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.

Summary Background PD-1 blockade via pembrolizumab monotherapy has shown antitumour activity and toxicity in patients with relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Here, we present interim analyses from the KEYNOTE-204 study evaluating pembrolizumab versus brentuximab vedotin for relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Methods In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study, patients aged 18 years or older with relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma with measurable disease and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 who were ineligible for or had relapsed after autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) were enrolled at 78 hospitals and cancer centres in 20 countries and territories. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with an interactive voice response system to pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks or brentuximab vedotin 1·8 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by previous autologous HSCT and status after front-line therapy. Results from the second interim analysis are presented here, with a database cutoff of Jan 16, 2020. The dual primary endpoints assessed in the intention-to-treat population were progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review, and overall survival (not analysed at this interim analysis). Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02684292. Recruitment for this trial is closed. Findings Between July 8, 2016, and July 13, 2018, 151 patients were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab and 153 to brentuximab vedotin. After a median time from randomisation to data cutoff of 25·7 months (IQR 23·4–33·0), median progression-free survival was 13·2 months (95% CI 10·9–19·4) for pembrolizumab versus 8·3 months (5·7–8·8) for brentuximab vedotin (hazard ratio 0·65 [95% CI 0·48–0·88]; p=0·0027). The most common grade 3–5 treatment-related adverse events were pneumonitis (six [4%] of 148 patients in the pembrolizumab group vs one [1%] of 152 patients in the brentuximab vedotin group), neutropenia (three [2%] vs 11 [7%]), decreased neutrophil count (one [1%] vs seven [5%]), and peripheral neuropathy (one [1%] vs five [3%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 24 (16%) of 148 patients receiving pembrolizumab and 16 (11%) of 152 patients receiving brentuximab vedotin. One treatment-related death due to pneumonia occurred in the pembrolizumab group. Interpretation Pembrolizumab showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival compared with brentuximab vedotin, with safety consistent with previous reports. These data support pembrolizumab as the preferred treatment option for patients with relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma who have relapsed post-autologous HSCT or are ineligible for autologous HSCT. Funding Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp (a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, NJ, USA). Translation For the Portuguese translation of the Article see Supplementary Materials section.

This manuscript summarizes the results of the consensus meeting composed of hematologists and cardiologists to establish recommendations for the prevention and follow-up of cardiovascular (CV) risk in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) treated with BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) from the point of view of clinical practice and from the perspective of hematology consultation.In the first medical appointment, the CV risk factors should be identified to perform the baseline risk stratification, based on the Brazilian Guideline of Dyslipidemia and Atherosclerosis Prevention Update (risk levels: very high, high, intermediate and low).Once stratified, the treatment of the CV risk factors should be administered. If the patient presents risk factors, such as hypertension, diabetes, renal disease, smoking and hypercholesterolemia, the evaluation and initial treatment may be done by the hematologist, being an option the request for evaluation by a specialist. If the patient has a history of previous CV disease, we recommend referral to a specialist. As the CV risk score is dynamic and the control of risk factors can reduce the patient risk, this expert consensus recommends that the re-evaluation of the CV risk after the baseline should be performed at 3 months, 6 months and 12 months. After this period, it should be done annually and, for specific patients, at the clinician's discretion.The evaluation of the baseline CV risk and the safe administration of a TKI allow the patient to benefit from the maximum treatment, avoiding unwanted effects.

This is an observational and cross-sectional study, carried out in May 2020, targeting adult individuals of both sexes who are members of multiprofessional teams working in Brazilian HSCT units in the current period of the pandemic by completing and analyzing a questionnaire. pre-formulated. HSCT units that cannot access the questionnaire were excluded from the study. The analysis of the operation profile of HSCT units in Brazil, through the application of a pre-structured questionnaire, is not an accurate tool, since it assumes some premises that may prove to be wrong, especially in this current scenario in Brazil. However, the data reveal the vulnerability of patients with onco-hematological diseases to infection by COVID-19, especially during HSCT procedures, in relation to the general population. Despite its limitations, it can be valuable to plan policies.

