ALBERT

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: 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: Background: Recent data have shown that pre-transplant FDG-PET is prognostic in DLBCL patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). We retrospectively analyzed data on patients with DLBCL treated with ASCT to assess the impact of pre-transplant FDG-PET on relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). Methods: We reviewed medical records of 32 patients with DLBCL who underwent ASCT using high dose busulfan, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide (Bu/Cy/VP) at Cleveland Clinic from June 2008 to December 2012 and had both a relapse FDG-PET as well as a pre-transplant FDG-PET available for review. All images were interpreted by a staff nuclear medicine radiologist blinded to the outcomes. Visual analysis was performed using the Deauville five-point scale and semiquantitative analysis was done by measuring the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax). ΔSUVmax was calculated by determining the difference between the SUVmax at the time of relapse and the SUVmax immediately prior to transplant. Patients were grouped into pre-transplant Deauville score 1-3 or 4-5. Baseline characteristics were compared between groups using the Chi-square test or Wilcoxon rank test. Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Outcomes were calculated from the date of ASCT. Overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test Results: The median age of the patients at transplant was 57 and 69% were male. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics of patients who had a Deauville score 1-3 compared to patients who had a Deauville score 4-5 including mean age, gender, race, Karnofsky performance status, number of prior chemotherapy regimens, prior radiation therapy, and IPI at diagnosis and transplant. There was a trend towards significance in the median SUVmax at relapse in the Deauville 1-3 group compared to the Deauville 4-5 group (11.1 vs. 18.1, p=0.08) and a significant difference in the median pre-transplant SUVmax (2.3 vs. 8.1, p6 vs. 6) prior to transplant is predictive of poor RFS. Pre-transplant PET is a powerful tool for identifying DLBCL patients at high risk for treatment failure with ASCT and could be used to risk-stratify patients in prospective clinical trials of novel transplant strategies. Figure 1. OS of DLBCL patients undergoing ASCT based on pre-transplant Deauville score. Figure 1. OS of DLBCL patients undergoing ASCT based on pre-transplant Deauville score. Figure 2. RFS of DLBCL patients undergoing ASCT based on pre-transplant SUVmax. Figure 2. RFS of DLBCL patients undergoing ASCT based on pre-transplant SUVmax. Disclosures Smith: celegene, spectrum, genentech: Honoraria. Majhail:Gamida Cell Ltd.: Consultancy; Anthem Inc.: Consultancy.

Description: Background: High-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is a standard treatment both as consolidation after induction chemotherapy and as second-line therapy depending on the histologic subtype of NHL. BEAM (BCNU, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan) is a commonly used conditioning regimen for NHL but often fails to produce durable remission, likely due to inherent chemoresistance. Many B-cell NHL subtypes including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and double-hit lymphoma are resistant to chemotherapy-induced apoptosis by overexpression of Bcl-2. Venetoclax is an orally administered selective Bcl-2 inhibitor with significant single agent activity in CLL and mantle cell lymphoma. In addition, the efficacy of venetoclax is potentiated by combination with rituximab [Seymour 2018, Kater 2018] and multiple lines of preclinical data show synergistic efficacy with a range of both novel and conventional antineoplastic agents [Johnson-Farley 2015, Li 2015]. Study Design and Methods: This is a single arm, open-label, dose-escalation phase I trial to evaluate the safety of venetoclax in combination with BEAM (V-BEAM) conditioning chemotherapy. Key inclusion criteria include patients with pathologically confirmed NHL, regardless of specific histology, who have received one prior systemic therapy and are eligible for and proceeding with HDCT followed by ASCT. The trial employs a standard 3+3 cohort-based dose escalation design of venetoclax (800 mg daily days -7 through -6 on dose level 1, 800 mg daily days -7 through -5 on dose level 2, 800 mg daily days -7 through -4 on dose level 3, 800 mg daily days -7 through -3 on dose level 4, and 800 mg daily days -7 through -2 on dose level 5) with standard doses of BEAM followed by ASCT. The primary objectives are to assess safety, describe dose-limiting toxicities, engraftment of stem cells and to identify the recommended phase II dose. Secondary objectives include evaluation of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to historical controls treated with BEAM as part of ASCT. Neutrophil and platelet engraftment will be estimated with cumulative incidence and compared to controls with Gray test. OS and PFS will be estimated with Kaplan-Meier and compared to controls with the log-rank test. As of 8/1/2019, the first dosing cohort of 3 patients have been enrolled and successfully completed study treatment. There are 3 patients in screening to be enrolled in dose level 2. Additional accrual will be presented at the time of the meeting. Clinical trial information: NCT03713580. Disclosures Anwer: Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; In-Cyte: Speakers Bureau. Gerds:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Imago Biosciences: Research Funding. Majhail:Nkarta: Consultancy; Atara Bio: Consultancy; Mallinckrodt: Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy; Anthem, Inc.: Consultancy. Hill:TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Our trial in progress is investigating the use of venetoclax in combination with BEAM conditioning chemotherapy prior to autologous stem cell transplantation. Venetoclax is not currently approved in this setting.

