Introduction Treatment of patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with the combination of venetoclax (VEN), an oral, selective Bcl-2 inhibitor, and rituximab yielded an ORR of 84% (Roberts et al. Haematologica 2015). Treatment of such pts with VEN in combination with obinutuzumab (Gazyva®, Gazyvaro™, G), a Type II, glycoengineered anti-CD20 antibody, may yield even better treatment outcomes. We present preliminary efficacy and updated safety data from an ongoing phase 1b study (NCT01685892) evaluating this combination in R/R or treatment-naïve (TN) pts with CLL in alternate treatment schedules. Methods Pts with CLL with an ECOG PS ≤1 and adequate organ function are enrolled in a study with a 3+3 design and cohorts ranging from 100 to 600 mg/day of VEN. Pts are assigned to one of two dosing schedules, starting treatment with either VEN (Schedule A) or G (Schedule B). Both schedules include tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) risk mitigation based on disease burden at screening, which includes a gradual VEN ramp-up to the assigned cohort dose. Six cycles of combination therapy will be given and then pts with R/R disease continue single-agent VEN until disease progression; TN pts will receive single-agent VEN for an additional 6 months. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) are identified during the first 21 days of combination therapy in Schedule A or the first 35 days of combination therapy in Schedule B, and focus on TLS, infusion related reactions, and cytopenias. Based on a safety review of data from this trial, the 600 mg cohort will not be explored. Response is first assessed before Cycle 4 according to 2008 International Workshop on CLL guidelines. Results As of April 20, 2015, 32 pts (26 R/R and 6 TN) have been enrolled. Four R/R pts were unenrolled after a sponsor-initiated clinical hold secondary to TLS events in other VEN studies. Patient characteristics include a median age 62.5 (range, 45-80) years, and 62.5% male pts. TLS risk was assessed in 28 pts following protocol modifications adopted after a Sponsor-initiated clinical hold; 96.4% were at medium or high risk for TLS. The highest VEN dose administered in this study was 400 mg/day (administered to 11 R/R and 6 TN pts). Median time on study was 5.5 (range, 0.1-19.6) mo. for all pts and 2.8 (range, 0.9-2.8) mo. for TN pts. Among pts exposed to VEN, dose interruptions were observed in 17/27 (63%) pts. A summary of AEs is presented in Figure 1. Laboratory TLS was observed in 4/32 (12.5%) pts and all were able to continue study treatment after resolution of electrolyte changes; no cases of clinical TLS occurred. One pt with R/R disease in cohort 1 discontinued study participation following disease progression (the pt completed 6 cycles of combination treatment). A second pt with R/R disease in cohort 1 died secondary to acute respiratory failure; Richter's transformation also was suspected in this pt but not confirmed. Twenty pts with R/R disease and 6 TN pts remain on the study. At least 1 response evaluation has been performed in 17 pts with R/R disease. The overall response rate (ORR) by investigator assessment was 100%; 4/17 (23.5%) pts achieved complete response/complete response with incomplete bone marrow recovery (CR/CRi). Among the 13 (76.5%) pts with PRs after 3 cycles of therapy, 3 have improved to CR/CRi at assessments 28 days after completing C6D1. Full MRD data will be available in the near future but early analyses suggest some patients may achieve MRD negative status by Cycle 4. Conclusion These preliminary data suggest that VEN + G can be safely administered in pts with CLL with no difference in tolerability between R/R and TN subgroups. AEs appear to be manageable and no pt has discontinued study participation secondary to cytopenia, the most frequently observed AE. Data suggests that the TLS prophylaxis measures are effective even in patients with a higher disease burden. An expansion phase is planned using a 400 mg per day dose of VEN in R/R and TN pts following a review of safety data assessing potential differences between dosing schedules. The preliminary efficacy data suggest this regimen may be an important option in patients with CLL; a phase 3 study evaluating VEN+G is ongoing. Disclosures Flinn: Cephalon, Inc; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd; Genentech, inc; Gilead: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Venetoclax is an investigational drug that is not yet approved in this indication. Brunvand:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Speakers Bureau. Choi:Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding. Dyer:Roche Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; ONO Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Gribben:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Roche/Genentech: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Hillmen:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Jones:Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding. Li:Genentech, Inc.: Employment. Mobasher:Genentech, Inc.: Employment. Vosganian:Genentech, Inc.: Employment. Kipps:Pharmacyclics Abbvie Celgene Genentech Astra Zeneca Gilead Sciences: Other: Advisor; Pharmacyclics Abbvie Celgene Genentech Astra Zeneca Gilead Sciences: Other: Advisor.

