ALBERT

Description: Background: Loss of major histocompatibility Class II antigens (MHCII) in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is associated with a decreased CD8+ tumor-infiltrating T-lymphocyte (TIL) response and poor patient survival. Transcription of the MHCII gene complex is under the control of the master transactivator, CIITA, which in part is regulated by histone acetylation. We tested the hypothesis that combination of histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat with standard chemotherapy will enhance MHCII expression and improve patient outcome in DLBCL. Methods: SWOG S0806 was a phase I/II open label trial of vorinostat given at 400 mg po daily on days 1-9 (subsequently reduced to days 1-5) combined with Rituximab-CHOP (R-CHOP) at standard doses, given on day 3 of a 21-day cycle for 8 cycles. Eligibility criteria included having newly diagnosed advanced stage DLBCL, international prognostic index (IPI) of at least 1, and lack of known CNS involvement or HIV. Primary endpoint of phase I was to establish maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of vorinostat with standard R-CHOP. Primary endpoint of phase II was to estimate 2-year progression free survival (PFS). Translational endpoints included correlation of pre-treatment acetylation status of histones, expression of MHCII genes, and percentage of TIL to PFS; and correlation of cytokine profile to response and outcomes. Results: Phase I was open in 5 SWOG institutions and enrolled 11 patients. There were only 2 patients who had dose limiting toxicities in the first cycle - grade 3 febrile neutropenia and grade 4 hypokalemia - allowing phase II to proceed with the original vorinostat dosing of 400 mg daily days 1-9, at all SWOG institutions. However, excess rates of febrile neutropenia and sepsis were seen upon further follow up, and the study was amended to reduce the duration of vorinostat to days 1-5. A total of 72 patients were enrolled in phase II, of which 8 were ineligible and 2 withdrew consent prior to treatment. For the remaining 62 patients, median age was 64 years, 92% had stage III/IV disease, 39% B symptoms, 61% elevated LDH, 39% had more than 1 extranodal site of involvement, with IPI breakdown of 13/26/47/13/2%. Notable grade 3-4 non-hematologic toxicities included febrile neutropenia (39%), sepsis (18%), fatigue (15%), hypokalemia (11%), hyponatremia (10%), and small bowel perforation (3%). Grade 3-4 hematologic toxicities included neutropenia (60%), anemia (35%), and thrombocytopenia (35%). There was one death in phase I from sepsis and multi-organ failure at the end of 8 cycles of treatment, but no deaths from toxicity in phase II. Overall response rate was 81% (95% CI: 69-90%). With median follow-up of 24.3 months, estimate of 2-year PFS is 72% (95% CI: 58%, 81%) and of 2-year OS is 85% (95% CI: 74%, 92%). Analysis of the panel of 30 cytokines performed on matched serum specimens of 40 patients showed correlation of baseline elevated IL-2R levels with worsened PFS and OS, and correlation of decrease in Epidermal Growth Factor level with improved PFS and OS. Results of immunohistochemical stains for expression of MHCII genes and percentage of TIL will be reported at the meeting. Conclusions: The regimen of vorinostat-R-CHOP achieved 2-year PFS estimate of 72%, which is slightly more than 68% expected from R-CHOP alone per IPI adjusted historical rate, but less than an IPI adjusted target of 78% that would be sufficient to warrant further investigation. It also resulted in unexpected excess rates of febrile neutropenia and sepsis. This regimen cannot be recommended for the broad DLBCL population. Current studies are focused on finding biomarkers of response to histone deacetylase inhibitors. Disclosures Persky: Gilead Sciences, Inc: Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: vorinostat in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Barr:Abbvie: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Description: Introduction Limited stage disease accounts for 30-40% of Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma (DLBCL), with better overall survival than advanced stage disease, but with increased late relapses regardless of treatment strategy (Stephens 2016). Preferred treatment for these patients (pts) per NCCN guidelines is abbreviated R-CHOP followed by radiotherapy. Based on promising results of radioimmunotherapy consolidation in SWOG S0313 (Persky 2015), and of PET-directed experience by the BC Cancer Agency (Sehn 2011), we designed a National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) PET-directed study to tailor therapy after 3 cycles of R-CHOP, to improve outcomes and decrease toxicities. Methods Pts had non-bulky (〈 10 cm) stage I/II untreated DLBCL. Mediastinal, HIV-associated, testicular, central nervous system, and indolent lymphoma were excluded. Pts received standard R-CHOP therapy and had an interim PET scan on day 15-18 of cycle 3, which was centrally reviewed in real time. Pts with negative PET scan (Deauville 1-3, iPET-neg) proceeded with 1 additional cycle of R-CHOP. Pts with positive PET scan (Deauville 4-5, iPET-pos) initiated 36 Gy of involved field radiation therapy (IFRT), plus additional boost to FDG-avid area up to 9 Gy, within 5 weeks of 3rd cycle of R-CHOP. This was followed by ibritumomab tiuxetan (IFRT-Zevalin) 3-6 weeks after completing IFRT. Final PET scan was performed 12 weeks after treatment completion. Results The study completed accrual in June 2016. Safety, response, interim PET, and immunohistochemistry-based cell of origin (COO) and MYC/BCL2 analyses were presented previously (Persky 2017, Stephens 2017). Of 159 pts enrolled, 1 was upstaged by PET, and 26 pts were ineligible - due to incorrect histology (mostly concurrent indolent or follicular lymphoma grade 3B) (21), lack of diagnostic tissue submission for central pathology review (3), and bulky disease (2). In 132 eligible pts, median age was 62 years, 62% had stage I, 17% had B symptoms, 14% had elevated LDH, 43% had extranodal involvement, and 66% had exclusive involvement of the head and neck region. Stage modified IPI (smIPI, Miller 1998) was 0 in 27%, 1 in 42%, 2 in 28%, and 3 in 4% of the pts. COO by Lymph2Cx was assessable in 87 pts - 68% were GCB, 23% were ABC, and 9% were unclassifiable. Double protein expressers (MYC and BCL2, DPE) were 16%, while 4 (3%) pts had "double hit" lymphoma (DHL) - 2 with MYC/BCL2 and 2 with MYC/BCL6 rearrangements - none of which were DPE. Of 132 eligible pts, 128 had an interim PET scan centrally reviewed, of which 110 were iPET-neg. Only 18 were iPET-pos, 4 of them due to infection (Deauville X) which were treated as iPET-neg. Of 14 truly iPET-pos pts (11%), 2 refused radiation, and 12 pts received IFRT-Zevalin. Eight pts (67%) converted from PR to CR after IFRT-Zevalin and 4 (33%) had PR, for an overall CR of 92% and PR of 4% (with 4% unevaluable). With median follow up of 4.5 yrs (range 1.1 - 7.5 yrs), only 5 pts progressed and 2 died from lymphoma. Of 5 progressors, 3 received R-CHOP x 4, 1 was iPET-pos but declined radiation, and 1 went off treatment after 1 cycle of R-CHOP. Eleven pts died from non-lymphoma causes, including 1 pt from secondary AML (iPET-neg arm), and 1 of lung adenocarcinoma diagnosed upon iPET. S1001 5-yr PFS estimate is 87% and OS estimate is 90% (figure 1), with iPET-pos and iPET-neg pts having similar outcomes - PFS 86% vs. 88%, OS 93% vs. 91%, respectively. Five-yr PFS by smIPI was 97% for smIPI of 0, 86% for 1-2, and 30% for 3. GCB had 5-yr PFS of 95%, vs. 70% for ABC and 47% for unclassifiable. DPE pts had 5-yr PFS of 70, vs. 89% for non-DPE pts. All 4 DHL pts maintain remission. Conclusions S1001 is the largest US study of limited stage DLBCL in the rituximab era, with best NCTN results in this disease subset. Only 5 patients progressed and 2 died from lymphoma. Our study confirms the distinct biology of limited stage DLBCL, with predominance of GCB origin (68%), and head and neck location (66%). Due to small number of lymphoma events, no strong conclusions about prognostic ability of smIPI, COO, DPE, or DHL, could be made. S1001 demonstrated that 89% of pts maintained excellent outcomes after R-CHOP x 4 with PET-directed therapy. Only 11% of pts were iPET-pos and required radiation, but they also had excellent outcomes. Together with the FLYER trial in younger pts (Poeschel 2018), this NCTN trial establishes R-CHOP x 4 alone as the new standard approach to limited stage disease for majority of the pts. Disclosures Persky: Sandoz: Consultancy; Morphosys: Other: Member, Independent Data Monitoring Committee; Debiopharm: Other: Member, Independent Data Monitoring Committee; Bayer: Consultancy. Stephens:Acerta: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Park:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rafael Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; G1 