Nowakowski, Grzegorz S.

Abstract Disease progression after frontline therapy for Diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a clinically significant event. Patients who experience early progression or have refractory disease have especially poor outcomes. Simple, clinically applicable prognostic tools are needed for selecting patients for consideration for novel therapies and prognostication in the relapsed/refractory (R/R) setting. Model building was performed in patients from the Surrogate endpoints in aggressive lymphoma (SEAL) consortium with disease progression after frontline immunochemotherapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) measured from date of progression. Validation was performed in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and Danish National Lymphoma Register (LYFO) cohorts. Model performance was assessed using time‐dependent concordance indices (c‐statistic) and calibration with metrics evaluated at 2 years from progression. Note, 1234 of 5112 patients treated with frontline immunochemotherapy in the SEAL consortium developed progressive disease. Time to progression on immunochemotherapy and age at progression were strongly associated with post‐progression OS (both p < 0.001). A prognostic model was developed incorporating spline fit for both variables. The model had good concordance in the discovery (0.67) and validation sets (LYFO c = 0.64, MER c = 0.68) with generally good calibration. Time to progression on frontline therapy is strongly associated with post‐progression OS in DLBCL. We developed and validated a simple to apply clinical prognostic tool in the R/R setting. The useful prediction of expected outcomes in R/R DLBCL and can inform treatment decisions such as considerations for CAR‐T therapy as well as trial designs. The model is available in smartphone‐based point of care applications.

AbstractNon‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and statin drugs may protect against the development of non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), but data are limited, particularly for NHL subtypes. Furthermore, some in vitro, animal and epidemiologic data suggest there may be a synergistic effect of these two agents, but there has been no test of this hypothesis in NHL. We evaluated the self‐reported use of NSAIDs and statins in a clinic‐based study of 1703 NHL patients and 2199 frequency‐matched controls. Unconditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusted for potential confounding variables. We observed an inverse association of regular use of low‐dose aspirin with risk of NHL (OR = 0.82; 95% CI 0.70‐0.96) that was stronger with longer duration of use (P < .01). There were no associations for use of regular or extra‐strength aspirin, ibuprofen, other NSAIDs, statins or other cholesterol‐lowering drugs with NHL risk, while an inverse association with COX‐2 inhibitors was equivocal. There was also no interaction of low‐dose aspirin and statins on NHL risk. Inverse associations of similar magnitude to all NHL were observed for regular use of low‐dose aspirin with diffuse large B‐cell, follicular, marginal zone and all other lymphomas, although not all associations were statistically significant. In conclusion, low‐dose aspirin but not regular/extra strength aspirin, other NSAIDs or statin use was associated with lower risk of NHL. Beyond the potential for the primary prevention of NHL, these data also point to a role of anti‐platelet or other effects of low‐dose aspirin in lymphomagenesis that warrant follow‐up.

PURPOSE Patients with the activated B-cell-like (ABC) subtype of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) historically showed inferior survival with standard rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP). Phase II studies demonstrated that adding the immunomodulatory agent lenalidomide to R-CHOP improved outcomes in ABC-type DLBCL. The goal of the global, phase III ROBUST study was to compare lenalidomide plus R-CHOP (R2-CHOP) with placebo/R-CHOP in previously untreated, ABC-type DLBCL. METHODS Histology and cell-of-origin type were prospectively analyzed by central pathology prior to random assignment and study treatment. Patients with ABC-DLBCL received lenalidomide oral 15 mg/d, days 1-14/21 plus standard R-CHOP21 versus placebo/R-CHOP21 for six cycles. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) per independent central radiology review. RESULTS A total of 570 patients with ABC-DLBCL (n = 285 per arm) were stratified by International Prognostic Index score, age, and bulky disease, and randomly assigned to R2-CHOP or placebo/R-CHOP. Baseline demographics were similar between arms. Most patients completed six cycles of treatment: 74% R2-CHOP and 84% placebo/R-CHOP. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events for R2-CHOP versus placebo/R-CHOP were neutropenia (60% v 48%), anemia (22% v 14%), thrombocytopenia (17% v 11%), and leukopenia (14% v 15%). The primary end point of PFS was not met, with a hazard ratio of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.14) and P = .29; median PFS has not been reached for either arm. PFS trends favoring R2-CHOP over placebo/R-CHOP were seen in patients with higher-risk disease. CONCLUSION ROBUST is the first DLBCL phase III study to integrate biomarker-driven identification of eligible ABC patients. Although the ROBUST trial did not meet the primary end point of PFS in all patients, the safety profile of R2-CHOP was consistent with individual treatments with no new safety signals.

