Search

Monoclonal B cell lymphocytosis (MBL) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) are clonal B cell disorders associated with increased risk of infections and impaired vaccination responses. We investigated the immunogenicity of recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) in these patients. Individuals with MBL/untreated CLL and Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi)-treated CLL patients were given two doses of RZV separated by two months. Responses assessed at 3-months and 12-months from the first dose of RZV by an anti-glycoprotein E ELISA antibody assay and by dual-color IFN-γ and IL-2 FLUOROSPOT assays were compared to historic controls matched by age and sex. Sixty-two patients (37 MBL/untreated CLL and 25 BTKi-treated CLL) were enrolled with a median age of 68 years at vaccination. An antibody response at 3 months was seen in 45% of participants, which was significantly lower compared to historic controls (63%, P=0.03). The antibody response did not significantly differ between MBL/untreated CLL and BTKi-treated CLL (51% vs 36%, respectively, P=0.23). The CD4+ T cell response to vaccination was significantly lower in study participants compared to controls (54% vs 96%, P

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with disease progression on ibrutinib have worse outcomes compared to patients stopping ibrutinib due to toxicity. A better understanding of expected outcomes in these patients is necessary to establish a benchmark for evaluating novel agents currently available and in development. We evaluated outcomes of 144 patients with CLL treated at Mayo Clinic with 2018 iwCLL disease progression on ibrutinib. The median overall survival (OS) for the entire cohort was 25.5 months; it was 29.8 months and 8.3 months among patients with CLL progression (n = 104) and Richter transformation (n = 38), respectively. Longer OS was observed among patients with CLL progression who had received ibrutinib in the frontline compared to relapsed/refractory setting (not reached versus 28.5 months; p = 0.04), but was similar amongst patients treated with 1, 2, or ≥3 prior lines (18.5, 30.9, and 26.0 months, respectively, p = 0.24). Among patients with CLL disease progression on ibrutinib, OS was significantly longer when next-line treatment was chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (median not reached) or venetoclax-based treatment (median 29.8 months) compared to other approved treatments, such as chemoimmunotherapy, phosphoinositide 3’-kinase inhibitors, and anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies (9.1 months; p = 0.03). These findings suggest an unmet need for this growing patient population.

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) disease progression on ibrutinib or after sequential ibrutinib and venetoclax-based treatments (double-refractory) have poor outcomes. In this retrospective study, we analysed outcomes with combined ibrutinib and venetoclax treatment in these groups of patients. The median treatment-free and overall survival for 22 patients with prior progression on ibrutinib (venetoclax-naïve) were 23.7 and 47.1 months respectively. In 11 patients with double-refractory CLL, the median treatment-free and overall survival were 11.2 and 27.0 months respectively. The combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax may help bridge the current gap in options for patients with disease refractory to the most commonly used novel agents.

BACKGROUND: Ibrutinib therapy is associated with an increased risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Risk assessment tools and outcomes of AF in these patients are not well described. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients with CLL treated with ibrutinib at Mayo Clinic between October 2012 and November 2018. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-eight patients were identified with a median time on ibrutinib of 19 months (range 0.23–69.7 months). Fifty-one patients developed treatment-emergent AF; the risk of treatment-emergent AF at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years was 9%, 12%, and 16%, respectively. The following were associated with an increased risk of treatment-emergent AF on multivariable analyses: past history of AF (hazard ratio [HR] 3.5, p = 0.0072) and heart failure (HR 3.4, p = 0.0028). Most patients are able to continue ibrutinib therapy (dose reduced in 43%). Development of treatment-emergent AF was associated with shorter event-free survival (EFS; HR 2.0, p = 0.02) and shorter overall survival (OS; HR 3.2, p = 0.001), after adjusting for age, prior treatment status, TP53 disruption, heart failure, valvular disease, and past history of AF. CONCLUSIONS: Patient comorbidities, rather than CLL-related factors, predict risk of treatment-emergent AF in patients treated with ibrutinib. Although the vast majority of patients with treatment-emergent AF are able to continue ibrutinib (with dose reduction in 43%), treatment-emergent AF appears to be associated with worse outcomes, independent of other adverse prognostic factors.

With conference reporting provided by The ASCO Post, Amber B. Koehler, PA-C, MS, of Mayo Clinic, evaluates data on BTK inhibitors; fixed-duration, first-line treatment with ibrutinib plus venetoclax; and a novel oral BCL2 antagonist for patients with CLL. P. Andrew Allred, MS, PA-C, of Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center, reviews data on a front-line therapy for patients with Ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia and brexucabtagene autoleucel, an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy. Donna Catamero, ANP-BC, OCN®, CCRC, of Mount Sinai Hospital, reflects on findings on a BCMA-directed CAR T-cell therapy and a bispecific monoclonal antibody for patients with multiple myeloma.

Introduction: PD-1 inhibits the cytotoxic T-cell functions via the interaction with its ligands (PDL1 and PDL2). Recently, our group showed a selective response (~40%) with PD-1 blocking antibody pembrolizumab in patients with Richter transformation (RT), particularly after prior exposure to ibrutinib (Wei Ding et al, Blood, 2017). Additionally, PD-1 showed an increased expression in tumor B-cells of patients with RT (Rong He et al, AJSP, 2018). Here we investigated the functional implications of the PD-1 signaling axis in lymphoma B-cell pathobiology. Methods: 26 CLL-involved lymph node (LN) and 20 RT-involved LN samples were tested for PD-1 expression by immunohistochemistry (mouse clone NAT105, Abcam). Then, we checked PD-1 expression in 10 lymphoma cell lines and 1 CLL cell line (MEC-1) by both, flow cytometry and Western blot (WB) analysis. Over-expression of PD-1 using pLEX-lentiviral system (Thermo Scientific) was evaluated for in vitro cell cycle regulation and in vivo tumor growth. Overexpression of PD-1 was further examined on the regulation of cell signaling pathways using human phospho kinase array kit (R&D) and WB analysis. Gene expression signatures in CLL and RT patients were also identified by Illumina-based RNA sequencing using Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-embedded (FFPE)-nodal tissue obtained by clinical biopsy (Tempus Labs; Chicago, IL). Results: The expression of PD-1 was significantly increased in RT-LN compared to CLL-LN (mean ± SEM in RT vs. CLL, 30.6% ± 4.7% vs. 11.5% ± 2.8%, p < 0.001) [Fig 1A]. PD-1 expression was highest in patients with RT where the last prior CLL therapy was ibrutinib. To test the role of PD-1 in lymphoma B-cells, its expression was assessed in lymphoma and CLL cell lines. The expression of PD-1 was found to be variable, but at very low-levels in lymphoma lines OCI-LY7 and OCI-LY19 (data not shown). Constitutive lentiviral (pLEX-PD-1)-mediated overexpression of PD-1 in OCI-LY7 and OCI-LY19 cells led to increased cell growth (1.4 and 1.9 fold compared to original lines on day 4, respectively, Fig 1BI-II), which was further confirmed by cell cycle analysis which showed an increase in S phase by 20.4% and 24.53% in OCI-LY7 and OCI-LY19 cells (Fig 1B III), respectively. When the luciferase + PD-1 expressing OCI-LY7 cells were injected intravenously (1X106 cells) into NSG mice, increased tumor growth was observed at 22 days of follow up by bioluminescence imaging (p Conclusion: Our data support the notion that PD-1 overexpression in lymphoma cells modifies cell proliferation in vitro and in vivo and regulates the function of phosphatase SHP and p53- pathways. These findings also indicate that aggressive lymphoma or CLL leukemic cells have the ability to hijack the PD-1 pathway and may result in downregulation of the p53 mediated DNA repair. This novel information provide for new strategies to further evaluate the interaction of checkpoint signals with DNA repair pathway, and possibly provide novel targets for Richter's transformation. Disclosures Ding: alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sakemura:Humanigen: Patents & Royalties. Parikh:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; MorphoSys: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Wang:Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding. Liu:Eisal: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; GRAIL: Research Funding; Menarini Silicon Biosystems: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Tesaro: Research Funding. Braggio:DASA: Consultancy; Bayer: Other: Stock Owner; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding. Ansell:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Kenderian:Sunesis: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Torque: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Humanigen: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Mettaforge: Patents & Royalties; Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding. Kay:Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Juno Theraputics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Ibrutinib is a new first-line drug for treating chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and could change frontline treatment of CLL from traditional IV chemotherapy to oral targeted therapy. Lymphocytosis often worsens with initiation of ibrutinib, but typically resolves over 6 to 18 months. Though patients generally tolerate ibrutinib well, the drug can cause adverse reactions including hypertension, atrial fibrillation, bleeding, and infections such as fungal pneumonia.

