Citations

Abstract Abstract 1379 Background: Although chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) has substantially improved response rates, treatment free survival, and overall survival in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), only 40–50% of patients achieve a complete remission and the majority have residual disease when evaluated using sensitive assays for minimal residual disease (MRD). While this observation created interest in consolidation therapy, previous alemtuzumab based consolidation trials have demonstrated excess morbidity/mortality. We conducted a lenalidomide based consolidation trial for patients with previously untreated CLL who received 6 cycles of induction with pentostatin, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (PCR). Methods: Eligible patients were previously untreated and had CLL in need of treatment according to the NCI-WG criteria (Blood 111:5446). Treatment schema consisted of 6 cycles of pentostatin (2 mg/m2), cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m2) and rituximab (375 mg/m2) given every 21 days (Blood 109:405). All patients completing 6 cycles of PCR, underwent complete restaging and evaluation for MRD using sensitive flow cytometry (Leukemia 21:956). Following restaging and adequate recovery of blood counts, patients received 6 mos of lenalidomide consolidation by continuous daily administration. The starting lenalidomide dose was 5 mg/day with escalation to 10 mg/day after the first cycle as tolerated. Patients again underwent complete restaging and MRD evaluation after 6 mos of lenalidomide. At the time of this restaging, MRD negative patients entered observation. Those with residual disease continued on lenalidomide and underwent repeat MRD assessment every 3 mos with cessation of lenalidomide when an MRD negative state achieved. Results: 45 patients were enrolled at Mayo Clinic between 3/2008 and 11/2009. 44 patients were eligible for treatment: 71% male, median age 65 (range: 44–78); intermediate Rai risk 61%; high Rai risk 39%. On prognostic testing 32% were CD38+, 52% Zap-70 +, 52% IGHV unmutated, and 16% had high risk FISH (del 17p13; del 11q22). 38 of 44 eligible patients (86%) completed 6 cycles of PCR induction. Adverse events deemed at least possibly related to PCR induction included 19 (43%) patients with grade 3+ hematologic toxicity and 9 (20%) with grade 3+ non-hematologic toxicity. The Overall response rate to induction was 98% with 15 CR/CRi, 3 CCR, 9 nPR, and 16 PR. Four patients with CR were also MRD negative at the completion of induction. Of 38 patients who completed induction, 34 initiated lenalidomide consolidation. Thus, by protocol intent to treat analysis, 34/44 (77%) patients starting CIT with PCR were able to receive consolidation therapy. The remaining patients were unable to initiate consolidation due to: failure to complete induction (6 patients), disease progression (1), adverse event (1) and patient refusal (2). Among the 34 patients who initiated consolidation, the median number of cycles of lenalidomide received was 5.5 (range: 1–19). Adverse events deemed at least possibly related to lenalidomide consolidation included 22 (65%) patients with grade 3+ hematologic toxicity and 4 (12%) with grade 3+ non-hematologic toxicity. Among the 34 patients who received at least 1 cycle of lenalidomide, 4 patients have improved the quality of their response to date with 11 patients still on lenalidomide at the time of this report. After median follow-up of 16 mos, 42/44 patients are alive and median duration of response has not been reached. To date 3/44 (7%) of patients have progressed to require additional treatment. Finally, since eligibility was nearly identical to our historic trial of PCR without lenalidomide consolidation, we compared the 44 patients in the present trial to the 64 patients previously treated on our PCR trial (Blood 109:405). Demographic and prognostic characteristics of the patients in the two studies were similar. With the caveat it represents comparison across phase II trials, the proportion of patients free of retreatment at 12 mos was 97% (95%CI: 91–100) for PCR-L vs. 78% (95%CI: 68–89) for PCR (Figure 1). Conclusion: We report here the first results of lenalidomide based consolidation for CLL patients receiving first-line CIT induction. Although lenalidomide consolidation appears to improve the quality of response and prolong time to retreatment, longer follow-up is necessary to determine the clinical benefit of this strategy. Disclosures: Shanafelt: Celgene: Research Funding; Hospira: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide. Kay:Celgene: Research Funding; Hospira: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is one of the most common lymphoid malignancies, accounting for ~11% of all hematologic neoplasms. Over the last 15 years, a series of phase 3 trials have established that chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) improves both progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with chemotherapy alone. FCR is the gold standard for young fit patients with treatment naïve CLL. In parallel with the advances in CIT, a profound increase in the understanding of CLL B-cell biology led to new therapeutic approaches.1 Among these, ibrutinib (an irreversible inhibitor of Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase [BTK]) has had the largest impact on clinical practice to date. Initial trials of ibrutinib demonstrated robust and durable efficacy in patients with relapsed/refractory disease. Subsequent phase 3 trials showed improved PFS and OS with ibrutinib relative to chlorambucil in previously untreated, older CLL patients. Despite these advances, the efficacy of ibrutinib as a first-line treatment for younger CLL patients (i.e. <70) relative to the most efficacious CIT regimens, such as FCR, is unknown. METHODS: Eligible patients were treatment-naive individuals with CLL who were age <70 and required therapy. Patients with deletion 17p- were excluded from participating given the poor response of these patients to FCR therapy. Participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive ibrutinib (420 mg/day until disease progression) and