Abstract: Introduction Midostaurin is the only approved FLT3 inhibitor for combination with intensive induction and consolidation chemotherapy in newly diagnosed patients with FLT3 mutant AML. The FLT3 inhibitor, sorafenib, was investigated in the randomized SORAML trial (Röllig, Lancet Onc 2015), in combination with intensive chemotherapy (IC) for newly diagnosed adults with AML & lt;60 years. A sub-group analysis of 46 patients with FLT3-ITD, indicated a trend for improved overall survival (OS) in the sorafenib (SOR) arm compared to placebo (PBO). Methods The Australasian Leukaemia and Lymphoma Group (ALLG) conducted a randomized phase 2 study [ACTRN12611001112954] in 99 adults aged 18-65 years with newly diagnosed FLT3-ITD positive (allelic ratio (AR) ≥0.05) AML to determine whether addition of SOR to IC would improve event-free survival (EFS). The study was powered to identify a 25% increase in 2-year EFS with SOR. Patients 18-55 yrs received induction with IDAC-3 (idarubicin [IDA] 12 mg/m2 D1-3 and ara-C 1.5 g/m2 BD D1,3,5,7); patients 56-65 received 7+3 (IDA 12 mg/m2 D1-3 and ara-C 100 mg/m2 D1-7 IVI). Patients were randomized 2:1 to SOR or PBO 400 mg BD on days 4-10 of induction and each consolidation cycle. Due to the pharmacokinetic interaction between SOR and azoles, antifungal prophylaxis during induction was with AmBisome 5 mg/kg IV twice weekly. For consolidation, patients 18-55 yrs received 2 cycles of IcE (IDA 9 mg/m2 D1-2, ara-C 100 mg/m2 D1-5 IVI and etoposide 75 mg/m2 D1-5), those 56-65 yrs received 2 cycles of IDAC-2 (IDA 12 mg/m2 D1-2 and ara-C 1g/m2 BD D1,3,5). Maintenance was with SOR/PBO 400 mg bd days 1-28 for 12 cycles. Allogeneic HCT (allo-HCT) was at investigator discretion. SOR/PBO was not continued post allo-HCT. The primary endpoint was EFS without censoring for allo-HCT with events defined as failure to achieve complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi), relapse or death. Pre-specified secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR) defined as CR and CRi, tolerability, EFS according to FLT3-ITD AR & lt; or ≥ 0.7 and impact of randomization on allograft outcome. Results Between Jan 2013-May 2018, 18 centers randomized 99 patients to induction with either SOR (n=65) or PBO (n=33); one patient later found to be FLT3-ITD negative was excluded. Patient characteristics are shown in Table 1. Treatment arms were balanced apart from fewer patients in the SOR arm with NPM1 mutant AML. Deliverability of therapy was comparable, with commencement of consolidation in 78% and 79% and maintenance therapy in 32% and 27% in the SOR and PBO arms, respectively. The overall response rate (ORR) was high in both arms; 91% in the SOR (CR 80%, CRi 11%) and 94% in the PBO (CR 70%, CRi 24%) arm. In the SOR arm, 5% achieved partial remission, went off study and were deemed treatment failures. With a median overall follow-up of 25 mo, there was no significant difference in EFS (HR 0.87 95% CI 0.50-1.49; P=0.61)(Fig A) or OS (HR 0.70 95% CI 0.38-1.29; P=0.26)(Fig. B), nor in a sensitivity analysis with censoring at HCT. 2 yr EFS was 47.9% (SOR) vs 45.4% (PBO) and 2-year OS 66.8% (SOR) vs 56.4% (PBO). Hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) in CR1 was performed in 62% and 58% in the SOR and PBO arms, respectively. For patients in CR1, 2 yr OS post-HCT was 78.5% (SOR) vs 54.2% (PBO)(Fig C). Suggestive of an on-target effect against FLT3-ITD, the impact of SOR on OS appeared greater for patients with higher FLT3-ITD AR ≥0.7 (Fig. D) (Table 2). Only one early death (within 30 days) was recorded in each treatment arm. The frequency of grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) were similar between the two arms, apart from palmar-plantar rash, reported as drug-related in 15.4% and 6.1% pts in the SOR and PBO arms, respectively. Correlative studies will be reported in a companion abstract. Conclusions SOR did not improve EFS when combined with intensive chemotherapy in adults with newly diagnosed FLT3-ITD AML. Although not powered for significance, SOR showed a trend for improved OS among patients with higher FLT3-ITD AR or receiving