Abramson, Jeremy S.

Abstract Approximately one‐third of patients diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma presenting with Stage IV disease do not survive past 5 years. We present updated efficacy and safety analyses in high‐risk patient subgroups, defined by Stage IV disease or International Prognostic Score (IPS) of 4–7, enrolled in the ECHELON‐1 study that compared brentuximab vedotin plus doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A + AVD) versus doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) as first‐line therapy after a median follow‐up of 37.1 months. Among patients treated with A + AVD ( n = 664) or ABVD ( n = 670), 64% had Stage IV disease and 26% had an IPS of 4–7. Patients with Stage IV disease treated with A + AVD showed consistent improvements in PFS at 3 years as assessed by investigator (hazard ratio [HR], 0.723; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.537–0.973; p = 0.032). Similar improvements were seen in the subgroup of patients with IPS of 4–7 (HR, 0.588; 95% CI, 0.386–0.894; p = 0.012). The most common adverse events (AEs) in A + AVD‐treated versus ABVD‐treated patients with Stage IV disease were peripheral neuropathy (67% vs. 40%) and neutropenia (71% vs. 55%); in patients with IPS of 4–7, the most common AEs were peripheral neuropathy (69% vs. 45%), neutropenia (66% vs. 55%), and febrile neutropenia (23% vs. 9%), respectively. Patients in high‐risk subgroups did not experience greater AE incidence or severity than patients in the total population. This updated analysis of ECHELON‐1 shows a favorable benefit‐risk balance in high‐risk patients.

e20004 Background: IB is a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor that showed superior progression-free survival compared with BR in CLL patients (pts) 65 years or older in a randomized phase 3 trial (Woyach et al, NEJM 2018). Pts receiving IB had higher rates of atrial fibrillation (AFIB) and hypertension (HTN); BR pts had higher rates of hematologic toxicity. Differences in treatment duration for BR (6 cycles) and IB (until progression) complicated adverse event (AE) comparisons. Here we use an exploratory approach to compare toxicity burden between arms and provide assessment of AFIB, HTN and infections (INF). Methods: AEs were reported for each of cycles 1-6 and then every 3 cycles until progression or nonprotocol CLL therapy. Only grade (gr) 3-4 AEs were reported thereafter until death. A simple global AE score was calculated for each pt by summing grades of all gr 1-4 AEs and dividing by the number of cycles over which AEs were submitted. Results: 537 pts began therapy (176 BR, 361 IB). 68% on BR completed all 6 cycles. At a median follow-up of 38 months, 64% remained on IB. Treatment discontinuation for AE occurred in 10% and 14% of BR and IB pts. Overall, median AE score was 1.8 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.9-3.3) and 3.8 (IQR 2.3-5.9) in BR and IB arms (p < 0.01). For cycles 1-6, median AE score was 6.2 (IQR 3.8-9.0) and 4.8 (IQR 3.0-7.2) in BR and IB arms (p < 0.01). In the IB arm, median AE score post 6 cycles decreased significantly to 3.4 (IQR 1.9-5.6) (p < 0.01). Gr 3 or higher cumulative rates of AFIB, HTN, and INF over time appear in the table. 100 pts (26/176 BR, 74/361 IB) had 137 severe INF (39% respiratory: 16 BR, 37 IB; 25% skin: 3 BR, 31 IB; 12% GU: 3 BR, 13 IB; 25% other: 12 BR, 22 IB). There were 7 gr 5 INF (3 BR, 4 IB), none confirmed fungal. Conclusions: There was no difference in treatment discontinuation rates for AE. Overall toxicity burden was significantly higher for IB, although IB toxicity burden decreased after 6 cycles. Toxicity burden was significantly higher in cycles 1-6 for pts receiving BR. Risk of severe AFIB, HTN, and INF is highest in the first year of IB. A simple AE score provides valuable information, especially when evaluating regimens of varying length. Clinical trial information: NCT01886872 . Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org ; Pharmacyclics; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01886872. [Table: see text]