PURPOSE Lenalidomide combined with rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) (R2CHOP) in untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) has shown promising activity, particularly in the activated B-cell–like (ABC) subtype. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG)-ACRIN trial E1412 was a randomized phase II study comparing R2CHOP versus R-CHOP in untreated DLBCL. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL, stage II bulky-IV disease, International Prognostic Index (IPI) ≥ 2, and ECOG performance status ≤ 2 were eligible and randomly assigned 1:1 to R2CHOP versus R-CHOP for six cycles. Tumors were analyzed using the NanoString Lymph2Cx for cell of origin. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) in all patients with the co-primary end point of PFS in ABC-DLBCL. Secondary end points included overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS Three hundred forty-nine patients were enrolled; 280 patients (145 R2CHOP and 135 R-CHOP) were evaluable: 94 were ABC-DLBCL, 122 germinal center B-cell–like-DLBCL, 18 unclassifiable, and 46 unknowns. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between arms, and the median age was 66 (range, 24-92); 70% of patients had stage IV disease; 34%, 43%, and 24% had IPI 2, 3, and 4 or 5, respectively. Myelosuppression was more common in the R2CHOP arm. The ORR and CR rate were 92% and 68% in R-CHOP and 97% ( P = .06) and 73% ( P = .43) in the R2CHOP arm, respectively. The median follow-up was 3.0 years; R2CHOP was associated with a 34% reduction in risk of progression or death versus R-CHOP (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.01) and 3-year PFS of 73% versus 61%, one-sided P = .03, and an improvement in OS (83% and 75% at 3 years; HR, 0.67; one-sided P = .05). The PFS HR for R2CHOP was 0.67 for ABC-DLBCL, one-sided P = .1. CONCLUSION In this signal-seeking study, the addition of lenalidomide to R-CHOP (R2CHOP) improved outcomes in newly diagnosed DLBCL including patients with ABC-DLBCL.

Introduction: Richter transformation (RT) refers to transformation of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or other aggressive lymphomas. The incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of RT with CNS involvement remain undefined. Methods: Biopsy-confirmed RT diagnosed from 4/1993 to 4/2018 was identified from the Mayo Clinic CLL database. RT cases with CNS involvement were further reviewed, with clinical characteristics, treatment and follow-up data abstracted. Overall survival (OS) was defined as time from CNS involvement to death from any cause and analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Among 204 CLL patients with biopsy-proven RT, 15 patients had documented CNS involvement by imaging (parenchymal n=11, ocular n=1, parenchymal and ocular n=1, leptomeningeal n=1, cranial and spinal nerve roots n=1). Biopsy confirmation of CNS involvement was available in 11 patients. Of these 15 patients, 10 had CNS involvement at initial RT diagnosis, and 5 patients developed CNS involvement at RT progression, with a median time from RT diagnosis to CNS involvement of 14.9 months (range 2.8-41.1). Prior to RT, 11 patients (73.3%) received no treatment for CLL, 3 (53.4%) received chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) only (1-3 lines), and 1 patient (6.7%) received CIT (1 line) and ibrutinib. CLL FISH results were available in 9 patients, with del(17p) in 2, trisomy 12 in 2, del(13q) in 3, and normal results in 2. One patient had TP53 mutation (FISH result unavailable). IgHV mutation status was known in 3 patients and 1 was unmutated. The median time to RT was 4.4 years (range 0-11.4). The median age at RT diagnosis was 70 years (range 59-78), and 9 (60%) were male. The histology of RT was DLBCL in all 15 patients (diagnosed by CNS biopsy in 8 and other biopsies in 7), with GCB subtype in 6 and non-GCB subtype in 3. MYC rearrangement was detected in 4 of 6 patients tested, and 2 of those also had BCL-2 rearrangement (MYC/BCL-2 double hit). Of the 10 patients with CNS involvement at initial RT diagnosis, 4 had isolated CNS involvement (confirmed by brain biopsy [n=2] or vitreous biopsy [n=2]). All 4 patients were treated with high dose (HD) methotrexate (MTX) based regimen, and 3 patients achieved complete remission (CR) and underwent autologous stem cell transplant with continued CR, while 1 patient achieved partial remission and received whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) at disease progression. Six patients had both systemic and CNS involvement (confirmed by brain biopsy [n=2] or CSF examination [n=2] in 4; the other 2 were diagnosed by imaging). All 6 patients received CNS directed therapy (HD MTX [n=5] or WBRT [n=1]) as well as systemic therapy (R-CHOP [n=5] or HyperCVAD [n=1]), with varied short duration of disease control (Figure 1A). Of the 5 patients who developed CNS involvement at RT progression (after 1-2 lines of therapy including first-line R-CHOP), 2 had isolated CNS involvement (1 was confirmed by CSF examination and the other was by imaging only). Both were treated with HD MTX based regimen, and 1 achieved a durable remission of 2 years but eventually had CNS relapse, while the other had no response and received WBRT with limited benefit. Three patients had both systemic and CNS involvement (2 were confirmed by CSF examination and the other was by imaging only), and all 3 patients were treated with HD MTX based regimen but all had CNS disease progression within 3 months (Figure 1A). The OS after CNS involvement for all 15 RT patients was 9.4 months (95% CI 2.3-19.1). Patients with CNS involvement at initial RT diagnosis had numerically longer OS compared to patients who developed CNS involvement at RT progression (median OS 13.0 vs 4.1 months, P = 0.137; Figure 1B). Patients with isolated CNS involvement had better OS compared to patients with both CNS and systemic involvement (median OS 32.0 vs 5.3 months, P = 0.009; Figure 1C). Three of the 4 patients who only had isolated CNS involvement at the time of RT diagnosis have ongoing long term remission and survival (Figure 1A). Conclusions: In this large series of RT, approximately 1 in 14 patients had CNS involvement. Patients with isolated CNS involvement appeared to have favorable long term outcome; however, RT patients with both systemic and CNS involvement had extremely poor survival. The incidence, molecular characteristics, and optimal management of RT with CNS involvement in the novel agent era warrant future multicenter studies. Disclosures Wang: Incyte: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Parikh:GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; Verastem Oncology: Honoraria. Kay:Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Juno Theraputics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Witzig:AbbVie: Consultancy; MorphSys: Consultancy; Immune Design: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding. Nowakowski:MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Denovo: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Nanostrings: Research Funding. Ansell:Trillium: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Kenderian:MorphoSys: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Torque: Consultancy; Humanigen: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; Mettaforge: Patents & Royalties. Ding:DTRM: Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding.