Context: Nearly 20% patients are ≥80 years of age at CLL diagnosis. Increased comorbidities often accompany advanced age. However, clinical trials enroll a disproportionally low number of people this age, providing limited evidence for guidance. Objective: To determine clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients ≥80 years of age at the time of CLL diagnosis. Design: Retrospective. Setting: Academic. Patients or Other Participants: Between 1/1995–3/2020, we identified previously untreated CLL patients from the Mayo Clinic CLL Database ≥80 years of age at the time of CLL diagnosis and seen within 3 years of diagnosis. Main Outcomes Measures: Baseline characteristics, treatments, and time-to-first-treatment (TFT) were analyzed for all patients. Overall survival (OS) was measured from diagnosis date in all patients and separately from treatment date for treated patients. Time-to-next-treatment (TTNT) was measured in treated patients from the first treatment date to the date of second treatment or last known treatment. TFT and TTNT were analyzed accounting for competing risk of death. Cox multivariable regression models were used to determine which factors were associated with OS and TTNT. Results: Among 213 patients identified, the median age was 83 years (range 80–97). The median number of medical comorbidities among all patients was 4 (range 0–8). Fifty-six patients received treatment; median TFT 6.7 years. Treatment approaches included monoclonal antibody alone (n=17), chemotherapy alone (n=17), chemoimmunotherapy (n=14), novel agents (n=3), and multi-agent Richter’s transformation regimens (n=5). Twenty-two of 56 treated patients received second-line therapy (median TTNT 2.8 years). Median OS among all 213 patients was 4.6 years. Standardized mortality ratio was 1.2 (p=0.008), excluding patients with Richter’s transformation. In univariable analyses, receipt of therapy (HR 3.92, 95%CI 2.11–7.28; p Conclusions: Survival was similar across the 25-year span of this study; however, patients treated with novel agents were underrepresented and warrant additional evaluation. The 20% higher risk of death compared to an age- and sex-matched population emphasize the need for ongoing efforts to improve clinical outcomes for CLL patients in this growing demographic.

The utility of the chronic lymphocytic leukemia-international prognostic index (CLL-IPI) in predicting outcomes of individuals with Rai 0 stage CLL and monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL) is unclear. We identified 969 individuals (415 MBL and 554 Rai 0 CLL; median age, 64 years; 65% men) seen at Mayo Clinic between 1 January 2001 and 1 October 2018, and ascertained time to first therapy (TTFT) and overall survival (OS). After a median follow up of 7 years, the risk of disease progression needing therapy was 2.9%/y for MBL (median, not reached) and 5%/y for Rai 0 CLL (median, 10.4 years). Among patients with low, intermediate, and high/very high-risk CLL-IPI risk groups, the estimated 5-year risk of TTFT was 13.5%, 30%, and 58%, respectively, P< .0001 (c-statistic = 0.69); and the estimated 5-year OS was 96.3%, 91.5%, and 76%, respectively, P< .0001 (c-statistic = 0.65). In a multivariable analysis of absolute B-cell count with individual factors of the CLL-IPI, the absolute B-cell count was associated with shorter TTFT (hazard ratio [HR] for each 10 × 109/L increase: 1.31; P< .0001) and shorter OS (HR: 1.1; P = .02). The OS of the entire cohort was similar to that of the age- and sex-matched general population of Minnesota (P = .17), although Rai 0 CLL patients with high and very high-risk CLL-IPI score had significantly shorter OS (P= .01 and P= .0001, respectively). The results of this study demonstrate the ability of CLL-IPI to predict time from diagnosis to first treatment (an end point not affected by therapy) in a large cohort of patients whose only manifestation of disease is a circulating clonal lymphocyte population.

The risk of TLS in patients with relapsed CLL treated outside of clinical trials is not well described. Using the Mayo Clinic CLL Database, 48 patients treated with venetoclax for relapsed CLL in routine practice were identified; chart review determined baseline risk for TLS and laboratory abnormalities during venetoclax ramp-up. Overall, 6 (13%) patients developed laboratory TLS, 3 of whom demonstrated clinical TLS. The majority of patients who developed TLS were stratified as low or medium risk by the package insert. Of the 42 patients who did not meet Howard criteria for TLS, isolated hyperphosphatemia occurred in 19 patients (45%), hyperkalemia in 13 patients (31%), hyperuricemia in 2 patients (5%), and hypocalcemia in 1 patient (2%). In routine practice, the incidence of TLS appears higher than reported in clinical trials (3-6%). Half of patients who did not meet criteria for TLS developed clinically significant electrolyte abnormalities that required medical intervention.

INTRODUCTION Sparse data exist regarding I+V in an off-trial setting, particularly in patients (pts) with progression of disease on either I or V as single agent treatment. The 1-year overall survival (OS) rates with V monotherapy following I range from 75%-91% (Eyre et al, BJH 2019; Jones et al, Lancet Oncol 2018); however, longer-term follow-up of these or other patient cohorts treated with V after I has not yet been reported. Effective options in double-refractory pts are lacking when a clinical trial is not feasible. Here, we report our experience with I+V in these patient groups. METHODS After IRB approval, we reviewed the records of pts seen at Mayo Clinic (between 4/2012-1/2021) who received I+V therapy off-trial for CLL progression. Pts treated with I+V for Richter's transformation were excluded. Time to next treatment (TTNT) was measured from I+V treatment start date to the date of next treatment start or last known treatment status with death as a competing risk. OS was measured from I+V start date until date of death or when the patient was last known alive; OS was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS Thirty-three pts with progressive CLL were treated with I+V (median duration 13.3 months [95% CI: 7.1 months-not estimable (NE)]). The median age was 70 years (range 47-86), 6 (18%) were women, and 20 (65%) had del(17p) or TP53 mutation. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 3 (range 1-15). Additional characteristics at the time of I+V start are shown in Table 1. Median follow-up from start of I+V was 23.8 months. Among 22 pts with prior progression on I only (V-naïve), the median duration of I+V was 14.8 months (95% CI 7.6 months-NE). The median duration on either I or V from the start of combination was 20.3 months (95% CI 8.3 months-NE). The median TTNT was 25.1 months (Figure 1A). Four pts proceeded to cellular therapy (alloSCT [n=3], CAR-T [n=1]) while on I+V. Next therapy (n=9) consisted of Richter transformation treatment (n=2), chemotherapy plus continued I+V (n=1), anti-CD20 plus continued I+V (n=1), duvelisib + I (n=1), TP-0903 + I (n=1), reintroduction of I at disease progression after previously stopping I during I+V therapy (n=1), and reintroduction of I (n=1) or V (n=1) at disease progression after previously stopping I+V. Of 9 pts who did not receive subsequent therapy, 4 pts remain on I+V (median duration 16.4 months), 4 pts continued V after discontinuing I (median duration on V from start of I+V was 21.5 months), and 1 pt discontinued I+V following a second cancer diagnosis and died without receiving additional CLL-directed treatment. Eleven pts received I+V in the double-refractory setting; 9 pts had prior disease progression on sequential I then V and 2 pts had prior disease progression on sequential V then I. The median duration of I+V was 7.5 months (95% CI 4.3 months-NE), and the median duration of either agent from I+V start was 10.8 months (95% CI 7.1 months-NE). The median TTNT was 14.0 months (Figure 1A). Eight pts required additional treatment, consisting of PI3K inhibitor (n=2), anti-CD20 added to I+V (n=1), CAR-T (n=1), anti-CD20 with (n=1) or without (n=1) bendamustine added to continued I, and Richter transformation treatment (n=2). One pt continues I+V (17.4 months ongoing) without further treatment. Two pts died from disease progression without receiving additional treatment. The median OS of all 33 pts was 27.4 months (95% CI 25.9 months-NE; Figure 1B). The median OS of the 22 pts with prior progression on I (V-naïve) was 47.1 months (95% CI 27.7 months-NE), and the median OS of the 11 pts with prior progression on I and V separately was 27.0 months (95% CI 15.5 months-NE). In univariate analyses, prior progression on V was a predictor of shorter OS (HR=3.9; 95% CI 1.4-11.2; p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS Combination I+V therapy in heavily pre-treated CLL pts who have disease progression after I provides durable benefit with a median OS approaching 4 years. In the double-refractory setting, repurposing both drugs as combination I+V therapy can be a useful strategy, despite the short-term disease control, for pts where clinical trial options are limited or not available. Further examination of these approaches in larger cohorts and understanding the operative resistance mechanisms in pts with double-refractory disease are key next studies. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Ding: Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; DTRM: Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Chanan-Khan: BeiGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Honoraria; Ascentage, Starton, Cellectar, NonoDev, Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties: Tabi; Ascentage: Research Funding; Cellectar: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals, NonoDev, Starton: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; BieGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Consultancy. Kenderian: Humanigen, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Wang: TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ailawadhi: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Koehler: AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kay: AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Targeted Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Research Funding; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; CytomX Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Parikh: Pharmacyclics, MorphoSys, Janssen, AstraZeneca, TG Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, AbbVie, and Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Verastem Oncology, and AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: Combination ibrutinib and venetoclax in patients with relapsed CLL.

