% CI 27.7 months-NE), and the median OS of the 11 pts with prior progression on I and V separately was 27.0 months (95% CI 15.5 months-NE). In univariate analyses, prior progression on V was a predictor of shorter OS (HR=3.9; 95% CI 1.4-11.2; p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS Combination I+V therapy in heavily pre-treated CLL pts who have disease progression after I provides durable benefit with a median OS approaching 4 years. In the double-refractory setting, repurposing both drugs as combination I+V therapy can be a useful strategy, despite the short-term disease control, for pts where clinical trial options are limited or not available. Further examination of these approaches in larger cohorts and understanding the operative resistance mechanisms in pts with double-refractory disease are key next studies. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Ding: Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; DTRM: Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Chanan-Khan: BeiGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Honoraria; Ascentage, Starton, Cellectar, NonoDev, Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties: Tabi; Ascentage: Research Funding; Cellectar: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals, NonoDev, Starton: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; BieGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Consultancy. Kenderian: Humanigen, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Wang: TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ailawadhi: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Koehler: AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kay: AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Targeted Oncology: 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; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: 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; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Research Funding; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; CytomX Therapeutics: 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; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: 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. OffLabel Disclosure: Combination ibrutinib and venetoclax in patients with relapsed CLL.

Abstract Background: BCL-2 inhibition with venetoclax has proved to be highly effective treatment for patients with CLL. However, when administered to patients with CLL who have a high tumor burden, venetoclax is associated with an elevated risk of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS). Because of this risk, venetoclax is initiated with a gradual, 5-week dose ramp-up, requiring close laboratory monitoring over an extended period. Lisaftoclax (APG-2575) is a novel, potent, selective BCL-2 inhibitor under clinical development for hematologic malignancies (HMs). Preliminary data in 18 patients with CLL treated in a first-in-human study suggested the feasibility of an abbreviated ramp-up of lisaftoclax that might also result in a lower incidence of neutropenia (Ailawadhi et al, J Clin Oncol 39, 2021; abstr 7502). Methods: This new study is a global, open-label, multicenter, two-part phase 1b dose escalation and dose expansion study to assess the safety and tolerability of lisaftoclax (Part 1) and lisaftoclax combined with rituximab or acalabrutinib (Part 2), including dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and maximum tolerated dose (MTD). The trial is enrolling adults with (1) histologically confirmed CLL/SLL (by 2018 iwCLL criteria) that is relapsed or refractory to ≥ 1 prior therapy and requires treatment (also by 2018 iwCLL criteria); (2) adequate bone marrow function (in the absence of growth factors), including absolute neutrophils ≥ 1.0 × 10 9/L in patients without bone marrow involvement (not required in CLL/SLL patients with bone marrow involvement); and (3) adequate renal and hepatic function. Exclusion criteria: (1) recent history of allogeneic stem cell transplantation or CAR T-cell therapy (< 90 days); (2) prior treatment with a BCL-2 inhibitor (unless patient discontinued such therapy without disease progression); (3) treatment with vitamin K anticoagulants or previous discontinuation of treatment due to acalabrutinib toxicity (in acalabrutinib plus lisaftoclax cohort); (4) active Richter's syndrome; (5) infection (e.g. HIV, hepatitis); (6) CNS involvement; (7) prior cancer that has recurred within 2 years of screening and requires treatment (apart from adequately treated cervical or breast carcinoma in situ); (8) uncontrolled and other serious concomitant illnesses, including cardiovascular disease and diabetes; (9) failure to recover adequately after surgical procedures; and (10) active graft-vs-host disease or a requirement for immunosuppressive treatment. In a standard "3+3" dose escalation design (Part 1), lisaftoclax is being administered orally once daily in a 28-day cycle, with full doses of 200 to 1,200 mg (by 200-mg increments at 4 dose levels (400, 600, 800, and 1,000 mg) in parallel. The ramp-up is performed in the hospital with close monitoring for TLS and consists of the following doses and days of lisaftoclax treatment: 20 mg on Day 1, 50 mg on Day 2, 100 mg on Day 3, 200 mg on Day 4, 400 mg