Search

Assessment of measurable residual disease (often referred to as “minimal residual disease”) has emerged as a highly sensitive indicator of disease burden during and at the end of treatment and has been correlated with time-to-event outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Undetectable-measurable residual disease status at the end of treatment demonstrated independent prognostic significance in chronic lymphocytic leukemia, correlating with favorable progression-free and overall survival with chemoimmunotherapy. Given its utility in evaluating depth of response, determining measurable residual disease status is now a focus of outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia clinical trials. Increased adoption of measurable residual disease assessment calls for standards for nomenclature and outcomes data reporting. In addition, many basic questions have not been systematically addressed. Here, we present the work of an international, multidisciplinary, 174-member panel convened to identify critical questions on key issues pertaining to measurable residual disease in chronic lymphocytic leukemia, review evaluable data, develop unified answers in conjunction with local expert input, and provide recommendations for future studies. Recommendations are presented regarding methodology for measurable residual disease determination, assay requirements and in which tissue to assess measurable residual disease, timing and frequency of assessment, use of measurable residual disease in clinical practice versus clinical trials, and the future usefulness of measurable residual disease assessment. Nomenclature is also proposed. Adoption of these recommendations will work toward standardizing data acquisition and interpretation in future studies with new treatments with the ultimate objective of improving outcomes and curing chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Observation is the current standard of care for patients with early-stage asymptomatic chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), as chemotherapy-based interventions have failed to prolong survival. We hypothesized that early intervention with ibrutinib would be well tolerated and lead to superior disease control in a subgroup of early-stage patients with CLL. The phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled CLL12 trial randomly assigned asymptomatic, treatment-naïve Binet stage A CLL patients at increased risk of progression in a 1:1 ratio to receive ibrutinib (n = 182) or placebo (n = 181) at a dose of 420 mg daily. At a median follow-up of 31 months, the study met its primary endpoint by significantly improving event-free survival in the ibrutinib group (median, not reached vs 47.8 months; hazard ratio = 0.25; 95% confidence interval = 0.14-0.43, P < .0001). Compared with placebo, ibrutinib did not increase overall toxicity, yielding similar incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs). The most common serious AEs were atrial fibrillation, pneumonia, and rash in the ibrutinib group, and basal cell carcinoma, pneumonia, and myocardial infarction in the placebo group. Ibrutinib-associated risk for bleeding (33.5%) was decreased by prohibiting the use of oral anticoagulants through an amendment of the study protocol and by avoiding CYP3A4 drug–drug interactions. Ibrutinib confirms efficacy in CLL patients at an early stage with an increased risk of progression. However, the results do not justify changing the current standard of “watch and wait.” This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02863718.

PURPOSE The CLL14 study has established one-year fixed-duration treatment of venetoclax and obinutuzumab (Ven-Obi) for patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia. With all patients off treatment for at least three years, we report a detailed analysis of minimal residual disease (MRD) kinetics and long-term outcome of patients treated in the CLL14 study. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to receive six cycles of obinutuzumab with 12 cycles of venetoclax or 12 cycles of chlorambucil (Clb-Obi). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end point. Key secondary end points included rates of undetectable MRD and overall survival. To analyze MRD kinetics, a population-based growth model with nonlinear mixed effects approach was developed. RESULTS Of 432 patients, 216 were assigned to Ven-Obi and 216 to Clb-Obi. Three months after treatment completion, 40% of patients in the Ven-Obi arm (7% in the Clb-Obi arm) had undetectable MRD levels < 10−6 by next-generation sequencing in peripheral blood. Median MRD doubling time was longer after Ven-Obi than Clb-Obi therapy (median 80 v 69 days). At a median follow-up of 52.4 months, a sustained significant PFS improvement was observed in the Ven-Obi arm compared with Clb-Obi (median not reached v 36.4 months; hazard ratio 0.33; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.45; P < .0001). The estimated 4-year PFS rate was 74.0% in the Ven-Obi and 35.4% in the Clb-Obi arm. No difference in overall survival was observed (hazard ratio 0.85; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.35; P = .49). No new safety signals occurred. CONCLUSION Appearance of MRD after Ven-Obi is significantly slower than that after Clb-Obi with more effective MRD reduction. These findings translate into a superior long-term efficacy with the majority of Ven-Obi–treated patients remaining in remission.

BACKGROUND Autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) in first remission is the current standard treatment in fit patients with mantle cell lymphoma. In this long-term follow-up study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of autologous HSCT versus interferon alfa maintenance after chemotherapy without or with rituximab in patients with primary advanced-stage mantle cell lymphoma. METHODS We did a post-hoc, long-term analysis of an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 121 participating hospitals or practices across six European countries. Patients who were aged 18-65 years with previously untreated stage III-IV mantle cell lymphoma and an ECOG performance score of 0-2 were eligible for participation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either myeloablative radiochemotherapy (fractionated total body irradiation with 12 Gy/day 6-4 days before autologous HSCT and cyclophosphamide 60 mg/kg per day intravenously 3-2 days before autologous HSCT) followed by autologous HSCT (the autologous HSCT group) or interferon alfa maintenance (the interferon alfa maintenance group; 6 × 106 IU three times a week subcutaneously until progression) after completion of CHOP-like induction therapy (cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1, doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1, vincristine 1·4 mg/m2 maximum 2 mg intravenously on day 1, and prednisone 100 mg/m2 orally on days 1-5; repeated every 21 days for up to 6 cycles) without or with rituximab (375 mg/m2 intravenously on day 0 or 1 of each cycle; R-CHOP). The primary outcome was progression-free survival from end of induction until progression or death among patients who had a remission and the secondary outcome was overall survival from the end of induction until death from any cause. We did comparisons of progression-free survival and overall survival according to the intention-to-treat principle between both groups among responding patients and explored efficacy in subgroups according to induction treatment without or with rituximab. Hazard ratios (HRs) were adjusted for the mantle cell lymphoma international prognostic index (MIPI) numerical score, and in the total group also for rituximab use (adjusted HR aHR). This trial was started before preregistration was implemented and is therefore not registered, recruitment is closed, and this is the final evaluation. FINDINGS Between Sept 30, 1996, and July 1, 2004, 269 patients were randomly assigned to receive either autologous HSCT or interferon alfa maintenance therapy. The median follow-up was 14 years (IQR 10-16), with the intention-to-treat population consisting of 174 patients (93 53{\%} in the autologous HSCT group and 81 47{\%} in the interferon alfa maintenance group) who responded to induction therapy. The median age was 55 years (IQR 47-60), and R-CHOP was used in 68 (39{\%}) of 174 patients. The median progression-free survival was 3·3 years (95{\%} CI 2·5-4·3) in the autologous HSCT group versus 1·5 years (1·2-2·0) in the interferon alfa maintenance group (log-rank p{\textless}0·0001; aHR 0·50 95{\%} CI 0·36-0·69). The median overall survival was 7·5 years (95{\%} CI 5·7-12·0) in the autologous HSCT group versus 4·8 years (4·0-6·6) in the interferon alfa maintenance group (log-rank p=0·019; aHR 0·66 95{\%} CI 0·46-0·95). For patients treated without rituximab, the progression-free survival adjusted HR for autologous HSCT versus interferon alfa was 0·40 (0·26-0·61), in comparison to 0·72 (0·42-1·24) for patients treated with rituximab. For overall survival, the adjusted hazard ratio for HSCT versus interferon alfa was 0·52 (0·33-0·82) without rituximab and 1·05 (0·55-1·99) for patients who received rituximab. INTERPRETATION Our results confirm the long-term efficacy of autologous HSCT to treat mantle cell lymphoma established in the pre-rituximab era. The suggested reduced efficacy after immunochemotherapy supports the need for its re-evaluation now that antibody maintenance, high-dose cytarabine, and targeted treatments have changed the standard of care for patients with mantle cell lymphoma. FUNDING Deutsche Krebshilfe, the European Community, and the Bundesministerium f{\"u}r Bildung und Forschung, Kompetenznetz Maligne Lymphome.

Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) receptor-related protein-associated protein 1 (LRPAP1) had been identified by B-cell receptor (BCR) expression cloning and subsequent protein array screening as a frequent and proliferation-inducing autoantigen of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). Of interest, high-titered and light chain–restricted LRPAP1 autoantibodies were detected in 8 of 28 patients with MCL. In the present study, LRPAP1 autoantibodies in sera of patients treated within the Younger and Elderly trials of the European MCL Network were analyzed regarding frequency, association with disease characteristics, and prognostic impact. LRPAP1 autoantibodies were detected in 41 (13%) of 312 evaluable patients with MCL. These LRPAP1 autoantibodies belonged predominantly to the immunoglobulin G (IgG) class and were clonally light chain restricted (27 with κ light chains, 14 patients with λ light chains). Titers ranged between 1:400 and 1:3200. The presence of LRPAP1 autoantibodies was not significantly associated with any baseline clinical characteristic, however, it was associated with a superior 5-year probability for failure-free survival (FFS) of 70% (95% confidence interval [CI], 57% to 87%) vs 51% (95% CI, 44% to 58%), P = .0052; and for overall survival (OS) of 93% (95% CI, 85% to 100%) vs 68% (95% CI, 62% to 74%), P = .0142. LRPAP1-seropositive patients had a Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index–adjusted hazard ratio for FFS of 0.48 (95% CI 0.27-0.83, P = .0083) and for OS of 0.47 (95% CI 0.24-0.94, P = .032). LRPAP1 autoantibodies were frequently detected in a large cohort of MCL patients treated within prospective multicenter clinical trials. Our results suggest better outcomes for LRPAP1-autoantibody seropositive patients.

Endotracheal intubation is an import component of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) resuscitation. In this analysis, we evaluate the association of video laryngoscopy (VL) with first pass success and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) using a national OHCA cohort.We analyzed 2018 data from ESO Inc. (Austin, TX), a national prehospital electronic health record. We included all adult, non-traumatic cardiac arrests undergoing endotracheal intubation. We defined VL and direct laryngoscopy (DL) based on paramedic recorded intubation device. The primary outcomes were first pass success, ROSC, and sustained ROSC. Using multivariable, mixed models, we determined the association between VL and first pass success rate, ROSC, and sustained ROSC (survival to ED or ROSC in the field for greater than 20 min), fitting agency as a random intercept and adjusting for confounders.We included 22,132 patients cared for by 914 EMS agencies, including 5702 (25.7%) VL and 16,430 (74.2%) DL. Compared to DL, VL had a lower rate of bystander CPR, but other characteristics were similar between the groups. VL exhibited higher first pass success than DL (75.1% v 69.5%, p .001). On mixed model analysis, VL was associated with a higher first pass success (OR 1.5, CI 1.3-1.6) but not ROSC (OR 1.1, CI 0.97-1.2) or sustained ROSC (OR 1.1, CI 0.9-1.2).While associated with higher FPS, VL was not associated with increased rate of ROSC. The role of VL in OHCA remains unclear.

The placebo controlled CLLM1 trial evaluated the efficacy of lenalidomide maintenance treatment in patients with high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in first remission after chemoimmunotherapy (CIT). Upon observation of three cases with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in overall 56 lenalidomide treated patients (5.4%), the study treatment was prematurely stopped. Using next generation sequencing of B cell and T cell receptor (TR) rearrangements, we here report common clonal B cell ancestry between CLL and ALL in one of those three patients, in whom both diseases shared the same VDJ- as well as crosslineage TR rearrangements. Chromosomal/mutation analyses indicated that in this patient the ALL developed from a common B cell precursor which lacks genomic lesions acquired in the CLL subclone, but shares a BIRC3 frameshift deletion (p.L421fs*). In two cases we found independent IGH rearrangements indicating de novo ALL development from a different B cell clone. A retrospective cohort analysis of >1600 CLL patients treated with first-line CIT in previously reported phase 2-3 studies of the German CLL study group, yielded a significantly lower cumulative incidence of ALL at 12.6 cases/100,000 patient years, compared to 1345.5 cases/100,000 patient-years observed in the lenalidomide arm of the CLLM1 study. Given our results and increasing knowledge on the biological effects of lenalidomide in bone marrow precursor cells, we discuss the potential involvement of lenalidomide in the pathogenesis of ALL in CLL patients.

Chemoimmunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab can induce longterm remissions in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Treatment efficacy with Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors was found similar to fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab in untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients with a mutated immunoglobulin heavy chain variable gene. To identify patients who specifically benefit from fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab, we developed integrative models including established prognostic parameters and gene expression profiling. Gene expression profiling was conducted on n=337 CLL8 trial samples, "core" probe sets were summarized on gene levels and RMA normalized. Prognostic models were built using penalized Cox proportional hazards models with the smoothly clipped absolute deviation penalty. We identified a prognostic signature of less than a dozen genes, which substituted for established prognostic factors, including TP53 and immunoglobulin heavy chain variable gene mutation status. Independent prognostic impact was confirmed for treatment, β2-microglobulin and del(17p) regarding overall survival and for treatment, del(11q), del(17p) and SF3B1 mutation for progression-free survival. The combination of independent prognostic and gene expression profiling variables performed equal to models including only established non-gene expression profiling variables. Gene expression profiling variables showed higher prognostic accuracy for patients with long progression-free survival compared to categorical variables like the immunoglobulin heavy chain variable gene mutation status and reliably predicted overall survival in CLL8 and an independent cohort. Gene expression profiling based prognostic models can help to identify patients who specifically benefit from fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab treatment. The CLL8 trial is registered under EUDRACT- 2004-004938-14 and ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00281918.