Background: Cytogenetic abnormalities detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) are known to differentially impact prognosis in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Deletion6q23 (del6q23) has been reported in ~2-3% of CLL patients at diagnosis; however, its prognostic significance remains indeterminate. Methods: We identified previously untreated CLL patients from the Mayo Clinic CLL Database seen between 1/1995 - 2/2020 who had FISH performed. The clinical characteristics, concomitant cytogenetic abnormalities, time to first therapy (TTFT), and overall survival (OS) were compared between patients with del6q23 to those without this abnormality. TTFT was analyzed from FISH date until treatment or last known untreated date, accounting for competing risk of death. OS was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methods from FISH date. In a matched (CLL-IPI risk score and sex) analysis, Cox regression analysis was used to determine the association between TTFT/OS and presence of del6q23. The Mayo Clinic IRB approved this study. Results: A total of 3101 CLL patients were identified; their median age at diagnosis was 64 years and 66% were male. Of these patients, 42 (1.3%) had evidence of del6q23 by FISH. Compared to patients without del6q23, patients with del6q23 carried a more adverse clinical and cytogenetic profile at the time of diagnosis including advanced Rai stage (22% Rai III/IV vs. 9% Rai III/IV; P = 0.002), unmutated IGHV genes (91% vs. 43%; P < 0.001), and high/very high risk CLL-IPI (50% vs. 27%; P < 0.001). Del6q23 was the sole abnormality in 13 patients (31%). Of the remaining patients, del6q23 was concomitantly present with del13q in 8 patients (19%), and with either del11q or del17p in 21 patients (50%). Of the 42 patients with del6q23, 29 received first line therapy: chemoimmunotherapy in 16 patients, BTK inhibitor in 7 patients, and an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody alone in 6 patients. The median follow-up of the entire cohort was 7.3 years. The median TTFT in patients with del6q23 was 0.7 years while the 5-year OS was 76%. Patients with del6q23 demonstrated significantly shorter TTFT and reduced OS when compared to patients without del6q23 (Figures 1A and 1B). The shorter TTFT was also evident for patients with del6q23 compared to patients without del6q23 divided according to the Dohner risk category (Figure 2A), although there was no difference in OS between these groups of patients (Figure 2B). Because del6q23 patients were enriched for other unfavorable prognostic markers, we identified four control patients without del6q23, matched by CLL-IPI risk score and sex, to each treatment-naïve patient with del6q23. Patients with del6q23 showed a borderline statistically significant shorter TTFT (median 0.7 years versus 3.9 years; P = 0.07) and a nonsignificant association with OS (median 10.9 years versus 10.3 years; P = 0.28). Conclusion: Del6q23 by FISH in previously untreated CLL represents an uncommon abnormality. When compared to patients without del6q23, patients with del6q23 tend to have more adverse clinical and cytogenetic profiles at baseline, which likely confer a worse prognosis as reflected by shorter TTFT compared to patients without this abnormality. Figure Disclosures Ding: Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding. Wang:Novartis: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Braggio:DASA: Consultancy; Bayer: Other: Stock Owner; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding. Kay:Sunesis: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Juno Theraputics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kenderian:Juno: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Torque: Consultancy; Humanigen: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Mettaforge: Patents & Royalties; Tolero: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Parikh:Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; Verastem Oncology: Honoraria.

Introduction: In 2017, a two-dose recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) containing glycoprotein E (gE) and a novel adjuvant was approved to prevent herpes zoster and its complications in adults ≥50 years of age in the US. There are limited data on the immunogenicity and safety of RZV in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Methods: Between 8/15/2018 and 11/4/2019, RZV-naïve patients with CLL and monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL) seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN were enrolled in this IRB-approved study. All participants received two doses of vaccine, at 0 and 2 months after enrollment. Cell-mediated immunity was measured by dual-color interferon γ (IFN- γ) and interleukin 2 (IL-2) FLUOROSpot in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) after depletion of ≥50% leukemic B cells. Results were reported in spot forming cells (SFC)/106 PBMC in wells stimulated with gE overlapping peptides or varicella zoster virus (VZV) inactivated cell lysate. Response rate was defined as the proportion of participants who achieved a ≥2-fold increase in IFN- γ or IL-2 SFC/106 PBMC one month after the second dose of vaccine compared with pre-vaccination baseline levels. We also determined the geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) and geometric mean count (GMC) of SFC /106 PBMC at baseline and 90 days after the first dose of vaccine. Two cohorts were enrolled: Cohort 1 consisted of individuals with previously untreated MBL and CLL; and Cohort 2 consisted of CLL participants who were on Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) therapy. We compared the response data to historic age-and sex-matched healthy controls who received RZV. Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests measured differences in response rates and Kruskall-Wallis tested for differences in continuous variables. Among CLL participants, multivariable regression analysis was used to investigate the association between day 90 SFC and prior BTKi treatment, accounting for age at RZV, age at CLL diagnosis, sex, and day 0 SFC. Results: Sixty-one participants were enrolled. Paired samples were available for 41 participants (22 in Cohort 1 and 19 [18 ibrutinib and 1 acalabrutinib] in Cohort 2), and 68 age- and sex-matched healthy controls. Baseline characteristics of MBL/CLL participants are shown in Table 1. Compared to healthy controls, participants with MBL/CLL had a significantly lower IFN-γ VZV-specific response rate (41% vs. 63%, p=0.03) and IFN-γ gE-specific response (56% vs. 96%, p Conclusion: RZV was associated with lower cell mediated immunogenicity in MBL/CLL participants compared to healthy older adults. Among individuals with CLL, BTKi treatment was associated with decreased cell mediated immunogenicity of the vaccine. Given the inferior response rates, an additional dose of RZV may be considered to boost responses and should be studied in this patient population. Disclosures Johnson: GSK: Research Funding. Ding:Abbvie: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kenderian:Humanigen: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Torque: Consultancy; Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Mettaforge: Patents & Royalties; Lentigen: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding. Wang:Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding. Kay:Juno Theraputics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Levin:GSK: Research Funding. Kennedy:ICW Ventures: Research Funding. Weinberg:GSK: Research Funding. Parikh:GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding.

Introduction: Novel targeted therapies have revolutionized treatments for both upfront and relapsed CLL. However, effective therapies have not been established for progressive CLL after developing resistance to both BTK inhibitor and BCL-2 inhibitors. Similarly, Richter's transformation (RS) remains an area of unmet clinical need. Hypothesizing that progressive CLL and RS possess significant but differential molecular abnormalities, we aimed to dissect the initial genomic profiles in a clinical cohort of patients seen in our routine clinical practice using targeted DNA sequencing and transcriptome analysis. Methods: Twelve CLL patients who had lymph node biopsies for evaluation of clinical progression at Mayo Clinic were included in this study. RNA sequencing and targeted DNA sequencing on a focused oncology panel of 1,711 genes were performed on Illumina HiSeq through Tempus Labs, Inc. (Chicago, IL). Differentially expressed (DE) genes were identified using edgeR at the cutoff of FDR =2. Somatic mutations and copy number alternations (CNAs) were identified through Mutect2 and PatternCNV, respectively. CN loss was defined to have log2(ratio) = 0.585. Pathway analysis was done through the Enrichr package. Results: Among the 12 patients, 7 had confirmed RS (large cell lymphoma histology) and 5 had CLL based on pathological findings. The clinical and therapeutic history for each patient is illustrated in Fig 1A. FISH results from 11 of the patients showed chromosomal abnormalities including del(13q), del(11q), del(17p) and tri(12) (Fig 1A). Hierarchical clustering of expression profiles from the top 10,000 most variable genes in expression revealed two major clusters (Fig 1A). Cluster C1 contains five RS cases, of which case S207 did not receive ibrutinib, S256 was on high-dose steroid and anti-CD20 post-ibrutinib therapy for >1 year before biopsy, and case S025 was treated for < 6 months with ibrutinib. These three form a subgroup separate from the other two RS in C1 who had 8 and 42 months of continuous ibrutinib therapy pre-biopsy, respectively. C2 contains two RS and five CLL cases. Within C2, CLL and RS cases showed similar transcriptomic profiles. Over 90% of the DE genes showed an overall increase of expression in C1, particularly within the 3-sample subgroup (Fig 1B). These genes are enriched in pathways known to play key roles in CLL, including PI3K-AKT signaling, NOTCH signaling and RAS/MAPK signaling, while genes up-regulated in C2 are enriched in WNT signaling. The results suggest marked differences in gene expression profiles and indicate molecular heterogeneity among RS and CLL patients. In addition, targeted DNA sequencing data were analyzed to identify somatic mutations and CNAs. The analysis confirmed the FISH results of del(13q), del(11q), del(17p) or tri(12) in 8 of the cases (Fig 1A). The mutation profiles are similar between C1 and C2 for the recurrently mutated genes published in CLL. However, we identified recurrent CNAs that occurred preferentially in C1 (covering 9 genes) or C2 (48 genes) (Fig 1C). Manual inspections of the reads coverage revealed that 5 of the 9 genes are from chr1q21.1 to chr1q22 that showed clear CN gains largely in C1. Of the 48 genes, 6 are from chrXp11 that showed CN losses, and 27 are from chr17q12 to chr17q25 that showed CN gains. Therefore, the majority of the 57 genes are from large-scale CNAs. Notably, for the CNAs mostly occurring in C2, the affected genes are enriched in WNT signaling, Cell cycle/protein kinase activity and chromatin modifying enzymes. Collectively, the results support the variability of transcriptomic signatures and genetic lesions between RS and CLL. Conclusion: This study revealed a noticeable heterogeneity in gene expression and genetic variation between RS and CLL, albeit in a small cohort. The vast majority of the DE genes showed elevated expression in C1 containing only RS cases, and these genes are enriched in PI3K-AKT signaling, NOTCH signaling, and RAS/MAPK signaling. The pattern is more pronounced for a subgroup in C1 who were overall less exposed to ibrutinib. For somatic variation, there is a strong tendency of occurrence of recurrent CNAs towards C2 cohort, mainly involving gains of chr17q and deletions of chrXp11. Given these advances we are encouraged to further pursue the genetic abnormalities with defined roles in aggressive and transformed CLL. Disclosures Liu: Eisal: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; GRAIL: Research Funding; Menarini Silicon Biosystems: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Tesaro: Research Funding. Parikh:Genentech: Honoraria; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Wang:Incyte: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Kenderian:Gilead: Research Funding; Humanigen: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Torque: Consultancy; Mettaforge: Patents & Royalties; BMS: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding. Kay:Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Juno Theraputics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Braggio:DASA: Consultancy; Bayer: Other: Stock Owner; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding. Ding:Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Research Funding.

Background: Clinical factors including previous history of AF, heart failure, hypertension, valvular heart disease, increased age and male gender increase the risk of AF in CLL patients (Shanafelt, Leukemia and Lymphoma 2017). Treatment with Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) such as ibrutinib has also been associated with an increased risk of AF in CLL. We evaluated the role of artificial intelligence electrocardiography (AI-ECG) in predicting ibrutinib-induced AF (and, for reference, AF unrelated to ibrutinib) in patients with CLL. Methods: We identified two cohorts of CLL patients using the Mayo Clinic CLL Database. Cohort 1 included patients evaluated within 12 months of CLL diagnosis who did not ever receive ibrutinib. Cohort 2 included patients who were treated with ibrutinib. The electrocardiographic signature of AF in sinus rhythm was detected by an AI-ECG algorithm previously developed using a convolutional neural network (Attia, Lancet 2019). The baseline AI-ECG AF score (positive defined as >0.10 on a scale of 0-1 which offers best balance between sensitivity and specificity per Attia et al.) was computed based on ECGs obtained within 10 years prior to CLL diagnosis (Cohort 1) or 10 years prior to initiation of ibrutinib therapy (Cohort 2). Patients with AF at baseline, missing data, or with ECGs previously used to train the AI algorithm were excluded. Reverse Kaplan Meier diagrams were plotted for both cohorts grouped by AI-ECG positivity. Cox proportional hazards were fitted to assess the predictive ability of AI-ECG in both cohorts. Results: After screening 2,739 patients and applying exclusion criteria (126 patients had baseline AF) a total of 1,149 patients with median 4 (interquartile range [IQR] 2-9) baseline ECGs were included in the analysis (Figure 1A). Cohort 1 included 951 patients with a median follow up of 3.0 (IQR 0.6-7.0) years and positive baseline AI-ECG in 546 (57%) patients. Cohort 2 included 198 patients with a median follow up of 1.6 (IQR 0.7-3.2) years and positive baseline AI-ECG in 91 (46%) patients. In Cohort 1, the median age was 67 years (IQR 58-72), 681 (72%) of patients were men, 68% had low/intermediate risk CLL-International Prognostic Index (IPI), and 32% had high/very high-risk CLL-IPI. In Cohort 2, the median age was 69 years (IQR 62-75), 139 (70%) of patients were men, 13% had low/intermediate risk CLL-IPI, and 87% had high/very high-risk CLL-IPI. AF occurred during follow up in 164 patients (17%) in Cohort 1 and 46 patients (23%) in Cohort 2. In both Cohorts 1 and 2, a positive baseline AI-ECG significantly increased the incidence of AF during follow up (log rank Conclusion: The addition of AI to a standard 12-lead ECG obtained during normal sinus rhythm - an inexpensive and ubiquitous test - predicts the occurrence of future AF in patients with CLL. This holds true irrespective of BTKi -based therapy and has important implications for the management of CLL patients. Disclosures Ding: Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kenderian:BMS: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Mettaforge: Patents & Royalties; Juno: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Humanigen: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Torque: Consultancy. Wang:Novartis: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Kay:Juno Theraputics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kapoor:Cellectar: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Parikh:MorphoSys: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; Verastem Oncology: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Introduction: With a median overall survival (OS) measured in months, successful treatment of Richter's transformation (RT) of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) remains a major unmet medical need. While targeted agents, such as Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) monotherapy, have greatly improved outcomes for patients (pts) with CLL and some B-cell lymphomas, available BTKi therapies have been ineffective for RT, as well as for large cell transformation of indolent B-cell lymphomas and relapsed/refractory (r/r) DLBCL, which rapidly develop mechanisms of resistance by activation of downstream targets of BTKi or upregulation of alternative/parallel pathways. Focusing on a synthetic lethality approach via in vitro and in vivo studies, we discovered that concurrent inhibition of BTK & mTOR targets plus an IMiD synergistically kill malignant B-cells. DTRM-555 is an optimized oral triple combination of a novel irreversible BTKi DTRMWXHS-12 (DTRM-12), everolimus (EV) and pomalidomide (POM). This once daily therapy was tested in a stepwise, phase I, multicenter study in pts with the greatest unmet medical needs. Here we present results for this novel combination therapy in pts with RT, and r/r DLBCL. Methods: We conducted a phase I (3+3 design), first in human trial exploring DTRM-555 in adult pts with B-cell lymphomas with no available standard therapies (NCT02900716) at 6 US cancer centers. Our goal was to determine the optimal dose for DTRM-555. In phase Ia, an MTD was not reached for DTRM-12 monotherapy; In phase Ib and expansion cohorts, we evaluated double (DTRM-12/EV at 200mg/5mg or 300mg/5mg) and triple combinations (DTRM-12/EV/POM at 200mg/5mg/2mg or 300mg/5mg/2mg) administered once daily for 21 days of a 28-day cycle, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was safety and the dose limiting toxicity (DLT) period was cycle 1 (28 days). Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR; Cheson 2014), duration of response (DOR), and DTRM-12 pharmacokinetics. The trial began on 9/27/2016 and completed enrollment with evaluable follow-up data cut-off date on 08/06/2020. Results: 39 pts were enrolled and treated, including 24 with RT (n=12) or r/r DLBCL (n=12). The safety analyses included all 39 pts treated with combination therapies while efficacy analyses were focused on RT and r/r DLBCL. Baseline characteristics (n=39): 66% male, median age 71 years (range 43-94) and 94% white. For the entire study cohort, median number of prior therapies was 3 (range 1-10), 49% had been treated with prior BTKi monotherapy,13% prior CAR-T or stem cell transplant (SCT) and 59% ≥1 prior small molecule targeted agent. For pts with RT and r/r DLBCL (n=24), median prior therapies were 5 (range 1-10) and 2 (range 10), respectively. Table 1 summarizes prior therapies for the 24 RT and r/r DLBCL pts. Table 2 describes Grade 3 and 4 related AEs for 39 pts treated with the combination therapies. AEs were manageable and similar to known AEs for BTKi, EV or POM, with a total of 4 DLTs observed with combination therapies. The most common AEs were hematological events; specifically, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and anemia. The MTD of DTRM-555 was determined to be DTRM-12 200mg, EV 5mg, & POM 2mg. For 11 evaluable RT pts, ORR was 45% (1 CR, 4 PR); 1 RT pt has not undergone first response assessment. For 10 evaluable DLBCL pts, ORR was 60% (2 CR, 4 PR). Responders with RT or r/r DLBCL have durable responses (Figure 1). Kaplan Meier estimated median duration of response for RT and DLBCL pts was 15 months as of the cut-off. Dose dependent DTRM-12 drug plasma levels were observed in all arms with minimal inter-pt variability. Conclusions: This clinical trial met its primary endpoint. The once-daily oral triple combination therapy DTRM-555 has an acceptable safety profile. Encouraging clinical activity was observed in several high-risk, multi-refractory pts with RT (median 5 prior therapies, ORR 45%) or r/r DLBCL (median 2 prior therapies, ORR 60%), including pts previously treated with targeted therapies, cellular therapies, checkpoint inhibitors and other experimental agents. A phase II US expansion study is underway targeting pts with RT, r/r DLBCL, r/r transformed follicular lymphoma and BTKi/BCL2 inhibitor exposed r/r CLL pts. Disclosures Mato: Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Schuster:AlloGene, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Juno/Celgene, Loxo Oncology, Nordic Nanovector, Novartis, Tessa Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis, Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding. Ding:DTRM: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Brander:Tolero: Research Funding; NCCN: Other; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Other; NCCN: Other; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Other, Research Funding; Juno/Celgene/BMS: Other, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; DTRM: Other, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; BeiGene: Other, Research Funding; Ascentage: Other, Research Funding; ArQule: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Other. Tun:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acrotech: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding. He:DTRM Biopharma LLC: Current Employment. Kearney:DTRM Biopharma LLC: Current Employment. Gui:DTRM Biopharma LLC: Current Employment. McKinlay:DTRM Biopharma LLC: Current Employment. Roeker:American Society of Hematology: Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: spouse with minority ownership interest ; Abbott Laboratories: Other: spouse with minority ownership interest . Huntington:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; DTRM: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Astrazeneca: Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding.

INTRODUCTION T-cell prolymphocytic leukemia (T-PLL) is a rare, aggressive malignancy of mature T-cells. Although responses may been seen with initial alemtuzumab-based therapy, relapse is inevitable and relapsed/refractory disease carries a dismal prognosis. T-PLL has shown in vitro sensitivity to venetoclax, and short-lived clinical responses to venetoclax monotherapy (Smith, Blood Advances 2020; Boidol, Blood 2017) or when given in combination with pentostatin (Alfayez, Leukemia & Lymphoma 2020). Given the lack of standard treatment options, we reviewed the outcomes of patients (pts) with relapsed T-PLL on venetoclax-based therapy. METHODS Using an institutional clinical database of pts with T-PLL seen in the Division of Hematology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, all pts treated with venetoclax or venetoclax-based therapies in a relapsed/refractory setting were identified. Clinical, laboratory, and pathology data, as well as treatment dosing and toxicity were ascertained retrospectively from the medical records. Diagnostic criteria and response definitions were utilized as per the T-PLL International Study Group (Staber, Blood 2019). RESULTS Between 8/2017 and 5/2020, 9 pts with relapsed/refractory T-PLL treated with venetoclax were identified. The median age was 63 years (range 49-75), and one-third were male. Baseline characteristics are detailed in Table 1. Rearrangement of TCL1 family genes was present in all 8 pts evaluated with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Using conventional cytogenetics, a complex karyotype was present in 4/6 pts tested. The median prior lines of therapy was 3 (range 1-4), including alemtuzumab in 8 of 9 pts (intravenous 7/8); and two pts had undergone prior hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (1 allogeneic; 1 autologous) after achieving a complete remission. Additional individual pt details are included in Table 2. Prior to venetoclax therapy initiation, 2 pts had B-symptoms (2 night sweats; 1 fever) and 6 pts had an ECOG score ≥ 2. Lymphadenopathy and splenomegaly were present in 6 and 9 pts, respectively. Extranodal involvement included 3 pts with cutaneous involvement and 5 pts with effusions (4 ascites; 1 pleural). The target maximum dose of venetoclax (800 mg [n=4]; 400 mg [n=1]) was reached by 5 pts at a median of 12 days (range 7-40 days). The other 4 pts had disease progression after a median of 10 days (range 5-22 days) during the dose ramp-up, including 2 pts undergoing rapid dose escalation. Altogether, 6 of the 9 pts initiated venetoclax with a rapid dose escalation. Bendamustine was given with venetoclax in 5/9 pts; median number of cycles 1 (range 1-4) with variable starting dosing (range 60-100 mg/m2). The disease control rate was 56%; best response was partial remission (PR) in 4 (44%) pts and stable disease (SD) in 1 (11%) pt. The 1 pt with SD received venetoclax monotherapy; however, the overall response rate among pts who received the combination of venetoclax and bendamustine was 80% (4/5 pts). One pt with a partial remission met all criteria for complete remission but did not have a confirmatory bone marrow biopsy. Cutaneous disease improved in 2 of 3 pts (both with PR as best response), and effusions improved in 2 of 5 pts (1 PR and 1 SD as best response). Among those in PR, the median decrease in absolute lymphocyte count was 67x109/L and the median decrease in lactate dehydrogenase was 1,162 U/L (normal range 122-222 U/L). Median duration of treatment for all pts was 42 days (range 4-201 days). All pts ultimately died during follow-up with a median overall survival of 53 days (range 4-464 days); Figure 1. All pts experienced at least one adverse event and 8 of 9 pts had a grade ≥ 3 toxicity, most commonly edema (n=7) and neutropenia (n=6). Five pts required dose interruptions due to neutropenia (n=3), tumor lysis syndrome (n=1), and edema (n=1). Three pts had dose reductions, all from 800 mg dosing, due to hematologic toxicity (n=2) and nausea (n=1). No pts discontinued venetoclax as a result of adverse events. CONCLUSION Treatment of pts with relapsed/refractory T-PLL remains a significant unmet need. The 9 pts described herein represent the largest cohort of pts treated with venetoclax-based therapy in this setting to the current date. Despite initial reports of clinical efficacy, our results show that venetoclax (with or without bendamustine) has modest efficacy in the treatment of relapsed/refractory T-PLL after prior alemtuzumab exposure. Disclosures Parikh: TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding. Shah:Dren Bio: Consultancy. Bennani:Verastem: Other: Advisory Board; Affimed: Research Funding; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding. Wang:Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding. Kenderian:MorphoSys: Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Torque: Consultancy; Humanigen: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Mettaforge: Patents & Royalties. Kay:MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Research Funding; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Cytomx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Juno Theraputics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ding:Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Venetoclax: off-label use in treatment of relapsed/refractory T-cell prolymphocytic leukemia

