Kamdar, Manali

Abstract Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) has shown promising efficacy in clinical trials for patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). We present health-related quality of life (HRQOL) results from the TRANSFORM study, the first comparative analysis of liso-cel vs standard of care (SOC) as second-line therapy in this population. Adults with LBCL refractory or relapsed ≤12 months after first-line therapy and eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation were randomized 1:1 to the liso-cel or SOC arms (3 cycles of immunochemotherapy in which responders proceeded to high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation). HRQOL was assessed by European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire – 30 items and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lymphoma subscale. Patients with baseline and ≥1 postbaseline assessment were analyzed (liso-cel, n = 47; SOC, n = 43). The proportion of patients with meaningful improvement in global health status/quality of life (QOL) was higher, whereas deterioration was lower in the liso-cel arm vs SOC arm from day 126 to month 6. Mean change scores showed meaningful worsening in global health status/QOL at month 6, fatigue at day 29 and month 6, and pain at month 6 with SOC; mean scores for other domains were maintained or improved in both arms. Time to confirmed deterioration favored the liso-cel arm vs SOC arm in global health status/QOL (median: not reached vs 19.0 weeks, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.94). HRQOL was either improved or maintained from baseline in patients with relapsed/refractory LBCL in the liso-cel arm vs SOC arm as second-line treatment. This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT0357531.

The treatment landscape of chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) has significantly evolved in recent years. Targeted therapy with Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors and BCL-2 inhibitors has emerged as an effective chemotherapy-free option for patients with previously untreated or relapsed/refractory CLL/SLL. Undetectable minimal residual disease after the end of treatment is emerging as an important predictor of progression-free and overall survival for patients treated with fixed-duration BCL-2 inhibitor-based treatment. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss the updates to the NCCN Guidelines for CLL/SLL specific to the use of chemotherapy-free treatment options for patients with treatment-naïve and relapsed/refractory disease.

7514 Background: The AETHERA trial demonstrated improvement in PFS with 16 cycles of brentuximab vedotin (BV) after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in BV-naive patients with high-risk relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (r/r cHL). However, in real world, patients are rarely able to complete all 16 cycles of BV at full dose. We performed a multicenter retrospective study to assess the impact of cumulative dose on toxicity and 2-year PFS. Methods: Patients from 11 institutions across the US who had received at least one cycle of BV maintenance after ASCT for r/r cHL with one of these features were included: primary refractory disease (PRD), extra-nodal disease (END), or relapse < 12 months of diagnosis (RL<12). PFS was compared between the three cohorts based on a total cumulative dose of 28.8 mg/kg (1.8 mg/kg x 16 cycles): C1, those that received >75% (21.7 to 28.8 mg/kg) cumulative dose of BV, C2, those that received between 51% -75% (14.5 to 21.6 mg/kg) dose and C3, those that received ≤ 50% (≤ 14.4 mg/kg) dose. Results: Between July 2015-June 2019, 100 patients with a median age of 34 years (19-70) underwent ASCT for r/r cHL. At relapse, 44% had PRD, 47% had RL<12, 39% had END and 45% had received BV as initial (1%) or salvage (44%) therapy. 71% had CR before ASCT and 23% received >1 line of salvage (>1 SLT). There was no difference in baseline characteristics between the cohorts. Thirty-six patients were in C1, 27 in C2, and 37 in C3. Only 14% of patients received full cumulative dose of BV. The median number of cycles completed was 12. Fifty-seven patients discontinued early: 39 for toxicity, 7 for progression, 5 for patient preference, 2 for cost and 4 for other reasons. Six of the patients who stopped early for progression were in C3. Grade ≥3 adverse events for neuropathy, neutropenia, and infections were 16%, 7%, and 5% respectively. There was no difference in severity of neuropathy in patients who had received BV prior to ASCT (p=.37). The median follow up was 3.37 years (.4–6.35). The 2-year PFS was 85% for all subjects, 94% for C1, 84% for C2, and 72% for C3 (p=.079) (Table). Patients in C3 had worse PFS compared to C1 (p=.035); this difference remained significant after adjusting for five other factors. There was no difference in PFS between C1 and C2 (p=.29). Conclusions: The majority of patients discontinued BV maintenance early due to toxicity. 2-year PFS was robust regardless of cumulative dose of BV. We conclude that total cumulative dose of 28.8 mg/kg of BV maintenance is not necessary and 51%-75% of total BV dose may still attain a similar PFS advantage. [Table: see text]

