Search

BACKGROUNDRandomized trials of venetoclax plus anti-CD20 antibodies as first-line treatment in fit patients (i.e., those with a low burden of coexisting conditions) with advanced chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have been lacking.METHODSIn a phase 3, open-label trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1:1 ratio, fit patients with CLL who did not have TP53 aberrations to receive six cycles of chemoimmunotherapy (fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab) or 12 cycles of venetoclax-rituximab, venetoclax-obinutuzumab, or venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib. Ibrutinib was discontinued after two consecutive measurements of undetectable minimal residual disease or could be extended. The primary end points were undetectable minimal residual disease (sensitivity, RESULTSA total of 926 patients were assigned to one of the four treatment regimens (229 to chemoimmunotherapy, 237 to venetoclax-rituximab, 229 to venetoclax-obinutuzumab, and 231 to venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib). At month 15, the percentage of patients with undetectable minimal residual disease was significantly higher in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group (86.5%; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 80.6 to 91.1) and the venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib group (92.2%; 97.5% CI, 87.3 to 95.7) than in the chemoimmunotherapy group (52.0%; 97.5% CI, 44.4 to 59.5; PCONCLUSIONSVenetoclax-obinutuzumab with or without ibrutinib was superior to chemoimmunotherapy as first-line treatment in fit patients with CLL. (Funded by AbbVie and others; GAIA-CLL13 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02950051; EudraCT number, 2015-004936-36.) BACKGROUNDRandomized trials of venetoclax plus anti-CD20 antibodies as first-line treatment in fit patients (i.e., those with a low burden of coexisting conditions) with advanced chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have been lacking.METHODSIn a phase 3, open-label trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1:1 ratio, fit patients with CLL who did not have TP53 aberrations to receive six cycles of chemoimmunotherapy (fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab) or 12 cycles of venetoclax-rituximab, venetoclax-obinutuzumab, or venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib. Ibrutinib was discontinued after two consecutive measurements of undetectable minimal residual disease or could be extended. The primary end points were undetectable minimal residual disease (sensitivity, RESULTSA total of 926 patients were assigned to one of the four treatment regimens (229 to chemoimmunotherapy, 237 to venetoclax-rituximab, 229 to venetoclax-obinutuzumab, and 231 to venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib). At month 15, the percentage of patients with undetectable minimal residual disease was significantly higher in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group (86.5%; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 80.6 to 91.1) and the venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib group (92.2%; 97.5% CI, 87.3 to 95.7) than in the chemoimmunotherapy group (52.0%; 97.5% CI, 44.4 to 59.5; PCONCLUSIONSVenetoclax-obinutuzumab with or without ibrutinib was superior to chemoimmunotherapy as first-line treatment in fit patients with CLL. (Funded by AbbVie and others; GAIA-CLL13 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02950051; EudraCT number, 2015-004936-36.)

We develop the first agent-based model (ABM) that can compete with benchmark VAR and DSGE models in out-of-sample forecasting of macro variables. Our ABM for a small open economy uses micro and macro data from national accounts, sector accounts, input–output tables, government statistics, and census and business demography data. The model incorporates all economic activities as classified by the European System of Accounts (ESA 2010) and includes all economic sectors populated with millions of heterogeneous agents. In addition to being a competitive model framework for forecasts of aggregate variables, the detailed structure of the ABM allows for a breakdown into sector-level forecasts. Using this detailed structure, we demonstrate the ABM by forecasting the medium-run macroeconomic effects of lockdown measures taken in Austria to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Potential applications of the model include stress-testing and predicting the effects of monetary or fiscal macroeconomic policies.

Treatment results of AML in elderly patients are unsatisfactory. In an open label randomized phase II study, we investigated whether addition of the XPO1 inhibitor selinexor to intensive chemotherapy would improve outcome in this population. 102 AML patients > 65 years of age (median 69 (65–80)) were randomly assigned to standard chemotherapy (3 + 7) with or without oral selinexor 60 mg twice weekly (both arms n = 51), days 1–24. In the second cycle, cytarabine 1000 mg/m2 twice daily, days 1–6 with or without selinexor was given. CR/CRi rates were significantly higher in the control arm than in the investigational arm (80% (95% C.I. 69–91%) vs. 59% (45–72%; p = 0.018), respectively). At 18 months, event-free survival was 45% for the control arm versus 26% for the investigational arm (Cox-p = 0.012) and overall survival 58% vs. 33%, respectively (p = 0.009). AML and infectious complications accounted for an increased death rate in the investigational arm. Irrespective of treatment, MRD status after two cycles appeared to be correlated with survival. We conclude that the addition of selinexor to standard chemotherapy does negatively affect the therapeutic outcome of elderly AML patients. (Netherlands Trial Registry number NL5748 (NTR5902), www.trialregister.nl).