INTRODUCTION Nearly 20% of patients (pts) are ≥ 80 years (yrs) of age at the time of CLL diagnosis. Increased medical comorbidities, as well as declining functional status and organ function, often accompany advanced age. However, clinical trials often enroll a disproportionally low number of people from this age demographic due to stringent eligibility parameters, which provides limited evidence to guide decisions. Here, we report clinical characteristics and outcomes of pts ≥ 80 yrs of age at the time of CLL diagnosis. METHODS Between 1/1995 and 3/2020, we identified previously untreated CLL pts from the Mayo Clinic CLL Database who were ≥ 80 yrs of age at the time of CLL diagnosis, and seen within 3 yrs of diagnosis. Baseline characteristics, treatments administered, and time to first treatment (TFT) were analyzed for all pts. Overall survival (OS) was measured from diagnosis date in all pts and separately from treatment date for treated pts. Time to next treatment (TTNT) was measured in treated pts from first treatment date to date of second treatment or last known treatment. TFT and TTNT were analyzed accounting for competing risk of death. Standardized mortality ratio (SMR) compared observed survival to survival in a Minnesota population. Cox multivariable regression models were used to determine which factors were associated with OS (treatment as a time-dependent covariate) and TTNT (accounting for competing risk of death). RESULTS Among the 213 pts identified, the median age was 83 yrs (range 80-97); baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The median number of medical comorbidities among all pts was 4 (range 0-8). At least 1 comorbidity was present in 97% of pts, most commonly hypertension (57%), genitourinary (n=48%), rheumatological (46%), and dyslipidemia (n=43%). Median follow-up was 3.8 yrs. A total of 56 pts received treatment and the median TFT was 6.7 yrs. Over this 25 year interval, the treatment approaches included monoclonal antibody alone (n=17), chemotherapy alone (n=17), or chemoimmunotherapy (n=14), novel agents (n=3), and multi-agent Richter's transformation regimens (n=5). Chlorambucil-based treatments (chlorambucil n=13, chlorambucil, prednisone n=3) were the most frequently used chemotherapy regimens. The most common chemoimmunotherapy regimens included rituximab, cyclophosphamide, prednisone (RCP) with (n=3) or without vincristine (n=6), and chlorambucil with an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (n=4; obinutuzumab n=2, rituximab n=2). Among 17 pts who received monoclonal antibody alone, treatments included rituximab alone (n=11), rituximab plus methylprednisolone (n=2), obinutuzumab (n=2), and rituximab with alemtuzumab (n=2). Frontline novel agent treatments included ibrutinib alone (n=1), acalabrutinib alone (n=1), and ibrutinib, obinutuzumab, venetoclax (n=1). Five pts with Richter's transformation (diagnosed concurrent with CLL n=4) received multi-agent chemotherapy. Among the 56 treated pts, 22 pts received second line therapy after a median TTNT of 2.8 yrs from start of first therapy. The most common second line treatments were chlorambucil-based (n=6) and rituximab-based (n=6) regimens. Age, sex, absolute lymphocyte count, del17p, and unmutated IGHV were not predictive of TTNT. The median OS among all 213 pts was 4.6 yrs. SMR was 1.2 (p=0.008) when excluding pts with Richter's transformation. In univariable analyses, receipt of therapy (HR 3.92, 95%CI 2.11-7.28; p CONCLUSIONS In this study of 213 pts ≥ 80 yrs of age at time of CLL diagnosis, the median time to first therapy was ~7 yrs. Although survival outcomes did not differ by era across the 25-year span of this study, pts treated with novel agents were underrepresented and are a patient population which warrants additional evaluation. The finding that pts with CLL in this cohort had a 20% higher risk of death compared to an age- and sex-matched population emphasize the need for ongoing efforts to improve clinical outcomes for CLL pts in this demographic category. Disclosures Kenderian: Torque: Consultancy; Mettaforge: Patents & Royalties; Humanigen: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding. Wang:Incyte: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Shanafelt:Genentech, Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline, and Merck: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Patents & Royalties: and other intellectual property. Braggio:DASA: Consultancy; Bayer: Other: Stock Owner; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding. Kay:Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Juno Theraputics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ding:alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; DTRM: Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Parikh:Merck: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; Verastem Oncology: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding.

We identified all patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia at Mayo Clinic treated with ibrutinib outside the context of a clinical trial; timing and reasons for discontinuation were ascertained, as were symptoms, exam and radiographic findings, and laboratory changes following discontinuation. Of 202 patients who received ibrutinib, 52 discontinued therapy (estimated 1- and 2-year risk of discontinuation 18% and 28%, respectively). The most common reasons for discontinuation were toxicity (56%) and progression of disease (32%, including Richter's transformation in 15%). Rapid progression of disease within 4 weeks after discontinuation was observed in 9/36 (25%) patients with adequate records for review, mostly in those stopping ibrutinib for disease progression (

8026 Background: CLL progression and CLL-related complications (infections and second malignancies) were the leading cause of death (COD) in a prospective cohort of CLL patients (Strati, BJH 2017). The CLL-IPI integrates major clinical and molecular prognostic factors and stratifies patients into 4 risk groups with distinct prognosis. It is unknown if COD differs according to CLL-IPI risk group in patients with newly diagnosed CLL. Methods: Patients diagnosed with CLL between 1/2000-12/2019 and seen within 1 year of diagnosis were identified from the Mayo Clinic CLL database. Cumulative incidences of cause-specific death were analyzed using Gray’s test, with deaths from different causes treated as competing events and deaths from unknown causes excluded. Results: 1276 patients were included in this study. The median age at diagnosis was 63 years (range 24-92), and 880 (69%) were male. Based on CLL-IPI score, 449 (35%) had low risk disease, 443 (35%) had intermediate risk disease, and 384 (30%) had high/very high risk disease. Median follow-up time for the study was 6 years; 286 deaths occurred. The COD was CLL progression in 99 (35%), infection in 16 (6%), second malignancy in 47 (16%), CLL-unrelated in 59 (21%), and unknown in 65 (23%) patients. The rates of death due to CLL progression were higher (17.3% at 5 years; 30.3% at 10 years) than the rates due to CLL-related complications (5.7% at 5 years; 12.9% at 10 years) or due to CLL-unrelated causes (8.6% at 5 years; 16.9% at 10 years) in the CLL-IPI high/very high risk group, but not the CLL-IPI low or intermediate risk group (Table). A higher CLL-IPI risk group was associated with a higher rate of death due to CLL progression ( P < 0.001), as well as a higher rate of death due to CLL-related complications ( P = 0.013), and CLL-unrelated causes ( P < 0.001). Conclusions: Causes of death in newly diagnosed CLL patients differ according to their CLL-IPI risk group. In patients with high/very high risk CLL, improving CLL disease control with novel agents seems justified. In patients with low/intermediate risk CLL, there should be increased efforts to reverse immune dysfunction to reduce infections and second malignancies. [Table: see text]

Background: The 2008 International Working Group for CLL (IWCLL) criteria define MBL as a clonal B-cell disorder with a peripheral blood B-cell count of Methods: We used the Mayo Clinic CLL Database to identify individuals with high-count MBL (absolute B-cell count: 0.5 - 4.9 x 109/L) and divided them into the following three cohorts: a) Cohort A: no imaging studies available at MBL diagnosis; b) Cohort B: imaging studies done within one year of MBL with no evidence of lymphadenopathy and/or organomegaly; and c) Cohort C: imaging studies done within one year of MBL with lymphadenopathy and/or organomegaly, attributable to MBL. All individuals with MBL were first seen at Mayo Clinic after 1/1/2002; those with a concomitant lymphoproliferative disorder within 3 months of diagnosis were excluded. Patients with SLL seen during the same time interval were identified as a comparison cohort. We compared the baseline characteristics (Kruskal Wallis for continuous and Chi-square for categorical variables) and TFT and OS across the three MBL cohorts, and patients with SLL. Cumulative incidence of TFT was adjusted for the competing risk of death. Age- and sex-adjusted OS was analyzed using inverse weights methods. Results: 657 individuals with high-count MBL with a median follow-up of 6.7 years were identified: 415 (63%) individuals were in Cohort A, 142 (22%) in Cohort B, and 100 in (15%) Cohort C. Compared to Cohort B, individuals in Cohort C were more likely to have unmutated IGHV, high expression of CD38, and higher beta-2 microglobulin level (Table 1). SLL patients were younger, had higher rate of unmutated IGHV, and had high expression of CD49d compared to MBL individuals in Cohort C (Table 1). There was suggestive evidence of a difference in TFT between Cohorts B and C (estimated 10-year treatment rate 28.3% vs. 41.6%; p=0.16; HR 1.62 95% CI 0.84-3.15). TFT was significantly shorter in SLL patients compared to those with Cohort C (estimated 10-year treatment rate 71% vs. 41.6%, respectively, P Summary/Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that individuals with MBL who have incidentally identified lymphadenopathy/splenomegaly at diagnosis are more likely to have an unfavorable risk profile, shorter TFT and OS compared to patients who did not have lymphadenopathy/splenomegaly at MBL diagnosis. Additionally, these individuals have a longer TFT but similar OS compared to SLL patients seen during the same time interval. If externally validated, these findings have significant implications for individuals with newly diagnosed MBL. Disclosures Ding: Merck: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding. Kenderian:Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Humanigen: Other: Scientific advisory board , Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding. Kay:MorphoSys: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Other: DSMB; Celgene: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Agios: Other: DSMB. Parikh:AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding.