PURPOSE A randomized, double-blind, phase III study of idelalisib (IDELA) plus rituximab versus placebo plus rituximab in patients with relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) was terminated early because of superior efficacy of the IDELA-plus-rituximab (IDELA/R) arm. Patients in either arm could then enroll in an extension study to receive IDELA monotherapy. Here, we report the long-term efficacy and safety data for IDELA-treated patients across the primary and extension studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to receive rituximab in combination with either IDELA 150 mg twice daily (IDELA/R; n = 110) or placebo (placebo/R; n = 110). Key end points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS The long-term efficacy and safety of treatment with IDELA was assessed in 110 patients who received at least one dose of IDELA in the primary study, 75 of whom enrolled in the extension study. The IDELA/R-to-IDELA group had a median PFS of 20.3 months (95% CI, 17.3 to 26.3 months) after a median follow-up time of 18 months (range, 0.3 to 67.6 months). The ORR was 85.5% (94 of 110 patients; n = 1 complete response). The median OS was 40.6 months (95% CI, 28.5 to 57.3 months) and 34.6 months (95% CI, 16.0 months to not reached) for patients randomly assigned to the IDELA/R and placebo/R groups, respectively. Prolonged exposure to IDELA increased the incidence of all-grade, grade 2, and grade 3 or greater diarrhea (46.4%, 17.3%, and 16.4%, respectively), all-grade and grade 3 or greater colitis (10.9% and 8.2%, respectively) and all-grade and grade 3 or greater pneumonitis (10.0% and 6.4%, respectively) but did not increase the incidence of elevated hepatic aminotransferases. CONCLUSION IDELA improved PFS and OS compared with rituximab alone in patients with relapsed CLL. Long-term IDELA was effective and had an expected safety profile. No new IDELA-related adverse events were identified with longer exposure.

Due to the worldwide COVID-19 outbreak it is mandatory for health care workers to develop containment strategies. Recently published data showed, that cancer patients might have a higher risk for severe course of the disease. We therefore developed a strategy of screening and containment for SARS-CoV-2 for hospitalized cancer patients. Our approach includes a temporary isolation in a so-called floating zone and testing strategy for screening of asymptomatic individuals by pooling of samples before RT-PCR amplification. Patients as far as health care professionals got tested twice a week. Nurses and physicians entered the floating zone with full body protection. Within 8 weeks we tested 418 individuals (professionals and patients) in total. Only 2 patients had COVID-19 without documented further transmission of SARS-CoV-2. We therefore think that our strategy might be a useful approach to protect inpatients with cancer at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection during this ongoing pandemic.

Venetoclax (Ven), an orally administered, potent BCL-2 inhibitor, has demonstrated efficacy in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in combination with rituximab (R) or obinutuzumab (G). Our aim was to investigate the addition of bendamustine (B) to these Ven-containing regimens in relapsed/refractory (R/R) or first-line (1L) CLL. This multi-arm, nonrandomized, open-label, phase Ib study was designed to evaluate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and safety/tolerability of Ven with BR/BG, with 3+3 dose-escalation followed by safety expansion. Patients received Ven (schedule A) or BR/BG first (schedule B) to compare safety and determine dose/schedule for expansion. Six Ven-BR/-BG cycles were to be administered, then Ven monotherapy until disease progression (R/R) or fixed-duration 1- year treatment (1L). Overall, 33 R/R and 50 1L patients were enrolled. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed (doses 100–400 mg), and the MTD was not reached. Safety was similar between schedules; no tumor lysis syndrome occurred during dose-finding. Schedule B and Ven 400 mg were chosen for expansion. The most frequent grade 3–4 toxicity was neutropenia: R/R 64%, 1L Ven-BR 85%, 1L Ven-BG 55%. Grade 3–4 infection rate was: R/R 27%, 1L Ven-BR 0%, 1L Ven-BG 27%. During expansion, one clinical and two laboratory tumor lysis syndrome cases occurred. Fewer than half the patients completed six combination therapy cycles with all study drugs; rates of bendamustine discontinuation were high. Overall response rate was 91% in R/R and 100% in 1L patients (16 of 49 1L patients received Ven for >1 year). In conclusion, addition of bendamustine to Ven-R/-G increased toxicity without apparent efficacy benefit (clinicaltrial gov. Identifier: NCT01671904).

Although CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells have been successfully used after a preceding allogeneic stem cell transplant (alloHCT) in patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, little is known about the feasibility and outcome of CAR T cell treatment in patients who have been previously allotransplanted for lymphoma. In a single-center retrospective analysis, course and outcome of all allografted patients treated with CD19 CAR constructs for B cell lymphoma between October 2018 and November 2019 were studied. CAR therapy consisted either of a third-generation CAR (HD-CAR-1) or of commercially manufactured axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; Gilead, Santa Monica, U.S.). Altogether, 10 CAR T cell dosings using recipient leukapheresis products were performed in 8 patients: 4 patients (2 mantle cell lymphoma, 2 chronic lymphocytic leukemia) received 6 dosings with HD-CAR-1 and 4 patients (all with diffuse large B cell lymphoma) received 4 dosings with axi-cel. Overall, 6 of 8 patients (75%) responded. CAR treatment was well tolerated with grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity each being observed after 1 of 10 dosings. A single patient had moderate chronic graft-versus-host disease. Of note, 3 of 4 patients who received axi-cel had ongoing grade ≥ 3 cytopenia 3 months postdosing, whereas prolonged cytopenia was not observed in 9 alloHCT-naive patients who received axi-cel during the same time period. In conclusion, CAR T cell treatment from recipient-derived leukapheresis products after a prior alloHCT appears to be feasible, effective, and safe in patients with B cell lymphoma. Protracted cytopenia after axi-cel treatment is a matter of concern and requires further exploration.

Patients undergoing intensive chemotherapy are usually in need for central venous catheters (CVC). Due to contradictory study results, relation of insertion site and CVC-associated complication rate in these patients is not clear. We therefore retrospectively analyzed CVC-related data of all patients undergoing intensive chemotherapy with high risk of febrile neutropenia according to NCCN criteria, who received a CVC at our bone marrow transplantation unit between May 2016 and December 2019. In total, 210 patients received 281 CVC. CVC were placed via either the subclavian-vein (SCV, n = 58; 20%) or the internal-jugular-vein (IJV, n = 223; 80%). Median duration of CVC-lifetime and neutropenic days per CVC were comparable between the two groups (IJV vs SCV: 23 days vs 21 days (p = 0.16) and 12 days vs 11 days (p = 0.65)). Both, time to CVC removal due to local inflammation and time to central line-associated bloodstream infection was significantly shorter in patients with SCV catheters (p = 0.013 and p = 0.045). CVC placed in the IJV were associated with significantly less catheter-related infectious events compared with CVC placed in the SCV. This difference was consistent across different subgroups including 88 patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation.

Genetic parameters are established prognostic factors in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) treated with chemoimmunotherapy, but are less well studied with novel compounds. We assessed immunoglobulin heavy variable chain (IGHV) mutation status, common genomic aberrations, and gene mutations in 421 untreated patients within the CLL14 trial (NCT02242942), comparing obinutuzumab+chlorambucil (GClb) vs obinutuzumab+venetoclax (VenG). The incidences of genomic aberrations considering the hierarchical model were del(17p) 7%, del(11q) 18%, +12 18%, and del(13q) 35%, whereas IGHV was unmutated in 60% of patients. NOTCH1 mutations were most common (23%), followed by SF3B1 (16%), ATM (13%), and TP53 (10%). Although the overall response rate (ORR) for GClb was lower in patients with del(17p), del(11q), mutated TP53, ATM, and BIRC3, none of these parameters reduced complete remission (CR) rate and ORR with VenG. At a median follow-up of 28 months, del(17p) and mutated TP53 were the only abnormalities with an effect on progression-free survival (PFS) for both treatment groups: GClb (hazard ratio [HR], 4.6 [P < .01]; HR, 2.7 [P < .01], respectively) and VenG (HR, 4.4 [P < .01]; HR, 3.1 [P < .01], respectively). No other factors affected outcome with VenG, whereas for GClb del(11q), BIRC3, NOTCH1, and unmutated IGHV were associated with shorter PFS. Multivariable analysis identified del(17p), del(11q), unmutated IGHV, and mutated TP53, BIRC3, and SF3B1 as independent prognostic factors for PFS with GClb, whereas for VenG, only del(17p) was significant. VenG was superior to GClb across most genetic subgroups. Patients with adverse genetic markers had the strongest benefit from VenG, particularly subjects with unmutated IGHV, which was identified as a predictive factor in a multivariable treatment-interaction analysis.

