Sacchi, Mariana

Abstract Introduction: The phase 2 CheckMate 205 study (NCT02181738) of nivolumab (nivo) has demonstrated high objective response rates (ORRs), durable efficacy, prolonged overall survival (OS), and an acceptable safety profile in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL) after failure of autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT) irrespective of prior brentuximab vedotin (BV) treatment (Armand et al, J Clin Oncol 2018). Atypical response patterns have been observed with checkpoint inhibitors, and clinical benefits may be experienced by pts who are treated beyond progression (TBP) as defined by conventional criteria (Cheson et al, Blood 2016; Younes et al, Ann Oncol 2017). Stable reductions in tumor burden without symptoms of active disease were seen in pts TBP in CheckMate 205, suggesting that pts might continue to derive clinical benefits from nivo beyond disease progression. As TBP was an option for some pts in CheckMate 205, we report here updated outcomes of those pts. Methods: This single-arm, multicenter study enrolled pts (age ≥18 y) with R/R cHL after failure of auto-HCT into 3 cohorts (A: BV naïve; B: BV after auto-HCT; C: BV before and/or after auto-HCT). Nivo was administered at 3 mg/kg IV every 2 wk until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (or after 1 year in complete response [CR] for cohort C). Response was assessed by 2007 International Working Group (IWG) criteria. A protocol amendment allowed pts with stable performance status and perceived clinical benefit to be TBP per investigator assessment. Tumor burden after initial progression was assessed; exploratory analyses included OS and time to next therapy (TTNT). Pts TBP were further categorized as PD-1 resistant (failure to achieve CR/partial response [PR] during initial treatment with nivo or CR/PR with subsequent progressive disease [PD] ≤90 d of response) and non-resistant pts (CR/PR followed by PD >90 d from response). Results: At data cutoff, 130 pts had PD, among whom 80 (62%) were TBP, and 50 (38%) were not (non-TBP). Demographics of pts TBP and non-TBP were similar to the overall study population, although more pts TBP had ECOG performance status of 0 at baseline (59% vs 36%) and stage IV disease at diagnosis (30% vs 22%), but fewer had B symptoms at baseline (23% vs 30%). In pts TBP vs non-TBP, the cause of initial progression was new lesions in 50 (63%) vs 23 (46%), increased total tumor burden in 17 (21%) vs 11 (22%), and non-target lesion progression in 19 (24%) vs 4 (8%) (pts could have multiple reasons for progression). ORR prior to progression was similar between TBP (54%) and non-TBP (64%) pts. At data cutoff, the median (range) doses of nivo given beyond progression was 11 (1-64) and median TBP duration was 5 (95% CI: 3, 7) mo. Nine (11%) pts TBP remained on treatment compared with 2 (4%) non-TBP. The most common reason for discontinuation was further disease progression in 55 (69%) and 28 (56%) pts TBP and non-TBP, respectively. The majority of pts TBP (37/67 evaluable pts) had stable or reduced target lesion tumor burden and most had sustained further reduction compared with the burden presented at the time of disease progression (Figure). There was no discernible difference in the response to TBP between PD-1 resistant vs non-resistant pts. Median OS for pts TBP was not reached; 1- and 2-yr OS (95% CI) was 94% (85, 97) and 87% (77, 93), respectively. Median TTNT was 20 (95% CI: 14, 24) mo for all pts TBP. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 50% of pts after progression vs 68% prior to progression. The most common TRAEs reported after progression were fatigue (8%) and increased lipase (6%). Treatment-related serious AEs after progression were reported in 2 (3%) pts: aspartate aminotransferase increase (n=1) and hypercalcemia (n=1). No deaths occurred in pts TBP. Conclusions: Among pts treated beyond investigator-assessed progression, most commonly due to development of new lesions, continued reductions in tumor burden were observed in a majority with further nivo treatment irrespective of prior PD-1 resistance status. Nivo continued to be well tolerated during TBP with no new safety signals. Pts who have stable performance status despite progression according to conventional criteria may derive continued clinical benefit from TBP. Future work will focus on identifying subsets of pts TBP who may benefit the most from continued nivo treatment. Study support: BMS. Disclosures Cohen: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kuruvilla:Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Canada: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria. Ansell:Celldex: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Younes:Abbvie: Honoraria; J&J: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Curis: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; Genentech: Research Funding. Trněný:Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Sandoz: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board. Ramchandren:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Collins:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celleron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Zinzani:Astra Zeneca: Speakers Bureau; PFIZER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; PFIZER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SERVIER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. De Boer:EISA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Shipp:Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Bayer: Research Funding. Sacchi:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sy:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Armand:Otsuka: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Tensha: Research Funding.