HCT in CR1. Further exploration of more potent FLT3 inhibitors in the pre- and post-allograft setting are warranted for patients with newly diagnosed FLT3 mutant AML. Acknowledgements: The ALLG AMLM16 trial was funded through an Australian Government NHMRC grant and a research grant from the Leukaemia Foundation of Australia. Bayer supplied sorafenib and Gilead AmBisome. Disclosures Wei: Roche: Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research: Patents & Royalties: AW is eligible for royalty payments related to venetoclax; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Macrogenics: Honoraria. Enjeti:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alexion: Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. D'Rozario:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS/ Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Marlton:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: 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; Astra-Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Verner:Janssen Cilag Pty Ltd.: Research Funding. Hahn:Roche: Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria. Hiwase:Novartis Australia: Research Funding. Anstee:Walter and Eliza Hall Institute: Patents & Royalties: milestone and royalty payments related to venetoclax.. Levis:FujiFilm: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria; Menarini: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria, Research Funding. Bajel:Abbvie: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria. Roberts:Genentech: Patents & Royalties: for venetoclax to one of my employers (Walter & Eliza Hall Institute); I receive a share of these royalties; Janssen: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Sorafenib for FLT3-ITD AML

Abstract: Background: Adaptive resistance mechanisms leading to treatment failure have been identified in older patients receiving venetoclax (VEN) in combination with either azacitidine or low dose cytarabine (LDAC) as frontline therapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML). These include the expansion or secondary emergence of kinase activating mutations, including FLT3-ITD in patients with non-adverse karyotype (NON-ADV), as well as TP53 mutations among patients with adverse karyotype (ADV)(DiNardo & Tiong et al, Blood 2020). INTERVENE is a phase 2 study evaluating the safety and efficacy of the "risk-stratified" addition of a novel third agent to VEN-LDAC, delivered in tandem to LDAC to minimize the risk of myelotoxicity (Figure 1A). To mitigate VEN resistance associated with activated kinases in NON-ADV risk AML, midostaurin (MIDO), a FLT3/multi-kinase inhibitor, was incorporated in combination with VEN. To address VEN resistance associated with TP53 defects in ADV risk AML, a HDAC inhibitor pracinostat (PRAN) was incorporated in accordance with pre-clinical studies suggesting synergistic induction of TP53 independent cell death with VEN plus HDAC inhibition (Salmon et al, ASH 2018). We hereby report the results of the dose-finding safety run-in phase of the study. Methods: Eligibility: Patients with treatment naïve AML (excluding APL), aged ≥60 years and unfit for intensive chemotherapy were included. Prior hypomethylating agents for antecedent myeloid neoplasms were permitted with a 14-day washout. Patients were stratified according to cytogenetic risk, as per Medical Research Council 2010 criteria. Treatment: VEN D1-28 (with dose ramp-up in cycle 1) was combined with LDAC (20mg/m 2 SC D1-10), with the third agent starting after/on the last day of LDAC (Fig 1A). Each cycle was 28 days. In the NON-ADV stratum (VEN-LDAC-MIDO), 2 dose levels were explored: (L1) VEN 400mg + LDAC + MIDO 50mg BD D11-28; (L2) VEN 600mg + LDAC + MIDO 50mg. In the ADV stratum (VEN-LDAC-PRAN), 3 dose levels were tested: (L1) VEN 400mg + LDAC + PRAN 45mg starting D10 and given 3x/week orally for a total of 9 doses; (L2) VEN 600mg + LDAC + PRAN 45mg; (L3) VEN 600mg + LDAC + PRAN 60mg. Azole antifungals were prohibited in cycle 1 but allowed from cycle 2 with VEN dose modification. Endpoints (safety run-in): Primary: occurrence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) during cycle 1 and determination of recommended phase 2 doses (RP2D) using a Bayesian Logistic Regression Model. Secondary: Preliminary response rates. Molecular studies: Next generation sequencing using a custom 48-gene Roche KAPA HyperCapture myeloid panel and FLT3-ITD targeted amplicon sequencing were performed on baseline bone marrow samples. First patient enrolled: 7SEP2020. Data cut-off: 29JUN2021. Results: 32 patients were enrolled: 18 in NON-ADV and 14 in ADV strata, respectively. Two patients in the NON-ADV stratum withdrew within the first 7 days due to non-therapy related reasons (1=personal, 1=incidental lung lesion) and were not DLT/response evaluable. Median age was 77 years (68-87; 69% ≥75 years). 43.8% (14/32) had secondary/therapy related AML. Although gastrointestinal adverse events (AE) during cycle 1 were more common in VEN-LDAC-PRAN arm with nausea (57 vs 17%), vomiting (36% vs 6%) and diarrhea (50% vs 22%), grade 3+ toxicities were uncommon (0-7%)(Table 2). Occurrence of febrile neutropenia was similar between the two arms. 30-day mortality was 0% and 14% (2/14: 1=infection, 1=disease progression) for NON-ADV and ADV strata, respectively. No DLTs were observed in either stratum across all dose levels, thus the RP2D was the highest dose level explored for both triplet combinations. The intention-to-treat overall response rate CR+CRi+CRh was 72.2% (13/18) in the NON-ADV arm and 57.1% (8/14) in ADV arm. The expanded response rate including PR and MLFS was 77.8% (14/18) and 71.4% (10/14) in the NON-ADV and ADV strata, respectively. Median time to best response was 1 cycle (range 1-6). Updated response and survival outcomes will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion: The addition of MIDO or PRAN to VEN-LDAC was tolerable in older/unfit patients with treatment naïve AML. Preliminary efficacy with this risk-stratified approach compared favorably to prior studies with VEN-LDAC alone (Wei et al Blood 2020: CR+CRi 56% in NON-ADV, 28% in ADV). The randomized phase 2 part of this tandem triplet strategy with the goal of preventing adaptive resistance is underway. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Chua: Abbvie: Other: Conference travel and accommodation . Reynolds: Alcon: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Abbvie: Research Funding; Novartis AG: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Enjeti: Astra Zeneca: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Hiwase: AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Marlton: Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, 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; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Queensland Health: Current Employment; BeiGene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bajel: Abbvie, Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer: Honoraria; Amgen: Speakers Bureau. Grove: Astellas: Consultancy, 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. Cooney: Amgen: Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses ; Roche: Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses ; Novartis: Other: Online conference registration . Beligaswatte: Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Anstee: Walter and Eliza Hall Institute: Patents & Royalties: Dr Anstee was a former employee of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute and is eligible for a fraction of the royalty stream related to Venetoclax. Perera: Abbvie: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau. Ritchie: Takeda: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen Inc: Honoraria, Research Funding; CSL: Honoraria. Wei: Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Macrogenics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. OffLabel Disclosure: This presentation will focus on the ALLG INTERVENE clinical trial combining venetoclax+LDAC+midostaurin or venetoclax+LDAC+pracinostat. Although venetoclax and midostaurin are individually FDA-approved in some indications, the combinations examined in this clinical trial have not been approved by FDA.