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

Context: Ibrutinib inhibits BTK with the most typical response in CLL being partial remission (PR) with measurable minimal residual disease (MRD) in blood. Remission is usually maintained until development of genetically-driven resistance. Objective: Mechanism of adaptation and survival in MRD. Patients and Methods: Pre-treatment CLL cells and under-treatment MRD were systematically collected from 33 high-risk CLL patients. Samples were characterized by high-dimensional, single-cell flow cytometry; bulk genomic, transcriptomic, and chromatin accessibility profiling; and single-cell RNA-seq profiling. Results: The genetic composition of MRD remained constant across timepoints, indicating that ibrutinib did not have any impact in shaping its genomic diversity. Ibrutinib induced chromatin dynamics in MRD resulting in a predominantly closed state. Chromatin regions that became more accessible under ibrutinib were enriched of binding sites for transcription factor that lay downstream ERK signaling. Regions that turned into a less accessible state were enriched for the binding sites of TF emanating from the BCR. At the transcriptomic level, most of the differentially expressed genes between pre- and post-treatment samples were downregulated in MRD, while only a fraction was upregulated. IL4, NF-kB, and metabolism and proliferation signatures were downregulated in MRD, while MAPK and RAS signatures were upregulated. CLL spleen samples from TCL1 mice under ibrutinib treatment showed an upregulation of MAPK pathway genes compared to untreated mice. Single-cell transcriptomes revealed a distinct post-treatment cell population driven by MAPK activity that functionally pre-existed in a fraction of CLL cells of baseline samples before ibrutinib start. At the signaling level, ibrutinib had no effect on the integrity of RAS-BRAF-MAPK-ERK pathway protein expression upon crosslinking of the BCR with anti-IgM but not after stimulation of TLR9 or CD40. Functional validation on primary samples by western blotting shows that RAS/ERK can be activated by BCR stimulation, irrespective of ibrutinib treatment in ex vivo experiments. Pharmacological inhibition of MEK (trametinib) and ERK (ulixertinib) synergized with ibrutinib, leading to decreased cell viability. Conclusions: MRD under ibrutinib adapts its phenotype in an epigenetic way to maintain functional competence of BCR signaling via the MAPK pathway, which turned to be a vulnerability of MRD persisting under ibrutinib.

Simple Summary Treatment results of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in elderly patients are unsatisfactory. We investigated in an open label randomized phase II study whether addition of tosedostat, an aminopeptidase inhibitor, to intensive chemotherapy would improve outcome in this population. 231 AML patients > 65 years of age were randomly assigned to receive standard chemotherapy with or without tosedostat for two cycles. We found that complete bone marrow leukemia clearance was not significantly different between both arms. After two years, survival was 33% for the standard arm versus 18% for the tosedostat arm. More patients died due to infectious complications in the tosedostat arm than after standard treatment. Also, a cardiac rhythm abnormality called atrial fibrillation was more often seen in the tosedostat arm. We conclude that the addition of tosedostat to standard chemotherapy does negatively affect the therapeutic outcome of elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Abstract Treatment results of AML in elderly patients are unsatisfactory. We hypothesized that addition of tosedostat, an aminopeptidase inhibitor, to intensive chemotherapy may improve outcome in this population. After establishing a safe dose in a run-in phase of the study in 22 patients, 231 eligible patients with AML above 65 years of age (median 70, range 66–81) were randomly assigned in this open label randomized Phase II study to receive standard chemotherapy (3+7) with or without tosedostat at the selected daily dose of 120 mg (n = 116), days 1–21. In the second cycle, patients received cytarabine 1000 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-6 with or without tosedostat. CR/CRi rates in the 2 arms were not significantly different (69% (95% C.I. 60–77%) vs 64% (55–73%), respectively). At 24 months, event-free survival (EFS) was 20% for the standard arm versus 12% for the tosedostat arm (Cox-p = 0.01) and overall survival (OS) 33% vs 18% respectively (p = 0.006). Infectious complications accounted for an increased early death rate in the tosedostat arm. Atrial fibrillation was more common in the tosedostat arm as well. The results of the present study show that the addition of tosedostat to standard chemotherapy does negatively affect the therapeutic outcome of elderly AML patients.

Objective This study aimed to provide an extensive overview of clinical and pathological findings along with various therapeutic options analyzing in addiction, retrospectively, the surgical outcomes of a single center cohort. Background Thymic neoplasms are rare thoracic tumors which commonly are located in the anterior mediastinum and are associated with a wide spectrum of clinical presentations. They may run an indolent course or could present a very aggressive biologic progression with infiltration of mediastinal structures and presence of distant metastases. The pathogenesis of these tumors is so far not completely clear. Several treatment modalities in a multidisciplinary setting have to be considered in order to provide the best treatment for patients affected by thymic tumors. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of all patients who underwent surgery due to thymic tumor in a university hospital located in Switzerland (Bern University Hospital) and then we performed a narrative review of the English literature using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Scopus. Conclusions Minimally invasive techniques play an important role in the treatment of thymic tumors. A careful patients selection in a multidisciplinary setting is mandatory in order to offer the best treatment for patients affected by thymic tumors.