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bartlett:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Genenetech: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Swinnen:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Barr:Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie company: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Leonard:Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Bayer Corporation: Consultancy; Bayer Corporation: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy. Kahl:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy. Fisher:Celgene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Barclays: Honoraria; prIME: Honoraria. Rimsza:NanoSting: Patents & Royalties: Named inventor on a patent licensed to NanoSting [Institution]. Smith:Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Friedberg:Bayer: Honoraria, Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee; Acerta: Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee. OffLabel Disclosure: Ibritumomab tiuxetan in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

Description: Introduction: Ibrutinib, an orally and continuously administered Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, allows for targeted, non-chemotherapy based treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). While the initial US marketing approval for ibrutinib in CLL was for relapsed disease (February 2014), several trials have since shown favorable efficacy in the first-line setting. Ibrutinib was well tolerated in these pivotal studies, with discontinuation occurring in less than 9% at 12 months (O'Brien et al., Am J Hemato. 2019). Most early ibrutinib discontinuations in the first-line setting are due to adverse events (Tedeschi et al., EHA 2019), and optimal strategies to manage ibrutinib-related toxicities are not well defined. We hypothesized that ibrutinib is increasingly utilized for first-line treatment of CLL during routine management in the US, but that ibrutinib discontinuation rates for the real-world population are greater than those reported in clinical trials. Further, we expected to find greater odds of discontinuation in older adults and those with poor performance status, two groups underrepresented in clinical trials. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of CLL patients treated at community oncology practices using the nationwide Flatiron Health database. The Flatiron Health database is a longitudinal, demographically and geographically diverse database derived from de-identified electronic health record data from over 280 cancer clinics in the US. All patients initiated CLL therapy in the first-line setting between March 1, 2014 and February 28, 2019. We first assessed trends in the use of first-line ibrutinib (i.e., ibrutinib with/without an anti-CD20 antibody). We then focused on patients who received ibrutinib and had at least 180 days of available follow up or had died within this period. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the association of patient characteristics with early discontinuation (defined as stopping within 180 days of initiation). Covariates included in our model were patient age, sex, race, insurance type, ECOG performance status, year of treatment, time from CLL diagnosis to ibrutinib initiation, chromosome 17p status, and geographical region. Results: We identified 5,634 individuals initiating first-line treatment for CLL, of whom 1,639 (29.1%) received an ibrutinib-based regimen. Use of ibrutinib in the first-line setting increased over time (Cochrane-Armitage test for trend, p

Description: Introduction: Venetoclax (VEN) based therapy has become a standard of care in front line and relapsed-refractory (R/R) CLL based on favorable efficacy and toxicity. Whereas prospective data regarding activity of therapies following ibrutinib (IBR) or idelalisib (IDE) are available in the settings of progression (VEN, non-covalent BTKi) and intolerance (acalabrutinib), how best to manage patients (pts) who discontinue (dc) VEN remains a key unanswered question. With the increased use of VEN in early lines of therapy (LOT; CLL 14, MURANO), the activity of BTK inhibitors (BTKi) and cellular therapies following VEN becomes a critical issue. No prospective study has addressed this question, and currently reported VEN clinical trials have limited information