8017 Background: LAM-002 is a selective inhibitor of PIKfyve that disrupts lysosomal homeostasis, inducing cytotoxicity in B-cell lymphoma models as monotherapy or with anti-CD20 or anti-PDL1 antibodies (Gayle et al., Blood 2017;129(13):1768). Methods: In this study, patients received LAM-002 orally 2-3 times per day (BID or TID) in a 3+3 escalation. Additional patients received LAM-002 125 mg BID as monotherapy; with rituximab 375 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) and or subcutaneously weekly (Q1W) x 4 → Q8W x 4; or atezolizumab 1200 mg IV Q3W until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Pharmacokinetics (PK) were assessed for 8 hours postdose on Days 1 and 8. Efficacy was evaluated Q6-12W. Results: The study enrolled 62 patients (M:F n = 32/30); median [range] age = 69 [46-89] years; with diagnoses (n) of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (25), follicular lymphoma (19), marginal zone lymphoma (8), mantle cell lymphoma (5), or chronic lymphocytic leukemia (5) to receive LAM-002 alone (n) at 50 mg BID (3), 100 mg BID (8), 150 mg BID (8), 75 mg TID (4), or 125 mg BID (20); LAM-002/rituximab (12); or LAM-002/atezolizumab (7). During LAM-002 dose-ranging (50 mg BID → 100 mg BID → 150 mg BID → 75 mg TID → 125 mg BID) transient, reversible nausea and/or diarrhea occurred at 150 mg BID and 75 mg TID, resulting in a LAM-002 recommended Phase 2 dosing regimen (RP2DR) of 125 mg BID. Among 39 patients receiving LAM-002, 125 mg BID, alone or in combination for up to 22 cycles (1.9 years), adverse events were typically low-grade. LAM-002 PK showed rapid absorption, dose proportionality, minimal accumulation, and no substantive changes with rituximab or atezolizumab coadministration. In patients with follicular lymphoma and median [range] prior therapies = 3 [1-9] treated with the RP2DR, objective response rates were 2/7 (29%; 1 complete response [CR], 1 partial response [PR]) with LAM-002, 5/8 (63%; 1 CR, 4 PRs) with LAM-002/rituximab, and 2/2 (100%; 2 PRs) with LAM-002/atezolizumab. Conclusions: LAM-002, the first clinical PIKfyve inhibitor, is safe alone or with full-dose anti-CD20 or anti-PD-L1 inhibition. LAM-002 does not cause the myelosuppressive or immune adverse events associated with lenalidomide or PI3K inhibitors. Promising efficacy supports registration-directed Phase 2/3 testing of LAM-002 monotherapy and combination therapy for patients with previously treated follicular lymphoma. Clinical trial information: NCT02594384 .

8060 Background: ENKL is a rare and aggressive subtype of peripheral T-cell lymphoma. Due to its geographic predilection there is a paucity of data on clinical experiences from non-Asian countries. The purpose of this study was to analyze characteristics and outcomes of patients (pts) with ENKL identified from major academic centers in NA. Methods: Pts with newly diagnosed CD56+ ENKL were retrospectively identified. Analyses included disease characteristics, ethnicity, therapy, and outcomes. Results: 115 pts (63.5% Caucasian, 20% Asian, 16.5% other) were identified across 10 centers diagnosed between 5/1990-5/2011 (Era 1: pre-2000, n=16; Era 2: 2000-2005, n=45; Era 3: post-2005, n=54). Median age was 52 years (19-88). 75 (65%) had stage I/II disease and were treated with combined modality therapy (CMT) n=48, chemotherapy (CT) n=14 or radiotherapy (RT) n=14. 40 pts had stage III/IV disease and were treated with CT (n=23), CMT (n=12) or RT (n=5). CT regimens used alone or in CMT were either anthracycline-based (n=68) or other (n=29). 63% of stage I/II pts and 40% with stage III/IV achieved complete remission (CR). 30 pts underwent a stem cell transplant (SCT); 14 in first CR and 16 at progression/relapse (autologous, n=21; allogeneic, n=9). Pts with stage I/II disease had a better progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with stage III/IV (12 vs 5.2 months (p=0.003) and 41.5 vs 8.9 months (p<0.0001), respectively). For all stages, treatment with CMT compared with CT or RT alone was also associated with better PFS and OS, 18.0 vs 3.9 months (p<0.0001), and 41.5 vs 10.2 months (p=0.002) respectively. Non-anthracycline-based regimens were associated with better PFS (p=0.001) and OS (p=0.045). No survival differences were seen between Asian and non-Asian pts. Conclusions: This series represents one of the largest experiences of ENKL in NA. Our data are consistent with Asian studies in: 1) majority of pts present with early stage disease; 2) overall poor outcome; 3) superiority of CMT and non-anthracycline regimens. Advances in understanding biology and international collaborative efforts are required to improve outcome in this rare entity.