Abstract: Introduction The Australasian Leukaemia and Lymphoma Group (ALLG) conducted a randomized trial (AMLM16) combining the FLT3 inhibitor sorafenib (SOR) or placebo (PBO) with intensive induction and consolidation chemotherapy, followed by 12 months of maintenance therapy in patients with FLT3-ITD mutant AML. The clinical results of the AMLM16 study are detailed in a companion abstract co-submitted to ASH 2020. We hypothesized that the optimal time to administer sorafenib would be d4-10 of induction in order to limit overlap with anthracyclines on d1-3 and to avoid high FLT3 ligand (FLT3L) levels beyond d10, which could abrogate FLT3 on-target activity and diminish the therapeutic index. Key objectives of the correlative studies were to correlate in vivo SOR activity on suppression of FLT3 phosphorylation (P-FLT3) using the plasma inhibitory assay (PIA) with relapse risk and to assess for the presence of FLT3-ITD measurable residual disease (MRD) after therapy. Methods Patients aged 18-65 years with newly diagnosed AML (excluding APML) were enrolled to a National Blood Cancer Registry; those with a FLT3-ITD mutant: wild-type allelic ratio (AR) ≥ 0.05 were eligible for enrolment to the AMLM16 study. Patients were randomized 2:1 to SOR or PBO 400mg orally bd on d4-10 of induction and each consolidation cycle in combination with intensive chemotherapy and for 12 months as maintenance monotherapy. Serum FLT3-L levels were measured by ELISA, SOR and its metabolites by mass spectrometry. SOR mediated inhibition of FLT3 was measured in serum samples using the PIA as previously described (Levis, Blood 2006) in which P-FLT3 inhibition to ≤15% baseline is defined as response. Quantitation of FLT3-ITD levels by NGS was performed at study screening and after each induction and consolidation chemotherapy cycle. Quantitation was by amplicon-based sequencing which detected ITDs & gt;6 bp with a sensitivity of 0.001%: levels below and above this were termed measurable residual disease (MRD) negative and positive respectively. Prepared libraries were sequenced (Illumina) using 150 bp paired-end reads with a minimum coverage of 400,000 reads. Bioinformatics analysis was performed using getITD (Blätte, Leukemia, 2019). Results 98 evaluable patients were randomized to induction with either SOR (n=65) or PBO (n=33) with a FLT3-ITD AR ranging from 0.05 to 8.4. FLT3-ITD AR was ≥ 0.5 or ≥ 0.7 in 48% and 29%, respectively. During induction, FLT3-L levels increased by an average of 150-fold from d4 to d10 and a further 1.6-fold to d15, with a return to baseline by d28. Serial plasma samples to assess PIA were available for 63 patients (Fig A). Response to ≤15% on d10 (relative to d4) was observed in 88% of SOR patients, compared with 4.5% receiving PBO. The relapse risk was 32% and 62% among PIA responders and non-responders, respectively (Fig A). Among patients with PIA response to ≤15% by d10 (the last day of SOR/PBO), only 8.3% had evidence of a sustained PIA response by d15. Reduction of FLT3-ITD to undetectable levels (VAF & lt;0.001%) after induction, consolidation 1 and 2 was achieved in 43%, 63% and 77% of patients in the SOR arm and 32%, 59% and 75% in the PBO arm, respectively (Fig B, C). Patients with FLT3-ITD MRD detected or not detected after induction had a relapse risk of 54% vs 32%, respectively. Additional MRD results will be presented, along with serum SOR and metabolite levels. We compared the relationship between inhibition of P-FLT3 on d10 and bone marrow FLT3-ITD MRD after induction with relapse risk (Fig D, E). In the SOR arm, if P-FLT3 was not reduced to ≤15%, all patients had persistent FLT3-ITD MRD after induction and the relapse risk was 80% (Fig D). In contrast, if P-FLT3 inhibition was ≤15% and FLT3-ITD MRD not detected, the relapse risk was only 20%. In the PBO arm after induction, persistent and undetectable FLT3-ITD MRD (VAF & lt;0.001%) were associated with relapse risks of 81% vs 50%, respectively (Fig E). Conclusions These studies demonstrate that in vivo SOR inhibited P-FLT3 to ≤15% during induction in the majority of cases and was associated with reduced relapse risk. Persistent FLT3-ITD MRD post-induction was associated with a high relapse risk in both treatment arms. For patients receiving SOR, failure to reduce P-FLT3 response to ≤15% was associated with a high risk of persistent FLT3-ITD MRD and clinical relapse. Disclosures Anstee: Walter and Eliza Hall Institute: Patents & Royalties: milestone and royalty payments related to venetoclax.. Levis:Menarini: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; FujiFilm: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria, Research