about subsequent treatments. While recent data describe VEN resistance mechanisms (Guieze 2018, Blombery 2019), the impact of VEN resistance on efficacy of post VEN therapies is unknown. To address this gap, we conducted an international study to identify a large cohort of pts who dc VEN and have been subsequently treated. Methods: We conducted an IRB approved multicenter (31 US, EU, South American sites, in partnership with UK CLL Forum and CORE registry), retrospective cohort study of CLL pts who dc VEN for any reason. We examined demographics, dc reasons, responses, survival, adverse events (AEs) and activity of post VEN therapies. Primary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR) and progression free survival (PFS) for the post VEN treatments stratified by treatment type (BTKi, PI3Ki and cellular therapy: CAR-T or alloHSCT). ORR was defined by iwCLL criteria and PFS was defined from VEN dc to disease progression (PD), death, or last follow up for next treatment. Pts were further stratified by BTKi (resistant / intolerant) and PI3Ki exposure prior to VEN. PFS-2 was defined as time from VEN start to tumor progression on IBR or death from any cause. Results: 326 CLL pts who dc VEN in the front line (4%) and R/R settings (96%) were identified. The cohort was 69% male, 87% white, median (med) age 66 (38-91) at VEN start, 27% treated with VEN based combinations (n=88, med 6 cycles anti-CD20 abs). Pre VEN prognostic features: 82% IGHV unmutated (n tested=166), 47% del17p (n=306), 45% TP53 mut (n=217), 39% complex karyotype (n=273), 23% BTK mut (n=79), 18% NOTCH1 mut (n=103), 10% PLCγ2 mut (n=74). Pts received med 3 therapies (0-11) prior to VEN; 40% were BTKi naïve (n=130), 60% were BTKi exposed (196) and 81% were IDE naïve (n=263). Most common reasons for VEN dc were PD (38%), AE (20%), Richter's transformation (RT, 14%), 8% pt preference, and HSCT 5%. Of 326 pts who dc VEN, 188 (58%) were treated with a subsequent LOT, 61 are alive and untreated and 77 died prior to a subsequent LOT. Post VEN sequencing analyses focused on BTKi, PI3Ki and cellular therapy (CAR-T or alloHSCT) activities following VEN dc (Table1). ORR to BTKi was 84% (n=44) vs. 54% (n=30, p

Description: Background : Ibrutinib is the only once-daily Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor with significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit demonstrated in 5 randomized phase 3 studies in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) compared with standard-of-care chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy (RESONATE, RESONATE-2, iLLUMINATE, Alliance 041202, and ECOG 1912), and significant overall survival (OS) benefit in 3 of these studies. To understand how treatment with single-agent ibrutinib in earlier lines impacts patient outcomes, we evaluated long-term follow-up data from RESONATE and RESONATE-2 to compare efficacy and safety by number of prior lines of therapy. Methods : This integrated analysis included patients treated with single-agent ibrutinib in the first-line (RESONATE-2, NCT01722487) and relapsed/refractory (R/R; RESONATE, NCT01578707) settings. R/R patients were grouped by number of prior lines of therapy (1-2 vs ≥3). Patients with del(17p) were excluded from this analysis given their exclusion from RESONATE-2. Patients with high-risk prognostic features were defined as having TP53 mutation, del(11q), and/or unmutated IGHV. Outcomes included investigator-assessed PFS and objective response rate (ORR), OS, and safety. Results : This analysis of 271 patients included 136 patients in the first-line and 135 patients in the R/R groups (1-2 prior: n=68; ≥3 prior: n=67). Patients in the first-line group were older (median age [range], 73 years [65-89]) than those with 1-2 prior lines (65 years [30-86]) and ≥3 prior lines (67 years [44-83]). The proportion of patients with high-risk prognostic features was lower in the first-line group (first-line: 54%; 1-2 prior: 81%; ≥3 prior: 76%). Median follow-up was 59.8 months for first-line, 66.2 months for 1-2 prior, and 65.1 for ≥3 prior. Median PFS was not reached (NR) for first-line or 1-2 prior lines and was 40.1 months for ≥3 prior lines (Figure 1A). A greater proportion of patients treated with ibrutinib in earlier lines remained progression-free or alive at 60 months (first-line: 70%; 1-2 prior: 60%; ≥3 prior: 33%). First-line treatment resulted in a 34% reduction in risk of disease progression