Palmisiano, Neil

e19007 Background: While clinical outcomes of patients (pts) with TP53 mutated (m) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are dismal, subsets of pts with eligibility to curative intent therapies can do better. As racial disparities are known to impact outcome in hematological malignancies, we sought to explore disparities in TP53m AML. Methods: We conducted a multicenter study of 304 TP53m AML pts, divided into 2 groups, White (n= 240) and Black/Hispanic (n=64), to compare difference in disease characteristics and clinical outcome. We grouped Black and Hispanic together as the number of pts were small in each group and our aim was to evaluate outcome in under-represented races/ethnicities. Results: Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table. The median age of the pts was comparable between White and Black/Hispanic (p= 0.97). A significantly higher proportion of Black/Hispanic pts (23%) had diabetes mellitus when compared with White (14%) pts (p= 0.02). A higher proportion of Black/Hispanic pts had therapy-related AML (33% vs. 20%, p= 0.03), complex cytogenetics (98% vs. 87%, p= 0.003) and co-mutations (70% vs. 57%, p= 0.02). The proportion of pts who received hypomethylating agent + venetoclax (29% vs 20%, p= 0.20) or CPX-351 (22% vs 20%, p= 0.13) were comparable between White and Black/Hispanic, respectively. A higher proportion of Black/Hispanic pts received supportive care (17% vs. 4%, p= 0.002). White pts had higher rates of complete remission with or without count recovery (25% vs. 19%, p= 0.07). Only 6% of Black/Hispanic pts received allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloHCT) compared to 16% for White pts (p= 0.01). The median event free survival was 2 months (mo) (95% CI;1.52-2.41) and 2.5 mo (95% CI:1.62-3.31) in White and Black/Hispanic pts, respectively (p= 0.71). The median overall OS was shorter for Black/Hispanic (6.37 mo [95% CI:2.88-9.85]) than for White (6.90 mo [95% CI:5.55-8.24] [p= 0.009]). Conclusions: Our study demonstrates poorer OS in Black/Hispanic pts with TP53m AML. Potential drivers of this disparity include lower alloHCT rates, higher rates of pts receiving supportive care, and higher-risk disease in Black/Hispanic pts.[Table: see text]

3084 Background: Homologous recombination (HR) is an essential, high-fidelity mechanism to repair DNA double strand breaks (DSBs) in cancer cells. CYT-0851 inhibits HR leading to an accumulation of unrepaired DSBs and tumor cell death. We are reporting the completed Phase 1 dose-escalation results and RP2D selection to support ongoing development of CYT-0851. Methods: Patients (pts) with advanced hematologic and solid tumors were treated with continuous 28-day cycles of increasing doses of CYT-0851 following a 3+3 design. The primary objective was determining the maximum tolerated dose. Secondary objectives included safety, pharmacokinetics, and anti-tumor activity. Results: As of a 15 Nov 2021 data cutoff (DCO), 73 pts with advanced cancers (NHL n = 18; Sarcoma n = 16; Pancreas n = 11; Breast n = 8; HNSCC n = 6; Ovarian n = 4; SCLC n = 4; Other n = 4; Myeloma n = 2) were treated in 12 cohorts (total daily doses: 30 mg to 1200 mg). One pt experienced a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of reversible metabolic acidosis at 1200 mg. Two of 3 pts at 800 mg experienced reversible DLT-like events in Cycle 2 of Gr3 dry skin and Gr3 myalgia and polyarthritis, respectively. Three of 10 pts treated at 600 mg experienced DLT-like events in Cycle 1: 1 pt experienced an SAE of Gr3 anorexia with Gr3 stomatitis, vomiting, and dehydration and 2 pts had Gr3 fatigue. No DLTs occurred at 400 mg daily which was selected as the RP2D. 42 pts (57.5%) experienced a CYT-0851-related adverse event (AE), including 12 (16.4%) with a Gr3/4 AE. There were no treatment-related deaths. AE leading to CYT-0851 withdrawal were reported in 2 pts (2.7%) treated with 600 and 800 mg. The most common CYT-0851-related AEs were primarily Gr1/2 and included fatigue (20.5%), hyperuricemia (11%), nausea (11%), alopecia (9.6%), constipation (8.2%) and headache (8.2%). CYT-0851 exposure was approximately dose-proportional across the evaluated doses with an effective half-life of ̃3 days. Exposure at 400 mg daily was consistent with efficacy in preclinical models. 