Collaboration between researchers from IIASA, WU, WIFO, and the IHS provides scenarios of the medium-run economic effects of the lockdown in Austria using the IIASA macroeconomic simulation model. The analysis suggests that the return to the business-as-usual trend may take up to three years after a steep initial economic downturn due to the lockdown, and a gradual recovery thereafter.

In recent years, considerable progress has been made in frontline therapy for elderly/physically unfit patients with CLL. The combination of obinutuzumab and chlorambucil (O-Clb) has been shown to prolong progression free survival (PFS, median PFS-31.5 months) and overall survival (OS) compared to chlorambucil alone. More recently, obinutuzumab given in combination with either ibrutinib or venetoclax improved PFS but not OS when compared to O-Clb. In this retrospective multinational, multicenter co-operative study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of frontline treatment with O ± Clb in unfit patients with CLL, in a “real-world” setting. Patients with documented del (17p13.1)/TP53 mutation were excluded. A total of 437 patients (median age, 75.9 years; median CIRS score, 8; median creatinine clearance, 61.1 mL/min) were included. The clinical overall response rate was 80.3% (clinical complete and partial responses in 38.7% and 41.6% of patients, respectively). Median observation time was 14.1 months and estimated median PFS was 27.6 months (95% CI, 24.2-31.0). In a multivariate analysis, high-risk disease [del (11q22.3) and/or IGHV-unmutated], lymph nodes of diameter > 5 cm, obinutuzumab monotherapy and reduced cumulative dose of obinutuzumab, were all independently associated with shorter PFS. The median OS has not yet been reached and estimated 2-year OS is 88%. In conclusion, in a “real-world” setting, frontline treatment with O-Clb achieves PFS comparable to that reported in clinical trials. Inferior outcomes were noted in patients with del (11q22.3) and/or unmutated IGHV and those treated with obinutuzumab-monotherapy. Thus, O-Clb can be still considered as legitimate frontline therapy for unfit CLL patients with low-risk disease.

Objective To evaluate the perioperative course of urine levels of the renal damage biomarkers tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 2 (TIMP-2) and insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 7 (IGFBP7) and to evaluate the predictive value of elevated TIMP-2 × IGFBP7 concentrations to predict acute kidney injury (AKI) early after cardiac on-pump surgery. Design Prospective, observational cohort study. Setting University hospital. Participants The study comprised 110 consecutive patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) between January and March 2014. Interventions None. Measurements and Main Results Urinary TIMP-2 × IGFBP7 levels were quantified using a commercially available kit at the following measurement points: before surgery, 1 hour after starting CPB, 4 hours after weaning from CPB, and 24 hours after weaning from CPB (time points 1-4). Postoperative AKI was defined according to Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes criteria. AKI after cardiac surgery was diagnosed in 9 patients (8%). The perioperative course of TIMP-2 × IGFBP7 was significantly different in patients with and without postoperative AKI (p 0.40 (ng/mL) 2 /1,000 measured at 1 hour after starting CPB were found to be the optimal cut-off, with a sensitivity of 0.778 and a specificity of 0.641. The negative predictive value was 0.972. Conclusions Urine levels of TIMP-2 × IGFBP7 are predictive for AKI at an early time point (1 hour after starting CPB). Renal damage biomarkers such as TIMP-2 and IGFBP7 might be recommended as a supplement to traditionally used criteria of AKI prediction.