Primary intraocular lymphoma (PIOL) is a rare, non-Hodgkin lymphoma considered to be a subtype of primary central nervous system lymphoma. We describe a 65-year-old woman who presented to the Hematology/Oncology Clinic at Scripps Clinic, La Jolla, California, who was diagnosed with bilateral PIOL without systemic disease. She enjoyed a 16-month remission but ultimately recurred in the brain. We reviewed the literature and present a discussion of the diagnostic criteria for PIOL and current strategies for treating PIOL in immunocompetent patients.

Background Budigalimab is a humanized, recombinant immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody targeting programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1). We present the safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetic (PK), and pharmacodynamic data from patients enrolled in the head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) expansion cohorts of the phase 1 first-in-human study of budigalimab monotherapy (NCT03000257; registered 15 December 2016). Patients and methods Patients with recurrent/metastatic HNSCC or locally advanced/metastatic NSCLC naive to PD-1/PD-1-ligand inhibitors were enrolled; patients were not selected on the basis of oncogene driver mutations or PD-L1 status. Budigalimab was administered at 250 mg intravenously Q2W or 500 mg intravenously Q4W until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoints were safety and PK; the secondary endpoint was efficacy. Exploratory endpoints included biomarker assessments. Results In total, 81 patients were enrolled (HNSCC: N = 41 [PD-L1 positive: n = 19]; NSCLC: N = 40 [PD-L1 positive: n = 16]); median treatment duration was 72 days (range, 1–617) and 71 days (range, 1–490) for the HNSCC and NSCLC cohorts, respectively. The most frequent grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse event was anemia (HNSCC: n = 9, 22%; NSCLC: n = 5, 13%). Both dosing regimens had comparable drug exposure and increased interferon gamma-induced chemokines, monokine induced by gamma interferon, and interferon-gamma-inducible protein 10. Objective response rates were 13% (90% CI, 5.1–24.5) in the HNSCC cohort and 19% (90% CI, 9.2–32.6) in the NSCLC cohort. Median progression-free survival was 3.6 months (95% CI, 1.7–4.7) and 1.9 months (95% CI, 1.7–3.7) in the HNSCC and NSCLC cohorts. Conclusions The safety, efficacy and biomarker profiles of budigalimab are similar to other PD-1 inhibitors. Development of budigalimab in combination with novel anticancer agents is ongoing.

Budigalimab is a humanized, recombinant, Fc mutated IgG1 monoclonal antibody targeting programmed cell death 1 (PD‐1) receptor, currently in phase I clinical trials. The safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetics (PKs), pharmacodynamics (PDs), and budigalimab dose selection from monotherapy dose escalation and multihistology expansion cohorts were evaluated in patients with previously treated advanced solid tumors who received budigalimab at 1, 3, or 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks (Q2W) in dose escalation, including Japanese patients that received 3 and 10 mg/kg Q2W. PK modeling and PK/PD assessments informed the dosing regimen in expansion phase using data from body‐weight‐based dosing in the escalation phase, based on which patients in the multihistology expansion cohort received flat doses of 250 mg Q2W or 500 mg every four weeks (Q4W). Immune‐related adverse events (AEs) were reported in 11 of 59 patients (18.6%), of which 1 of 59 (1.7%) was considered grade ≥ 3 and the safety profile of budigalimab was consistent with other PD‐1 targeting agents. No treatment‐related grade 5 AEs were reported. Four responses per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 were reported in the dose escalation cohort and none in the multihistology expansion cohort. PK of budigalimab was approximately dose proportional and sustained > 99% peripheral PD‐1 receptor saturation was observed by 2 hours postdosing, across doses. PK/PD and safety profiles were comparable between Japanese and Western patients, and exposure‐safety analyses did not indicate any trends. Observed PK and PD‐1 receptor saturation were consistent with model predictions for flat doses and less frequent regimens, validating the early application of PK modeling and PK/PD assessments to inform the recommended dose and regimen, following dose escalation.

No abstract