INTRODUCTION Mutations in BTK and PLCG2 have been reported to occur in ~80% of CLL patients (pts) who have progression of disease on ibrutinib therapy (Woyach, JCO 2017; Ahn, Blood 2017). These mutations are described as appearing months before actual relapse and thus considered as a potential predictive biomarker for future relapse (Quinquenel, Blood 2019). However, the outcomes of these pts after disease progression are not well described. In this study, we seek to investigate time to next therapy and overall survival (OS) following progression among CLL pts on ibrutinib therapy with and without these resistance mutations. METHODS Between 10/2012 and 6/2019, we identified 34 pts in the Mayo Clinic clinical CLL resource who progressed while receiving ibrutinib therapy and also had testing for BTK and PLCG2 mutation performed as part of routine clinical practice at either NeoGenomics Laboratories or The Ohio State University. OS was calculated from time of ibrutinib progression to last known alive or death date; OS was plotted using Kaplan Meier methods and was compared using the log-rank test between various groups (e.g., mutation positive vs negative; CLL progression vs Richter's). Cumulative incidence of time to next treatment in those who had a treatment after progression was adjusted for the competing risk of death. RESULTS Of 34 pts who progressed while receiving ibrutinib, 26 pts experienced CLL progression and 8 pts had Richter's transformation; baseline characteristics in Table 1A. The presence of a BTK or PLCG2 mutation was found in 20/34 (59%) pts (specific mutations in Table 1B). BTK mutation alone was present in 9 pts, 7 pts had PLCG2 mutation alone, and 4 pts had both mutations. Median time between a positive test and start of next therapy was 4 months (range 1-19 months) and did not vary between BTK vs PLCG2 mutations. Among the 26 pts with CLL progression, 18 (69%) pts had a mutation present: BTK alone (n=8), PLCG2 alone (n=6), both (n=4). Therapy following progression on ibrutinib in these pts was as follows: venetoclax (n=16; 11 pts who continued ibrutinib in combination), idelalisib (n=4), investigational treatments (n=2), continued ibrutinib alone (n=2), dose-adjusted EPOCH-R (etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab; n=1), and unknown (n=1). Twelve of the 26 pts with CLL progression on ibrutinib, including 8 pts with a prior resistance mutation detected, had subsequent progression of disease on the aforementioned next line therapy. Treatment of these patients consisted of the following: restarted ibrutinib in addition to current treatment of venetoclax (n=5), venetoclax (n=2), pembrolizumab (n=2; 1 pt with continued ibrutinib), obinutuzumab with continued ibrutinib (n=1), gemcitabine and vinorelbine with continued ibrutinib (n=1), and no further treatment (n=1). Among the 8 pts with Richter's transformation as the initial progression event on ibrutinib after mutation testing, 1 pt had a BTK mutation and 1 pt had a PLCG2 mutation. Treatments following progression on ibrutinib included multi-agent chemoimmunotherapy (n=3; 2 pts received rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone [R-CHOP] with continued ibrutinib and 1 pt received doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine [ABVD] alone), pembrolizumab (n=3; 1 pt in combination with continued ibrutinib), venetoclax in combination with continued ibrutinib (n=1), and venetoclax and obinutuzumab (n=1). The median time to next treatment (second line of treatment beyond ibrutinib) for the 31 pts who started another therapy following progression on ibrutinib was 16.7 months (95% CI 9.6-NE; Figure 1A) and was not significantly different for pts with or without a resistance mutation (p=0.57). Median OS for all 26 pts with CLL progression was 28.7 month and there was no difference according to presence or absence of a resistance mutation (median 28.7 months vs 18.2 months, p=0.53; Figure 1B). The 8 pts with Richter's transformation had a median OS of 7.1 months (95% CI 2.0-NE). CONCLUSION Approximately 60% of pts tested in this progression cohort had a BTK or PLCG2 mutation at time of or preceding progression on ibrutinib therapy. OS and time to next therapy did not differ statistically between pts with mutated vs non-mutated clones; however, caution should be applied with the conclusions given the limited sample size. Disclosures Ding: DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Kenderian:Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Humanigen: Other: Scientific advisory board , Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding. Kay:MorphoSys: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Other: DSMB; Celgene: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Agios: Other: DSMB. Parikh:Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding.

Background: The 2018 iwCLL guidelines recommend close observation of early stage CLL pts who do not meet indications for therapy ("watch and wait" strategy). Prior attempts at early therapeutic intervention in unselected early-stage CLL pts using alkylating agents such as chlorambucil and chemoimmunotherapy failed to show a significant benefit; and these therapies were associated with substantial toxicities. The introduction of Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors has revolutionized the treatment landscape of CLL. The German CLL Study group recently presented results of the CLL12 study which demonstrated a significant improvement in event-free survival (EFS) among untreated early stage high risk CLL pts who received ibrutinib compared to placebo (median EFS not reached vs. 47.8 months, respectively; Langerbeins, EHA, 2019). Acalabrutinib is a more selective second-generation BTK inhibitor that has fewer adverse events in pts with CLL, and has shown equally impressive clinical activity for CLL pts. We are conducting an investigator initiated randomized phase 2 study to compare acalabrutinib with or without obinutuzumab (a glycoengineered anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody approved in the treatment of CLL) among high risk early stage CLL pts. Study Design: All pts with newly diagnosed (65 years (1 point), Rai stage I-IV (1 point), del17p and/or TP53 mutation (4 points), unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain (IGHV) genes (2 points), and serum β2-microglobulin >3.5 g/dL (2 points). Pts with high (4-6) and very high (7-10) risk CLL-IPI are randomly (1:1) assigned to acalabrutinib 100 mg orally twice daily (Arm A) or acalabrutinib with obinutuzumab at a standard approved schedule (Arm B). Treatment with acalabrutinib is continued for a minimum of 2 years unless the patient has unacceptable side effects or withdraws consent. Pts with low (0-1) and intermediate (2-3) risk CLL-IPI score are assigned to an observation arm with follow-up once every 6 months for 2 years, and then according to routine clinical practice (Arm C). Endpoints: The primary endpoint of the intervention arms (Arms A and B) is the achievement of minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative complete remission in the bone marrow after 2 years of therapy. MRD is assessed using an 8-color flow cytometry with a detection limit of 0.01%. The primary endpoint of the observation arm (Arm C) is time to first therapy. Secondary endpoints for all arms are: progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. Statistical design: A randomized trial comparing the experimental arm (acalabrutinib plus obinutuzumab) against the control arm (acalabrutinib alone) will be conducted as described by Rubinstein. A sample size of 36 pts per arm provides 80% power to detect an improvement in MRD-negative complete response rate from 10% to 30%, using a one-sided test at a significance level of 0.10 (EAST 6.4). We anticipate accruing an additional 8 high/very high risk pts (4 in each arm) to account for ineligibility, cancellation, or major treatment violation. The total enrollment for Arms A and B will be 80 pts. We will enroll 40 pts to Arm C; for a total enrollment of 120 pts. Key correlatives: Comprehensive profiling to assess the innate and adaptive immune system in paired peripheral blood and bone marrow will be conducted in all pts registered to Arms A and B at baseline, 12 and 24 months after enrollment. In addition, bone marrow hematopoietic function will be assessed in all pts at these time points. We will employ a CLL focused custom 61-gene panel to estimate tumor mutational burden as well as mutational profiles for each patient at baseline, 12, and 24 month time points, as well at the time of disease progression. Preliminary results: The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT03516617. The trial opened to accrual at all three Mayo Clinic sites (Rochester, MN; Jacksonville, FL; and Scottsdale, AZ) in September 2018. Twenty-eight pts have been registered; the baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. The trial is expected to complete enrollment in September 2020; and the primary analysis will be available in September 2022. Disclosures Parikh: Janssen: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria. Ding:DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Ailawadhi:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Kenderian:Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Humanigen: Other: Scientific advisory board , Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding. Chanan-Khan:Mayo Clinic: Employment; Ascentage: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Jansen: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Kay:Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Other: DSMB; Celgene: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Agios: Other: DSMB; MorphoSys: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board. OffLabel Disclosure: Drug: Acalabrutinib Purpose: treatment of CLL