Background: In early studies of venetoclax (ven) in CLL, severe tumor lysis syndromes (TLS) were observed leading to the implementation of multiple safety measures including a 5-week ramp up schedule. Since then, studies have consistently reported low rates of TLS in ven-treated patients (pts), most likely as a result of strict prophylactic and laboratory monitoring measures. Various lead-in regimens prior to the administration of ven were shown to be feasible and effective in reducing the risk of TLS in pts with CLL. However, no comparison of different pretreatment regimens has been performed so far in a prospective randomized trial. Using the set-up of the GAIA trial, we compared TLS incidence and formal TLS risk reduction between 3 different ven-based combinations. Methods: The phase 3 GAIA (CLL13) trial compared 3 different time-limited ven-based combinations against standard chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in fit, treatment-naïve pts with CLL. Pts were randomized to receive CIT (FCR in pts ≤65 years; BR in pts >65 years), ven and rituximab (RVe), ven and obinutuzumab (GVe), or ven, obinutuzumab and ibrutinib (GIVe). In RVe, GVe and GIVe, ven was added at cycle 1 day 22 (ramp up day 1) after a 21-day pretreatment with rituximab (1 dose), obinutuzumab (3 doses) or obinutuzumab (3 doses) plus ibrutinib (continuous) (Figure 1A). The safety population (i.e. all pts who received study treatment) of the ven-containing arms was used for this analysis. TLS was reported according to Cairo-Bishop criteria (Cairo M, Bishop M. Br J Haematol. 2004). For TLS risk evaluation, the most recent available CT/MRI and absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) were used. TLS risk was evaluated at baseline and at ramp up day 1, before the first dose of ven. The patients were categorized retrospectively according to the following TLS risk categories: high (any lymph node [LN] with largest diameter ≥10 cm or any LN with largest diameter ≥5 cm and ALC ≥25 G/L), intermediate (any LN ≥5 cm to Results: The safety population of all ven-containing arms comprised of 696 pts (RVe: 237, GVe: 228, GIVe: 231). Baseline TLS risk was high in 22%, 23% and 19% of pts in the RVe, GVe and GIVe arm, intermediate in 62%, 65%, 67% and low in 10.5%, 14.7% and 12.4% of pts, respectively. After the first 21 days of treatment (i.e. at ramp up day 1), the fraction of pts with a reduction in TLS risk varied between the treatment arms with 31.7% (RVe), 71.4% (GVe) and 47.3% (GIVe) of pts decreasing by at least one TLS risk category (Figure 1B). With regard to TLS risk reduction, GVe was superior to RVe (p In total, 36, 30 and 19 cases of TLS occurred in 29 (12.2%), 26 (11.4%) and 19 (8.2%) pts in the RVe, GVe and GIVe arm. The majority of TLS cases were categorized as CTC grade 3 (28 [RVe], 19 [GVe], 12 [GIVe]), only few CTC grade 4 TLS were reported (1 [RVe], 2 [GVe], 3 [GIVe]). There were no cases of fatal TLS and no pts requiring dialysis due to TLS. In the obinutuzumab arms the majority of TLS cases occurred before ramp up day 1 (GVe: 76.7%, GIVe: 68.4%), i.e. before any venetoclax intake, in contrast 80.6% of TLS cases in the RVe arm were reported during ven ramp up (Figure 2). While there was no significant difference in the cumulative TLS incidence between the treatment arms (p=0.334), there was an increase in TLS occurring after ramp up day 1 in the RVe arm compared to GVe (p Conclusions: This analysis represents the first comparison of the formal TLS risk reduction and actual TLS incidence of different ven-based combinations in a randomized trial. GVe led to the highest TLS risk reduction, while the lowest number of TLS cases occurred in the GIVe arm. Most TLS cases in the GVe and GIVe arms occurred before the start of ven. RVe was least effective in reducing TLS risk and in contrast to the obinutuzumab-containing arms, the vast majority of TLS cases was reported during the ven ramp up. The relatively high incidence of TLS in comparison to other trials might partly be a consequence of using different reporting criteria (Cairo-Bishop vs Howard criteria). No fatal TLS occurred in any of the treatment arms. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Von Tresckow: AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: advisory board, travel grant; Celgene: Other: travel grant; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Other; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Reasearch support, travel grant; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Reasearch support, travel grant. Niemann: Novo Nordisk Foundation: Research Funding; CSL Behring, Genmab, Takeda, Octapharma: Consultancy; Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kater: Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Ad Board, Research Funding; Janssen, AstraZeneca: Other: Ad Board, steering committee, Research Funding; Genmab, LAVA: Other: Ad Board, Steering Committee; BMS, Roche/Genentech: Other: Ad Board, , Research Funding. Staber: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Tadmor: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Levin: Roche, Janssen, Abbvie: Other: Travel Expenses, Ad-Board. Poulsen: Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Janssens: Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Trael Grant, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy; Beigene, AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie, Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Noesslinger: AbbVie: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Jansen: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Simon: Gilead: Other: Travel support. Fink: AbbVie: Other: travel grant; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Fischer: Abbvie: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel Grants. Wendtner: Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding. Ritgen: MSD: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Chugai: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Travel support. Brüggemann: Amgen: Other: Advisory Board, Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Stilgenbauer: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis: Honoraria; AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis: Other: Research Support; AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis: Research Funding; AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis: Consultancy. Hallek: Roche: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Eichhorst: Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Speakers Bureau; Hexal: Speakers Bureau; ArQule: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oxford Biomedica (UK): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Consultant Department I for Internal Medicine: Consultancy; University Hospital of Cologne: Current Employment. OffLabel Disclosure: The combination of obinutuzumab, venetoclax and ibrutinib is not approved for the treatment of CLL