Funding. Enjeti:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alexion: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau. D'Rozario:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS/ Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Marlton:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: 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; Astra-Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Roberts:Janssen: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Genentech: Patents & Royalties: for venetoclax to one of my employers (Walter & Eliza Hall Institute); I receive a share of these royalties. Wei:Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research: Patents & Royalties: AW is eligible for royalty payments related to venetoclax; Roche: Honoraria; Macrogenics: Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: Sorafenib for FLT3-ITD AML

Abstract: 7534 Background: Polatuzumab vedotin (Pola) + obinutuzumab (G) demonstrated activity and tolerability in a Phase 1b/2 trial of patients (pts) with R/R FL (Phillips, et al. Blood 2016). Preclinical studies with venetoclax (Ven) showed that concurrent treatment with Pola promotes MCL-1 degradation, a known mechanism of resistance to Ven, and enhances in vivo anti-tumor efficacy (Amin, et al. AACR 2020). Here, we report the primary safety/efficacy analysis with Pola-G-Ven in a Phase 1b/2 study of pts with R/R FL (GO29833; NCT02611323). Methods: Pts received induction treatment every 21 days (D) x six cycles (C) of: Pola 1.4–1.8mg/kg intravenously (IV) in dose escalation (DE) or recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) on D1; G 1000mg IV (C1: D1, D8, D15; C2–6: D1); and oral Ven 200–800mg (DE or RP2D; D1–21). Pts with complete response/partial response/stable disease (CR/PR/SD) at end of induction (EOI) received maintenance with G (1000mg on D1 every 2 months [mo] for 24 mo) and Ven (200–800mg daily) for 8 mo. Primary endpoints were safety/tolerability and positron emission tomography (PET)-CR rate at EOI by independent review committee (IRC) using modified Lugano criteria. Results: At the primary analysis (Oct 05, 2020), 74 pts were enrolled. Median pt age was 64 years (range 36–78); male (57%); Ann Arbor Stage III–IV (86%); FL International Prognostic Index high risk ≥3 (55%); bulky disease ≥7cm (16%); prior lines of therapy ≥2 (74%); refractory to: last prior therapy (51%), any prior anti-CD20 therapy (55%), both anti-CD20 therapy and an alkylating agent (double refractory; 55%). Grade 3–4 adverse events (AEs) were experienced by 73% of pts; most commonly, neutropenia (39%), thrombocytopenia (19%), and infections (16%; mainly pne umonia). AEs led to dose reduction in 38% and interruption in 68% of pts (mainly modifications to Ven). One fatal AE was reported (pneumonia). In total, 49 pts were treated at RP2D (Pola 1.8mg/kg + Ven 800mg) and were evaluable for efficacy. PET-CR rate at EOI by IRC was 57% (Table). With a median follow-up of 14.4 mo (range 8.2–28.4), the 12-mo progression-free survival (PFS) was 73% (95% confidence interval: 59.4–86.9). Median PFS was not reached. Conclusions: The safety profile of Pola-G-Ven is consistent with the known profiles of the individual drugs. Response rates at EOI with Pola-G-Ven are encouraging in this R/R FL patient population. Additional follow-up is needed to assess PFS benefit during maintenance treatment and beyond. Clinical trial information: NCT02611323. [Table: see text]

Abstract: 8051 Background: Inhibitors of Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) have established therapeutic activity in patients with WM. Zanubrutinib, a potent and selective BTK inhibitor was evaluated in a phase 1/2 study in treatment-naïve (TN) and relapsed/refractory (R/R) patients with WM. Methods: Patients had TN or R/R WM and required treatment as per International Workshop on WM (IWWM) criteria. Treatment consisted of oral zanubrutinib at 160 mg twice daily (n = 50) or 320 mg once daily (n = 23) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Efficacy endpoints included the proportion of patients achieving a complete response (CR) or very good partial response (VGPR) in accordance with IWWM-6 criteria. Efficacy analyses were conducted on the 73 patients evaluable (24 TN, 49 R/R). Results: Between September 2014 and August 2018, 77 patients with WM (24 TN and 53 R/R) began treatment with zanubrutinib (55% aged 〉 65 years; 21% aged 〉 75 years). At a median follow up of 32.7 months, 73% remain on treatment. Reasons for treatment discontinuation included adverse events (AE) in 13% (only one related), disease progression (10.4%), and other (3.9%). Results are presented for TN and R/R combined. The overall response rate was 96% and VGPR/CR rate was 45%. The rates of VGPR/CR increased over time; 22% at 6 mos, 33% at 12 months and 45% at 24 months. Three-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 81%, and overall survival (OS) was 85%. The most commonly reported AEs were upper respiratory tract infection (52%), contusion (33%, all grade 1) and cough (22%). AEs of interest include neutropenia (18.2%), major hemorrhage (4%), atrial fibrillation/flutter (5%), and grade 3 diarrhea (3%). Conclusions: Long-term follow up with continued zanubrutinib treatment demonstrated deep and durable responses in the majority of WM patients. The rates of VGPR/CR increased with prolonged therapy. Disease progression was uncommon. The safety profile of long-term zanubrutinib therapy in these patients was tolerable. Clinical trial information: NCT02343120 . [Table: see text]

Abstract: 7521 Background: ASPEN is a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study comparing ZANU, a potent and selective Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi), with the first-generation BTKi IBR in patients with WM. We present data with a median follow-up of 43 months. Methods: Patients with MYD88 mutations were assigned to cohort 1 and randomized 1:1 to receive ZANU 160 mg twice daily or IBR 420 mg once daily. Randomization was stratified by CXCR4 mutational status and lines of prior therapy (0 vs 1-3 vs 〉 3). Patients without MYD88 mutations were assigned to cohort 2 and received ZANU 160 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was proportion of patients achieving complete response or very good partial response (CR+VGPR). Results: A total of 201 patients (ZANU arm, n = 102; IBR arm, n = 99) were enrolled in cohort 1 and 28 patients were enrolled in cohort 2. A larger proportion of patients in the ZANU arm of cohort 1 vs IBR had CXCR4 mutations by next-generation sequencing (32% vs 20%, or 33 of 98 vs 20 of 92 with data available) and were aged 〉 75 years (33% vs 22%). Median duration of treatment was 42 months (ZANU) and 41 months (IBR), with 67% and 58% remaining on treatment, respectively. The CR+VGPR rate by investigator was 36% with ZANU vs 22% with IBR ( p= 0.02) in cohort 1, and 31% in cohort 2. One patient achieved CR (cohort 2). In patients with wild type or mutant CXCR4 from cohort 1, CR+VGPR rates with ZANU vs IBR were 45% vs 28% ( p= 0.04) and 21% vs 5% ( p= 0.15) , respectively. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were not yet reached. Rates of atrial fibrillation, diarrhea, hypertension, localized infection, hemorrhage, muscle spasms, pneumonia, and adverse events leading to discontinuation or death were lower with ZANU vs IBR (Table). Exposure-adjusted incidence rates of atrial fibrillation/flutter and hypertension were lower with ZANU vs IBR (0.2 vs 0.8 and 0.5 vs 1.0 persons per 100 person-months, respectively; p 〈 0.05). Rate of neutropenia was higher and rate of grade ≥3 infection was lower with ZANU vs IBR. Safety outcomes of ZANU were similar between cohorts 1 and 2. Conclusions: ASPEN is the largest phase 3 trial with head-to-head BTKi comparison in WM. At a median follow-up of 43 months, ZANU was associated with higher CR+VGPR rate and demonstrated clinically meaningful advantages in long-term safety and tolerability vs IBR. Clinical trial information: NCT03053440. [Table: see text]

Abstract: The phase I/II AU‐003 study in patients with treatment‐naïve (TN) or relapsed/refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukaemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma demonstrated that zanubrutinib therapy results in clinically meaningful and durable responses with acceptable safety and tolerability. We report updated safety and efficacy data for 123 patients with a median follow‐up of 47·2 months. Patients received zanubrutinib 160 mg twice daily (81 patients), 320 mg once daily (40), or 160 mg once daily (two). Discontinuations due to adverse events or disease progression were uncommon. The overall response rate (ORR) was 95·9% (TN, 100%; R/R, 95%) with 18·7% achieving complete response (CR). Ongoing response at 3 years was reported in 85·7%. The ORR in patients with del(17p)/tumour protein p53 mutation was 87·5% (CR 16·7%). The 2‐ and 3‐year progression‐free survival estimates were 90% (TN, 90%; R/R, 91%) and 83% (TN, 81%; R/R, 83%) respectively. The most reported Grade ≥3 adverse events were neutropenia (15·4%), pneumonia (9·8%), hypertension (8·9%) and anaemia (6·5%). The annual incidence of atrial fibrillation, major haemorrhage, Grade ≥3 neutropenia and Grade ≥3 infection decreased over time. With a median follow‐up of ~4 years, responses remain clinically meaningful and durable and long‐term tolerability to zanubrutinib therapy continues.