Introduction Approximately 15-20% of treatment-naïve patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) have CD20-low tumors, while CD19 is homogeneously expressed in &gt;90% of cases of DLBCL. CD20-low DLBCL is associated with poor response to rituximab-based regimens (Johnson NA, et al. 2009). CD19 functions as a positive regulator of B-cell receptor signaling and is important for B-cell activation and proliferation and is therefore an attractive therapeutic target in addition to CD20. Tafasitamab (MOR208) is a humanized, Fc-enhanced, anti-CD19 monoclonal antibody with improved antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity and phagocytosis. Monotherapy with tafasitamab has shown clinical activity in relapsed/refractory (R/R) non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (Jurczak W, et al. 2018). In the Phase II, single-arm L-MIND study (NCT02399085) in patients with R/R DLBCL, combined treatment of tafasitamab with lenalidomide resulted in a high proportion of patients having a complete response (Salles GA, et al. 2020). First-MIND (NCT04134936) is a Phase Ib, randomized study of tafasitamab + R-CHOP (Arm A) or tafasitamab + lenalidomide + R-CHOP (Arm B) in patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL. Here, we report data from the safety run-in phase. Study design and methods Patients must be aged ≥18 years, treatment naïve, with histologically confirmed DLBCL not otherwise specified and have intermediate- to high-risk disease (International Prognostic Index [IPI] 2-5) and an ECOG performance status of 0-2. Known double- or triple-hit lymphoma and transformed lymphoma are excluded. Treatment consists of six 21-day cycles of tafasitamab (12 mg/kg intravenously [IV], on Day [D] 1, 8 and 15) in addition to R-CHOP (Arm A) or tafasitamab (12 mg/kg IV, on D1, 8 and 15) + lenalidomide (25 mg orally, on D1-10) in addition to R-CHOP (Arm B). Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor prophylaxis was mandatory in all patients. The study includes a safety run-in phase and a main phase. In the safety run-in phase, 24 patients were enrolled. The primary objective is to assess safety; secondary objectives include ORR, PET-CR rate at end of treatment, PFS, event-free survival, long-term safety, pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity of tafasitamab. Exploratory objectives include the assessment of circulating cell-free tumor DNA. Approximately 60 patients will be recruited in 9 countries across Europe and the US. Results Recruitment is ongoing. Thirty-six patients were randomized; 18 in each arm. The data presented for the safety run-in phase consist of 24 patients: 13 patients in Arm A and 11 patients in Arm B. All completed the first treatment cycle; 88% of patients entered into Cycle 2 and 50% of patients entered into Cycle 3 of treatment. At baseline, their median age was 67 years (range: 47-76; Arm A) and 65 years (range: 40-74; Arm B). Overall, 33% of patients were male and 67% female; IPI scores were: IPI 2, 33%; IPI 3, 42%; IPI 4, 25%. Most patients had advanced stages III/IV (92%) and approximately 50% had bulky disease. Cell of origin was determined to be germinal center B-cell (GCB) DLBCL in 13%, non-GCB DLBCL in 42% and not yet classified in 46% of cases. A total of 248 treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) by system organ class were documented: 111 in Arm A and 137 in Arm B. Grade ≥3 neutropenia was observed in 54% (Arm A) and 46% (Arm B) of patients. Thrombocytopenia Grade ≥3 was observed in 8% (Arm A) and 18% (Arm B) of patients. Diarrhea, fatigue and vomiting were comparable between the two arms. Febrile neutropenia was uncommon in both arms, with one event each (Figure 1). To date, 23 serious AEs were observed: 11 in Arm A (Grade 2, 1; Grade 3, 6; Grade 4, 4) and 12 in Arm B (Grade 2, 3; Grade 3, 7; Grade 4, 2). One suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction was reported in Arm B - pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia. No treatment-associated deaths occurred. Conclusions R-CHOP can be safely combined with tafasitamab or tafasitamab + lenalidomide in patients with treatment-naïve DLBCL. Toxicities appear to be similar to what is expected with R-CHOP alone or in combination with lenalidomide. Enrollment is ongoing and updated safety and early efficacy data will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Belada: Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Nowakowski:NanoString: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. André:Takeda: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Roche: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Amgen: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding; Celgene: Other, Research Funding; CHU UCL Namur, site Godinne, Yvoir, Belgium: Current Employment; Bristol-Myers-Squibb: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company). Stevens:Amgen, MorphoSys: Consultancy. Trněný:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Amgen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses. Pérez Persona:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jannsen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy. Klöpfer:MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Brackertz:MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Lohrmann:MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Lahiry:MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Shah:MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Fingerle-Rowson:MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Brugger:MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Burke:Epizyme: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy.

