ALBERT

Description: CD19-targeted chimeric antigen receptor-engineered (CD19 CAR) T cell therapy has shown significant efficacy for relapsed or refractory (R/R) B-cell malignancies. Yet CD19 CAR T cells fail to induce durable responses in most patients. Second infusions of CD19 CAR T cells (CART2) have been considered as a possible approach to improve outcomes. We analyzed data from 44 patients with R/R B-cell malignancies (ALL, n=14; CLL, n=9; NHL, n=21) who received CART2 on a phase 1/2 trial at our institution. Despite a CART2 dose increase in 82% of patients, we observed a low incidence of severe toxicity after CART2 (grade ≥3 CRS, 9%; grade ≥3 neurotoxicity, 11%). After CART2, CR was achieved in 22% of CLL, 19% of NHL, and 21% of ALL patients. The median durations of response after CART2 in CLL, NHL, and ALL patients were 33, 6, and 4 months, respectively. Addition of fludarabine to cyclophosphamide-based lymphodepletion before CART1 and an increase in the CART2 dose compared to CART1 were independently associated with higher overall response rates and longer progression-free survival after CART2. We observed durable CAR T-cell persistence after CART2 in patients who received Cy-Flu lymphodepletion before CART1 and a higher CART2 compared to CART1 cell dose. The identification of two modifiable pre-treatment factors independently associated with better outcomes after CART2 suggests strategies to improve in vivo CAR T-cell kinetics and responses after repeat CAR T-cell infusions, and has implications for the design of trials of novel CAR T-cell products after failure of prior CAR T-cell immunotherapies.

Description: Introduction Transformation of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) into Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is a rare, but recognized complication of CLL. The prognosis of CLL with HL Transformation (HT) appears significantly worse than de novo HL, but most series are small and there are limited published data. These reports have prompted several groups to recommend aggressive therapy with stem cell transplantation (SCT) in first complete remission (CR1). We describe the largest reported series of HT patients (pts) with analyses of the clinicobiologic characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes based upon our multi-institutional clinical experience. Methods Pts diagnosed with HT from 01/2000 - 01/2018 were retrospectively identified in 13 tertiary cancer centers. Clinicobiologic characteristics, treatment type, and survival outcomes for each pt were analyzed. Overall survival (OS) was measured from the time of HT diagnosis until time of death. OS estimates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The log-rank test was used to calculate differences in survival. Results Ninety-four pts with HT were identified. Median age at HT was 67 years (yrs; range, 38-85) and 81% of the pts were male. Median time from CLL diagnosis to HT was 5.5 yrs (range, 0-20.2; 7 pts with simultaneous diagnosis of CLL and HL). At initial CLL diagnosis, 31%, 34%, 21%, 10%, and 4% were Rai Stage 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. At CLL diagnosis, 67% (25/37) had an un-mutated IgVH gene, 36% (21/59) had del(13q), 32% (14/44) had trisomy 12, 24% (14/59) had del(11q), and 15% (9/61) had del(17p). Prior to HT diagnosis, pts had a median of 2 (range, 0-12) therapies for CLL. Seventeen (18%) had no prior CLL treatments. Forty-three (46%) and 25 (27%) patients had received purine analogue- and ibrutinib-based therapy prior to HT, respectively. Baseline characteristics at HT are described in Table 1. As initial therapy for HL, the majority of pts (61%, n = 62) received ABVD-based regimens (adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) at full (n = 48) or reduced (n = 14) doses. Of these, CD20 monoclonal antibody was added in 6 and Bruton-tyrosine kinase inhibitor was added in 2. Ten (11%) received a brentuximab-based regimen. Seven (7%) received an RCHOP-based regimen (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone). Six patients (6%) received no therapy for HT due to frailty. Subsequent therapy included autologous SCT and allogeneic SCT in 7 (7%) and 11 (12%) of patients, respectively. Two (2%) and 5 (5%) pts received their autologous and allogeneic SCT while in CR1, respectively. The median number of treatments