46 pts were evaluable for response at the DCO. 12 pts with NHL were evaluable by Lugano and included 1 CR in FL and 1 PR in DLBCL treated for 393+ and 244 days respectively. 34 pts with solid tumors were evaluable by RECIST v1.1 with 1 PR in a pt with myxofibrosarcoma treated for 313 days and 16 pts with stable disease. Fifteen pts were treated for 100+ days and 5 for 180+ days. Conclusions: CYT-0851 has demonstrated promising and broad clinical activity in a Ph 1 population of pts with advanced cancers. The safety profile is favorable as characterized by events that were infrequent, primarily Gr1/2, and reversible. Six expansion cohorts (DLBCL, Follicular Lymphoma, Myeloma, Pancreatic, Ovarian and Sarcoma) are enrolling to characterize activity at the RP2D. Ph 1 evaluation of CYT-0851 in combination with 3 chemotherapy backbones is also ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT03997968.

Abstract Background: Relapsed or refractory (R/R) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) or lymphoblastic lymphoma (LL) remain a therapeutic challenge, especially in elderly patients(pts) or those with T-cell immunophenotype. Inhibition of apoptosis is an increasingly recognized mechanism for resistance to conventional chemotherapy. Recently, the oral bcl-2 inhibitor venetoclax (VEN) has shown remarkable activity in a variety of hematologic malignancies. Preclinical data in both B- and T-ALL suggests synergy of VEN with vincristine(VCR). Liposomal VCR (L-VCR) is FDA approved for relapsed ALL having progressed following 2 or more antileukemia therapies. We designed a phase I/II trial (EA9152) of the combination of L-VCR and VEN for pts with r/r B-or T-cell ALL or LL. Here, we report for the first time the safety and efficacy outcomes of the phase I portion of this trial (NCT03504644). Methods: This open-label phase I/II study enrolled pts age>=18 with ALL or LL who were R/R to multiagent chemotherapy. Subjects could have received prior VCR or VEN . In a standard 3 + 3 dose escalation design, subjects were given a two week lead-in phase of single agent VEN in the following schedule: dose level 1 - 20, 50, 100, 200 mg on days 1, 2, 3, 4 and 400 mg on days 5 ‒ 42; dose level 2 - 50, 100, 200, 400 mg on days 1, 2, 3, 4 and 600 mg on days 5 ‒ 42; and dose level 3 ‒ 100, 200, 400, 600 mg on days 1, 2, 3, 4 and 800 mg on days 5 ‒ 42. Weekly L-VCR 2.25mg/m 2 IV was started on D15 of cycle 1, and starting day 1 for subsequent cycles (cycle 2+ = 28 days). For cycle 2 and beyond, VEN 400mg, 600mg, or 800mg based on dose level was given starting on day 1 of the cycle. Primary objective of the phase I portion was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of VEN in combination with L-VCR. Secondary objectives included determining preliminary response rates. Results: EA9152 was activated on April 26, 2018 and the phase I portion closed to accrual on March 2, 2021. Among the 18 pts in dose escalation (Table 1), the median age was 42 years (22-77). The majority of pts were male (56%), white (80%), and with a performance status (PS) of 1 (78%). Among 13 pts with disease diagnosis reported, 9 had ALL and 4 had LL. Seventeen of 18 (94%) reported previous chemotherapy, two of which had previous stem cell transplant. Median treatment cycles received is 1 (range 1-11). One patient, having received 11 cycles, remains on study at the time of data analysis. Grade >=3 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 89% of treated pts, with neutrophil count decreased (67%), white blood cell decreased (56%), and anemia (50%) as the most common. One pt experienced grade 3 tumor lysis syndrome. Twelve pts were considered evaluable for MTD determination. Six pts were considered not evaluable for toxicity analysis on account of withdraw of consent for treatment (n=4) or rapid disease progression (n=2). Two pts (2 of 3) at dose