Byrd, John C.

Background: NGS of myeloid mutations is an integral part of AML clinical decision-making. There is currently no information regarding concordance between NGS panels in AML using samples from the same patient across various platforms in different diagnostic laboratories. To study this important question, we analyzed NGS of myeloid mutations in diagnostic samples from The Beat AML Master Trial (BAMT) for newly diagnosed older AML patients, and compared variant calls made between institutional laboratories enrolling the study subject with those made by Foundation Medicine (FM), the central laboratory used for treatment assignment in this precision medicine trial. Methods: We identified newly diagnosed AML patient samples (peripheral blood (PB) and/or bone marrow (BM)) from 2 lead institutions in the BAMT(Ohio State, OSU and Oregon Health and Sciences University, OHSU) that were analyzed by both the institutional and by FM from Nov 15, 2016 to Apr 15, 2019. Samples sent to both laboratories >3 days apart were excluded. Samples were analyzed at the institutional laboratories using their respective NGS mutational panels and by FM using the FoundationOne®Heme(FMH) NGS panel which utilizes capture based sequencing. The OSU NGS assay utilizes sequencing on Illumina MiSeq. The OHSU NGS assay employs semiconductor-based sequencing (Ion Torrent PGM platform). The variant allele frequency (VAF) sensitivity for detection for all 3 laboratories range from 1-2%. We evaluated the ability to identify mutations in 8 genes : FLT3, IDH1/ 2, NPM1, TET2, DNMT3A, WT1 and TP53 used in treatment assignment in theBAMT. A detection cutoff of 2% was used to define the presence or absence of a mutation. Overall, agreement was defined as the number of times the local and central laboratories made the same call divided by the total number of patients. Sensitivity was defined as the number of present calls made locally divided by the number of present calls made centrally, and specificity as the number of absent calls made locally divided by the number of absent calls made centrally. The overall kappa statistic, controlling for institution, provided another measure of agreement between local and central calls, where a value of 1 indicates perfect agreement. Results: 194 patient samples were identified using methods above and analyzed locally at the screening institution (125 at OSU, 69 at OHSU) and centrally at FM. Type of tissue analyzed for variants between local site and FM were 59 PB, 129 BM, and 6 with BM/PB mismatch. Overall agreement in presence/absence calls between local and central results for each of the 8 genes was over 95% (Table 1). There was perfect agreement for NPM1. The sensitivity was above 94% for all genes except TP53 (88.6%) and WT1 (63.6%). Failure to detect a mutation locally was primarily due to reporting of all TP53 variants, including variants of unknown significance (VUS) (5) by FM as agreed upon in the study protocol, detection at low levels below local site sensitivity cutoff (1), detection of variants in a portion of gene not covered at the local site(1)and possible artifact (1). For the WT1 gene, discordance in 5 samples included VUS (3) reported by FM ,a variant detected in a portion of the gene not covered at the local site(1).and difference in leukemic tissue analyzed with mutation not detected by the central laboratory on a PB sample, and present at the institutional lab on a BM sample; affecting the overall agreement and specificity but not sensitivity. Specificity was at least 98% for each of the 8 genes. Finally, most discrepancies in reported mutations in FLT3 (n=2), IDH1 (n=1), IDH2 (n=2), DNMT3A (n=4) and TET2 (n=5) were due to reporting of VUS in one laboratory and not by another. Conclusion: Detection of pathogenic myeloid mutations using orthogonal assays showed a high degree of concordance for genes used in therapeutic assignment on the BAMT.The small number of discordant results, in TP53 and WT1, were attributed to the reporting of VUS. This study illustrates the importance of quality control and standardization as NGS continues to be widely utilized in AML for clinical decision making, with a variety of platforms across multiple laboratories. Our next steps involve evaluating the differences in VAFs reported between local and central laboratories when a given mutation is identified, as well as the potential reasons for observed differences and clinical implications of known pathogenic mutations vs putative VUS. Disclosures Borate: Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Vergilio:Foundation Medicine: Employment; Roche Holding AG: Equity Ownership. Stein:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas Pharma US, Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bioline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PTC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Patel:France Foundation: Honoraria; Dava Oncology: Honoraria; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Baer:Astellas: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Stock:Daiichi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Research to Practice: Honoraria; UpToDate: Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schiller:Amgen: Other, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Biomed Valley Discoveries: Research Funding; Bristol Myer Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Constellation Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Eli Lilly and Company: Research Funding; FujiFilm: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; J&J: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Pfizer Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership, Research Funding; Sangamo Therapeutics: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Blum:AmerisourceBergen: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Astellas,: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding. Kovacsovics:Pfizer: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Foran:Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding. Druker:Pfizer: Research Funding; OHSU (licensing fees): Patents & Royalties: #2573, Constructs and cell lines harboring various mutations in TNK2 and PTPN11, licensing fees ; Cepheid: Consultancy, Honoraria; Aileron Therapeutics: #2573, Constructs and cell lines harboring various mutations in TNK2 and PTPN11, licensing fees , Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ALLCRON: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aptose Biosciences: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beta Cat: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Stock options; GRAIL: Equity Ownership, Other: former member of Scientific Advisory Board; Patient True Talk: Consultancy; The RUNX1 Research Program: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vivid Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Stock options; Beat AML LLC: Other: Service on joint steering committee; CureOne: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Other: former member of Scientific Advisory Board; ICON: Other: Scientific Founder of Molecular MD, which was acquired by ICON in Feb. 2019; Monojul: Other: former consultant; Novartis: Other: PI or co-investigator on clinical trial(s) funded via contract with OHSU., Patents & Royalties: Patent 6958335, Treatment of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors, exclusively licensed to Novartis, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: PI or co-investigator on clinical trial(s) funded via contract with OHSU., Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: PI or co-investigator on clinical trial(s) funded via contract with OHSU., Research Funding; Merck & Co: Patents & Royalties: Dana-Farber Cancer Institute license #2063, Monoclonal antiphosphotyrosine antibody 4G10, exclusive commercial license to Merck & Co; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (antibody royalty): Patents & Royalties: #2524, antibody royalty; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Byrd:Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Research Funding; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S. Levine:C4 Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Isoplexis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Loxo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Qiagen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria; Prelude Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Lilly: Honoraria; Imago Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mims:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PTC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Uproleselan (GMI-1271) is a novel antagonist of E-selectin, an adhesion molecule expressed on endothelial cells. E-selectin is expressed transiently in the normal vasculature during an inflammatory response and constitutively in the bone marrow (BM). Binding of E-selectin (E-sel) to sialyl Lex, the E-sel ligand (E-sel-L), on the leukemic cell surface activates cell survival pathways and promotes chemotherapy resistance in AML. In preclinical models, blockade of E-selectin with uproleselan disrupts the activation of cell survival pathways and enhanced the efficacy of chemotherapy across multiple AML tumor models. Furthermore, uproleselan protected against chemotherapy-induced mucositis by regulating macrophage trafficking to the site of injury in the gut lining. A previous phase I/II study of uproleselan added to chemotherapy in patients with untreated AML (older adults ≥60 yrs) and relapsed/refractory AML (≥ 18yrs) showed promising remission rates (CR/CRi) and survival outcomes, and reduced rates of mucositis. In the newly diagnosed older patients, high remission rates were achieved overall (CR/CRi 72%) and for the high risk subgroup with sAML (CR/CRi 69%). In this phase 2/3 study, we will test the addition of uproleselan to a standard daunorubicin/cytarabine regimen in older adults with previously untreated AML. The study will enroll patients age ≥ 60 yrs with untreated acute myeloid leukemia. Patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia, activating mutations in FLT3, or evidence of central nervous system involvement are excluded. Subjects are randomized to 7+3 induction (cytarabine + daunorubicin) +/- uproleselan. Subjects achieving a CR/CRi may receive up to 3 cycles of consolidation with intermediate dose cytarabine 2 gm/m2 IV d1-5 +/- uproleselan. The primary phase II objective is to compare the event-free survival (EFS). A sample size of 262 patients was selected for the phase II to detect an improvement in median EFS from 7 months to 11 months (HR= 0.64) with > 95% power, using a log rank test. The phase III primary objective will compare overall survival (OS). For the phase III, a sample size of 335 evaluable patients per arm (670 total inclusive of patients enrolled in phase II) will provide >90% power to detect an improvement in median OS from 12 months to 16 months (HR= 0.75), using a log-rank test. Correlative studies will measure E-selectin ligand on AML blasts and soluble E-selectin and will also measure minimal residual disease after remission induction by multiparameter flow cytometry. A comprehensive geriatric assessment will identify baseline measures associated with EFS and develop a risk model to predict OS among older adults receiving intensive AML therapy. The study is endorsed by SWOG and ECOG-ACRIN and opened to enrollment on 1/16/2019. Figure Disclosures Uy: Astellas: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; GlycoMimetics: Consultancy. Dinner:Agios: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Strickland:Jazz: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Liesveld:Onconova: Other: Data safety monitoring board; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Byrd:Acerta: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; BeiGene: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Research Funding; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Stone:Argenx, Celgene, Takeda Oncology: Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board/Committee: ; AbbVie, Actinium, Agios, Argenx, Arog, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Biolinerx, Celgene, Cornerstone Biopharma, Fujifilm, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Ono, Orsenix, Otsuka, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sumitomo, Trovagene: Consultancy; Novartis, Agios, Arog: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Uproleselan in AML

Abstract Introduction: The most effective initial therapy for older adults with CLL has not yet been established due to the lack of comparison of chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) and targeted therapy with the Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib. CIT has been the gold standard since studies showing that addition of CD20 antibody to chemotherapy prolongs survival. Bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) is one standard, more aggressive CIT regimen for patients (pts) age 65 or older. While ibrutinib has been FDA approved for untreated CLL since 2016, it has only been compared to chlorambucil, which is relatively ineffective, and never before to aggressive CIT. Additionally, the benefit of the addition of rituximab to ibrutinib in this setting has not been prospectively studied in a phase 3 trial. As part of a randomized phase 3 trial, the Alliance sought to answer these important clinical questions. Pts and Methods: Alliance A041202 is a multicenter NCI National Clinical Trials Network phase 3 study 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 CIT in terms of PFS. Additionally, this study sought to determine if adding rituximab to ibrutinib would prolong PFS over ibrutinib alone. At time of progression, pts on Arm 1 could cross over to Arm 2. Eligible pts 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 based upon 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. With 166 pts per arm, the trial was powered to detect an improvement in 2-year PFS from 61% in Arm 1 to 75% in Arms 2 or 3 (HR=0.586) using two one-sided log-rank tests with type I error rate of 2.5% and 90% power. The Alliance Data and Safety Monitoring Board approved the data release after meeting the protocol-defined efficacy threshold at a planned interim analysis with a one-sided critical value of 0.001538. These data were locked July 2, 2018; updated results will be presented at the meeting. Results: Between 12/9/2013 and 5/16/2016, 547 pts were registered and randomized (Arms 1: 183, 2: 182, and 3: 182). Median age was 71 years and 67% of pts were men. High-risk Rai stage (stage III/IV) was seen in 54%, unmethylated Zap-70 in 53%, and del(17p) or del(11q) by local FISH in 28%. Local vs centralized FISH was performed for del(11q) and del(17p) with agreement between local and central results in 94% (Kappa=0.80) and 97% (Kappa=0.76) of pts, respectively. 525 (96%) pts were eligible and included in the primary PFS analysis (Arms 1: 176, 2: 178, and 3: 171). With median follow-up of 32 months (mo), median PFS was 41 mo in Arm 1 and has not been reached in Arms 2 or 3 (HR comparing Arm 2 to 1 is 0.40 with one-sided p<0.0001; HR comparing Arm 3 to 1 is 0.41 with one-sided p<0.0001; HR comparing Arm 3 to 2 is 1.01 with one-sided p=0.48). 2-year PFS estimates were 74%, 87% in 2, and 88% in Arms 1, 2, and 3 respectively. At this time, there are no significant differences in overall survival (OS) among arms (p=0.87), median OS has not been reached for any arm, and 2-year OS estimates were 95%, 90%, and 94% in Arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Adverse events (AEs) were compared among arms using Fisher's exact tests. Grade 3+ treatment-emergent AEs were seen in 428 of 537 evaluable pts with 61%, 41%, and 38% of pts experiencing Grade 3+ heme AEs (p<0.0001) and 60%, 72%, and 71% of pts experiencing Grade 3+ non-heme AEs (p=0.03) in Arms 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Grade 5 AEs were seen in 5 (2.8%), 14 (7.8%), and 14 (7.7%) pts (p=0.07). Unexplained or unwitnessed death over the entire observation period was seen in 2 (1.1%), 7 (3.9%), and 4 (2.2%) pts (p=0.24) in Arms 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Conclusions: This international phase 3 trial demonstrates that ibrutinib produces superior PFS to standard CIT in older pts with CLL and justifies it as a standard of care treatment for pts age 65 and older. The addition of rituximab does not prolong PFS with ibrutinib. While ibrutinib represents a major therapeutic advance, toxicities and also cost justify future efforts to reduce the need for long-term continuous treatment. Support: K23CA178183, R01CA183444, U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171, Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01886872 Figure. Figure. Disclosures Ding: Merck: Research Funding. Bartlett:Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; ImaginAB: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding. Brander:BeiGene: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; DTRM: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding. Barr:AbbVie, Gilead: Consultancy. Parikh:Gilead: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Coutre:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lozanski:Novartis: Research Funding; BI: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Stem Line: Research Funding; Coulter: Research Funding; Beckman: Research Funding. Larson:Ariad/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; BristolMyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Erba:Amgen: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Juno: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Astellas: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee. Owen:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Teva: Honoraria. Abramson:Bayer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Humanigen: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Several prognostic models for overall survival (OS) in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have been developed, but none were derived for patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) CLL treated in the era of novel agents. We used a comprehensive approach to derive and validate a novel risk model for OS in 2,475 pts with R/R CLL who received therapy in randomized phase 3 trials evaluating ibrutinib (IBR), idelalisib (IDELA), and venetoclax (VEN) vs control arms, or the Mayo Clinic CLL Database (MCCD). Methods: In collaboration with Janssen, Gilead, Pharmacyclics, and Genentech/Roche, the analysis included 2,475 pts from 6 multicenter randomized phase 3 trials or the MCCD. Trials included were: IBR plus bendamustine-rituximab (BR) vs placebo plus BR (HELIOS: NCT01611090), IBR vs ofatumumab (RESONATE: NCT01578707), IDELA plus BR vs placebo plus BR (Study 115: NCT01569295); IDELA plus rituximab vs placebo plus rituximab (Study 116: NCT01539512); IDELA plus ofatumumab vs ofatumumab (Study 119: NCT01659021); VEN plus rituximab vs BR (MURANO: NCT02005471). All pts had R/R CLL and required treatment by iwCLL criteria. The model-building dataset (n=969) included pts from HELIOS and RESONATE, and was randomly assigned to the IBR/chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) training dataset (n=727) and IBR/CIT internal-validation dataset(n=242). Three independent external validation datasets included IDELA/CIT (n=897), VEN/CIT (n=389), and MCCD (n=220). We applied univariate and multivariate analyses (MVA) to 28 candidate clinical/laboratory and genetic prognostic factors to derive the risk model in the training dataset. The primary endpoint was OS. We assessed the need for separate models for targeted agents by interactions with treatment in univariate analyses. We proceeded to develop a single model for all pts with R/R CLL, as only one candidate factor (del(13q), interaction p value <0.1) demonstrated a marginal differential effect. We evaluated cutoffs for dichotomized covariates and for definition of risk groups after the final factors were selected. We fit a Cox regression on the training and internal/external validation datasets using the risk categories as the covariate to test the difference among the groups, and calculated the C-statistic as a measure of discrimination. Results: Of 11 selected factors with a significant univariate effect on OS (p<0.1), 6 were independently prognostic in the MVA of OS (p<0.05): Baseline β2-microglobubulin (B2M), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), hemoglobin (HGB), IGHV mutational status, number of prior therapies, and time from initiation of last therapy. We excluded number of prior therapies from the model, reasoning that its optimal cutoff might change with advances in CLL therapies. IGHV did not remain significant (p=0.0592) in MVA of 5 remaining prognostic factors. Notably, del(17p) was not independently prognostic for OS. The final risk model consisted of 4 prognostic factors: B2M ≥5 mg/L, LDH elevated, HGB <110 mg/L for women or <120 mg/L for men, and time from initiation of last therapy <24 months. Because hazard ratios for each factor were similar (range, 0.55-0.68) with overlapping confidence intervals, 1 point was assigned to each factor. The resulting score separated pts into low (score 0-1), intermediate (score 2-3), and high risk (score 4) groups. Our risk model was prognostic for OS in the IBR/CIT training dataset (C-statistic 0.74 [95% CI 0.60-0.85]; log-rank p<0.0001) and was validated in the IBR/CIT internal validation (C-statistic 0.79 [95% CI 0.56-0.97]; log-rank p<0.0001), as well as in all 3 external validations: IDELA/CIT dataset (CS=0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.81; log-rank p<0.001); VEN/CIT dataset (CS=0.76, 95% CI 0.66-0.85; log-rank p=0.01); MCCD (CS=0.61, 95% CI 0.56-0.66; log-rank p<0.001). Conclusions: We present the first validated risk model for OS in R/R CLL in the era of targeted therapies. Our model consists of 4 readily available factors (B2M ≥5 mg/L, LDH elevated, HGB <110 mg/L for women or <120 mg/L for men, and time from initiation of last therapy <24 months), identifies 3 prognostic groups with significantly different OS, and has been validated for pts treated with all FDA approved targeted therapies: IBR, IDELA, and VEN. This identifies a well-defined cohort of pts with R/R disease with an unmet clinical need who are suitable for prospective trials targeting these pts. An exploratory analysis regarding prediction of MRD is ongoing. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Darif: Jannsen: Employment. Londhe:Jannsen: Employment. Xing:Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Employment. Mun:Genentech: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kay:Cytomx Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shanafelt:Mayo Clinic: Patents & Royalties: Physician Well-being Index, Medical Student Well-being Index, Well-being index; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Furman:Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Hillmen:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sharman:Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Seymour:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jones:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ferrante:Jannsen: Employment. Dreiling:Gilead: Employment. Mobasher:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Other: Ownership interests non-PLC; Genentech Inc: Employment. Stark:Genentech: Employment. Reddy:Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership; Pharmacyclics: Employment. Howes:Janssen: Employment. James:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Bhargava:Gilead: Employment. Zelenetz:Novartis/Sandoz: Consultancy; Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Transformation of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) into Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is a rare, but recognized complication of CLL. The prognosis of CLL with HL Transformation (HT) appears significantly worse than de novo HL, but most series are small and there are limited published data. These reports have prompted several groups to recommend aggressive therapy with stem cell transplantation (SCT) in first complete remission (CR1). We describe the largest reported series of HT patients (pts) with analyses of the clinicobiologic characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes based upon our multi-institutional clinical experience. Methods Pts diagnosed with HT from 01/2000 - 01/2018 were retrospectively identified in 13 tertiary cancer centers. Clinicobiologic characteristics, treatment type, and survival outcomes for each pt were analyzed. Overall survival (OS) was measured from the time of HT diagnosis until time of death. OS estimates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The log-rank test was used to calculate differences in survival. Results Ninety-four pts with HT were identified. Median age at HT was 67 years (yrs; range, 38-85) and 81% of the pts were male. Median time from CLL diagnosis to HT was 5.5 yrs (range, 0-20.2; 7 pts with simultaneous diagnosis of CLL and HL). At initial CLL diagnosis, 31%, 34%, 21%, 10%, and 4% were Rai Stage 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. At CLL diagnosis, 67% (25/37) had an un-mutated IgVH gene, 36% (21/59) had del(13q), 32% (14/44) had trisomy 12, 24% (14/59) had del(11q), and 15% (9/61) had del(17p). Prior to HT diagnosis, pts had a median of 2 (range, 0-12) therapies for CLL. Seventeen (18%) had no prior CLL treatments. Forty-three (46%) and 25 (27%) patients had received purine analogue- and ibrutinib-based therapy prior to HT, respectively. Baseline characteristics at HT are described in Table 1. As initial therapy for HL, the majority of pts (61%, n = 62) received ABVD-based regimens (adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) at full (n = 48) or reduced (n = 14) doses. Of these, CD20 monoclonal antibody was added in 6 and Bruton-tyrosine kinase inhibitor was added in 2. Ten (11%) received a brentuximab-based regimen. Seven (7%) received an RCHOP-based regimen (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone). Six patients (6%) received no therapy for HT due to frailty. Subsequent therapy included autologous SCT and allogeneic SCT in 7 (7%) and 11 (12%) of patients, respectively. Two (2%) and 5 (5%) pts received their autologous and allogeneic SCT while in CR1, respectively. The median number of treatments for HT per pt was 1 (range, 0-5) with 59 (61%) pts only receiving one line of therapy. After HT diagnosis, pts had a median follow-up of 1.6 yrs (range, 0.0 - 15.1). Two-yr OS after HT diagnosis was 72% (95%CI 62 - 83%). The pts who received any CLL directed therapy (n = 80) prior to HT had a significantly lower estimated 2-yr OS of 69% (95%CI 58 - 82%) compared with pts who did not receive any prior CLL-directed therapy (n = 17; 93%; 95%CI 82-100%; p 0.02; Figure 1). Pts who received purine-analogue-based therapy for their CLL prior to HT had a significantly lower estimated 2-yr OS of 60% (95%CI 46 - 79%) compared with pts who did not receive purine-analogue-based CLL-directed therapy prior to HT (n = 51; 83%; 95%CI 73 - 96%; p 0.009; Figure 2). Although limited by small sample size, the pts who underwent SCT for HT in CR1 had a similar 2-yr OS (n = 7; 67%; 95%CI 38-100%) to pts who did not undergo SCT for HT in CR1 (n = 87; 72%; 95%CI 63 - 84%; p 0.46; Figure 3). Conclusions In this retrospective analysis, we describe the largest reported series of pts with HT from CLL. Two-yr survival in pts with HT was shorter than what is historically expected in patients with de novo HL, but longer than what is expected in CLL pts who transform to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Pts with HT who have received prior CLL-directed therapies (specifically purine-analogue-based treatments) are estimated to have a shorter 2-yr OS, likely due to underlying immunosuppression. The majority of pts (61%) only received 1 line of HL therapy and only 20% went on to receive SCT (7% while in CR1), indicating that these patients can have prolonged OS after achieving response to first-line therapy for HT and may not require SCT in CR1. Further study of this rare population is required to determine optimum management. Disclosures Kander: AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Parikh:Gilead: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Shadman:Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Mustang Biopharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Beigene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Qilu Puget Sound Biotherapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy. Pagel:Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Mato:Portola: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Prime Oncology: Honoraria; Regeneron: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Medscape: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hill:Amgen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Danilov:Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding. Phillips:Abbvie: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Brander:Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Acerta: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; DTRM: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; BeiGene: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding. Smith:BMS: Consultancy; Portola: Honoraria. Davids:Surface Oncology: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy; Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy; Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: 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; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Aggressive chemo-immunotherapy followed by peripheral blood stem cell autografting (ASCT) in CALGB (Alliance) 59909 achieved a median progression-free survival (PFS) in MCL of 5 years (Damon et al JCO, 2009), but late recurrences occurred. Using the CALGB 59909 treatment backbone, we evaluated tolerability and efficacy of adding post-transplant bortezomib consolidation (BC) or maintenance (BM)in a randomized phase II trial. Interim results of CALGB (Alliance) 50403 were previously presented (ASH 2015) demonstrating 5 yr PFS 70% and 69% for the BM and BC arms respectively. We now report final 8 year follow up results from this trial and compare outcomes to CALGB 59909, which differed from CALGB 50403 only by the absence of post-transplant bortezomib. Methods: The primary endpoint was PFS measured from randomization for each treatment arm. Induction therapy was with 2-3 cycles of augmented R-CHOP (2000 mg/m2 cyclophosphamide) and methotrexate (300 mg/m2) followed by high-dose cytarabine/etoposide/rituximab(R)/filgrastim (EAR) stem cell mobilization and cyclophosphamide/carmustine/etoposide (CBV) ASCT. After 2 doses of post-transplant R, patients were randomized to BC (1.3 mg/ m2 IV days 1, 4, 8, 11 of a 3-week cycle for 4 cycles) or BM (1.6 mg/m2 IV weekly x4 every 8 weeks for 18 months) beginning at approximately day 90. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was analyzed using patient-specific PCR probes for the bcl-1 / IgH junction or the IgH CDR3 region. Results: 151 patients were enrolled from 10/2006 - 6/2010 at 14 sites; 147 who received treatment are included in this analysis. Median age was 59 years (29-69); stage II (2.7%), III (11.6%), IV (85.0%); MIPI low (52.4%), intermediate (30.6%), high (17.0%); blastoid histology (12.9%); bone marrow involvement (81.0%); Ki67 was evaluated in 86 and was >30% in 17.4% of patients. 118 (80%) underwent ASCT and 102 (68%) were randomized. Most withdrawals (45) were for progression (10) or adverse events (AEs) (19) including 4 treatment-related deaths. Fifty-two patients were randomized to BM and 50 to BC. Following randomization, 34 (65%) completed BM and 33 (66%) completed BC. Withdrawal for AEs occurred in 14 (28%) of BC and 7 (13%) of BM patients (p = 0.09), most for cytopenias or peripheral neuropathy. With a median follow-up 7.8 years from randomization (8.3 from registration), the median PFS from randomization for the BM arm was not reached and was 8.9 years (95% CI 7.2 to not reached) for the BC arm. Both arms had median PFS significantly greater than the null hypothesis setting median PFS to 4 years (p < 0.001; 1-sided test of exponential parameter)The 8-year PFS estimates in the BM and BC arms were 77% (95% CI 66-90%) and 58% (95% CI 44-76%), respectively. Among all 147 patients treated on CALGB 50403, 8-year PFS from time of registration was 43.6% (35.6-53.3%). PFS from registration was not significantly extended in CALGB 50403 compared with CALGB 59909 (log rank p=0.24), but using a landmark analysis from time of transplant, PFS was significantly extended in CALGB 50403 (log rank p=0.005)(fig 1). Baseline patient characteristics in the two studies were not significantly different. In CALGB 50403, 8-year PFS from registration by MIPI was 52.0% (95% CI 41.1-66.0%) in MIPI low risk, 37.5% (95% CI 25.3-55.4%) in intermediate risk, and 28.2% (95% CI 13.7-57.9%) in high-risk. Bone marrow MRD results were collected for 42 patients post-induction therapy; 8-year PFS estimates were 80.2% (95% CI 62.2-100%) (n=17) and 43.2% (95% CI 27.3-68.2%) (n=25) for MRD-negative and MRD-positive patients, respectively (p=0.009). Conclusions: Induction chemotherapy followed by ASCT and either BC or BM was efficacious and tolerable, although BC was associated with more withdrawals for toxicity. PFS was not significantly different between BC and BM. The comparison between studies 50403 and 59909 with long-term follow up continues to suggest a PFS benefit from the addition of BC or BM among patients undergoing transplant. This did not translate into a PFS benefit from time of study enrollment possibly due to the higher pre-transplant dropout rate in 50403. MRD-negativity following induction chemo-immunotherapy is highly associated with improved PFS and the role of ASCT in post-induction MRD-negative patients is currently under investigation in a randomized clinical trial. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00310037 Disclosures Kaplan: Bayer Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Maurer:Celgene: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Stock:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Bartlett:Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Blum:Acerta: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy. LaCasce:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Humanigen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Research to Practice: Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Data safety and monitoring board. Leonard:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Biotest: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; United Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Cheson:AbbVie, Roche/Genentech, Pharmacyclics, Acerta, TG Therapeutics: Consultancy.

Abstract The nucleoside analogue pentostatin has clinical activity in B-Cell Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) and has shown significant activity and minimal toxicity when combined with cyclophosphamide for previously treated CLL. Building on this, we initiated a trial in 2002 of combined pentostatin (2mg/m2), cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m2) and rituximab (375mg/m2). Of the 33 enrolled eligible patients included in these analyses, seventeen patients were in the high Rai risk group, 25 were male, and median age for this cohort was 62 yrs (range: 40–79); 17 were non-mutated for the immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region gene, and the majority (67%) were CD38 negative. Only 5 patients had no detectable chromosomal abnormalities by FISH at baseline, 20 had a single FISH anomaly, and 8 had 2 or more FISH anomalies. Of all 28 pts with any anomaly, the following specific abnormalities were detected: 13q- (n=17), +12 (n=8), 11q- (n=7), 17p- (n=2), t(14;18) (n=1), 6q- (n=1), and MDM2 (n=1). Of the 33 patients, 22 had grade 3+ toxicity; 16 patients had non-hematologic toxicity wtih the most common symptoms being nausea (6) and vomiting (4). One patient died on study of grade 5 hypoxia as well as hypotension and this was deemed possibly related to treatment. Almost all patients (32/33; 97%) had a best response of PR or better. Including review of bone marrows done 2 months post-treatment, there were 11 CRs (complete response), 7 nPRs (nodal partial response) and 13 PRs. No differences were observed between type of response and mutation status or CD38+ status. Post-treatment FISH analyses were available on 27 patients; results for 25 patients became normal after treatment. Of the remaining 2, one patient was 13q- x1 and went from 94% to 27.5% abnormal nuclei after treatment; the other is the patient who died on study. To establish minimal residual disease (MRD) post-response, we used three color flow cytometry to detect CD5+/CD19+/CD79b− B cells. This approach found all patients had a reduction in CLL B cells with a median reduction of 91% (range: 5 – 100%). Of interest, all 3 response groups (CR vs. nPR vs. PR) had patients with significant reductions in CLL B cells (i.e., >90%). The nPR group was most variable in terms of MRD (median 47%; range: 5–93%) compared to the CR (median: 91%; range: 42–99.9%) and PR (median: 97%; range: 46–100%) groups. In conclusion this novel regimen of pentostatin, cyclophosphamide and rituximab has demonstrated significant clinical activity irrespective of risk stratification parameters with rapid induction of responses, achievement of minimal residual disease in some, and modest toxicity. Patients continue to be accrued to further explore correlative measures of response to treatment.

Several prognostic factors including un-mutated VH mutational status, select interphase cytogenetic abnormalities [del(11q22.3), del(17p13.1)] and p53 mutations have been associated with shorter interval time from diagnosis to symptomatic disease requiring treatment, shortened progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Limited prospective data exists relative to the relevance of these biologic markers on PFS following treatment with modern therapies for CLL. E2997 is a randomized phase III trial of 278 previously untreated, symptomatic CLL patients who received fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (FC) versus fludarabine (F). We analyzed the response rates and PFS of the patients for whom interphase cytogenetics, VH mutational status, and p53 mutational status studies have been completed. FC therapy had a higher complete response (CR) (23% versus 5%, p<0.002), overall response [OR] (73% versus 50%, p<0.002), and median PFS (33.5 months versus 15 months, p<.0001) as compared to F. The CR and OR was not different based upon interphase cytogenetics or VH mutational status for the entire group of patients or when analyzed by arm of treatment. However, the OR for pts with del(17) or p53 mutations was lower in both the FC arm (69%, versus 76% in patients with normal p53) and F arm (27%, versus 54% in normal p53). Using the Dohner hierarchical classification [del(17p)>del(11q)>del(6q)>tri12>normal> del(13q14)], the relationship of interphase cytogenetics, VH mutational status and p53 mutational status with PFS is summarized below: Median PFS on FC (months) Median PFS on F (months) NR = median not reached; p53 mut+ = mutation present del(17p) 11.9 8.2 del(11q) 30.6 12.8 del(6q) 26.9 26.7 tri 12 NR 20.3 normal NR 11.2 del(13q) NR 21.2 del(17p)/p53 mut+ 11.9 8.9 no del(17p)/p53 mut+ NR 17.8 VH<98% NR 21.2 VH>98% 21.4 13.4 Using the interphase cytogenetic groups, there was a significant difference in PFS for both the FC (p=0.04) and F (p=0.01) treatment arms. Similarly, the presence of a p53 mutation or deletion [del(17p)] predicted for shorter PFS for both FC (p=0.005) and F (p=0.02) therapies. PFS did not statistically differ among VH mutational groups for either arm. We next investigated a Cox proportional hazards analysis to assess the impact of multiple molecular features and treatment arm on PFS. Treatment with F (hazard ratio 3.14, p<0.0001), presence of del(17p) or p53 mutation (hazard ratio 3.13, p=0.0001), and presence of del(11q) (hazard ratio 2.067, p=0.019) were highly significant in the model. Finally, VH unmutated status and del(11q) were highly associated. In conclusion, our data demonstrate that high risk genomic features including p53 mutations, del(17p), and del(11q) are highly predictive of shortened PFS. Our data provide support for a risk-stratified therapy approach for the treatment of CLL.

Abstract MDS with chromosome 5q deletion [del(5q)] is uniquely sensitive to clonal suppression by lenalidomide (LEN), yielding high rates of cytogenetic and erythroid response. Although haploinsufficiency for a candidate tumor suppressor gene within the common deleted segment (CDS) has been implicated in the pathogenesis of del(5q) MDS, no specific gene products account for the karyotype-dependent LEN sensitivity. Using primary AML cells, we showed that LEN is selectively cytotoxic to del(5q) cells, inducing cell cycle arrest at the G2 > G1 junctures and apoptosis in a concentration-dependent fashion. Now we show that the CDS-encoded Cdc25C and PP2A phosphatases (PPTs) serve as molecular targets for LEN. Cdc25C and PP2A are dual specificity PPTs that regulate cell cycle. The genes encoding the catalytic subunit alpha (PP2ACa), the dominant catalytic isoform, and the regulatory subunit B (beta isoform PR 52) of the PP2A holoenzyme reside within the del(5q) CDS. Real-time RT-PCR showed that Cdc25C and PP2ACa gene expression is significantly reduced in primary del(5q) AML and MDS BM-MNC compared to non-del5q and normal controls. A Cdc25C FISH probe confirmed presence of only a single allele in del(5q) specimens [n=5] vs. normal karyotype [n=5] with no overlap with the EGR1 locus. We found that LEN inhibited rHu-Cdc25C activity with IC90 inhibitory concentrations ≤10nM. Similarly, PP2A PPT activity was inhibited by LEN in enzyme immunoprecipitates from Ramos cells at sub-micromolar concentrations. In U937 cells, we confirmed intracellular Cdc25C and PP2A inhibition, showing concentration-dependent retention of the inhibitory p-Tyr15 -Cdc2 substrates for Cdc25C with corresponding phosphorylation of the PP2A substrate Ser216 Cdc25C, findings reproduced by treatment with the PP2A selective antagonist, fostreicin. Cdc25C immunoprecipitation showed that phosphorylation of Ser216 Cdc25C increased binding to the 14-3-3 protein with consequent cytoplasmic sequestration confirmed by fluorescence microscopy. Phosphorylation of histone H2A.X Ser139 was unchanged after LEN treatment, indicating that phosphorylation of the inhibitory Cdc25C serine does not arise from upstream DNA damage activated kinases. Importantly, siRNA suppression of Cdc25C gene expression in U937 cells promoted LEN-specific apoptosis in 45% of cells, which increased to 68% after fostreicin inhibition of PP2A. These data indicate that haplodeficiency for the Cdc25C and PP2ACa genes promotes selective sensitivity of del(5q) cells to LEN-induced apoptosis. Haplodeficiency of critical drug-able targets may represent a novel strategy for tumor selective therapy.

Abstract Background: CLL is a disease of the elderly and at least half of the patients requiring therapy are over age 70. While chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) has dramatically improved response rates in patients with CLL, some CIT regimens are not well tolerated by elderly patients. The MD Anderson group has reported that the fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, rituximab (FCR) regimen is not well tolerated in individuals ≥age 70 (Ferrajoli Leuk Lymph 46:S86). The German CLL Study Group has postulated that physiologic health is more important than chronologic age and have conducted a trial of FCR that permits enrollment of patients ≥age 70 provided they have a creatinine clearance (CrCl) ≥70 and good performance status (PS). While this approach expands the number of individuals who can receive CIT, it still excludes large percentages of CLL patients in need of treatment. Here, we examine how age, CrCl, and PS relate to the efficacy and tolerability of the pentostatin, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (PCR) regimen. Methods: We treated 64 previously untreated CLL patients meeting NCI 96 criteria for treatment with pentostatin (2mg/m2), cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m2) and rituximab (375mg/m2) (Kay ASH 2006). All medications were administered on day 1 of every 3 week cycle with the intent of administering 6 cycles. We measured ECOG PS at study entry and used age, weight, and baseline creatinine to calculate the CrCl of all patients at study entry using the Cockroft-Gault equation. Results: Eighteen of 64 patients (28%) were ≥age 70. Although individuals ≥age 70 were more likely to have a dose delay of >1 week at some point during the trial (7% vs. 28%; p=0.03), there was no difference in the average number of cycles administered, the number of patients requiring dose reductions, or the number of patients with grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity, infectious complications, or other non-hematologic toxicity. No difference in OR (93% vs 83%; p=0.34) or CR (41% vs. 39%; p=0.86) was observed between patients <age 70 compared to those ≥70. We next evaluated whether CrCl related to the efficacy and tolerability of PCR. 25 patients (39%) had a CrCl<70, including 15 (23%) with a CrCl<60 and 5 (8%) with CrCl<50. Although individuals with CrCl<70 were more likely to have a dose reduction (5% vs. 24%; p=0.05), there was no difference in the average number of cycles administered, the number of patients requiring a dose delay, or the number of patients with grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity, infectious complications, or other non-hematologic toxicity. No difference in OR (89% vs 92%; p=1.0) or CR (45% vs. 36%; p=0.60) was observed between patients with CrCl≥70 and those with CrCl<70. We next evaluated how PS related to the efficacy and tolerability. 34 patients (53%) were PS 0 and 30 (47%) were PS≥1. This analysis suggested PCR was well tolerated among those with PS≥1. Again no difference in the OR or CR was observed between patients with PS 0 and those with PS≥1. Conclusions: In this phase II clinical trial, the PCR regimen was well tolerated by patients ≥age70, those with higher PS, and the 25 individuals with CrCl≤70 (range 34–67). The efficacy of PCR was also not significantly affected by age, renal function, or performance status. These findings suggest the PCR regimen may be superior to the FCR regimen for elderly patients and those with decreased renal function.