Abstract Introduction: The most effective initial therapy for older adults with CLL has not yet been established due to the lack of comparison of chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) and targeted therapy with the Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib. CIT has been the gold standard since studies showing that addition of CD20 antibody to chemotherapy prolongs survival. Bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) is one standard, more aggressive CIT regimen for patients (pts) age 65 or older. While ibrutinib has been FDA approved for untreated CLL since 2016, it has only been compared to chlorambucil, which is relatively ineffective, and never before to aggressive CIT. Additionally, the benefit of the addition of rituximab to ibrutinib in this setting has not been prospectively studied in a phase 3 trial. As part of a randomized phase 3 trial, the Alliance sought to answer these important clinical questions. Pts and Methods: Alliance A041202 is a multicenter NCI National Clinical Trials Network phase 3 study comparing BR (Arm 1) with ibrutinib (Arm 2) and the combination of ibrutinib plus rituximab (Arm 3) to determine whether ibrutinib-containing regimens are superior to CIT in terms of PFS. Additionally, this study sought to determine if adding rituximab to ibrutinib would prolong PFS over ibrutinib alone. At time of progression, pts on Arm 1 could cross over to Arm 2. Eligible pts were those age ≥ 65 years with previously untreated, symptomatic CLL. Pts had a CrCl ≥ 40 mL/min, bilirubin ≤ 1.5 x ULN, and no significant life-limiting intercurrent illness or need for warfarin treatment. Pts were stratified based upon Rai stage, Zap-70 methylation performed centrally, and del(17)(p13.1) or del(11)(q22.3) by local interphase cytogenetics and were randomized 1:1:1 to each arm. With 166 pts per arm, the trial was powered to detect an improvement in 2-year PFS from 61% in Arm 1 to 75% in Arms 2 or 3 (HR=0.586) using two one-sided log-rank tests with type I error rate of 2.5% and 90% power. The Alliance Data and Safety Monitoring Board approved the data release after meeting the protocol-defined efficacy threshold at a planned interim analysis with a one-sided critical value of 0.001538. These data were locked July 2, 2018; updated results will be presented at the meeting. Results: Between 12/9/2013 and 5/16/2016, 547 pts were registered and randomized (Arms 1: 183, 2: 182, and 3: 182). Median age was 71 years and 67% of pts were men. High-risk Rai stage (stage III/IV) was seen in 54%, unmethylated Zap-70 in 53%, and del(17p) or del(11q) by local FISH in 28%. Local vs centralized FISH was performed for del(11q) and del(17p) with agreement between local and central results in 94% (Kappa=0.80) and 97% (Kappa=0.76) of pts, respectively. 525 (96%) pts were eligible and included in the primary PFS analysis (Arms 1: 176, 2: 178, and 3: 171). With median follow-up of 32 months (mo), median PFS was 41 mo in Arm 1 and has not been reached in Arms 2 or 3 (HR comparing Arm 2 to 1 is 0.40 with one-sided p&lt;0.0001; HR comparing Arm 3 to 1 is 0.41 with one-sided p&lt;0.0001; HR comparing Arm 3 to 2 is 1.01 with one-sided p=0.48). 2-year PFS estimates were 74%, 87% in 2, and 88% in Arms 1, 2, and 3 respectively. At this time, there are no significant differences in overall survival (OS) among arms (p=0.87), median OS has not been reached for any arm, and 2-year OS estimates were 95%, 90%, and 94% in Arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Adverse events (AEs) were compared among arms using Fisher's exact tests. Grade 3+ treatment-emergent AEs were seen in 428 of 537 evaluable pts with 61%, 41%, and 38% of pts experiencing Grade 3+ heme AEs (p&lt;0.0001) and 60%, 72%, and 71% of pts experiencing Grade 3+ non-heme AEs (p=0.03) in Arms 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Grade 5 AEs were seen in 5 (2.8%), 14 (7.8%), and 14 (7.7%) pts (p=0.07). Unexplained or unwitnessed death over the entire observation period was seen in 2 (1.1%), 7 (3.9%), and 4 (2.2%) pts (p=0.24) in Arms 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Conclusions: This international phase 3 trial demonstrates that ibrutinib produces superior PFS to standard CIT in older pts with CLL and justifies it as a