level 3 experienced DLTs, one each of hypokalemia and heart failure. Therefore, the MTD of the combination was determined to be dose level 2 - VEN 50, 100, 200, 400 mg on days 1, 2, 3, 4 and 600 mg on days 5 ‒ 42 and for subsequent cycles, with L-VCR 2.25mg/m2 IV weekly. In regards to best overall responses observed (Table 2) 4 of 18 pts (22%) achieved complete response (CR), 4 patients (22%) had stable disease, and 7 (39%) had progressive disease. Two patients in CR were found to be measurable residual disease (MRD) negative as well. Conclusions: In the phase 1 portion of this study, the combination of VEN and L-VCR was found to be safe for patients with ALL and LL. The MTD of the combination was found to be VEN 600mg daily with encouraging preliminary efficacy seen including MRD negative responses. The phase 2 portion of this trial is actively enrolling with VEN 600mg daily starting C1D1. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Palmisiano: Takeda: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Foundation One: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Claxton: Astellas: Other: Clinical Trial; Novartis: Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Park: BMS: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Autolus: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Minerva: Consultancy; PrecisionBio: Consultancy; Curocel: Consultancy; Artiva: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; Affyimmune: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy. Podoltsev: Novartis: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Blueprint Medicines: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squib: Honoraria; PharmaEssentia: Honoraria; CTI BioPharma: Honoraria. Atallah: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy. Dinner: Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Webster: AmGen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Luger: Syros: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Brystol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Onconova: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Hoffman LaRoche: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding. Litzow: AbbVie: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Pluristem: Research Funding; Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. OffLabel Disclosure: Venetoclax, a BCL-2 inihibitor, is not FDA-approved for use in ALL.

Abstract The role of haploidentical hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) using posttransplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is being defined. We performed a retrospective, multivariable analysis comparing outcomes of HCT approaches by donor for adults with ALL in remission. The primary objective was to compare overall survival (OS) among haploidentical HCTs using PTCy and HLA-matched sibling donor (MSD), 8/8 HLA-matched unrelated donor (MUD), 7 /8 HLA-MUD, or umbilical cord blood (UCB) HCT. Comparing haploidentical HCT to MSD HCT, we found that OS, leukemia-free survival (LFS), nonrelapse mortality (NRM), relapse, and acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) were not different but chronic GVHD (cGVHD) was higher in MSD HCT. Compared with MUD HCT, OS, LFS, and relapse were not different, but MUD HCT had increased NRM (hazard ratio [HR], 1.42; P = .02), grade 3 to 4 aGVHD (HR, 1.59; P = .005), and cGVHD. Compared with 7/8 UD HCT, LFS and relapse were not different, but 7/8 UD HCT had worse OS (HR, 1.38; P = .01) and increased NRM (HR, 2.13; P ≤ .001), grade 3 to 4 aGVHD (HR, 1.86; P = .003), and cGVHD (HR, 1.72; P ≤ .001). Compared with UCB HCT, late OS, late LFS, relapse, and cGVHD were not different but UCB HCT had worse early OS (≤18 months; HR, 1.93; P < .001), worse early LFS (HR, 1.40; P = .007) and increased incidences of NRM (HR, 2.08; P < .001) and grade 3 to 4 aGVHD (HR, 1.97; P < .001). Haploidentical HCT using PTCy showed no difference in survival but less GVHD compared with traditional MSD and MUD HCT and is the preferred alternative donor HCT option for adults with ALL in complete remission.