Background: Venetoclax (ven)-based time-limited combination treatments have yielded high rates of undetectable MRD (uMRD) in patients (pts) with CLL. In correlative analyses, attainment of uMRD status was associated with longer progression-free survival (PFS), making uMRD a robust surrogate parameter for remission duration particularly after time-limited therapy. While MRD is usually assessed by conventional 4-color flow cytometry (FCM) defining uMRD as less than 1 CLL cell in 10 000 leukocytes ( Methods: The phase 3 GAIA (CLL13) trial compared 3 different time-limited ven-based combinations against chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in fit, treatment-naïve pts with CLL. Pts were randomized to receive CIT for 6 cycles of 28 days each (FCR for pts ≤65 years; BR for pts >65 years), ven and rituximab (RVe), ven and obinutuzumab (GVe), or ven, obinutuzumab and ibrutinib (GIVe), all for 12 cycles with the option for ibrutinib continuation until cycle 36 for pts not obtaining uMRD4. The co-primary endpoints were the rate of uMRD4 at month (MO) 15 (GVe vs CIT) and PFS (GIVe vs CIT). MRD was centrally assessed by FCM at MO2, MO9, MO12 and MO15 in peripheral blood (PB) and at final restaging (RE, two months after the end of treatment) in bone marrow (BM). The following categories were used: high (≥10 -2), intermediate (≥10 -4 to Results: In total, 926 pts were randomized (CIT: 229, RVe: 237, GVe: 229, GIVe: 231). Based on the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, rates of uMRD4 in PB by FCM were 62.0% (CIT), 73.0% (RVe), 88.6% (GVe) and 88.3% (GIVe) at MO9 and 52.0% (CIT), 57.0 (RVe), 86.5% (GVe) and 92.2% (GIVe) at MO15. BM uMRD4 results at RE were 37.1% (CIT), 43.0 (RVe), 72.5% (GVe) and 77.9% (GIVe). HsFCM samples were available for 844 (MO9 PB), 863 (MO15 PB) and 744 (RE BM) pts with median limits of detection (LOD) of 1.6x10 -5 (MO9 PB), 1.4x10 -5 (MO15 PB) and 9.9x10 -6 (RE BM) that were similar between the treatment arms. With hsFCM a lower limit of detection (LOD) of ≤10 -5 was achieved in 364 (MO9) and 477 (MO15) PB samples and in 580 BM samples at RE. 480 (MO9 PB), 386 (MO15 PB) and 164 (RE BM) samples did not reach a LOD of ≤10 -5 and were thus not included in the MRD5-evaluable populations (Figure 1). Among pts with samples evaluable for MRD5 in PB at MO15, 26 of 82 (31.7%, CIT), 45 of 132 (34.1%, RVe), 81 of 131 (61.8%, GVe) and 93 of 132 (70.5%, GIVe) achieved uMRD5. BM uMRD5 rates at RE were 24.2% (23 of 95 pts), 16.1% (27 of 168 pts), 41.7% (65 of 156 pts) and 53.4% (86 of 161 pts), respectively (Figure 2A). The median MRD level at MO9 was lower in CIT, GVe, GIVe (all 1x 10 -5) compared with RVe (2x 10 -5) by hsFCM (Figure 2B). While the obinutuzumab-containing arms stayed at this low level between MO9 and MO15, median MRD levels in CIT and RVe increased to 8.9x 10 -5 (CIT) and 3.1x 10 -5 (RVe) in the same period. The different treatment arms showed distinct patterns of differential clearance of CLL in BM and PB. While the fraction of concordant MRD results between PB and BM at RE was lower in the CIT arm with 14/34 (41.2%), the ven-containing arms showed a similar compartment effect with a proportion of concordant results of 67/108 (62.0%, RVe), 70/101 (69.3%, GVe) and 71/104 (68.3%, GIVe). In 9/16 (56.3%, CIT), 23/36 (63.9%, RVe), 22/63 (34.9%, GVe) and 23/73 (31.5%,GIVe) pts who achieved uMRD5 in PB (RE) MRD was still measurable in BM. More sensitive NGS analyses and detailed correlative analyses are pending and will be presented at the conference. Conclusions: HsFCM improves MRD detection in CLL below 10 -4 in PB and BM by capturing low levels of MRD (≥10 -5 to Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Von Tresckow: Celgene: Other: travel grant; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Other; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Reasearch support, travel grant; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Reasearch support, travel grant; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: advisory board, travel grant. Niemann: CSL Behring, Genmab, Takeda, Octapharma: Consultancy; Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novo Nordisk Foundation: Research Funding. Kater: Genmab, LAVA: Other: Ad Board, Steering Committee; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Ad Board, Research Funding; BMS, Roche/Genentech: Other: Ad Board, , Research Funding; Janssen, AstraZeneca: Other: Ad Board, steering committee, Research Funding. Simon: Gilead: Other: Travel support. Fink: AbbVie: Other: travel grant; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Fischer: Abbvie: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel Grants. Wendtner: Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding. Staber: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Tadmor: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Levin: Roche, Janssen, Abbvie: Other: Travel Expenses, Ad-Board. Stilgenbauer: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis: Honoraria; AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis: Other: Research Support; AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis: Research Funding; AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis: Consultancy. Brüggemann: Amgen: Other: Advisory Board, Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Hallek: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ritgen: MSD: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Chugai: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Travel support. Eichhorst: AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Speakers Bureau; Hexal: Speakers Bureau; ArQule: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oxford Biomedica (UK): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Consultant Department I for Internal Medicine: Consultancy; University Hospital of Cologne: Current Employment. OffLabel Disclosure: The combination of obinutuzumab, venetoclax and ibrutinib is not approved for treatment of CLL

