Search

Patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) resistant/intolerant to ≥2 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are at high risk of experiencing poor outcomes because of disease biology and inadequate efficacy and/or safety of current therapies. Asciminib, a first-in-class BCR-ABL1 inhibitor Specifically Targeting the ABL Myristoyl Pocket (STAMP), has the potential to overcome resistance/intolerance to approved TKIs. In this phase 3, open-label study, patients with CML-CP previously treated with ≥2 TKIs were randomized (2:1) to receive asciminib 40 mg twice daily vs bosutinib 500 mg once daily. Randomization was stratified by major cytogenetic response (MCyR) status at baseline. The primary objective was to compare the major molecular response (MMR) rate at week 24 for asciminib vs bosutinib. A total of 233 patients were randomized to asciminib (n = 157) or bosutinib (n = 76). Median follow-up was 14.9 months. The MMR rate at week 24 was 25.5% with asciminib and 13.2% with bosutinib. The difference in MMR rate between treatment arms, after adjusting for MCyR at baseline, was 12.2% (95% confidence interval, 2.19-22.30; 2-sided P = .029). Fewer grade ≥3 adverse events (50.6% vs 60.5%) and adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (5.8% vs 21.1%) occurred with asciminib than with bosutinib. The study showed a superior efficacy of asciminib compared with that of bosutinib, together with a favorable safety profile. These results support the use of asciminib as a new therapy in patients with CML-CP who are resistant/intolerant to ≥2 prior TKIs. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03106779.

INTRODUCTION: Asciminib is the first BCR-ABL1 inhibitor that potently inhibits kinase activity of the BCR-ABL1 oncoprotein by Specifically Targeting the ABL Myristoyl Pocket (STAMP). The primary analysis from ASCEMBL, a randomized, phase 3 trial, demonstrated that asciminib has superior efficacy and a better safety and tolerability profile than bosutinib (BOS) in patients (pts) with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) after ≥2 prior ATP-binding tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). The major molecular response (MMR) rate at wk 24 was 25.5% with asciminib vs 13.2% with BOS; the difference in MMR rates, after adjusting for major cytogenetic response status at baseline, was 12.2% (95% CI, 2.19-22.30; 2-sided P=.029). Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were reported in 50.6% and 60.5% of pts receiving asciminib and BOS, respectively, and AEs leading to discontinuation in 5.8% and 21.1%, respectively. After a median follow-up of 19.2 months (or 7.5 months' additional follow-up since the primary analysis), we report updated efficacy and safety results from ASCEMBL. METHODS: Adults with CML-CP treated with ≥2 prior TKIs were randomized 2:1 to asciminib 40 mg twice daily (BID) or BOS 500 mg once daily (QD). Eligible pts must have experienced treatment failure (lack of efficacy) per 2013 European LeukemiaNet recommendations for second-line TKI therapy or intolerance of the most recent TKI at screening. Pts intolerant of their most recent TKI were eligible only if they had BCR-ABL1 on the International Scale >0.1% at screening. Pts with known BOS-resistant T315I or V299L mutations were ineligible. The cutoff date for the current analysis was January 6, 2021. RESULTS: A total of 233 pts were randomized to receive either asciminib (n=157) or BOS (n=76). At cutoff, all randomized pts had completed their wk 48 visit or had discontinued earlier. Treatment was ongoing in 89 (56.7%) and 17 (22.4%) pts on asciminib and BOS, respectively; the most common reason for treatment discontinuation was lack of efficacy in 37 (23.6%) and 27 (35.5%) pts, respectively (Table 1). By wk 48, the cumulative incidence of MMR was 33.2% with asciminib and 18.6% with BOS, showing that the difference between the 2 treatment arms observed by wk 24 in the primary analysis was maintained with longer follow-up (Figure 1). The cumulative incidence of BCR-ABL1IS ≤1% by wk 48 in patients without this level of response at baseline was 50.8% with asciminib and 33.7% with BOS. The difference in deep molecular responses (MRs) favoring asciminib vs BOS persisted by wk 48: MR 4 (BCR-ABL1IS ≤0.01%) and MR 4.5 (BCR-ABL1IS ≤0.0032%) rates were 14.0% and 9.6% with asciminib and 6.6% and 2.6% with BOS, respectively. With a longer duration of exposure in the asciminib arm, the safety and tolerability profile in the current analysis remains similar to that at the primary analysis. Median duration of exposure was 67.1 wk (range, 0.1-162.1 wk) for asciminib and 29.7 wk (range, 1.0-149.3 wk) for BOS. By the cutoff date, 91.0% of pts on asciminib and 97.4% of pts on BOS reported ≥1 all-grade AE; 54.5% and 67.1% of pts, respectively, reported ≥1 grade ≥3 AE. No additional fatal events were reported since the primary analysis. Fewer pts in the asciminib (7.1%) than BOS (25.0%) arm experienced AEs leading to treatment discontinuation (Table 2). The most common AEs leading to treatment discontinuation included thrombocytopenia (3.2%) and neutropenia (2.6%) in the asciminib arm and increased alanine aminotransferase (5.3%) and neutropenia (3.9%) in the BOS arm. CONCLUSIONS: Resistant/intolerant CML-CP after 2 lines of TKI treatment remains BCR-ABL1 dependent. The novel STAMP inhibitor asciminib demonstrates continued superior efficacy and a limited adverse event profile; myelosuppression, while more prominent, appears to be early and disease related. Secondary resistance based on loss of MMR is rare. Overall, after a median follow-up of 19.2 months, the positive benefit-risk profile of asciminib vs BOS continues to support the use of asciminib as a new therapy in this heavily pretreated pt population. This study is sponsored by Novartis. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Mauro: Sun Pharma / SPARC: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy. Minami: Takeda: Honoraria; CMIC: Research Funding; Astellas: Honoraria; Ono: Research Funding; Pfizer Japan Inc.: Honoraria; Novartis Pharma KK: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Honoraria. Rea: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hochhaus: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Lomaia: Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Pharmstandard: Honoraria. Voloshin: Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Biacad: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Turkina: Pharmstandart: Speakers Bureau; Novartis Pharma: Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau. Kim: Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; ILYANG: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Apperley: Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte, Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Cortes: Sun Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Astellas, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, BioPath Holdings, Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bio-Path Holdings, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding. Fogliatto: AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau. Kim: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Paladin: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Meier Squibb: Research Funding. le Coutre: Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Saussele: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Hughes: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria. Chaudhri: Abbvie: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria. Chee: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Garcia Gutierrez: Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Sasaki: Daiichi-Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kapoor: Novartis: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Allepuz: Novartis: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Quenet: Novartis: Current Employment. Bédoucha: Novartis: Current Employment. Boquimpani: Pinth Pharma: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Jansen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

Introduction: Similar to classical Hodgkin lymphoma, primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) expresses high level of the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) ligands: PD-L1 and PD-L2. Prior analyses of the phase 2 KEYNOTE-170 (NCT02576990) study demonstrated that monotherapy with the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab had effective antitumor activity and acceptable safety in relapsed/refractory (R/R) PMBCL, leading to FDA approval for adult patients with R/R PMBCL after ≥2 prior therapies. Long-term durability of response with PD-1 blockade in patients with PMBCL, especially those who achieve complete remission (CR), remains a critical clinical question. Here we present updated efficacy and safety of patients with R/R PMBCL in KEYNOTE-170 after ~4 years of follow-up. Methods: Patients with R/R PMBCL who progressed after or were ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant and received ≥2 prior therapies received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks (Q3W) for up to 35 cycles (~2 years). Response assessments were Q12W per 2007 Revised Response Criteria for Malignant Lymphomas. End points included overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and duration of response (DOR) by investigator assessment; as well as overall survival (OS) and safety. Data cutoff date was October 23, 2020. Results: At data cutoff, the median duration of follow-up was 48.7 months (range,41.2-56.2). Baseline characteristics of the patients have been previously described (Armand P, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019; 37(34): 3291-3299). Among all treated patients (N=53), 13 completed 2 years of treatment and 40 patients discontinued, primarily due to progressive disease (n=18). ORR per investigator assessment was 41.5% (95% CI, 30.0-53.7), with 20.8% complete response rate and 20.8% partial response rate. Median DOR was not reached (NR) and 80.6% of patients had a response ≥48 months. Median PFS was 4.3 months (95% CI, 2.8-13.8) and the 48-month PFS rate was 33.0%. Median OS was 22.3 months (95% CI, 7.3-NR) and the 48-month OS rate was 45.3%. At data cutoff, treatment-related adverse events (AEs) of any grade occurred in 30 patients (56.6%); the most commonly reported (incidence >5%) were neutropenia (18.9%), asthenia (9.4%), hypothyroidism (7.5%), and fatigue and pyrexia (5.7% each). Grade 3-4 treatment-related AEs occurred in 22.6% of patients; only neutropenia (n=7) occurred in ≥2 patients. No grade 5 treatment-related AEs occurred. Conclusions: With 48.7 months of follow-up in heavily pretreated participants with R/R PMBCL, treatment with pembrolizumab monotherapy continued to demonstrate sustained antitumor activity. PFS and OS demonstrated promising trends for long-term survival with no new safety signals identified. Disclosures Zinzani: Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ImmuneDesign: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Thieblemont: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses , Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Cellectis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Hospira: Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses . Bouabdallah: Sandoz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel/Accommodations/Expenses; Abbvie: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel/Accommodations/Expenses; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel/Accommodations/Expenses. Waleswski: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institution: Research Grant/Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK/Novartis: Other: Institution: Research Grant/Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Fogliatto: AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau. Martin Garcia-Sancho: Celgene: Honoraria, Other: travel; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel/Accommodations/Expenses; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy; Clinigen: Consultancy; Eusa Pharma: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel/Accommodations/Expenses; Incyte: Consultancy; Kern Pharma: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company). Christian: Celgene/BMS: Other: Institution: Research Grant/Funding; Acerta: Other: Institution: Research Grant/Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other: Institution: Research Grant/Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Other: Institution: Research Grant/Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; VeraStem: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Other: Institution: Research Grant/Funding; Triphase: Other: Institution: Research Grant/Funding; Millenium: Other: Institution: Research Grant/Funding; Immunomedics: Other: Institution: Research Grant/Funding; Merck: Other: Institution: Research Grant/Funding. Özcan: Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Travel/Accommodations/Expenses; Janssen: Other: Travel/Accommodations/Expenses, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Archigen: Research Funding; Roche: Other: Travel/Accommodations/Expenses, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel/Accommodations/Expenses, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; BMS: Other: Travel/Accommodations/Expenses; Abbvie: Other: Travel/Accommodations/Expenses, Research Funding; Jazz: Other: Travel/Accommodations/Expenses; Abdi Ibrahim: Other: Travel/Accommodations/Expenses; Sanofi: Other: Travel/Accommodations/Expenses; MSD: Research Funding. Perini: Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: Travel/Accommodations/Expenses, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel/Accommodations/Expenses, Speakers Bureau. Salles: Debiopharm: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Rapt: Consultancy; Loxo: Consultancy; Ipsen: Consultancy; Miltneiy: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Allogene: Consultancy; Velosbio: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria. Shipp: Bayer: Other: Institution: Research Grant/Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Other: Institution: Research Grant/Funding; Immunitas Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Thompson: Merck & Co., Inc.: Current Employment, Other: Current Stockholder. Chakraborty: Merck & Co., Inc.: Current Employment, Other: Current Stockholder. Marinello: Merck & Co., Inc.: Current Employment, Other: Current Stockholder. Armand: Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Affimed: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; Tessa: Consultancy; GenMab: Consultancy; C4: Consultancy; Enterome: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Tensha: Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Sigma Tau: Research Funding; IGM: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding.

