Tun, Han W.

Abstract Abstract 1268 Poster Board I-290 Purpose There are reports of an increased risk of skin cancers in patients with B-Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL). These skin cancers include basal cell and squamous cell carcinoma. This analysis was performed to more completely define the prevalence of skin cancers in patients in the Mayo Clinic Rochester CLL database and to look for contributing factors. Methods The Mayo Clinic Rochester CLL Database includes all patients with a diagnosis of CLL since January 1995 seen in the Division of Hematology and who have signed institutional review board approved consents for research. For this study, 2240 patients were analyzed to compare differences in characteristics between CLL patients with and without skin cancer. Chi-square statistics were used to compare qualitative variables (age categories, gender, referral status, ALC categories, CD38, ZAP-70, IgVH gene mutation status, FISH categories, Rai stage), and t-tests were used for quantitative variables (age at diagnosis, ALC values). Overall survival (OS) and time to first treatment (TFT) analyses were performed with results being displayed using Kaplan-Meier curves and p-values calculated using a log-rank test. Prevalence of melanoma among CLL patients was compared to the age-adjusted prevalence of melanoma in individuals in the Iowa SEER registry. Results Median follow-up for the 2240 patients diagnosed between 1/1/1995 and 8/11/2009 was 4.6 years. In aggregate, 293 (13.1%) patients were found to have non-melanoma skin cancer (squamous cell carcinoma or basal cell carcinoma) cancer. The diagnosis of non-melanoma skin cancer occurred before the CLL diagnosis in 39% and at or after the diagnosis of CLL in 61%. There were 57 (2.5%) cases of melanoma in association with CLL. The diagnosis of melanoma occurred before the CLL diagnosis in 38% and at or after the diagnosis of CLL in 62%.The prevalence of non-melanoma skin cancer and melanoma skin cancer were both higher in non-referred (geographically regional) CLL patients than referred CLL patients (16.6% vs. 11.4%, p<0.001 for non melanoma; 2.0% vs. 3.6%, p=0.03 for melanoma). The prevalence of melanoma in CLL patients was higher than that of age-adjusted prevalence for individuals in the Iowa SEER registry (2.5% vs. 0.03%; p<0.001). We next evaluated the relationship between CLL patients with skin cancer and demographic characteristics, prognostic parameters, and CLL related treatment. The risk of non-melanoma skin cancer in CLL was found to be associated with age (median age at diagnosis with skin cancer 67.6 vs. without skin cancer 63.3, p<0.001) and with sex (males 15.1% vs females 8.9%, p <0.001). There was no statistical significant difference in frequency of non-melanoma skin cancer associated with absolute lymphocyte count (ALC), Rai stage, CD 38, Zap 70, IgVH gene mutation status, FISH, or treatment history. The risk of melanoma in CLL was found to be associated with age at diagnosis (median age with melanoma 69.9 vs. without melanoma 63.8, p=0.002) and CD38 (positive 1.3% vs negative 3.1%, p=0.03). There was no statistically significant difference associated with gender, ALC, Rai stage, Zap 70, IgVH gene mutation status, FISH, or treatment history. Since the presence of skin cancer could be a marker of immune dysregulation we hypothesized skin cancer may be associated with clinical outcome of CLL. Accordingly, we evaluated the relationship between non-melanoma skin cancer and melanoma skin cancer and TFT and OS. Contrary to our hypothesis, TFT (median 6.0 years vs. 4.9; p=0.04) and OS (median 10.8 years vs. 9.7; p=0.02) of patients with non-melanoma skin cancer were both longer than those without non-melanoma skin cancer. No differences in TFT (p=0.06) or OS (p=0.66) were observed among patients with melanoma compared to those without melanoma. Conclusions We find in our cohort of CLL patients a higher prevalence of melanoma than the general population. Risk of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer among patients with CLL does not appear to be related to CLL characteristics, with the exception of CD 38, or CLL outcome. The diagnosis of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer in patients with CLL does not appear to be a risk factor for either CLL specific outcomes (TFT) or shorter survival. Disclosures Kay: Biogenc-Idec, Celgene, Genentech, genmab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech, Celgene, Hospira, Polyphenon Pharma, Sanofi-Aventis: Research Funding. Zent:Genentech, Bayer, Genzyme, Novartis: Research Funding. Shanafelt:Genentech: Research Funding; Hospira: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Polyphenon E International: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Bayer Health Care Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: In 2006 Lenalidomide received FDA approval for myelodysplasia (MDS) with interstitial deletion 5q [del(5q)] based on conventional cytogenetic (CC) results before and after treatment. In clinical practice, FISH studies of interphase nuclei with probes for EGR1 are widely used to detect del(5q), but it is not known whether this method has similar efficacy as CC. Thus, we compared CC and FISH results for various forms of del(5q). Methods: We selected 145 patients (pts) in our cytogenetic database with del(5q). These