on Day 5, 600 mg on Day 6, 800 mg on Day 7, and 1,000 mg on Day 8. Patients who experience TLS on any of these days have their dose held until resolution of TLS before proceeding to the next dose. Part 2 includes a further standard 3+3 dose escalation of lisaftoclax combined with rituximab or acalabrutinib (in separate cohorts), with a further planned dose expansion at recommended phase 2 doses of these combination regimens. Primary outcome measures are (1) DLTs observed during cycle 1; and (2) MTD (measured over the same interval). DLT criteria are defined as grade 4 thrombocytopenia or neutropenia lasting > 7 days, grade 3 ≥ thrombocytopenia with bleeding, grade 4 febrile neutropenia, or grade 3 ≥ non-hematologic toxicities. As of July 19, 2021, 71 patients have been enrolled (of 144 planned). Clinicaltrial.gov identifier: NCT04215809. Disclosures Davids: Ascentage Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Eli Lilly and Company: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Siddiqi: Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Juno therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Other: DSM Member, Speakers Bureau; PCYC: Speakers Bureau; Jannsen: Speakers Bureau; Dava Oncology: Honoraria; ResearchToPractice: Honoraria. Pagel: Gilead: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Incyte/MorphoSys: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/AbbVie: Consultancy. Pylypenko: Communal nonprofit enterprise "Cherkasy regional oncology dispensary of Cherkasy oblast council: Current Employment. Kriachok: Takeda, Roche, Abbivie, Janssen, MSD: Consultancy; Takeda, Roche, Abbvie, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Usenko: Abbvie: Honoraria; Acerta: Honoraria; Ascentage: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Il Yang: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Rigel: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; UCB: Honoraria. Chen: Ascentage Pharma (Suzhou) Co., Ltd: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Huang: Ascentage Pharma (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Li: Ascentage Pharma (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ahmad: Ascentage Pharma Group Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Mudenda: Ascentage Pharma Group Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Yang: Ascentage Pharma (Suzhou) Co., Ltd: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Leadership and other ownership interests, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Zhai: Ascentage Pharma (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Leadership and other ownership interests, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma Group Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Leadership and other ownership interests, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Clinical availability of highly effective novel agents (including Bruton tyrosine kinase [BTK] and B-cell lymphoma 2 [BCL-2] inhibitors) is rapidly altering the therapeutic landscape of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) necessitating a review of treatment guidelines. However, there is limited real-world data to validate if the availability of these novel agents has translated to a true shift in treatment paradigm for patients treated in the community. As the majority of CLL patients are treated in non-academic community-based settings, we investigated the clinical adoption trends of commercially available FDA approved novel agents for treatment of CLL patients. In addition, given that the COVID-19 pandemic led to major alteration in clinical oncology practices, we further studied if this contributed to an alteration in the selection of therapeutic agents resulting in changes of CLL treatment patterns and the utilization of novel agents in the real-world setting. Thus, the objectives of this study were to examine the utilization pattern of various CLL therapies, as well as evaluate the pattern of adoption of novel agents for treatment and the impact of COVID. Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted using the Flatiron Health database that comprised EHR-derived de-identified data. Adult patients (≥18 years) with newly diagnosed CLL from January 2014 to May 2021, with no prior treatment and who were continuously enrolled for at least 6 months before and 3 months after the index date, defined as the first date of CLL/SLL diagnosis were included. Treatment regimens were classified into seven mutually exclusive categories: bendamustine-based chemotherapy, other chemotherapy, anti-CD20-based therapy, ibrutinib, idelalisib, acalabrutinib and venetoclax. Further treatment categorization included chemotherapy vs. targeted therapy, and traditional IV vs. novel oral agents. The impact of the pandemic was examined by comparing the pre- and post-COVID cohorts (defined as 15 months pre- and post- of March 1, 2021). Descriptive analyses were conducted to examine the frequency of use of treatment regimens by quarter in each year, line of therapy and between different age, gender, US geographical region, insurance status, and race/ethnicity subgroups. Multivariable regression was conducted to examine factors associated with the likelihood of adoption of novel and oral agents. Statistical significance was determined