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by the newly discovered coronavirus Sars-Cov2. In Brazil, the first COVID-19 case was diagnosed in February 2020, and since then, the number of cases and deaths has increased exponentially, reaching 2.610.102 confirmed cases and 91.263 deaths on July 31st. Most people have a mild to moderate respiratory illness, but the clinical evolution may be severe in older adults and patients with comorbidities, such as cancer. There are few reports of COVID-19 in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). This ongoing study aims to collect data about COVID-19 in CML patients from Brazil and their outcomes. Methods: This is an observational, multicentric, ongoing register study. Hematologists from private and public CML reference centers from different regions of Brazil were invited to report their cases of COVID-19 in CML patients. Altogether, those centers are responsible for the care of approximately 4336 CML patients. COVID-19 was classified as mild/moderate, severe (defined as tachypnoea [≥30 breaths per min], oxygen saturation ≤93% at rest, or PaO2/FiO2 ratio Results: Between March and July 2020, 24 institutions contributed to this analysis, and reported 28 COVID-19 cases in CML patients. Eighteen centers were from the South and Southeast regions, 5 from Northeast, and one from the Central region. There were 19 cases (67.9%) from the Southeast region, 8 (28.6%) from the Northeast, one from South (3.6%). The median age was 54 years (24-79), with 13 (44%) older than 60. Male patients were predominant (67.9%). There was one patient in the accelerated phase. There were two cases of COVID-19 simultaneous to CML diagnosis, 10 using imatinib, 7 dasatinib, 6 nilotinib, one ponatinib, one asciminib, and one patient in treatment-free remission after imatinib discontinuation. The median time of CML diagnosis was 7.0 years (0-26). Current CML response was: no hematologic response (n=8), hematologic response (n=4), major molecular response (n=9), MR4.0 or MR5.0 (n= 7). Eleven patients interrupted treatment temporarily during COVID. COVID-19 was confirmed by RT-PCR of oral and nasal swab collection (20) or serologic test (07). One case is suspect, awaiting confirmation. The majority of the patients presented at least one comorbidity (60%): hypertension (7), diabetes (3), chronic renal failure (1), dyslipidemia (2), arterial disease (2), cirrhosis (1), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/emphysema (2), pulmonary hypertension (1), HTLV1 (1), obesity (n=1). COVID-19 severity: mild/moderate (19), severe/critic (9). Five out of 9 (55%) of the severe/critic cases were older than 60, 4/9 presented comorbidities and 5/9 (55%) had no major molecular response (MMR)(one was in accelerated phase, one newly diagnosed, and 3 with only hematologic response). Among the mild/moderate cases, 12/19 had optimal response (63%) and 7/19 (36%) had no hematologic response. Twenty-one patients recovered, 4 are still hospitalized, and 3 died from COVID: one newly diagnosed case with high leukocytes counts and with a simultaneous bacterial infection, one elderly patient with comorbidities treated with imatinib and one patient treated with nilotinib, with hematologic response. A fourth patient in the accelerated phase died 2 months after discharge, from disease progression and pulmonary infection. Conclusion: Although the sample size is still small to make conclusions regarding COVID-19 behavior in CML patients, the most severe cases occurred in patients not in MMR. The continued register of the cases will increase our knowledge about this disease and how to manage these patients. Disclosures Pagnano: Astellas: Other: Advisory Board and lecture; Novartis: Other: Advisory Board; EMS: Other: Lecture; Pintpharma: Other: Lecture. Magalhães:AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Santos:Novartis: Other: Speaker fee; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Speaker fee. Clementino:EMS: Other: Financial support for congress.

Introduction: Asciminib, unlike all approved TKIs that bind to the ATP site of the BCR-ABL1 oncoprotein, is a first-in-class STAMP (Specifically Targeting the ABL Myristoyl Pocket) inhibitor with a new mechanism of action. BOS, an ATP-competitive TKI, has shown clinical efficacy in pts who received ≥2 TKIs and in newly diagnosed CML, in prospective clinical trials. We asked if asciminib could provide superior efficacy to BOS beyond 2nd line, based on the clinical activity of asciminib monotherapy in heavily pretreated pts with CML in a phase 1 study. Methods: Adults with CML-CP previously treated with ≥2 TKIs were randomized 2:1 to asciminib 40 mg twice daily (BID) or BOS 500 mg once daily (QD). Randomization was stratified by major cytogenetic response (MCyR; Ph+ metaphases ≤35%) status at baseline. Pts intolerant of their most recent TKI were eligible if they had BCR-ABL1IS >0.1% at screening (19 pts with BCR-ABL1IS Results: A total of 233 pts with CML-CP was randomized to receive asciminib 40 mg BID (n=157) or BOS 500 mg QD (n=76). Fewer pts on asciminib discontinued their last TKI due to lack of efficacy and fewer received ≥3 prior lines of TKI therapy (Table 1). At cutoff, treatment was ongoing in 97 (61.8%) and 23 (30.3%) pts, respectively; the most common reason for treatment discontinuation was lack of efficacy (asciminib, 33 [21.0%] pts; BOS, 24 [31.6%]) (Table 1). Lack of efficacy was most frequently BCR-ABL1 >10% or Ph+ >65% after 6 months of therapy (asciminib 10.8%, BOS 25.0%). Among the 24 pts who discontinued BOS due to lack of efficacy, 22 switched to asciminib. At baseline, ≥1 BCR-ABL1 mutation was present in 12.7% pts on asciminib (most common: F359C/V) and 17.1% on BOS (most common: M244V, F317L). Median duration of follow-up was 14.9 months from randomization to cutoff. Median duration of exposure was 43.4 wks (range, 0.1-129.9) for asciminib and 29.2 wks (range, 1.0-117.0) for BOS; median relative dose intensity was 99.7% (87-100) and 95.4% (74-100). MMR rate at 24 wks was 25.5% with asciminib and 13.2% with BOS, meeting the primary objective. The between-arm common treatment difference for MMR at 24 wks, after adjustment for MCyR status at baseline, was 12.2% (95% CI, 2.19-22.3: 2-sided P=.029). Among those pts who achieved MMR, median time to MMR was 12.7 wks and 14.3 wks with asciminib and BOS, respectively. At 24 wks, more pts on asciminib (17 [10.8%] and 14 [8.9%]) than on BOS (4 [5.3%] and 1 [1.3%]) achieved deep molecular response (MR4 and MR4.5, respectively). CCyR rate at 24 wks was 40.8% with asciminib vs 24.2% with BOS. Preplanned subgroup analysis showed that the MMR rate at 24 wks was superior with asciminib than BOS across most major demographic and prognostic subgroups, including in pts who received ≥3 prior TKIs, in those who discontinued the prior TKI due to treatment failure, and regardless of baseline cytogenetic response (Figure). Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 50.6% and 60.5% of pts receiving asciminib and BOS, respectively. The proportion of pts who discontinued treatment due to AEs was lower with asciminib (5.8%) than BOS (21.1%). Grade ≥3 AEs and AEs requiring dose interruption and/or adjustments were reported less frequently with asciminib than BOS (Table 2). Most frequent grade ≥3 AEs (occurring in >10% of pts in any treatment arm) with asciminib vs BOS were thrombocytopenia (17.3%; 6.6%), neutropenia (14.7%; 11.8%), diarrhea (0%, 10.5%), and increased alanine aminotransferase (0.6%, 14.5%). On-treatment deaths occurred in 2 pts (1.3%) on asciminib (ischemic stroke and arterial embolism, 1 pt each) and 1 pt (1.3%) on BOS (septic shock). Conclusions: In this first controlled study comparing treatments for resistant/intolerant (R/I) pts with CML, asciminib, a first-in-class STAMP inhibitor, demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful superiority in efficacy compared with BOS (primary objective), deeper MR rates, and a favorable safety profile. These results support the use of asciminib as a new treatment option in CML, particularly in R/I pts who received ≥2 prior TKIs. Disclosures Hochhaus: Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Boquimpani:Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Rea:BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Minami:Pfizer Japan Inc.: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Honoraria; Novartis Pharma KK: Honoraria. Lomaia:Bristol Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Voloshin:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Turkina:Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis Pharma: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Kim:Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; ILYANG: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Sun Pharma.: Research Funding. Apperley:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Cortes:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BioPath Holdings: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Telios: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Amphivena Therapeutics: Research Funding; Arog: Research Funding; BiolineRx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Immunogen: Research Funding; Merus: Research Funding; Sun Pharma: Research Funding. Abdo:Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Kim:Paladin: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. le Coutre:Pfizer: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Saussele:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria. Hughes:BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Chee:Novartis: Other: Travel support for attendance at investigator meeting. García Gutiérrez:Novartis Pharma AG: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodations/expenses, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodations/expenses, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodations/expenses, Research Funding. Sasaki:Pfizer Japan: Consultancy; Otsuka: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy. Aimone:Novartis: Current Employment. Allepuz:Novartis: Current Employment. Quenet:Novartis: Current Employment. Bédoucha:Novartis: Current Employment. Mauro:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding; Sun Pharma/SPARC: Research Funding.

Introduction: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) typically occurs in elderly patients and has a highly variable clinical course. It is important to understand the aspects that affect the outcomes of CLL in a real-world setting. Besides biological factors, other socioeconomic and health system factors may influence the clinical course of CLL. Hence, data from the Brazilian Registry of CLL was analyzed to compare clinical and treatment-related characteristics in patients with CLL treated in public or in private institutions in Brazil. Objective: To describe the outcomes of a series of CLL patients followed in public or in private hospitals in Brazil. Methods: The Brazilian Registry of CLL was started in 2004 as a prospective non-interventional data collection tool. Inclusion criteria for enrollment followed the IWCLL guidelines. For this analysis, we included all patients with minimum available data for analysis of patient and disease characteristics and survival. Results/discussion: From January 2004 to July 2020, 2927 patients from 37 centers met eligibility criteria for this analysis: 2324 (79%) were followed at public hospitals and 603 (21%) at private hospitals. The majority were male (57%), with median age of 65 years (ranging from 23 to 106). Binet stage was A in 1618 (58%) patients, B in 628 (23%) and C in 525 (19%). FISH for del(17p) was performed in only 479 patients (16%), while FISH for the most common aberrations [del(13q), +12, del(11q), and del(17p)] was performed in only 445 patients (15%). IGVH mutational status was performed in only 211 patients (7%), and karyotype in only 140 patients (5%). Comparing public and private hospitals, we observed that patients in public hospital are slightly older (median age 66 years vs. 64 years for private hospitals, P=0.04), had more advanced diseases at diagnosis (frequency of Binet B or C was 44% in public vs. 32% in private hospital, P Conclusion: Our data indicate that are striking differences between patients treated in public or private hospitals in Brazil. The lack of accessibility to basic laboratory tests for prognostic factors and adequate therapies probably explains the worse outcome of patients treated in public institutions. In fact, prognostic testing rates were poor in both contexts and most high-risk patients received chemoimmunotherapy first-line. Urgent strategies are needed to increase accessibility to prognostic testing and to novel agents for quality improvement in health care in CLL patients in Brazil. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Introduction: The open-label, international, randomized, phase 3 KEYNOTE-204 (NCT02684292) study showed that in pts with R/R cHL, the PD-1 inhibitor pembro was superior to BV and demonstrated statistically significant, clinically meaningful improvement in PFS, with safety consistent with previous reports. This post hoc exploratory analysis of KEYNOTE-204 evaluated pembro vs BV by number of prior lines of therapy. Methods: Eligible pts were aged ≥18 y, had measurable disease and ECOG PS 0 or 1, and were post−autologous stem cell transplant (auto-SCT) or ineligible for auto-SCT. Pts who were BV-naive or BV-exposed were also eligible. Pts were randomized 1:1 to pembro 200 mg IV Q3W or BV 1.8 mg/kg IV Q3W. Randomization was stratified by status after 1L therapy (primary refractory vs relapsed Results: Of 304 randomized pts, 55 (pembro, 27; BV, 28) received 1 prior therapy and 249 (pembro, 124; BV, 125) received ≥2 prior therapies. For pts with 1 prior therapy, median (range) age was 49 y (22-84) and 22 pts (40.0%) were aged ≥65 y. No pts received prior auto-SCT and 18 (32.7%) had primary refractory disease. Auto-SCT ineligibility was due to chemorefractory disease for 21 pts (38.2%) and reasons not related to chemorefractory disease (eg, age, comorbidities) for 34 pts (61.8%). 23 pts (85.2%) and 25 pts (92.6%) in the pembro and BV groups, respectively, discontinued treatment; the most common reason was progressive disease. Median (range) time from randomization to data cutoff was 24.0 mo (18.7-34.8) for pembro and 23.6 mo (18.2-34.6) for BV. For the primary PFS analysis, median PFS was 16.4 mo for pembro and 8.4 mo for BV (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.031-1.59); 12 mo PFS rates were 58.9% and 37.4%, respectively. For the secondary PFS analysis, median PFS was 11.7 mo for pembro and 8.3 mo for BV (HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.28-1.40). ORR was 66.7% for pembro and 53.6% for BV. Median (range) DOR for pembro was 20.7 mo (2.8-20.7) and 14.1 mo (0.0+ to 21.9) for BV. 7 pts (25.9%) and 9 pts (33.3%) in the pembro and BV groups, respectively, received subsequent auto-SCT; 1 pt in the BV group received subsequent allo-SCT. 21 pts (77.8%) on pembro and 20 (74.1%) on BV experienced a treatment-related adverse event (TRAE); most common were hyperthyroidism (22.2%) for pembro and peripheral neuropathy (22.2%) for BV. 1 (3.7%) and 8 (29.6%) of pts on pembro and BV, respectively, experienced grade 3-5 TRAEs. For pts with ≥2 prior therapies median (range) age was 34 y (18-83) and 27 (10.8%) pts were aged ≥65 y. 112 pts (45.0%) received prior auto-SCT and 105 (42.2%) had primary refractory disease. Median (range) time from randomization to data cutoff was 27.1 mo (18.8-42.0) for pembro and 27.6 (18.2-42.3) for BV. 87 (71.9%) and 121 (96.8%) in the pembro and BV groups discontinued; most common reason was progressive disease. For the primary PFS analysis, median PFS was 12.6 mo for pembro and 8.2 mo for BV (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.47-0.92); 12-mo PFS rates were 52.8% and 35.3%, respectively. For the secondary PFS analysis, median PFS was 12.6 mo for pembro and 8.2 mo for BV (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.45-0.88). ORR for pembro was 65.3% and 54.4% for BV. Median (range) DOR for pembro was 20.5 mo (0.0+ to 33.2+) and 11.2 mo (0.0+ to 33.9+) for BV. 23 (19.0%) and 25 (20.0%) pts in the pembro and BV groups, respectively, received subsequent auto-SCT; 14 (11.6 %) and 12 (9.6%) received subsequent allo-SCT. 89 pts (73.6%) on pembro and 97 (77.6%) on BV experienced a TRAE; most common were hypothyroidism (14.9%) for pembro and peripheral neuropathy (17.6%) for BV. 23.1% and 24.0% of pts on pembro and BV, respectively, experienced grade 3-5 TRAEs. Conclusion: In pts with R/R cHL, pembro monotherapy resulted in an improvement in PFS and ORR vs BV in pts regardless of number of prior therapies. In particular, these data suggest that pembro monotherapy may be a promising option as 2L+ therapy for pts with R/R cHL ineligible for auto-SCT. Disclosures Kuruvilla: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Antengene: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Ramchandren:Seattle Genetics, Sandoz-Novartis, Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Merck, Seattle Genetics, Janssen, Genentech: Research Funding. Santoro:Arqule, Sanofi: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb, SERVIER, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, MSD, Sanofi, ArQule: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb, Servier, Gilead, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb, SERVIER, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, MSD, Sanofi, ArQule: Consultancy; Takeda, Roche, Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, AstraZeneca, ArQule, Lilly, Sandoz, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Servier, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, MSD: Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb, SERVIER, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, MSD, Sanofi, ArQule: Consultancy; Takeda, Roche, Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, AstraZeneca, ArQule, Lilly, Sandoz, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Servier, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, MSD: Speakers Bureau. Paszkiewicz-Kozik:Roche, Takeda, Celgene: Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses. Gasiorowski:MSD, Takeda, Novartis, AbbVie: Honoraria. Johnson:Roche/Genentech, Merck: Honoraria; Roche/Genentech, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding. Goncalves:Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, Bayer, Novartis, Merck, Bayer, Celgene, GSK, BMS: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Perini:Janssen, Takeda: Honoraria; AbbVie, Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Goldschmidt:Abbvie Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kryachok:Janssen, Bayer, Karyopharm, MSD, AbbVie, Acerta, Debiopharm: Research Funding; Takeda, Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda, MSD, AbbVie, Roche: Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses. Sekiguchi:Ono, A2 Healthcare, Astellas, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Otsuka, Pfizer, PPD-SNBL, Sumitomo Dainippon, Daiichi Sankyo, and Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Lin:Merck & Co., Inc.: Current Employment. Nahar:Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp., a subsididary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenlworth, NJ, USA: Current Employment. Marinello:Merck & Co., Inc.: Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA: Current Employment; Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA: Other: Stock ownership. Zinzani:Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics, Inc.: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kirin Kyowa: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Eusapharma: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