Description: Introduction: Venetoclax (Ven), an oral BCL2 inhibitor, is approved for the treatment (tx) of relapsed/refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Ven is generally well tolerated, and side effects observed in clinical trials have been consistent with other CLL tx. Clinical trials using the approved dose escalation schedule report negligible rates of clinical tumor lysis syndrome (TLS). We aimed to understand rates of select adverse events (AEs) including cytopenias, infections, and TLS in CLL patients (pts) treated with Ven in community and academic settings. To do so, we examined 297 pts with CLL who received Ven, either alone or paired, in this multicenter, international study. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Ven treated pts with CLL across at 15 academic (n=169) and 51 community (n=128) centers outside of the clinical trial setting. This study represents a collaboration between US centers, CLL Collaborative Study of Real World Evidence (CORE), and UK CLL Forum. Demographics, baseline disease characteristics, Ven dosing, TLS risk (per FDA Ven label) and prophylaxis, and AEs were collected. Lab vs. clinical TLS was defined by Howard criteria. PFS was estimated by Kaplan Meier methodology. All comparisons were descriptive. Results: Of the 297 pts examined, median age at Ven initiation was 67 (range 37-91). The group was 69% male, 96% had R/R CLL, and 45% had del17p. Baseline characteristics stratified by practice setting are included in Table 1. 80% received Ven as monotherapy while 20% received it paired with another agent (anti-CD20 mAb (75%), ibrutinib (8.5%), other (16.5%)). All pts were treated outside of clinical trials. During dose escalation, 81% achieved a 400 mg dose and 65% maintained 400 mg following escalation (cyp3A4 use unknown). TLS risk was low in 40%, intermediate (int) in 32%, and high risk in 28%. CT scan prior to Ven initiation was performed in 62%. At least one hospitalization occurred for 56% of low, 80% of int, and 88% of high risk pts (63% of the total cohort). Table 1 describes the distribution of TLS risk and frequency of hospitalizations in academic, community centers. TLS prophylactic measures were available for a subset of pts. Allopurinol was used for 91% (n=68/75) of low, 93% (n=52/56) of int, and 94% (n=29/31) of pts at high risk for TLS. Rasburicase was used for 27% (n=28/102) of low, 42% (n=34/81) of int, and 72% (n=57/79) of high risk pts. Normal saline was used in 85% (n=62/73) of low, 88% (n=49/56) of int, and 97% (n=30/31) of high risk pts. TLS occurred in 8.4% of pts (n=25/297). Three lab and 2 clinical events occurred in low risk pts, 7 lab and 3 clinical events in int risk pts, and 7 lab and 3 clinical events in high risk pts. Of pts with TLS, 1 has discontinued Ven. Of pts with clinical TLS, all were hospitalized, received allopurinol and normal saline, and 28% received rasburicase. 72% with TLS had creatinine clearance

Description: INTRODUCTION: R-CHOP is effective for diffuse large B-cell Lymphoma (DLBCL), but many patients (Pts) relapse or have refractory disease, likely due to inherent biologic differences in DLBCL subtype. Activated B-Cell (ABC) subtype DLBCL signals through Nuclear Factor-κ-B (NF-κB) and is more likely to display treatment failure than DLBCL arising from the germinal center (GC). Proteasome inhibitors disrupt NF-κB signaling, but randomized trials have failed to demonstrate clinical benefit of adding bortezomib to R-CHOP for the treatment of non-GC DLBCL. Carfilzomib (Car) displays superior clinical activity relative to bortezomib in plasma cell neoplasms and, while occasionally associated with cardiac events, does not have dose-limiting neuropathy. To explore the safety and efficacy of Car in upfront treatment of DLBCL, we initiated a phase I/II clinical trial of Car + R-CHOP and report the phase I results. METHODS: 24 adult (age ≥ 18) Pts with untreated de novo or transformed DLBCL, adequate organ function and performance status were enrolled. During 3 x 3 dose escalation, Car was given at 20 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2, with R-CHOP on day 2 for 6 cycles (n = 6). Due to grade 4 thrombocytopenia, the protocol was amended to administer Car at a dose (in mg/m2) of 20 on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1 with rituximab (R) on day 2 and CHOP on day 3, followed by a Car dose of 20 (n=3), 27 (n=3), 36 (n=3), 45 (n=3) and 54 (n = 6) on days 1 and 2 of cycles 2-6. All Pts received pegfilgrastim the day after CHOP and zoster prophylaxis with acyclovir x 6 months post treatment. Echocardiograms were obtained at baseline and at conclusion of therapy to assess the cardiac safety of combining Car with anthracycline. Interim response assessments with CT +/- PET were performed after cycle 3 and end-of-treatment response assessments were uniformly captured with PET. RESULTS: The median age was 57 (range 24-77) years old. 63% of patients were female. Stage at diagnosis was I-II (58%) or III-IV (32%). The majority of Pts had ECOG performance status of 0-1 (88%). B symptoms were present in 21% of Pts and 54% had an increased LDH at diagnosis. 