Targeted agents have greatly improved outcomes for patients (pts) with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and other B cell lymphomas; however, single agents have been limited by intolerance, resistance and depth/durability of responses. Current novel targeted agent combinations may improve depth of response, but such "full dose" strategies have been associated with significant AEs, dose reductions/interruptions and discontinuations. Our in vitro & in vivo screening/optimization studies identified that concurrent inhibition of BTK & mTOR targets plus IMiD at low doses of each inhibitor can synergistically kill B-cell malignancies and may address drug-resistance. DTRM-555 is an optimized oral triplet combination of a novel BTK inhibitor DTRMWXHS-12 (DTRM-12) with everolimus (EV) & pomalidomide (POM). This once daily therapy was tested in a stepwise, phase I, US multicenter study in patients with highest unmet medical needs including r/r CLL, Richter's transformation (RT) of CLL, DLBCL, transformed B-cell lymphomas. We conducted a 3+3 design phase I, first human trial exploring DTRM-555 in pts ≥18 years, ECOG PS ≤1 with CLL, B-cell NHL, or Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) with no available standard therapy (NCT02900716). Our goal was to determine optimal doses for triplet combination therapy through 3 escalating phases of study: DTRM-12 in escalating doses (50, 100, 200, & 300 mg/day) in Part Ia, DTRM-12 at 200 mg or 300 mg & EV at 5 mg (doublet or DTRM-505) in Part Ib Arm A while DTRM-12 at 200 mg or 300 mg, EV at 5 mg & POM at 2 mg in Part Ib Arm B. For all arms, treatment was administered for 21 consecutive days of a 28-day cycle, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Safety was the primary endpoint, and the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) period was cycle 1. Secondary endpoints included response (iwCLL 2018 or Cheson 2014), progression free survival, duration of response and pharmacokinetics. Intra-patient migration between arms (Mono to doublet to triplet) was permitted if subsequent doses were tolerated. The trial commenced 9/27/2016 and completed enrollment 7/25/2019. Thirty-three pts were enrolled, including 2 screen failures and 4 intra-cohort migrations, with r/r DLBCL (n=8), CLL/SLL (n=5), RT (n=6), FL (n=5), MCL (n=4), MZL/LPL (n=3), HL (n=2). 30 of 31 treated pts were evaluated: 8 pts participated in phase Ia (DTRM-12) while 23 pts were treated on phase Ib combinations (DTRM-505 & DTRM-555). Baseline characteristics: 70% male (n=23), median age 70 years (range 46-94) and 94% white. Median prior therapies were 3 (range 1-10), 53% had been treated with ≥1 prior targeted agent (i.e., CD19/CD3 bispecific antibody, obtinutuzumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, ibrutinib, venetoclax, PI3k-i), CAR-T or HSCT. 35% pts were previously treated with ibrutinib. Table 1 describes Grade (Gr) 3 and 4 AEs (all causality, stratified by treatment arm). Regarding safety, AEs were manageable, with a total of 5 DLTs were observed: 2 (Gr 3 febrile neutropenia, URI) in part Ib arm A, 3 (Gr 4 thrombocytopenia, Gr 3 diarrhea, G3 febrile neutropenia) in Part Ib arm B. No MTD was reached for the mono & doublet arms, with the MTD of the triplet determined to be DTRM-12 200 mg, EV 5 mg, & POM 2 mg. Spider plot (Figure 1a) shows the clinical response for individual CLL and lymphoma pts treated with mono, doublet and triplet therapies. Depth and durability of response improved with combination therapies (vs. mono). Of note, 48% of all patients had a ≥50% reduction in sum of the products of lymph node diameters. Representative PET-CT scans are in Figure 1b-c. Responses in multi-refractory pts are ongoing (including 15+ mos in a pt with r/r DLBCL and 5+ mos PR in a pt aged > 90 yrs with r/r DLBCL; 4+ & 13+ mos PRs in two pts with RT). DTRM-12 plasma concentrations were unaffected by EV & POM (Once Daily Oral Therapies) in Figure 1d. The clinical trial met its primary endpoint as the triple combination DTRM-555 had an acceptable safety profile. Dose dependent drug levels with minimal inter-pt variations were observed in all arms, supporting once daily oral administration of this low-dose combination therapy. Encouraging clinical activity was observed in several high-risk, multi-refractory CLL and lymphoma pts, including those previously treated with ibrutinib. Thus synthetic lethality is a viable treatment approach. A phase II US expansion study is underway targeting pts with transformed lymphomas (follicular or prior CLL) and r/r DLBCL cohorts. Table 1. Disclosures Mato: AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB member , Research Funding; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding. Schuster:DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding. Foss:Mallinckrodt: Consultancy; Acrotech: Consultancy; miRagen: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other: fees for non-CME/CE services ; Eisai: Consultancy; Spectrum: Other: fees for non-CME/CE services . Isufi:Novartis: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Ding:Merck: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding. Brander:Novartis: Consultancy; MEI: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; BeiGene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding. Tun:Mundi-pharma: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. He:DTRM Biopharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kearney:DTRM Biopharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gui:DTRM Biopharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Anderson:Theradex: Employment. Roeker:AbbVie: Equity Ownership; Abbott Laboratories: Equity Ownership. Huntington:Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; DTRM Biopharm: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Everolimus in B cell lymphomas and CLL Pomalidomide in B cell lymphomas and CLL

The treatment approaches for Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia (WM) are largely based upon information from single-arm phase II trials, without comparative data. We compared the efficacy of two commonly used regimens in routine practice (bendamustine-rituximab (BR) and dexamethasone, rituximab plus cyclophosphamide (DRC)) and evaluated their activity with respect to the patients’ MYD88L265P mutation status. Of 160 consecutive patients, 60 received BR (43 with relapsed/refractory WM) and 100 received DRC (50 had relapsed/refractory WM). In the treatment-naive setting, overall response rate (ORR) was 93% with BR versus 96% with DRC (p = 0.55). Two-year progression-free survival (PFS) with BR and DRC was 88 and 61%, respectively (p = 0.07). In salvage setting, ORR was 95% with BR versus 87% with DRC, p = 0.45; median PFS with BR was 58 versus 32 months with DRC (2-year PFS was 66 versus 53%; p = 0.08). Median disease-specific survival was not reached with BR versus 166 months with DRC (p = 0.51). The time-to-event endpoints and depth of response were independent of the MYD88 mutation status. Grade ≥ 3 adverse events of both regimens were comparable. A trend for longer PFS was observed with BR although the regimens have comparable toxicities. The activity of BR and DRC appears to be unaffected by patients’ MYD88 mutation status.

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

7526 Background: Stem cell transplant (SCT) was considered to be beneficial in CLL patients with Richter transformation (RT). We report a single center experience of SCT for RT. Methods: CLL patients with biopsy-confirmed RT to DLBCL who underwent SCT were identified from Mayo Clinic CLL database, and clinical information was abstracted by chart review. Survival analysis was done with the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Twenty-four of 204 RT patients underwent SCT, 20 autologous and 4 allogeneic. The median lines of prior CLL therapy was 1 (range 0-4). Only 4 patients were exposed to ibrutinib prior to RT. The median age at RT diagnosis was 62 (range 41-73). Five of 17 (29%) patients had bulky disease (≥ 5 cm), 12 of 20 (60%) had elevated LDH, and 6 of 15 (40%) had TP53 disruption (del(17p) or TP53 mutation). The median lines of RT therapy prior to SCT was 2 (range 1-4); treatments included R-CHOP-like alone (n = 7), platinum-based alone (n = 1), both R-CHOP-like and platinum-based (n = 11), novel agents (n = 2), and high dose MTX-based (n = 3). Response prior to SCT was CR in 12 (50%) and PR in 12 (50%) patients. The median time from RT diagnosis to SCT was 6.8 months (range 3.3-42.3). After a median follow-up of 52.7 months after SCT, there were 10 RT relapses, 4 CLL progression, and 11 deaths (7 RT, 1 CLL and 3 unrelated). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 28.5 months (95% CI 8.3-NA; 1-year PFS 61.8%, 2-year PFS 50.5%). The median post-SCT survival was 56.3 months (95% CI 30.6-76.6; 2-year survival 82.0%, 4-year survival 65.6%). Elevated LDH was associated with worse PFS (median 8.9 months vs NA, P= 0.014) and a trend of worse post-SCT survival (53.7 vs 67.4 months, P= 0.153). Other factors including age, prior CLL treatment (untreated vs treated), bulky disease, response prior to SCT, and TP53 disruption were not associated with PFS or post-SCT survival. Among the 4 allogeneic SCT patients, 1 had RT relapse 10.5 months after SCT and was treated with venetoclax, ibrutinib and obinutuzumab and remained alive at last follow-up (12.9 months after SCT). All 3 other patients remained in remission and alive at last follow up (15.6, 16.1 and 108.5 months after SCT, respectively). Conclusions: SCT may benefit select RT patients. The role of SCT in the novel agent era needs further study.