for HT per pt was 1 (range, 0-5) with 59 (61%) pts only receiving one line of therapy. After HT diagnosis, pts had a median follow-up of 1.6 yrs (range, 0.0 - 15.1). Two-yr OS after HT diagnosis was 72% (95%CI 62 - 83%). The pts who received any CLL directed therapy (n = 80) prior to HT had a significantly lower estimated 2-yr OS of 69% (95%CI 58 - 82%) compared with pts who did not receive any prior CLL-directed therapy (n = 17; 93%; 95%CI 82-100%; p 0.02; Figure 1). Pts who received purine-analogue-based therapy for their CLL prior to HT had a significantly lower estimated 2-yr OS of 60% (95%CI 46 - 79%) compared with pts who did not receive purine-analogue-based CLL-directed therapy prior to HT (n = 51; 83%; 95%CI 73 - 96%; p 0.009; Figure 2). Although limited by small sample size, the pts who underwent SCT for HT in CR1 had a similar 2-yr OS (n = 7; 67%; 95%CI 38-100%) to pts who did not undergo SCT for HT in CR1 (n = 87; 72%; 95%CI 63 - 84%; p 0.46; Figure 3). Conclusions In this retrospective analysis, we describe the largest reported series of pts with HT from CLL. Two-yr survival in pts with HT was shorter than what is historically expected in patients with de novo HL, but longer than what is expected in CLL pts who transform to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Pts with HT who have received prior CLL-directed therapies (specifically purine-analogue-based treatments) are estimated to have a shorter 2-yr OS, likely due to underlying immunosuppression. The majority of pts (61%) only received 1 line of HL therapy and only 20% went on to receive SCT (7% while in CR1), indicating that these patients can have prolonged OS after achieving response to first-line therapy for HT and may not require SCT in CR1. Further study of this rare population is required to determine optimum management. Disclosures Kander: AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Parikh:Gilead: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Shadman:Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Mustang Biopharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Beigene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Qilu Puget Sound Biotherapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy. Pagel:Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Mato:Portola: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Prime Oncology: Honoraria; Regeneron: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Medscape: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hill:Amgen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Danilov:Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding. Phillips:Abbvie: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Brander:Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Acerta: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; DTRM: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; BeiGene: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding. Smith:BMS: Consultancy; Portola: Honoraria. Davids:Surface Oncology: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy; Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy; Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: 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; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Description: Background: Bortezomib was originally incorporated into DT-PACE (thalidomide, dexamethasone, cisplatin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide) as an intensive induction regimen (VTD-PACE) prior to high-dose melphalan and autologous transplant for multiple myeloma (MM). This regimen is effective in the induction setting, and also for patients with relapsed disease (Barlogie British Journal of Haematology 2007, Singh ASCO 2013). At our center, we examined the outcomes of MM patients undergoing chemomobilization with a regimen that substituted carfilzomib and lenalidomide for bortezomib and thalidomide (CarRD-PACE). Methods: Twenty MM patients with measureable disease received CarRD-PACE for chemomobilization. We excluded in this report patients with plasma cell leukemia, renal insufficiency, heart failure, or those patients who were refractory to carfilzomib. Results: The median age was 61.5 years (range, 35- 69). Nine of these patients were women (45%). The median left ventricular ejection fraction pre-treatment