Citations

Abstract Next‐generation sequencing identified about 60 genes recurrently mutated in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). We examined the additive prognostic value of the total number of recurrently mutated CLL genes (i.e., tumor mutational load [TML]) or the individually mutated genes beyond the CLL international prognostic index (CLL‐IPI) in newly diagnosed CLL and high‐count monoclonal B‐cell lymphocytosis (HC MBL). We sequenced 59 genes among 557 individuals (112 HC MBL/445 CLL) in a multi‐stage design, to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for time‐to‐first treatment (TTT), adjusted for CLL‐IPI and sex. TML was associated with shorter TTT in the discovery and validation cohorts, with a combined estimate of continuous HR = 1.27 (CI:1.17‐1.39, P = 2.6 × 10 −8 ; c ‐statistic = 0.76). When stratified by CLL‐IPI, the association of TML with TTT was stronger and validated within low/intermediate risk (combined HR = 1.54, CI:1.37‐1.72, P = 7.0 × 10 −14 ). Overall, 80% of low/intermediate CLL‐IPI cases with two or more mutated genes progressed to require therapy within 5 years, compared to 24% among those without mutations. TML was also associated with shorter TTT in the HC MBL cohort (HR = 1.53, CI:1.12‐2.07, P = .007; c ‐statistic = 0.71). TML is a strong prognostic factor for TTT independent of CLL‐IPI, especially among low/intermediate CLL‐IPI risk, and a better predictor than any single gene. Mutational screening at early stages may improve risk stratification and better predict TTT.

Abstract To study the impact of dose modification and temporary interruption of ibrutinib in routine clinical practice, we conducted a retrospective study of consecutive CLL patients treated with ibrutinib outside the context of a clinical trial at Mayo Clinic, (Rochester, MN) from 11/2013 to 12/2017. Of 209 patients, 131 (74%) had unmutated IGHV , 38 (20%) had TP53 disruption, and 47 (22%) were previously untreated. A total of 87/209 (42%) patients started reduced dose ibrutinib (<420 mg daily; n = 43, physician preference; n = 33, concomitant medications; and n = 11, other). During 281 person‐years of treatment, 91/209 patients had temporary dose interruption (54%, nonhematologic toxicity; 29%, surgical procedures; 10%, hematologic toxicity; and 7%, other). After a median follow‐up of 24 months, the estimated median event‐free survival (EFS) was 36 months, and median overall survival (OS) was not reached. On multivariable analyses, temporary ibrutinib interruption (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.37, P = .006) and TP53 disruption at ibrutinib initiation (HR: 1.81, P = .048) were associated with shorter EFS, whereas only TP53 disruption (HR: 2.38, P = .015) was associated with shorter OS. Initial ibrutinib dose and dose modification during therapy did not appear to impact EFS or OS. These findings illustrate the challenges associated with continuous oral therapy with ibrutinib in patients with CLL.

7522 Background: Ibrutinib therapy is associated with an increased risk (~15%) of AF. An accurate risk assessment model for the development of AF in pts starting ibrutinib is not established, and outcomes after AF are not well described. Methods: An IRB approved retrospective review of CLL pts treated with ibrutinib at Mayo Clinic between Oct 2012 and Nov 2018 was conducted. Results: 299 pts were identified with a total of 565 years of ibrutinib exposure (Table). After a median follow-up of 24 months (range 0–70 months), 51 pts developed treatment-emergent AF (13 [25%] CTCAE 3 or higher). Our study assessed 3 clinical prediction models, the Framingham (Schanbel:Lancet 2009), Italian (Visentin:Blood 2018;132:3118), and Shanafelt (Shanafelt:Leuk Lymp; 2017) risk scores. Based on a lower Akaike information criteria, the Italian score was best able to predict risk of treatment emergent AF (2-year risk of AF with score 0 6%; 1-2 8%; 3-4 26%; 5+ 47%). Thirty (61%) pts were treated with medical therapy for AF (27 rate control; 2 rhythm control; 1 both). 16 (31%) pts underwent interventional therapy (3 AV node ablation; 11 cardioversion; and 2 pacemaker). Twelve (23%) pts temporarily held ibrutinib and resumed their original dose, 22 (43%) pts continued reduced dose ibrutinib and 11 (22%) continued their initial ibrutinib dose. Six (12%) pts permanently discontinued ibrutinib. Of 51 pts with treatment-emergent AF, 41 (80%) had a CHA2DS2-VASc score of ≥2 (41% received anticoagulation alone; 12% received antiplatelet therapy alone; 10% received both). No pt developed a thrombotic stroke after treatment-emergent AF. Two major bleeds, (1 GI and 1 intracranial) occurred, one in a pt on concomitant antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy, and one in a pt receiving neither. The development of AF was associated with shorter event-free survival (HR 2.5, 95%CI 1.5-4.2, p<.001) and shorter overall survival (HR 3.5, 95%CI 2.0-6.3, p<.001). Conclusions: The Italian score was the best predictor of AF development in this cohort of ibrutinib treated pts. Although the vast majority of pts who develop AF after ibrutinib are able to continue therapy, the occurrence of AF appears to be associated with shorter EFS and OS. [Table: see text]