Made available in DSpace on 2022-04-29T08:28:37Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2020-04-01 The novel Coronavirus (CoVid-19) outbreak is now consider a world pandemic, affecting more than 1,300,000 people worldwide. Cancer patients are in risk for severe disease, including a higher risk of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, need for invasive ventilation or death. Management of patients with lymphoid malignancies can be challenging during the outbreak, due to need of multiple hospital visits and admissions, immunosuppression and need for chemotherapy, radiotherapy and stem cell transplantation. In this article, we will focus on the practical management of patients with lymphoid malignancies during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on minimizing the risk for patients. Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein Américas Oncologia AC Camargo Cancer Center Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu (HC-FMB) Instituto do Cancer de São Paulo (ICESP) Hemomed Hospital Municipal da Vila Santa Catarina Universidade de Campinas (UNICAMP) Grupo Oncoclínicas - CTO/CEON Hospital das Clínicas da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (HC UFMG) Centro de Cancer de Brasilia CETTRO Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp) Hospital Sírio Libanês Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (HPCA) Instituto Nacional do Cancer (INCA) Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ) Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR) FCM da Santa Casa de São Paulo Hospital Samaritano Higienópolis Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu (HC-FMB)

PURPOSE Patients with relapsed or refractory primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (rrPMBCL) have a poor prognosis, and their treatment represents an urgent and unmet need. Because PMBCL is associated with genetic aberrations at 9p24 and overexpression of programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) ligands (PD-L1), it is hypothesized to be susceptible to PD-1 blockade. METHODS In the phase IB KEYNOTE-013 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01953692 ) and phase II KEYNOTE-170 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02576990 ) studies, adults with rrPMBCL received pembrolizumab for up to 2 years or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end points were safety and objective response rate in KEYNOTE-013 and objective response rate in KEYNOTE-170. Secondary end points included duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. Exploratory end points included association between biomarkers and pembrolizumab activity. RESULTS The objective response rate was 48% (7 complete responses; 33%) among 21 patients in KEYNOTE-013 and 45% (7 complete responses; 13%) among 53 patients in KEYNOTE-170. After a median follow-up time of 29.1 months in KEYNOTE-013 and 12.5 months in KEYNOTE-170, the median duration of response was not reached in either study. No patient with complete response experienced progression, including 2 patients with complete response for at least 1 year off therapy. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 24% of patients in KEYNOTE-013 and 23% of patients in KEYNOTE-170. There were no treatment-related deaths. Among 42 evaluable patients, the magnitude of the 9p24 gene abnormality was associated with PD-L1 expression, which was itself significantly associated with progression-free survival. CONCLUSION Pembrolizumab is associated with high response rate, durable activity, and a manageable safety profile in patients with rrPMBCL.

Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) constitute a group of hematologic clonal diseases that affect one or more myeloid lineages with an abnormal and abundant proliferation.16, 17 The World Health Organization (WHO) currently groups the MPNs into seven categories: Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), chronic neutrophilic leukemia (CNL), polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET) primary myelofibrosis (PMF), chronic eosinophilic leukemia not otherwise specified (NOS) and, unclassifiable chronic myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN-U). Mastocytosis is no longer included in that group.16 BCR-ABL1 fusion gene causes CML, identified by the translocation (9; 22) known as the Philadelphia chromosome (Ph), subject of prior guideline. Among the so-called Ph-negative MPNs, the most common ones include PV, ET, and PMF, herein the subject of this publication. PV, ET, and PMF share an anomaly in the JAK-STAT pathway, usually caused by genetic mutations on Janus kinase 2-JAK2 V617F, thrombopoietin receptor gene-myeloproliferative leukemia-MPL or calreticulin gene-CALR, which are mutually exclusive, and necessarily BCR-ABL negative (Table 1). PV, ET, and PMF share an anomaly in the JAK-STAT pathway, usually caused by mutations of the Janus kinase 2-JAK2 V617F genes, thrombopoietin receptor gene-myeloproliferative leukemia-MPL or calreticulin gene-CALR, that are mutually exclusive, and necessarily are BCR-ABL1 negative (Table 1). PV, ET, and PMF may arise alongside other mutations, as well as some cytogenetic abnormalities.16, 17 Despite the significant advances over recent years toward the characterization of genetic alterations, bone marrow morphological evaluation remains an important diagnosis tool.17 JAK2, MPL, and CALR mutations are not unique to these three conditions and may be present in other myeloid neoplasms, or even absent in some cases of PMF and ET.16 Table 1 Diagnostic criteria PV, ET, prefibrotic PMF and overt fibrotic PMF16(D).

7539 Background: For ELEVATE-TN (NCT02475681), we previously reported superior efficacy of acalabrutinib (A) ± obinutuzumab (O) vs O + chlorambucil (Clb) in patients (pts) with treatment-naive (TN) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) at 28.3 and 46.9 months (mo) median follow-up. Now, we report results from a 5-y update. Methods: Pts were randomized to A+O, A, or O+Clb. Pts who progressed on O+Clb could cross over to A monotherapy. Investigator-assessed (INV) progression-free survival (PFS), INV overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety were evaluated. Results: A total of 535 pts (A+O, n=179; A, n=179; O+Clb, n=177) had a median age of 70 y. At a median follow-up of 58.2 mo (range, 0.0–72.0; data cutoff Oct 1, 2021), median PFS was not reached (NR) (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.11) for A+O and A (HR: 0.21) vs 27.8 mo for O+Clb (both P