Background: Acalabrutinib is a highly selective, covalent irreversible Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor with minimal activity against other kinases. Acalabrutinib has demonstrated durable responses as a single agent or combined with O in treatment-naïve (TN) CLL. Here, interim results are presented for the multicenter, open-label Phase 3 ELEVATE-TN study (NCT02475681), which evaluated the efficacy and safety of acalabrutinib + O vs acalabrutinib alone vs O + Clb in pts with TN CLL. Methods: Eligible pts had TN CLL requiring treatment per iwCLL criteria and were aged ≥65 y or 6, creatinine clearance Results: From 9/14/2015-2/8/2017, 535 pts were randomized to the acalabrutinib + O (n=179), acalabrutinib (n= 179), or O + Clb (n=177) arms. The median age was 70 y (range, 41-91); 69% had high- and 12% had very high-risk CLL IPI scores. At a median follow-up of 28 mo, acalabrutinib + O significantly prolonged PFS vs O + Clb (median not reached [NR] vs 22.6 mo; HR 0.10, 95% CI 0.06-0.18, P IRC-assessed ORR was higher with acalabrutinib + O (94%; 95% CI, 89.3%-96.5%) vs O + Clb (79%; 95% CI, 71.9%-83.9%; P The median treatment duration was 27.7 mo for acalabrutinib + O (range, 2.3-40.3) and acalabrutinib (range, 0.3-40.2) and 5.6 mo (range, 0.9-7.4) for O + Clb. Common adverse events (AEs) are shown in the Table. AEs were similar between the acalabrutinib-containing arms. Infusion reactions were less frequent with acalabrutinib + O (13%) than with O + Clb (40%). AEs led to treatment discontinuation in 20 pts (11%) on acalabrutinib + O, 16 pts (9%) on acalabrutinib, and 25 pts (14%) on O + Clb. With >2 y of follow-up, 79.3% of pts in both the acalabrutinib-containing arms remain on single-agent acalabrutinib. AEs of interest (acalabrutinib + O or acalabrutinib vs O + Clb) were atrial fibrillation (any grade: 3% or 4% vs 1%), bleeding (any grade/Grade ≥3: 43%/2% or 39%/2% vs 12%/0%), and hypertension (Grade ≥3: 3% or 2% vs 3%). Conclusions: Acalabrutinib + O and acalabrutinib monotherapy significantly improved PFS vs O + Clb, with tolerable safety in pts with TN CLL. Despite cross over for disease progression in the O + Clb arm, a trend toward improved OS was observed in both acalabrutinib arms, though longer follow-up is needed. Disclosures Sharman: AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Banerji:CIHR: Research Funding; LLSC: Research Funding; Research Manitoba: Research Funding; CCMF: Research Funding; CancerCare Manitoba/University of Manitoba: Employment; CAPhO: Honoraria; BIOGEN: Other: Licensing fee; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute: Other: Licencing fee; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Licensing fee, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Herishanu:Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Munir:Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Other: TBC; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alexion: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria. Walewska:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel grant, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel grant, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Other: Travel grant; Novartis: Other: travel grant. Follows:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Karlsson:Skane University Hospital: Employment. Ghia:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; ArQule: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Dynamo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Corbett:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tauranga Hospital: Employment; Pathlab Waikato: Equity Ownership. Walker:Peninsula Health (public hospital): Employment; Alfred health (public hospital): Employment; Roche: Other: Travel grant. Jurczak:Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Loxo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celtrion: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding. Salles:Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis, Servier, AbbVie, Karyopharm, Kite, MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Roche, Janssen, Gilead, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Autolus: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Educational events. Janssens:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; idem consultancy: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Cymbalista:AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Sunesis: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Wierda:Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Cyclcel: Research Funding; KITE pharma: Research Funding; Loxo Oncology Inc.: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma Inc: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Miragen: Research Funding; Oncternal Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; GSK/Novartis: Research Funding. Coutre:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Research Funding; BeiGene: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses & Data Safety Monitoring Committee; Genentech: Consultancy. Pagel:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Skarbnik:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Verastem Oncology: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; CLL Society: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Kamdar:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; University of Colorado: Employment; Celgene: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Woyach:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Loxo: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding. Izumi:AstraZeneca: Equity Ownership; Acerta Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties: Acalabrutinib patents. Munugalavadla:Acerta Pharma: Employment; Gilead Sciences: Equity Ownership; AstraZeneca: Equity Ownership. Patel:Acerta Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership; AstraZeneca: Equity Ownership. Wang:Acerta Pharma: Employment; AstraZeneca: Equity Ownership. Wong:Acerta Pharma: Employment. Byrd:Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Quantitative RT-PCR (RQ-PCR) is an essential test for BCR-ABL transcripts monitoring in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), to guide therapy and for monitoring after a discontinuation attempt in patients with deep molecular response. RT-PCR (RQ-PCR) is currently not reimbursed by the public health system in Brazil. Aims: To assess the proportion of CML patients treated with first-line imatinib eligible for discontinuation, and to calculate the financial impact resulting from IM discontinuation. Methods: Between January 2010 and December 2011, 151 consecutive cases of chronic phase myeloid leukemia treated with Glivec first-line therapy were evaluated. Between June and December 2013 there was a switch in treatment from Glivec to generic IM. Cases that exhibited stable MR4.5 for 2 years with first-line IM were selected for the study. Cases which switched treatment to second-generation inhibitors and patients older than 75 years of age were excluded from the study. The methodology used was a pharmacoeconomic cost-utility analysis. Glivec monthly cost has been estimated at U$ 3,257.54 and the generic IM U$ 365.48, while the unitary value for the PCR test was U$ 117.49. In order to calculate the period of IM consumption, the median age of the patients and the life expectancy data released in 2015 by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) of 75 years was considered. In the first analysis, the life expectancy for the sample group, and the total cost of treatment (cost of Glivec, generic IM and four annual RQ-PCR tests for each patient) were calculated. The second analysis consisted of a hypothetical calculation of costs under the scenario where the study group is therapy-free (estimating that the survival rate under discontinued therapy was similar to data available in the literature, with discontinuation success of 50% in this group) with molecular monitoring by PCR monthly in the first year, bimestrial in the second year and every three months from the third year on. Results: One hundred fifty-one cases were analyzed, with a median age at diagnosis of 45. From those, 56 (37%) patients achieved stable MR4.5 with a median time to achieve MR4.5 of 71 months. The median duration of follow-up was 8 (0-10) years. In the last follow-up, 108 patients were still in treatment, 10% (11/108) with Glivec, 90% (97/108) on generic IM. Patients excluded from the analysis: 4 cases aged more than 75 years; 13 that switched therapy to another TKI and one during the bone marrow transplant period. Finally, 38/56 (25%) patients who obtained MR4.5 with IM were eligible for analysis. Analysis 1: Total treatment cost for the 38 eligible cases, if the individuals sustained continuous use of IM, considering the life expectancy of 75 years. The calculations resulted in an average of 29 years of treatment, with an estimated cost of U$ 9,363,866.00. Analysis 2: The cost after discontinuation of generic IM, estimating that 50% of patients would resume the treatment. Nineteen cases were analyzed. The costs related to the monthly PCR exam in year 1, bimestrial exam in year 2 and trimester in year 3, until the patient reaches 75 years of age, have been calculated, with a total cost of U$ 7,823.515. Conclusions: The economy resulting from the discontinuation of treatment (US$1.540.340,00) by 19 patients could support 219 patients tests over 29 years, or 12.110 tests each year. This data is relevant, providing that RQ-PCR is essential for the appropriate management of CML and to allow safe discontinuation of the therapy in eligible patients. Such results may help to change the current health policies concerning RQ-PCR tests reimbursement for CML management and future attempting of TFR in Brazil. Disclosures Centrone: Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Magalhaes:Novartis: Honoraria. Pagnano:Pint Pharma: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy.

Variant Philadelphia (Ph) chromosome can be observed in 5-10 % of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) patients. However, there are only a few studies which have analyzed the prognostic implications of these complex translocations in CML patients after the advent of imatinib mesylate and the results found are conflicting. We investigated the clinical features and cytogenetic response of Brazilian chronic phase (CP) CML patients with variant Ph treated with imatinib mesylate. Among 93 CP CML patients, eight (8.6 %) exhibited complex translocations, involving one (n = 6), two (n = 1), or three (n = 1) additional chromosomes. At 6, 12, and 18 months, a complete cytogenetic response was observed in 100 % of variant Ph patients, respectively. No significant difference was found between variant Ph and standard translocation patients regarding the response to IM treatment at 6, 12, and 18 months. Likewise, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups concerning the overall survival, failure-free survival, progression-free survival, and event-free survival. The results obtained in our study, despite our sample size, suggest, in agreement to other data found in the literature, that the presence of variant Philadelphia chromosome does not bestow a prognostic disadvantage when compared to the group with classic Ph. This observation does not suggest the need to adjust the treatment protocol due to the presence of variant Ph. However, further studies with larger sample sizes and evaluating both the cytogenetic and molecular response to IM treatment should be conducted to confirm our findings.

Introduction: Lymphomas are an important complication of HIV infection where they occur with high frequency and are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality.The most prevalent lymphoma subtype in HIV positive population is the diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLCBL). Antiretroviral therapy (ART) and intensive chemotherapy have been introduced to these patients aiming to increase their response to treatment. Recently, dose adjusted-EPOCH (DA-EPOCH) was associated with better outcome when compared with CHOP. Since these publications, many centers in the world started treating HIV DLBCL patients with EPOCH. In Brazil, Rituximab is not allowed for the treatment of HIV lymphomas (any subtype) in the public health system, so HIV DLBCL patients usually are treated with CHOP or DA-EPOCH. Objective:To compare the progression free survival and overall survival in HIV DLBCL patients treated with CHOP and DA-EPOCH at Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA), Porto Alegre, a university public hospital from the southern part of Brazil. Material and Methods:A retrospective cohort of all HIV positive patients and DLBCL, treated from 2007 to 2017 at HCPA. The medical records were reviewed to collect clinical data, reports on pathology, immunohistochemistry, computed tomography (TC) and/or FDG-PET scan from diagnosis and after treatment. Overall survival and progression free survival was determined by the Kaplan-Meier method, and statistical significance was determined by a log-rank test. The study was approved by the institutional review board and complied with the Declaration of Helsinki. All patients gave written informed consent. Results:Forty-three HIV positive patients with untreated DLBCL were enrolled. The median age was 44 years, and 93% had a intermediate or high age-adjusted international prognostic index (aa-IPI). Specific adverse prognostic features included elevated LDH in 84%, B symptoms in 82%, Ann Arbor stage III or IV in 70% and extra-nodal disease in 81%. Central nervous system involvement was found in 9% of patients before treatment. Patients had a median CD4 cell count of 113 cells/mm3 with 21% having a CD4 cell count less than 50 cells/mm3 and 16% of patients were ART naive. Until 2014, CHOP was the chosen treatment for 34 patients. After 2014, DA-EPOCH was the prefered chemotherapy for HIV DLBCL patients and 9 patients were treated with this protocol. The progression free survival at 24 months was 69% in the CHOP group and 83% in DA-EPOCH (p=0.68). Overall survival at same period was 34.5% for CHOP vs 37% for EPOCH (p=0.74). CHOP and DA-EPOCH treatment groups presented similar features regarding the lymphoma and HIV infection, except for higher LDH level and aa-IPI score in the CHOP arm (p=0.02 and p=0.03, respectively). Discussion:The acquired immunodeficiency syndrome-related to DLBCL in this subgroup of patients was associated with a very high-risk prognostic score group. Moreover, 21% of them presented a low count of CD4 cells (less than 50 cells/mm3) at diagnosis. The overall survival was lower than expected for both groups and DA-EPOCH was not associated with better outcome when compared to CHOP. This unexpected finding could be explained in part by the small sample of patients treated with DA-EPOCH, the population prognostic features and the unavailability of rituximab in the treatment of these patients. The follow up study will provide more informations about the impact of DA-EPOCH in our HIV patients. The access to rituximab in HIV DLBCL treatment should be an important point of discussion with public health care providers in Brazil. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Background:Treatment options for patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) are limited. Ibrutinib is a first-in-class small-molecule inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase. These extended access programs (EAP) provided patient access to ibrutinib in Brazil and real-world safety data was collected, at a time when the medication was not commercially available in Brazil. Methods:These two prospective, multicenter, open-label EAPs of single-agent ibrutinib were conducted between April 2013 and August 2017, and enrolled Brazilian patients with relapsed/refractory CLL or MCL. Eligible patients must have progressive disease after at least one prior therapy and not suitable for retreatment with purine analogue therapy. After a 30-day screening, eligible patients received once-daily oral ibrutinib 420 mg (CLL) or 560 mg (MCL) continuously until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, absence of clinical benefit, or end of EAP, whichever occurred first. Doses could be withheld or reduced based on toxicity. Patients were monitored for safety and disease evaluations were conducted per routine local standard of care practices. Results:Of 33 CLL patients enrolled, 32 received one dose of drug or more and were included in the safety analysis. Median age was 62.5 years, and most patients were male (n=24; 75%) and white (n=27; 84.4%). The median time from CLL diagnosis to study inclusion was 83.8 months and from diagnosis to relapsed/refractory state, 42.0 months. The median number of ibrutinib cycles was 12.0 (1.0-16.0) with a median treatment duration of 11.1 (0.9-11.6) months. Eight patients discontinued due to adverse event (AE; n = 4; 12.5%), consent withdrawal (n = 2; 6.3%), death (n = 1; 3.1%), or disease progression (n = 1; 3.1%). AEs leading to treatment discontinuation were intestinal bleeding, neutropenia, infection, and gastric tumor (one patient each). Three (9.4%) patients had dose reductions: one (3.1%) for neutropenia, febrile neutropenia with pneumonia, or worsening fatigue. 21 patients (65.6%) had at least one Grade ≥3 (G3) AE or serious AE (SAE). The most frequent G3 or SAEs included neutropenia in 8 (25.0%), fatigue (1), leukocytosis (1), and pneumonia (3). No atrial fibrillation or bleeding AEs were reported. Among the 47 G3 or SAEs, 17 (36.2%) were serious, 38 (80.9%) were suspected to be related to ibrutinib, and 39 (83.0%) were resolved without sequelae. All 13 MCL patients enrolled in the study were included in the safety analysis. The median age was 60.0 years, and most patients were male (n=9; 69.2%) and white (n=9; 69.2%). The median number of prior treatment regimens were 3. The median time from diagnosis to the first dose of ibrutinib was 20.4 months. The median number of ibrutinib cycles was 19 (4.0-34.0) with a median treatment duration of 16.8 (3.6-30.5) months. Eight patients discontinued because of either death (n=3; 23.1%) or disease progression (n=5; 38.5%). The three patients died with treatment-emergent G4 or higher AEs, including pneumonia (G5; probably treatment-related [TR]), sepsis (G5; not TR), and dyspnea (G4; doubtful TR); 8 patients (61.5%) had at least one G3 or higher treatment-emergent AE. The most frequent AE was diarrhea (n=3; 23.1%), and other AEs were reported in one patient each (i.e. abdominal hernia, anemia, appendicitis, dyspnea, febrile neutropenia, influenza, leukocytosis, neutropenia, pneumonia, productive cough, renal failure/insufficiency, retroperitoneal abscess, thrombocytopenia). Three (23.1%) patients had ibrutinib dose modifications: one (7.7%) each because of appendicitis/tuberculosis, thrombocytopenia, and diarrhea/retroperitoneal abscess/dyspnea. No atrial fibrillation or bleeding AEs were reported. Among the 20 G3 or higher treatment-emergent AEs, 14 (70%) were suspected to be related to ibrutinib and 15 (75%) were resolved. Conclusions: This is the first real-world experience with ibrutinib monotherapy for CLL and MCL in Brazil. Overall, treatment was well tolerated with no unexpected toxicities. No atrial fibrillation or bleeding AEs were reported. Of 32 patients with relapsed/refractory CLL, 24 (80%) remained on therapy, 4 (12.5%) discontinued due to AEs, 1 (3.1%) each died or experienced disease progression. Among 13 patients with relapsed/refractory MCL, 5 (38.5%) remained on the therapy, 3 (23.1%) died and 5 (38.5%) experienced disease progression. Disclosures Chiattone: Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Fogliatto:Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Scheinberg:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau. Bigni:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Rodrigues:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Garicochea:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Pimenta:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Boechat:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Musacchio:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Goncalves:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Vieira:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Santos:Janssen: Employment. Grings:Janssen: Employment. Parisi:Janssen: Employment. Barreyro:Janssen: Employment.

Introduction: Patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory PMBCL (rrPMBCL) are typically treated like those with diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), often with limited effective treatment options and poor outcomes. Unlike DLBCL and similar to classical Hodgkin lymphoma, PMBCL has frequent genetic abnormalities leading to over-expression of the programmed death (PD)-1 ligands, PD-L1 and PD-L2. This suggests that rrPMBCL should be sensitive to PD-1 blockade. In the phase 1b KEYNOTE (KN)-013 study (NCT01953692), pembrolizumab was associated with frequent and durable responses (Zinzani, Blood 2017) in pts with rrPMBCL. The international phase 2 KN170 (NCT02576990) study was conducted to extend these findings and evaluate correlative biomarkers of response. Here, we present updated results of all pts in KN013 (n=21) and the first full analysis of pts in KN170 (n=53). Methods: KN013 enrolled pts with rrPMBCL who had failed, were ineligible for, or refused autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). KN170 enrolled pts with rrPMBCL who had relapsed after or were ineligible for ASCT with ≥2 lines of prior therapy. In KN013, the initial 10 pts received pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Q2W; the remaining 11 patients and all patients on KN170 received pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for up to 2 years. Archival or fresh tumor tissue obtained before pembrolizumab initiation was used for correlative studies. Tumor response was assessed with PET/CT scans by IWG 2007 criteria. The primary endpoint of KN170 was objective response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety/tolerability. Exploratory endpoints included response by Lugano 2014 criteria and biomarker analyses. Data cutoff dates for this analysis were Apr 4, 2018 for KN013 and April 13, 2018 for KN170. Results: KN013 enrolled 21 pts with a median of 3 prior lines of therapy, of whom 13 (62%) were ASCT-ineligible. KN170 enrolled 53 pts also with a median of 3 prior lines, of whom 39 (74%) were ASCT-ineligible due to chemorefractoriness. In KN013, ORR was 48% (10/21; 95% CI, 26-70), with a CR rate of 33% (7/21). In KN170, ORR was 45% (24/53; 95%CI, 32-60), with a CR rate of 13% (7/53; 11/53 [21% by Lugano criteria]). In KN013, after a median follow-up duration of 29.1 mo (range, 0.6-49.6), median DOR was not reached (range, 1.9+ to 39.8+ mo) (Panel A). 2 patients in KN013 in CR at 2 years remained in CR after a further 12 and 18 mo of follow-up off therapy. After a median follow-up of 12.5 mo for KN170 (range, 0.1-25.6), median DOR was not reached (range, 1.1+ to 22.0+ mo) (Panel A). At data cutoff, no patient who achieved a CR on KN170 had relapsed. In KN013, median PFS was 10.4 mo (95%CI, 3.4 to not reached) with 12-mo PFS rate of 47%; median OS was 31.4 mo with 12-mo OS rate of 65% (Panel B). In KN170, median PFS was 5.5 mo (95%CI, 2.8-12.1) with 12-mo PFS rate of 38%; median OS was not reached (95% CI, 7.3 to not reached) with 12-mo OS rate of 58% (Panel B). In KN013, no new safety signals were observed compared with prior analyses. In KN170, 30 (57%) pts had a treatment-related AE (TRAE). Common (≥5%) TRAEs included neutropenia (19%), hypothyroidism and asthenia (8% each), and pyrexia (6%). 12 (23%) pts had a grade 3-4 TRAE, including 5 (9%) with grade 3 and 2 (4%) with grade 4 neutropenia. Six (11%) pts had an immune-mediated AE including 1 (2%) with grade 4 pneumonitis. There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusion: Together with the longer follow-up results of KN013, KN170, the largest prospective clinical trial in rrPMBCL, establishes the robust antitumor activity of pembrolizumab in this disease, with exceptionally durable responses and survival in responding patients. These results provided the basis for the FDA accelerated approval of pembrolizumab in patients with rrPMBCL. Disclosures Armand: Otsuka: Research Funding; Adaptive: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Infinity: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Tensha: Research Funding. Rodig:Merck & Co., Inc.: Research Funding; Affimed Inc.: Research Funding; KITE Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers-Squibb: Research Funding. Özcan:Jazz: Other: Travel support; Bayer: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; MSD: Other: travel support, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Jazz: Other; Celgene: Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Archigen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Abbvie: Other: Travel payment; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel payment, Research Funding. Fogliatto:Novartis: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Walewski:Roche, Celegene, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, and Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche, Celgene, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, and Servier: Honoraria; Roche, GSK/Novartis, Takeda, and Janssen-Cilag: Research Funding. Gulbas:Pfizer: Other: Travel expenses; Roche and Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ribrag:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; MSD: Honoraria; NanoString Technologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Other: travel; Infinity: Consultancy, Honoraria; epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; pharmamar: Other: travel; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; argenX: Research Funding. Christian:Immunomedics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Perini:Janssen and Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen and Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Janssen and Takeda: Other: Travel expenses. Salles:Merck: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Acerta: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Morphosys: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Epizyme: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Svoboda:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Chatterjee:Merck & Co., Inc.: Employment. Orlowski:Merck & Co., Inc.: Employment. Balakumaran:Amgen: Equity Ownership; Merck & Co., Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Shipp:Bayer: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding. Zinzani:PFIZER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SERVIER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; PFIZER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