INTRODUCTION Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is frequently associated with an impaired humoral and cellular immunity. On a global scale chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) has remained one of the most frequently used treatment option. Thus, patients (pts) may experience further cytopenia, particularly treatment-related neutropenia, increasing the risk of infections. In order to better characterize incidence, characteristics and outcomes of infections during and after therapy, a pooled analysis of phase II and III German CLL Study Group trials was performed. METHODS Data of first line pts from 5 clinical trials (CLL7, pts treated with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, rituximab [FCR]; CLL8, FC vs FCR; CLL10, FCR vs bendamustine-rituximab [BR]; CLL11, chlorambucil [CLB] vs CLB-R vs CLB-Obinutuzumab [CLB-Ob] and CLL2M, BR) were analyzed. Clinical, laboratory, genetic and event-related data were pooled. Infections defined as severe (CTC grade 3-5) from initiation of therapy until 4 weeks after completion of study treatment were considered related. Due to varying reporting periods for infections of the respective trials later events of infections were not included. Kaplan-Meier curves for landmark overall survival (OS) from completion of study treatment plus 4 weeks were plotted and compared by non-stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using Cox proportional-hazard regression modelling. RESULTS Data from 2,291 pts receiving at least one dose of CIT were pooled. Median observation time was 71.7 months, ranging between 43.7 months (CLL2M) and 81.0 months (CLL10). Seven-hundred and twenty-seven pts received FCR, 396 pts FC, 395 pts BR, 116 pts CLB, 326 pts CLB-R and 331 pts CLB-Ob. Overall, 274 severe grad 3/4/5 infections were reported in 229 pts (10.0% of 2,291 pts). Of those 189 pts (82.5%) had max. grade 3 infections, 22 (9.6%) pts had grade 4 infections and 18 (7.9%) pts died due to infectious complications. Median time to severe infection from start of treatment was 1.8 months (IQR 0.9-3.6), with a median number of infectious episodes per patient of 1 (range 1-4). Thirty-one (13.5%) of 229 pts had bacterial infections, 35 (15.3%) viral infections, 5 (2.2%) fungal infections and 172 (75.1%) unspecified infections. Higher grade (i.e. ≥ CTC grade 3) leukopenia and/or neutropenia was reported in 121 (52.8%) pts with severe infections. Eighty-eight (12.1%) of FCR treated pts had severe infections, followed by BR 45 (11.4%), CLB 12 (10.3%), FC 35 (8.8%), CLB-Ob 25 (7.6%) and CLB-R 24 (7.4%). Median age was 64 years in the entire cohort; no differences between pts with and without infections were observed with regards to age, sex, ECOG or creatinine clearance. Molecular and cytogenetic characteristics (deletion 17p, deletion 11q, trisomy 12) and IGHV status were similarly distributed between both groups. Median neutrophil count at enrolment was 4.4x10-9/l in both groups, respectively. Prior to therapy, levels of immunoglobulin were comparable between pts with and without infections (median IgG 7.0 vs 7.5 g/L, IgM 0.3 g/L vs 0.3 g/L). Also, pts with at least one episode of ≥ CTC grade 3 leukopenia/neutropenia had comparable rates of severe infections to pts without higher grade leukopenia/neutropenia (147 [53.6%] vs 127 [46.4%] pts). No differences were observed between pts with or without infections regarding the response to first line treatment (183 pts [79.9%] with complete response or partial response to treatment vs 1715 pts [83.2%]) as well as the rate of undetectable minimal residual disease levels (50 [21.8%] vs 477 [23.1%]). Overall survival from 4 weeks after completion of study treatment was significantly shorter in pts with severe infections compared to pts without severe infections (median 73.7 months vs 97.3 months, HR 1.503, 95% CI 1.217-1.856, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION This analysis confirms that prognosis of CLL pts who received first line treatment with (immuno)chemotherapy is influenced by severe infections. This risk does not correlate with the explored cyto- or molecular genetic risk factors, nor with response to treatment, pre-therapeutic levels of immunoglobulins or occurrence of higher grade neutropenia. Pts who experience severe infections have a significantly shorter overall survival compared to pts without severe infections. Due to their vulnerability, careful management of infectious complications in CLL pts is warranted. Figure 1 Disclosures Al-Sawaf: AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: personal fees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: personal fees; BeiGene: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: personal fees. Fink:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: travel grants. Cramer:F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Beigene: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Other: travel support, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: travel support. Herling:Roche: Other: Travel support, Research Funding. Von Tresckow:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: travel grants; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria. Böttcher:Novartis: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Dreyling:Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Jaeger:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Infinity: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; CDR Life AG: Consultancy, Research Funding; Miltenyi: Consultancy, Honoraria; True North: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Gregor:Roche: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Ritgen:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel grants; F. Hoffman-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Gilead: Other: travel grants. Dürig:Janssen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Tausch:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Stilgenbauer:GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding. Wendtner:Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Hoffmann-LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding. Fischer:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Honoraria, Other: travel grants; AbbVie: Honoraria. Goede:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel grants; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel grants; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hallek:F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Eichhorst:Oxford Biomedica: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; ArQule: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding. Langerbeins:AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding.