pts had various forms of del(5q) and were representative of our clinical practice. This series included 9 pts with MDS that were studied before and after treatment with Lenalidomide. CC studies were done using standard procedures to analyze 20 metaphases from bone marrow. FISH studies were done on the same specimens using stored left-over cells and standard procedures for EGR1 (5q31.2) and D5S23/D5S721 (5p15.2). The cutoff for del(5q) for FISH was <6.0% based on 200 nuclei. Results: Among 145 pts, 104 were referred for MDS, 9 acute myeloid leukemia, 9 lymphoproliferative disorders, 7 myeloproliferative disorders and 16 without clinical information. A total of 116 pts had breakpoints at del(5)(q13q33), 17 del(5)(q15q33), 8 del(5)(q11.2~q31q31~q35), 3 del(5)(q22q33) and 1 del(5)(q13q22). Del(5q) was detected in 144 pts by both CC and FISH. One pt had del(5)(q13q22) in 20/20 metaphases but was normal by FISH. Percent abnormal cells by FISH was lower in 135/145 pts compared to CC (mean difference 22.5 ± 19.6, range −42 to 98). For 9 pts with MDS, 29 specimens were collected before and after treatment with Lenalidomide: 7 achieved complete cytogenetic remission (four relapsed) and 2 showed a decrease in percent abnormal metaphases. Results of CC and FISH for these 9 pts were concordant for detection of del(5q) and trend of tumor burden due to treatment for 28/29 specimens. The discordant specimen was collected 222 days after treatment; results of CC were normal but FISH was abnormal in 19% of nuclei. Among the 29 specimens, percent abnormal cells by FISH was lower than CC in 27 (mean difference 13.9% ± 22.5, range −19.0 to 73.5). Each of the 9 treated pts had only del(5q) prior to treatment, and was detected by both FISH and CC. After treatment, FISH did not detect a separate cytogenetic clone involving deletion 20q without del(5q) in 2 pts nor did it identify development of other anomalies in 3 pts. Conclusions: Results of CC and FISH were mostly concordant, but differed in 4 respects. First, 1/145 pts was normal by FISH but had del(5q) by CC. This pt had unusual breakpoints that did not result in loss of EGR1. Second, percentage of cells with del(5q) was usually lower by FISH than CC. This observation is likely related to a different mitotic rate of cells with del(5q) versus normal cells. Third, 1 specimen was abnormal by FISH but normal by CC after treatment, but 2 subsequent specimens were concordant. This discrepancy was likely due to interference of mitosis of del(5q) cells and residual non-proliferating disease. Fourth, 2 treated pts developed a separate cytogenetic clone without del(5q) and 3 developed other anomalies that could not be detected by FISH. We believe FISH for EGR1 is useful in clinical practice, but not a substitute for CC.

Abstract Introduction: Ibritumomab tiuxetan (Zevalin¨) is a radioimmunoconjugate agent that targets CD20-expressing B cell lymphomas. Currently, it is the only radioimmunoconjugate agent available on the market and is FDA approved for relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (FL). A retrospective study of patients with low grade FL (WHO grade 1 and 2) treated with ibritumomab tiuxetan at Mayo Clinic Florida from 2000 to 2016 was performed. Methods: The patient population consisted of previously untreated as well as relapsed low grade FL. We evaluated patient characteristics, response rate, duration of response, progression free survival, overall survival and time to next treatment. Previously untreated patients were treated with ibritumomab tiuxetan due to ineligibility for standard chemotherapy and prolonged immunotherapy, or their preference. Comparison between previously untreated FL patients treated with ibritumomab tiuxetan as the first line of treatment versus patients with relapsed FL treated with ibritumomab tiuxetan as second, third or fourth line therapy was made. Results: Low grade FL patients (n=41) that received ibritumomab tiuxetan were identified; 13 patients (32%) with previously untreated FL and 28 patients (68%) with relapsed FL. The data on response to treatment is presented in Table 1. Ibritumomab tiuxetan use in previously untreated FL was associated with more complete responses than in the relapse setting (92% vs 50% at 6 months, p=0.036). Previously untreated FL patients that received ibritumomab tiuxetan as first line therapy had better progression free survival (80% vs 35% at 3 years). Ibritumomab tiuxetan use in relapsed FL was associated with significant shorter time to relapse compared to previously untreated FL (median 1.3 years vs 4.8 years, p=0.017, figure 1) and shorter time to next treatment (65% at 4 years compared to 0% in previously untreated, p=0.007). 15% of newly diagnosed FL treated with ibritumomab tiuxetan relapsed compared to 64% of relapsed FL patient. There was no significant difference in overall survival between the two groups. The incidence of grades 3-4 neutropenia (Absolute Neutrophil Count <1000 x109/L), Anemia (Hb <8 g/dL) and Thrombocytopenia (Platelets <25 x109/L) were 47%, 7.7% and 48.7% respectively. Only 6/41 patients (15%) had cytopenias that required transfusion of blood products. More significant cytopenias were seen in relapsed group compared to previously untreated group. Conclusions: Ibritumomab tiuxetan as first line treatment in previously untreated FL patients at our institution was associated with improved response rate, better progression free survival and shorter time to next treatment when compared to its use in relapsed FL. Ibritumomab tiuxetan has significant therapeutic efficacy for both previously untreated as well as relapsed low grade FL. It was well tolerated without significant treatment-related morbidity or mortality. Moreover, treatment schedule was very convenient for the patients. Our results suggest that treatment with ibritumomab tiuxetan is an effective option for those previously untreated low grade FL patients who cannot take standard chemoimmunotherapy. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Abstract 1379 Background: Although chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) has substantially improved response rates, treatment free survival, and overall survival in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), only 40–50% of patients achieve a complete remission and the majority have residual disease when evaluated using sensitive assays for minimal residual disease (MRD). While this observation created interest in consolidation therapy, previous alemtuzumab based consolidation trials have demonstrated excess morbidity/mortality. We conducted a lenalidomide based consolidation trial for patients with previously untreated CLL who received 6 cycles of induction with pentostatin, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (PCR). Methods: Eligible patients were previously untreated and had CLL in need of treatment according to the NCI-WG criteria (Blood 111:5446). Treatment schema consisted of 6 cycles of pentostatin (2 mg/m2), cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m2) and rituximab (375 mg/m2) given every 21 days (Blood 109:405). All patients completing 6 cycles of PCR, underwent complete restaging and evaluation for MRD using sensitive flow cytometry (Leukemia 21:956). Following restaging and adequate recovery of blood counts, patients received 6 mos of lenalidomide consolidation by continuous daily administration. The starting lenalidomide dose was 5 mg/day with escalation to 10 mg/day after the first cycle as tolerated. Patients again underwent complete restaging and MRD evaluation after 6 mos of lenalidomide. At the time of this restaging, MRD negative patients entered observation. Those with residual disease continued on lenalidomide and underwent repeat MRD assessment every 3 mos with cessation of lenalidomide when an MRD negative state achieved. Results: 45 patients were enrolled at Mayo Clinic between 3/2008 and 11/2009. 44 patients were eligible for treatment: 71% male, median age 65 (range: 44–78); intermediate Rai risk 61%; high Rai risk 39%. On prognostic testing 32% were CD38+, 52% Zap-70 +, 52% IGHV unmutated, and 16% had high risk FISH (del 17p13; del 11q22). 38 of 44 eligible patients (86%) completed 6 cycles of PCR induction. Adverse events deemed at least possibly related to PCR induction included 19 (43%) patients with grade 3+ hematologic toxicity and 9 (20%) with grade 3+ non-hematologic toxicity. The Overall response rate to induction was 98% with 15 CR/CRi, 3 CCR, 9 nPR, and 16 PR. Four patients with CR were also MRD negative at the completion of induction. Of 38 patients who completed induction, 34 initiated lenalidomide consolidation. Thus, by protocol intent to treat analysis, 34/44 (77%) patients starting CIT with PCR were able to receive consolidation therapy. The remaining patients were unable to initiate consolidation due to: failure to complete induction (6 patients), disease progression (1), adverse event (1) and patient refusal (2). Among the 34 patients who initiated consolidation, the median number of cycles of lenalidomide received was 5.5 (range: 1–19). Adverse events deemed at least possibly related to lenalidomide consolidation included 22 (65%) patients with grade 3+ hematologic toxicity and 4 (12%) with grade 3+ non-hematologic toxicity. Among the 34 patients who received at least 1 cycle of lenalidomide, 4 patients have improved the quality of their response to date with 11 patients still on lenalidomide at the time of this report. After median follow-up of 16 mos, 42/44 patients are alive and median duration of response has not been reached. To date 3/44 (7%) of patients have progressed to require additional treatment. Finally, since eligibility was nearly identical to our historic trial of PCR without lenalidomide consolidation, we compared the 44 patients in the present trial to the 64 patients previously treated on our PCR trial (Blood 109:405). Demographic and prognostic characteristics of the patients in the two studies were similar. With the caveat it represents comparison across phase II trials, the proportion of patients free of retreatment at 12 mos was 97% (95%CI: 91–100) for PCR-L vs. 78% (95%CI: 68–89) for PCR (Figure 1). Conclusion: We report here the first results of lenalidomide based consolidation for CLL patients receiving first-line CIT induction. Although lenalidomide consolidation appears to improve the quality of response and prolong time to retreatment, longer follow-up is necessary to determine the clinical benefit of this strategy. Disclosures: Shanafelt: Celgene: Research Funding; Hospira: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide. Kay:Celgene: Research Funding; Hospira: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding.