Aim: This study aimed to evaluate efficacy and safety of generic imatinib (IM) compared to branded imatinib (Glivec) in chronic myeloid leukemia. The primary end-point was the achievement of a major molecular response (MMR) at 12 months and safety. Secondary end-points included response evaluation, overall (OS), event-free survival (EFS) progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity. Methods: Ambispective, multicenter, observational, non-inferiority study, in newly diagnosed Brazilian patients with chronic phase CML patients treated with IM in first line. The historic cohort consisted of CML patients treated with branded IM (Glivec) from January 2010 to December 2011 and the prospective cohort was treated with generics between January 2015 and December 2018. A total of 493 cases (214 Glivec and 279 Generic) from 10 centers were enrolled, and 393 (80%) patients were eligible for analysis (Glivec = 163; Generics = 230). EFS was measured from the start of treatment until loss of complete hematologic response, loss of major cytogenetic response, progression to accelerated or blast crisis, no response or insufficient response to study therapy, after a predefined period of time or death from any cause at any time during initial therapy or permanent discontinuation of IM by adverse events. Results: The median age was 45 and 49 years in Glivec and Generics groups, respectively (p = 0.056). Sokal score stratification in Glivec and generic groups, was respectively: low risk 50/50%; intermediate risk 49/38% and high risk 12/22% (p = 0.05). E14a2 (b3a2) frequency was 63% vs. 52% in Glivec and Generic group, respectively, and e13a2 (b2a2) 36% in both groups, e14a2+e13a2 were 1% vs. 12% (p = 0.005). There was no significant difference in gender, Eutos score and ECOG. The median time between diagnosis and treatment starting was 40 (0-169) and 28 (0-168) days (Glivec vs. Generics, respectively), p = 0.17. MMR rate at 12 months was 77/142 (54%) and 88/145 (61%) in Glivec and generics groups, respectively (p = 0.26). There were more failures in the generics group at 6 months (21% vs. 14%) (p = 0.03, respectively). There was no difference in grade 3-4 hematological and non-hematological toxicity in in the first 12 months. EFS at 24 months were higher in Glivec cohort and 76% vs. 53%, p < 0.0001, respectively), PFS and OS was not significantly different (respectively: 96% vs. 93%, p = 0.09 and 97% vs 96%, p = 0.41). The independent risk factors associated with inferior EFS were: generics use (HR = 1.78; 95%CI 1.06-2.99; p = 0.02) and High Sokal index (HR 2.25; 95%CI 1.38-3.67; p = 0.001). Conclusion: In the intention to treat analysis there was no significant difference in the primary end-point (MMR and safety at 12 months). The generics cohort presented more failures at 6 months compared to branded imatinib and inferior 24 month-EFS. There was no difference in the 24-month OS and PFS. The interpretation of the results should take into consideration the differences in CML management over the years.

Context: Results from ELEVATE-TN (NCT02475681) at a median follow-up of 28.3 months demonstrated superior efficacy of acalabrutinib (A) ± obinutuzumab (O) compared with O + chlorambucil (Clb) in TN CLL (Sharman et al. Lancet 2020;395:1278-91). Objective: To report the results from a 4-year update of ELEVATE-TN. Design: Randomized, multicenter, open-label, 3-arm, Phase 3 study. Patients: TN CLL. Interventions: Patients received A±O or O+Clb. Crossover to A monotherapy was permitted in patients who progressed on O+Clb. Main Outcome Measures: Investigator-assessed (INV) progression-free survival PFS, INV ORR, OS, and safety were evaluated. Results: 535 patients (A+O, n=179; A, n=179; O+Clb, n=177) were randomized with a median age of 70 y; 14% had del(17p) and/or mutated TP53. At a median follow-up of 46.9 months (range, 0.0–59.4; data cutoff: Sept 11, 2020), median PFS was not reached (NR) for A+O and A patients vs 27.8 months for O+Clb patients (both P Conclusions: With a median follow-up of 46.9 months (~4y), the efficacy and safety of A+O and A monotherapy was maintained, with an increase in CR since the interim analysis (from 21% to 27% [A+O] and from 7% to 11% [A]) and low rates of discontinuation.