Depuis nos recommandations publiees au FMS en 2016, de nouvelles connaissances, qui sont non seulement pertinentes pour les oncologues mais egalement pour les medecins de premier recours, sont disponibles.

2016 stellten wir im SMF Empfehlungen zum Management der haufigsten Nebenwirkungen von Immuntherapien vor. Inzwischen gibt es neue Erkenntnisse, die nicht nur fur Onkologen, sondern auch fur Grundversorger relevant sind.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text, Fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR) was compared to bendamustine and rituximab (BR) in an international, randomized, open label, phase 3 trial in 561 previously untreated, fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) without del (17p). Primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). The final primary endpoint analysis after 37.1 months median follow up failed to show the non-inferiority of BR as compared with FCR. With extended median follow up of 58.2 months, median PFS was 42.3 months in BR-treated patients versus 57.6 months for FCR-treated patients (Hazard Ratio [HR] 1.593; 95% CI 1.271–1.996; p 65 years, median PFS was 48.5 months with BR versus 57.9 months with FCR without reaching statistical significance (HR 1.352; 95% CI 0.912–2.006; p = 0.134). Median OS was not reached for both arms with 5-year OS rates of 80.1% vs 80.9%, respectively (HR 1.108; 95% CI 0.755–1.627; p = 0.599). No statistically significant difference was found in the time to secondary malignancy between the 2 groups (at 5 years, 86.6% free from secondary malignancies in the BR group vs 83.8% in the FCR group [HR 0.801; 95% CI 0.507–1.267; p = 0.344]). In patients >65 years secondary neoplasia occurred more frequently after FCR treatment [28 of 86 (32.6%) patients] as compared with BR [18 of 107 (16.8%) patients; p = 0.011]. Health-related quality of life was similar in both treatments. Despite the improved PFS for FCR, OS did not differ. These results also suggest an increase in secondary neoplasia associated with FCR in elderly fit CLL patients.

Background: Flap reconstruction of the distal lower extremity is challenging. Especially, the concept of perforator surgery has increased available surgical options. Although results are generally judged in terms of objective facts, patients-perceived quality of life has largely remained unexamined. The aim of the study was to compare quality of life after lower extremity reconstruction with pedicled and free flaps. Methods: Patients were evaluated retrospectively after reconstruction of defects of the distal lower extremity either with distally based adipofascial sural flap (pedicled reverse sural flap) or an anterior lateral thigh (ALT) flap. A specific questionnaire was developed to measure the patient’s quality of life, based on short form health survey-12, Dresden Body Image Score-35, Patient Health Questionnaire-4, and X-SMFA questionnaires with additional specific questions. Furthermore, results, secondary surgeries, and complications were analyzed. Results: Thirty-seven patients with reconstruction of lower limb defects treated with a pedicled reverse sural flap and 34 patients treated with an ALT flap were included in the study. There was no statistical significant difference in the overall satisfaction with the procedure in the long-term follow-up between both groups, but patients with ALT showed a higher satisfaction with the treatment in the initial postoperative period. Both groups demonstrated approximately similar results in the long term for self-acceptance and vitality. Conclusions: Although anatomic situation may dictate flap choice coverage with free flaps, a less-complicated flap is by no means regarded as an inferior treatment option in patient’s estimation. Despite the intuitive speculation that patients with more advanced reconstruction methods should have better function and subsequently higher quality of life, this assumption was clearly not supported by data in this study.

Acute Myeloid Leukaemia (AML) is a rare and heterogeneous haematological malignancy with increasing incidence in the elderly. We performed a population-based, observational analysis of AML cases reported to the Cantonal Cancer Registries in Switzerland. Data was aggregated by the National Institute for Epidemiology and Cancer Registration and stratified for the two time periods 2001-2007 and 2008-2013. Overall, 2351 new AML cases were registered with a stable age-standardised incidence rate (3.0 [95 CI: 2.8-3.2] per 100,000 person-years). This indicates that our observed raise of annual AML cases (+10.9%) is mainly related to demographic ageing and not to an increase of age-specific risks. The fraction of non-classifiable AML cases decreased over time (54.6% to 41.8%) but remained high in elderly patients (65-74yrs: 44%; 75-84yrs: 54.2%, 85+yrs: 59.1%), suggesting less accurate diagnostics and reporting with increasing age. 5yrs relative survival (RS) correlated with AML risk class (favorable: 61.7%-68.4%; adverse risk: 11.4%-21.9%) and age (