Abstract There is a lack of large comparative study on the outcomes of reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) transplantation using fludarabine/busulfan (FB) and fludarabine/melphalan (FM) regimens. Adult AML patients from Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research who received first RIC allo-transplant between 2001 and 2015 were studied. Patients were excluded if they received cord blood or identical twin transplant, total body irradiation in conditioning, or graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis with in vitro T-cell depletion. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS), secondary end points were leukemia-free survival (LFS), nonrelapse mortality (NRM), relapse, and GVHD. Multivariate survival model was used with adjustment for patient, leukemia, and transplant-related factors. A total of 622 patients received FM and 791 received FB RIC. Compared with FB, the FM group had fewer transplant in complete remission (CR), fewer matched sibling donors, and less usage of anti-thymocyte globulin or alemtuzumab. More patients in the FM group received marrow grafts and had transplantation before 2005. OS was significantly lower within the first 3 months posttransplant in the FM group (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.82, P < .001), but was marginally superior beyond 3 months (HR = 0.87, P = .05). LFS was better with FM compared with FB (HR = 0.89, P = .05). NRM was significantly increased in the FM group during the first 3 months of posttransplant (HR = 3.85, P < .001). Long-term relapse was lower with FM (HR = 0.65, P < .001). Analysis restricted to patients with CR showed comparable results. In conclusion, compared with FB, the FM RIC showed a marginally superior long-term OS and LFS and a lower relapse rate. A lower OS early posttransplant within 3 months was largely the result of a higher early NRM.

Abstract Background: Despite advances in chemotherapy, relapsed/refractory (R/R) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) remains a significant clinical challenge and an unmet medical need. HL has a unique biology in which a small number of malignant Hodgkin Reed-Sternberg (HRS) cells propagate an immunosuppressive microenvironment. We hypothesized that using immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy to activate the immune cells in the tumor microenvironment, and concurrently targeting HRS cells with the CD30 antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin (BV), could overcome tumor cell resistance. E4412 is a Phase 1 ECOG-ACRIN sponsored study of the combination of BV and ipilimumab (IPI) and nivolumab (Nivo) in patients with R/R HL. Here we present the preliminary safety and response data on the patients treated with BV + Nivo (Arms D and E). Methods: Patients with confirmed R/R HL were treated with Nivo 3mg/kg and BV 1.2mg/kg (Arm D: Dose Level 1) or 1.8mg/kg (Arm E: Dose Level 2) in dose escalation with a 3+3 design and an expansion cohort (Arm F) of 9 patients. BV and Nivo are given every 21 days for 16 cycles; Nivo may be continued for an additional year (total 2 years of Nivo therapy). Dose limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined for purposes of dose escalation within the first cycle of therapy. Patients are followed for toxicity up to 30 days beyond their last treatment. Results: As of 7/20/2016 10 patients (1 ineligible) have been treated with BV + Nivo. We report the data on the dose escalation population: 3 patients: Arm D, 7 patients: Arm E. Data will be updated to include the full BV + Nivo dose escalation and dose expansion cohorts (Arms D, E & F) (N = 19) by the time of the Annual Meeting. Median age was 46; (range: 25-53). Six patients were male. Patients were heavily pretreated with a median of 3 prior therapies. Six patients had prior SCT (5 autologous, 1 allogeneic); 2patients had prior treatment with BV. Safety: Ten of 10 patients are evaluable for safety. Overall safety profiles show that the regimen of BV + Nivo was extremely well tolerated. One patient out of 7 in dose level 2 experienced a DLT (pneumonitis grade 3 with grade 3 dyspnea and hypoxia, and typhilits grade 3), this patient had received a prior SCT, and made a full recovery from his toxicities. Per protocol he discontinued further therapy. No other DLTs were noted for the remaining 9 patients. Common and relevant toxicities considered at least possibly related to drug during any cycle of treatment are shown in Table 1. There were no Grade 4 treatment related adverse events (AEs). The only additional grade 3 AEs noted were one each grade 3 rash and puritis. The most common grade 1-2 treatment related adverse events were: transaminitis (9), peripheral sensory neuropathy (6), and rash (3). Other AEs of interest included: diarrhea (3), blurry vision (2), and myalgias (2). One grade 1-2 infusion reaction was noted, this patient was able to receive subsequent therapy with pre-medication. Response: Eight of 10 patients are evaluable for response. One patient is not yet evaluable. For the 8 evaluable patients the overall response rate (ORR) for the combination of BV + Nivo was 100%, with a CR rate of 62.5% (5/8), with 95% CI of 0.25-0.91. One patient was ineligible for laboratory studies that were out of range at screening, however this patient continues on therapy, and also had a response. One of 5 CRs occurred at in dose level 1 (BV 1.2 mg/kg). Both patients who had been treated with prior BV achieved CRs. The progression free survival (PFS) to date is 100% with a median follow-up of 0.3 years. Conclusion: In this first reported study of the combination of the checkpoint inhibitor Nivo and the ADC BV therapy was well tolerated with one DLT, and primarily grade 1 and 2 toxicities. In a heavily pretreated patient population, 20% of whom had had prior BV and 60% of whom were s/p ASCT, the ORR of 100% and CR rate of 62.5% suggests a deepening of response compared to either therapy alone. Optimization of this combination strategy is planned with ongoing accrual to cohorts receiving BV + Nivo, and BV + Ipi + Nivo. Data will be updated to include the full BV + Nivo cohort (N = 19) by the time of the Annual Meeting. Disclosures Diefenbach: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Molecular Templates: Research Funding; Oncomed: Research Funding; This study was coordinated by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (Robert L. Comis, MD and Mitchell D. Schnall, MD, PhD, Group Co-Chairs) and supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under the following award number: Research Funding. Hong:This study was coordinated by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (Robert L. Comis, MD and Mitchell D. Schnall, MD, PhD, Group Co-Chairs) and supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under the following award number: Research Funding. Cohen:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Advani:Stanford University: Employment; Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sutro: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Agensys: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; FortySeven: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kahl:This study was coordinated by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (Robert L. Comis, MD and Mitchell D. Schnall, MD, PhD, Group Co-Chairs) and supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under the following award number: Research Funding. Ansell:BMS, Seattle Genetics, Merck, Celldex and Affimed: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Checkpoint blockade therapies (CBT) have substantially improved outcomes for patients in a variety of cancers. However, they are associated with a unique spectrum of immune-related adverse events (AEs). Additionally, unlike standard chemotherapy, many patients (pts) remain on CBT for prolonged periods of time, thus immune-related symptomatic AEs may be chronic or low grade therefore important to capture long term tolerability when used as a single agent or in combination with chemotherapy. In this study, we applied the Toxicity over Time (ToxT) analytic approach (Thanarajasingam et al, Lancet Oncol 2016), which incorporates the dimension of time and includes chronic lower grade events, to the first 6 cohorts (A-F) of a Phase 1/2 ECOG-ACRIN sponsored study of the combinations of Brentuximab Vedotin (BV) and the CBT therapies ipilimumab (Ipi) and nivolumab (Nivo) in pts with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R HL). Methods: Pts with confirmed R/R HL were treated with BV 1.8mg/kg + Ipi 1or 3 mg/kg (n=23); or Nivo 3mg/kg + BV: 1.2 or 1.8 mg/kg (n=19). BV was administered every 21 days for 16 cycles; Ipi every 21 days x 4 and then every 3 months for one year and Nivo every 21 days for up to 2 years. Seven symptomatic (subjective) AEs were selected: fatigue, peripheral sensory neuropathy (PSN), nausea/vomiting (NV), rash/skin (RS), diarrhea, ocular-all types, and hair loss. Treatment-related AEs of any grade were investigated by conventional maximum grade toxicity analysis (ToxC) and ToxT methods up to 12 cycles. Using ToxT, mean AE grades over cycles were analyzed for time trend with repeated measures models, time to grade 2 or higher AE (gr2+) was analyzed with time-to-event analysis; AE profile over the entire course of the study was summarized