was 62% (range, 50 - 77%). Of patients with initial staging information, 8 were ISS stage I (47%), 5 patients ISS II (29%), and 4 were ISS III (24%). High risk cytogenetics, defined as presence of deletion 17p, t(4;14), t(14;16), were present in 5 patients at time of chemomobilization (25%). Fourteen patients (82%) had bulky disease (defined as having 〉 3 lesions, or having a single lesion 〉 3 cm on PET-CT or MRI) prior to treatment, assessed by MRI (n=12) or PET-CT (n= 2). The median time from diagnosis to mobilization was 9.5 months (range, 4- 44). Patients had previously received a median of 2 regimens of therapy (range, 1- 5). Fifteen patients received 1 cycle of CarRD-PACE, and 5 patients received 2 cycles. Eighteen patients response evaluable; in these patients, the overall CR/PR response rate after completion of treatment was 25% (4 PR, 1 CR), with fifteen patients (75%) having SD. A total of 18 patients (90%) collected stem cells after mobilization, requiring a median of 1 day of collection (range, 1-2), and collected a median of 18.3 x 10^6 CD34+ cells/kg (range, 4.8 - 69.88). Grade 3-4 toxicities occurred in 6 patients (30%), most common was neutropenic fever (n=4) (20%). No patients experienced a cardiac toxicity. Hospital readmission following treatment occurred in 4 patients (20%) for a median of 6.5 days (range, 3 - 15). Eighteen patients (90%) underwent a single autologous transplant, and 2 (10%) received tandem autologous-allogeneic transplant. Following autologous transplant, the median time to neutrophil engraftment was 18 days (range, 14 - 29 days), and the median time to platelet engraftment was 13 days (range, 7 - 19 days). The PFS at 6 months was 63% (95% CI, 0.382 - 1), and the OS at 6 months was 91% (95% CI, 0.754 - 1) (Figure). Discussion: CarRD-PACE is a well-tolerated and effective therapy in heavily treated multiple myeloma patients with substantial disease burden at the time of autologous transplant, and can successfully mobilize autologous PBSC. Despite the theoretical concern regarding the combination of 2 agents with cardiac toxicity (carfilzomib and doxorubicin), we did not observe any cardiac toxicities of any grade during treatment. This approach may be particularly useful in individuals with bortezomib associated neuropathy and or those with bortezomib refractory disease. Figure Kaplan-meier plots for progression free and overall survival. Figure. Kaplan-meier plots for progression free and overall survival. Disclosures Becker: GlycoMimetics: Research Funding. Shadman:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Emergent: Research Funding. Gopal:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding.

Description: Background CD19-targeted chimeric antigen receptor-engineered (CD19 CAR)-T cell immunotherapy has shown promising efficacy in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) B-cell malignancies. The potential benefits of repeat infusions of CD19 CAR-T cells are unknown, and the factors associated with response, CAR-T cell in vivo expansion, and progression-free survival (PFS) after repeat infusion of CD19 CAR-T cells have not been investigated. Methods We analyzed the outcomes of patients with R/R B-cell malignancies after a second infusion of CD19 CAR-T cells (CART2) on a phase 1/2 trial (NCT01865617) at our institution. Responses after CAR-T cell therapy were evaluated around day 28 after infusion and defined according to the 2018 NCCN guidelines for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), 2018 iwCLL for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and the Lugano criteria for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Logistic, Cox and linear regression were used for multivariable analyses of response, progression-free survival and peak CD8+ CAR-T in blood, respectively. Bayesian model averaging was performed for variable selection. Results Forty-four patients evaluable for response (ALL, n=14; CLL, n=11; NHL, n=19) were included in this study. The median age at the time of CART2 was 58 (range, 23-73). Patients were heavily pre-treated (median prior therapies, 6; range, 2-13), and 16 patients (36%) had bulky (≥ 5cm) nodal or extramedullary disease. The median time from the first CAR-T infusion (CART1) to CART2 was 70 days (range, 28-712). Twenty-eight patients (64%) had received a CART1 dose ≥ 2x106 CAR-T cells/kg. Fifteen patients (32%) had not responded to CART1, 22 (50%) relapsed or progressed after having initially responded (complete response [CR], n=15; partial response [PR], n=7) to CART1; 7 (16%) received CART2 in PR after CART1. All characteristics are shown in the Table. We observed responses in all disease types, including 3 of 14 ALL patients (21%; all CR/CRi), 4 of 11 CLL patients (36%; CR/CRi, n=3; partial response [PR], n=1), and 9 of 19 NHL patients (47%; CR, n=2; PR, n=7). After a median follow-up of 43 months (range, 16-66) in alive and responding patients, the estimated 4-year PFS probability in responders was 23% (95% CI, 9-59%). The 4-year overall survival probability in responders was 36% (95% CI 19-71%) compared to 24% (95% CI, 12-47) in non-responders. Multivariable logistic regression modeling identified predictors of response after CART2: CART1 lymphodepletion (high-intensity cyclophosphamide and fludarabine [CyFlu] vs no CyFlu, OR=12.19, 95% CI, 1.10-1689.85, p=0.04), and peak of in vivo CAR-T cell expansion after CART2 (OR=2.31 per log10 CD8+ CAR-T cell/µL increase, 95% CI, 1.17-5.29, p=0.01). In a multivariable Cox model, a higher peak of CD8+ CAR-T cells after CART2 (HR=0.47 per log10 CD8+ CAR-T cell/µL increase, 95%CI, 0.33-0.68, p CART1 cell dose was associated with longer PFS (HR=0.36, 95% CI, 0.16-0.86, p=0.02). This suggested that CD8+ CAR-T cell peak after CART2 and factors increasing CART2 peak (e.g. prevention of immune rejection or increase in the infused cell dose) are key elements associated with outcomes of CART2. Hence, we looked at factors associated with higher CD8+ CART2 peak. In multivariable linear regression, CART1 CyFlu predicted a higher peak of CD8+ CAR-T cells after CART2 (high-intensity CyFlu vs no CyFlu, 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: Introduction: Venetoclax (Ven) is approved for relapsed/refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) as monotherapy (Ven mono) or in combination (Ven paired) with rituximab based on clinical trials with selected patients (pts) and limited ibrutinib exposure. Whether Ven paired is superior to Ven mono, patterns of care, and outcomes following Ven discontinuation are unknown. Further, better delineation of adverse events (AEs) when Ven is used outside of clinical trials is needed. To address these gaps, we conducted a multicenter, international study in partnership with CLL Collaborative Study of Real World Evidence (CORE) and UK CLL Study Forum examining the clinical experience of 348 Ven treated CLL pts, representing the largest series of Ven treated pts reported to date. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of CLL pts treated with Ven across 24 US and 42 UK academic and community centers. We examined demographics, baseline disease characteristics, dosing, AEs, TLS risk and outcomes, response rates, outcomes (overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS)), and tx sequencing. TLS events were defined by Howard criteria. PFS and OS were estimated by the Kaplan Meier method. Comparisons of outcomes used the Log Rank test. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed with COX regression. All other comparisons were descriptive. Results: Of these 348 CLL pts, 94% were R/R, median age 67 years (range:37-91), 69% male, 85% white, and 73% Rai stage ≥2. 19% received Ven on clinical trial. 79% had Ven mono; Ven was paired most commonly with anti-CD20 (n=51) and ibrutinib (n=10). Pts received a median of 3 tx (range 0-15) before Ven; 78% received ibrutinib, 29% received PI3Ki, 20% had ≥2 prior kinase inhibitors, and 68% had chemoimmunotherapy. Median time from most recent tx to Ven start was 1.1 months (range 0-62). Pre-Ven prognostic markers included 43% del17p, 34% TP53 mutated, 24% del11q, 38% complex karyotype (≥ 3 abnormalities), and 84% IGHV unmutated (Table 1). TLS risk was low in 38%, intermediate in 34% and high in 28%. During ramp up, TLS was observed in 10% (22 lab, 9 clinical TLS events, 3 missing data). Following dose escalation, 70% achieved a stable Ven dose of 400 mg, 33% required ≥ 1 dose interruption and 27% required ≥ 1 dose reduction. AEs included grade 3 neutropenia 39%, grade 3 thrombocytopenia 29%, infections 25%, grade ≥ 2 diarrhea 7.8%, and neutropenic fever 7.7%. AEs were similar whether treated on or off clinical trial. The ORR to Ven mono, Ven paired was 81% (34% CR), 86% (29% CR). With a median follow-up of 14.2 months, median PFS and OS were not reached (12 month PFS 74%, OS 82%). Figure 1 depicts PFS stratified by Ven mono vs. paired, clinical trial vs. clinical practice, del17p status, and complex karyotype. Pts who discontinued Ven due to AEs had better OS compared with those who discontinued due to progression or Richter Transformation (RT) (Median OS 47 vs. 15.1 vs. 8.6 months, respectively). In multivariate analyses, complex karyotype was the only independent predictor of PFS (HR 2.8, p