PURPOSE Nivolumab, an anti–programmed death-1 monoclonal antibody, has demonstrated frequent and durable responses in relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). We report results from Cohort D of the CheckMate 205 trial, which assessed nivolumab monotherapy followed by nivolumab plus doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (N-AVD) for newly diagnosed cHL. METHODS Patients 18 years of age or older with untreated, advanced-stage (defined as III to IV and IIB with unfavorable risk factors) cHL were eligible for Cohort D of this multicenter, noncomparative, phase II trial. Patients received nivolumab monotherapy for four doses, followed by 12 doses of N-AVD; all doses were every 2 weeks, and nivolumab was administered at 240 mg intravenously. The primary end point was safety. Efficacy end points included objective response rate and modified progression-free survival, defined as time to disease progression/relapse, death, or next therapy. Chromosome 9p24.1 alterations and programmed death-ligand 1 expression were assessed in Hodgkin Reed-Sternberg cells in evaluable patients. RESULTS A total of 51 patients were enrolled and treated. At diagnosis, 49% of patients had an International Prognostic Score of 3 or greater. Overall, 59% experienced a grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse event. Treatment-related febrile neutropenia was reported in 10% of patients. Endocrine immune-mediated adverse events were all grade 1 to 2 and did not require high-dose corticosteroids; all nonendocrine immune-mediated adverse events resolved (most commonly, rash; 5.9%). At the end of therapy, the objective response rate (95% CI) per independent radiology review committee was 84% (71% to 93%), with 67% (52% to 79%), achieving complete remission (five patients [10%] were nonevaluable and counted as nonresponders). With a minimum follow-up of 9.4 months, 9-month modified progression-free survival was 92%. Patients with higher-level Hodgkin Reed-Sternberg programmed death-ligand 1 expression had more favorable responses to N-AVD ( P = .041). CONCLUSION Nivolumab followed by N-AVD was associated with promising efficacy and safety profiles for newly diagnosed, advanced-stage cHL.

Background: Patients (pts) with classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) frequently experience reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (Oerlemans et al, Ann Hematol 2011). Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint inhibitor monoclonal antibody, demonstrated efficacy and clinically meaningful improvement in pt-reported outcomes (PROs) in pts with relapsed/refractory cHL in cohorts A, B, and C of CheckMate 205 (NCT02181738) (Armand et al, J Clin Oncol 2018; Engert et al, ASH 2017). Nivolumab monotherapy followed by nivolumab + doxorubicin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (N-AVD) demonstrated an objective response rate of 84% in newly diagnosed cHL (cohort D of CheckMate 205; Ramchandren et al, EHA 2018). We present PROs in CheckMate 205 cohort D. Methods: Pts ≥18 years of age with untreated, advanced-stage cHL, with ECOG performance status (PS) of 0–1 received 4 doses of nivolumab monotherapy (240 mg IV Q2W) followed by N-AVD for 6 cycles (12 doses). Pts then entered the follow-up (FU) period. PROs were an exploratory endpoint, assessed using the EuroQol 5 Dimensions-3 level (EQ-5D-3L) and associated visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) in all treated pts who had both a baseline (monotherapy cycle 1) and post-baseline assessment. EQ-VAS ranges from 0–100, with higher scores indicating better HRQoL. In EQ-5D-3L, pts can report no, some, or extreme problems in each of 5 dimensions (mobility, self-care, activity, pain, and anxiety). Results: 51 pts were treated. At baseline, median age was 37 years, 63% were male, 59% had ECOG PS of 0. 49 pts (96%) completed baseline EQ-VAS. Mean EQ-VAS scores exceeded the mean baseline score at the end of monotherapy, after 2 combination cycles, at the end of therapy, and during follow-up (Table 1). The proportion of pts reporting some or extreme problems in EQ-5D-3L was numerically lower than or similar to baseline after monotherapy for all dimensions, but was numerically higher than baseline (dimensions of mobility and activity) after 2 combination cycles, and remained close to or numerically below baseline during follow-up (dimensions of self-care, activity, pain, and anxiety). Conclusions: Pt-reported HRQoL, as assessed by observed mean EQ-VAS scores, did not deteriorate from baseline during treatment with nivolumab followed by N-AVD. Proportions of pts reporting problems in individual EQ-5D-3L dimensions were generally similar to baseline during treatment and follow-up.