International audience

PI3K inhibition with idelalisib (at that time CAL-101) was at the forefront of the development of molecularly targeted therapies in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)/Small Lymphocytic Leukemia (SLL) and follicular lymphoma. However, after initial approval, subsequent trials identified specific immune-mediated and infectious toxicity that led to a reduced use and stopped the further development of this agent. PI3K inhibition as a treatment paradigm fell out of favor compared to other developments such as BTK or BCL2 inhibitors.This review provides an overview of the experience with approved PI3Ki, including long-term experience, and highlights the current PI3Ki developments in CLL, B-cell and T-Cell Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.With careful monitoring and prophylaxis usage of the first-generation PI3K inhibitor, idelalisib, in the approved indications, it is safe and remains an option in higher line therapy after the failure of other novel agents and/or chemoimmunotherapy. New developments with next-generation PI3K inhibitors of improved tolerability and sustained efficacy reignited the treatment principle and already led to newly approved therapeutic options for patients. Certainly, the authors here believe that PI3K inhibitors as a monotherapy and in combination with other agents is currently a rapidly evolving field in cancer treatment.

Ibrutinib is a bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor approved for the treatment of multiple B-cell malignancies, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). In addition to blocking B-cell receptor signaling and chemokine receptor-mediated pathways in CLL cells, that are known drivers of disease, ibrutinib also affects the microenvironment in CLL via targeting BTK in myeloid cells and IL-2–inducible T-cell kinase (ITK) in T-cells. These non-BTK effects were suggested to contribute to the success of ibrutinib in CLL. By using the Eµ-TCL1 adoptive transfer mouse model of CLL, we observed that ibrutinib effectively controls leukemia development, but also results in significantly lower numbers of CD8+ effector T-cells, with lower expression of activation markers, as well as impaired proliferation and effector function. Using CD8+ T-cells from a T-cell receptor (TCR) reporter mouse, we verified that this is due to a direct effect of ibrutinib on TCR activity, and demonstrate that co-stimulation via CD28 overcomes these effects. Most interestingly, combination of ibrutinib with blocking antibodies targeting PD-1/PD-L1 axis in vivo improved CD8+ T-cell effector function and control of CLL. In sum, these data emphasize the strong immunomodulatory effects of ibrutinib and the therapeutic potential of its combination with immune checkpoint blockade in CLL.

Objectives Seroprevalence studies of SARS-CoV-2 have shown that there is a high number of undiagnosed missing cases. Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in people living with HIV (PLWH) is lacking. Therefore, we conducted a prospective cross-sectional study to estimate the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among PLWH without known diagnosis of COVID-19 in the south-west of Germany. Methods Serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies based on two assays was performed in PLWH who visited the outpatient HIV centre of two hospitals from April to June 2020. Additionally, patients had to answer questionnaires about possible COVID-19-related symptoms and predefined risk factors. Moreover, we tested 50 non-HIV-infected patients receiving post- or pre-exposure (PEP/PrEP) HIV prophylaxis. Results In all, 594 (488 male, 106 female) PLWH (median age 51 years) and 50 PEP/PrEP-users were included in the study. The estimated seroprevalence of the PLWH cohort was 1.85% (11/594), with 11 positive tested cases in the cohort. Among all patients, only five had COVID-19-related symptoms. One PCR-positive patient did not show any antibody response in repeatedly carried out tests. None of the patients was hospitalized due to COVID-19. Three PrEP users were tested positive. Three patients had been previously diagnosed with SARS-COV-2 infection before inclusion. The used questionnaire did not help to detect SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. Conclusions Despite the limitation of being only a snapshot in time because of the ongoing pandemic, to our knowledge this is the largest study so far on seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in PLWH in Germany. Our study suggests that the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in PLWH is comparable to those previously reported for parts of the general German population and that the questionnaire used here might not be the best tool to predict COVID-19 diagnosis.

PURPOSE Among Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors, acalabrutinib has greater selectivity than ibrutinib, which we hypothesized would improve continuous therapy tolerability. We conducted an open-label, randomized, noninferiority, phase III trial comparing acalabrutinib and ibrutinib in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). METHODS Patients with previously treated CLL with centrally confirmed del(17)(p13.1) or del(11)(q22.3) were randomly assigned to oral acalabrutinib 100 mg twice daily or ibrutinib 420 mg once daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was independent review committee–assessed noninferiority of progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS Overall, 533 patients (acalabrutinib, n = 268; ibrutinib, n = 265) were randomly assigned. At the data cutoff, 124 (46.3%) acalabrutinib patients and 109 (41.1%) ibrutinib patients remained on treatment. After a median follow-up of 40.9 months, acalabrutinib was determined to be noninferior to ibrutinib with a median PFS of 38.4 months in both arms (95% CI acalabrutinib, 33.0 to 38.6 and ibrutinib, 33.0 to 41.6; hazard ratio: 1.00; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.27). All-grade atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter incidence was significantly lower with acalabrutinib versus ibrutinib (9.4% v 16.0%; P = .02); among other selected secondary end points, grade 3 or higher infections (30.8% v 30.0%) and Richter transformations (3.8% v 4.9%) were comparable between groups and median overall survival was not reached in either arm (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.15), with 63 (23.5%) deaths with acalabrutinib and 73 (27.5%) with ibrutinib. Treatment discontinuations because of adverse events occurred in 14.7% of acalabrutinib-treated patients and 21.3% of ibrutinib-treated patients. CONCLUSION In this first direct comparison of less versus more selective Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors in CLL, acalabrutinib demonstrated noninferior PFS with fewer cardiovascular adverse events.

Summary The manageable toxicity profile of obinutuzumab (GA101; G) alone or with chemotherapy in first‐line (1L; fit and non‐fit) and relapsed/refractory (R/R) patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) was established in the primary analysis of the Phase IIIb GREEN trial (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01905943). The final analysis (cut‐off, 31 January 2019) is reported here. Patients received G (1000 mg) alone (G‐mono; fit and non‐fit patients) or with chemotherapy [fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (FC; fit patients); chlorambucil (non‐fit patients); bendamustine (any patient)]. Study endpoints were safety (primary) and efficacy (secondary). Subgroup analyses were performed on prognostic biomarkers in 1L CLL. Overall, 630 patients received 1L and 341 received R/R CLL treatment. At the final analysis, no new safety signals were observed [Grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs): 1L 82·7%, R/R 84·5%; serious AEs: 1L 58·1%, R/R 62·5%]. Neutropenia (1L 50·5%, R/R 53·4%) and thrombocytopenia (1L 14·6%, R/R 19·1%) were the most common Grade 3–5 AEs. G‐mono‐, G‐bendamustine and G‐FC‐treated patients with unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain trended towards shorter progression‐free survival. Achievement of minimal residual disease negativity was greatest in 1L patients treated with G‐FC. In this final analysis of the GREEN trial, the safety profile of G was consistent with current risk management strategies. Biomarker analyses supported efficacy in the specific subgroups., publishedVersion