at a p-value of less than 0.05. Results: A total of 3,037 newly diagnosed CLL patients (median age =73) were included in the study. Over half were male (62.3%), white (74.6%) and commercially-insured (54.1%). Patients were primarily treated in community practices (92%). Overall, a significant trend in adoption of novel agents was observed throughout the years following their approval (Figure 1A). Across the evaluation period, a significant decrease in chemotherapy use was observed from 61.3% (quarter 1, 2014) to 20% (quarter 2, 2021) in favor of targeted therapy as first-line therapy (Figure 1B). In contrast, the utilization of novel oral agents (vs. traditional IV agents) for first-line therapy increased from 9.5% to 70.9% for the same period (Figure 1C). Similar trends were observed for second-line and third-line therapies. Encouragingly, this change in treatment patterns was adopted comparably in all sociodemographic subgroups with no evidence of disparity. While there was no statistically significant difference between the pre- and post-COVID treatment landscape, the adoption of target and novel oral agents has been more pronounced with the COVID pandemic. Conclusions: Results from real-world data suggest that there is a clear shift towards the adoption of novel therapies with preference given to targeted agents and oral therapies in the US since 2014. Further research examining real-world outcomes associated with treatment regimens are needed to inform decision makers. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Chanan-Khan: Cellectar: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals, NonoDev, Starton: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Ascentage: Research Funding; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties: Tabi; Ascentage, Starton, Cellectar, NonoDev, Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BeiGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Honoraria; BieGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Consultancy. Yang: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Liu: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Zimmerman: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Tang: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Ailawadhi: Karyopharm: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene, Ltd.: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: The impact of cancer care and management beyond treatment is significantly high for cancer patients. Due to the complexities of cancer treatment, patients are heavily reliant upon ancillary support often rendered by friends and family. One significant yet unquantifiable impact of cancer on society is productivity loss of both patients and their caregivers. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma is considered largely incurable with a protracted clinical course punctuated with multiple remission and relapses, warranting repeated treatment and intensive clinical testing, which necessitates significant engagement of patients and caregivers. Many patients are members of the workforce at the age of diagnosis. Both working patients and caregivers need time for medical care, which translates to indirect economic impact due to lost productivity. The objectives of this analysis were to evaluate the productivity loss and indirect costs in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), or Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) and their caregivers. Methods: The MarketScan Commercial and Health and Productivity Management databases were used to identify patients with CLL, MCL, MZL, and WM (using ICD-9/ICD-10 codes) who were continuously enrolled for ≥6 months pre- and ≥1 month post-diagnosis (index date) from 1/1/2010 to 12/31/2019. The final study cohort included patients aged 18-64 who were full-time workers with eligibility of absentee, or short-/long-term disability on index date and for ≥1 month in follow-up. Those who were pregnant during the study period were excluded. Adult, full-time employed caregivers, defined as family members covered under the same health plan as the patient, and continuously enrolled ≥6 months pre- and ≥1 month post-index, were also identified. Among those with eligibility, the percentage with a claim of absentee, short- or long-term disability (patients only), and associated productivity time loss and indirect costs during follow-up were examined. Lost wages were calculated using the US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2019 report. For short- or long-term disabilities, mean daily wages were reduced to 70% of typical wages. Productivity time loss and costs were reported per-patient-per-month (PPPM) for each lymphoma. Results: The final patient cohort included 3,450 CLL, 448 MCL, 1,052 MZL and 394 WM patients; the caregiver cohort included 1,435 CLL, 171 MCL, 437 MZL and 190 WM caregivers. Among eligible patients, there were higher proportions of patients that had absentee claims (CLL, 76%; MCL, 72%; MZL, 72%; WM, 82%), followed by short-term disability (CLL, 16%; MCL, 36%; MZL, 18%; WM, 17%) and long-term disability (CLL, 3%; MCL, 10%; MZL, 3%; WM, 3%) (Figure 1A). The proportions of caregivers with absentee claims (CLL, 78%; MCL, 90%; MZL, 69%; WM, 75%) were also higher than those with short-term disability (CLL, 7%; MCL, 10%; MZL, 4%; WM, 8%) (Figure 1B). For all 4 lymphoma types, average illness-related absentee hours were higher in patients than caregivers (CLL, 9.5 vs 6.9; MCL, 44.5 vs 3.6; MZL, 17.0 vs 5.0; WM, 18.2 vs 8.1). A similar pattern was observed for short-term disability days (CLL, 6.9 vs 4.2; MCL, 10.8 vs 3.4; MZL, 7.0 vs 2.2; WM, 6.7 vs 4.8). Average PPPM indirect costs were higher for patients with long-term disability (CLL, $1,433; MCL, $1,233; MZL, $1,302; WM, $2,056) than with short-term disability (CLL, $1,203; MCL, $1,950; MZL, $1,145; WM. $1,177) or absentee claims (CLL, $365; MCL, $1,606; MZL, $612; WM, $662), except for patients with MCL (Figure 2A). Similar trends were observed among caregivers, though the indirect costs due to absenteeism and short-term disability were higher in patients than caregivers (Figure 2B). Conclusions: This real-world evidence study uncovered patients with CLL, MCL, MZL and WM and their caregivers incur substantial disease burden as shown by their productivity loss and indirect costs. Effective treatments that can offer a cure or better remission rates and shorter duration with less toxicity may not only enhance the patients and caregivers' quality of life but also reduce work loss. The availability of oral, targeted therapies has resulted in higher remission rates, durable responses, manageable toxicities and improved quality of life in trials. Future studies are needed to understand the impact of these oral, targeted therapies on patients' and caregivers' productivity. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Yang: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Liu: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Irwin: IBM Watson Health: Current Employment; BeiGene, Ltd.: Consultancy. Packnett: IBM Watson Health: Current Employment; BeiGene, Ltd.: Consultancy. Lew: BeiGene, Ltd.: Consultancy; IBM Watson Health: Current Employment. Noxon: BeiGene, Ltd.: Consultancy; IBM Watson Health: Current Employment. Tang: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Chanan-Khan: BieGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Consultancy; BeiGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Honoraria; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties: Tabi; Cellectar: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Ascentage, Starton, Cellectar, NonoDev, Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals, NonoDev, Starton: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Ascentage: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic leukemia (SLL) are the most common types of leukemia in adults in the United States. The US veteran population, predominantly older males, are at high risk for CLL/SLL, especially with prior exposure to Agent Orange or other herbicides during military service. With the increasing availability of novel agents and associated improved survival, there is a need to assess the real-world evidence of CLL/SLL burden in US veterans, as well as the clinical and economic outcomes associated with current treatments. The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to examine the clinical burden, costs and healthcare resource utilization of CLL/SLL in veterans. Methods: Adults who were newly diagnosed with CLL/SLL were identified in the Veteran Health Administration dataset from October 2014 to September 2019. Eligible patients were required to have at least 2 visits with CLL/SLL diagnosis, and continuous enrollment of 6 months pre- and 3 months post-index date, defined by the first diagnosis date. The study population was further required to have at least 1 CLL/SLL treatment on or after the index date. Treatment regimens were identified by line of therapy and categorized mutually exclusively as: bendamustine-based (alone or in combination) therapy, other chemotherapies, ibrutinib, rituximab-monotherapy, or other regimen. Descriptive analyses were conducted to examine patient sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, concurrent medications, and treatment patterns including the frequency and duration of each treatment regimen. Adherence was measured by discontinuation and switching rates. Discontinuation was defined as no treatment for 90 days from the last day of supply during the study period. To ensure only patients who prematurely discontinued chemotherapy treatment and not those who completed their treatment cycles are captured, premature discontinuation was defined as a treatment duration of <90 days for bendamustine-based and <120 days for rituximab monotherapy. Costs and healthcare resource utilization were examined by first-, second-, and third-line therapy. Healthcare resource utilization examined included hospitalization and length-of-stay (LOS). Total costs were reported for all-cause and CLL/SLL-related, and calculated as the sum of inpatient, outpatient and pharmacy costs per-patient-per-month (PPPM). Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to examine factors associated with costs, frequency and LOS of hospitalizations. Results: Among the 13,664 veteran patients diagnosed with CLL/SLL, 79% were in watch-and-wait and the final study population consisted of 2,861 patients who received at least 1 line of CLL/SLL therapy (mean duration=465 days). Most patients were elderly (median age =70 years), white (83%), and male (98%). Approximately 39% of veterans had concurrent use of proton pump inhibitors at baseline. Average time to treatment initiation from diagnosis to first-line therapy was 315 days. A total of 770 (26.9%) patients further received second-line therapy (mean duration of treatment=318 days) and 199 (7.0%) patients received third-line therapy (mean duration of treatment=229 days). Ibrutinib was the most common treatment regimen across all lines of therapy (first-line: 39%; second-line: 55%; third-line: 43%) with discontinuation rates at 59.6%, 60.1%, and 55.2% in first-, second-, third-line therapy respectively (Figure 1 and 2). The CLL/SLL-related hospitalization rate was 39% with an average LOS of 7 days. Total PPPM all-cause and CLL/SLL-related costs were $26,709 and $17,233, respectively; these costs were increased by line of therapy. Controlling for patient clinical and demographic covariates, treatment discontinuation and treatment switching were statistically significant predictors of higher inpatient admissions, LOS of hospitalizations, and costs. Conclusions: This real-world data demonstrated significant clinical and economic burden associated with CLL/SLL among the US veterans. Furthermore, the suboptimal adherence, as reported by high treatment discontinuation rates and its impact on increasing costs and healthcare resource use, highlights the real-world unmet needs of CLL/SLL management in the veteran population. Future studies are needed to further understand the long-term outcomes of each treatment regimen. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Yang: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Liu: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Tang: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Chanan-Khan: Ascentage: Research Funding; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties: Tabi; Ascentage, Starton, Cellectar, NonoDev, Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BeiGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Honoraria; Cellectar: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals, NonoDev, Starton: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; BieGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Prognostic testing, including immunoglobulin heavy-chain variable region gene (IgHV) mutation status, cytogenetic abnormalities by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and immunophenotyping has been recommended in all newly diagnosed patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) prior to treatment initiation, and even in previously treated patients in some settings. Recent data have shown that disease with high-risk genetic features is better managed with novel agents than traditional chemoimmunotherapy. As such, the need for testing has become more relevant for disease management. However, there is limited recent data on real-world patterns of testing for risk factor assessment and in-turn, patterns of evidence-based treatment selection. This study aimed to examine: (1) the frequency and results of testing, (2) timing of testing by line of therapy, and (3) factors associated with the receipt of testing. Methods: De-identified data from the Flatiron Health EHR-derived database was used to identify patients who were ≥18 years old with newly-diagnosed CLL/SLL, who had ≥6-month continuous enrollment, and no prior treatment from January 2014 to May 2021. Testing evaluated included IgHV mutation status, FISH cytogenetic (11q deletion [del(11q)], 13q deletion [del(13q)], 17p deletion [del(17p)], Trisomy 12 [+12]) and other biomarkers (including CD38 and ZAP-70) by immunophenotyping. Descriptive analyses were conducted to examine the frequency and results in the overall population, and compared by patient characteristics and across sociodemographic groups. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to examine factors associated with the likelihood of receiving testing. Statistical significance was determined as a p-value of <0.05. Results: A total of 3,037 CLL patients were included (median age=73, 62.3% male, 74.6% white). The majority of patients (92%) received treatment in community practices, with 54.1% commercially-insured. We observed over half of CLL patients did not receive risk factor testing (Figure 1): IgHV mutation analyses (76.2%, n=2,315), FISH (61.5%, n=1,868) and immunophenotyping (72.1%, n=2,190). Of those who had testing, the majority (99%) had it done once prior to starting first-line therapy. Significant differences in the receipt of testing were observed between different age, gender, race/ethnicity, and regional subgroups (Table 1). Among patients who received testing, the presence of high-risk biomarkers was as follows: unmutated IgHV (56.1%), del(17p) present (14.4%), del(11q) present (16.9%), and CD38 present (30.8%). Compared to patients <65 years, testing results in elderly patients ≥65 years showed a lower presence of unmutated IgHV (53.8%) and del(11q) (15.7%) while higher del(17p) (14.7%) and +12 (28.1%). No significant disparity was observed in white vs. non-white patients except for a lower incidence of mutated IgHV and del(13q) presence. Compared to tested men, tested women had a lower presence of unmutated IgHV (53.9%), del(11q) (11.4%) and CD38+ (25.8%) while higher del(17p) (18.2%). We then investigated the impact of risk testing on therapy selection, and noted that patients with del(17p) had a higher likelihood than those who tested negative (73.6% vs. 48.4%) of being treated with novel agents (ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, or venetoclax). In contrast, 26.4% of those who tested del(17p) present and 39.8% among those who did not get tested received chemotherapy. Multivariable regression showed that patients who were older (≥65 years), female or those living in the west of U.S. were significantly less likely to receive testing. Conclusions: The NCCN guidelines recommend novel agents for patients with high-risk CLL/SLL. Thus, all patients are advised to complete risk-factor testing for both prognostication and selection of optimal, evidence-based therapy. Our real-world data highlights not only a significant gap in testing, but that this suboptimal testing is more common in vulnerable populations. We observed that despite identification of del(17), a quarter of CLL patients failed to receive novel agents in the frontline setting. Our analysis identified an unmet need for further education and refinement of clinical practice. This is necessary to achieve the best clinical outcome in CLL patients through robust risk-assessment testing and optimal therapeutic triaging. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Chanan-Khan: BieGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Consultancy; Ascentage, Starton, Cellectar, NonoDev, Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties: Tabi; Ascentage: Research Funding; Cellectar: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals, NonoDev, Starton: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; BeiGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Honoraria. Yang: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Liu: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Zimmerman: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Tang: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Ailawadhi: Ascentage: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Xencor: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is the most frequently diagnosed hematologic cancer, with many patients diagnosed at a later stage in life and typically with comorbidities that often complicate CLL management. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia in the United States and is associated with high hospitalization and mortality rates. While the relationship between CLL and AF has been reported, there is limited real-world evidence on the clinical and economic impact of AF in CLL patients. The objectives of this study were to examine the impact of AF on cardiovascular (stroke, bleeding events, heart failure) and economic (costs and healthcare resource utilization [HRU]) outcomes among patients with CLL. Methods: This retrospective observational study used the IBM MarketScan Research Databases in Treatment Pathways that includes at least a 10-million sample of the commercial and Medicare supplemental claims database. Patients who were at least 18 years, diagnosed with CLL (identified by ICD-9/ICD-10) and continuously enrolled from January 2009 to July 2020 were included. CLL patients were followed up for one year after their first CLL diagnosis date to examine the incidence of AF. Cardiovascular outcomes were evaluated as the incidence of stroke, bleeding events, and heart failure among the CLL patients with and without AF. Costs and HRU were assessed following up until 1 year after the first date of AF, stroke, bleeding events, and heart failure. HRU was evaluated for outpatient, emergency room (ER), inpatient, and pharmacy visits, and by length of stay (LOS) for hospitalizations. Costs were evaluated in overall population and by HRU type. Statistical differences in clinical outcomes between patients with and without AF were compared using chi-square tests. The Mann Whitney Wilcoxon test was used to compare the medians for the HRU and cost outcomes. The associations between AF and hospitalizations as well as costs were evaluated by multivariable logistic regression and generalized linear model, respectively. Statistical significance was determined at a P-value of less than 0.05. Results: Among the total of 23,756 newly diagnosed CLL patients (median age 68 years, 57.83% male) included in the study, 11% had AF within 1 year of the CLL diagnosis. CLL patients who had AF were significantly older (median age: 67 vs 82 years) and had more male patients (56.9% vs 65.1%) compared to CLL patients without AF. Significantly higher rates of stroke (12.67% vs. 4.97%), bleeding events (17.45% vs. 8.53%), and heart failure (31.14% vs. 4.70%) were observed in CLL patients with AF than those without (Figure 1). Compared to the CLL cohort without AF, adjusted regression analysis indicated that overall, CLL cohort with AF was twice as likely to be hospitalized (odds ratio [OR]=2.03) and incurred 44% higher total costs (cost ratio [CR]=1.44). Further examining the impact of AF-related cardiovascular outcomes, we observed that CLL patients with AF who developed stroke, bleeding events, and heart failure had statistically significant higher HRU (outpatient, ER, inpatient, and pharmacy visits), longer LOS, and