Background: Acalabrutinib is a selective, covalent Bruton tyrosine-kinase inhibitor with activity in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. We compare the efficacy of acalabrutinib with or without obinutuzumab against chlorambucil with obinutuzumab in patients with treatment-naive chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Methods: ELEVATE TN is a global, phase 3, multicentre, open-label study in patients with treatment-naive chronic lymphocytic leukaemia done at 142 academic and community hospitals in 18 countries. Eligible patients had untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and were aged 65 years or older, or older than 18 years and younger than 65 years with creatinine clearance of 30–69 mL/min (calculated by use of the Cockcroft-Gault equation) or Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics score greater than 6. Additional criteria included an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 2 or less and adequate haematologic, hepatic, and renal function. Patients with significant cardiovascular disease were excluded, and concomitant treatment with warfarin or equivalent vitamin K antagonists was prohibited. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) centrally via an interactive voice or web response system to receive acalabrutinib and obinutuzumab, acalabrutinib monotherapy, or obinutuzumab and oral chlorambucil. Treatments were administered in 28-day cycles. To reduce infusion-related reactions, acalabrutinib was administered for one cycle before obinutuzumab administration. Oral acalabrutinib was administered (100 mg) twice a day until progressive disease or unacceptable toxic effects occurred. In the acalabrutinib-obinutuzumab group, intravenous obinutuzumab was given on days 1 (100 mg), 2 (900 mg), 8 (1000 mg), and 15 (1000 mg) of cycle 2 and on day 1 (1000 mg) of cycles 3–7. In the obinutuzumab-chlorambucil group, intravenous obinutuzumab was given on days 1 (100 mg), 2 (900 mg), 8 (1000 mg), and 15 (1000 mg) of cycle 1 and on day 1 (1000 mg) of cycles 2–6. Oral chlorambucil was given (0·5 mg/kg) on days 1 and 15 of each cycle, for six cycles. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival between the two combination-therapy groups, assessed by independent review committee. Crossover to acalabrutinib was allowed in patients who progressed on obinutuzumab-chlorambucil. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of treatment. Enrolment for this trial is complete, and the study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02475681. Findings: Between Sept 14, 2015, and Feb 8, 2017, we recruited 675 patients for assessment. 140 patients did not meet eligibility criteria, and 535 patients were randomly assigned to treatment. 179 patients were assigned to receive acalabrutinib-obinutuzumab, 179 patients were assigned to receive acalabrutinib monotherapy, and 177 patients were assigned to receive obinutuzumab-chlorambucil. At median follow-up of 28·3 months (IQR 25·6–33·1), median progression-free survival was longer with acalabrutinib-obinutuzumab and acalabrutinib monotherapy, compared with obinutuzumab-chlorambucil (median not reached with acalabrutinib and obinutuzumab vs 22·6 months with obinutuzumab, hazard ratio [HR] 0·1; 95% CI 0·06–0·17, p

