Phase 1/2 study of cirmtuzumab and ibrutinib in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) or chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

Abstract

7556 Background: Cirmtuzumab (Cirm) is a humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits the tumor promoting activity of ROR1 and had demonstrated additive/synergistic activity with many anti-cancer agents including ibrutinib (Ibr). Methods: Patients (Pts) with relapsed or refractory (RR) MCL or treatment naïve (TN) or RR CLL were enrolled. In Part 1 (Dose Escalation), doses of Cirm IV q2wks x5 then q4wks of 2-16 mg/kg and 300 or 600 mg were examined. Safety of Cirm alone was assessed during the first 28 days, then Ibr was started at approved doses for each indication. Cirm 600 mg IV q2wks x3 then q4wks in combination with Ibr starting day 0 was chosen as the recommended dosing regimen for use in Part 2 (Expansion) and Part 3 (CLL only, Cirm/Ibr vs. Ibr alone). Results: Twelve evaluable MCL pts were enrolled into Part 1, and 5 into Part 2. Median number of prior regimens was 2 (1-5), including pts relapsing after Ibr (4), auto-SCT (3), auto-SCT/ allo-SCT (1), auto-SCT/CAR-T (1). In CLL, 34 evaluable pts (12 TN and 22 RR) enrolled into Part 1 (18) or Part 2 (16). At least 74% of CLL pts in Parts 1 and 2 were high risk as determined by unmutated IGHV, del17p, and/or del11q. In Part 3, 22 evaluable pts received Cirm/Ibr (15) or Ibr (7). As of the 30OCT2020 safety cut-off for MCL and CLL, common TEAEs (all grades) included diarrhea (41%), contusion (39%), fatigue (39%), URI (31%), hypertension (25%) arthralgia (23%). Grade ≥3 neutropenia was 13% and thrombocytopenia 1%. There were no Cirm dose reductions or discontinuations for toxicity. Overall, Cirm did not appear to negatively impact the safety of Ibr. Efficacy (MCL): As of the 02FEB2021 efficacy cutoff, the best response of 17 evaluable pts in Parts 1 and 2 included an objective response rate (ORR) of 82%, 41% CR/CMR, 41% PR, 12% SD, and 6% PD. CR/CMR remain durable from 8-28+ mos. Most responses occurred rapidly after ̃3 mos of Cirm/Ibr. Notably, responses were achieved in all pts who received prior SCT+/- CAR-T (4CR, 1PR) or prior Ibr (2CR, 2PR). At a median follow-up of 14.6 mos, the median PFS (mPFS) had not been reached (NR) (95% CI: 17.5, NA). Efficacy (CLL): The best response of 34 evaluable pts in Parts 1 and 2 included 91% ORR, 3% CR, 88% PR/PR-L, 9% SD, 0% PD. In Part 3, both arms achieved 100% ORR (all PRs). At a median follow-up of 20.2 mos, the mPFS was NR (95% CI: NA, NA), and the PFS estimate at 24 months was 95% for R/R, and 87% for TN, respectively, for evaluable CLL pts receiving Cirm/Ibr. Conclusions: Cirm/Ibr is a well-tolerated, active regimen in both MCL and CLL. For MCL, the mPFS of NR (95% CI: 17.5, NA) and CRR (41%), with all CRs remaining without PD, compare favorably to mPFS of 12.8 mos (95% CI 8.5-16.6) and CRR (20%) reported for single agent Ibr (Rule 2017). For CLL, the high ORR and PFS are encouraging, particularly for RR CLL. The study is ongoing, with MCL enrollment expanded to study Cirm + Ibr in pts who have had a suboptimal response to an Ibr regimen, or who have failed other approved BTKi agents. Clinical trial information: NCT03088878.