Background:Despite advances in the treatment of lymphoma in recent years, unmet medical needs remain, particularly for patients with R/R disease and rarer subtypes of non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). The alkylating deacetylase inhibitor tinostamustine (EDO‐S101) is a novel multi‐action therapy that is designed to improve drug access to DNA strands, and at the same time induce DNA damage and counteract its repair in cancer cells.Aims:Here we report findings from the dose‐escalation stage of a Phase I first‐in‐human study to evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetics, and to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended Phase II dose (RP2D), of tinostamustine in patients with R/R lymphoid malignancies (NCT02576496).Methods:Patients were recruited using a standard 3+3 design, with the first cohort receiving 20 mg/m2 tinostamustine administered iv over 60 minutes, with six ascending cohorts, to a maximum dose of 120 mg/m2. Dose‐limiting toxicities (DLT) were defined as: any Grade (G) 3 or 4 non‐haematological toxicity (excluding alopecia and easily correctable electrolyte abnormalities); nausea, vomiting or diarrhoea ≥10 days despite aggressive symptomatic treatment; G4 neutropenia or thrombocytopenia for ≥7 days; any G2 or more toxicity for >3 weeks; any toxicity resulting in a delay of the next dose administration (Cycle 2 Day 1 ≥14).Results:A total of 27 patients with lymphoid malignancies were enrolled into the study, 10 of these patients were diagnosed with R/R Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and 17 with NHL, including peripheral T‐cell lymphoma and diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma. The MTD of tinostamustine was determined to be 100 mg/m2; shorter infusion times were evaluated in three cohorts of patients, but the recommended infusion time was confirmed as 60 minutes. Safety findings for each dose cohort for HL and NHL patients were mainly haematological toxicities: G3/4 thrombocytopenia, neutropenia and leucopenia, with incidence increasing with increasing dose. One patient experienced a G3 allergic reaction. Signals of efficacy were observed among the 27 patients with lymphoma (overall response rate [ORR] 41% [11 patients]; clinical benefit rate [CBR] 67% [18 patients]). The best response, as determined by the Investigator, was complete response (CR; 3/27 patients [11%]), which was observed in one patient with HL and two with NHL; partial response (PR; 8/27 patients [30%]) and stable disease (SD; 7/27 patients [26%]) were also observed. Nine of the 27 patients (33%) had disease progression.Summary/Conclusion:Administration of tinostamustine on Day 1 of a 21‐day cycle was well tolerated with signals of efficacy in patients with both HL and NHL, including rare forms of NHL such as peripheral T‐cell lymphoma. The RP2D for tinostamustine in lymphoid malignancies, depending on patient platelet count at treatment initiation, was determined as 80 mg/m2 for those with >100 x 109/l platelets, and 100 mg/m2 for those with ≥200 x 109/l platelets. This will be applied in the second phase of this study, where patients will be recruited into one of five different cohorts.

Abstract During development of pancreatic cancer, alternatively activated macrophages contribute to fibrogenesis, pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN) lesion growth, and generation of an immunosuppressive environment. Here, we show that the immunomodulatory agent pomalidomide depletes pancreatic lesion areas of alternatively activated macrophage populations. Pomalidomide treatment resulted in downregulation of interferon regulatory factor 4, a transcription factor for M2 macrophage polarization. Pomalidomide-induced absence of alternatively activated macrophages led to a decrease in fibrosis at PanIN lesions and in syngeneic tumors; this was due to generation of an inflammatory, immune-responsive environment with increased expression of IL1α and presence of activated (IFNγ-positive) CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell populations. Our results indicate that pomalidomide could be used to decrease fibrogenesis in pancreatic cancer and may be ideal as a combination treatment with chemotherapeutic drugs or other immunotherapies. Significance: These findings reveal new insights into how macrophage populations within the pancreatic cancer microenvironment can be modulated, providing the means to turn the microenvironment from immunosuppressive to immune-responsive.