Abstract Polatuzumab vedotin (PV) is an antibody–drug conjugate targeting CD79b that is approved for patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). Patients who relapse after chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy were not included in the registration study, and reports of PV use after CAR T cells are limited. This multicenter retrospective analysis included patients with LBCL who relapsed or progressed after CAR T-cell therapy and subsequently received PV with or without rituximab and bendamustine between July 2019 and May 2021. Response to treatment and progression were assessed based on the 2014 Lugano criteria. Fifty-seven patients were included in the study: 18 (32%) patients were primary refractory to CAR T-cell therapy, and 34 (60%) patients received PV-based therapy immediately after CAR T-cell therapy. PV was combined with rituximab in 54 (95%) patients and administered with bendamustine in 35 (61%) patients. A response was achieved in 25 (44%) patients, including complete remission in 8 (14%). No significant association between baseline characteristics and response was observed. After a median follow-up of 47 weeks (95% confidence interval [CI], 40-54), 46 (81%) patients had disease progression or died, and the median progression-free survival was 10 weeks (95% CI, 5-15). On a multivariate analysis, bone marrow involvement (hazard ratio, 5.2; 95% CI, 1.8-15; P = .003) and elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels (hazard ratio, 5.0; 95% CI, 1.4-16; P = .01) were associated with shorter progression-free survival. Studies aimed at better characterizing the intrinsic mechanism of resistance and identifying optimal consolidation strategies for these patients are warranted.

Abstract Introduction. About 60% of patients with large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) relapse after standard of care (SOC) anti-CD19 autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, CD19 downregulation representing a major mechanism of resistance. Therefore, agents able to target B-cell antigens other than CD19 could be clinically effective for these patients. Polatuzumab vedotin (PV) is an antibody-drug conjugate targeting CD79b, and approved by the FDA in combination with bendamustine and rituximab for patients with relapsed or refractory (r/r) LBCL. Patients who relapsed after CAR T-cell therapy were not included in the registration study, and reports of PV use after CAR T-cells in real world practice are very limited. Methods. This is a multi-center retrospective analysis of patients with LBCL who relapsed after SOC CAR T-cell therapy and subsequently received SOC PV with or without rituximab and bendamustine between 07/2019 and 04/2021. PV was given at the standard dose of 1.8 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks in all patients (except for one patient, who received 1.4 mg/Kg). Response to treatment and progression were defined according to 2014 Lugano criteria. Survival curves were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates, and were compared between subgroups using the log-rank test. Cox regression was used for multivariate analysis (MVA). Results. Fifty-four patients were included in the study: median age was 59 (range, 22-79 years), 38 (70%) were male, and 30 (56%) had an internal prognostic index score &gt; 3. Median number of systemic therapies before CAR T-cell therapy was 2 (range, 2-6), 16 (30%) patients previously had autologous stem cell transplant (SCT), and 2 (4%) had allogeneic SCT. Sixteen (30%) patients were primary refractory to CAR T-cell therapy, and median time from CAR T-cell therapy to PV was 5 months (range, 1-40 months). CD19 status at time of relapse after CAR T-cell therapy was assessed by immunohistochemistry and/or flow cytometry in 41 patients, and positive in 34 (83%); CD79b status was assessed in 14 patients, and positive in all cases (100%). Thirty-two (59%) patients received PV-based therapy immediately after CAR T cell therapy, while 22 (41%) had intervening treatments (median 1, range 1-5). At time of PV initiation, median absolute neutrophil count was 2.9 (range 0.5-19 X10 9/L), median platelet count was 87 X10 9/L (range 15-437 X10 9/L), median serum creatinine was 0.9 mg/dL (range 0.4-22 mg/dL), and 44 (81%) patients had elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). The median number of PV cycles was 2 (range, 1-16): PV was combined with rituximab in 51 (94%) patients, and administered with bendamustine in 33 (61%). A response was achieved in 24 (45%) patients, including complete remission (CR) in 8 (14%) patients and partial remission in 16 (30%)(Figure A), with a median duration of response