29% had 〉1 extranodal site. IPI score was 0-1 (50%), 2 (21%) or 3-4 (39%). For this phase I dose escalation study, eligible Pts included primary mediastinal lymphoma (n = 1) and DLBCL of GC (n = 9), non-GC (n = 13) and unknown (n = 1) Hans algorithm subtypes. Hematologic adverse events (AEs) included 60 grade 1/2, 27 grade 3 and 16 grade 4 AEs. Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities included neutropenia (n=14), thrombocytopenia (n = 6) anemia (n = 6), with only 4 cases of grade 3 febrile neutropenia. Grade 3/4 non-hematologic AEs were generally consistent with known R-CHOP toxicity were notable for: hypertension (n = 2), decreased ejection fraction (n =2), GI hemorrhage (n = 2) dizziness, headache, and syncope (n = 1 each), thromboembolic event (n=1), hyperglycemia (n=2), increased ALT (n=1) and nausea/vomiting (n=2). Compared to age-matched controls, end-of-treatment echocardiograms of CarR-CHOP treated Pts showed no statistically significant additional effect on ejection fraction (EF) [94.8% vs. 90.0% of pre-treatment value, respectively (P = 0.19)] after 6 cycles of treatment and there was no association of change in EF with Car dose (P = 0.61). There were no dose limiting toxicities. As of June 2018, median follow-up among surviving Pts was 16 months. There were 3 deaths during the study period, 2 from lymphoma and 1 from lung cancer. The overall response rate was 92% [75% complete remission (CR), 17% partial remission]. 18-month Kaplan Meier estimates of PFS and overall survival were 77% and 88%, respectively (Figure). There was no significant difference in CR rates or PFS for patients with GC vs. non-GC subtype (P = 0.65 and 0.61, respectively). CONCLUSION: CarR-CHOP is safe at a recommended phase II dose of 20 mg/m2 on day 1 & 2 for cycle 1 followed by 56 mg/m2 for cycles 2-6, without significant excess cardiac effects. Within the limitations of a prospective phase I clinical trial with potential patient selection bias, preliminary efficacy data suggest a high complete metabolic response rate and equivalent outcomes for patients with GC and non-GC subtype. Phase II accrual is ongoing for non-GC DLBCL only and additional correlative studies of the molecular subtype of DLBCL will be incorporated into future analysis. Disclosures Hill: Amgen: 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; Seattle Genetics: 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; Abbvie: 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; 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; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Tomlinson:Foundation Medicine: Consultancy. Caimi:Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Description: Background: Waldenström Macroglobulinemia (WM) or Lymphoplasmacytic Lymphoma (LPL) is an indolent B-cell neoplasm accounting for only 1-2% of all hematological malignancies. More than 90% of patients with WM carry a point mutation L265P in the MYD88 gene which promotes tumor survival and is shown to be significant for diagnostic and risk stratification. Criteria for diagnosis requires presence of serum monoclonal IgM protein and 〉 10% bone marrow lymphocytes with plasmacytoid differentiation. We aimed to present the patients characteristics and survival outcomes of WM/LPL patients treated at our center, according to their MYD88 gene status. Methods: We reviewed medical records of all patients diagnosed with WM/LPL between May 2002 and May 2018 for whom MYD88 status was known. Baseline demographic characteristics, ECOG PS, pertinent laboratory values including IgM level at diagnosis, initial therapy, mutation status and cytogenetics was obtained. Kaplan-Meier survival estimation curves were used to illustrate the probability of survival over time stratified by MYD88 status and compared by the log rank test. Results: A total of 99 patients diagnosed with WM/LPL were included, 91 Caucasians (92%), 54 (55%) male, median age 67 years (range, 43-89) and with 63 (64%) patients having ECOG PS 0 or 1. IgM level at diagnosis was available for 88 patients, with a median of 2055 mg/dL (range, 10-11,700) and serum free light chain ratio was estimated at a median of 2.13 (range, 0.01- 37331). Other pertinent laboratory data were: median hemoglobin 11.4 g/dL (range, 6.2- 16.4), median serum viscosity 2.4 CP (range, 1.5- 6.7), median serum M protein 1.4 g/L (range, 0- 5.84), median 24 hour urine protein 11mg (range, 4- 1344) and median serum LDH 173 U/L (range, 71-476). The median international prognostic score (ISSWM) for our cohort was 3. A mutant MYD88 was positive in 85 (86%) patients, while 14 (14%) patients had wild- type MYD88. Complex karyotype was present in 24 (25%) patients. Rituximab monotherapy was the initial treatment in 48 (49%) patients. Twenty-two [22%] patients each received bortezomib-based and bendamustine-rituximab regimen as initial therapy and 7 (7%) patients received frontline rituximab- chemotherapy. Median follow-up of the cohort was 2.8 years (0.08-15.5). At last follow-up, 25 (25%) patients had died. Median OS from diagnosis for the entire cohort was 7.9 years (95% CI, 6.6 to N.R.). OS rate at 5 years was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.87). Patients with mutant MYD88 had significantly longer median OS as compared to those with wild-type MYD88 - 16.3 years (95% CI, 6.7 to N.R.) vs 6.6 years (95% CI, 1.9 to N.R.) [P=0.01] (Figure 1). Conclusion: Within the limitations of a retrospective study with a heterogeneously treated cohort, these data add to the body of literature supporting that outcomes of patients wild-type for MYD88 are worse than those with the L265P mutation when treated with rituximab alone, a proteasome inhibitor or conventional rituximab- chemotherapy. Also, despite an expansion on the therapeutic landscape, the treatment of choice in Waldenström Macroglobulinemia is still lead by rituximab monotherapy in newly diagnosed patients. Further studies should investigate the prognostic impact of MYD88 mutation in the context of BTK inhibitors. Disclosures Hill: Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Description: BACKGROUND: Targeted B-cell receptor signaling pathway inhibitors have changed the treatment landscape of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL); however, treatment decisions remain challenging due to emergence of therapeutic resistance and uncertainties regarding optimal sequencing of therapies. Clinical trials have focused on single treatment options and reported limited outcome data. With increasing options for CLL treatment, research on how to best sequence CLL treatments is needed to optimize patient outcomes. METHODS: The CLL Collaborative Study of Real-World Evidence (CORE) study is a retrospective, multicenter, international, collaborative observational study of patients (pts) with CLL treated at either community or academic sites. For this analysis, pts were randomly selected and eligible for inclusion if they started 1st-line CLL therapy from January 1st, 2012 through present. Demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated. The reason(s) for discontinuing 1st-line and initiating 2nd-line therapy were collected; multiple reasons could be selected. For this analysis, pts were grouped according to whether they received novel agent-based therapy (eg, ibrutinib, idelalisib, venetoclax) or chemotherapy/chemoimmunotherapy (CT/CIT) as 1st-line treatment. RESULTS: Of 351 pts studied, 179 received CT/CIT and 172 received novel agents as 1st-line therapy. Patient data, stratified by 1st-line therapy (CT/CIT vs. novel agents), are shown in Table 1. Most pts were treated in community settings (81%). The median ages were 62 and 66 years for pts receiving CT/CIT and novel agents, respectively. Demographics were generally similar between CT/CIT and novel agent groups with one exception: 17p deletion/TP53 mutations were present in 20% who received novel agents, compared to only 4% who received CT/CIT (p 80% of pts received a novel agent-based therapy as 2nd-line treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, pts with CLL treated since 2012 with CT/CIT or novel agent-based therapies (87% ibrutinib-based) in 1st-line had similar demographics; notably, more pts with 17p deletion/TP53 mutation were treated with novel agents. Although treatment failure was the primary reason for initiating 2nd-line therapy, many pts discontinued novel agents for other reasons, including adverse events