Glivec was the first tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) approved for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) treatment and its efficacy has been demonstrated in a large number of trials. Generic formulations have been used recently as a more cost effective treatment, but there are few studies that have prospectively evaluated the efficacy and safety of these drugs.Aims: The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of generic imatinib in CP-CML in first line therapy. Methods: This is a multicenter, observational, cohort-type study. The prospective cohort consisted of patients who initiated treatment with generic imatinib between January 2015 and September 2017; whereas the retrospective cohort was treated with Glivec between January 2010 and December 2011. All patients started imatinib in CP, less than six months from diagnosis. Patients were managed according to European Leukemia Net (ELN) 2009 and 2013 recommendations. The definition of the responses followed the ELN 2013 criteria. Adverse events were assessed based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 4.0.3, 2010. Event-free survival (EFS) was measured from starting date of treatment until loss of complete hematologic response, loss of major cytogenetic response, progression to accelerated (AP) or blast crisis (BC) or death from any cause at any time during initial therapy or discontinuation of imatinib by any cause. Patients that switched from Glivec to generic where censored. Overall survival (OS) was measured from starting date of imatinib until to the date of death from any cause while on therapy or last seen. Progression-free survival (PFS) was measured from starting date of imatinib to transformation to AP or BC or deaths while on therapy. Survival curves were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. Cox regression was used with Backward Wald Method. SPSS version 21.0 was used applying the chi-square and t-test, when adequate. All analysis considered p-value Results: A total of 445 patients were analyzed (Glivec=285; Generic=160). The median age was 54 years (18-87) in Glivec and 50 (18-89) in the Generic group (P=0.027). Sokal score stratification in Glivec and generic groups, was respectively: low risk 14.4%/25.7%; intermediate risk 42.3%/38.2% and high risk 43.3%/36.1% (P=0.02). B3a2 frequency was 51.5% vs. 37.7% in Glivec and Generic group, respectively, and b2a2 41.4% vs. 53.8% (P=0.017). There was no significant difference in gender, Hasford, EUTOS scores and ECOG. The median follow-up was 25 months (0-71) and 11 months (0-31) for Glivec and Generic groups, respectively (P Conclusion: The group treated with generic imatinib presented higher rate of failure at 3 months and lower OS, PFS and EFS at 24 months. Differences between the groups included a longer time to initiate treatment in the Generic group, a higher proportion of patients with b2a2 transcripts, which were related to an inferior rate of molecular responses and survival in other studies. There was no difference in the safety profile. The long-term impact in prognosis will be evaluated after a longer follow-up. Disclosures Pagnano: Shire: Other: Lecture; Abbvie: Consultancy; EMS: Other: Financial support for participation in congress; Novartis: Consultancy. Magalhaes:Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Lecture. Clementino:EMS: Other: Financial support for congress. Gaidano:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Centrone:EMS: Other: Financial support for congress, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Meiers-Squibb: Other: Financial support for congress, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Financial support for congress, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Other: Financial support for congress, Speakers Bureau. Fogliatto:Novartis: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Giai:Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Bortolheiro:Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanoffi: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.

Background: Indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL), including follicular lymphoma (FL) and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), is typically responsive to initial chemoimmunotherapy, but relapse is expected. Single-agent rituximab is FDA approved and frequently administered for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) low-grade or follicular CD20-positive B-cell NHL. Lenalidomide is an immunomodulatory agent with preclinical and clinical antilymphoma activity alone and in combination with rituximab. We compared the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide plus rituximab (R2) to rituximab (plus placebo) in patients with R/R iNHL. Methods: AUGMENT (NCT01938001) is a multicenter, double-blind, randomized phase III study of R2 vs rituximab/placebo (control) in patients with FL grade 1-3a or MZL who were previously treated with ≥ 1 prior systemic therapy with documented relapsed or refractory disease but not refractory to rituximab (refractory was defined as < partial response to rituximab or rituximab-chemotherapy OR disease progression < 6 months after last rituximab dose). Patients were stratified by prior rituximab treatment (yes vs no), time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2 vs > 2 years), and histology (FL vs MZL), and then randomized 1:1 to R2 or control for up to 1 year. R2 patients received oral lenalidomide 20 mg/day (d), d1-21/28 for 12 cycles plus rituximab IV 375 mg/m2 weekly in cycle 1 and d1 of cycles 2-5. Control patients received rituximab and placebo on the same schedule. Dose modifications were pre-specified in the protocol to manage toxicities. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per 2007 IWG criteria without PET as assessed by Independent Review Committee (IRC; central review). Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), duration of response (DOR), time-to-next antilymphoma treatment (TTNLT), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: A total of 358 patients were randomized (n = 178 R2; n = 180 control), median age was 63 years (range, 26 - 88), 34% FLIPI score ≥ 3, and histologies of 82% FL/18% MZL. Median number of prior systemic treatments was 1 (range, 1 - 12); 84% received prior rituximab and 51% had prior antilymphoma therapy within 2 years of enrollment. At median follow-up of 28.3 months, the study met its primary endpoint of PFS with HR = 0.46 (95% CI, 0.34 - 0.62; P < 0.0001) (Figure 1). Median PFS was 39.4 months for R2 vs 14.1 months for control. IRC-assessed ORR for R2 was 78% vs 53% for control (P < 0.0001). CR was 34% for R2 vs 18% for control (P = 0.001). Median DOR was 36.6 and 21.7 months for R2 and control arms, respectively. TTNLT was improved for R2 vs control with HR = 0.54 (95% CI, 0.38 - 0.78; P = 0.0007). OS data were not mature with 16 deaths reported in the R2 arm vs 26 deaths in control (HR = 0.61 [95% CI, 0.33 - 1.13]). Selected all-grade treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of interest more common in the R2 vs control arm (≥ 10% difference) were infections (63% vs 49%), cutaneous reactions (32% vs 12%), constipation (26% vs 14%), thrombocytopenia (15% vs 4%), and tumor flare reaction (11% vs 1%). Grade 3/4 TEAEs were reported in 69% R2 and 32% control patients. More frequent grade 3/4 TEAEs in the R2 vs control arm were primarily attributable to increased neutropenia (50% vs 13%) and leukopenia (7% vs 2%). Grade 5 TEAEs were reported in 2 patients in each arm. TEAEs leading to discontinuation of lenalidomide occurred in 9% of patients vs 5% for rituximab + placebo. Neutropenia was the only TEAE leading to discontinuation of lenalidomide in > 1 patient (n = 5). Seventy-one percent of R2 patients completed all 12 cycles of planned treatment vs 61% of control. Disease progression was the leading reason for discontinuation of lenalidomide/placebo (n = 21 R2, n = 54 control). Conclusions: R2 demonstrated superior efficacy over rituximab monotherapy (plus placebo) as measured by the primary endpoint of progression-free survival as well as secondary endpoints of ORR, CR, DOR, and TTNLT in patients with R/R FL grade 1-3a and MZL. At this early analysis, fewer deaths have been observed in the R2 arm. Despite additional hematologic toxicity, greater efficacy of the R2 regimen (and fewer early progressions) allowed more patients to complete the planned therapy and delayed the need for subsequent treatment. R2 represents an important new treatment option in patients with previously treated FL/MZL, with meaningful advantages over single-agent rituximab. Disclosures Leonard: Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy; Biotest: Consultancy; United Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Trněný:F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Sandoz: Honoraria. Izutsu:Otsuka: Honoraria; Bristol- Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Nihon Medi-Physics: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Mundhi: Honoraria; HUYA Bioscience International: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Honoraria; Eisai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Zenyaku: Research Funding; Celltrion: Research Funding; MSD: Honoraria; Ono: Honoraria, Research Funding; Symbio: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Solasia: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Meiji Seika: Honoraria; Shionogi: Honoraria; Asahi Kasei: Honoraria. Fowler:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Zhu:Beijing Cancer Hospital (Peking University Cancer Hospital): Employment. Scheliga:INCA - Instituto Nacional Do Cancer, Brazil: Employment. Pinto:Servier: Consultancy; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Scheinberg:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau. Flinn:Trillium: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Calithera: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Moreira:Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto FG, EPE, Porto, Portugal: Employment. Liu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kalambakas:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fustier:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gribben:Cancer Research UK: Research Funding; Unum: Equity Ownership; Novartis: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Wellcome Trust: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria; NIH: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Medical Research Council: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria.

Several studies have shown defective progenitor-stromal interactions in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), and adhesive defects induced by BCR/ABL have been described. However, controversial results have been reported, and the role of the stroma in abnormal development of the hematopoietic system is not clear. In this study, CML hematopoietic and irradiated stromal cells were co-cultured in different combinations for 10 or 21 days. Maintenance of viable cells was dependent both on the sources of hematopoietic progenitors and stromal adherent layers, with normal cells performing better than their leukemic counterparts. The frequency of CD34(+) CD38(-) cells in the non-adherent fraction was more related to the source of hematopoietic cells than of stroma, and hematopoietic cells from normal subjects showed better performance. The simultaneous analysis of different combinations of normal and leukemic precursor cells and stromal layers, as done in the present work, suggests that the outcome of the interaction depends on characteristics of both compartments. This hematopoietic system development is influenced by intrinsic qualities of both hematopoietic stem cells and the supportive stroma.

Treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia with BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitors requires full adherence in order to maximize the likelihood of achieving optimal responses, and to minimize healthcare costs. In this article, we review some of the methods available for assessing compliance, the main consequences of nonadherence on treatment outcomes, major factors commonly associated with poor compliance, a few successful measures for improving adherence and the most accepted recommendations for proactively managing adverse events.© 2014 Associação Brasileira de Hematologia, Hemoterapia e Terapia Celular. Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda. All rights reserved.

Histoplasma capsulatum has not typically been associated with sinusitis in either immunocompetent or immunocompromised hosts. We report a case of sinusitis caused by H. capsulatum in a patient with chronic lymphocytic leukemia and discuss the reported cases of this rare clinical manifestation of histoplasmosis in the medical literature.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (AlloSCT) is the treatment of choice for many malignant and non-malignant hematological disorders [1]. However, this treatment is frequently complicate...

Introduction: There are few reports of standard of care and outcomes in Latin America. The HOLA study is a retrospective chart review of patients with B-cell malignancies in Latin America (LATAM). Methods: The objective of this registry is to describe patient characteristics, diagnostic and treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes in patients with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL) from a mix of public and private sites in Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Guatemala, and Panama. We report 1975 patients with NHL diagnosed in the period from January 2006 to March 2016. Results: Median age according to NHL subtype was: Follicular Lymphoma (FL) 58, Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) 61, Diffuse Large B cell Lymphoma (DBLCL) 58 and T cell lymphoma (TCL) 49 years. The cases were reviewed starting first with patients diagnosed in 2006 onwards, lost files might bias the following distribution. (Graphic1). Immunohistochemistry tests performed for each subtype are presented. For FL valuable markers to make differential diagnosis like CD5, CD23 and CD10 are not always tested. In MCL, CD5, Cyclin D1 and Ki67 were not performed for all patients. For DLBCL markers such as CD10, Bcl6 and MUM1 were performed in 36%, 25% and 17% respectively. Cytogenetic exams are not part of the regular screening of NHL in (LATAM), performed on 6% of all lymphomas. Advances stages are frequently seen for all types of lymphoma, Ann Arbor IV 27%, 54%, 27% and 29% for FL, MCL, DLBCL and TCL respectively. Most frequent extranodal involvement site for FL and MCL was bone marrow (25.4% and 41.3% respectively) and skin for DBLCL and TCL (14% and 13%). R-CHOP is the most frequently used regimen for all types of lymphoma, except for T cell lymphoma (FL 42%, MCL 45%, DLBCL 66%, TCL 7%) Hyper CVAD is more used on MCL (11%) and TCL (14%). There was a 15% use of CHOP reported for each B cell Lymphoma. Radiotherapy consolidation is most used for DLBCL and TCL (30 and 27% respectively). Transplant was more frequent for MCL, 15% vs less than 10% for the others. Higher relapse rate was seen for MCL (49%) and TCL (44%) versus 31% and 32 % for FL and DLBCL. For relapsed NHL treatment no standard of care can be highlighted (Table 2). Conclusions: The HOLA registry is a LATAM collaborative effort to show incidences of NHL subtypes, diagnosis methodologies and treatment options in the region. HOLA registry found a higher incidence of DLBCL among other LNH subtypes than reported in other regions of the world. NHL diagnosis is a regional gap, underutilization of IH markers might be related to lack of hematopathologists or low availability of specific markers. IH markers to differentiate subtypes of DLBCL are not routinely used in LATAM. Low Cytogenetic testing of NHL in LATAM. Most common first line regimen for B cell NHL was R-CHOP. There was still 15% use of CHOP without R. This might be related to low access. Second and third line treatments were heterogeneous reflecting different available options in LATAM, but no standard of care. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Pavlovsky: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Agreda Vásquez:Roche: Consultancy. Enrico:Bristol Myers squib: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Patents & Royalties. Armenta San-Sebastian:Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Ovilla:Janssen: Consultancy. Santos:Janssen: Employment. De La Mora Estrada:Janssen: Employment, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

The treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) was revolutionized by the introduction of imatinib mesylate (IM). However, approximately 20% of patients are non-responsive and interpatient variability in response to IM is still a phenomenon lacking explanation. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) located in genes encoding proteins involved in IM pharmacokinetics are potentially involved in the causes of this variation. In this study, we investigated the association of SNPs in the genes encoding IM metabolizing enzymes CYP3A4 (rs35599367 and rs2740574) and CYP3A5 (rs776746) and efflux transporter proteins ABCB1 (rs3213619, rs1128503, rs2032582 and rs1045642), ABCG2 (rs2231142) and ABCC4 (rs9561765) with response to treatment and with IM plasma through levels and hair concentrations. The analyzed sample was constituted of 182 CML patients on IM treatment. DNA samples were genotyped for the nine SNPs using real-time polymerase chain reaction. Hair and plasma trough IM concentrations were measured through liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry methods. Clinical response was defined according to the European Leukemia Net guidelines. The number of responders to standard IM therapy was 104. A trend to a higher frequency of CYP3A4 *22 (rs35599367) allele carriers was observed among responders to IM (12.5 vs. 3.4% of non-responders, P = 0.087), although no significant differences in plasma or hair concentrations between genotypes were found. Pharmacogenetics may become a valuable approach to optimize therapy with IM in CML, but many factors still need to be clarified to make possible its application in clinical practice. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Introduction: The advent of tyrosine kinase inhibitors has changed the natural history of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), promoting molecular remission in a high number of patients. In 40-60% of the patients that reach deep molecular responses (RM4.5 or more) and are using imatinib mesylate for 24 months or longer, a molecular response can be maintained after the cessation of the drug. Besides improving life quality in those patients, to withdraw the medication could have a great economic impact in the health system, what is extremely important in third world countries. Objective: To estimate the economic impact of stopping imatinib mesylate in CML chronic phase patients, receiving treatment for at least 36 months and presenting deep molecular response, determinate by BCR-ABL transcripts with quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (QRT-PCR), in the last 24 months. Patients and methods: A single center observational retrospective study, including all patients diagnosed with chronic phase CML, confirmed by cytogenetic or molecular exams receiving treatment at a tertiary hospital in Brazil. All patients received imatinib mesylate either in first or second line therapy. Patients presenting deep molecular response for at least 24 months, under imatinib mesylate for 36 months or more were considered eligible for discontinuation the drug. The annual coast with the treatment was estimated considering the coasts of the medication and the QRT-PCR molecular exams in the Brazilian public health system. Results: In this study, 169 patients date were analyzed, the median follow up time is 5 years (range 1-13 years), 26 (15%) of those patients are eligible for stopping imatinib mesylate according to the criteria previously mentioned. Considering the requirement of QRT-PCR exams every month in the first year of discotinuating the drug, these patients would coast proximally 1.550,00 dollars/ patients year for the public health system. This coast could be reduced to 800,00 and 520 dollars/patients year, after the second and third year of the medication withdraw, when monitoring molecular response can be done every 2 and 3 months respectively. The patients receiving imatinib mesylate, and having QTR-PCR exams every six months, in the other hand, would coast the Brazilian public health system over 31.000, 00dollars /patients year. Stopping imatinib mesylate could reduce CML chronic phase treatment coasts in up to 95%. Discussion: Discontinuating imatinib mesylate is something that must be done only in clinical trial. The economic impact projection shown in this study observed the eligibility criteria described in the literature. If stopping imatinib mesylate proves to be a safe option, studies promoting it should be done in Brazil and other third world countries, as a manner of saving resources in the health system. Furthermore, the impact in life quality free of adverse effects and the possibility of gestation in young woman is not to be ignored. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Introduction: Imatinibe, a target tyrosine kinase inhibitor, have revolutionized CP-CML treatment. Considering that it is being discussed imatinibe treatment interruption in patients with MR ≥ 4.5 lasting two years or more, we believe to be important to establish predictors of major molecular response (MMR) loss. Fluctuations in BCR-ABL transcripts are being advocated to be able to predict MMR loss, although the real impact of small fluctuations among patients with in MR ≥ 4.5 is uncertain. Objective: Correlate BCR-ABL fluctuations and MMR loss in patients considered to be in MR ≥ 4.5, as well as to recognize possible factors associated with these small fluctuations. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis in CP-CML patients receiving imatinibe (as first or second treatment line) that achieved MR ≥ 4.5 (defined as a 4.5 log reduction on an international scale) and surveyed for BCR-ABL fluctuations. We considered a fluctuation to be a rise of at least 0.5 log of BCR-ABL transcripts. Treatment interruptions were considered only when imatinibe was not taken for 15 or more consecutive days. The presence of comorbities was evaluated by applying the Charlson Index. Results: Fifty-eight patients were evaluated between with a median follow-up 7 years. Fifty-five percent were men and 28 were women, with a median age of 46 (18 - 93) years-old, most of the patients were older than 60 yo (75,9%). Among 32 patients evaluated by the Sokal risk score 97,5% were estimated to be low or intermediate. Twenty six patients presented at least one fluctuation. Regarding the number of fluctuations per patient, 18 presented only 1 fluctuation, 5 presented 2 fluctuations and 3 patients presented 3 fluctuations. Among those patients with at least one fluctuation 3 (11%) presented MMR loss, while there was none among patients without documented fluctuations (p=0,15). Among these three patients considered to have MMR loss, two presented fluctuations that reached MR 3.0, while the other patient presented a history of long treatment suspension. More patients that interrupted treatment presented BCR-ABL fluctuations, although this difference was not statically significant (78% vs 50% p=0,11). Conclusion: Small fluctuations among patients with MR ≥ 4.5 didn't seem to correlate with MMR loss, however we do believe that our population is underpowered to rule out this difference. We considered that it very interesting that patients which reached MR 3.0 presented MMR loss (considering that the other patient had to abandon treatment during pregnancy). Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Background Monitoring response to TKI therapy is one of the key management strategies of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Early molecular response to first-line TKI therapy is emerging as an effective prognostic factor indicator of long-term durable response and survival. Objectives We conducted a study to evaluate the importance of the early molecular response (EMR) at 3, 6 and 12 months (mo), and 3-year event free survival (EFS). Methods This is a retrospective study in a cohort of pts with chronic myeloid leukemia chronic phase (CP) enrolled in 14 Hematology centers in South Brazil. All pts received imatinib 400mg as first or second-line therapy. Patient evaluation and response criteria followed the ELN recommendations. EFS was measured from the start of imatinib to the date of any of the following events while on therapy: death from any cause, loss of complete hematologic response, loss of complete cytogenetic response, discontinuation of therapy for toxicity or lack of efficacy, or progression to accelerated phase or blastic phase. Results We analyzed data from 517 pts with CML-CP diagnosed since 1990. After a median observation time of 46 months, 5-year overall survival (OS) was 86% and 5-year event-free-survival was 53%. At 3 mo, EFS was 72,5% for 46 pts with BCR-ABLIS ≤10% compared to 58% for 14 pts with BCR-ABLIS >10% (p1% (p0,1% (p Conclusions A significant proportion of pts achieve ERM after 3,6 and 12 mo of imatinib therapy with better 3-year EFS. ERM may could identify those pts more likely to have a favorable outcome. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Sustained deep molecular response (MR4.5) after imatinib treatment defines a subgroup of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) with better outcome and that probably would be able to stop treatment in the future, according to results of clinical TKI discontinuation trials. Most of these trials showed that patients with a long-term imatinib treatment and low Sokal risk have a higher probability of maintain a deep molecular remission after stopping treatment. OBJECTIVES The main objective is to review the molecular responses, overall survival and event free survival of CP CML patients that have been treated with imatinib in 14 hematology centers in South Brazil. Using our data basis we also would like to see how many of them present long-term imatinib treatment, sustained deep molecular remission and correlate these findings with the Sokal risk groups. These data would allow us to predict patient profile that could be able to discontinue the treatment in the future in a prospective clinical trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS This is a retrospective study in a cohort of pts with chronic myeloid leukemia chronic phase (CP) that have been treated in 14 hematology centers in South Brazil. All pts received imatinib 400mg as first or second-line therapy. Patient evaluation and response criteria followed the ELN recommendations. MR(4.5) was defined as ≥ 4.5 log reduction of BCR-ABL on the international scale (IS) and determined by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. All tests were performed at a central standardized according to ELN. Event-free-survival (EFS) was measured from the start of imatinib to the date of any of the following events while on therapy: death from any cause, loss of complete hematologic response, loss of complete cytogenetic response, discontinuation of therapy for toxicity or lack of efficacy, or progression to accelerated phase or blastic phase. Overall survival (OS) was measured from the start of imatinib until death of any cause or to the date patient was last known to be alive. RESULTS Data from 474 patients was analyzed. After a median observation time of 46 months, 5-year overall survival (OS) was 86%, 5-year event-free-survival was 53%. Of the 474 patients, 258 had adequate PCR evaluations during treatment. 118 of 258 (45,7%) patients achieved MR(4.5) and 69 of 258 (27%) had sustained response for at least two years after a minimum time of treatment of 3 years. The cumulative incidence of MR(4.5) after 9 years was 76% (median, 3 years). In the group that achieved MR(4.5), there was only 1 (0,8%) death and 1 (1,1%) progression compared to 8 deaths (5,7%) and 8 progressions (7,5%) in the group without MR(4.5); these differences were significant with p=0,03 and 0,02 respectively. In the subgroup of 69 patients that had had been treated with imatinib for 3 year or more and sustained deep response (RM4,5) for at least two years, 21 pts had low Sokal risk, 7 pts intermediate Sokal risk and only 4 pts a high Sokal risk. Unfortunately, in 37 pts the Sokal risk could not be accessed due to missing information. CONCLUSION In our series MR(4.5) is reached in the majority of patients with long-term imatinib treatment. MR(4.5) is a predictor of outcome with only one disease progression and one death due to CML in this group of patients. Unfortunatly PCR are not available for all patients in our clinical practice, but this situation are improving. Regarding the 69 patients with TKI discontinuation trial criteria, we find out that 21 patients fulfill such criteria. In the future, according to the results of current stop trials it could be possible include this selected group of CP CML patients in a prospective clinical trial. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Background Polycythemia vera (PV) is a subgroup of myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) BCL-ABL1 negative. The current therapy of PV should be aimed at preventing vascular complications and avoid increasing the risk of leukemic transformation. The therapy response monitoring is based in the European LeukemiaNet (ELN) unified definition of clinical resistance and intolerance to hydroxycarbamide in polycythaemia vera consensus process, published by Barbui T et al in Br J Haematol 2010;148(6):961-963. Objectives We conducted a study to assess in our clinical practice the aplicability of the standard criteria for resistance and intolerance proposed by ELN in patients (pts) with PV that have been treated with hydroxycarbamida (HU). Methods This is a retrospective study in a cohort of pts with PV enrolled in a single Hematology University center in South Brazil. All pts were treated according to PV guidelines, and the response monitoring was based on clinical practice. All database was compared to standard criteria proposed by ELN. Intolerance /resistance was defined by: a) need for phlebotomy to keep hematocrit < 45% after 3 months of at least 2 g/d of HU or b) uncontrolled myeloproliferation (ie, platelet count > 400 x109/L and white blood count (WBC) > 10 x109/L) after 3 months of at least 2g/d of HU or c) failure to reduce massive splenomegaly by 50% as measured by palpation or failure to completely relieve symptoms related to splenomegaly after 3 months of at least 2 g/d of HU or d) absolute neutrophil count < 1.0 x109/L or platelet count < 100 x109/L or hemoglobin < 10 g/dL at the lowest dose of HU required to achieve a complete or partial clinicohematologic response or e) presence of leg ulcers or other unacceptable HU related nonhematologic toxicities, such as mucocutaneous manifestations, GI symptoms, pneumonitis or fever at any dose of HU. Results We analyzed data from 33 patients with PV assisted in the last five years in our outpatient clinical data. The ELN criteria for resistance and intolerance were accessed in these patients. At diagnosis, 42,4% of pts were younger than 61yo, and 54,5 were male. Arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia were identified on 21, 2 and 7 pts, respectively. Only one patient was tobacco smoker at diagnosis. Total of 5 pts showed WBC > 15 x109/L, and 7 pts showed platelets > 450 x109/L. Massive splenomegaly is a rare PV manifestation in our series, occurring in 2 pts. Five patients complained of symptoms related to PV as pruritus and vasomotor phenomena at diagnosis. Less than 5% of patients had been treated with 2 g of HU for more than 3 months. In daily practice, when the patient presented hematologic toxicity, the HU was decreased and, if the hematocrit was over 45%, an occasional phlebotomy was performed. In relation to platelets (less than 400 x 109/L) and leucocyte (less than 10 x109/L) counts, these targets were not used exclusively in the clinical practice to change treatment. The intolerance was easily discriminated in patients with leg ulcers and other non-hematological events. Conclusion These criteria were done based on an expertise consensus for international criteria standardization for clinical studies. Its application in a retrospective study, using clinical daily practice data is not adequate. The reason is that in the last years the main target to treat patients was the hematocrit above 45%, the exact number of platelets and leucocytes is still not a consensus to define resistance, so different counts had been used to guide treatment, we rarely used HU doses above 1500 mg/daily to treat our patients and massive splenomegaly was observed in very few patients. These criteria should be used most for prospective studies. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Background Treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia with imatinib leads to disease remission in a majority of patients (pts), but in a subgroup of pts controlling the disease remains a challenge. One of the proposed prognostic factors for identifying this subset of pts is the treatment response in the first months of imatinib therapy. The definitions of response, warning signs and failure to treatment, with the identification of pts at greater risk of progression or failure, were revised and published in 2013 by the European Leukemia Net group. Aims To apply the new recomendations of ELN2013 in order to verify the evolution of the patients according to the response criteria at 12 months (mo) of imatinib therapy. Methods Retrospective study in a cohort of patients with CP-CML from a southern Brazilian database. All patients received imatinib 400mg as first or second-line therapy. Patient evaluation and response criteria followed the ELN2013 criteria and were classified in 3 groups according to the cytogenetic and molecular responses at 12 mo: optimal, warning and failure. An event was defined as any of the following while on therapy: death from any cause, loss of complete hematologic response, loss of complete cytogenetic response, discontinuation of therapy for toxicity or lack of efficacy, or progression to accelerated phase or blastic phase. Results Data from 98 pts with a median follow-up (FU) time of 40 mo was analysed. At 12 mo of imatinib therapy, 35 pts (36%) had optimal response according to the ELN2013 criteria. 26 (26,5%) were classified as warning and 37 (37,5%) as failure. Within the pts with optimal response, only 4 (11%) have had any event, with a median time-to-event (TTE) of 36 mo; in the warning group the event rate and TTE were 3 (12%) and 28 mo, respectively. There were no significant differences in the results between these two groups. On the other hand, within the pts with failure, 24 (65%) presented an event during FU with a TTE of 19 mo. This difference was significant compared to the two previous groups. Interestingly, within the warning group, 12 pts (46%) developed major molecular response (MMR) at any point during FU, while only 12 (32%) pts achieved RMM in the failure group. Conclusion In this cohort of CP-CML pts is established the diference in the event rate between the pts who achieve optimal or warning responses at 12 mo of imatinib treatment when compared with those with failure criteria, according to the new ELN2013 recomendations. Despite having some late responders, atention must be paid in pts in the failure group as they are in greater risk of progression or failure. As demonstrated in this analysis, the ELN2013 criteria can be applied in this population in the clinical practice. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract 4423 Background Treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia with imatinib leads to disease remission in a majority of patient, but in some patients (pts) controlling the disease remains a challenge. One of the proposed prognostic factors for identifying this subset of pts is the treatment response in the first months of therapy. Objectives We conducted a study to evaluate the importance of the early complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) and the factors associated with its achievement. Methods This is a retrospective study in a cohort of pts with chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP-CML) enrolled in 14 Hematology centers in South Brazil. All pts received imatinib 400mg as first or second-line therapy. Early-imatinib treatment was considered when imatinib started before 12 months (mo) from diagnosis. Patient evaluation and response criteria followed the ELN recommendations. The ACE-27 (Adult Comorbidity Evaluation-27) is a 27 item comorbidity index for patients with cancer and assign weights from 1 to 3 based on the dysfunction grade of each condition (mild, moderate and severe, respectively). An ACE-27 score was applied to each patient. Imatinib suspensions were considered if superior to 20 days at any point during therapy. EFS was measured from the start of imatinib to the date of any of the following events while on therapy: death from any cause, loss of complete hematologic response, loss of complete cytogenetic response, discontinuation of therapy for toxicity or lack of efficacy, or progression to accelerated phase or blastic phase. Results We analyzed data from 450 pts with CP-CML diagnosed since 1990. The median age at diagnosis was 48 yr (4 – 85) and 55% were male. The median time from diagnosis to imatinib was 7 mo (0 – 178) and 71% pts were early-imatinib treated. Prior therapy with interferon was used in 60% pts. The median of follow-up was 47 mo. With 6 months of imatinib therapy, 198 pts (44%) achieved CCyR. In this group, the four year cumulative incidence of events was 33 (17%) and the EFS was 75,5%. 252 (56%) were not in CCyR at 6 months of therapy. In this group, a greater proportion of cumulative of events was observed: 86 (34%), and the EFS was 62,3%. This difference was significant (P=0,03; Figure 1). In this group of pts, 63% achieved CCyR after 6 months any time during follow up and the median time for CCyR in these pts was 17 months. The chance of achieving major molecular response (MMR) during follow up was 79% for the pts with CCyR at 6 months compared to 53% for the group with no CCyR at 6 months (P Conclusions A great proportion of pts achieve CCyR after 6 months of imatinib therapy, nevertheless, the pts who achieve CCyR by 6 months of therapy have greater proportion of major molecular response and event-free survival. Imatinib therapy should be started as soon as possible and additional efforts must be taken to avoid nonadherence. Finally, special attention should be given to pts with comorbidities as their results tend to be worse. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract 4425 Adherence to imatinib therapy has proven to be a major determinant of treatment results, but the degree of impact and the determinants of nonadherence are still contradictory. There is no information regarding adherence to imatinib therapy in the Brazilian public health system. The aims of this study were to identify the characteristics related to treatment interruptions and nonadherence and to examine how these interruptions affect treatment responses and survival. Materials and Methods We conducted a retrospective study in a cohort of patients (pts) with CP-CML enrolled in 14 Hematology centers in South Brazil. All pts received imatinib 400mg as first or second-line therapy. Early-imatinib treatment was considered when imatinib started before 12 months (mo) from diagnosis. Patient evaluation and response criteria followed the ELN recommendations. The ACE-27 (Adult Comorbidity Evaluation-27) is a 27 item comorbidity index for patients with cancer and assign weights from 1 to 3 based on the dysfunction grade of each condition (mild, moderate and severe, respectively). An ACE-27 score was applied to each patient. Imatinib suspensions were considered if superior to 20 days at any point during therapy. Two levels of analysis were performed: all kinds of interruptions (nonadherence and toxicity) and only nonadherence ones. Information for nonadherence was taken from medical and pharmacy registers (pt self-report, missing scheduled appointments and pill counts). Results We analyzed data from 185 pts with CP-CML diagnosed since 1990. The median age at diagnosis was 48 yr (4 – 85) and 55% were male. The median time from diagnosis to imatinib was 7 mo (0 – 178) and 71% pts were early-imatinib treated. Prior therapy with interferon was used in 70% pts. The median of follow-up was 47 mo. Treatment interruption was observed in 63/185 patients (34%) and was related to toxicities in 35/63 pts (55%) and to nonadherence in 28/63 pts (45%). The adherence rate was 85%. In a multivariate analysis, only late-onset imatinib treatment (Odds Ratio [OR]=36,05; p Conclusions In this cohort, a substantial proportion of pts failed to take imatinib properly, decreasing the chances of disease control. The late onset of imatinib therapy correlates with lower adherence, so front-line imatinib therapy should be started as soon as possible. Special attention should be given to pts with severe comorbidities, as they are more prone to suffer side effects or to lack adherence. Finally, pts who interrupted treatment had lower CCyR, MMR and EFS. Clinical and patient characteristics related to nonadherence Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract 4487 Background: Imatinib treatment for Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML) was first introduced in Brazil in 2001, initially used as second line therapy for patients resistant or intolerant to interferon (IFN). In 2008 imatinib was adopted as front-line therapy for chronic-phase (CP-CML) and clinical experience is improving since then, but little is known about the result of its introduction in our clinical practice. Aims: To evaluate the impact of imatinib treatment in the outcomes of a cohort of CP-CML and the prognostic significance of Sokal and Hasford scores and late-onset treatment. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study in a cohort of patients with CP-CML from a south Brazilian database. All patients received imatinib 400mg as first or second-line therapy. Patient evaluation and response criteria followed the European LeukemiaNet. The outcomes were response to treatment, event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: We analyzed data from 185 pts with CP-CML diagnosed since 1990. The median age at diagnosis was 48 years (4 – 85). The median time from diagnosis to imatinib was 7 months (0 – 178) and 29% of pts had more than 12 months lapse. Prior therapy with IFN was used in 70% pts. All pts had a minimum follow-up of 12 months. At baseline, 57 pts (31%) were in complete hematological response (CHR) due to the use of previous treatment. Of the 127 pts not in CHR at baseline, 98% achieved CHR early during imatinib treatment. 177 pts had cytogenetic evaluation during treatment and 9 pts were in complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) due to the use of previous IFN. Of the 168 pts not in CCyR at baseline, 86,4% achieved a major cytogenetic response (MCyR) during imatinib treatment (84% had a CCyR and 2,4% had a partial cytogenetic response). The rate of pts achieving MCyR any point during treatment differed significantly in the low, intermediate and high risk Sokal score groups (97%, 81% and 78% respectively, P=0,04), but not in the Hasford score groups (90%, 85% and 72%, P=0,22). Minor cytogenetic response was seen in 3,6% of pts, minimal cytogenetic response in 6% and 9,5% had no cytogenetic response. The median time to a MCyR was 9 months, with 62% of pts achieving MCyR at 12 months. The rate of pts achieving MCyR in 12 months differed significantly between pts who start imatinib before 12 months from diagnosis (68%) and those late treated (47%, P=0,02). Evaluation of minimal residual disease at the molecular level was available for 155 pts: 25,5% of pts had a complete molecular response (CMR), 43% had a major molecular response (MMR) and 2 pts were in MMR at baseline due to previous IFN. The projected EFS and OS rates at 4 years were, respectively, 68% and 92% after a median follow-up time of 4 years. The rate of EFS differed significantly in the low, intermediate and high risk Sokal score groups (80%, 66% and 52% respectively, P=0,04), but not in the Hasford score groups (78%, 62% and 44%, P=0,09). During treatment with imatinib, 120 pts (65%) had a register of any grade hematologic adverse event (21% being grades 3 or 4) and 165 pts (90%) had a register of any grade nonhematologic adverse event (9,3% being grades 3 or 4). Of the 185 pts who received treatment, 134 (72%) continue to receive imatinib and 51 (28%) discontinued treatment. The reasons for discontinuation were: 11 (6%) pts had drug-related adverse events (3 [1,6%] hematologic and 8 [4,3%] nonhematologic), 17 (9,2%) had disease progression (5 [2,7%] loss of CHR, 10 [5,4%] loss of CCyR, 2 [1%] had progression to accelerate or blastic phase), 22 (11,9%) had treatment failure (3 [1,6%] had no CHR, 13 [7%] had no CCyR and 6 [3,2%] had no MMR), 1 pt (0,5%) discontinued due to comorbidity. For the 51 (100%) pts that discontinued imatinib, 31 (61%) switched to dasatinib, 17 (33%) to nilotinib, 1 (2%) to hydroxyurea, 1 (2%) to other treatment and 1 (2%) remained without treatment. Sixteen pts (8,6%) died during imatinib treatment or during long-term follow-up after discontinuation of imatinib. Conclusions: In our population of CP-CML pts treated with imatinib, a majority of patients achieved complete cytogenetic and major molecular responses, with a prolonged of OS and EFS and good safety profile. Sokal score showed better prognosis prediction than Hasford. Early onset of imatinib therapy led to better outcomes and justifies imatinib as front-line treatment of our patients. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract 2300 Introduction: Imatinib mesylate (Gleevec) treatment for Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (CML) was first introduced in Brazil in 2003, initially used as second line therapy for patients resistant or intolerant to interferon. In 2004 imatinib was adopted as front-line therapy for chronic phase (CP) and clinical experience improving since then. Close monitoring of responses achievement at scheduled time has proven to provide good predictive value for progression and event-free survival. Failure and sub-optimal responses correspond to indications for dose change or therapy switching and the identification of patients at greater risk for such events has a vital role. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of temporary imatinib therapy discontinuation on achievement of Major Cytogenetic Response (MCyR) and event-free survival (EFS). Materials and Methods: During the period of 1990 to 2010 a total of 185 patients from 7 CML treatment centers from Rio Grande do Sul, south Brazil, with a confirmed diagnosis of CML (Philadelphia chromosome positive [Ph+]) at CP under imatinib treatment were retrospectively analyzed. A major cytogenetic response was considered complete plus partial cytogenetic responses (Ph+ less than 35%). At least 20 metaphases were analyzed for a cytogenetic response to be evaluable. Temporary treatment discontinuation (TTD) corresponds to 20 days or more off-medication for any reason during the follow-up. Were included patients in imatinib second-line and first-line therapy. Early-imatinib treatment was considered when imatinib started before 12 months from diagnosis and late-imatinib treatment when more then 12 months lapse. EFS was measured from the start of imatinib to the date of any the following events while on therapy: death of any cause, therapy failure, any response loss, disease progression, definitive treatment discontinuation or therapy change. Descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier analysis (to estimate event-free survival [EFS]) were performed using SPSS software. Results: The median age at diagnosis was 48 years (range, 4–85 years) median of follow-up was 47 months (range, 7–113 months) and 55% of male sex. Preferential previous treatment was interferon in 70% of the patients and 71% were early-imatinib treatment. TTD was observed in 63/185 patients (34%) and was related to toxicities in 35/63 patients (55%), including hematological and non-hematological. Nonadherence was attributed to the remaining TTD, 28/63 patients (44%). Late-imatinib patients had significant more TTD (62%) than early-imatinib patients (26,2% [p Conclusion: In our cohort, patients with TTD were associated with lower rate of MCyR and it may be a risk factor for failure or sub-optimal responses to imatinib therapy. TTD also has a negative effect in terms of EFS in patients under imatinib treatment, possibly related to worsen cytogenetic disease control. The late onset of imatinib therapy correlates with more toxicity leading to treatment interruptions and front-line imatinib therapy should be started as soon as possible. Special attention should be given to patients who presents with side effects of any nature that could preclude the correct use of the medication. Close monitoring and early management of such adverse reactions, frequent assessment of compliance should be warrant as effort to guarantee the best chance for therapy success. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