by area under the curve (AUC) analyses. Comparisons were performed between treatment groups: BV/Ipi(A-C arms) and BV/Nivo (D-F arms). Results: 9/23 (BV/Ipi) and 6/19 (BV/Nivo) pts completed 10 cycles. For BV/Ipi vs. BV/nivo, ToxC provides overall incidence rates (any grade): fatigue 52% vs 26% (p=0.09); PSN 61% vs 53%; NV 70% vs 53% ; RS 65% vs. 37% (p=0.07); diarrhea 57% vs. 21% (p=0.02); ocular 17% vs. 21% ; and hair loss 17% vs. 0% (p=0.06), respectively. Gr3 AE occurred in 1 pt (2.4%) each for PSN, NV, diarrhea, and 6 pts (14.3%) for RS, and were similar between BV/ipi and BV/nivo. AUC from ToxT which captures chronic lower grade AEs suggested for BV/Ipi: diarrhea (p=0.02) and NV (p=0.03) are significantly more substantial over time with a trend seen for fatigue (p=0.07), RS (p=0.07) and hair loss (p=0.07) . Additionally, ToxT captures the trajectory of AEs, demonstrated a rising incidence and worsening grade of PSN (BV-related) on BV/Ipi (c1: 9% gr1, c2: 21% gr1 5% gr2, c5: 11% gr1 and c10: 22% gr2 [p=0.005], Fig 1a). In contrast there was a slow but significant decreasing incidence of NV on both combinations; for BV/Nivo (c1:52% gr1, c5: 26% gr1 and c10: 22% gr1) and BV/Ipi (c1: 47% gr1 ,c5: 0% and c10 1% gr1) with p=0.006 (Fig 1b). RS and diarrhea appear early on treatment and are not cumulative (Fig1c and 1d). There is no significant difference in the time to gr 2+ toxicities in any of the 7 AE. Combining all 7 AEs and using the maximum grade as a pilot measure of overall AE burden , ToxC indicates no difference in any grade (100% vs 100%) but a significantly higher gr 3+ incidence (35% vs. 11%) for BV/Ipi. Additionally, ToxT further elucidates that BV/Ipi is associated with significantly higher overall AE over time (Fig 2a, p=0.02) and compared to BV/Nivo a significantly higher risk of developing gr 2+ toxicity ( 57% vs 16% gr2 + event by day 50) (HR=0.41, p=0.02, Fig 2b). Conclusions: The CBT therapies Ipi and Nivo, in combination with BV, are overall both well tolerated over time, although BV/Ipi has a higher overall AE burden. Neither regimen has significant cumulative immune toxicity. Results of this analysis should be interpreted in the context of limited number of pts in both cohorts. A larger scale examination of this analysis is planned to incorporate both phase 1 and the ongoing phase 2 components of E4412. Compared with conventional tox analysis, ToxT delineated important additional and clinically relevant depictions of AEs over time and adds a more comprehensive assessment of the tolerability of chronically administered immune therapies for lymphoma. Disclosures Hong: Merck: Consultancy. Ansell:Regeneron: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding. Cohen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: 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; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; 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; BioInvent: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: 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; Takeda: Research Funding. Advani:Kura: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Autolus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Kyowa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Millenium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Agensys: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity: Research Funding; Forty Seven Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck, Takeda, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Bayer: Research Funding. Svoboda:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy. Karmali:AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Witzig:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dueck:Bayer: Employment; Phytogine: Employment; Pfizer: Honoraria. Kahl:Genentech: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Diefenbach:Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Denovo: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: As a single agent, rituximab produces an overall response rate (ORR) of 20-50% in patients with relapsed/refractory (r/r) B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL). Acquired resistance occurs, however, partially due to defective host immune effector mechanisms. Efforts to augment immune function have included combining rituximab with immune modulators such as IL-2, IL-12, interferonand lenalidomide. These efforts have resulted in improved efficacy of rituximab. Ipilimumab is a human IgG1κ monoclonal antibody (mAb) specific for the cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4, CD152) expressed on activated T cells. CTLA-4 is a negative regulator