The advent of novel B-cell receptor pathway targeting agents like ibrutinib dramatically changed management of B-cell malignancies. However, with concomitant anticoagulation (AC) and antiplatelet (AP) therapy, ibrutinib is associated with increased bleeding. This post hoc analysis aimed to determine the role of AC/AP therapy in patients with idelalisib-treated B-cell malignancies and to establish if it contributes to increased bleeding events. Data from two idelalisib trials (rituximab ± idelalisib in chronic lymphocytic leukemia [CLL] and idelalisib monotherapy in indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma [iNHL]) were analyzed. Antithrombotic therapy was common (36%-63%), with comparable bleeding incidence across treatment groups (14%-19%; p = 0.56). Bleeding events of grade ≥3 occurred in 0.9% and 3.2% of the idelalisib-treated CLL and iNHL cohorts, respectively. Our findings demonstrate no increase in bleeding events with simultaneous AC/AP treatment and idelalisib use. Hemorrhagic risk is prevalent in these patients and an important consideration when evaluating available treatment options. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01539512 and NCT01282424.

Almost one-third of all patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) express stereotyped B-cell receptor immunoglobulins (BcR IG) and can be assigned to distinct subsets, each with a particular BcR IG. The largest stereotyped subsets are #1, #2, #4 and #8, associated with specific clinico-biological characteristics and outcomes in retrospective studies. We assessed the associations and prognostic value of these BcR IG in prospective multicenter clinical trials reflective of two different clinical situations: (i) early-stage patients ('watch and wait' arm of the CLL1 trial) (n=592); (ii) patients in need of treatment, enrolled in three phase III trials (CLL8, CLL10, CLL11), treated with different chemo-immunotherapies (n=1,861). Subset #1 was associated with del(11q), higher CLL International Prognostic Index (CLL-IPI) scores and similar clinical course to CLL with unmutated immunoglobulin heavy variable (IGHV) genes (U-CLL) in both early and advanced stage groups. IGHV-mutated (M-CLL) subset #2 cases had shorter time-to-first-treatment (TTFT) versus other M-CLL cases in the early-stage cohort (hazard ratio [HR]: 4.2, confidence interval [CI]: 2-8.6, P

High-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has been defined by clinical and/or genetic resistance (TP53 abnormalities) to treatment with chemoimmunotherapy (CIT). With the availability of pathway inhibitors (PIs), such as kinase inhibitors and BCL2 antagonists, the outlook of CIT-resistant patients has dramatically improved. Here, we propose a revision of the concept of high-risk CLL, driven by TP53 abnormalities and response to treatment with PI. CLL high-risk-I, CIT-resistant is defined by clinically CIT-resistant disease with TP53 aberrations, but fully responsive to PI. This category is largely the domain of PI-based therapy, and cellular therapy (ie, allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation) remains an option only in selected patients with low individual procedure-related risk. In CLL high-risk-II, CIT- and PI-resistant, characterized by increasing exhaustion of pharmacological treatment possibilities, cellular therapies (including chimeric antigen receptor-engineered T cells) should be considered in patients eligible for these procedures. Moreover, molecular and cellular therapies are not mutually exclusive and could be used synergistically to exploit their full potential.

Background: For fit CLL patients (pts), continuous BTK inhibitor treatment is replacing CIT as standard of care in frontline setting, particularly in pts with unfavorable prognostic factors. The time limited combinations venetoclax plus obinutuzumab (GVe) and venetoclax plus rituximab (RVe) have produced high rates of undetectable minimal residual disease (uMRD), which strongly associates with long progression-free survival (PFS) both in frontline and relapsed setting. For frontline therapy GVe is approved in this setting based on data from the CLL14 trial in an unfit population. However, data from a fit cohort are not yet available. The GAIA (CLL13) trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of three Ven+CD20 antibody-based regimens in comparison to CIT as a frontline treatment for fit pts with CLL and without TP53 mutation/deletion. Methods: Treatment-naïve fit (CIRS ≤6, normal creatinine clearance with ≥ 70ml/min) CLL pts requiring therapy were eligible. Based on known poor response to CIT, pts with TP53 aberrations were excluded. Pts were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive six courses of CIT (FCR for pt ≤65 years: fludarabine 25 mg/m² d1-3, cyclophosphamide 250 mg/m² d1-3, rituximab 375 mg/m² d1 cycle 1 and 500 mg/m² d1 cycle 2-6; BR for pt >65 years: bendamustine 90mg/m² d1-2, rituximab) or one of three venetoclax (V) combinations (standard ramp-up from cycle 1 d22, 400 mg/d cycle 2-12): V and rituximab (375/500mg/m² d1 cycle 1-6) [RVe], V and obinutuzumab (1000 mg d1, 8, 15 cycle 1 and d1 cycle 2-6) [GVe], or V, obinutuzumab and ibrutinib (420 mg/d cycle 1-12, if MRD-detectable continued until cycle 36) [GIVe] . Pts were stratified according to country, Binet stage and age (≤ 65/> 65 years). The co-primary endpoints of the trial are (1) the rate of uMRD ( Trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02950051). Results: A total of 926 pts (CIT: 229 (150 FCR, 79 BR), RVe: 237, GVe: 229, GIVe: 231) with a median age of 61 years (range 27-84) were accrued between 12/2016 and 09/2019. The majority of pts were in advanced Binet stage (B: 37.8%, C: 35.6%) and unmutated IGHV status was present in 56%. Fourteen pts did not receive study treatment (13 FCR, 1 GVe) and were not included in the safety population. The data cut for the first co-primary endpoint analysis was February 28, 2021. The median observation time was 27.9 months. The co-primary endpoint uMRD in PB at MO15 was met as the rate of uMRD in ITT population was significantly higher in GVe compared to CIT: 86.5% (97.5% CI 80.6-91.1) vs 52.0% (CI 44.4-59.5; p The most common grade 3-5 treatment-emergent AE were neutropenia (50.5% of all pts), thrombocytopenia (12.2%), tumor lysis syndrome (7.5%), infusion-related reaction (7.2%), febrile neutropenia (6.5%) and pneumonia (5.3%)). Atrial fibrillation and bleeding events occurred more frequently in GIVe while infusion-related reactions were most common in the GVe arm (Table 1). The absolute numbers of second malignancies were 33, 19, 22 and 21 for CIT, RVe, GVe and GIVe. Fatal AEs occurred in 5, 7, 6 and 9 of the patients. Conclusions: The time-limited therapies of GVe and GIVe provided superior uMRD rates in PB at MO 15 compared to CIT. In addition, uMRD rates in BM and CRR were higher in GVe and GIVe in particular than in CIT. All arms showed a good safety profile in this fit pt population. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Eichhorst: AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Speakers Bureau; Hexal: Speakers Bureau; ArQule: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oxford Biomedica (UK): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Consultant Department I for Internal Medicine: Consultancy; University Hospital of Cologne: Current Employment. Kater: Genmab, LAVA: Other: Ad Board, Steering Committee; Janssen, AstraZeneca: Other: Ad Board, steering committee, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Ad Board, Research Funding; BMS, Roche/Genentech: Other: Ad Board, , Research Funding. Von Tresckow: Celgene: Other: travel grant; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Other; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Reasearch support, travel grant; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Reasearch support, travel grant; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: advisory board, travel grant. Staber: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Tadmor: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Poulsen: Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Janssens: Sanofi: Consultancy; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Beigene, AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Trael Grant, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie, Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Noesslinger: Roche: Speakers Bureau; Abbvie,: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Jaeger: Norvartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Frederiksen: Abbvie: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Alexion: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Hebart: Roche: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Simon: Gilead: Other: Travel support. Fink: AbbVie: Other: travel grant; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Fischer: Abbvie: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel Grants. Kreuzer: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ritgen: Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Chugai: Consultancy; MSD: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Travel support. Brüggemann: Amgen: Other: Advisory Board, Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Levin: Roche, Janssen, Abbvie: Other: Travel Expenses, Ad-Board. Stilgenbauer: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis: Other: Research Support; AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis: Consultancy; AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis: Honoraria; AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis: Research Funding. Hallek: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. OffLabel Disclosure: Ibrutinib in combaintion with Venetoclax + Obinutuzumab is not approved.

Patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treated with the R-CHOP regime receive a high cumulative dose of prednisone. We used computer tomography-ascertained Hounsfield units (HU) as a surrogate parameter for bone mineral density (BMD) in three different locations of the L3 vertebral body at baseline and post-treatment. HU were measured in 50 patients with DLBCL of the previously published FLYER-trial which compared four cycles of R-CHOP + 2 × rituximab infusion to six cycles of R-CHOP in young, favorable DLBCL patients. In total, median loss was 26.8 HU in all patients over time. The median HU loss was significantly lower in the four cycles arm (21.3 HU vs. 41.3 HU, p = 0.023). In conclusion, young patients with DLBCL receiving R-CHOP have significant HU/BMD loss under treatment with R-CHOP. Patients receiving four cycles of R-CHOP had less HU/BMD loss than patients receiving six cycles.

Hyperinflammation is frequently observed in patients with severe COVID-19. Inadequate and defective IFN type I responses against SARS-CoV-2, associated with autoantibodies in a proportion of patients, lead to severe courses of disease. In addition, hyperactive responses of the humoral immune system have been described. In the current study we investigated a possible role of neutralizing autoantibodies against anti-inflammatory mediators. Plasma from adult patients with severe and critical COVID-19 was screened by ELISA for antibodies against PGRN, IL-1-Ra, IL-10, IL-18BP, IL-22BP, IL-36-Ra, CD40, IFN-α2, IFN-γ, IFN-ω and serpinB1. Autoantibodies were characterized and the antigens were analyzed for immunogenic alterations. In a discovery cohort with severe to critical COVID-19 high titers of PGRN-autoantibodies were detected in 11 of 30 (36.7%), and of IL-1-Ra-autoantibodies in 14 of 30 (46.7%) patients. In a validation cohort of 64 patients with critical COVID-19 high-titer PGRN-Abs were detected in 25 (39%) and IL-1-Ra-Abs in 32 of 64 patients (50%). PGRN-Abs and IL-1-Ra-Abs belonged to IgM and several IgG subclasses. In separate cohorts with non-critical COVID-19, PGRN-Abs and IL-1-Ra-Abs were detected in low frequency (i.e. in < 5% of patients) and at low titers. Neither PGRN- nor IL-1-Ra-Abs were found in 40 healthy controls vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 or 188 unvaccinated healthy controls. PGRN-Abs were not cross-reactive against SARS-CoV-2 structural proteins nor against IL-1-Ra. Plasma levels of both free PGRN and free IL-1-Ra were significantly decreased in autoantibody-positive patients compared to Ab-negative and non-COVID-19 controls. In vitro PGRN-Abs from patients functionally reduced PGRN-dependent inhibition of TNF-α signaling, and IL-1-Ra-Abs from patients reduced IL-1-Ra- or anakinra-dependent inhibition of IL-1ß signaling. The pSer81 hyperphosphorylated PGRN isoform was exclusively detected in patients with high-titer PGRN-Abs; likewise, a hyperphosphorylated IL-1-Ra isoform was only found in patients with high-titer IL-1-Ra-Abs. Thr111 was identified as the hyperphophorylated amino acid of IL-1-Ra. In longitudinally collected samples hyperphosphorylated isoforms of both PGRN and IL-1-Ra emerged transiently, and preceded the appearance of autoantibodies. In hospitalized patients, the presence of IL-1-Ra-Abs or IL-1-Ra-Abs in combination with PGRN-Abs was associated with a higher morbidity and mortality.To conclude, neutralizing autoantibodies to IL-1-Ra and PGRN occur in a significant portion of patients with critical COVID-19, with a concomitant decrease in circulating free PGRN and IL-1-Ra, indicative of a misdirected, proinflammatory autoimmune response. The break of self-tolerance is likely caused by atypical hyperphosphorylated isoforms of both antigens, whose appearances precede autoantibody induction. Our data suggest that these immunogenic secondary modifications are induced by the SARS-CoV-2-infection itself or the inflammatory environment evoked by the infection and predispose for a critical course of COVID-19.

BackgroundDespite numerous advances in the identification of risk factors for the development of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), factors that promote recovery from COVID-19 remain unknown. Natural killer (NK) cells provide innate immune defense against viral infections and are known to be activated during moderate and severe COVID-19. Killer immunoglobulin-like receptors (KIR) mediate NK cell cytotoxicity through recognition of an altered MHC-I expression on infected target cells. However, the influence of KIR genotype on outcome of patients with COVID-19 has not been investigated so far. We retrospectively analyzed the outcome associations of NK cell count and KIR genotype of patients with COVID-19 related severe ARDS treated on our tertiary intensive care unit (ICU) between February and June 2020 and validated our findings in an independent validation cohort of patients with moderate COVID-19 admitted to our tertiary medical center.ResultsMedian age of all patients in the discovery cohort (n = 16) was 61 years (range 50–71 years). All patients received invasive mechanical ventilation; 11 patients (68%) required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Patients who recovered from COVID-19 had significantly higher median NK cell counts during the whole observational period compared to patients who died (121 cells/µL, range 16–602 cells/µL vs 81 cells/µL, range 6–227 cells/µL,p-value = 0.01). KIR2DS5 positivity was significantly associated with shorter time to recovery (21.6 ± 2.8 days vs. 44.6 ± 2.2 days,p-value = 0.01). KIR2DS5 positivity was significantly associated with freedom from transfer to ICU (0% vs 9%,p-value = 0.04) in the validation cohort which consisted of 65 patients with moderate COVID-19.ConclusionNK cells and KIR genotype might have an impact on recovery from COVID-19.