7015 Background: Besides clinical staging, a number of biomarkers predicting OS in CLL have been identified. The multiplicity of markers, limited information on their independent value, and a lack of understanding of how to interpret discordant markers are major barriers to use in routine clinical practice. We developed an integrated prognostic index using the database of the German CLL Study Group (GCLLSG), which was subsequently validated in a cohort of untreated CLL patients (pts) from the Mayo Clinic. Methods: The analysis was based on a dataset collected between 1997 and 2006 in 3 GCLLSG phase III trials. The external validation was performed on a series of newly diagnosed CLL pts managed at Mayo Clinic. Results: The GCLLSG dataset (1,948 physically fit pts at early and advanced stage; median age: 60 yr (range 30-81); median observation time 63.4 mo) was used as a training dataset. 7 parameters were identified as independent predictors for OS: sex, age, ECOG status, del 17p, del 11q, IGHV mutation status, thymidine kinase and β2-microglobulin. By using a weighted grading a prognostic index was derived separating four different pts groups: low risk (score 0 - 2), intermediate risk (score 3-5), high risk (score 6-10) and very high risk (score 11-14) with significant different OS rates (95.2%, 86.9%, 67.7% and 18.7% OS after 5 yr for the low, intermediate, high and very high risk group respectively (p<0.001). This prognostic index was validated in a cohort of 676 newly diagnosed, untreated pts from the Mayo Clinic (median age 61.5 yr (range 32 - 89); median observation time 47.0 mo). The 4 risk groups were reproduced with 98.3%, 95.4%, 75.4% and 10.8% OS after 5 yr. The prognostic index predicts OS independent of Rai/Binet stage and provides accurate estimations regarding time to first treatment (TTF). C-statistic is 0.75. Conclusions: Using a multi-step process including external validation, we developed a comprehensive prognostic index combining clinical, serum, and molecular information into a single risk score for pts with untreated CLL. The prognostic index provides more accurate prediction of both TTF and OS. To our knowledge it is the first prognostic model in CLL to reach the C-statistic threshold (c > 0.70) necessary to have utility at the level of the individual.

6571 Background: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is associated with an increased risk of developing second cancers. However, it is unknown whether CLL alters the natural history of these cancers once they occur. Methods: All patients with breast (n=583,838), colon (n=412,932), prostate (n=632,922), lung (n=489,290), kidney (n=95,902), pancreas (n=82,121) and ovarian (n=61,958) cancer reported to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program from 1990 to 2007 were identified. Overall survival (OS; death due to any cause) and cancer-specific survival (death due to cancer site of interest) were examined, comparing patients with or without pre-existing CLL. Age- and sex-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated. Results: OS for patients with pre-existing CLL was inferior for patients with breast (HR=1.61; p<0.001), colon (HR=1.65; p<0.001), kidney (HR=1.41; p<0.001), prostate (HR=1.75; p<0.001), and lung (HR=1.22; p<0.001) cancer after adjusting for age and sex. After excluding CLL-related deaths, OS remained shorter among patients with breast (p<0.001), colon (p<0.001), kidney (p=0.03), prostate (p<0.001), and lung (p<0.001) cancer. Cancer-specific survival was inferior for patients with breast (HR=1.29; p=0.03), colon (HR=1.75; p<0.001), and lung cancer (HR=1.17; p<0.001) who had pre-existing CLL after adjusting for age and sex. Conclusions: Several common cancers, including breast, colon, and lung, have inferior overall and cancer-specific survival when there is coexistent CLL. [Table: see text]