costs (total, outpatient, pharmacy) than CLL patients without AF. After adjusting for demographic and clinical confounders, significantly higher hospitalization rates and costs were also reported in the CLL cohort who had AF with further stroke (OR=2.59; CR=1.36), bleeding events (OR=3.27; CR=2.03), and heart failure (OR=5.47; CR=2.07) compared to the CLL cohort without AF. Conclusions: The findings of this real-world study demonstrated significantly higher hospitalizations, cardiovascular events, and economic burden incurred by CLL patients who had AF than those without. The presence of stroke, bleeding events, heart failure among CLL patients with AF further increased the HRU and costs. This study highlighted the importance of better disease management, more intentional monitoring for AF and improved CLL therapeutics with a lower risk of AF or cardiovascular toxicity to prevent or minimize the incidence of AF in CLL patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Mohan: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Yang: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Liu: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Dick: IBM Watson Health: Current Employment. Tang: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Chanan-Khan: Ascentage: Research Funding; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals, NonoDev, Starton: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Cellectar: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties: Tabi; Ascentage, Starton, Cellectar, NonoDev, Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BeiGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Honoraria; BieGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Consultancy.

Background: Concern exists that the clinical trial populations differ from respective cancer populations in terms of their age distribution affecting the generalizability of the results, especially in underrepresented minorities. We hypothesized that the clinical trials that do not report race are likely to suffer from a higher degree of age disparity. Methods: Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approvals from July 2007 to June 2019 were reviewed to identify oncology approvals, and trials with age details were selected. The outcomes studied were the weighted mean difference in age between the clinical trial population and real-world population for various cancers, the prevalence of race reporting and association of age and race reporting with each other. Results: Of the 261 trials, race was reported in 223 (85.4%) of the trials, while 38 trials (14.6%) had no mention of race. Race reporting improved minimally over time: 29 (85.3%) in 2007–2010 vs. 49 (80.3%) in 2011–2014 vs. 145 (85.4%) during the period 2015–2019 (p-value = 0.41). Age discrepancy between the clinical trial population and the real-world population was higher for studies that did not report race (mean difference −8.8 years (95% CI −12.6 to −5.0 years)) vs. studies that did report it (mean difference −5.1 years, (95% CI −6.4 to −3.7 years), p-value = 0.04). Conclusion: The study demonstrates that a significant number of clinical trials leading to cancer drug approvals suffer from racial and age disparity when compared to real-world populations, and that the two factors may be interrelated. We recommend continued efforts to recruit diverse populations.

Abstract Purpose: To evaluate the association between neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and efficacy of avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib. Experimental Design: Adult patients with untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with a clear-cell component, ≥1 measurable lesions, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, fresh or archival tumor specimen, and adequate renal, cardiac, and hepatic function were included. Retrospective analyses of the association between baseline NLR and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib arms were performed using the first interim analysis of the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006). Multivariate Cox regression analyses of PFS and OS were conducted. Translational data were assessed to elucidate the underlying biology associated with differences in NLR. Results: Patients with below-median NLR had longer observed PFS with avelumab plus axitinib [stratified HR, 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.634–1.153] or sunitinib (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.415–0.745). In the avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib arms, respectively, median PFS was 13.8 and 11.2 months in patients with below-median NLR, and 13.3 and 5.6 months in patients with median-or-higher NLR. Below-median NLR was also associated with longer observed OS in the avelumab plus axitinib (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.300–0.871) and sunitinib arms (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.174–0.511). Tumor analyses showed an association between NLR and key biological characteristics, suggesting a role of NLR in underlying mechanisms influencing clinical outcome. Conclusions: Current data support NLR as a prognostic biomarker in patients with advanced RCC receiving avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib.