Leis, José F.

8053 Background: Lenalidomide (LEN) is an immunomodulatory agent that has shown significant single-agent anti-lymphoma activity in patients with relapsed disease and in combination may enhance the efficacy of rituximab by various mechanisms. There is limited data on the role of LEN in combination regimens for treatment-naïve patients. This phase II single arm trial was designed to evaluate tumor response, toxicity (AE) and survival with a combination of LEN, rituximab, cyclophosphamide (CTX) and dexamethasone (DEX) (LR-CD) in symptomatic untreated patients with low grade B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Methods: Eligibility required age ≥18, ECOG PS ≤2, confirmed diagnosis of low-grade B-cell lymphoma (FL1-2, SLL, MZL or LPL/WM), measurable nodes ≥2cm or IgM ≥400mg/dL(LPL/WM), ANC ≥1400/mm3, platelets ≥100,000/mm3, creatinine ≤2mg/dL, signed informed consent and in need of therapy. Treatment consisted of IV rituximab 375mg/m2 D1, oral LEN 20mg D1-21, CTX 250mg/m2 D1, 8, 15, DEX 40mg D1, 8, 15, 22 and ASA 325 mg daily in a 28 day cycle. Treatment continued 2 cycles beyond best response (max 12). Toxicity was assessed by NCI CTCAE v3.0. Results: 28 patients have enrolled at Mayo Clinic with 25 evaluable for toxicity and 21 for response: Median age 65(43-83), 72% male, FL 24%, MZL 28%, LPL/WM 38%, and SLL 4%. Median number of cycles given was 5. Overall response in 21 patients with response data is 95% (95% CI 76-100%) with 19% CR (95% CI 5-42%), and 76% PR (confirmed and unconfirmed, 95% CI 53-92%). The ORR in 8 patients with LPL/WM with response data was 88%, all PR (95% CI 47-100%). At a median f/u of 14.7 months 96% are alive without progression. 1 death (unrelated) occurred 7.7 months after completing 12 cycles of treatment. The most common grade ≥3 AEs were neutropenia (37.5%), leukopenia (16.7%), anemia (12.5%) and fatigue (12.5%). Conclusions: The combination LR-CD with the novel agent LEN is feasible, well tolerated and produces high response rates in symptomatic patients with low grade B-cell NHL. Toxicities are manageable and similar to reported data of single agent LEN.

BACKGROUND: Chemoimmunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) has been the standard therapy for younger patients with CLL. FCR therapy is particularly effective in patients with immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region (IGHV) mutated CLL. Approximately half of IGHV mutated patients are progression free 8 years after FCR therapy. At the ASH 2018 meeting, we reported the initial results of the ECOG 1912 (E1912) trial, a phase 3 trial comparing the FCR regimen to the combination of ibrutinib and rituximab (IR) for previously untreated CLL patients age 70 or younger who required therapy. With median follow-up of approximately 34 months, the trial demonstrated both a progression-free survival (PFS) and an overall survival (OS) benefit relative to FCR. On sub-set analysis by IGHV mutation status, the difference in PFS was statistically significant for IGHV unmutated patients but, with current follow-up, not IGHV mutated patients. Here, we present updated results for PFS in the E1912 trial. METHODS: As previously reported, eligible patients were treatment-naive individuals with CLL age 70 or younger. Patients with deletion 17p- were excluded from participating in the E1912 trial given their known poor response to FCR therapy. Patients were randomly assigned in a two-to-one ratio to receive ibrutinib (420 mg/day until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity) and rituximab (50 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 2, 325 mg/m2 on day 2 of cycle 2, and then 500 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycles 3-7) or six courses of intravenous fludarabine (25 mg/m2 days 1-3), cyclophosphamide (250 mg/m2 days 1-3) and rituximab (50 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 1, 325 mg/m2 on day 2 of cycle 1, and then 500 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycles 2-6) every 28-days. Adverse events (AEs) were graded according to the NCI Common Toxicity Criteria (version 4). Dose adjustments for cytopenias were based on the IWCLL CLL Working Group grading scale. The primary endpoint of the trial was PFS with OS a secondary endpoint. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: With median follow-up of 45 months, 257 (73%) of 354 patients randomized to IR remain on ibrutinib. With extended follow-up, grade 3 and above treatment-related AEs were observed in 70% of IR and 80% of FCR treated patients (OR=0.56; 95% CI 0.34 - 0.90; p=0.013). Among IR-treated patients, the median time on treatment is currently 43 months (range=0.2-61). Among the 95 patients who have discontinued ibrutinib, the reason for discontinuation was progression or death in 23 (7% of patients who started IR; 24% of those who discontinued treatment), AE or complication in 48 (14% of patients who started IR; 51% of those who discontinued treatment), and withdrawal of consent or other reasons in 24 (7% of patients who started IR; 25% of those who discontinued treatment). On multivariable Cox regression adjusting for Timed Up and Go test score, Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) score, age, gender, ECOG performance status, creatinine clearance, and baseline anemia/thrombocytopenia, only CIRS score (range 0 - 14) predicted discontinuation of ibrutinib for a reason other than progression or death (HR=1.13 per unit increase; 95% CI 1.03 - 1.23; p=0.009). Among the 72 patients who discontinued ibrutinib for a reason other than progression or death, the median time on ibrutinib was 15.1 months (range 0.2-58.2 months). The median time from ibrutinib discontinuation to disease progression or death was 23 months. With current follow-up, we observed 110 PFS events. The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS favored IR over FCR (HR=0.39; 95% CI 0.26-0.57; p<0.0001). Updated analysis of OS will be presented. On sub-group analysis by IGHV mutation status, IR was superior to FCR for IGHV unmutated patients (HR=0.28; 95% CI 0.17-0.48; p<0.0001). With current follow-up the difference is not significant in IGHV mutated patients (HR=0.42; 95% CI 0.16-1.16; p=0.086). Kaplan-Meier estimates for PFS are shown in Figure 1. CONCLUSIONS: Although less than 7% of ibrutinib treated patients progressed while on therapy, roughly 1 in 5 patients have discontinued ibrutinib for a reason other than progression or death. The only parameter significantly associated with discontinuation for a reason other than progression was increased baseline CIRS score. With extended follow-up, the combination of ibrutinib and rituximab continues to provide superior PFS compared to FCR for younger patients with previously untreated CLL. Disclosures Shanafelt: Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Patent: Patents & Royalties: US14/292,075 on green tea extract epigallocatechin gallate in combination with chemotherapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia; Polyphenon E International: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Glaxo-SmithKline: Research Funding; Hospira: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding. Kay:MorphoSys: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Other: DSMB; Celgene: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Agios: Other: DSMB. O'Brien:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas: Consultancy; Aptose Biosciences, Inc: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vaniam Group LLC: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding. Barrientos:AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sandoz: Consultancy; Oncternal Therapeutics: Research Funding. Coutre:Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; BeiGene: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses & Data Safety Monitoring Committee; Genentech: Consultancy. Barr:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cashen:Celgene: Other: Speaker's Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Other: Speaker's Bureau; Novartis: Other: Speaker's Bureau. Mato:AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB member , Research Funding; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Erba:Amgen: Consultancy; MacroGenics: Consultancy, Other: Lecture fees, Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy, Other: Lecture fees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; ImmunoGen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; GlycoMimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, data and safety monitoring board, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: chair, AML Registry Scientific Steering Committee, Speakers Bureau; ImmunoGen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Chair, IRC for phase III studies, Research Funding; GlycoMimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, data and safety monitoring board, Research Funding; Covance: Other: Fees for serving as chair on an independent review board for AbbVie Phase III studies; Covance: Other: Fees for serving as chair on an independent review board for AbbVie Phase III studies; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Chair, IRC for phase III studies, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: chair, AML Registry Scientific Steering Committee, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding. Stone:Arog Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka-Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Fujifilm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celator Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ono Pharmaceutical-Theradex Oncology: Consultancy; Cornerstone Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Takeda: Other: Fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board ; Orsenix: Consultancy; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Fees for serving on a steering committee, and fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Argenx: Other: Fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board ; Roche: Consultancy. Tallman:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncolyze: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background The CLL international prognostic index (CLL-IPI) is a validated staging system for newly diagnosed CLL patients that combines age, clinical stage, serum Beta-2 microglobulin, TP53, and IGHV mutation status into a single score and stratifies CLL patients into four prognostic risk groups with a c-statistic=0.72. Next-generation sequencing identified ~60 putative driver genes recurrently mutated in CLL, and genome-wide association studies (GWAS) identified 41 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with CLL risk. We previously showed that a polygenic risk score (PRS) of the weighted average of the number of risk alleles among these 41 SNPs is associated with risk of both CLL and MBL. We and others have also shown that the tumor mutational load (TML), i.e., the total number of somatically mutated driver genes, is associated with time to first treatment (TTT). Herein, we examine whether TML and PRS add prognostic value beyond CLL-IPI for disease progression in a cohort of CLL and high-count MBLs. Methods We used the Mayo Clinic CLL resource to identify newly diagnosed (<2 years) previously untreated CLL and high-count MBL patients based on the 2008 International Workshop CLL (IWCLL) criteria . We extracted DNA from CD5+/CD19+ clonal B-cells and sequenced the coding regions of 59 recurrently mutated CLL driver genes using a custom SureSelect panel and Illumina HiSeq 4000. The median coverage depth per sample was 2737X. Somatic mutations were called using MuTect2 in tumor-only mode. Germline variants were eliminated based on minor allele frequencies >0.01%, and by those identified in 1000 Genomes Project, ExAC and/or ESP6500 databases, unless present in known mutation hotspots or COSMIC. After filtering high/moderate impact mutations, we calculated the TML. Peripheral blood DNA was genotyped on Illumina Omni Express array; after extensive quality control metrics, we calculated the germline PRS as the weighted average of the number of risk alleles among the CLL susceptibility SNPs. Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to test for associations with TTT. We analyzed the low/intermediate risk groups and the high/very high risk groups in stratified analyses and tested for interactions between CLL-IPI and TML or PRS. Survival curves are displayed using the Kaplan-Meier method using P-values from the log-rank test; the PRS is displayed by tertile categories. Results Of 166 patients (120 CLL, 46 MBL), 67% were male and the median age at diagnosis was 62 years (range: 28-85). The median follow-up was 5.3 years, and 73 were treated for progressive disease as defined by the 2018 IWCLL criteria. Low risk CLL-IPI comprised 51%, intermediate risk 27%, high risk 18%, and very-high risk 4%. The most commonly somatically mutated genes were TP53 (8%), CHD2 (8%), BIRC3 (8%), SF3B1 (7%), and NOTCH1 (7%). We found that 42%, 32%, and 26% of patients had 0, 1, or 2+ genes with somatic mutations, respectively. The median PRS was 8.3 (range: 6.1-11.3) which is consistent with our prior PRS study on CLL/MBL and higher than 7.53 found in 7983 controls from our prior work. When we modeled TML, PRS, sex, CLL/MBL status and CLL-IPI together with the joint effects of CLL-IPI with TML and PRS, both interactions were significant in the model (P=0.008 for TML*CLL-IPI and P=0.014 for PRS*CLL-IPI), with c-statistic=0.81 (CI:0.77-0.85). When we stratified by CLL-IPI, TML was associated with shorter TTT in the low/intermediate risk (N=129, continuous HR=2.36 per TML category, CI: 1.61-3.47, P=1.3x10-5, Figure 1.A), but there was no evidence of an association in the high/very-high risk (N=37, continuous HR=1.12 per TML category, CI: 0.70-1. 78, P=0.64, Figure 1.B), after adjusting for PRS, sex, and CLL/MBL status. However, the PRS was associated with a shorter TTT in the high/very-high risk (continuous HR=1.77 per SD, CI: 1.00-3.12, P=0.048, Figure 1.D), with no evidence of an association in the low/intermediate risk (continuous HR=0.95 per SD, CI: 0.95-1.29, P=0.74, Figure 1.C), after adjusting for TML, sex, and CLL/MBL status. Conclusions In our study, TML was prognostic among the low/intermediate CLL-IPI risk groups while the PRS was prognostic among the high/very-high CLL-IPI risk groups. Sequencing CLL driver genes and genotyping relevant germline SNPs at time of diagnosis may provide incremental value over the CLL-IPI in predicting TTT among patients with CLL/MBL. Disclosures Parikh: MorphoSys: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding. Ding:Merck: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding. Cerhan:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NanoString: Research Funding. Kay:MorphoSys: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Other: DSMB; Celgene: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Agios: Other: DSMB.

Abstract Introduction New treatment strategies are improving outcomes for patients with Hodgkin (HL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) but achieving durable responses and cure in the relapsed patient remain a challenge. Both the mTORC1 inhibitor everolimus (RAD001) and the IMiD, lenalidomide (LEN) have efficacy as single agents in patients with relapsed and refractory (R/R) HL and NHL. Individually, LEN and RAD present a low toxicity profile and in combination may offer synergistic therapeutic efficacy by unique mechanisms of action. A phase I/II clinical trial of RAD and LEN was designed to explore the tolerability, toxicity and to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of this combination for the Phase II study. The results of phase I/II data are reported here. Methods MC0981 was activated on January 10, 2011. In phase I, the study enrolled a total of 25 patients and RAD 5 mg daily + LEN 10 mg/d X 21d in a 28-day cycle was defined as the MTD. The phase II opened on May 14, 2013, and closed on Feb 19, 2014, during which 33 patients were enrolled and were treated until progression of disease. Eligibility required age ≥18, biopsy proven relapsed or refractory NHL or HL, ECOG PS 0- 2, measurable disease, Hb >9g/dl, ANC ≥1200/uL, platelet ≥ 50,000/uL, creatinine ≤1.5xULN and willingness to sign informed consent. Women of child bearing potential had pregnancy testing and all patients followed recommendations for contraception. Follow up data was analyzed as of July 2014. Results A total of 58 patients were enrolled to this study and fifty five are evaluable for analysis (2 never started therapy, 1 deemed ineligible). The median age was 62 years (21-82) and 38 (69.1%) were male. Sixty-five percent had stage IV disease and 42% had 4 or more prior treatments including stem cell transplantation in 49%. Histologies included HL (n=10) and NHL (n=45 with 23 DLBCL, 2 FL-III, 5 LPL, 3 MCL, 2 MF, and 3 other). At least 1 Gr≥3 adverse event was seen in 74.5% of patients. The most common Gr≥3 toxicities were hematologic - neutropenia (30.9%), and thrombocytopenia (21.8%), and anemia (10.9%). Nine of 55 patients (16%) had Gr≥3 infection; 2 with skin infection, 1 with cholecystitis, 1 with lung infection, 1 with pharyngitis 1 with otitis externa, 1 with otitis media, and 1 with pleural infection and 1 with upper respiratory tract infection. Seven patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events. At this time, 44% (25/55) remain progression-free. A documented tumor response, as overall response rate (ORR) was seen in 20% (11/55) with 1CR, 8PR, and 2MR; 17 remain on therapy; and 22 deaths have occurred with a median survival of 15.0 months (95% CI 7.5-NR). Median follow up time was 5.5 (range, 0.7- 41.0) months. The median duration of response (DOR) in those responding is 19.4 months. Conclusions In a heavily pretreated population with baseline compromised bone marrow function, the combination of everolimus and lenalidomide is feasible with a modest ORR and a surprisingly long DOR. Future studies in more defined groups of NHL or HL are necessary to better predict which patients will be long-term responders. This trial is sponsored by Novartis and Celgene Disclosures Off Label Use: mTORC1 inhibitor (Everolimus) and the Immunomodulatory (IMiD) drug Lenalidomide for patients with Heavily Pretreated Relapsed Lymphoma . Mikhael:Onyx: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Nowakowski:Celgene, Morphosis: Consultancy. Witzig:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Reeder:Millennium, Celgene, Novartis: Research Funding.

Background: The 2018 iwCLL guidelines recommend close observation of early stage CLL pts who do not meet indications for therapy ("watch and wait" strategy). Prior attempts at early therapeutic intervention in unselected early-stage CLL pts using alkylating agents such as chlorambucil and chemoimmunotherapy failed to show a significant benefit; and these therapies were associated with substantial toxicities. The introduction of Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors has revolutionized the treatment landscape of CLL. The German CLL Study group recently presented results of the CLL12 study which demonstrated a significant improvement in event-free survival (EFS) among untreated early stage high risk CLL pts who received ibrutinib compared to placebo (median EFS not reached vs. 47.8 months, respectively; Langerbeins, EHA, 2019). Acalabrutinib is a more selective second-generation BTK inhibitor that has fewer adverse events in pts with CLL, and has shown equally impressive clinical activity for CLL pts. We are conducting an investigator initiated randomized phase 2 study to compare acalabrutinib with or without obinutuzumab (a glycoengineered anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody approved in the treatment of CLL) among high risk early stage CLL pts. Study Design: All pts with newly diagnosed (<2 years from registration) previously untreated early stage CLL who do not meet the 2018 iwCLL guidelines for initiation of therapy are eligible for enrollment in this study. Pts undergo risk stratification according to the CLL-International prognostic index (CLL-IPI) which consists of the following 5 variables: age >65 years (1 point), Rai stage I-IV (1 point), del17p and/or TP53 mutation (4 points), unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain (IGHV) genes (2 points), and serum β2-microglobulin >3.5 g/dL (2 points). Pts with high (4-6) and very high (7-10) risk CLL-IPI are randomly (1:1) assigned to acalabrutinib 100 mg orally twice daily (Arm A) or acalabrutinib with obinutuzumab at a standard approved schedule (Arm B). Treatment with acalabrutinib is continued for a minimum of 2 years unless the patient has unacceptable side effects or withdraws consent. Pts with low (0-1) and intermediate (2-3) risk CLL-IPI score are assigned to an observation arm with follow-up once every 6 months for 2 years, and then according to routine clinical practice (Arm C). Endpoints: The primary endpoint of the intervention arms (Arms A and B) is the achievement of minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative complete remission in the bone marrow after 2 years of therapy. MRD is assessed using an 8-color flow cytometry with a detection limit of 0.01%. The primary endpoint of the observation arm (Arm C) is time to first therapy. Secondary endpoints for all arms are: progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. Statistical design: A randomized trial comparing the experimental arm (acalabrutinib plus obinutuzumab) against the control arm (acalabrutinib alone) will be conducted as described by Rubinstein. A sample size of 36 pts per arm provides 80% power to detect an improvement in MRD-negative complete response rate from 10% to 30%, using a one-sided test at a significance level of 0.10 (EAST 6.4). We anticipate accruing an additional 8 high/very high risk pts (4 in each arm) to account for ineligibility, cancellation, or major treatment violation. The total enrollment for Arms A and B will be 80 pts. We will enroll 40 pts to Arm C; for a total enrollment of 120 pts. Key correlatives: Comprehensive profiling to assess the innate and adaptive immune system in paired peripheral blood and bone marrow will be conducted in all pts registered to Arms A and B at baseline, 12 and 24 months after enrollment. In addition, bone marrow hematopoietic function will be assessed in all pts at these time points. We will employ a CLL focused custom 61-gene panel to estimate tumor mutational burden as well as mutational profiles for each patient at baseline, 12, and 24 month time points, as well at the time of disease progression. Preliminary results: The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT03516617. The trial opened to accrual at all three Mayo Clinic sites (Rochester, MN; Jacksonville, FL; and Scottsdale, AZ) in September 2018. Twenty-eight pts have been registered; the baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. The trial is expected to complete enrollment in September 2020; and the primary analysis will be available in September 2022. Disclosures Parikh: Janssen: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria. Ding:DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Ailawadhi:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Kenderian:Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Humanigen: Other: Scientific advisory board , Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding. Chanan-Khan:Mayo Clinic: Employment; Ascentage: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Jansen: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Kay:Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Other: DSMB; Celgene: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Agios: Other: DSMB; MorphoSys: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board. OffLabel Disclosure: Drug: Acalabrutinib Purpose: treatment of CLL

INTRODUCTION Mutations in BTK and PLCG2 have been reported to occur in ~80% of CLL patients (pts) who have progression of disease on ibrutinib therapy (Woyach, JCO 2017; Ahn, Blood 2017). These mutations are described as appearing months before actual relapse and thus considered as a potential predictive biomarker for future relapse (Quinquenel, Blood 2019). However, the outcomes of these pts after disease progression are not well described. In this study, we seek to investigate time to next therapy and overall survival (OS) following progression among CLL pts on ibrutinib therapy with and without these resistance mutations. METHODS Between 10/2012 and 6/2019, we identified 34 pts in the Mayo Clinic clinical CLL resource who progressed while receiving ibrutinib therapy and also had testing for BTK and PLCG2 mutation performed as part of routine clinical practice at either NeoGenomics Laboratories or The Ohio State University. OS was calculated from time of ibrutinib progression to last known alive or death date; OS was plotted using Kaplan Meier methods and was compared using the log-rank test between various groups (e.g., mutation positive vs negative; CLL progression vs Richter's). Cumulative incidence of time to next treatment in those who had a treatment after progression was adjusted for the competing risk of death. RESULTS Of 34 pts who progressed while receiving ibrutinib, 26 pts experienced CLL progression and 8 pts had Richter's transformation; baseline characteristics in Table 1A. The presence of a BTK or PLCG2 mutation was found in 20/34 (59%) pts (specific