Description: Introduction Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) relapse rates remain high despite treatment with combination chemotherapy and hematopoietic cell transplantation. New targeted treatment modalities including radioimmunotherapy (RIT) have been developed to reduce relapse. However, minimally toxic means of targeting AML cells for delivery of radionuclides may not be optimal for all therapeutically favorable isotopes. Alpha (α) particles have a higher linear energy transfer and shorter path length in contrast to beta (β) particles, thus leading to the promising exploration of α-particle RIT for AML. Treatment efficacies may be further improved by the use of in vivo α-generators such as 225Ac, which emits a total of 4 α-particles upon decay. However, targeted therapy utilizing traditional 225Ac chelates poses a challenge since the α-emitting daughter radionuclides while short-lived, are difficult to retain near the targeted malignant cells and may be released into circulation, leading to unwanted non-specific toxicities such as to the renal or hepato-biliary systems. Methods To improve the therapeutic potential of 225Ac-based RIT for AML and reduce toxicities we have developed an anti-CD45 antibody (Ab)-conjugated gold-coated lanthanide phosphate nanoparticle that contains multiple gadolinium (Gd) shells designed to sequester 225Ac in the core and retain the α-daughters within the nanoparticle. Previous work demonstrated the in vivo retention of the 221Fr daughter radionuclide of over 90% for at least 3 weeks past the core nanoparticle synthesis. In this work the nanoparticle core was first synthesized using LaCl3 and GdCl3 using 177Lu as a radioactive surrogate for 225Ac. Four consecutive GdPO4 layers were added to the lanthanide core, followed by NaAuCl4 to form a metallic gold coat. Anti-human CD45 Ab (BC8) was separately labeled with 125I and then conjugated to the gold coat of the nanoparticle via a polyethylene glycol linker. This dual-labeled approach allowed for verification of stability of the Ab-nanoparticle. A competitive binding flow cytometry assay was used to measure the efficiency of the Ab conjugation to the nanoparticle and determine the concentration of Ab in solution. In vivo targeting of the Ab-nanoparticle was initially tested in athymic nude mice bearing human AML xenografts by injection with 50 µCi 177Lu-anti-CD45 Ab-nanoparticle at 100 µg per dose of Ab injected. Results Nanoparticle-BC8 dual-labeled with 177Lu and 125I bound effectively in vitro to human AML cells (HEL) with an increase in mean fluorescence index (MFI) of 9.2-fold compared to non-binding isotype control. Labeled nanoparticle-BC8 also effectively bound to human Burkitt’s lymphoma Ramos and Raji cells with an increased MFI of 86- and 36-fold compared to control, respectively. A 96-well plate-based assay for cell binding to test radioactive conjugates was also employed to verify that anti-CD45 Ab-nanoparticle remained stable in vitro. Non-conjugated BC8 effectively blocked binding of 125I-BC8-conjugated 177Lu-nanoparticle to Ramos cells in comparison with control with a reduction in binding by 21.3 % with respect to 125I-BC8 (p = 0.016) and 20.2 % with respect to the 177Lu-NP core (p = 0.026). 