Lozanski, Gerard

Abstract Hairy cell leukemia (HCL) and HCL variant (HCLv) are distinct, rare, and chronic splenic B-cell lymphomas/leukemias that partially overlap in clinicopathologic presentation but differ in genetic basis, prognosis, and management. HCL is caused by the BRAF-V600E kinase–activating mutation in >95% of the patients, usually has excellent responses to chemotherapy with purine analogues, and is also amenable to BRAF inhibitor–based targeted treatments. In contrast, HCLv lacks BRAFV600E mutation, requires combined therapy with purine analogues in addition to rituximab, and generally shows less durable responses. Here, an international team of hematologists, experts on these rare diseases, was convened by the Hairy Cell Leukemia Foundation to update the previous guidelines (published in 2017) by providing a summary of current methods to diagnose and manage patients with HCL and HCLv as well as a prospective on newer targeted therapies to further improve outcomes.

AbstractBackgroundAcute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in adults is aggressive, with long‐term outcomes impacted by treatment resistance and toxicity. CD52 is expressed in most cases of B‐ and T‐lineage ALL. Alemtuzumab, a humanized immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody that targets CD52, was identified as a potential agent to improve treatment efficacy without increasing toxicity.MethodsIn this phase 1/2 study (Cancer and Leukemia Group B [CALGB] 10102, NCT00061945), a course of single‐agent alemtuzumab was intercalated into CALGB 19802 backbone chemotherapy after the third course of intensive chemotherapy in those who were CD52+ at diagnosis. Phase 1 tested three dose levels of subcutaneous alemtuzumab (10, 20, and 30 mg 3 times weekly for 4 weeks/12 doses) and demonstrated that 30 mg was tolerable. Phase 2 established feasibility.ResultsThe study enrolled 295 evaluable patients (115 in phase 1, 180 in phase 2); 206 (69.8%) were CD52+. Among evaluable CD52+ patients, 43.7% (90/206) completed the first three treatment modules; 97.8% (88 of 90) were treated with alemtuzumab. Alemtuzumab was associated with cytomegalovirus viremia, which occurred in 23.3% (14 of 60) of patients during and 29.2% (19 of 65) after alemtuzumab treatment. With a median follow‐up of 101.2 months, median overall survival (OS) was 26.3 months (3‐year rate, 44%; 5‐year rate, 36%; 10‐year rate, 31%). Landmark analysis at the start of the fourth course of treatment demonstrated no difference in OS or disease‐free survival between patients who did and who did not receive alemtuzumab.ConclusionAlemtuzumab was feasible to administer in adults with ALL receiving intensive chemotherapy, but was without evidence of benefit.

Abstract A041202 (NCT01886872) is a phase 3 study comparing bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) with ibrutinib and the combination of ibrutinib plus rituximab (IR) in previously untreated older patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The initial results showed that ibrutinib-containing regimens had superior progression-free survival (PFS) and rituximab did not add additional benefits. Here we present an updated analysis. With a median follow-up of 55 months, the median PFS was 44 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 38-54) for BR and not yet reached in either ibrutinib-containing arm. The 48-month PFS estimates were 47%, 76%, and 76% for BR, ibrutinib, and IR, respectively. The benefit of ibrutinib regimens over chemoimmunotherapy was consistent across subgroups of patients defined by TP53 abnormalities, del(11q), complex karyotype, and immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region (IGHV). No significant interaction effects were observed between the treatment arm and del(11q), the complex karyotype, or IGHV. However, a greater difference in PFS was observed among the patients with TP53 abnormalities. There was no difference in the overall survival. Notable adverse events with ibrutinib included atrial fibrillation (afib) and hypertension. Afib was observed in 11 patients (pts) on BR (3%) and 67 pts on ibrutinib (18%). All-grade hypertension was observed in 95 pts on BR (27%) and 263 pts on ibrutinib (55%). These data show that ibrutinib regimens prolong PFS compared with BR for older patients with treatment-naïve CLL. These benefits were observed across subgroups, including high-risk groups. Strikingly, within the ibrutinib arms, there was no inferior PFS for patients with abnormalities in TP53, the highest risk feature observed in CLL. These data continue to demonstrate the efficacy of ibrutinib in treatment-naïve CLL.

7500 Background: The Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) ibrutinib +/- anti-CD20 antibody obinutuzumab (IO) is a standard frontline regimen for older adults with CLL. BTKi alone do not often lead to complete response (CR) or undetectable minimal residual disease (uMRD), thus are given indefinitely. Smaller trials showed that IO plus venetoclax (IVO) can induce uMRD CRs which may allow successful discontinuation. Methods: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A041702 is a multicenter trial designed to evaluate if IVO with response-guided discontinuation of I improves progression free survival (PFS) versus IO with indefinite I in treatment-naïve, older CLL pts. IO is given in standard fashion, and in the IVO arm V is added at C3D1 and continued until C14D28. After 14 cycles, pts undergo response evaluation including CT scans and bone marrow biopsy with central MRD assessment by flow cytometry. Pts in IVO arm with uMRD CR discontinue I; all others continue I until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Eligible pts were age ≥70 years (amended to ≥65). Pts had CrCl ≥ 40 mL/min, bilirubin ≤ 1.5 x ULN, and no other life-limiting intercurrent illness. Pts were stratified based on Rai stage and +/- del17p13.1 by FISH, and randomized 1:1 to IO:IVO. With 431 evaluable pts, the trial had 90% power to detect significant improvement in PFS using a one-sided log-rank test with one-sided type 1 error rate of 2.5%. The Alliance DSMB approved release of data on Nov 4, 2022 after meeting the protocol defined futility threshold at the second planned event-driven interim analysis. Data were locked on December 15, 2022. Results: Between January 4, 2019 and July 15, 2022, 465 pts were registered (IO:232, IVO:233). Median age was 74; 67% of pts were men. Rai stage 3-4 was seen in 55% and del17p in 13%. With median follow-up of 14 months, PFS of IO was 87.5% compared to 85% on IVO. Events were observed in 29 pts on IO (4 progressions, 23 deaths, 2 pts started other therapy) and 35 on IVO (7 progressions, 28 deaths). The predefined futility boundary was crossed, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.20 (95% CI: 0.73-1.97) in favor of IO. COVID-19 was the leading cause of death in both arms, (11 COVID-19 deaths on IO, 19 on IVO), with 13 and 11 additional deaths from other causes, respectively. Censoring pts with COVID-19 related deaths, PFS HR is 0.82 (95% CI: 0.44-1.53) in favor of IVO. Grade 3+ toxicity and discontinuation in year 1 of therapy were similar between arms. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that PFS for IVO is not superior to IO for treatment-naive older CLL pts in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. Study treatment is ongoing, and long-term follow-up will determine if there are advantages to IVO, with special attention to MRD and therapy discontinuation. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24 CA196171; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Clinical trial information: NCT03737981 .

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.

Abstract Hairy cell leukemia (HCL) is a rare B-cell malignancy, and there is a need for novel treatments for patients who do not benefit from purine analogs. Ibrutinib, an oral agent targeting Bruton tyrosine kinase in the B-cell receptor signaling pathway, is highly effective in several malignancies. Its activity in HCL was unknown, so we conducted a multisite phase 2 study of oral ibrutinib in patients with either relapsed classic or variant hairy cell leukemia. The primary outcome measure was the overall response rate (ORR) at 32 weeks, and we also assessed response at 48 weeks and best response during treatment. Key secondary objectives were characterization of toxicity and determination of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Thirty-seven patients were enrolled at 2 different doses (24 at 420 mg, 13 at 840 mg). The median duration of follow-up was 3.5 years (range, 0-5.9 years). The ORR at 32 weeks was 24%, which increased to 36% at 48 weeks. The best ORR was 54%. The estimated 36-month PFS was 73% and OS was 85%. The most frequent adverse events were diarrhea (59%), fatigue (54%), myalgia (54%), and nausea (51%). Hematologic adverse events were common: anemia (43%), thrombocytopenia (41%), and neutropenia (35%). Ibrutinib can be safely administered to patients with HCL with objective responses and results in prolonged disease control. Although the initial primary outcome objective of the study was not met, the observation of objective responses in heavily pretreated patients coupled with a favorable PFS suggests that ibrutinib may be beneficial in these patients. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01841723.

Abstract Myeloid cell factor-1 (Mcl-1) is an anti-apoptotic member of the Bcl-2 protein family that associates with tumor cell survival and drug resistance in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Increased Mcl-1 expression is associated with failure to achieve remission after chemotherapy with fludarabine and chlorambucil in CLL patients. However, the influence of Mcl-1 expression has not been examined in CLL trials using treatment regimens that contain rituximab, which has shown substantially improved outcomes for a large subset of patients and have become a mainstay in the therapy of newly diagnosed CLL. We previously reported that combination chemoimmunotherapy with pentostatin, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (PCR) has significant clinical activity with low accompanying toxicity in previously untreated CLL patients, and is especially well tolerated in older patients in whom the use of fludarabine may be associated with prohibitive toxicities. As part of this study, we prospectively investigated association of Mcl-1 protein expression with response and progression-free survival. Eligible patients received a regimen consisting of pentostatin (2 mg/m2), cyclophosphamide (600 mg/ m2), and rituximab (375 mg/m2) given intravenously on day 1 of a 21-day cycle for a maximum of 6 cycles. Responses were assessed according to NCI 1996 criteria and included bone marrow evaluation and two-color flow cytometry two months after completion of therapy. Flow cytometry-negative status was defined as less than or equal to 1% CD5+/CD19+ cells. Of the 64 patients evaluated in this trial, clinical responses were seen in 58 (91%), with 26 (41%) complete responses (CR), 14 (22%) nodular partial responses (nPR), and 18 (28%) partial responses (PR). Lysates from peripheral blood cells obtained pre-treatment were analyzed for Mcl-1 expression by immunoblot. Mcl-1 as a continuous variable was not found to be associated with other commonly described risk factors. However, Recursive Partitioning Analysis (RPA) was devised employing Mcl-1 expression as a continuous variable, which revealed an optimal cut point of 0.85. At this cutoff, flow cytometry-negative status was significantly different between the two groups (p=0.01) and median PFS was significantly higher (p=0.02) in patients with Mcl-1 levels of <0.85 (50.8 vs. 18.7 months). No difference by Mcl-1 expression was noted in other pre-treatment or response parameters. Our data describes the first prospective validation of Mcl-1 over-expression adversely influencing both the likelihood of attaining a flow cytometry-negative complete remission and extended progression free survival. Mcl-1 expression was also independent of other risk factors, indicating additional benefit for this measure in assessing patients. Mcl-1 expression may therefore predict poor response to chemoimmunotherapy, and these findings advocate pursuing therapeutic agents targeting this important anti-apoptotic protein.