Background: Programmed death 1 blockade via pembrolizumab monotherapy has demonstrated favourable anti-tumor activity and toxicity in patients with relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). KEYNOTE-204 (NCT02684292) was a randomised, international, open-label, phase 3 study of pembrolizumab versus brentuximab vedotin for relapsed/refractory cHL. Here, we present the interim efficacy and safety analyses. Methods: Patients aged ≥18 years ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) or who had relapsed post-ASCT with measurable disease and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were enrolled. Brentuximab vedotin-naive and -exposed patients were eligible. Patients were randomised 1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks (q3w) or brentuximab vedotin 1.8 mg/kg IV q3w. The primary endpoint, assessed in the intent-to-treat population, was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review per International Working Group 2007 criteria including clinical and imaging data after autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplant. Findings: One hundred fifty-one patients were randomised to pembrolizumab and 153 to brentuximab vedotin. After a median time from randomisation to the data cutoff of 25·7 (IQR 9·6) months, median PFS was 13·2 months for pembrolizumab versus 8·3 months for brentuximab vedotin (HR for disease progression or survival: 0·65 [95% CI 0·48-0·88; p=0·00271]). Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were experienced by 19·6% of patients with pembrolizumab and 25·0% with brentuximab vedotin; serious TRAEs occurred in 16·2% and 10·5% of patients, respectively. One treatment-related death due to pneumonia occurred in the pembrolizumab arm. Interpretation: Pembrolizumab was superior to brentuximab vedotin and demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS, with safety consistent with previous reports. These data support pembrolizumab as the preferred treatment option for patients with relapsed/refractory cHL who have relapsed post-ASCT or are ineligible for ASCT. Trial Registration: This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02684292). Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA) Declaration of Interests: John Kuruvilla: Honoraria: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Seattle Genetics; Consultancy/Advisory: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Roche/Genentech, Seattle Genetics; Research funding: Janssen, Roche Radhakrishnan Ramchandren: Consultancy/Advisory: Seattle Genetics, Sandoz-Novartis, Pharmacyclics/Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb; Research funding: Merck, Seattle Genetics, Janssen, Genentech Armando Santoro: Consultancy/Advisory: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Servier, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, MSD, Sanofi, ArQule; Speaker Bureau: Takeda, Roche, AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, AstraZeneca, ArQule, Lilly, Sandoz, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Servier, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, Merck Ewa Paszkiewicz-Kozik: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Takeda, Celgene Robin Gasiorowski: Honoraria: Merck, Takeda, Novartis, AbbVie Nathalie A. Johnson: Honoraria: Roche/Genentech, Merck; Consultancy/Advisory: Roche/Genentech, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie; Research funding: AbbVie Laura Maria Fogliatto: No conflicts to disclose Iara Goncalves: Consultancy/Advisory: Janssen; Speaker Bureau: Janssen; Research funding: Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, Bayer, Novartis, Merck, Bayer, Celgene, Glaxo, Bristol-Myers Squibb Jose S. R. de Oliveira: No conflicts to disclose Valeria Buccheri: Consultancy/Advisory: AstraZeneca; Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AbbVie, Takeda: Research funding: Merck, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Takeda Guilherme Fleury Perini: Honoraria: Janssen, Takeda; Speaker Bureau: AbbVie, Janssen Neta Goldschmidt: No conflicts to disclose Iryna Kriachok: Consultancy/Advisory: Takeda, Janssen; Expert Testimony: Takeda, Janssen; Travel, Accommodations Expenses: Takeda, Merck, AbbVie, Roche; Research funding: Janssen, Bayer, Karyopharm, Merck, Acerta, AbbVie, Debiopharm Michael Dickinson: Honoraria: Merck, Roche, Takeda, Celgene, Novartis; Consultancy/Advisory: Merck, Roche, Takeda, Celgene, Novartis; Speaker Bureau: Merck, Roche, Takeda, Celgene, Novartis; Research funding: Merck, Roche, Takeda, Celgene, Novartis; Mieczyslaw Komarnicki: No conflicts to disclose Andrew McDonald: No conflicts to disclose Muhit Ozcan: Research funding: Merck, Bayer, Roche, Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Archigen, Novartis, AbbVie; Honoraria: Roche, Takeda, AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb Naohiro Sekiguchi: Research funding (institution): Ono, A2 Healthcare, Astellas, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Otsuka, Pfizer, PPD-SNBL, Sumitomo Dainippon, Daiichi Sankyo, BristolMyers Squibb Ying Zhu: Employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA Akash Nahar: Employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA Patricia Marinello: Employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, and stockholder of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA; and has received travel expenses from Merck & Co., Inc. Pier Luigi Zinzani: Speakers’ bureaus for Verastem, Celltrion, Gilead, Janssen-Cilag, BristolMyers Squibb, Servier, Sandoz, Merck, Immune Design, Celgene, Portola, Roche, EUSA Pharma, Kyowa Kirin, and Sanofi; Advisory boards: Verastem, Celltrion, Gilead, Janssen-Cilag, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Servier, Merck & Co., Inc., Immune Design, Celgene, Portola, Roche, EUSA Pharma, Kyowa Kirin, and Sanofi; Consultant: Verastem, Merck, EUSA Pharma, and Sanofi. Ethics Approval Statement: The study was approved by the independent institutional review boards for each study site and conducted in accordance with the International Conference on Harmonization Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice and the Declaration of Helsinki.

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.

7509 Background: Early results from ELEVATE-TN (NCT02475681) at a median follow-up of 28.3 mo demonstrated superior efficacy of acalabrutinib (A) ± obinutuzumab (O) compared with O + chlorambucil (Clb) in patients (pts) with treatment-naïve (TN) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) (Sharman et al. Lancet 2020;395:1278-91). Results from a 4-year update are reported here. Methods: Pts received A±O or O+Clb. Crossover to A monotherapy was permitted in pts who progressed on O+Clb. Investigator-assessed (INV) progression-free survival (PFS), INV overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety were evaluated. Results: 535 pts (A+O, n=179; A, n=179; O+Clb, n=177) were randomized with a median age of 70 y; 63% had unmutated IGHV and 9% del(17p). At a median follow-up of 46.9 mo (range, 0.0–59.4; data cutoff: Sept 11, 2020), the median PFS was not reached (NR) for A+O and A pts vs 27.8 mo for O+Clb pts (both P

