Patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (R/R FL) often experience multiple disease recurrences with progressively shorter duration of remission. Chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) is commonly used for R/R FL in second-line and later settings but is not curative; novel, improved treatments are needed. Epcoritamab, a CD3 × CD20 bispecific antibody, is approved as monotherapy for R/R FL after ≥ 2 lines of therapy (LOTs) and combined with lenalidomide and rituximab (R2) for R/R FL. Epcoritamab + R2 pivotal data demonstrated superiority over R2, but no comparison of epcoritamab + R2 versus CIT exists. Therefore, we conducted an adjusted comparative analysis of epcoritamab + R2 from arm 2 of the phase 1b/2 EPCORE NHL-2 trial (NCT04663347; n = 111; US, 23.4%) versus R2/CIT using COTA individual patient-level electronic health records (n = 380; US, 100%) of patients with R/R FL after ≥ 1 previous LOT. Epcoritamab + R2 improved response rates over R2/CIT (overall response, 96.9% versus 80.5%, P < .001; complete response, 90.2% versus 55.1%, P < .001). Epcoritamab + R2 improved duration of response (HR, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.18-0.47]; P < .001), duration of complete response (HR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.17-0.55]; P < .001), progression-free survival (HR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.28-0.68]; P < .001), and overall survival (HR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.16-0.70]; P = .003) over R2/CIT. These findings support epcoritamab + R2 as a promising chemotherapy-free treatment option for R/R FL.

Standardising the implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials is crucial for evaluating the benefits and risks of cancer treatments. The Setting International Standards in Analysing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI) has developed 146 consensus-based recommendations for designing, analysing, interpreting, and presenting PROs in cancer clinical trials. This initiative, undertaken from 2021 to 2025, involved experts, including statisticians, PRO measurement experts, clinicians, and patient representatives from 41 organisations representing regulatory agencies, academia, the pharmaceutical industry, health-technology assessment bodies, and patient advocates. SISAQOL-IMI provides guidance on the implementation of PROs in randomised controlled trials and single-arm trials, terminology, definitions and the selection of PRO score interpretation thresholds, and for visualising PRO results for different audiences. To facilitate the implementation of these standards, in addition to this Policy Review, four key outputs are available: an interactive table, a guidebook, plain language materials, and a glossary.

BACKGROUND:In the absence of a head-to-head trial of off-the-shelf subcutaneous epcoritamab, a novel CD3xCD20 bispecific antibody, versus chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR T), a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of epcoritamab versus axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) efficacy was conducted in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with ≥ 2 prior lines of systemic therapy. METHODS:The MAIC used epcoritamab patient-level data from EPCORE NHL-1 (NCT03625037; April 2023 data cutoff) and axi-cel aggregated data from ZUMA-1 (NCT02348216). Patients without prior CAR T were matched to the ZUMA-1 population; weighted regression models were used to estimate absolute differences in overall response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR) rate, and weighted Cox proportional-hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS:EPCORE NHL-1 included patients without prior CAR T (N = 86, 61.9%) and a CAR T-eligible subset (N = 50, 36.0%) selected via ZUMA-1 inclusion/exclusion criteria. Comparing epcoritamab versus axi-cel, ORR was 73.5% versus 74.3%, respectively (adjusted absolute differences [95% CI]: -0.7% (-18.3, 16.8; P = .933) and CR rate was 48.7% versus 54.5%, respectively (adjusted absolute difference [95% CI] -5.7% [-27.1, 15.7]; P = .599). There was no statistically significant difference in PFS (adjusted HR [95% CI]: 1.009 [0.572-1.778]; P = .975) or OS (adjusted HR [95% CI]: 0.826 [0.444-1.536]; P = .546). Similar results were observed in the CAR T-eligible cohort. CONCLUSION:This MAIC found comparative efficacy between axi-cel and subcutaneous epcoritamab, addressing a critical unmet need for therapeutic alternatives to CAR T for patients with third-line or later relapsed/refractory DLBCL.

e23261 Background: Treatment accessibility for patients (pts) with MM is variable based on care setting. Most novel therapies are approved for RRMM in late lines of therapy (LoT). Starting from 2021, CAR-T and bispecific antibody (BsAb) therapies became available for MM. Herewe evaluate real-world (RW) treatment patterns and outcomes for TCE pts with RRMM receiving care in community care setting (CCS) and academic care setting (ACS), after ≥2 prior LoT. Methods: This retrospective observational study used the COTA Vantage MM database. Care setting was assigned based on the provider site at time of data abstraction. Adults were included if they had TCE (proteasome inhibitor, immunomodulatory drug, and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody exposure) and initiated 3L therapy in the US between November 2015–May 2024. Index date was defined as start date of each line of interest post-TCE. Pt demographics, clinical characteristics, and RW outcomes were assessed, stratified by care setting. Additional analyses are ongoing. Results: Of the 681 pts included, 34.5% were in ACS and 65.5% in CCS. The mean (SD) age at diagnosis was 64 (10.4) and 65 (10.5) years, and 48.1% and 48.4% were female for ACS and CCS, respectively. Selected pt characteristics and unadjusted RW outcomes by care setting are reported in the Table. In addition, among the observed 631 ACS and 1054 CCS treatment regimens, the top regimens were daratumumab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone and carfilzomib-pomalidomide-dexamethasone; top reasons for treatment discontinuation (DC) were physician-reported progression (31% vs 28%) and toxicity (21% vs 19%); death accounted for 3% and 9% of regimen DC in ACS and CCS, respectively. During the study period, the proportions of pts receiving CAR-T and BsAb were low in both settings but samples sizes were small. Conclusions: RW pt demographics and clinical characteristics differ by care setting for TCE RRMM pts in 3L+, and outcomes are suboptimal in both settings. Despite advances in MM management, this study highlights the need for more efficacious and accessible novel treatments for these pts regardless of treatment setting and may add to the body of evidence for evaluating emerging data from novel therapies (including BsAbs) in RRMM. Setting Academic (n=235;476 patient-lines) Community (n=446;781 patient-lines) ECOG PS a at diagnosis ≥1, n (% among nonmissing) b 79 (59.4%) 178 (52.5%) Median prior LoT, (range) b 4 (3–5) 3 (2–4) Ever received CAR-T post-index date, n (%) b 11 (4.7%) 8 (1.8%) Ever received BsAb post-index date, n (%) b 7 (3.0%) 7 (1.6%) Median rwPFS, months (95% CI) c 3.91 (3.1–5.7) 3.22 (2.8–3.9) Median time to next treatment, months (95% CI) c 4.07 (3.3–4.7) 4.50 (4.0–5.03) Median rwOS, months (95% CI) c 14.9 (12.4–19.5) 11.01 (9.5–12.4) a ECOG PS was missing 43% and 24%. b Assessed at the pt level. c Assessed at the pt-line level.

Background: Epcoritamab (epcor) is a first-in-class CD3xCD20 bispecific antibody (bsAb) approved for the treatment of 3L+ LBCL and follicular lymphoma. In the single-arm, phase 1/2, EPCORE NHL-1 trial (NCT03625037), epcor given until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, demonstrated deep and durable responses, a median overall survival (OS) of 18.5 months, and a manageable safety profile in R/R LBCL. A second CD3xCD20 bsAb given as fixed-treatment duration, glofitamab (glofit), also demonstrated durable responses, conferring a median OS of 11.5 months in the pivotal study. Understanding how long-term outcomes compare among bsAb agents remains an important knowledge gap. With over 2 years of follow-up, in the absence of a head-to-head study, it is now relevant to compare the efficacy of these agents via indirect comparison. This study evaluated OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and duration of complete response (DoCR) of epcor vs glofit in R/R LBCL using data from the respective pivotal trials. Methods: Two analyses were conducted to compare the efficacy of epcor and glofit. First, a matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison (MAIC) was conducted using published OS and PFS data from the full cohort of the glofit pivotal trial (12.6 months of follow-up, Dickinson et al, 2022) and the epcor pivotal trial (EPCORE NHL-1). Piece-wise hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated when proportional hazards assumptions were not met. Baseline characteristic prognostic variables were selected based on literature, clinical judgement, and empirical statistical testing and were adjusted between epcor and glofit cohorts. Second, in sensitivity analyses, indirect comparisons were conducted using an updated analysis of glofit with longer follow-up that included DoCR, together with OS and PFS data starting at cycle (C) 3 with 32 months of follow-up (Hutchings et al, ASH 2023). Sensitivity analyses with longer follow-up could not be adjusted because glofit pt baseline characteristics were not presented. Aggregate OS and PFS curves for glofit were derived from subgroups of pts with complete response/partial response/no response (CR/PR/NR) at C3 (Hutchings et al, ASH 2023). Aggregate epcor OS and PFS curves were similarly derived for pts with CR/PR/NR at C3 without prior disease progression. Weighted Cox proportional-hazards models were used to estimate the OS and PFS HRs between the 2 comparators. The DoCR comparison included all glofit and epcor pts achieving CR. All comparisons used EPCORE NHL-1 data with a median of 37.1 months of follow-up. Results: Pts enrolled into the pivotal trials of epcor and glofit were comparable by several key baseline characteristics before adjustment: age ≥65 y; male gender; Ann Arbor disease stage III-IV; primary refractory disease; refractory to most recent anti-CD20 therapy; previous chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR T); refractory to CAR T; and previous autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). MAIC analysis revealed no significant difference in OS benefit from C1 until month 6 (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.71, 1.64; P=0.72), but a demonstrable OS advantage from 6 months onward (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37, 0.98; P=0.04) in favor of epcor. An OS comparison starting at C3 with longer glofit follow-up demonstrated a consistent survival advantage in favor of epcor (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.46, 1.01; P=0.05). The proportion of pts who received CAR T or ASCT subsequent therapy were similar for epcor and glofit (CAR T: 7.0% vs 8.9%; ASCT: 6.4% vs 6.3%) (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Glofit Single Technology Appraisal, 2023). The MAIC analysis showed comparable PFS between epcor and glofit (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.79, 1.41; P=0.71), although there was substantial censoring in the glofit PFS curve due to immature follow-up. With longer follow-up in the analysis starting at C3, with less censoring, the glofit PFS curve remained similar to the epcor PFS curve from C3 until month 6 (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.42, 1.07; P=0.10), where separation of the PFS curves were observed favoring epcor (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33, 0.97; P=0.04). Median DoCR was longer for epcor (36.1 months) vs glofit (26.9 months). Conclusion: These indirect treatment comparisons suggest that epcor may provide an overall survival benefit over glofit through longer PFS with more mature follow-up, potentially driven by longer DoCR. Survival data with longer follow-up in the full glofit cohort are needed to confirm these findings.