mutations in Table 1B). BTK mutation alone was present in 9 pts, 7 pts had PLCG2 mutation alone, and 4 pts had both mutations. Median time between a positive test and start of next therapy was 4 months (range 1-19 months) and did not vary between BTK vs PLCG2 mutations. Among the 26 pts with CLL progression, 18 (69%) pts had a mutation present: BTK alone (n=8), PLCG2 alone (n=6), both (n=4). Therapy following progression on ibrutinib in these pts was as follows: venetoclax (n=16; 11 pts who continued ibrutinib in combination), idelalisib (n=4), investigational treatments (n=2), continued ibrutinib alone (n=2), dose-adjusted EPOCH-R (etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab; n=1), and unknown (n=1). Twelve of the 26 pts with CLL progression on ibrutinib, including 8 pts with a prior resistance mutation detected, had subsequent progression of disease on the aforementioned next line therapy. Treatment of these patients consisted of the following: restarted ibrutinib in addition to current treatment of venetoclax (n=5), venetoclax (n=2), pembrolizumab (n=2; 1 pt with continued ibrutinib), obinutuzumab with continued ibrutinib (n=1), gemcitabine and vinorelbine with continued ibrutinib (n=1), and no further treatment (n=1). Among the 8 pts with Richter's transformation as the initial progression event on ibrutinib after mutation testing, 1 pt had a BTK mutation and 1 pt had a PLCG2 mutation. Treatments following progression on ibrutinib included multi-agent chemoimmunotherapy (n=3; 2 pts received rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone [R-CHOP] with continued ibrutinib and 1 pt received doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine [ABVD] alone), pembrolizumab (n=3; 1 pt in combination with continued ibrutinib), venetoclax in combination with continued ibrutinib (n=1), and venetoclax and obinutuzumab (n=1). The median time to next treatment (second line of treatment beyond ibrutinib) for the 31 pts who started another therapy following progression on ibrutinib was 16.7 months (95% CI 9.6-NE; Figure 1A) and was not significantly different for pts with or without a resistance mutation (p=0.57). Median OS for all 26 pts with CLL progression was 28.7 month and there was no difference according to presence or absence of a resistance mutation (median 28.7 months vs 18.2 months, p=0.53; Figure 1B). The 8 pts with Richter's transformation had a median OS of 7.1 months (95% CI 2.0-NE). CONCLUSION Approximately 60% of pts tested in this progression cohort had a BTK or PLCG2 mutation at time of or preceding progression on ibrutinib therapy. OS and time to next therapy did not differ statistically between pts with mutated vs non-mutated clones; however, caution should be applied with the conclusions given the limited sample size. Disclosures Ding: DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Kenderian:Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Humanigen: Other: Scientific advisory board , Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding. Kay:MorphoSys: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Other: DSMB; Celgene: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Agios: Other: DSMB. Parikh:Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding.

Background: The 2008 International Working Group for CLL (IWCLL) criteria define MBL as a clonal B-cell disorder with a peripheral blood B-cell count of <5 x 109/L, in the absence of cytopenias(s), lymphadenopathy and/or organomegaly on physical examination, and no other concomitant lymphoproliferative disorder. In the presence of palpable lymphadenopathy and/or organomegaly, and a B-cell count of < 5 x 109/L, a diagnosis of small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) is established. A study by Gentile et al (Am J Hematol. 2013) reported that 29 out of 62 individuals with clinically identified MBL (42%) had lymphadenopathy identified on CT imaging. Notably, however, after a median follow-up of 35 months, the rate of progression among cases of MBL with lymphadenopathy identified on CT imaging was only 6.9% (2/29 patients), which was no different than in cases of MBL without lymphadenopathy on CT imaging (rate of progression, 9%; 3/33 patients). Our study sought to 1) determine if lymphadenopathy and/or organomegaly detected by imaging studies performed for unrelated reasons in individuals with MBL can identify a subset with shorter time to first CLL therapy (TFT) and overall survival (OS); and 2) compare outcomes of individuals with MBL who have incidentally detected lymphadenopathy/splenomegaly and SLL patients. Methods: We used the Mayo Clinic CLL Database to identify individuals with high-count MBL (absolute B-cell count: 0.5 - 4.9 x 109/L) and divided them into the following three cohorts: a) Cohort A: no imaging studies available at MBL diagnosis; b) Cohort B: imaging studies done within one year of MBL with no evidence of lymphadenopathy and/or organomegaly; and c) Cohort C: imaging studies done within one year of MBL with lymphadenopathy and/or organomegaly, attributable to MBL. All individuals with MBL were first seen at Mayo Clinic after 1/1/2002; those with a concomitant lymphoproliferative disorder within 3 months of diagnosis were excluded. Patients with SLL seen during the same