6533 Background: Although it can be rewarding, caring for patients with cancer is also demanding and stressful. Oncologists work long hours, supervise administration of highly toxic therapy, and continually observe death and suffering. While isolated studies have explored burnout in national samples of U.S. oncologists (last in 2003), little is known about the personal and professional characteristics related to burnout and career satisfaction. Methods: Between October 2012 - January 2013, ASCO conducted a national surveyof ~3000 U.S. oncologists evaluating burnout and career satisfaction. The survey sample was constructed from the member registry to include an equal number of men/women and an equal proportion of individuals from all career stages (<10 yrs, 10-19 yrs, >20 yrs). Validated tools were used to assess burnout and well-being. Results: As of January 2012, 1041 (35%) oncologists had returned surveys (median age 52 years; 50% women). Among responders, 355 (34%) were in academic practice (AP) and 447 (43%) in private practice (PP) with the remainder in other settings (e.g. military, veterans, industry). Oncologists worked an average of 51 hours/week and saw a mean of 51 outpatients/week. Although average hours worked for oncologists in PP and academic practice were similar (AP=54.6/wk; PP=54.2/wk), profound differences in other practice characteristics were observed with respect to sub-specialization (AP=81%; PP=17%), time devoted to clinical care, patients seen per week (AP=37; PP=74), time devoted to education, and method of compensation. Relative to 2011, 23% of oncologists reported a >10% decline in take home pay in 2012 (>10% decline AP=8%; PP=34%). Overall, 454 (45%) of oncologists had at least one symptom of burnout (e.g. emotional exhaustion, depersonalization) on the Maslach Burnout Inventory (AP=47%; PP=51%; p=0.19). While a majority were satisfied with their career (83%) and specialty (80%) choice, both measures of career satisfaction were lower for PP relative to AP (all p<0.005). Conclusions: Burnout is common among oncologists. Detailed multivariate analyses to identify personal and professional characteristics associated with burnout and career satisfaction are underway and will be presented.

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&lt;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&lt;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.

Clinician burnout and patient experience are important issues that are often considered separately. New measures of resilience may influence both. We explored relationships among clinician resilience, burnout, and patient experience. Analysis included 490 physicians who completed surveys measuring burnout and resilience (decompression and activation) and had at least 30 patient experience surveys available for analysis. Burnout was measured with 2 items from the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) which were part of the organization’s ongoing measurement of clinician experience. Resilience was measured with 8 items from 2 Press Ganey validated subscales related to clinicians’ ability to decompress from work and their experience of feeling of activation and connection to purpose while at work. Clinicians reporting more frequent symptoms of burnout based on the MBI items reported less ability to decompress ( r for individual measures ranged from −.183 to −.475, P < .01) and less feeling of activation ( r for individual measures ranged from −.116 to −.401, P < .01). Individual elements of decompression and activation were significantly associated with patient experience. In terms of activation, feeling that one’s work makes a difference ( r ranged from .121 to .159, P < .05) and believing one’s work to be meaningful ( r ranged from .102 to .135, P < .05) were positively associated with patient experience with their care provider. However, elements of decompression such as being able to free one’s mind from work ( r ranged from −.092 to −.119, P < .05) and being able to disconnect from work communications such as e-mails ( r ranged from −.094 to −.130, P < .05) were negatively associated with patient experience with their care providers. Patient and provider experience are intertwined in that clinician resilience is associated with both burnout and patient experience, but individual mechanisms of resilience may be beneficial for the clinician but not for the patient.