or death compared to 1-2 prior lines (HR: 0.66 [95% CI, 0.40-1.09]). PFS was significantly prolonged for first-line vs ≥3 prior lines (HR: 0.32 [95% CI, 0.21-0.49]) and 1-2 prior vs ≥3 prior lines (HR: 0.48 [95% CI, 0.30-0.77]). For patients with high-risk prognostic features, median PFS was NR for first-line or 1-2 prior lines and was 42.5 months for ≥3 prior lines (Figure 1B); treatment in earlier lines resulted in better PFS for these patients (first-line vs 1-2 prior, HR: 0.64 [95% CI, 0.35-1.18]; first-line vs ≥3 prior, HR: 0.33 [95% CI, 0.19-0.57]; 1-2 prior vs ≥3 prior HR: 0.51 [95% CI, 0.30-0.87]). Median OS for the overall population was NR (range, 0.10+-66.04+) for first-line, NR (5.98-71.56+) for 1-2 prior, and 67.4 months (1.15-69.78+) for ≥3 prior lines. The ORR was 91%, 94%, and 82% for first-line, 1-2 prior, and ≥3 prior lines, respectively. The CR rate (CR+CR with incomplete marrow recovery) was highest for the first-line group (first-line: 30%; 1-2 prior: 12%; ≥3 prior: 10%). At the time of analysis, 58% of patients remain on ibrutinib treatment in the first-line group. Prior to study closure, 38% of patients with 1-2 prior and 18% of patients with ≥3 prior lines remained on ibrutinib treatment. In the overall population, 8 patients (6%) in the first-line group discontinued due to progressive disease while it was the most common reason for discontinuation for patients with 1-2 (n=15, 22%) and ≥3 prior lines (n=25, 37%). Across all three groups, 52 patients (19%) discontinued due to adverse events (AEs) (first-line: n=29, 21%; 1-2 prior: n=13, 19%; ≥3 prior: n=10, 15%). AEs leading to dose reduction occurred in 20% of first-line, 13% of 1-2 prior, and 22% of ≥3 prior lines. Conclusions : Overall, this integrated analysis of data with up to 6 years of long-term follow-up demonstrates that using single-agent ibrutinib in earlier lines of treatment results in better PFS, OS, and ORR with sustained efficacy for patients with CLL, including patients with high-risk prognostic features. During this extended follow-up, only 6% of patients treated in the first-line setting discontinued due to progressive disease. Ibrutinib was well tolerated with only 19% of patients across all lines of therapy discontinuing due to AEs. Disclosures Barr: Gilead: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie company: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding. Tedeschi:Janssen spa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SUNESIS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Munir:AbbVie: Honoraria; Alexion: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Other: TBC; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hillmen:Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Apellis: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Woyach:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Loxo: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding. Byrd:Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding. Ghia:ArQule: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Dynamo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy. Mulligan:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Clinical Trial Participant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Clinical Trial Participant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Clinical Trial participant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Commonwealth Serum Laboratories (CSL): Other: Clinical Trial participant; Sanofi-Aventis: Other: Clinical Trial participant; Acerta: Other: Clinical Trial participant. Dai:AbbVie: Equity Ownership; Celgene: Equity Ownership; Exelixis: Equity Ownership; Gilead: Equity Ownership; GSK: Equity Ownership; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. Amaya-Chanaga:AbbVie: Equity Ownership; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. Dean:AbbVie: Equity Ownership; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. o'Brien:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Aptose Biosciences, Inc: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Kite: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vaniam Group LLC: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy.

Description: Key Points Clinical responsiveness to imexon represents the first demonstration of efficacy with modulating cellular redox in B-cell NHL. Antioxidant-related gene expression predicted for response to imexon.