Introduction: Interleukin-1 receptor-associated kinase 4 (IRAK4) is essential for toll-like receptor (TLR) and interleukin-1 receptor (IL-1R) signaling in immune cells including B lymphocytes. It forms the Myddosome complex with the MYD88 adaptor protein, with IRAK4 being essential for downstream signaling, maximal activation of NFkB with inflammatory and immune response and tumor promotion [Treon 2012; Rhyasen 2015]. CA-4948 is a novel small molecule, oral inhibitor of IRAK4, first-in-class and only suppressor of the TLR pathway currently tested in hematological malignancies. When combined with the BTK inhibitor ibrutinib that blocks parallel BCR signaling and NF-kB activating pathway, it has shown synergy in in-vivo B-cell NHL models, providing strong rationale for clinical evaluation [Booher 2018]. Recent preclinical studies demonstrated the role of IRAK4 activation as a driver of secondary, adaptive tumor resistance and survival mechanisms of hematological and solid tumor malignancies [Melgar 2019] that could be blocked by CA-4948 to delay or reverse resistance. Study Design and Methods: This is a multicenter, open-label trial of oral CA-4948 combined with ibrutinib in adult patients with relapsed or refractory hematologic malignancies. (NCT03328078). It has 2 parts: a dose escalation (Part A2), and expansion basket of 4 cohorts (Part B). Part A2: Is a truncated 3+3 design: CA-4948 starting is 200 mg BID with subsequent escalation to 300 mg BID. Both dose are safe and active against NHL as seen in the nearly completed monotherapy Part A1 of this trial Patients will receive CA-4948 with ibrutinib at the labeled dose for the respective NHL subtype (560 mg or 420 mg) until toxicity or progression. Primary objectives are safety/tolerance (MTD, RP2D); 2nd objectives are pharmacokinetics and preliminary efficacy; exploratory objectives include biomarker correlations (e.g., MYD88-L265P mut, IRAK4 pathway, NFκB inhibition). Part B basket has four cohorts: 1 -MZL, 2 - ABC-DLBCL, 3 - PCNSL, and 4 - NHL with adaptive ibrutinib resistance. Cohorts 1-3 must be BTK-inhibitor naïve. Cohort 4 includes ibrutinib treated NHLs after developing adaptive, secondary resistance. All will receive the combination of ibrutinib and CA-4948. Cohort 4 patients will be allowed a &lt;3 weeks gap since prior ibrutinib therapy. Primary objectives include CR or ORR and DOR compared to (matched) historical controls (closely matched if possible). 2nd objectives include tolerance/safety, PFS, and pop-PK sampling for CA-4948. Exploratory objectives; response correlation with biomarkers including MYD88-L265P or other genetic mutations, gene expressions, cell of origin, IRAK4 signaling, and resistance. Treatment: CA-4948 at RP2D+ibrubinib at labelled doses; 21-day cycles to be repeated in the absence of toxicity or progression. Samples sizes, statistical considerations: Approx. 18 patients in Part A2. In Part B, a Simon 2-Step design will be applied to each cohort. Early stopping rule for futility after approx. 20 patients in Stage 1: full accrual with Stage 2 will add about 25 patients. Successful signal efficacy identification in a cohort may support further expansion or a subsequent controlled trial. The safety population will include all patients in the study who received any test dose. The efficacy population will have a valid baseline and post-baseline disease assessment. Safety assessments include TEAEs, safety labs, vitals, physical exams, PK, and ECGs; efficacy assessments: tumor imaging, para-protein determination, and histo/cyto-morphologic examinations. Part A2 inclusion: Histopathologically confirmed B-cell NHL as per the WHO 2016 classification. Eligible NHL subtypes: FL, MZL, MCL, DLBCL (including extranodal lymphomas of leg, testicle, or other sites, excluding mediastinal lymphoma), CLL/SLL, primary or secondary CNS lymphoma, and WM/LPL. Patients with FL, MCL, MZL, WM/LPL, or CLL/SLL should meet clinical treatment criteria. Part B inclusion: Cohorts 1-3 include patients with MZL, ABC-DLBCL, or PCNSL who are BTK-inhibitor naïve. Cohort 4 will include ibrutinib pre-treated MCL, MZL, CLL/SLL, WM/LPL, ABC-DLBCL, or PCNSL with adaptive resistance. Exclusions for both Parts A2 and B: Significant acute or chronic toxicity from prior anti-cancer therapy that has not resolved to Grade ≤ 1, as determined by NCI CTCAE v 4.03 within 7 days prior to start of study or serious co-morbidities. Disclosures Nowakowski: NanoString: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Leslie:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; KitePharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC therapeutics: 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. Joffe:AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lunning:Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acrotech: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Curis: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Aeratech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria. Patel:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Landsburg:Takeda: Research Funding; Triphase: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Curis: Consultancy, 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. Fenske:Medical College of Wisconsin: Current Employment. Ramchandren:Merck, Seattle Genetics, Janssen, Genentech: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Sandoz-Novartis, Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Skarbnik:Alexion: Consultancy; Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Speakers Bureau; CLL Society: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Tun:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acrotech: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding.

Introduction CA-4948 is a novel oral small molecule inhibitor of interleukin-1 receptor-associated kinase 4 (IRAK4). IRAK4 is part of the Myddosome signaling pathway, and is essential for signaling downstream of toll-like receptors (TLR) and the interleukin-1 receptor (IL-1R) family in immune cells including B lymphocytes. . Dysregulated signaling in these pathways is frequently observed in Non-Hodgkin Lymphomas (NHL), particularly in ABC-subtype of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) and Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM)[1]. Furthermore, IRAK4 activation has recently been identified as a driver of an adaptive resistance mechanism of malignancies [2]. CA-4948 is the first clinical candidate targeting IRAK4 to be evaluated in cancer patients. Here we present Phase I results of CA-4948 in patients with relapsed/refractory hematologic malignancies. Method CA-4948-101 is a phase I trial dose escalation trial with a 3 + 3 design. Seven dosing cohorts were assessed including 50 and 100 mg daily (QD), and 50, 100, 200, 300, or 400 mg twice daily (BID) continuous oral monotherapy in 21-day cycles. Objectives included safety and tolerance (primary), pharmacokinetic (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD) and early efficacy (secondary), and biomarker correlations (exploratory). As of July 2020, 30 patients with relapsed or refractory, NHL have been enrolled, including DLBCL (n=14), FL (n=6), transformed HGBL (n=1), WM (n=3), LPL (n=2), MZL (n=2) and MCL (n=2). Median age is 68.5 (range 50 - 87; 5 female / 25 male). Median number of prior treatments is 4 (range 1 - 8, incl. 5 CAR-T-cell or ASCT treatments). Results CA-4948 has been generally well tolerated. Eight patients were exposed at the highest dose level of 400 mg BID: 2 of 5 DLT-evaluable patients had Grade 3 rhabdomyolysis (DLTs), without complications and reversible after treatment interruption and hydration / analgesic treatment - both subsequently continued treatment at lower doses of 200 or 300 mg BID, respectively. Six patients have tolerated 300 mg BID well without DLT. Most non-hematologic TEAEs were Grade 1 or 2 and manageable, including diarrhea, vomiting, fatigue, dyspnea, and myalgia. Hematologic TEAEs including neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia was mild/moderate and without complications. There were only 4 Grade 3 combined episodes in 18 patients at dose levels ranging between 200 and 400 mg BID without complications (Table 1). Drug discontinuation occurred in only 3 cases for rash, fatigue, and asymptomatic amylase/lipase elevation at lower dose levels. No toxic deaths occurred. Favorable and predictable PK characteristics included rapid absorption with Tmax at 2-3 hours, T1/2 of 6 hours (supporting bid dosing), moderate accumulation, and dose-proportional increases in exposure. Dose proportional PD changes were shown for inflammatory cytokine reductions. Treatment duration ranged between 15 days and 19+ months with sustained disease control. Eight of 28 evaluable patients experienced overall tumor burden decreases of ≥20% from baseline - more at higher doses (Table 2). A WM patient with 6 prior lines of treatment, sustained PR underwent intra-patient dose escalation and had a dose/response relationship and very good treatment tolerance (Figure 1). The median duration at doses of 200 or 300 mg bid was &gt;6 months (range 1-19+; including 3 cases of 11, 14, and 19+ mo.). Downstream pharmacodynamic markers of IRAK4 and molecular characteristics including cell-of-origin will be presented. Conclusion CA-4948 demonstrates good safety profile, desirable pharmacokinetic properties, and preliminary clinical activity. Enrollment is ongoing to support the anticipated RP2D of 300 mg bid. These encouraging results provide clinical validation of IRAK4 as a viable, novel therapeutic target in B-cell malignancies will lead to clinical combinations with synergistic drugs including BTK or BCL2 inhibitors [3] in patients with advanced hematological malignancies. Clinical trial: NCT03328078. References: 1. Treon, S. P. et al., 2012. N Engl J Med, 367: 826-33 2. Melgar, K. et al., 2019. Sci Transl Med, 11: eaaw8828 3. Booher R, Grayson D., 2019. Waldenstrom Roadmap Symposium, www.Curis.com Disclosures Nowakowski: Curis: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NanoString: Research Funding; Kymera: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Leslie:TG Therapeutics: 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; ADC therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; KitePharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Younes:Curis: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; HCM: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BioPath: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Current Employment. Lunning:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Curis: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Aeratech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Legend: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Acrotech: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Patel:Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Kite: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Landsburg:Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Curis: Consultancy, 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; Triphase: Research Funding. Tun:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acrotech: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding.

Background Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtype with a 5-year survival of ~64%. While DLBCL is treated using immunochemotherapy (IC) with curative intent, 20%-40% of patients do not reach remission or relapse post IC. Clonal somatic mutations have been associated with aging, hematologic malignancies (predominately myeloid), and reduced OS in the general population. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association of clonal somatic mutations with event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS). Methods We studied newly diagnosed DLBCL cases treated with IC who were enrolled in the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE). Clinical and treatment data were abstracted from medical records and all patients were systematically followed for disease outcomes. Pre-treatment DNA was extracted from matched peripheral blood and paraffin-embedded tumor tissue, and whole exome sequencing was conducted at 100x coverage. From the peripheral blood, allele counts from GVCF files produced by HaplotypeCaller in GATK were extracted for 42 genes commonly associated with clonal hematopoiesis (e.g. DNMT3A, TET2, and ASXL1). Mutations were deemed clonal somatic if the population minor allele frequency was &lt;0.5% in ExAC and had a variant allele fraction (VAF) that deviated from 0.5 using a binomial distribution test at p&lt;0.001. Furthermore, mutations had to have a minimum alternate read count of at least 5 reads, a VAF greater than or equal to 10%, and met at least one of the following criteria: CAVA impact of "HIGH"; pathogenic/likely pathogenic per ClinVar; or reported in COSMIC at least 10 times. EFS was defined as time from diagnosis to disease progression, relapse, retreatment, or death due to any cause. The association of clonal somatic mutations with prognosis was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves, and hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from Cox regression. Associations were adjusted for age at diagnosis, sex, and the International Prognostic Index (IPI). Results The study consisted of 261 DLBCL patients treated with IC. The median age at diagnosis was 65 years (range 20-90) and 56% were male. With a median follow-up time of 5.1 years (range 0.1-15.0), there were 100 events and 80 deaths. A total of 17 (6.5%) patients had clonal somatic mutations, and16 patients were over the age of 60. A total of 8 (of 42) genes had clonal somatic mutations, with SF3B1, ASXL1, and TET2, being the most frequent (4 individuals per gene). VAFs ranged from 0.10 to 0.28 and none of the patients had multiple mutations. Additionally, the clonal somatic variants found in the peripheral blood were abscent in the tumor sample. Of the 17 patients with clonal somatic mutations, 12 had an event while 88 patients without a mutation had an event. In a univariate analysis, clonal somatic mutations were associated with inferior EFS (HR=2.55, 95% CI 1.39-4.68, p=0.002; Figure 1A). After adjusting for age, sex, and IPI, clonal somatic mutations remained associated with inferior EFS (HR=2.02, 95% CI 1.09-3.74, p=0.026). Clonal somatic mutations were also associated with inferior OS in the univariate analysis (HR=2.06, 95% CI 0.99-4.29, p=0.053), which attenuated after multivariate adjustment (HR=1.59, 95% CI: 0.76-3.34, p=0.22, Figure 1B). Although based on small numbers, mutations in SF3B1 were associated with inferior EFS (HR=3.25, 95% CI 1.16-9.12, p=0.025), but did not reach significance for OS (HR=2.56, 95% CI 0.78-8.38, p=0.120). Conclusions In this novel study of newly diagnosed DLBCL patients, clonal somatic mutations were identified in 6.5% of patients and were associated with inferior outcomes. Additional research is required at deeper sequencing to validate these findings and integration with tumor genomics is required to understand the prognosis of DLBCL patients with smaller clonal populations. Disclosures Shah: Dren Bio: Consultancy. Maurer:Celgene / BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding. Martin:Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy. Witzig:AbbVie: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphSys: Consultancy. Nowakowski:NanoString: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Novak:Celgene/BMS: Research Funding. Cerhan:NanoString: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding.

PURPOSE Exclusion of patients needing urgent treatment or requiring novel biomarkers before enrollment has impacted the ability to enroll real-world patients in frontline trials of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). The impact of baseline organ function–based eligibility criteria on this effect and clinical trial exclusion is less well-understood. METHODS Consecutive patients with newly diagnosed lymphoma were enrolled from 2002 to 2015 into the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa and Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence. The current analysis includes 1,265 patients with DLBCL receiving standard immunochemotherapy. Organ function parameters were identified from criteria for hemoglobin, absolute neutrophil count, platelet count, creatinine clearance, and bilirubin, as reported in frontline DLBCL trials. Abstracted laboratory values from MER were used to determine the percent (%) of patients excluded. Outcomes and cause-of-death analyses comparing ineligible and eligible groups in MER were conducted. An interactive online tool was developed to estimate exclusions based on organ function for future trial design. RESULTS Between 9% and 24% of MER patients with DLBCL receiving standard immunochemotherapy were excluded on the basis of baseline organ function alone. Ineligible patients based on organ function had significantly inferior event-free survival (hazard ratios, 1.67-2.16), overall survival (hazard ratios, 1.87-2.56), and event-free survival at 24 months (odds ratio, 1.71-2.16). Ineligible patients were more likely to die from lymphoma progression than increased therapy-related complications. CONCLUSION Current national and international trials exclude up to 24% of patients from participation on the basis of organ function alone. A significant difference in the outcomes, notably lymphoma-related death, suggests issues with generalization and potential exclusion of high-risk patients. These data will help future clinical trial development and meet US Food and Drug Administration and ASCO recommendations to increase trial accrual.