and, unexpectedly, completion of therapy. With limited follow-up, in patients largely from community setting, PFS was similar between pts treated with CT/CIT and novel agents; more analyses are necessary to determine whether outcomes are impacted due to discontinuation of treat-to-progression novel agents for reasons other than progression. Overall, novel agents were the 2nd-line therapy of choice, irrespective of 1st-line therapy. These data constitute a first-look at CORE, a long-term study designed to determine how novel therapies and treatment sequencing impacts adverse events and outcomes in the treatment of CLL. Disclosures Mato: TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Prime Oncology: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Sunesis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sarraf Yazdy:Bayer: Speakers Bureau. Hill:Abbvie: 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; 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; Novartis: 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; Pfizer: 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; Amgen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: 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. Shadman:Abbvie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Beigene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Mustang: Research Funding; Qilu Puget Sound Biotherapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy. Kennard:AbbVie, Gilead, Verastem: Consultancy. Allan:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Consultancy; Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ujjani:AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Brander:Novartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; AbbVie: 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; TG Therapeutics: 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; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeiGene: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding. Nabhan:Cardinal Health: Employment, Equity Ownership. Barr:AbbVie, Gilead: Consultancy. Brown:Abbvie: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sun Pharmaceutical Industries: Research Funding; Invectys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta / Astra-Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Loxo: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy. Fox:Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees and non-financial support, Speakers Bureau; Sunesis: Consultancy. Schuh:Giles, Roche, Janssen, AbbVie: Honoraria. Eyre:AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel support. Lamanna:AbbVie, Genentech, Gilead, Verastem, Bei-Gene, TG Therapeutics, Acerta: Research Funding; AbbVie, Celgene, Roche-Genentech, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Gilead, Astrazeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jain:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologioes: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novimmune: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Servier: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: 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; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Research Funding; Verastem: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Research Funding; Servier: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Research Funding; Novimmune: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cellectis: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologioes: Research Funding; Janssen: 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. Wierda:AbbVie, Inc: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Skarbnik:Gilead Sciences: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Bannerji:AbbVie, Inc.: Consultancy; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy. Samp:AbbVie: Employment, Equity Ownership. Nielsen:AbbVie, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Pauff:AbbVie: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kipps:Celgene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding. Schuster:Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Dava Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Follows:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cheson:AbbVie, Roche/Genentech, Pharmacyclics, Acerta, TG Therapeutics: Consultancy. Eichhorst:AbbVie, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Mundipharma, Novartis, Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding.