Ghia, Paolo

Abstract With the introduction of large-scale molecular profiling methods and high-throughput sequencing technologies, the genomic features of most lymphoid neoplasms have been characterized at an unprecedented scale. Although the principles for the classification and diagnosis of these disorders, founded on a multidimensional definition of disease entities, have been consolidated over the past 25 years, novel genomic data have markedly enhanced our understanding of lymphomagenesis and enriched the description of disease entities at the molecular level. Yet, the current diagnosis of lymphoid tumors is largely based on morphological assessment and immunophenotyping, with only few entities being defined by genomic criteria. This paper, which accompanies the International Consensus Classification of mature lymphoid neoplasms, will address how established assays and newly developed technologies for molecular testing already complement clinical diagnoses and provide a novel lens on disease classification. More specifically, their contributions to diagnosis refinement, risk stratification, and therapy prediction will be considered for the main categories of lymphoid neoplasms. The potential of whole-genome sequencing, circulating tumor DNA analyses, single-cell analyses, and epigenetic profiling will be discussed because these will likely become important future tools for implementing precision medicine approaches in clinical decision making for patients with lymphoid malignancies.

Abstract Since the publication of the Revised European-American Classification of Lymphoid Neoplasms in 1994, subsequent updates of the classification of lymphoid neoplasms have been generated through iterative international efforts to achieve broad consensus among hematopathologists, geneticists, molecular scientists, and clinicians. Significant progress has recently been made in the characterization of malignancies of the immune system, with many new insights provided by genomic studies. They have led to this proposal. We have followed the same process that was successfully used for the third and fourth editions of the World Health Organization Classification of Hematologic Neoplasms. The definition, recommended studies, and criteria for the diagnosis of many entities have been extensively refined. Some categories considered provisional have now been upgraded to definite entities. Terminology for some diseases has been revised to adapt nomenclature to the current knowledge of their biology, but these modifications have been restricted to well-justified situations. Major findings from recent genomic studies have impacted the conceptual framework and diagnostic criteria for many disease entities. These changes will have an impact on optimal clinical management. The conclusions of this work are summarized in this report as the proposed International Consensus Classification of mature lymphoid, histiocytic, and dendritic cell tumors.

Abstract Background: The phase 3 head-to-head trial of acalabrutinib (acala) vs ibrutinib (ibr) (NCT02477696) demonstrated noninferior efficacy and improved tolerability with acala in previously treated CLL (Byrd J Clin Oncol 2021). We now report additional data to further characterize BTKi-related adverse events (AEs) and the safety profile of acala and ibr, including measures of AE burden that account for frequency, duration, and drug exposure, which are not captured by incidence alone. Methods: Patients (pts) received oral acala 100 mg BID or ibr 420 mg QD until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Overall incidence, exposure-adjusted (exp-adj) incidence, and exp-adj time with event (sum of event durations [all grades]*100/sum of treatment-emergent period [for all pts in each arm]) were assessed for the most common BTKi-related AEs. Atrial fibrillation (afib)/flutter, hypertension (htn), and bleeding events were further characterized by time to onset, cumulative incidence by Kaplan-Meier method, pt subgroup, and AE management. Results: A total of 533 pts (acala, n=268; ibr, n=265) were randomized; median treatment exposures were 38.3 and 35.5 mo, respectively. Incidence and exp-adj incidence and time with event are reported for the most common AEs and events of clinical interest (ECIs) (Table). Among cardiovascular (CV) ECIs, incidences of any-grade afib/flutter, htn, and bleeding were statistically higher with ibr, with higher exp-adj incidence (2.0-, 2.8-, and 1.6-fold, respectively) and exp-adj time with event (2.8-, 3.7-, and 1.8-fold). Ventricular arrhythmias were reported in 3 ibr-treated pts vs 0 pts in the acala arm. Among other BTKi-related AEs, incidences of any-grade diarrhea, arthralgia, contusion, urinary tract infection (UTI), back pain, muscle spasms and dyspepsia were statistically higher with ibr, with a 1.5- to 4.1-fold higher exp-adj incidence, and a 1.4- to 13.1-fold higher exp-adj time with event (except for UTI, which had a 1.4-fold lower exp-adj time with event for ibr). Incidences of headache and cough were statistically higher with acala, with a 1.6- and 1.2-fold higher exp-adj incidence, respectively, and a 1.4- and 1.1-fold higher exp-adj time with event. The total exp-adj time with event for all any-grade AEs was 37% higher with ibr (234 [acala] vs 320 [ibr] mo/100 person-mo). For any-grade afib/flutter, median time to onset was longer for acala vs ibr (28.8 vs 16.0 mo), and cumulative incidence was lower for acala at 6 mo (2% vs 6%), 12 mo (3% vs 8%), 18 mo (4% vs 10%), and 24 mo (5% vs 12%). Afib/flutter also occurred less frequently with acala vs ibr in subgroups of age (<65 y: 3% vs 7%; ≥65 y: 15% vs 23%), prior line of therapy (1-3: 10% vs 16%; ≥4: 7% vs 19%), and among pts without prior history (6% vs 15%). Cox proportional-hazards (PH) analysis of new-onset afib/flutter showed a 63% rate reduction favoring acala (Figure 1). Among all pts, concomitant medication use for afib/flutter was less common for acala (8%) vs ibr (14%), with antithrombotic use reported in 5% vs 9% of pts, respectively. For any-grade htn, median time to onset was similar for acala and ibr (8.1 vs 7.0 mo), but cumulative incidence was lower for acala at 6 mo (5% vs 12%), 12 mo (6% vs 16%), 18 mo (8% vs 20%), and 24 mo (8% vs 23%). Htn also occurred less frequently with acala vs ibr in subgroups of age (<65 y: 9% vs 23%; ≥65 y: 10% vs 23%), prior line of therapy (1-3: 10% vs 25%; ≥4: 4% vs 11%), and among pts without prior history (7% vs 23%). Cox PH analysis of new-onset htn showed a 77% rate reduction favoring acala (Figure 2). No dose reductions or treatment discontinuations due to htn occurred in either arm. Concomitant medication use for htn was less common for acala (5%) vs ibr (19%). For any-grade bleeding events, the median time to onset was similar for acala vs ibr (1.2 vs 1.2 mo), and cumulative incidence was lower for acala at 6 mo (29% vs 42%), 12 mo (32% vs 45%), 18 mo (34% vs 49%), and 24 mo (38% vs 51%). Bleeding events also occurred less frequently with acala vs ibr in most subgroups of age (<65 y: 26% vs 47%; ≥65 y: 49% vs 55%) and prior line of therapy (1-3: 39% vs 54%; ≥4: 32% vs 30%). Bleeding events were associated with dose reduction in 3 vs 2 pts in the acala vs ibr arms, respectively, and led to treatment discontinuation in 2 vs 4 pts. Conclusions: In this head-to-head trial of BTKis in CLL, event-based analyses demonstrated a higher BTKi-related toxicity burden with ibr, with a lower impact of CV-related toxicity with acala across subgroups. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Seymour: AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mei Pharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: 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, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Byrd: Novartis, Trillium, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics, Syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria; Newave: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vincerx Pharmaceuticals: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hillmen: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; SOBI: Honoraria; BeiGene: Honoraria. Ghia: Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/Juno/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; ArQule/MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kater: Genmab, LAVA: Other: Ad Board, Steering Committee; Janssen, AstraZeneca: Other: Ad Board, steering committee, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Ad Board, Research Funding; BMS, Roche/Genentech: Other: Ad Board, , Research Funding. Chanan-Khan: Ascentage: Research Funding; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals, NonoDev, Starton: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Cellectar: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties: Tabi; BeiGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Honoraria; Ascentage, Starton, Cellectar, NonoDev, Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BieGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Consultancy. Furman: Genentech: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; X4 Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Expert testimony; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Oncotracker: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Verastem: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Honoraria. O'Brien: Amgen, Astellas, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Aptose Biosciences Inc., Vaniam Group LLC, AbbVie, Alexion, Verastem, Juno Therapeutics, Vida Ventures, Autolus, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, NOVA Research Company, Eli Lill: Consultancy; Kite, Regeneron, Acerta, Caribou, Gilead, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics, Pfizer, Sunesis: Research Funding. Brown: Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, SecuraBio, Sun, TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Invectys: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee Service; 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. Mato: Genmab: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; Nurix: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; MSKCC: Current Employment; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Stilgenbauer: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis: Honoraria; AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis: Other: Research Support; AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis: Consultancy; AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis: Research Funding. Kuptsova-Clarkson: AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; AbbVie: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Miranda: ASTRAZENECA: Current Employment; ASTRAZENECA: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Wagner: AstraZeneca: Current Employment. Higgins: AstraZeneca: Current Employment; PROMETRIKA, LLC: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Sohoni: AstraZeneca: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Ended employment in the past 24 months; Revolution Medicines: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Theravance: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Jurczak: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Celtrion, Celgene, Debbiopharm, Epizyme, Incyte, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, Merck, Mei Pharma, Morphosys, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Sandoz, Takeda, TG Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, Affirmed, Gilead Sciences, Nordic Nanovecto: Research Funding; AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, Sandoz, Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology: Current Employment; Jagiellonian University: Ended employment in the past 24 months; European Medicines Agency, Sandoz-Novartis, Janssen China R&D, BeiGene, Epizyme, Acerta, AstraZeneca: Consultancy.

PURPOSE Among Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors, acalabrutinib has greater selectivity than ibrutinib, which we hypothesized would improve continuous therapy tolerability. We conducted an open-label, randomized, noninferiority, phase III trial comparing acalabrutinib and ibrutinib in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). METHODS Patients with previously treated CLL with centrally confirmed del(17)(p13.1) or del(11)(q22.3) were randomly assigned to oral acalabrutinib 100 mg twice daily or ibrutinib 420 mg once daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was independent review committee–assessed noninferiority of progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS Overall, 533 patients (acalabrutinib, n = 268; ibrutinib, n = 265) were randomly assigned. At the data cutoff, 124 (46.3%) acalabrutinib patients and 109 (41.1%) ibrutinib patients remained on treatment. After a median follow-up of 40.9 months, acalabrutinib was determined to be noninferior to ibrutinib with a median PFS of 38.4 months in both arms (95% CI acalabrutinib, 33.0 to 38.6 and ibrutinib, 33.0 to 41.6; hazard ratio: 1.00; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.27). All-grade atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter incidence was significantly lower with acalabrutinib versus ibrutinib (9.4% v 16.0%; P = .02); among other selected secondary end points, grade 3 or higher infections (30.8% v 30.0%) and Richter transformations (3.8% v 4.9%) were comparable between groups and median overall survival was not reached in either arm (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.15), with 63 (23.5%) deaths with acalabrutinib and 73 (27.5%) with ibrutinib. Treatment discontinuations because of adverse events occurred in 14.7% of acalabrutinib-treated patients and 21.3% of ibrutinib-treated patients. CONCLUSION In this first direct comparison of less versus more selective Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors in CLL, acalabrutinib demonstrated noninferior PFS with fewer cardiovascular adverse events.