Description: Background: Ibrutinib is a first-in-class, oral covalent inhibitor of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) that has shown single-agent efficacy and an acceptable safety profile in patients (pts) with CLL. While BTK is expressed in platelets, bleeding diathesis has not been reported in pts with hereditary BTK deficiency (e.g., X-linked agammaglobulinemia). Pts with CLL often have comorbidities requiring anticoagulants and/or antiplatelet agents, which can increase bleeding risk. We sought to characterize the pattern of use of these agents and describe bleeding adverse events (AEs) observed in 2 trials of single-agent ibrutinib in pts with CLL. Methods: Event-based analysis of data from the ibrutinib phase 2 PCYC-1102 trial and interim analysis of the phase 3 RESONATETM(PCYC-1112 trial) of ibrutinib vs. ofatumumab were analyzed to determine the use of concomitant anticoagulants and/or antiplatelet therapy. Precautionary language on the use of anticoagulant or antiplatelet agents, particularly regarding restrictions on the use of vitamin K antagonists (e.g., warfarin), and recommendations for perioperative holding of ibrutinib, were added late during the 1102 trial. Major bleeding was defined as any grade ≥ 3 bleeding event, or hemorrhage of any grade resulting in one of the following: intraocular bleeding causing loss of vision, need for ≥ 2 units of RBC transfusion, hospitalization, prolonged hospitalization, or any intracranial hemorrhage. Results: In the 2 trials, 327 pts with CLL/SLL were treated; 132 in 1102 trial and 195 in the ibrutinib arm of 1112. Median age was 68 and 67 years, respectively, and median number of prior therapies was 3 in both trials. Overall, 65 pts (20%) received concomitant anticoagulation across the 2 trials, 70 (21%) received ASA, and 7 (2%) received clopidogrel (Table). The most common bleeding AEs were grade 1 petechiae and contusion. In the 1102 trial, grade 1 bleeding AEs occurred in 52%, grade 2 in 5%, and grade 3 in 3%. In the ibrutinib arm of 1112, grade 1 bleeding AEs occurred in 41%, grade 2 in 4%, and grade 3 in 1%. Overall, major bleeding occurred in 8 of 327 pts (2.4%): 5% in 1102 (6 of 132) and 1% in the ibrutinib arm of 1112 (2 of 195). For comparison, in the ofatumumab arm of 1112, major bleeding occurred in 1.6% of pts (3 of 191). Among the 8 ibrutinib-treated pts with major bleeding, 5 were reported to have concomitant use of either an anticoagulant alone (LMWH, n=1), an antiplatelet agent alone (ASA, n=1; NSAID, n=1), or both an anticoagulant and an antiplatelet agent (ASA and warfarin, n=1; NSAID, heparin and LMWH, n=1). The case of major bleeding on warfarin occurred on the 1102 trial before a protocol amendment restricted its use. Bleeding AEs led to discontinuation of ibrutinib in 4 pts (1.2%) from the 2 studies (3 on 1102 and 1 on 1112), all due to major bleeding. Conclusions: In summary, the concomitant use of anticoagulant or antiplatelet agent was common in 2 clinical trials of single-agent ibrutinib in 327 pts with CLL/SLL. Bleeding AEs in these trials were primarily grade 1 and associated with low rates of treatment discontinuation. Major bleeding events were uncommon and most cases occurred in pts taking one or more concomitant anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet agents. Importantly, there was no difference in the incidence of major bleeding between the 2 arms of the randomized 1112 trial while many of these pts were receiving concomitant anticoagulants or antiplatelet agents. Adherence to appropriate drug-withholding guidelines perioperatively and precautions surrounding the use of antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants, as applied in the 1112 trial, resulted in few major bleeding complications. Table. Concomitant anticoagulants or antiplatelet agents used in single-agent trials n (%) 1102 (n=132) 1112 ibrutinib arm(n=195) Total (N=327) Any anticoagulant 23 (17) 42 (22) 65 (20) Vitamin K antagonist* Heparin LMWH Dabigatran Rivaroxaban Apixaban Alteplase 6 (5) 3 (2) 14 (11) 0 0 0 1 (1) 4 (2) 5 (3) 34 (17) 3 (2) 1 (1) 1 (1) 0 10 (3) 8 (2) 48 (15) 3 (1) 1 (

Description: Background: Follicular lymphoma (FL) is the most common indolent NHL with a heterogenous natural history of disease and a median survival of 8 to 12 y, albeit ranging between 1 to 20 y. Casulo et al. (2015) identified a high-risk FL cohort of patients with progression of disease (POD) at ≤24 months following initiation of immunochemotherapy with R-CHOP. Idelalisib (Zydelig) is a first-in-class, highly selective, oral inhibitor of PI3Kd which is indicated for relapsed FL or SLL following receipt of at least two lines of systemic chemotherapy. Retrospective subgroup analysis of the idelalisib registrational trial NCT01282424 (101-09) of a cohort with early POD following immunochemotherapy was performed to assess possible activity of idelalisib in this population. Methods: A subset of 46 patients enrolled in study 101-09 were identified as having been diagnosed with FL and having received first-line immunochemotherapy, of which 37 experienced early POD, defined as starting second-line treatment within 24 months of initial first-line treatment. For the latter group, descriptive statistics of demographic and baseline characteristics and inter-treatment intervals in months as well as Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) following initiation of immunochemotherapy and idelalisib were calculated. Population: Demographic characteristics of these 37 patients included median (range) age at initiation of idelalisib of 64 (33-84) y and 18 (48.6%) females. Histologic grade at diagnosis included 33 (89.2%) with grades 1 or 2 as well as 4 (10.8%) with grade 3A, while 21 (56.8%) patients had a FLIPI score ≥3. The mean (s.d.) number of prior therapies was 3.4±1.4, with a range of 2 to 8, while first-line therapies included 21 (56.8%) patients who received R-CHOP-based regimens, 7 (18.9%) who received BR, and 5 (13.5%) who received R-CVP. Mean (s.d.) inter-treatment intervals included 12.5±6.1 months between first- and second-line for all patients, 9.7±9.3 months between second- and third-line for all patients, 11.9±12.0 months between third- and fourth-line for 24 (64.9%) patients, and 11.8±7.6 months between fourth- and fifth-line for 15 (40.5%) patients. Median (range) time from first-line therapy to idelalisib initiation was 30.3 (8.9-94.7) months; no patient received idelalisib as second-line therapy. Results: Best responses included 5 (13.5%) patients with CR, 16 (43.2%) with PR, 2 (5.4%) with SD, and 1 (2.7%) with PD; median duration of response for those with CR or PR was 11.8 months (95% CI: 3.8 months, not evaluable). There were 7 (18.9%) deaths and 21 (56.8%) PFS events in this group. Estimated probabilities of survival (s.e.) and progression-free status at 2 y following initiation of idelalisib were 79%±7% and 29%±10%, respectively. Median PFS was 11.1 months (95% CI: 5.5, 19.3 months). Estimated probability of survival (s.e.) at 5 years following initiation of first-line treatment was 79%±8%. Median overall survival from both initiation of first-line immunochemotherapy as well as with idelalisib was not reached during the course of this study. Conclusions: Idelalisib may have significant clinical activity in high-risk and doubly-refractive FL following early relapse status post first-line immunochemotherapy. Given the small size of the studied subset population which may not be representative, further characterization in additional patients is warranted to ensure the generalizability of this finding, including consideration of further investigational protocols featuring targeted therapies employed both as single agents and in combination. Figure 1. Overall Survival From Initiation of First-line Treatment Figure 1. Overall Survival From Initiation of First-line Treatment Figure 2. Overall Survival From Initiation of Idelalisib Figure 2. Overall Survival From Initiation of Idelalisib Figure 3. Progression-Free Survival From Initiation of Idelalisib Figure 3. Progression-Free Survival From Initiation of Idelalisib Disclosures Gopal: Gilead, Spectrum, Pfizer, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Spectrum, Pfizer, BioMarin, Cephalon/Teva, Emergent/Abbott. Gilead, Janssen., Merck, Milennium, Piramal, Seattle Genetics, Giogen Idec, BMS: Research Funding; Millennium, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi-Aventis: Honoraria. Kahl:Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy; Cell Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Infinity: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy. Flowers:Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Spectrum: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celegene: Other: Unpaid consultant, Research Funding; OptumRx: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Martin:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Link:Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding. Ansell:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding. Ye:Gilead: Employment. Koh:Gilead: Employment. Abella:Gilead: Employment. Barr:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Salles:Calistoga Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Celgene Corporation; Genentech, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, L.P.; Roche: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation; Roche and Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation; Roche: Speakers Bureau.