7545 Background: Obinutuzumab (G)-chemotherapy (chemo) has demonstrated improved progression-free survival compared with rituximab (R)-chemo in previously untreated advanced follicular lymphoma (FL). G is currently administered by IV infusion over ̃3–4 hours. A shorter duration of infusion in Cycle (C) 2 and subsequent cycles, as is standard practice with R, could improve convenience for patients (pts) and efficiency for infusion facilities. We report the primary analysis of the prospective, open-label, multicenter, single-arm, Phase IV, GAZELLE study (NCT03817853), which evaluated the safety of G administered as a 90-minute (min) SDI from C2 onwards in pts with FL. Methods: Pts with previously untreated FL received G (1000mg) intravenously on Day (D) 1, 8, and 15 of C1, and on D1 thereafter, plus chemo (bendamustine, CHOP, or CVP) for 6–8 cycles. In C1, pts received G at the standard infusion rate. Pts without a Grade (Gr) ≥3 infusion-related reaction (IRR) in C1 were eligible to receive G as a 90-min SDI from C2. Pts with a Gr 3 IRR in C1 received the standard G infusion in C2, and were eligible for G SDI in subsequent cycles if no Gr ≥3 IRRs occurred. Pts with a second Gr 3/4 IRR discontinued G. At the end of induction (EOI), responding pts received maintenance G (1000mg) as SDI for 2 years or until disease progression (PD). The primary endpoint was incidence of Gr ≥3 IRRs during C2. IRRs were defined as any event occurring ≤24 hours from infusion judged to be related to treatment. Secondary endpoints included adverse events (AEs) and investigator-assessed overall response rate at EOI. Results: As of December 3, 2020, 113 pts had received study treatment. Median age was 62.0 years, 50.4% were male, 61.9% had stage IV FL, and 45.1% were classified as high-risk FLIPI. Of the 110 pts who were eligible for G SDI from C2, no pt experienced a Gr ≥3 IRR with SDI in C2 (Table). One pt experienced a Gr 3 IRR with SDI in C5, presenting hypertension. All other IRRs with SDI were Gr 1/2. No Gr 4/5 IRRs were reported. Other AEs were similar to those observed in previous studies. At the clinical cut-off date, 104 pts had a CT imaging-based response assessment at EOI and 9 pts had no response assessment; 76/113 (67.3%) had a complete response, 22 (19.5%) had a partial response, and six (5.8%) had PD. Conclusions: In GAZELLE, G SDI in C2 and beyond appeared to be safe. No Gr 3 IRRs were observed in C2 and only one Gr 3 IRR was reported in subsequent cycles. The safety profile of G SDI was comparable with the established profile of G in advanced FL. Clinical trial information: NCT03817853. [Table: see text]

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.

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.

Imatinib (IM) is a first choice drug for treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), with a widely accepted concentration threshold of 1000ng/ml being used as a target for therapeutic drug monitoring. Once adherence to the pharmacotherapeutic regimen is of paramount importance during the long treatment course of CML, the measurement of hair IM concentrations could be a surrogate of the patient's exposure to the drug.IM was extracted from a 5mg hair sample by a liquid-liquid extraction with ethyl acetate, and IM-d8 was used as internal standard (IS). After evaporation, and reconstitution in acetonitrile, the extract was injected into a LC-MS/MS system. Compounds were eluted on a C8 column in isocratic mode. IM and IS were identified in positive electrospray ionization mode using ion transitions of m/z 494.5394.5 and 503.0394.3 respectively. The method was applied to 102 paired hair and samples obtained from CML patients. Treatment response was evaluated according to the European LeukemiaNet recommendations.The assay was validated in the concentration range of 0.5-25ng/mg, with intra- and inter-assay imprecisions of13.1% and9.3%, respectively. The limits of quantification and detection were 0.5 and 0.15ng/mg, respectively. Median hair IM concentrations are significantly smaller in patients with therapeutic failure when compared with patients with partial or optimal response (4.63 vs. 7.93, p=0.040), the same trend presented by median plasma IM concentrations (629.5 vs. 1084.8, p=0.009). An IM hair concentration below 5.8ng/mg has 83% sensibility and 70% specificity to identify patients with therapeutic failure.A fast, sensitive, and selective LC-MS/MS method allowing quantification of IM in hair samples was developed and validated. CML patients with therapeutic failure had significantly lower hair IM concentrations when compared with patients with optimal response. These preliminary findings may support the use of hair as a matrix for IM monitoring in clinical settings, with significant logistic advantages over the collection of venous blood, particularly in developing countries.

8005 Background: PD-1 blockade via pembro monotherapy showed antitumor activity in R/R cHL. KEYNOTE-204 (NCT02684292) was a randomized, international, open-label, phase III study of pembro vs BV in R/R cHL. Methods: Patients (pts) were aged ≥18 y, were post−autologous stem cell transplant (auto-SCT) or ineligible for auto-SCT, and had measurable disease and ECOG PS 0 or 1. BV-naive and BV-exposed pts were eligible. Pts were randomized 1:1 to pembro 200 mg IV Q3W or BV 1.8 mg/kg IV Q3W and stratified by prior auto-SCT (yes vs no) and status after 1L therapy (primary refractory vs relapsed

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.