BACKGROUND:Most patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia progress after treatment or retreatment with targeted therapy or chemoimmunotherapy and have limited subsequent treatment options. Response levels to the single-agent venetoclax in the relapsed setting is unknown. We aimed to assess venetoclax activity in patients with or without previous B-cell receptor-associated kinase inhibitor (BCRi) treatment. METHODS:This multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 3b trial (VENICE-1) assessed activity and safety of venetoclax monotherapy in adults with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, stratified by previous exposure to a BCRi. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older with previously treated relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Presence of del(17p) or TP53 aberrations and previous BCRi treatment were permitted. Patients received 5-week ramp-up to 400 mg of oral venetoclax once daily and were treated for up to 108 weeks, with 2 years follow-up after discontinuation, or optional extended access. The primary activity endpoint was complete remission rate (complete remission or complete remission with incomplete marrow recovery) in BCRi-naive patients. Analyses used the intent-to-treat (ie, all enrolled patients, which coincided with those who received at least one dose of venetoclax). This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02756611, and is complete. FINDINGS:Between June 22, 2016, and March 11, 2022, we enrolled 258 patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (180 [70%] were male; 252 [98%] were White; 191 were BCRi-naive and 67 were BCRi-pretreated). Median follow-up in the overall cohort was 49·5 months (IQR 47·2-54·1), 49·2 months (47·2-53·2) in the BCRi-naive group, and 49·7 months (47·4-54·3) in the BCRi-pretreated group. Of 191 BCRi-naive patients, 66 (35%; 95% CI 27·8-41·8) had complete remission or complete remission with incomplete marrow recovery. 18 (27%; 95% CI 16·8-39·1) of 67 patients in the BCRi-pretreated group had complete remission or complete remission with incomplete marrow recovery. Grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 203 (79%) and serious adverse events were reported in 136 (53%) of 258 patients in the overall cohort. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was neutropenia (96 [37%]) and the most common and serious adverse event was pneumonia (21 [8%]). There were 13 (5%) deaths reported due to adverse events; one of these deaths (autoimmune haemolytic anaemia) was possibly related to venetoclax. No new safety signals were identified. INTERPRETATION:These data demonstrate deep and durable responses with venetoclax monotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, including BCRi-pretreated patients, suggesting that venetoclax monotherapy is an effective strategy for treating BCRi-naive and BCRi-pretreated patients. FUNDING:AbbVie.

Background: Follicular lymphoma (FL) is the most common indolent subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Despite the generally indolent nature of the condition, there are subgroups of FL patients who may not have an indolent experience, with their disease not responding to multiple lines of therapy. Thus, optimization of novel therapy could improve patient outcomes. This analysis examined treatment patterns, overall response rates (ORR), and complete response (CR) rates by line of therapy (LOT) in relapsed/refractory (R/R) FL in third-line or later (3L+) therapy. Methods: This retrospective observational study was conducted using the COTA database, comprising electronic health records (EHR) from academic (50%) and community (50%) practices in the US. Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of FL, with 3L+ therapy initiation in 2010 or later, at least 3 months of follow-up, and any response assessment after 3L initiation were included. LOTs eligible for inclusion met the following conditions: treatment with an anti-CD20, alkylating agent, or lenalidomide, and no investigational drug in the selected LOT. In addition, patients with only 3L had that line selected; patients with more than 1 eligible LOT had only 1 LOT randomly selected for the analysis. Outcomes were assessed by FL International Prognostic Index (FLIPI), double refractory (DR) status, and type of therapy. DR status was defined as being refractory (disease progression or initiation of a new LOT in <6 months) to an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody therapy and an alkylating agent. Chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) regimens included obinutuzumab/rituximab + bendamustine (OB/BR), rituximab/obinutuzumab+cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (R/O+CHOP), R/O+CVP, R/O+other alkylating agent, and R/O+fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (FC). Novel therapies included lenalidomide + rituximab (R 2), phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitors, and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR T). The proportion of patients with CR (as retrieved from clinician documentation in EHR) as the physician-reported response within each LOT was calculated. ORR was calculated as the proportion of patients with a CR or PR. Response rates were reported by LOT (3L, 4L, 5L+) and stratified by patient age (<65 vs ≥65 years), FLIPI score (low/intermediate vs high), and DR (not DR vs DR). Results: Overall, 240 patients with R/R 3L+ FL were included: 3L (n=140), 4L (n=55), and 5L+ (n=45). At 3L initiation, median age was 66 years and most patients were male (58.8%), White (89.6%), and had FL grade 1/2 (72.5%); 47.9% of patients were DR, 22.9% had novel therapy use, and 51.3% had CIT use. A total of 152 patients had FLIPI scores available, 38.2% of whom had high-risk scores at 3L initiation. Among all R/R 3L+ FL patients, ORR was 67.9%, with CR in 30.4% ( Figure 1). Response rates decreased across LOTs for both ORR (3L: 72.9%; 4L: 65.5%; 5L+: 55.6%) and CR (3L: 35.0%; 4L: 30.9%; 5L+: 15.6%) ( Figure 2). ORR was higher among all R/R 3L+ FL patients <65 years vs ≥65 years (75.5% vs 62.3%), as was CR rate (36.3% vs 26.1%). Among the subset of R/R 3L+ FL patients with a FLIPI score, those with low/intermediate risk vs high risk had a greater ORR (78.7% vs 58.6%) and CR rate (36.2% vs 20.7%). ORR was also higher for R/R 3L+ patients without DR status vs with DR status (73.0% vs 63.2%), as was CR rate (37.4% vs 24.0%). Patients receiving novel therapy 3L+ had an ORR of 70.9% and a CR rate of 27.3%. Among R/R 3L+ FL patients, more LOTs of CIT were associated with decreased response rates; patients with CIT in 1 LOT vs CIT in >2 LOTs had greater ORR (76.4% vs 69.2%) and CR rate (37.4% vs 26.9%). Conclusions: This analysis provides granular details on patients with R/R FL with poor prognosis. Patients with FL who progress to later LOTs have worsening response rates. This analysis included more patients with later LOTs than previously published reports, providing additional insight into response rates as treatment progresses. Lower response rates were observed among patients ≥65 years, those with a high-risk FLIPI score, and those with DR status. The high utilization of CIT in later LOTs, despite suboptimal response rates, especially among subgroups of patients with FL who may not have indolent experience of the disease, underlines the need for efficacious alternative therapies in patients with R/R 3L+ FL.

Epcoritamab, an off-the-shelf, subcutaneous CD3xCD20 T-cell–engaging bispecific antibody that redirects T cells to eliminate malignant CD20+ B cells, showed single-agent efficacy in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with a manageable safety profile. The phase 1/2 EPCORE NHL-1 trial (NCT03625037) of epcoritamab in patients with R/R DLBCL who received ≥2 prior lines of systemic therapy demonstrated high complete response (CR) and minimal residual disease rates. To contextualize the data with that of other T-cell engagers, indirect comparisons are warranted. Aims: We conducted an unanchored, matching-adjusted indirect comparison of the efficacy of epcoritamab with that of axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) in patients with R/R DLBCL. Two groups from the EPCORE NHL-1 trial were analyzed: all CAR T-naive patients and CAR T-naive patients considered eligible for CAR T therapy. Methods

Introduction: Although follicular lymphoma (FL) is an indolent disease, there is much heterogeneity in outcomes. Patients with early relapsed disease within 24 months (POD24) have been reported to be a poor prognostic subgroup, although this finding has not been confirmed in several recent real-world studies. This study describes treatment patterns, prognostic factors, and outcomes in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) FL, including those who progress through multiple lines of therapy (LOTs). Methods: This study was conducted using the COTA database, which is comprised of electronic health records drawn from academic centers (50%) and community practices (50%) in the US. Patients included in this study had a confirmed diagnosis of FL (index date) between 1 January 1990 and 31 December 2022, were ≥18 y of age at index date, were administered treatment for FL, and were followed >3 months after first-line (L) treatment initiation. The utilization of novel treatment options was captured progressively throughout the study period. Patients who progressed from 1L chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) within 24 months were identified as POD24 patients. A landmark approach was taken to assess the overall survival (OS) of the POD24 patients who had at least 24 months of follow-up from 1L CIT versus non-POD24 patients as described in previous studies (Casulo et al., Blood 2022). Patient demographics, treatment patterns, and OS were also assessed by LOT. Results: Overall, 3568 FL patients met inclusion criteria. Among these, 2465 received 1L CIT, with 459 (18.6%) identified as POD24. Of these POD24 patients, 264 had ≥24 months of follow-up from 1L CIT and were included in the landmark analysis. This sub-group of POD24 patients had a median age of 64 y at diagnosis and 86.6% had stage III/IV disease. Non-POD24 patients (n = 2006) had a median age of 61 y at diagnosis and 81.4% had stage III/IV disease. POD24 patients had worse OS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.24; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.79, 2.80) versus non-POD24 patients. Of the 3568 1L FL patients, 862 continued to 2L, 328 continued to 3L, 146 continued to 4L, and 59 continued to 5L+ treatment. Across all LOTs, the most common therapy was rituximab or obinutuzumab + chemotherapy. The utilization of novel treatments (ie, kinase inhibitors, CAR T-cell therapy, tazemetostat) increased through LOTs, with 6.4% utilization at 3L, 9.6% at 4L, and 20.7% at 5L. Patients who progressed through successive LOTs experienced worsening OS (Figure 1). The research was funded by: This study was funded by Genmab A/S and AbbVie Inc. Keywords: Cancer Health Disparities, Late Effects in Lymphoma Survivors Conflicts of interests pertinent to the abstract. L. H. Sehn Consultant or advisory role: AbbVie, Bayer, BeiGene, BMS/Celgene, Epizyme, Genentech/Roche, Genmab, Incyte, Janssen, Kite/Gilead, Loxo, Miltenyi, MorphoSys, Novartis, Rapt, Regeneron, Takeda A. Wang Employment or leadership position: AbbVie Stock ownership: AbbVie J. Yu Employment or leadership position: AbbVie R. Kamalakar Employment or leadership position: AbbVie K. Sail Employment or leadership position: AbbVie Stock ownership: AbbVie W. Sinai Employment or leadership position: AbbVie Stock ownership: AbbVie D. Arnette Employment or leadership position: AbbVie S. Yang Employment or leadership position: Genmab A. Mutebi Employment or leadership position: Genmab Stock ownership: Genmab F. R. Navarro Employment or leadership position: Genmab G. Salles Consultant or advisory role: AbbVie, Bayer, BeiGene, BMS/Celgene, Epizyme, Genentech/Roche, Genmab, Incyte, Janssen, Kite/Gilead, Loxo, Miltenyi, MorphoSys, Novartis, Rapt, Regeneron, Takeda

Background: Epcoritamab is a subcutaneous, off-the-shelf, T-cell-engaging CD3xCD20 bispecific antibody (bsAb) with powerful single-agent activity and a manageable safety profile in relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL), recently approved in the US for the treatment of adults with R/R diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), not otherwise specified, including DLBCL arising from indolent lymphoma, and high-grade B-cell lymphoma after ≥2 lines of systemic therapy. While chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR T) has demonstrated remarkable efficacy in R/R LBCL, there are still barriers to wide adoption, including logistical restrictions and manufacturing limitations. In the absence of head-to-head clinical trial data comparing CAR T with T-cell-engaging bsAbs, we conducted an indirect treatment comparison between CAR T-naive patients treated with epcoritamab in EPCORE NHL-1 (NCT03625037), including a subgroup of CAR T-eligible patients, identified according to ZUMA-1 (NCT02348216) eligibility criteria and utilized in a prior unanchored, matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of epcoritamab and axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) in patients with R/R DLBCL (Thieblemont et al EHA 2023 #P1154), and patients treated with tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) in the JULIET trial (NCT02445248). The CAR T-eligible population was of interest for the comparison of epcoritamab vs tisa-cel as it was most similar in baseline clinical characteristics and comparable to patients examined in CAR T trials. Methods: Published data on the overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, digitized progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) for tisa-cel from JULIET publications were used in MAIC vs individual patient-level data (IPD) of CAR T-naive and CAR T-eligible patients from EPCORE NHL-1 (Nov 2022 data cut). Analyses were adjusted for imbalances in the following baseline characteristics between IPD from EPCORE NHL-1 and aggregate data from JULIET: age 65 years or older, gender, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, disease stage, DLBCL, refractory to last therapy, and prior autologous stem cell transplant. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate survival. Results: A total of 96 CAR T-naive patients from EPCORE NHL-1 were included in the analysis, with an effective sample size of 33 CAR T-naive patients after adjustment. The CAR T-eligible subgroup from EPCORE NHL-1 included 57 patients with an effective sample size of 21 patients after adjustment. After adjustment there was a significant difference in ORR for epcoritamab vs tisa-cel (77.9% vs 53.0%, respectively; difference [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 24.8% [9.5, 40.2]; P=0.002) in the CAR T-naive cohort, and in CR rate (52.3% vs 39.1%, respectively; difference [95% CI]: 13.2% [ 5.9, 32.3]; P=0.174). Also, in the CAR T-naive cohort there was a trend toward PFS benefit for epcoritamab vs tisa-cel after adjustment (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.725; 95% CI: 0.447, 1.177; P=0.194) and OS (HR: 0.611; 95% CI: 0.356, 1.049; P=0.074). In the CAR T-eligible subgroup there was a significant difference in ORR (80.8% vs 53.0%, respectively; difference [95% CI] 27.7% [11.0, 44.4]; P=0.001) and CR rate (61.9% vs 39.1%, respectively; difference [95% CI]: 22.8% [1.5, 44.1]; P=0.036) for epcoritamab vs tisa-cel after adjustment. Also, there was a statistically significant survival benefit for OS (HR: 0.450; 95% CI: 0.227, 0.891; P=0.022) and a numerical trend toward benefit for PFS (HR: 0.548; 95% CI: 0.300, 1.003; P=0.051) when comparing epcoritamab vs tisa-cel after adjustment. Conclusion: In the absence of head-to-head data, this MAIC of the R/R LBCL CAR T-naive cohort and the eligible subgroup treated with epcoritamab vs tisa-cel demonstrated improved response rates and survival outcomes. This study underscores the therapeutic potential of epcoritamab as a novel, subcutaneous, off-the-shelf, core therapy for the treatments of patients with R/R LBCL. Indirect comparisons can be biased by cross-trial differences and further comparisons with longer follow-up are warranted.

Aim: To evaluate trials of systemic therapies in transplant-ineligible or -experienced, relapsed/refractory diffuse large-B cell lymphoma and the impact of patient characteristics on overall response rate (ORR). Patients & methods: Systematically reviewed multiple databases through 22 July 2021. Analyzed variations in patient characteristics and their relationship with ORR across trials. Results: Among 17 included trials, key patient characteristics varied substantially: primary refractory (0–69%), refractory to last line of therapy (LOT) (12–100%), ≥2 prior LOTs (14–100%), ≥3 prior LOTs (0–64%), IPI ≥3 (23–73%), tumor stage III/IV (50–90%) and median age (56–74 years). ORRs varied substantially (25–83%), correlating with these characteristics. Conclusion: Differences in patient characteristics significantly contribute to the variability in ORR across these trials and should be considered when contextualizing efficacy data.

Abstract Background: The combination of venetoclax (Ven), a selective oral B-cell lymphoma-2 inhibitor, and obinutuzumab (Obi), a type II anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, is approved as a 12-cycle fixed duration treatment for adult patients (pts) with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). In the CLL14 study, pts with CLL and coexisting conditions treated with Ven-Obi achieved high rates of undetectable minimal residual disease (uMRD), translating into a 4-year progression free survival (PFS) of 74%. Despite these favorable results, disease relapse may occur after cessation of the fixed duration therapy, particularly for those with higher risk genetics, such as TP53 aberrancy and unmutated IgHV. A key unanswered question in the field is, for pts who initially had a clinical response after first-line (1L) Ven-Obi treatment, how much clinical benefit would they receive from retreatment with Ven-Obi after developing progressive disease (PD)? Retreatment with Ven-Obi would provide a line of treatment in addition to other regimens such as BTK inhibitors. In patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) CLL, one of the current standard therapies is the combination of Ven and rituximab (R). Updated results from the phase 3 MURANO trial of 24-cycle fixed duration Ven-R demonstrated that patients with disease progression after treatment completion and clinical response had a best overall response rate (ORR) of 72.2% upon Ven-R retreatment. The results of the MURANO study and the favorable safety profile of Ven-Obi suggest that retreatment with Ven-Obi after initial therapy with Ven-Obi may be effective in pts with relapsed CLL. The present study is the first prospective clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of retreatment with Ven-Obi at the time of PD in pts who had initially responded to 1L Ven-Obi for at least 12 months (mo) after completing therapy. Study Design and Methods: Pts are eligible for this multicenter, open-label, non-randomized, phase 2 study (NCT04895436) if they have a diagnosis of CLL according to iwCLL criteria, were treated with Ven-Obi fixed duration therapy, and achieved a best response of either complete remission (CR), CR with incomplete marrow recovery (CRi), nodular partial remission (nPR), or partial remission (PR). Pts must also have had at least 12 mo of remission between the last dose of Ven and PD. Pts will be divided into two cohorts: PD more than 2 years after completing 1L treatment (Co-1), and pts with PD between 1-2 years post 1L therapy (Co-2). Pts receive Obi (100 mg intravenously [IV] on Day [D] 1 and additional 900mg on either D1 or D2, then 1000mg on D8 and D15 of Cycle [C] 1 and subsequently on D1C2-6). Ven is administered orally once daily (QD) beginning on C1D22, including a 5-week ramp-up period (weekly dose increases from 20, 50, 100, 200, to 400mg QD), followed by 400mg QD thereafter on 28-day cycles, for a total of 12 or 24 cycles in Co-1 and Co-2, respectively. Pts in Co-2 with detectable MRD (≥10 -4) after 15 months of therapy may continue Ven monotherapy beyond mo 24 at the investigator's discretion. The primary objective is to assess the efficacy of Ven-Obi in Co-1 as measured by ORR, defined as a proportion of pts achieving a best response of PR/nPR or CR/CRi at the end of combination therapy (EOCT) assessment (EOCT + 3 mo). Key secondary objectives are CR/CRi at EOCT, CR/CRi rate at end of therapy (EOT), ORR at EOT, time to response (TTR), duration of response (DOR), PFS, overall survival (OS), time to next treatment (TTNT), and uMRD (10 -4)rate at EOCT and EOT. Safety endpoints include the type, frequency, and severity of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), and serious AEs. Prespecified exploratory biomarker endpoints include MRD kinetics up to 12 mo post-treatment, and correlations of baseline characteristics of IgHV, TP53 mutation, and del (17p) status with outcomes. Point and interval estimates will be used to characterize the efficacy of Ven-Obi retreatment; exact binomial (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence intervals will be provided alongside the corresponding point estimates for the response rates of interest (ORR, CR rate, and uMRD rate), while Kaplan-Meier methodology will be used to summarize the time-to-event endpoints (DOR, PFS, OS, and TTNT). Finally, descriptive statistical summaries will be reported for several patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures, including the EORTC QLQ-CLL-17, EQ-5D-5L, and FACIT-F. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Davids: Takeda: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Ascentage Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eli Lilly and Company: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding. Fischer: Abbvie: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel Grants. Porro Lurà: F. Hoffmann - La Roche Ltd: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Sinai: AbbVie Inc.: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Chyla: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Sail: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Pesko: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Pai: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Komlosi: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. 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. Brown: Beigene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Eli Lilly and Company: Consultancy; Nextcea: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squib/Juno/Celegene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Morphosys AG: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Acerta/Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Invectys: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee Service; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Sun: Research Funding; SecuraBio: Research Funding; Loxo/Lilly: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Catapult: Consultancy. Al-Sawaf: AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Venetoclax is a B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor approved in combination with Obinutuzumab, a type II anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, for first-line therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Department GMH1, ABV1 - 3NW, 1 North Waukegan Rd., North Chicago, IL, 60064 discontinued prematurely; and 43/3.2% received venetoclax-based regimens, of whom 16.3% discontinued prematurely (venetoclax monotherapy: 7/0.5%, of whom 42.9% discontinued; VG/VR: 36/2.6%, of whom 11.1% discontinued). The most common reasons for treatment discontinuation were adverse events (FCR: 25/13.2%; BR: 36/14.1%; BTKi-based regimens: 75/15.9%) and disease progression (venetoclax-based: 3/7.0%). Of 626 2L patients, 20/3.2% received FCR (50.0% discontinued); 62/9.9% received BR (35.5% discontinued); 303/48.4% received BTKi-based regimens, of whom 38.0% discontinued; and 73/11.7% received venetoclax-based regimens, of whom 30.1% discontinued (venetoclax monotherapy: 27/4.3%, of whom 29.6% discontinued; VG/VR: 43/6.9%, of whom 27.9% discontinued). The most common reasons for treatment discontinuation were adverse events (FCR: 6/30.0%; BR: 11/17.7%; BTKibased regimens: 60/19.8%; venetoclax-based: 6/8.2%). Conclusion: The findings of this study highlight the continued need for tolerable therapies in CLL, with finite therapy offering a better tolerated option for patients who are newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory to prior treatments.

It is important to understand the real-world health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs accompanying Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), given its association with promising clinical outcomes. We assessed the 30-day HCRU and costs upon receiving CAR-T therapy in DLBCL patients.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with a fixed-duration venetoclax (Ven)-based regimen is now a standard of care (SOC) option for both frontline and relapsed refractory (R/R) disease based on results of the CLL14 and MURANO trials (Fischer et al NEJM 2019, Seymour et al NEJM 2018). As fixed-duration Ven regimens are now a SOC, it is expected that an increasing number of patients (pts) will ultimately progress after Ven exposure and require additional CLL-directed therapy. While many discuss re-treatment with Ven as a subsequent treatment option, the current literature contains response data on an extremely limited number of evaluable pts (11 pts MURANO, overall response rate (ORR) 55%; 3 pts VEN 365, ORR 100%). Whether re-treatment with Ven is an acceptable option remains an important unanswered clinical question. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective study of CLL pts treated with a Ven-based regimen (Ven1) and then re-treated with a second Ven-based regimen (Ven2) in a later line of therapy (LOT). Data were collected from 13 centers and the CLL Collaborative Study of Real-World Evidence database. CLL pts were eligible for inclusion if they were treated with a Ven-based regimen in any LOT and then re-treated with a Ven-based regimen as a later LOT. Collected data included demographics, prognostic disease characteristics, tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) risk and incidence, clinical response and reasons for treatment discontinuation (dc). The primary study endpoint was investigator-assessed ORR (CR: complete response, PR: partial response, SD: stable disease, PD: progression of disease, iwCLL 2018). Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate progression free survival (PFS). All other analyses were descriptive. RESULTS: We identified 25 pts who were re-treated with Ven. Pt characteristics prior to treatment with Ven1 are summarized in Table 1. In 24% of pts (n=6), Ven1 was administered as part of a clinical trial. Median prior LOT was 2 (range 0-10) with 12.0% treatment naïve and 60% with prior BTKi exposure. The majority of pts had ≥1 high-risk prognostic marker: del17p (39%), TP53 mut (27%), complex karyotype ≥5 abnormalities (30%) and unmutated IGHV (84%). For Ven1, treatment regimens, TLS risk, and dose are summarized in Table 2. With a median duration of exposure of 15 months (mos) (64% pts > 12 mos) for Ven1, the ORR was 88% (CR: 48%, PR: 40%, Figure 1A). Ten pts had minimal residual disease (MRD) assessments by flow cytometry; 8 pts (80%) achieved undetectable MRD (10^-4). Most common reasons for Ven1 dc included: toxicity (28%), completion of planned therapy (24%), MD/pt preference (24%), other (12%), alloHSCT (4%) and cost (4%). There was a median of 8.7 mos (36% > 12 mos) between Ven1 and the initiation of Ven2, and 88% did not receive another LOT between Ven1 and Ven2. Reasons for Ven2 initiation were either CLL progression (87.5%) or MRD-positive relapse (12.5%). For Ven2, TLS risk, TLS incidence and dose information are outlined in Table 2. TLS was a rare event during Ven re-treatment (4.5%, lab only). For Ven2, Ven monotherapy was the most common regimen (52%). Standard Ven dose-escalation was used for re-initiation in 17 of 19 pts with available data, however 1 pt started Ven2 at 400 mg daily (no TLS) and another underwent a prolonged ramp-up period. At the time of this analysis, 18 pts had available response assessments for Ven2: ORR is 72.2% (CR: 4, PR: 9, SD: 4 and PD: 1, Figure 1B). Median time from Ven2 to progression or last follow up is 8 mos (0.2-29 mos). Median PFS has not been reached. Estimated 12-month PFS is 69.1%. For pts with a CR to Ven2, median follow up time is 14.5 mos vs 7 mos for pts with PR or SD. Of 25 pts re-treated with Ven, 68% remain on Ven2 presently and 32% have discontinued Ven2, including due to CLL progression (n=4), completion of planned therapy (n=1), unrelated death (n=1), MD/pt preference (n=1). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the largest reported cohort of CLL pts re-treated with Ven after a prior Ven-based regimen. The high ORR in this pt population (median 2 prior therapies) suggests that re-treatment is a promising strategy and should be considered in treatment sequencing algorithms. Notably, pts with a CR to Ven2 had a longer median follow up than those with a PR or SD, suggesting a likelihood of deeper responses with time. Given the promising ORR, further research to prospectively validate Ven re-treatment is warranted. Updated data will be presented. Disclosures Allan: Celgene, Genentech, Janssen, TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Acerta, Genentech, Abbvie, Sunesis, Ascentage, Pharmacyclics, Janssen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene: Consultancy. Sail:AbbVie Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Manzoor:Abbvie: Current Employment, Other: may hold stock or stock options. Pu:Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Barr:Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; TG therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Coombs:LOXO Oncology: Honoraria; MEI Pharma: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Octapharma: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Schuster:AlloGene, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Juno/Celgene, Loxo Oncology, Nordic Nanovector, Novartis, Tessa Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis, Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding. Skarbnik:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Consultancy; Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; CLL Society: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Rhodes:Verastem: Consultancy; Abbvie/Genentech: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Barrientos:Janssen: Honoraria; Sandoz: Consultancy; Oncternal Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Roeker:American Society of Hematology: Research Funding; Abbott Laboratories: Other: spouse with minority ownership interest ; AbbVie: Other: spouse with minority ownership interest . Leslie:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; KitePharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kamdar:Roche: Research Funding. Choi:Pharmacyclics/Abbvie: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy. Simkovic:Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: travel expenses. Lansigan:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; BMS Steering Committee for MAGNIFY Program: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spectrum Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Zelenetz:Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Sandoz: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding. Moskowitz:Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Miragen Therapeutics: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Imbrium Therapeutics, L.P.: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Goy:Morphosys: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; MD Anderson: Research Funding; Regional Cancer Care Associates/OMI: Current Employment; Infinity Verastem: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; CALBG: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; PracticeUpdate Oncology: Consultancy; RCCA/OMI: Current Employment; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; COTA: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: leadership role; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; Xcenda: Consultancy; Hackensack UMC and University of Nebraska: Research Funding. Feldman:Pfizer: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Trillium: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Viracta: Research Funding; Rhizen: Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Furman:Verastem: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Oncotarget: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy. Mato:Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB, Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Venetoclax is a first-in-class targeted therapy option that is an inducer of apoptosis in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) cells. The open-label phase III CLL14 clinical trial showed that venetoclax combined with obinutuzumab (VEN+O) is superior to obinutuzumab combined with chlorambucil in newly diagnosed patients with CLL. The aim of this study was to assess the health economic value of VEN+O for the frontline treatment of CLL in Canada from a publicly funded healthcare system perspective. A partitioned survival analyses model was developed including three health states: progression free, progressed, and death. A cycle length of 28 days and a time horizon of 10 years was assumed. VEN+O treatment for a fixed duration of 12 months was compared to obinutuzumab combined with chlorambucil, fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide plus rituximab, bendamustine plus rituximab, chlorambucil plus rituximab, ibrutinib, and acalabrutinib. The population in the model included both unfit and overall frontline CLL patients, two subgroups were also assessed (patients with del17p/TP53 mutations and patients without del17p/TP53 mutations). Survival data extrapolated from the CLL14 trial were used to populate the model. Uncertainty was assessed via one-way sensitivity analyses, probabilistic analyses, and scenario analyses. Based on the probabilistic analyses, unfit frontline CLL patients receiving VEN+O were estimated to incur costs of Canadian dollars () 217,727 [confidence interval (CI)170,725, 300,761] (del17p/TP53:209,102 [CI 159,698,386,190], non-del17p/TP53: 217,732 [CI171,232, 299,063]) and accrue 4.96 [CI 4.04, 5.82] quality-adjusted life-years (del17p/TP53: 3.11 [CI 2.00, 4.20], non-del17p/TP53: 5.04 [CI 4.05, 5.92]). Obinutuzumab combined with chlorambucil, bendamustine plus rituximab, chlorambucil plus rituximab, and ibrutinib accrued lower quality-adjusted life-years and higher costs and as such, VEN+O was the dominant treatment option. The full incremental analysis showed that acalabrutinib was more expensive and more efficacious compared with VEN+O with an incremental-cost-effectiveness-ratio of2,139,180/quality-adjusted life-year versus VEN+O and not a cost-effective option in Canada. Probabilistic analyses show that at a willingness to pay of 50,000/quality-adjusted life-year gained, VEN+O has the greatest probability of being cost effective. VEN+O is a cost-effective treatment option for unfit frontline CLL patients and provides value for money to healthcare payers.

We estimated the total cumulative costs per patient of treatment sequences for adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), with and without deletion 17p, as well as the budget impact of introducing sequences with first-line (1L) venetoclax + obinutuzumab (V+O) from a US payer perspective. Efficacy, treatment-related costs, and epidemiological inputs were informed by clinical trial publications and public data sources. Cumulative costs per patient (2020 US $) were estimated over 10 years. The results indicated that among adults with CLL with deletion 17p, the 10-year cumulative costs of sequences starting with fixed-duration V+O were lower ($935,781-$1,345,96) than those starting with ibrutinib or acalabrutinib ($1,426,924-$1,906,544); similar results were estimated in adults without deletion 17p (V+O: $690,346- $951,633; ibrutinib or acalabrutinib: $1,720,745-$1,976,767). Retreatment with a venetoclax-based regimen after 1L also resulted in treatment sequences with low costs. In a hypothetical 1-million-member health plan, the total budget impact of introducing sequences with 1L fixed-duration V+O led to cost savings of $12.5 and $56.4 million over 5 and 10 years, respectively.

To assess the cost effectiveness of venetoclax + obinutuzumab (VENCLAXTA® + GAZYVA®), (Ven+O) for the frontline treatment of CLL (1L CLL) in Canada from a publicly funded healthcare system perspective. A partitioned survival analyses (PartSA) model was developed with three health states: progression free, progressed, and death. A cycle length of 28 days and a time horizon of 10 years was used for the model. VEN+O treatment for a fixed duration of 12 months was compared to G + Chlorambucil (GClb), Fludarabine plus Cyclophosphamide plus Rituximab (FCR), Bendamustine plus Rituximab (BR), Chlorambucil plus Rituximab (Clb+R), Ibrutinib (Ibr) and Acalabrutinib. The population in the model included both unfit and overall 1L CLL patients, two subgroups were also assessed (patients with del17p/TP53 mutations and patients without del17p/TP53 mutations). Survival data extrapolated from the CLL14 trial were used to populate the model. Uncertainty was assessed via one-way sensitivity analyses, probabilistic analyses (PA), and scenario analyses. Based on the PA, unfit 1L CLL patients receiving VEN+O were estimated to incur costs of $217,727 [confidence interval (CI): $170,725, $300,761] (Del(17p)/TP53: $209,102 [CI: $159,698, $386,190], Non-Del(17p)/TP53: $217,732 [CI: $171,232, $299,063]) and accrue 4.96 [CI: 4.04, 5.82] quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) (Del(17p)/TP53: 3.11 [CI: 2.00, 4.20], Non-Del(17p)/TP53: 5.04 [CI: 4.05, 5.92]). GClb, BR, Clb+R, and Ibr accrued less QALYs and higher costs, VEN+O was the dominant treatment option. Acalabrutinib showed higher QALY gain and substantially higher costs compared to VEN+O, leading to an incremental-cost-effectiveness-ratio (ICER) of $2,139,180/QALY gained and therefore not a cost-effective option. PA shows that at a willingness-to-pay of $50,000/QALY gained, VEN+G has 98% probability of being cost-effective. VEN+G is a cost-effective treatment option for unfit 1L CLL patients and provides excellent value to the healthcare system in Canada.