Introduction: The CLL2-BCG trial is a prospective, open-label, multicenter phase-II study based on the "sequential triple-T" (tailored, targeted, total eradication of CLL) concept proposed earlier [Hallek M., Blood 2013; 122(23): 3723-34]. This concept consists of sequentially applied combinations of targeted agents and aims for achieving undetectable minimal residual disease (MRD). It uses a sequential application of bendamustine (Ben) for debulking, followed by obinutuzumab (Obi) plus idelalisib (Ide) as induction and maintenance therapy for an all-comer population of physically fit and unfit, treatment-naïve (t-n) and relapsed/refractory (r/r) CLL patients (pts) irrespective of high-risk genetic markers. Methods: Pts with an absolute lymphocyte count ≥ 25.000/µl and/or lymph nodes ≥ 5 cm were to receive 2 cycles of Ben as debulking (70 mg/m² d1&2 q28 d), unless contraindicated. In the induction phase Obi 1000 mg was administered on d 1, 8 and 15 of cycle 1 and d1 of cycles 2-6; Ide was added in cycle 2 (150 mg twice daily). In the maintenance phase, daily dosing of Ide was continued and Obi was administered every 3 months until achieving a MRD-negative complete response or for up to 24 months. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR) at the end of induction therapy, secondary endpoints included MRD assessment, safety and survival. Due to an increased incidence of opportunistic infections in other Ide trials, amendment 2 in March 2016 limited the recruitment to r/r CLL pts with high-risk features such as presence of a deletion 17p/TP53 mutation and/or ineligibility for ibrutinib treatment (refractoriness, intolerance or contraindications). Slow enrolment led to recruitment stop in September 2019. Results: Between May 2015 and September 2019, 48 pts were enrolled. Sixteen pts were t-n and 32 had r/r CLL with a median of 2 prior lines (range: 1-10); most common were BR and FCR, 6 pts each had received ibrutinib and venetoclax containing therapies. Median age was 66 (range 41-83) years, median CIRS score was 2 (0-13). Twenty-three pts (48%) were defined unfit by a CIRS score >6 (7 pts) and/or an impaired renal function with a Creatinine Clearance Thirty-eight patients (79%, 16 t-n and 22r/r) received Ben debulking. However, 8 pts never started the induction phase due to protocol amendment 2. Forty pts (10 t-n, 30 r/r) received induction treatment (FAS [full analysis set]), 33 completed the full 6 cycles (PP [per protocol] collective). Twenty-seven (7 t-n, 20 r/r) continued in a maintenance phase. At the end of induction, 32 of 40 pts (FAS) and 28 of 33 pts with 6 induction cycles (PP) responded (ORR 80% and 85%, respectively); undetectable MRD levels ( As of June 8th 2020, 603 adverse events (AEs) were reported in the entire cohort; 313 (52%) were related to study drug and 127 (21%) were serious adverse events. 286 (47%) occurred in the induction treatment (see table 1). Of these, 69 (24%) were CTC grade 3 and 18 (6%) CTC grade 4, 4 had a fatal outcome. Most common AEs in the induction were infusion-related reactions, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, nasopharyngitis, headache, and fatigue [Table 2]. Summary/Conclusion: Sequential treatment with Ben debulking, followed by Obi and Ide induction and maintenance achieved responses and even undetectable MRD levels in CLL patients with high-risk disease and extensive prior therapy. However, the study also confirmed the known toxicities of Ide. In light of the current, alternative therapeutic options, the BCG regimen reported here should be used with caution, but represents an alternative treatment option if ibrutinib and venetoclax have failed. Disclosures Cramer: Gilead: Other: travel support, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Beigene: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: travel support; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding. Von Tresckow:Celgene: Other: travel grants; AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding. Fink:AbbVie: Other: travel grants; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding. Tausch:Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Knauf:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; AMGEN: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria. Al-Sawaf:BeiGene: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: personal fees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: personal fees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: personal fees. Langerbeins:AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding. Fischer:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Honoraria, Other: travel grants; AbbVie: Honoraria. Kreuzer:Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ritgen:Gilead: Other: travel grants; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel grants; F. Hoffman-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kneba:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding. Wendtner:Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Hoffmann-LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding. Stilgenbauer:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding. Eichhorst:Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; ArQule: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Oxford Biomedica: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding. Hallek:F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Background: The introduction of targeted agents has revolutionized the treatment of CLL but only few patients achieve complete remissions and minimal residual disease negativity with ibrutinib monotherapy. Methods: This multicentre, investigator-initiated phase-II study evaluates a sequential treatment with two cycles of bendamustine debulking for patients with a higher tumour load, followed by ofatumumab and ibrutinib induction and maintenance treatment. An all-comer population, irrespective of prior treatment, physical fitness and genetic factors was included. The primary endpoint was the investigator assessed overall response rate at the end of induction treatment. Findings: Of 66 patients enrolled, one patient with early treatment discontinuation was excluded from the efficacy analysis as predefined by the protocol. Thirty-nine patients (60%) were treatment-naive and 26 patients (40%) had relapsed/refractory CLL, 21 patients (32%) had a del(17p) and/or TP53 mutation and 45 patients (69%) had an unmutated IGHV status. At the end of the induction, 60 of 65 patients (92%) responded and 9 (14%) achieved minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity (

We report a randomized prospective phase 3 study (CLL7), designed to evaluate the efficacy of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) in patients with an early-stage high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Eight hundred patients with untreated-stage Binet A disease were enrolled as intent-to-treat population and assessed for four prognostic markers: lymphocyte doubling time 10 U/L, unmutated IGHV genes, and unfavorable cytogenetics (del(11q)/del(17p)/trisomy 12). Two hundred and one patients with ≥2 risk features were classified as high-risk CLL and 1:1 randomized to receive either immediate therapy with 6xFCR (Hi-FCR, 100 patients), or to be observed according to standard of care (Hi-W&W, 101 patients). The overall response rate after early FCR was 92.7%. Common adverse events were hematological toxicities and infections (61.0%/41.5% of patients, respectively). After median observation time of 55.6 (0–99.2) months, event-free survival was significantly prolonged in Hi-FCR compared with Hi-W&W patients (median not reached vs. 18.5 months, p p = 0.864). In conclusion, although FCR is efficient to induce remissions in the Binet A high-risk CLL, our data do not provide evidence that alters the current standard of care “watch and wait” for these patients.

The heterogeneity of early stage CLL challenges prognostication, and refinement of prognostic indices for risk-adapted management in this population is essential. The aim of the multicenter, prospective CLL1 trial was to explore a novel prognostic model (CLL1-PM) developed to identify risk groups, separating patients with favorable from others with dismal prognosis. A cohort of 539 clinically, biochemically, and genetically characterized Binet stage A patients were observed until progression, first-line treatment, or death. Multivariate analysis identified six independent factors associated with overall survival (OS) and time-to-first treatment (TTFT): del(17p), unmutated IGHV, del(11q), ß2-microglobulin3.5 mg/dL, lymphocyte doubling time (LDT)12 months, and age60 years. These factors were integrated into the CLL1-PM, which stratified patients into four risk groups. The CLL1-PM was prognostic for OS and TTFT, e.g., the risk of treatment at 5 years was 85.9, 51.8, 27.6, and 11.3% for very low (0-1.5), low (2-4), high (4.5-6.5), and very high-risk (7-14) scores, respectively (P 0.001). Notably, in addition to factors comprising CLL-IPI, we substantiated del(11q) and LDT as prognostic factors in early CLL. Altogether, our findings would be useful to effectively stratify Binet stage A patients, particularly within the scope of clinical trials evaluating novel agents.