standard of care treatment for pts age 65 and older. The addition of rituximab does not prolong PFS with ibrutinib. While ibrutinib represents a major therapeutic advance, toxicities and also cost justify future efforts to reduce the need for long-term continuous treatment. Support: K23CA178183, R01CA183444, U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171, Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01886872 Figure. Figure. Disclosures Ding: Merck: Research Funding. Bartlett:Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; ImaginAB: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding. Brander:BeiGene: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; DTRM: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding. Barr:AbbVie, Gilead: Consultancy. Parikh:Gilead: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Coutre:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lozanski:Novartis: Research Funding; BI: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Stem Line: Research Funding; Coulter: Research Funding; Beckman: Research Funding. Larson:Ariad/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; BristolMyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Erba:Amgen: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Juno: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Astellas: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee. Owen:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Teva: Honoraria. Abramson:Bayer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Humanigen: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCLs) and follicular lymphoma (FL) are the most common subtypes of B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas in adults. Histologic transformation of FL to DLBCL (TFL) occurs in approximately 15% of patients and is generally associated with a poor clinical outcome. Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitors have shown promising results in the treatment of relapsed/refractory FL. CAR T-cell therapy (axicabtagene ciloleucel and tisagenlecleucel) has emerged as a novel treatment option for relapsed/refractory DLBCL and TFL. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight important updates to the NCCN Guidelines for B-Cell Lymphomas regarding the treatment of TFL and relapsed/refractory FL and DLBCL.

PURPOSE Alliance/CALGB 50303 (NCT00118209), an intergroup, phase III study, compared dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab (DA-EPOCH-R) with standard rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) as frontline therapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients received six cycles of DA-EPOCH-R or R-CHOP. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary clinical objectives included response rate, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Between 2005 and 2013, 524 patients were registered; 491 eligible patients were included in the final analysis. Most patients (74%) had stage III or IV disease; International Prognostic Index (IPI) risk groups included 26% IPI 0 to 1, 37% IPI 2, 25% IPI 3, and 12% IPI 4 to 5. At a median follow-up of 5 years, PFS was not statistically different between the arms (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.27; P = .65), with a 2-year PFS rate of 78.9% (95% CI, 73.8% to 84.2%) for DA-EPOCH-R and 75.5% (95% CI, 70.2% to 81.1%) for R-CHOP. OS was not different (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.59; P = .64), with a 2-year OS rate of 86.5% (95% CI, 82.3% to 91%) for DA-EPOCH-R and 85.7% (95% CI, 81.4% to 90.2%) for R-CHOP. Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were more common ( P < .001) in the DA-EPOCH-R arm than the R-CHOP arm, including infection (16.9% v 10.7%, respectively), febrile neutropenia (35.0% v 17.7%, respectively), mucositis (8.4% v 2.1%, respectively), and neuropathy (18.6% v 3.3%, respectively). Five treatment-related deaths (2.1%) occurred in each arm. CONCLUSION In the 50303 study population, the more intensive, infusional DA-EPOCH-R was more toxic and did not improve PFS or OS compared with R-CHOP. The more favorable results with R-CHOP compared with historical controls suggest a potential patient selection bias and may preclude generalizability of results to specific risk subgroups.