PS1162 COMBINATION THERAPY TO PREVENT IBRUTINIB WITHDRAWAL: CONTINUED IBRUTINIB WITH THE ADDITION OF VENETOCLAX AT TIME OF PROGRESSION IN IBRUTINIB‐TREATED PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC LYMPHOCYTIC LEUKEMIA (CLL)

Background: We have previously reported that ∼50% of CLL patients (pts) experience rapid flare of disease when they discontinue ibrutinib therapy due to progression of disease (CLL or Richter's transformation [RT]) (Hampel et al, JCO suppl , 2018). This lead to the clinical practice of overlapping venetoclax with ibrutinib for combination therapy in this setting to prevent ibrutinib withdrawal. Aims: To evaluate the role of continuing ibrutinib beyond the start of salvage venetoclax in pts who have progression of disease on ibrutinib monotherapy, both in preventing ibrutinib withdrawal associated with ibrutinib discontinuation and in disease response. Methods: We identified all CLL pts at Mayo Clinic (3/2017–11/2018) who had disease progression on ibrutinib therapy, where venetoclax was added as subsequent treatment while ibrutinib was continued. CLL‐specific characteristics, treatment timeline and toxicities, and disease course following combination therapy were ascertained. All pts started venetoclax according to the weekly ramp‐up per the package instructions. Results: Eighteen pts treated with the addition of venetoclax to ibrutinib therapy were identified; indications were CLL progression (n = 13) and RT (n = 5). BTK or PLCG2 mutations were present in 8/13 pts. Median duration of follow‐up was 9.6 months after the start of combination therapy. The target venetoclax dose was reached by 5 weeks in 13 pts; reasons for delaying or stopping dose escalation included diarrhea (n = 2), sepsis (n = 2), and neutropenia (n = 1). No patient experienced a disease flare during venetoclax ramp‐up. The median duration of combination ibrutinib and venetoclax therapy was 3 months (range, 0–14 months). Of 18 pts who started combination therapy with ibrutinib and venetoclax, ibrutinib was discontinued in 10 pts. Reasons included hematopoietic stem cell transplant (n = 2), planned stop after adequate disease control (n = 4), financial reasons (n = 1), toxicity (neutropenia n = 1, immune thrombocytopenia/bleeding risk n = 1), and death (n = 1). Only 1 patient experienced ibrutinib withdrawal, which occurred following planned discontinuation after clinical complete response (CR) with a 41 day overlap and toleration of venetoclax 400 mg daily; management with re‐initiation of ibrutinib was effective in regaining disease control. Of 9 pts who stopped ibrutinib, 4 pts had a slow taper over 2–8 weeks, and 2 pts also received corticosteroids at the time of ibrutinib discontinuation. Among the other 8 pts who did not discontinue ibrutinib, 6 pts remain on the combination with venetoclax (median duration 6.5 months, range 3–14 months), and 2 pts continued on ibrutinib following venetoclax discontinuation due to disease progression (both pts received further combination of ibrutinib with multi‐agent chemotherapy). The overall response rate (ORR) to combination therapy with ibrutinib and venetoclax was 81% (CR/clinical CR n = 9, partial response n = 4, stable disease n = 1, and primary refractory disease n = 2). The duration of combination therapy was <4 weeks in 2 pts, precluding response assessment. The estimated 12‐month event‐free survival was 54% (95% CI 33–87%), and the estimated 12‐month overall survival from start of combination therapy was 79% (95% CI 60–100%); see Figure 1 . Summary/Conclusion: Among CLL pts who develop progression of disease on ibrutinib monotherapy, continued ibrutinib therapy with addition of venetoclax was feasible, ameliorated ibrutinib withdrawal, and was associated with high ORR.