PURPOSE In an update of the randomized, open-label, phase III European Mantle Cell Lymphoma (MCL) Elderly trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00209209 ), published in 2012, we aimed to confirm results on long-term outcome focusing on efficacy and safety of long-term use of rituximab maintenance. PATIENTS AND METHODS Five hundred sixty patients with newly diagnosed MCL underwent a first random assignment between rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) and rituximab, fludarabine, and cyclophosphamide (R-FC) induction, followed by a second random assignment in 316 responders between rituximab and interferon alfa maintenance, to be continued until progression. We compared progression-free survival from the second randomization and overall survival (OS) from the first or second randomizations. RESULTS After a median follow-up time of 7.6 years, the previously described difference in OS between the induction arms persisted (median, 6.4 years after R-CHOP [n = 280] v 3.9 years after R-FC [n = 280]; P = .0054). Patients responding to R-CHOP had median progression-free survival and OS times of 5.4 and 9.8 years, respectively, when randomly assigned to rituximab (n = 87), compared with 1.9 years ( P < .001) and 7.1 years ( P = .0026), respectively, when randomly assigned to interferon alfa (n = 97). In 58% and 32% of patients treated with R-CHOP, rituximab maintenance was still ongoing 2 and 5 years from start of maintenance, respectively. After R-FC, rituximab maintenance was associated with an unexpectedly high cumulative incidence of death in remission (22% at 5 years). Toxicity of rituximab maintenance was low after R-CHOP (grade 3-4 leukopenia or infection < 5%) but more prominent in patients on rituximab maintenance after R-FC, in whom grade 3-4 leukopenia (up to 40%) and infections were frequent (up to 15%). CONCLUSION The excellent results of R-CHOP followed by rituximab maintenance until progression for older patients with MCL persisted in a mature follow-up. Prolongation of rituximab maintenance beyond 2 years is effective and safe.

Next generation sequencing studies in Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have revealed novel genetic variants that have been associated with disease characteristics and outcome. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of recurrent molecular abnormalities in patients with CLL. Therefore, we assessed their incidences and associations with other clinical and genetic markers in the prospective multicenter COMPLEMENT1 trial (treatment naive patients not eligible for intensive treatment randomized to chlorambucil (CHL) vs. ofatumumab-CHL (O-CHL)). Baseline samples were available from 383 patients (85.6%) representative of the total trial cohort. Mutations were analyzed by amplicon-based targeted next generation sequencing (tNGS). In 52.2% of patients we found at least one mutation and the incidence was highest in NOTCH1 (17.0%), followed by SF3B1 (14.1%), ATM (11.7%), TP53 (10.2%), POT1 (7.0%), RPS15 (4.4%), FBXW7 (3.4%), MYD88 (2.6%) and BIRC3 (2.3%). While most mutations lacked prognostic significance, TP53 (HR2.02,p

To define the efficacy of venetoclax with extended follow-up and identify clinical or biological treatment effect modifiers, updated data for previously treated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) enrolled in 4 early-phase trials were pooled. Rates of response, complete remission (CR/CRi), and undetectable minimal residual disease (U-MRD) were analyzed for all patients (n = 436) and for those patients who were planned to receive 400 mg/day monotherapy (n = 347). Univariate and multiple regression analyses were performed to identify the pretreatment factors associated with response rates and duration of response (DoR). Objective responses were documented in 75% of all patients, including 22% CR/CRi. Overall, 27% and 16% of the patients achieved U-MRD in blood and marrow, respectively. Estimated median progression-free survival (PFS), DoR, and time to progression were 30.2, 38.4, and 36.9 months, respectively. Similar efficacy outcomes were observed within the 400 mg/day monotherapy subset. For those who achieved CR/CRi, the 3-year PFS estimate was 83%. DoR was superior for patients achieving CR/CRi or U-MRD in landmark analyses. In multiple regression analyses, bulky lymphadenopathy (≥5 cm) and refractoriness to B-cell receptor inhibitor (BCRi) therapy were significantly associated with lower CR rate and shorter DoR. Fewer prior therapies were associated with higher CR rate, but not DoR. Chromosome 17p deletion and/or TP53 mutation and NOTCH1 mutation were consistently associated with shorter DoR, but not probability of response. Thus, both pretreatment factors and depth of response correlated with DoR with venetoclax. Patients without bulky lymphadenopathy, BCRi-refractory CLL, or an adverse mutation profile had the most durable benefit.

In CLL, progressive disease (PD) following remission after first line treatment can present with varying phenotypes. We hypothesized that the mode of PD correlates with clinical outcomes. Data from three phase III trials of the German CLL Study Group (GCLLSG) (CLL8, CLL10, CLL11) including a total of 2159 patients receiving first line (immuno)-chemotherapy (FCR, FC, CLB, CLB-R, CLB-Ob) were analyzed. Patients were categorized as "ALC" if PD was due to increasing absolute lymphocyte count, or as "Ly" if due to lymphadenopathy. A group of 241 patients progressed with ALC, and 727 progressed with Ly, including 329 who progressed on both modalities. In fit patients, median TTNT after PD in the Ly group was 12.3 months vs 17.0 months in the ALC group (HR 1.299 [1.036-1.628]; P = .024). Median OS after PD was 45.1 months in the Ly group and 42.4 months in the ALC group (HR=1.023 [0.753-1.389]; P = .885). For unfit patients, median TTNT in the Ly group was 11.7 months vs 21.4 months in the ALC group (HR 1.357 [1.051-1.753]; P = .019). Median OS was 42.8 months in the Ly group and not reached in the ALC group (HR 1.851 [1.280-2.677]; P = .001). Patients in the Ly group more frequently showed impairment of quality of life (QoL). This analysis demonstrates that patients with progressive lymphadenopathy have a significantly shorter TTNT, OS and less favorable QoL. Our findings might help physicians to better estimate the clinical course of a progressing CLL patient.

Alterations of the tumor suppressor gene TP53 are found in different cancers, in particular in carcinomas of adults. In pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), TP53 mutations are infrequent but enriched at relapse. As in most cancers, mainly DNA-binding domain missense mutations are found, resulting in accumulation of mutant p53, poor therapy response, and inferior outcome. Different strategies to target mutant p53 have been developed including reactivation of p53’s wildtype function by the small molecule APR-246. We investigated TP53 mutations in cell lines and 62 B-cell precursor ALL samples and evaluated the activity of APR-246 in TP53-mutated or wildtype ALL. We identified cases with TP53 missense mutations, high (mutant) p53 expression and insensitivity to the DNA-damaging agent doxorubicin. In TP53-mutated ALL, APR-246 induced apoptosis showing strong anti-leukemia activity. APR-246 restored mutant p53 to its wildtype conformation, leading to pathway activation with induction of transcriptional targets and re-sensitization to genotoxic therapy in vitro and in vivo. In addition, induction of oxidative stress contributed to APR-246-mediated cell death. In a preclinical model of patient-derived TP53-mutant ALL, APR-246 reduced leukemia burden and synergized strongly with the genotoxic agent doxorubicin, leading to superior leukemia-free survival in vivo. Thus, targeting mutant p53 by APR-246, restoring its tumor suppressive function, seems to be an effective therapeutic strategy for this high-risk group of TP53-mutant ALL.

International audience