rituximab (50 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 2; 325 mg/m2 on day 2 of cycle 2; 500 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycles 3-7) or six courses of intravenous fludarabine (25 mg/m2 ) and cyclophosphamide (250 mg/m2) days 1-3 with rituximab (50 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 1; 325 mg/m2 on day 2 of cycle 1; 500 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycles 2-6) every 28-days. The planned accrual was 519 patients. Hematologic toxicity was graded according to the 2008 IWCLL Working Group scale. All other adverse events were graded according to the NCI Common Toxicity Criteria (version 4). The primary endpoint was PFS with a secondary endpoint of overall survival (OS). Analysis was by intention to treat. The first planed interim analysis for PFS was scheduled to occur 24-27 months after full accrual with the first interim analysis for OS scheduled to occur if the boundary for PFS was crossed. The primary analysis was a stratified logrank test applied to all patients as randomized. Treatment effect p-values are one-sided. The study was approved by the Central Institutional Review Board for the National Cancer Institute, conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02048813). RESULTS: A total of 529 patients were accrued between January 31, 2014 and June 9, 2016. 354 patients were assigned to ibrutinib and rituximab (IR) and 175 to FCR. Nineteen patients did not start protocol therapy. The first interim analysis was performed September 2018. With median follow-up of 33.4 months, we observed 77 PFS events and 14 deaths. The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS favored IR over FCR (HR=0.352; 95% CI 0.223-0.558; p<0.0001) which crossed the pre specified boundary. The HR for OS also favored the IR arm (HR=0.168, 95% CI 0.053-0.538; p=0.0003, pre-specified boundary for superiority p=0.0005). Kaplan-Meier estimates for PFS and OS are shown in Figure 1A and 1B. In subgroup analysis for PFS, IR was superior to FCR independent of age, sex, performance status, disease stage or the presence/absence of del11q23. With current follow-up, IR was also superior to FCR for IGHV unmutated patients (HR=0.262; 95% CI 0.137-0.498; p<0.0001) but not IGHV mutated patients (HR=0.435; 95% CI 0.140-0.1350; p=0.07). Grade 3 and 4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 58% of IR and 72% of FCR treated patients (p=0.0042). Specifically, FCR was more frequently associated with grade 3 and 4 neutropenia (FCR: 69 [44%] of 158 vs. IR: 80 [23%] of 352; p<0·0001) and infectious complications (FCR: 28/158 [17.7%] vs. IR: 25/352 [7.1%]; p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of ibrutinib and rituximab provides superior PFS and OS relative to FCR for patients with previously untreated CLL age <70. These findings have immediate practice changing implications and establish ibrutinib-based therapy as the most efficacious first-line therapy for patients with CLL. Disclosures Shanafelt: Mayo Clinic: Patents & Royalties: Physician Well-being Index, Medical Student Well-being Index, Well-being index; Celgene: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Kay:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. O'Brien:Amgen: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Aptose Biosciences Inc.: Consultancy; Vaniam Group LLC: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Barrientos:Pharmacyclics/AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Erba:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding. Stone:Juno: Consultancy; Macrogenics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; FujiFilm: Consultancy; Sumitomo: Consultancy; Ono/Theradex: Consultancy; Otzuka/Astex: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Actinium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Argenx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celator / Jazz: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cornerstone: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Tallman:ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Other: Advisory board; BioSight: Other: Advisory board; AbbVie: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding; AROG: Research Funding; Orsenix: Other: Advisory board.

AbstractAlterations in global DNA methylation patterns are a major hallmark of cancer and represent attractive biomarkers for personalized risk stratification. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) risk stratification studies typically focus on time to first treatment (TTFT), time to progression (TTP) after treatment, and overall survival (OS). Whereas TTFT risk stratification remains similar over time, TTP and OS have changed dramatically with the introduction of targeted therapies, such as the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib. We have shown that genome-wide DNA methylation patterns in CLL are strongly associated with phenotypic differentiation and patient outcomes. Here, we developed a novel assay, termed methylation-iPLEX (Me-iPLEX), for high-throughput quantification of targeted panels of single cytosine guanine dinucleotides from multiple independent loci. Me-iPLEX was used to classify CLL samples into 1 of 3 known epigenetic subtypes (epitypes). We examined the impact of epitype in 1286 CLL patients from 4 independent cohorts representing a comprehensive view of CLL disease course and therapies. We found that epitype significantly predicted TTFT and OS among newly diagnosed CLL patients. Additionally, epitype predicted TTP and OS with 2 common CLL therapies: chemoimmunotherapy and ibrutinib. Epitype retained significance after stratifying by biologically related biomarkers, immunoglobulin heavy chain mutational status, and ZAP70 expression, as well as other common prognostic markers. Furthermore, among several biological traits enriched between epitypes, we found highly biased immunogenetic features, including IGLV3-21 usage in the poorly characterized intermediate-programmed CLL epitype. In summary, Me-iPLEX is an elegant method to assess epigenetic signatures, including robust classification of CLL epitypes that independently stratify patient risk at diagnosis and time of treatment.