CML is a well characterized disease with a known chromosomal abnormality. The inhibition of BCR-ABL protein tyrose kinase activity represented an advance in the treatment of this disease. Imatinib is effective in chronic, accelerated and blastic phase disease, and is the CML first line treatment around the world. In Brazil, this drug is provided by the State since 2003. The drug is available for second line treatment in chronic phase and for accelerated and blastic phase as the first line therapy. In chronic phase, the patients are treated first with interferon. If this treatment is too toxic or not effective, the choice therapy is imatinib 400 mg and the dose can be escalated up 600 mg. In accelerated and blastic phases the treatment is imatinib 600 mg. Mutational studies are not routinely performed and the failing patients are encourage to participate in bone marrow transplantation programs or clinical research centers. The present data are obtained from public health hospital database and included 400 CML Ph+ patients from Rio Grande do Sul, south of Brazil. 232 patients are male and 158 female and around 70% were Caucasian. The median age at diagnosis was 46, 79 y (median 49, 28). The mean laboratory values at diagnosis were: hematocrit 33 (median 34, 8), hemoglobin 11, 08 (median 11, 40), white blood cells 158.594 (median 110.000) and platelets 466.000 (median 380.000). From the 400 patients, 300 pts were diagnosed in chronic phase, 52 pts in accelerated phase and 20 pts in blastic phase. In 28 patients the disease phase was unknown. In the majority of patients Imatinib was started because interferon treatment was not tolerated (121 patients) or ineffective (123 patients). Of these patients 285 were in chronic, 59 pts in accelerated and 17 pts in blastic phases. The cytogenetic response evaluated at 12 months of treatment was available in 231 patients: 164 complete responses, 20 major responses, 15 minor responses and 32 patients demonstrated none or minimal response to therapy. In 169 patients the response is unknown. The progression free survival for the chronic phase patients in 80 months of observation is 90% and the event free survival for the entire group is 60% in the same period. The progression from chronic to accelerated or blastic phase was more common in the first year of imatinib treatment and decreased progressively until the fifth year of therapy. This data demonstrate the epidemiologic profile and the treatment results of CML patients in south of Brazil. Imatinib is available in public health system as a second line treatment and the survival rate is quite good. Since last July this drug has been available as first line treatment, even in chronic phase. A longer follow up and a uniform database registry are needed to study the impact of imatinib treatment in this population.