125I-labeled nanoparticle-BC8 conjugate bound effectively in vivo to human leukemia xenografts. Favorable targeting to sites of disease was seen by 4 hours post-injection, with 18.0 ±2.9 % injected dose per gram of targeting Ab in the tumor. Conclusion Combined nanoparticle-antibody therapy is a promising, novel approach to target malignant cells. Antibody-mediated delivery of α-particle generators represents a potential solution for the difficulties of safe and effective targeting using 225Ac, largely nonspecific toxicities due to dispersal of α-particle daughters. We have shown that 177Lu is a useful surrogate for 225Ac for preliminary characterization assays, and that 177Lu is retained over time in the nanoparticle core. We have shown in vitro targeting of leukemia and lymphoma cells and have made strides towards obtaining a favorable biodistribution in a model of human AML. However, challenges remain as liver uptake by nanoparticles cleared through the reticuloendothelial system is unfavorable and may cause dose-limiting toxicities. Future work will further characterize nanoparticle-Ab conjugates and progress toward studies involving 225Ac for AML therapy. Disclosures: Press: Genentech, inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Description: Introduction Lymphodepletion chemotherapy followed by infusion of T cells engineered to express a CD19-specific chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) has shown remarkable efficacy in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (R/R) CD19+ B-cell malignancies, with high response rates reported in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Durable responses have been observed in a subset of pts, but the factors associated with these long-term remissions have not been identified. We studied adults with R/R CD19+ B-cell NHL treated with cyclophosphamide and fludarabine lymphodepletion followed by infusion of 2 x 106 CD19 CAR-T cells/kg, and identified factors before and after CAR-T cell infusion that are associated with progression-free survival (PFS). Methods We conducted a phase 1/2 open-label clinical trial (NCT01865617) with the primary objective of evaluating the feasibility and safety of infusing a defined composition of CD4+ and CD8+ CD19 CAR-T cells after lymphodepletion chemotherapy in pts with R/R CD19+ B-cell malignancies. Best responses are reported according to the Lugano criteria (Cheson, JCO 2014). PFS was defined as the time from CAR-T cell infusion until disease progression or death, without censoring for new therapy. Logistic regression and penalized Cox regression multivariable modeling using elastic net were performed for analysis of response and PFS, respectively. Results Characteristics of the 57 pts in the study are shown in Table 1. One patient with incomplete response assessment was excluded. For the 56 remaining pts, the best overall response rate (ORR) without additional therapy was 57% (95% confidence interval [CI], 43-70%), with 48% achieving complete remission (CR; 95% CI, 35-62%). Most pts with partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) after initial restaging at 4 weeks after CAR-T cell infusion received new therapy (11 of 15, 73%). All pts with PR/SD on initial restaging who did not receive additional therapy after CAR-T cells (n = 4) subsequently achieved CR. The duration of persistence of CAR-T cells was longer in pts who did not receive new therapy (15.7 vs. 5.3 months; P = .06). Eight of 9 pts with indolent histology achieved CR (89%; 95% CI, 51-99%). For the 47 pts with aggressive NHL, the best ORR was 51% (95% CI, 36-66%), with 40% (95% CI, 27-56%) achieving CR. Among aggressive NHL subtypes, pts with DLBCL (n = 28) had best ORR and CR rates of 50% (95% CI, 33-67%) and 43% (95% CI, 25-63%), respectively. In pts with aggressive lymphoma, multivariable analysis showed that the probability of achieving CR was independently associated with a lower pre-lymphodepletion serum LDH concentration (P = .003) and greater increase in serum MCP-1 concentration from a pre-lymphodepletion timepoint to immediately before CAR-T cell infusion (P = .01). Analysis of pts with all histologic subtypes showed that those achieving CR had better PFS and overall survival (OS) compared to those who did not achieve CR (median PFS: CR, not reached; non-CR, 1.35 month; Figure 1). In pts achieving CR, after a median follow-up of 20.2 months (range 2.5-32.4 months), the 24-month probabilities of PFS and OS were 59% (95% CI, 41-84%) and 79% (95% CI, 64-97%), respectively. No pts with indolent NHL who achieved CR (n = 8) have relapsed with a median follow-up of 14.5 months (range, 10.7-30.1 months). For pts with aggressive lymphoma who achieved CR, after a median follow-up of 26.9 months (range, 2.5-32.4 months), the median PFS was 20.0 months (95% CI, 9.2-not reached), and 24-month probabilities