of T-cell responses. Ipilimumab augments the immune response by disrupting the interaction of CTLA-4 with its ligands, B7-1 (CD80) and B7-2 (CD86). We therefore hypothesize that ipilimumab will augment the efficacy of rituximab. This phase I with an expansion cohort was designed to assess the safety of this combined therapy. Methods: Patients ≥ 18 years old with r/r CD20+ NHL, measurable disease, KPS ≥ 70%, neutrophils ≥ 1000, platelets ≥ 50,000 and adequate kidney and liver function were eligible. In this phase I with an expansion cohort, after establishing the recommended Phase II dose (RP2D), study patients would be randomized to differing treatment schedules of rituximab and ipilimumab. For induction in phase I, rituximab was given every week for four weeks and ipilimumab was administered every 3 weeks for 4 doses. Primary endpoints included toxicity and determination of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD)/RP2D during the first 7 weeks of induction of ipilimumab (2 doses) when given in combination with rituximab (4 doses, 375mg/m2 per dose). Secondary end points included immune response, ORR and progression free survival (PFS). In the phase I component, a standard 3+3 design was used to determine the MTD/RP2D. After the RP2D was established, 20 more patients would be randomized to one of two schedules: Arm A - ipilimumab on Day 1 together with the first dose of rituximab, or Arm B - ipilimumab on Day 15 together with the third rituximab dose. After induction in both the Phase I and the expansion cohorts, ipilimumab and rituximab were given every 12 weeks (+/- 1 week) on the same day for 1 year. Results: As of August 1 2015, 21 patients have been enrolled (1SLL, 9FL, 6DLCL, 1MCL, 4 indeterminate): 15 are evaluable for toxicity assessment at 7 weeks. The median age was 62 (32-71) and the median number of prior regimens was 2 (1-6). The RP2D of ipilimumab when given with rituximab (375 mg/m2) was 3 mg/kg, which was the highest dose tested. The most common grade 1-2 AEs (>20%) were:anemia (33%); diarrhea (20%); constipation (27%); nausea/vomiting (33%); fatigue (40%); anorexia (33%); low albumin (53%); hypocalcemia (33%); hyponatremia (27%). The most common grade 3-4 AEs (≥ 5%) were: anemia (20%); diarrhea (13%); leukopenia (13%); and hyponatremia (27%). There were no study related deaths. Twelve patients remain on treatment, 6 came off due to progression, 2 due to toxicity, and there was one death (unrelated). Conclusion: The RP2D of ipilimumab when given in combination with rituximab is 3 mg/kg. This dose is safe and moderately well tolerated. Enrollment continues in the expansion cohort to assess efficacy and the ability of ipilimumab to augment the rituximab-mediated immune response. Disclosures Off Label Use: Ipilimumab to augment rituxan in treating lymphoma. Chen:Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; genentech: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract HLA-haploidentical hematopoietic cell transplantation (Haplo-HCT) using posttransplantation cyclophosphamide (PT-Cy) has improved donor availability. However, a matched sibling donor (MSD) is still considered the optimal donor. Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database, we compared outcomes after Haplo-HCT vs MSD in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in first complete remission (CR1). Data from 1205 adult CR1 AML patients (2008-2015) were analyzed. A total of 336 patients underwent PT-Cy–based Haplo-HCT and 869 underwent MSD using calcineurin inhibitor–based graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis. The Haplo-HCT group included more reduced-intensity conditioning (65% vs 30%) and bone marrow grafts (62% vs 7%), consistent with current practice. In multivariable analysis, Haplo-HCT and MSD groups were not different with regard to overall survival (P = .15), leukemia-free survival (P = .50), nonrelapse mortality (P = .16), relapse (P = .90), or grade II-IV acute GVHD (P = .98). However, the Haplo-HCT group had a significantly lower rate of chronic GVHD (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.48; P < .001). Results of subgroup analyses by conditioning intensity and graft source suggested that the reduced incidence of chronic GVHD in Haplo-HCT is not limited to a specific graft source or conditioning intensity. Center effect and minimal residual disease–donor type interaction were not predictors of outcome. Our results indicate a lower rate of chronic GVHD after PT-Cy–based Haplo-HCT vs MSD using calcineurin inhibitor–based GVHD prophylaxis, but similar other outcomes, in patients with AML in CR1. Haplo-HCT is a viable alternative to MSD in these patients.