Introdução: O filgrastim, que desempenha um papel fundamental na coleta de células progenitoras de sangue periférico (CPSP), está disponível há quase 25 anos, e existem vários biossimilares de filgrastim sendo comercializados. Objetivo: Avaliar se um filgrastim biossimilar (Filgrastine®) foi associado com mobilização efetiva em pacientes submetidos à coleta de CPSP para transplante autólogo de medula óssea. Método: Foram revisados os prontuários de pacientes com mieloma múltiplo e linfomas tratados em três instituições no Brasil. O desfecho primário (taxa de sucesso de mobilização) foi a proporção de pacientes na população intenção de tratar (ITT), em que pelo menos 2 x 106 células CD34+/kg foram coletadas por leucaférese nos dias 5 e/ou 6. A população per protocolo (PP) foi composta por pacientes que receberam pelo menos quatro dias de Filgrastine e tiveram pelo menos uma contagem de CD34+ nos dias 5 ou 6. Resultados: A dose diária de Filgrastine (no D1, com pequenas alterações subsequentes) variou de 8,5 a 28,9 mcg/Kg nos 52pacientes na população ITT, com uma mediana de 13,8 mcg/Kg; 51 pacientes receberam pelo menos quatro doses. Uma média de 2,84±1,97 x 106 células CD34+/kg foram coletadas. A taxa de sucesso de mobilização foi de 53,9% (IC 95%, 39,5% a 67,8%) na população ITT e 62,2% (IC 95%, 46,5% a 76,2%) nos 45 pacientes da população PP. A mobilização foi considerada efetiva pelos pesquisadores em 80,8% dos pacientes da população ITT e 88,9% daqueles na população PP. Conclusão: Apesar de sua natureza observacional, este estudo sugere que Filgrastine esteja associado com as taxas de sucesso esperadas na coleta de CPSP para transplante autólogo de medula óssea. Introducción: El filgrastim, que desempeña un papel fundamental en la colecta de células progenitoras de sangre periférica (CPSP), está disponible desde hace casi 25 años y existen varios biosimilares de filgrastim siendo comercializados. Objetivo: Se evaluó si un filgrastim biosimilar (Filgrastine®) se asoció con una movilización efectiva en pacientes sometidos a la colecta de CPSP para el trasplante autólogo de médula ósea. Método: Se revisaron los prontuarios de pacientes con mieloma múltiple y linfomas tratados en tres instituciones en Brasil. El resultado primario (tasa de éxito de movilización) fue la proporción de pacientes en la población intención de tratar (ITT) en que al menos 2 x 106 células CD34+/kg fueron obtenidas por leucoféresis en los días 5 y/o 6. La población por protocolo (PP) fue compuesta por pacientes que recibieron por lo menos 4 días de Filgrastine y tuvieron al menos un recuento de CD34 + en los días 5 o 6. Resultados: La dosis diaria de Filgrastine (en el D1, con pequeños cambios subsiguientes) varió de 8, 5 a 28,9 mcg/Kg en los 52 pacientes en la población ITT, con una mediana de 13,8 mcg / Kg; 51 pacientes recibieron al menos cuatro dosis. Se obtuvo una media de 2,84±1,97 x 106 células CD34+/ kg. La tasa de éxito de movilización fue del 53,9% (IC 95%, 39,5% a 67,8%) en la población ITT y el 62,2% (IC 95%, 46,5% a 76,2%), en los 45 pacientes de la población PP. La movilización fue considerada efectiva por los investigadores en el 80,8% de los pacientes de la población ITT y el 88,9% de aquellos en la población PP. Conclusión: A pesar de su naturaleza observacional, este estudio sugiere que Filgrastine está asociado con las tasas de éxito esperadas en la recolección de CPSP para trasplante autólogo de médula ósea. Introduction: Filgrastim, which plays a key role in peripheral-blood progenitor cell (PBPC) harvesting, has been available for nearly 25years, and several filgrastim biosimilars are available. Objective: We assessed whether a biosimilar filgrastim (Filgrastine®) was associatedwith effective mobilization in patients undergoing PBPC harvest for autologous transplantation. Method: We reviewed the charts ofpatients with multiple myeloma and lymphomas treated at three institutions in Brazil. The primary outcome (mobilization success rate,MSR) was the proportion of patients in the intention-to-treat (ITT ) population in whom at least 2 x 106 CD34+cells/Kg were harvestedby leukapheresis on days 5 and/or 6. The per-protocol (PP) population comprised patients who received at least 4 days of Filgrastine andhad at least one CD34+ count on Days 5 or 6. Results: The daily dose of Filgrastine (on D1, with few changes thereafter) ranged from8.5 to 28.9 mcg/Kg in the 52 patients in the ITT population, with a median of 13.8 mcg/Kg; 51 patients received at least four doses. Amean of 2.84±1.97 x 106 CD34+cells/Kg were harvested. The MSR was 53.9% (95% CI, 39.5% to 67.8%) in the ITT population and62.2% (95% CI, 46.5% to 76.2%) in the 45 patients in the PP population. The mobilization was considered effective by investigators in80.8% of patients in the ITT population and 88.9% of those in the PP population. Conclusion: Despite its observational nature, thisstudy suggests that Filgrastine® is associated with the expected success rates in PBPC harvest for autologous transplantation.