of PFS and OS were 46% (95% CI, 28-76%) and 72% (95% CI, 54-96%), respectively. In aggressive NHL, multivariable analysis suggested that, in addition to being associated with the probability of achieving CR, serum LDH and MCP-1 concentration also impacted the probability of longer PFS. The model found that lower pre-lymphodepletion serum LDH (P = .0004) and higher serum MCP-1 peak after CAR-T cell infusion (P = .05), along with higher serum IL-7 (P = .02) and lower serum IL-18 (P = .02) concentrations before lymphodepletion were independently associated with better PFS. Similar findings were obtained after multivariable analysis was performed only in those who had achieved CR. Conclusion CR after CD19 CAR-T cell therapy appears to be a strong predictor of PFS in adult pts with B-cell NHL. Identification of additional factors associated with better PFS might guide future management strategies for pts achieving CR after CD19 CAR-T cell therapy. Disclosures Hirayama: DAVA Oncology: Honoraria. Hay:DAVA Oncology: Honoraria. Li:Juno Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lynch:Incyte: Research Funding; Johnson Graffe Keay Moniz and Wick LLP: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Rhizen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Till:Mustang Bio: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Kiem:Homology Medicine: Consultancy; Rocket Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Magenta: Consultancy. Ramos:Seattle Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Shadman:Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Mustang Biopharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Beigene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Qilu Puget Sound Biotherapeutics: Consultancy. Cassaday:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Other: Spouse Employment, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Acharya:Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Teva: Honoraria. Riddell:Cell Medica: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Juno Therapeutics: Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; NOHLA: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy. Maloney:GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Janssen Scientific Affairs: Honoraria. Turtle:Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics / Celgene: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Nektar Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eureka Therapeutics: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Precision Biosciences: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caribou Biosciences: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Aptevo: Consultancy.

Description: Background We reported durable responses to CD19-specific chimeric antigen receptor-modified T-cell therapy (JCAR014) in relapsed/refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients (pts) after prior failure of ibrutinib (Turtle, JCO 2017; NCT01865617). In those pts, ibrutinib was not administered during CAR-T cell immunotherapy. Continuation of ibrutinib through leukapheresis, lymphodepletion and CAR-T cell therapy may prevent tumor progression after ibrutinib withdrawal, mobilize tumor into the blood, improve CAR-T cell function, and decrease cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Methods We conducted a phase 1/2 study of CD19 CAR-T cell immunotherapy in R/R CLL pts and established a regimen of cyclophosphamide and fludarabine (Cy/Flu) lymphodepletion followed by JCAR014 at 2 x 106 CAR-T cells/kg (Turtle, JCO 2017). We then compared outcomes of these pts (No-ibr cohort) with a subsequent cohort that received Cy/Flu with 2 x 106/kg JCAR014 CAR-T cells with concurrent ibrutinib (420 mg/d) from at least 2 weeks prior to leukapheresis until at least 3 months after JCAR014 infusion (Ibr cohort). Dose reduction was permitted for toxicity. CRS was graded by consensus criteria (Lee, Blood 2014) and neurotoxicity and other adverse events were graded by CTCAE v4.03. Response was evaluated according to 2008 IWCLL criteria. Results Seventeen and 19 pts were treated in the Ibr and No-ibr cohorts, respectively. Pt characteristics were comparable (Table 1). Progression on ibrutinib was noted in 16 (94%) and 18 pts (95%) in the Ibr and No-ibr cohorts, respectively, and prior ibrutinib intolerance was reported in 1 pt in each cohort. The time to intolerance or failure of ibrutinib prior to treatment with JCAR014 was longer, and the pre-leukapheresis LDH was lower in the Ibr compared to the No-ibr cohort. The median follow-up in responders was 98 and 764 days in the Ibr and No-ibr cohorts, respectively. Administration of ibrutinib with Cy/Flu and JCAR014 was well tolerated in most pts; ibrutinib was reduced or discontinued in 6 pts (35%) at a median of 21 days after JCAR014 infusion. In the Ibr cohort, 1 pt with grade 2 CRS developed fatal presumed cardiac arrhythmia and 1 pt developed a subdural hematoma in the setting of trauma and thrombocytopenia. No differences in the incidences of grade ≥3 cytopenias were observed. Concurrent ibrutinib administration did not appear to affect the frequency or severity of neurotoxicity. Although the proportions of pts with grade ≥1 CRS were similar between cohorts (76% vs 89%, P = 0.39), the severity of CRS (grade ≥3 CRS: Ibr, 0%; No-Ibr, 26%; P = 0.05) and serum peak IL-8 (P = 0.04), IL-15 (P = 0.003) and MCP-1 (P = 0.004) concentrations were lower in the Ibr cohort. However, we found comparable CD8+ (P = 0.29) and higher CD4+ (P = 0.06) CAR-T cell counts in blood in the Ibr cohort. Sixteen pts (94%) and 18 pts (95%) in the Ibr and No-ibr cohorts, respectively, have completed response assessment. We observed a higher proportion of responders (complete and partial remission) by IWCLL criteria in the Ibr compared to the No-ibr cohort (88% vs 56%, respectively, P = 0.06). Ten of 12 pts (83%) with lymph node disease before treatment with Cy/Flu and JCAR014 in the Ibr cohort achieved CR or PR by IWCLL imaging criteria, compared to 10/17 pts (59%) in the No-ibr cohort (P = 0.23). The proportion of pts with pretreatment bone marrow (BM) disease who had no disease by flow cytometry after CAR-T cell immunotherapy was similar in the Ibr compared to the No-ibr cohort (75% vs 65%, P = 0.71). However, among pts with no disease by BM flow cytometry after CAR-T cell immunotherapy, a higher proportion of pts in the Ibr cohort had no malignant IGH sequences at 4 weeks (83% vs 60%, respectively, P = 0.35). We performed univariate logistic regression analysis for response by IWCLL criteria and variables with P 〈 0.10 were considered for stepwise multivariable analysis (Table 2). In the multivariable analysis, the Ibr cohort and a lower pre-treatment SUVmax on PET imaging were each associated with a higher probability of response by IWCLL criteria (Ibr cohort, OR = 14.02, 95%CI [0.52-379.61], P = 0.05; SUVmax, OR = 1.31 per SUV unit decrease, 95%CI [1.05-1.67], P 〈 0.001). Conclusion Administration of ibrutinib from 2 weeks before leukapheresis until 3 months after JCAR014 was well tolerated in most pts. This approach might decrease the incidence of severe CRS and improve responses in pts with R/R CLL. Disclosures Hirayama: DAVA Oncology: Honoraria. Hay:DAVA Oncology: Honoraria. Li:Juno Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lymp:Juno Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Till:Mustang Bio: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Kiem:Magenta: Consultancy; Homology Medicine: Consultancy; Rocket Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Shadman:TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Qilu Puget Sound Biotherapeutics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Beigene: Research Funding; Mustang: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy. Cassaday:Merck: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Other: Spouse Employment, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Acharya:Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Teva: Honoraria. Riddell:Juno Therapeutics: Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; NOHLA: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Maloney:GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Roche/Genentech: Honoraria; Janssen Scientific Affairs: Honoraria. Turtle:Nektar Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics / Celgene: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Aptevo: Consultancy; Precision Biosciences: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caribou Biosciences: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Eureka Therapeutics: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy.