Choice of Oral & Poster Presentations
Tanya Siddiqi, Kathleen Anne Dorritie, Jacob Drobnyk Soumerai, Deborah Marie Stephens, et al.
TRANSCEND CLL 004: Minimal residual disease (MRD) negative responses after lisocabtagene maraleucel (Liso-Cel; JCAR017), a CD19-directed CAR T cell product, in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL).
Conclusions: In this study of heavily pretreated pts with standard- and high-risk CLL/SLL and previous ibrutinib treatment, liso-cel-related toxicities (ie, CRS and NEs), were manageable. Pts rapidly achieved CR/CRi and uMRD. Additional follow-up will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT03331198
Kirsten Fischer, Othman Al-Sawaf, Jasmin Bahlo, Anna-Maria Fink, et al.
Effect of fixed-duration venetoclax plus obinutuzumab (VenG) on progression-free survival (PFS), and rates and duration of minimal residual disease negativity (MRD–) in previously untreated patients (pts) with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and comorbidities.
Conclusions: Fixed-duration VenG induced deep (<10-6 in 1/3 of pts), high, and long lasting MRD− rates (with a low rate of conversion to MRD+ status 1 year after treatment) in previously untreated pts with CLL and comorbidities, translating into improved PFS. Clinical trial information: NCT02242942
POSTER @ POSTER DISCUSSION
David Jacob Andorsky, Morton Coleman, Abdulraheem Yacoub, Jason M. Melear, et al.
Conclusions: R2 therapy is active with a tolerable safety profile in patients with R/R FL and MZL, and in patients refractory to rituximab. Clinical trial information: NCT01996865
|ORR, %||CR, %||Median TTR,
mo (95% CI)*
mo (95% CI)*
|Overall||73||45||2.7 (1.6-12.0)||36.8 (35.8-NR)||36.0 (26.5-NR)|
|FL gr 1-3a||74||46||2.8 (1.6-12.0)||NR (27.7-NR)||30.2 (23.0-NR)|
|MZL||65||38||2.7 (1.9-11.1)||35.8 (NR-NR)||38.4 (26.5-38.4)|
|Yes||63||40||2.8 (1.6-12.0)||35.8 (19.2-NR)||18.1 (15.5-26.5)|
|No||78||47||2.7 (1.6-11.6)||NR (36.8-NR)||NR (36.0-NR)|
*If patients were already in maintenance at data cutoff, then response assessments also contributed to DOR and PFS.
John G. Gribben, Koji Izutsu, Nathan Hale Fowler, Xiaonan Hong, et al.
Conclusions: These analyses suggest that R2 (vs R/placebo) prolonged time to subsequent treatment and is associated with longer PFS2, enabling greater response to next therapy. Although patient numbers were modest, it is hypothesized that patients who received R2 were generally more sensitive to subsequent therapy than those treated with R/placebo. Clinical trial information: NCT01938001
|Treatment (R2 n/ R/placebo n)||Response after R2
||Response after R/placebo
|ORR, %||CR, %||ORR, %||CR, %|
|Single agent chemo (n = 8/14)||63||38||36||21|
|Other R-Chemo combo (n = 7/11)||43||29||64||18|
|Other (n = 9/10)||44||22||40||30|
|Combo chemo (n = 2/15)||0||0||27||0|
|Single agent targeted therapy (n = 7/8)||43||14||13||0|
|R-Benda (n = 5/10)||100||40||40||30|
|R monotherapy (n = 3/4)||67||67||25||0|
|O-Chemo (n = 3/3)||100||67||67||33|
|R-CHOP (n = 3/2)||67||33||0||0|
|Combo targeted therapies (n = 2/3)||50||0||33||33|
Jeremy S. Abramson, Maria Lia Palomba, Jon E. Arnason, Matthew Alexander Lunning, et al.