We ran a study on the prevalence of anemia in the state of Rio Grande do Sul (RS), southern Brazil. RS is in a sub-tropical Latin American area, near Uruguay and Argentina. There is no Malaria, a low prevalence of hemoglobinopaties, and HIV/AIDS. METHODS: Capillary blood of children less then 7 and women from 14 to 30 years of age were tested. Socioeconomic status was determined utilizing the classification designed by the Brazilian Association of Market Research Agencies for this purpose. A second sample of 1 year old children was submitted to total blood cell count and serum ferritin determination, and in a third group of individuals, total blood count was done along with stool parasitic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 2198 children and 1999 women with capillary blood measured were analyzed. The median prevalence of anemia in the whole state and the median hemoglobin concentration was 45, 4% and 9.90g/dl for children, and 36.1% and 11 g/dl for women, respectively. Of the aforementioned group, before two years of age, 76% were anemic, and anemia prevalence decreased with age, suggesting a nutrition deficiency. There were very few cases of severe anemia. A significant percentage of children and women belong to the middle class, with access to food and medical care. Of the 356 children tested at one year of age, 67% were anemic and of these, 90% had ferritin < 15μg/L. In the third group of individuals, 31% of 424 children less then 6 years of age were anemic and of these, only 13% tested positive for parasitic infection. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of iron deficiency anemia is very high and constitutes a severe public health problem for 1 year old children in RS, and probably for those younger then 7, and for fertile women as well, irrespectively of their socioeconomic level. Micronutrients supplementation has being neglected in RS health system. The definition of anemia plays a central role in this and has to be addressed if we want to overcome the biologic factors involved in childhood psychosocial development in Brazil.

Imatinib has profoundly change indication of allogeneic bone marrow transplantation (alloBMT) worldwide for CML and is now the first line of treatment in most countries. However, in Brazil, Imatinib for CML in first chronic phase is provided by Federal Health Agency only for patients refractory/intolerant to interferon (IFN). In order to study results of treatment with imatinib and alloBMT in this particular scenario we retrospectively analyzed 266 patients treated for CML in first chronic phase (less than 60 years-old) in three different institutions in Brazil. End points were event free survival (EFS = absence of hematological response, lost of hematological/cytogenetic response, relapse in accelerated phase/blast crisis or death) and overall survival (OS). From jan/2001 to dec/2006, 176 patients received imatinib 400 mg after failure or intolerance to IFN. Median time from diagnosis to imatinib treatment was 19 months (range: 2 to 205). At the same period of time, 90 patients received an allo-BMT from an HLA-matched sibling (n=83) or an unrelated donor (n=7). Patients receiving peripheral blood stem cell or umbilical cord blood were excluded. Eighty-two patients received busulfan+cyclophsphamide as conditioning regimen and all patients received cyclosporin+methotrexate±steroids as GVHD prophylaxis. Median time from diagnosis to allo-BMT was 16 (range: 5 to 104) months. Gender distribution was similar between groups. Imatinib group had a higher median age (40.7 vs. 32.8 years, P

Background: Imatinib mesylate (Glivec,Novartis), an inhibitor of Bcr-abl tyrosine kinase, is currently being used in the treatment of CML with hematological, cytogenetic and molecular response. In Brazil, this drug is approved by Health Department for chronic phase (CP) as a second line drug and as first line for accelerated (AP) and blastic phase (BP). Rio Grande do Sul (RS) Cooperative Group for Treatment of CML coordinates the treatment of this disease in Rio Grande do Sul, the southern most state of Brazil that differs from the north part of the country regarding climate, population profile (mostly European descendents) and a high number of farm workers. Methods: 211 CML Ph+ patients are presently being treated in RS. Sex distribution: 96 male and 115 females, aged 11–80 years (median 48 y);166/211 in CP, 42/211 in AP and 11/211 in BP. Imatinib daily dose is 400 mg (CP) and 600 mg (AP and BP). 166/211 patients are in treatment with imatinib and 32/211, interferon or hydroxyureia. In imatinib group, 144/166 patients are in complete hematologic response and 57/166 in complete cytogenetic remission. Conclusions: in Brazil, imatinib treatment is limited by economic problems and the drug is used latter in course of disease. This may compromise the results, as seen in the low cytogenetic complete response described above. We are now investigating this results in order tofind other related factors.

CFSA, an 18-year-old woman with a history of weight loss and abdominal discomfort was diagnosed with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) in December 2002. The WBC were 440 x 109 /L with 25% neutrophils, 20% bands, 9% metamyelocytes, 9% myelocytes, 8% promyelocytes, 10% basophils, 9% eosinophils, 1% lymphocytes and 8% blasts. The hemoglobin was 9,8 g/dL and platelet count 416 x 109/ L. A bone marrow examination demonstrated granulocytic hyperplasia and the presence of Philadelphia chromosome in 100% of the metaphasis. A diagnosis of CML was made and she was started on hydroxyurea and imatinib 600mg daily. No matched HLA donor was found. There was a partial hematological response. In February 2005 on imatinib (600 mg) she was pregnant and an ultrasound scan showed a viable fetus of 17 weeks. The WBC were 22 x 109 /L with 50% neutrophils, 23% bands, 8% metamyelocytes, 12% myelocytes, 1% promyelocytes, 5% lymphocytes, hemoglobin 11,4 g/dl and platelet count 290 x 109. Imatinib was stopped and she remained off treatment during pregnancy. Cesarean section was performed at 38th week because of preeclampsia (hypertension, headache and scotomas). A healthy girl weighing 2980 g, 46,5 cm in length with Apgar score of 9 was delivered. The infant’s physical examination, WBC, hemoglobin, platelet count and cranial ultrasonography were normal. The baby is presently healthy with no developmental abnormalities. There are few reports on the use of 600 mg a day of imatinib and pregnancy. It is of notice, although probably unrelated, the event of preeclampsia. The effects of imatinib on fetus are unkown and should be considered teratogenic until more studies or cases are reported.

In the last two decades, we have seen a radical change in the therapy and prognosis of Multiple Myeloma (MM). Recent research on the role of the bone marrow microenvironment as integrant part of the biology of MM and the possible therapeutic interference at this level are leading to control and regression of the malignant plasma cell clone with a recognized clinical impact. Thalidomide, an old drug thought to interfere on the bone marrow microenvironment, is active not only for the treatment of refractory patients but also, as was recently shown, for induction and/or remission maintenance therapy. Most of the side effects (somnolence, constipation, fatigue, tremor, bradycardia, edema, and neuropathy) can be managed by reducing the dose and most patients need a dose reduction. The appropriate dose of thalidomide in myeloma is unknown. We treated thirty-five patients with MM with low-dose thalidomide (200mg or less). Twenty four patients were on maintenance therapy (13 after bone marrow transplantation, and 11 after chemotherapy with VCAP/VMCP); 5 patients were treated after relapse, 4 with refractory disease and 2 for remission induction as a first line therapy. Patients were treated at the Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplantation Service of the Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil, from march/2001 to December/2003. The response as measured by hemoglobin level, immunoglobulin (M component) or urinary light chain concentration and bone marrow examination was evaluated before, 3, 6, and 12 months after the beginning of thalidomide. Results: All patients are alive and well. Fifty one percent are on 100mg schedule; of the patients on maintenance therapy 90% are on complete remission or on a sustained plateau. A Wilcoxon ranks test for the immunoglobulin level before and after 6 months for the entire group showed p=0.001 (25–75%). Conclusion: Low dose thalidomide is tolerable and effective.

We report the case of a 12 year old girl admitted to the hospital in August 2004 presenting acute hepatic failure with grade IV encephalopathy without stigmatic of chronic liver disease. Investigation for A, B and C hepatitis was negative as well as the tests for HIV, Toxoplasmosis, EBV, B19 parvovirus and CMV. Diagnosed as fulminant hepatitis she received an ortotopic hepatic transplant 25 days after admission. She had an excellent clinical recovery on tracolimus for immunossupression, except for an asymptomatic pancytopenia unresponsive to drug dose reduction, which progressed to severe bone marrow aplasia in a four months period. A second round of virus screening tests was still negative. She was then submitted to bone marrow transplantation from her twin identical sister utilizing 50mg/kg/day of cyclophosphamide for two days as conditioning regimen. She received 6.6 x 106 CD34+ cells/kg and engrafted at D+22. She was discharged at D+ 33 on tracolimus without any sign of liver or bone marrow rejection. She is presently in complete clinical recovery after 7 months of BMT. This is, from our knowledge, the first report of a successful hepatic transplant followed by an equally successful syngeneic bone marrow transplant.