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) occurs in older individuals with a median age at diagnosis of 72 years. In recent years, there has been considerable progress in the frontline therapy of elderly/physically unfit patients with CLL. The German CLL11 trial showed that addition of obinutuzumab to chlorambucil (G-Clb) prolongs progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to chlorambucil alone or in combination with rituximab. More recently, obinutuzumab together with ibrutinib or venetoclax were shown to be superior to G-Clb with regard to PFS, but there was no advantage in terms of OS. In this retrospective, multinational and multicenter co-operative study the European Research Initiative on CLL (ERIC) and the Israeli CLL Study Group (ICLLSG) evaluated the efficacy of frontline treatment with G-Clb in patients with CLL, in a "real-world" setting. Our analysis excluded CLL patients with documented del(17p) or TP53 mutations since they are no longer treated with chemotherapy. Results: A total of 437 treatment-naïve patients with CLL from 51 medical centers located in 13 countries were included. The median age of this patient population was 75.9 years; 59.7% were men, median CIRS total score was 8 and estimated creatinine clearance 61.1 mL/min. Seventy four patients had Binet stage A (17.2%), 167 (38.8%) stage B and 190 (44.1%) stage C. Results of FISH and IGHV mutational status were available for 332 and 115 patients, respectively. High-risk cytogenetics, del(11q) was documented in 18.7% patients and IGHV-unmutated gene in 64.4%. The vast majority of patients were treated with G-Clb (N=408) and the rest with obinutuzumab monotherapy (G-monotherapy, N=29). The clinical overall response was 86.5%, including clinical complete and partial responses in 41.6% and 45.8% of cases, respectively. The median observation time was 14.1 months (m) and the median PFS of the entire cohort was 27.6m (95% CI, 24.2-31.0). The PFS for G-Clb was significantly better than G-monotherapy (P=0.001; HR=0.38, 95% CI: 0.22-0.67), being the 2-year PFS estimates 61.8% and 52.8%, respectively. The median PFS was significantly shorter for patients with del(11q) (19.2m) compared to those with normal FISH (not reached, P5cm, G-monotherapy, reduced cumulative dose of obinutuzumab and status less than CR, were independently associated with shorter PFS. Seventy patients (16%) received a second-line treatment. The median OS for the entire cohort has not been reached yet and 2-year OS estimate is 88%. In conclusion, in a "real-world" setting, frontline treatment with G-Clb achieves PFS comparable to that reported in clinical trials. Inferior outcomes were observed in patients with high-risk disease [del(11q) and/or IGHV-unmutated] and those treated with G-monotherapy. Thus, even today in the era of novel drugs, G-Clb can be considered a legitimate frontline treatment in unfit CLL patients with low-risk disease [non-del(11q) and IGHV-mutated]. Disclosures Herishanu: Roche: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Simkovic:Roche: Honoraria; University Hospital Hradec Kralove: Employment; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mauro:Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Shire: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding. Coscia:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Scarfo:AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria. Tedeschi:AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen spa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SUNESIS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Honoraria. Gimeno Vázquez:JANSSEN: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Speakers Bureau. Assouline:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Levato:Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Rigolin:Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Research Funding; AbbVie: Speakers Bureau. Loscertales:Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Ghia:Dynamo: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; ArQule: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

BACKGROUND: Chemoimmunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab is the standard therapy for physically fit patients with advanced chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. This international phase 3 study compared the efficacy and tolerance of the standard therapy with a potentially less toxic combination consisting of bendamustine and rituximab.METHODS: Treatment-naive fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (aged 33-81 years) without del(17p) were enrolled after undergoing a central screening process. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a computer-generated randomisation list using randomly permuted blocks with a block size of eight and were stratified according to participating country and Binet stage. Patients were allocated to receive six cycles of intravenous fludarabine (25 mg/m(2) per day) and cyclophosphamide (250 mg/m(2) per day) for the first 3 days or to intravenous bendamustine (90 mg/m(2) per day) for the first 2 days of each cycle. Rituximab 375 mg/m(2) was given intravenously in both groups on day 0 of cycle 1 and subsequently was given at 500 mg/m(2) during the next five cycles on day 1. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival with the objective to assess non-inferiority of bendamustine and rituximab to the standard therapy. We aimed to show that the 2-year progression-free survival with bendamustine and rituximab was not 67·5% or less with a corresponding non-inferiority margin of 1·388 for the hazard ratio (HR) based on the 90·4% CI. The final analysis was done by intention to treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT%2000769522.FINDINGS: 688 patients were recruited between Oct 2, 2008, and July 11, 2011, of which 564 patients who met inclusion criteria were randomly assigned. 561 patients were included in the intention-to-treat population: 282 patients in the fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab group and 279 in the bendamustine and rituximab group. After a median observation time of 37·1 months (IQR 31·0-45·5) median progression-free survival was 41·7 months (95% CI 34·9-45·3) with bendamustine and rituximab and 55·2 months (95% CI not evaluable) with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (HR 1·643, 90·4% CI 1·308-2·064). As the upper limit of the 90·4% CI was greater than 1·388 the null hypothesis for the corresponding non-inferiority hypothesis was not rejected. Severe neutropenia and infections were more frequently observed with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (235 [84%] of 279 vs 164 [59%] of 278, and 109 [39%] vs 69 [25%], respectively) during the study. The increased frequency of infectious complications with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab was more pronounced in patients older than 65 years.INTERPRETATION: The combination of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab remains the standard front-line therapy in fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, but bendamustine and rituximab is associated with less toxic effects.FUNDING: Roche Pharma AG, Mundipharma, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.