Objective: To assess clinical outcomes of intolerant, relapsed or refractory patients who could not be treated with new tyrosine kinase inhibitors or experimental therapies. Methods: A retrospective cohort of 90 chronic myeloid leukemia patients in all phases of the disease treated with imatinib mesylate as their first TKI therapy, and with dasatinib or nilotinib as the next line of therapy. We evaluated clinical outcomes of these patients, with special focus on the group that needed more than two therapy lines. Results: Thirty-nine percent of patients were refractory or intolerant to imatinib. An 8-year overall survival rate of the patients who went through three or more lines of treatment was significantly lower, compared to those who were able to maintain imatinib as their first-line therapy (83% and 22%, respectively p

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), a disorder for which B cell heterogeneity and increased cellular proliferation play central pathogenic roles, displays several genetic abnormalities that are associated with poor prognosis and have therapeutic implications. In this review, we discuss the prognostic role and therapeutic implications of chromosome 17p deletions and TP53 mutations in CLL. Unlike other recurrent genetic abnormalities, the frequency of TP53 alterations is relatively low in newly diagnosed patients, but increases sharply with disease progression, which suggests that these alterations represent an evolutionary mechanism of resistance. In comparison with patients without such abnormalities, those with 17p deletions and TP53 mutations have lower response rates and more aggressive disease. One important consequence of the diverse molecular mechanisms that affect the TP53 pathway is the need to assess both the presence of 17p deletion and TP53 mutations before treatment initiation. Several authors have attempted to incorporate TP53 abnormalities in different prognostic models for CLL, and the recent International Prognostic Index for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia formally considers patients with TP53 abnormalities (deletion 17p or TP53 mutation or both) as high-risk. Several novel agents may improve results in patients with CLL, including in those with TP53 mutations. Ibrutinib, idelalisib, and venetoclax have been approved in various settings and countries for treatment of CLL. Further progress in targeted therapy and judicious use of chemotherapy, monoclonal antibodies, and reduced-intensity allogeneic transplantation will provide patients with CLL in general, and those with TP53 abnormalities in particular, with a better prognosis.

7514 Background: Relapse is expected in treated indolent lymphoma patients, and an unmet need exists to prolong remission with effective therapies. Lenalidomide + rituximab (R2) may improve the efficacy of next treatment by their unique mechanisms. Methods: The AUGMENT phase III study evaluated patients with R/R FL gr 1-3a (82%) and MZL (18%) after ≥ 1 prior systemic therapy (not rituximab refractory). Randomization was 1:1 to R2 (lenalidomide PO 20 mg/d, d1-21/28 X12 cycles [c] + rituximab [R] IV 375 mg/m2/wk, c1, d1, 8, 15, 22 and c2-5, d1) and R/placebo (same dosing schedule). The primary endpoint was PFS by 2007 IWG; secondary/exploratory analyses were time to next antilymphoma/chemotherapy treatment (TTNLT/TTNCT) and response to next treatment. Per regulatory guidance, PFS2 was defined as time from randomization to first PD or death from any cause after next antilymphoma treatment, or initiation of a third antilymphoma treatment. Results: Median PFS was superior for R2 over R/placebo (39.4 vs 14.1 mo; HR = 0.46; P < 0.0001). As of 22June2018, median TTNLT, TTNCT, and PFS2 were not reached for R2, and were significantly longer than R/placebo (HR = 0.54, 0.50, and 0.52, respectively). For 49/178 (28%) R2 and 80/180 (44%) R/placebo patients receiving next antilymphoma therapy, response was generally higher with R2 (57% ORR; 31% CR) than R/placebo (36% ORR; 16% CR; Table). Conclusions: These analyses suggest that R2 (vs R/placebo) prolonged time to subsequent treatment and is associated with longer PFS2, enabling greater response to next therapy. Although patient numbers were modest, it is hypothesized that patients who received R2 were generally more sensitive to subsequent therapy than those treated with R/placebo. Clinical trial information: NCT01938001. [Table: see text]