time interval were identified as a comparison cohort. We compared the baseline characteristics (Kruskal Wallis for continuous and Chi-square for categorical variables) and TFT and OS across the three MBL cohorts, and patients with SLL. Cumulative incidence of TFT was adjusted for the competing risk of death. Age- and sex-adjusted OS was analyzed using inverse weights methods. Results: 657 individuals with high-count MBL with a median follow-up of 6.7 years were identified: 415 (63%) individuals were in Cohort A, 142 (22%) in Cohort B, and 100 in (15%) Cohort C. Compared to Cohort B, individuals in Cohort C were more likely to have unmutated IGHV, high expression of CD38, and higher beta-2 microglobulin level (Table 1). SLL patients were younger, had higher rate of unmutated IGHV, and had high expression of CD49d compared to MBL individuals in Cohort C (Table 1). There was suggestive evidence of a difference in TFT between Cohorts B and C (estimated 10-year treatment rate 28.3% vs. 41.6%; p=0.16; HR 1.62 95% CI 0.84-3.15). TFT was significantly shorter in SLL patients compared to those with Cohort C (estimated 10-year treatment rate 71% vs. 41.6%, respectively, P<0.001; Figure 1A). There was a trend toward shorter OS in Cohort C compared to Cohort B (estimated 10-year OS rate 53.7% vs. 64.2%, respectively, P=0.09; Figure 1B). In contrast, there was no difference in OS among MBL individuals in Cohort C compared to those with SLL (estimated 10-year OS rate 56.9% vs. 62.6%, P=0.72). Summary/Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that individuals with MBL who have incidentally identified lymphadenopathy/splenomegaly at diagnosis are more likely to have an unfavorable risk profile, shorter TFT and OS compared to patients who did not have lymphadenopathy/splenomegaly at MBL diagnosis. Additionally, these individuals have a longer TFT but similar OS compared to SLL patients seen during the same time interval. If externally validated, these findings have significant implications for individuals with newly diagnosed MBL. Disclosures Ding: Merck: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding. Kenderian:Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Humanigen: Other: Scientific advisory board , Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding. Kay:MorphoSys: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Other: DSMB; Celgene: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Agios: Other: DSMB. Parikh:AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Donor T cell chimerism is tested frequently early after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). However, the predictive ability of testing this early after HCT, i.e. at day +30 or day +60, has not been well described, outside of smaller single center studies. Herein, we evaluate the correlation of early donor T cell chimerism with clinical outcomes of overall survival (OS) and relapse in patients undergoing HCT for various hematological malignancies. Methods: We identified patients who received HCT with 8/8 matched unrelated donors at our center between 2007 and 2016 and obtained the clinical data retrospectively. Chimerism studies were included for patients who had testing done at day+30 and/ or day +60. Chimerism is tested using PCR based technique. Due to limited variability in chimerism levels <100% donor chimerism, a cut-off of 100% was used for analysis. Hence, patients were divided into those who achieved full donor chimerism in CD3 fraction (100%) and those in whom CD3 donor chimerism was < 100% at the respective time points. Clinical outcomes evaluate for this abstract were OS and time to relapse. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models were used using variables of interest, the later adjusted for age at HCT, use of ATG, conditioning regimen and disease risk index (DRI). Results: Baseline patient and HCT data: There were 209 patients who met the selection criteria of which 4 died within 30 days from HCT and hence, were not included in the analysis. Among the 205, 87 (42%) were women and median age at HCT was 55 (range, 18 - 74) years. The hematological malignancy diagnosis was acute myeloid leukemia (AML)/ myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) in 112 (55%), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in 35 (17%), chronic leukemias in 13 (6%), lymphomas in 13 (6%) and myeloproliferative neoplasm in 20 (10%); with DRI being very high in 9 (5%), high in 53 (27%), intermediate in 120 (60%) and low in 17 (9%) patients. Myeloablative conditioning was used in 81 (40%) and reduced intensity conditioning in 124 (60%). Graft versus host disease prophylaxis used was calcineurin inhibitor with methotrexate of mycophenolate in all patients while anti-thymocyte globulin was used in 125 (61%) patients. All patients received a peripheral blood graft. Outcomes: Median follow-up for all included patients was 615 (range, 30 - 3147) days. At day +30, 138 patients had achieved 100% donor CD3 chimerism of 189 patients in whom this data was available (73%) while at day +60, 131 (76%) out of 173 had 100% donor CD3 chimerism. In the univariate model, CD3 donor chimerism level at day +30 as well as day +60, was not predictive of OS (HR 1.5, 95% CI 0.82 - 2.9; p = 0.18 for day +30, HR 1.8, 95% CI 0.81 - 4.0, p = 0.15 for day +60). As for time to relapse, CD3 chimerism did not significantly affect the risk of relapse at these time points (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 - 1.1, p = 0.08 for day +30; HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.18 - 1.6, p = 0.28 for day +60). In the multivariate model also, after adjustment as described above, CD3 at day +30 or at day +60 was not significantly associated with the risk of OS or time to relapse (Figure 1). Kaplan Meier curves for OS for CD3 chimerism at day +30 and day +60 are shown in Figure 2. Conclusions: In this study, T cell chimerism as early as day +30 or day +60 does not seem to predict OS or relapse in patients undergoing HCT for various hematological malignancies. Given the limitations of a smaller retrospective design, this must be validated in a larger study, possibly using registry data. If these findings are indeed confirmed, then the practice of testing chimerism early and frequently, that adds additional expense to the overall cost of HCT, must be reconsidered. Disclosures Palmer: Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Primary refractory and early relapsed acute myeloid leukemia (RR-AML) continue to pose a therapeutic challenge. Salvage therapy treatment regimens for refractory and relapsed disease are not standardized but include the commonly-used mitoxantrone, etoposide, and cytarabine (MEC) and cladribine, cytarabine, filgrastim, and mitoxantrone (CLAG-M). Previous studies have suggested a potential benefit of CLAG-M, and therefore we performed an analysis of consecutive patients selected to receive either CLAG-M or MEC as salvage therapy for RR-AML. Methods: The study included 150 consecutive patients with RR-AML who received either CLAG-M or MEC between 09/01/2009 and 12/31/2017. Patients were identified through a pharmacy database based on use of mitoxantrone. Baseline disease and patient-related characteristics and clinical outcomes including allogeneic transplantation (ASCT) were obtained by systematic review of EMR. Overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) were estimated according to the Kaplan Meier method and log-rank test was used to compare outcomes between patients who received either of the two regimens. Results: There were 150 consecutive treated patients with RR-AML included in this analysis, 34 patients received CLAG-M and 116 patients received MEC. The median age was 57 years (18-76), and, and 52% were male. Forty-seven (31%) were treated for early relapsed disease (<6 months after successful induction), 17% (>6 months after induction), and the remainder had primary refractory disease (mean number of induction regimens was 1.8, range 1-6). AML risk was defined by cytogenetic criteria. There were a predominance of intermediate-risk subtypes at 47% (71/150) and followed by high-risk at 37% (55/150). Overall CR/CRi rates for CLAG-M and MEC were 74% (23/31) and 58% (63/108) in patients eligible for analysis (p=0.18). The median follow-up from relapse was 23.5 months (1-76). The median OS was 9.5 months for CLAG-M and 10.0 months for MEC (HR=0.88, 95%CI=0.54-1.41, p=0.59). In total, 76 patients (51%) were able to proceed to ASCT following salvage therapy with either CLAG-M or MEC. Among transplant recipients 56% (19/34) and 49% (57/116) were treated with CLAG-M and MEC, respectively. Median OS after ASCT was 13.0 months for CLAG-M and 31.0 months for MEC (HR=1.76, 95%CI=0.87-3.56, p=0.12). The median OS for refractory AML was 13.0 and 66.0 months for CLAG-M and MEC recipients, respectively (HR=0.92, 95%CI=0.46-1.84, p=0.24). Median OS for those with early relapse was 12.0 months for CLAG-M and 10.0 months for MEC (HR=0.69, 95%CI=0.22-2.11, p=0.51). Lastly, among those who had late relapse, median OS was 9.0 and 48.0 months for CLAG-M and MEC, respectively (HR=17.6, 95%CI=1.57-198, p<0.001). A univariate analysis was performed to investigate the impact of factors associated with OS, including treatment, age, gender, whether they proceeded to ASCT, cytogenetic risk type, and donor source. ASCT was associated with significant improvement in both PFS (HR=0.24, 95%CI=0.16- 0.37, p<0.001) and OS (HR=0.26, 95%CI=0.17-0.40, p<0.001) in this cohort. Age greater than 65 was associated with worse PFS (HR=1.02, 95%CI=1.00-1.03, p=0.04) but not OS (HR=1.01, 95%CI=1.00-1.03, p=0.06) after controlling for other variables including the impact of ASCT. Discussion: Despite a lower 30-day induction mortality we did not identify significant differences in outcomes among patients selected to receive CLAG-M vs. MEC. There was a statistically significant improvement in survival in patients who had late relapses and were treated with MEC, and a trend towards improvement in OS of those treated with MEC who proceeded to ASCT. As expected, ASCT was associated with significant improvement in OS in this cohort, and our results strongly support the use of ASCT as consolidation of remission after relapse for AML. Our data suggests that MEC may be a superior regimen, in particular including those with late relapse. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Foran: Agios: Research Funding; Xencor, Inc.: Research Funding. Al-Kali:Novartis: Research Funding. Palmer:Novartis: Research Funding.