of 11 weeks (95%CI, 5-17 weeks). No significant association between baseline characteristics and response was observed. To date, 49 (91%) patients stopped PV: 38 (70%) due to progression, 7 (13%) because of CR/patient decision, 3 (6%) to proceed to allogeneic SCT, and 1 (2%) to proceed to an immunotherapy clinical trial (despite absence of progression). No patients stopped therapy because of toxicity. After a median follow up of 45 weeks (95% CI, 20-70 weeks), 44 (81%) patients progressed/died, and median PFS was 9 weeks (95% CI, 4-14 weeks). To date, 34 (63%) died, and median OS was 16 weeks (95% CI, 13-19 weeks)(Figure B). Causes of death included progression in 31 patients and transplant-related complications in 3. On univariate analysis, a shorter median progression-free survival (PFS) was observed for patients with bone marrow (BM) involvement (3 vs 10 weeks, p=0.002), prior central nervous system involvement (4 vs 10 weeks, p=0.02), and elevated LDH (6 months vs not reached, p=0.004). On MVA, the association was maintained only for BM involvement (hazard ratio [HR] 4.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6-12.5, p=0.004) and elevated LDH (HR 5; 1.4-16.7, p=0.01)(Figure C). Discussion. PV is safe and effective, but has short duration of response in r/r LBCL after anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy, except for patients with normal LDH. Studies aimed at better characterizing intrinsic mechanism of resistance, including upregulation of BCL2 family proteins, to favor the development of more effective PV-based combination strategies for these patients, are warranted. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Crombie: Roche: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Kamdar: Celgene (BMS): Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Genetech: Other; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; SeaGen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other; KaryoPharm: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Hess: ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; BMS: Speakers Bureau. Neelapu: Takeda Pharmaceuticals and related to cell therapy: Patents & Royalties; Kite, a Gilead Company, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Poseida, Cellectis, Celgene, Karus Therapeutics, Unum Therapeutics (Cogent Biosciences), Allogene, Precision BioSciences, Acerta and Adicet Bio: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Celgene, Pfizer, Allogene Therapeutics, Cell Medica/Kuur, Incyte, Precision Biosciences, Legend Biotech, Adicet Bio, Calibr, Unum Therapeutics and Bluebird Bio: Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Celgene, Pfizer, Allogene, Kuur, Incyte, Precision BioSciences, Legend, Adicet Bio, Calibr, and Unum Therapeutics: Other: personal fees. Lin: Novartis: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Vineti: Consultancy. Strati: Astrazeneca-Acerta: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Pts with previously treated R/R aggressive LBCL have compromised health-related QOL (HRQOL). Liso-cel is an autologous, CD19-directed, defined composition, 4-1BB CAR T cell product administered at equal target doses of CD8 + and CD4 + CAR + T cells. In a prespecified interim analysis of TRANSFORM (NCT03575351), a randomized, open-label, pivotal trial, liso-cel demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in the primary endpoint of event-free survival and key secondary endpoints (complete response rate and progression-free survival) in adults with R/R LBCL after failure of first-line (1L) immunochemotherapy compared with SOC, with no new safety signals. Here we present results of the pt-reported outcomes (PRO) analysis from TRANSFORM. Methods: Adults (age ≤ 75 yrs) with R/R LBCL (≤ 12 mo after 1L therapy), who were eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), were randomized to receive either SOC (3 cycles of salvage chemotherapy [CT] and BEAM + ASCT for responding pts) or liso-cel after lymphodepletion. Crossover to receive liso-cel was allowed in the SOC arm for pts who failed treatment. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire - 30 items (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Lymphoma Subscale (FACT-LymS) were administered at randomization (baseline) and on Days 29 (infusion of liso-cel or 2 cycles of salvage CT), 64 (1 mo post liso-cel or completion of CT), 126 (3 mos post liso-cel or 2 mos post ASCT), and Mo 6 and other prespecified timepoints up to Mo 36 or end of study. No PRO data were collected after crossover. The analysis was based on the PRO-evaluable population (pts with a baseline and ≥ 1 post-baseline assessment). Predefined thresholds determined clinically meaningful changes. Global health/QOL (GH/QOL), physical functioning, cognitive functioning, fatigue, pain, and FACT-LymS were the primary domains of interest based on their relevance to the study population and treatment. A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis was performed to assess the between-treatment difference in overall least squares (LS) mean change from baseline for each primary domain, using data collected up to Day 126 for visits with a sample size per arm ≥ 10. Proportions of pts with meaningful change from baseline were assessed for each primary domain up to Mo 6. All analyses were descriptive only. Results: Of 184 randomized pts, 90 (49%) and 85 (46%), respectively, were included in the PRO-evaluable population for the EORTC QLQ-C30 (SOC vs liso-cel n=43 vs 47) and FACT-LymS (n=40 vs 45, respectively). The PRO assessment completion rate from baseline up to Mo 6 was ≥ 45%, which was lower than expected primarily due to operational challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic but was comparable for both arms. In the MMRM analysis, the liso-cel arm had more favorable overall LS mean changes from baseline to Day 126 than the SOC arm in most of the EORTC QLQ-C30 domains and FACT-LymS. In particular, the between-treatment differences for cognitive functioning (−2.09 vs 2.21) and fatigue (3.75 vs −1.95) for SOC versus liso-cel, respectively, exceeded the prespecified minimal important difference threshold (Table); in those domains, the SOC arm deteriorated while the liso-cel arm improved. In individual-level analyses, the proportion of pts with meaningful improvement for fatigue and GH/QOL was higher, while deterioration was lower, in the liso-cel arm versus SOC arm from baseline up to Mo 6 (Figure). At Mo 6, a higher proportion of pts experienced worsened fatigue (71% vs 18%) and a lower proportion experienced improved fatigue (29% vs 47%) in the SOC arm compared with the liso-cel arm; for GH/QOL, a higher proportion of pts worsened (57% vs 18%) and lower proportion improved (14% vs 53%), respectively. For the other primary domains, the proportions of pts with improvement or deterioration favored liso-cel or were similar between arms. Conclusions: Compared with SOC, liso-cel showed favorable improvement in most primary PRO domains, particularly EORTC QLQ-C30 cognitive functioning and fatigue and more pts showed PRO improvements and fewer showed deterioration by Mo 6 with liso-cel. The results were achieved despite only responders remaining in the SOC arm after salvage CT. HRQOL was either improved or maintained after liso-cel treatment in pts with R/R LBCL after failure of 1L therapy. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Abramson: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Seagen Inc.: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy. Arnason: Juno/BMS: Honoraria. Glass: BMS: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Riemser: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Helios Klinik Berlin-Buch: Current Employment. Crotta: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Montheard: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Previtali: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Liu: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Braverman: BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Guo: Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; UCB: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Consultancy; Evidera: Current Employment. Shi: Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Kamdar: ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; KaryoPharm: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; SeaGen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other; Genetech: Other; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Pts with LBCL primary refractory to or relapsed ≤ 12 mo after first-line (1L) therapy may have poor outcomes with SOC, including salvage CT and ASCT, which underscores a critical unmet need. Liso-cel is an autologous CD19-directed, defined composition, 4-1BB CAR T cell product administered at equal target doses of CD8 + and CD4 + CAR + T cells. In the TRANSCEND NHL 001 study (NCT02631044) in pts with R/R LBCL (≥ 2 prior lines of therapy), liso-cel treatment resulted in an ORR of 73% (CR rate, 53%), 2% grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and 10% grade ≥ 3 neurological events (NE) (Abramson et al. Lancet 2020). Here we present a prespecified interim analysis of TRANSFORM (NCT03575351; SOC vs liso-cel as 2L therapy in pts with R/R LBCL). Methods: TRANSFORM is a pivotal, global, randomized, multicenter, phase 3 study comparing efficacy and safety of SOC (Arm A; R-DHAP, R-ICE, or R-GDP per investigator choice followed by BEAM + ASCT) vs liso-cel (Arm B). Pts were adults (aged ≤ 75 years), eligible for ASCT, and with LBCL primary refractory to or relapsed ≤ 12 mo after 1L therapy. Key inclusion criteria were ECOG PS ≤ 1 and adequate organ function (LVEF ≥ 40%; serum CrCl &gt; 45 mL/min); pts with secondary CNS lymphoma were allowed. Key exclusion criteria were prior gene or anti-CD19-targeted therapy, and active infection. Pts in Arm A were to receive 3 cycles of CT. Responding pts (CR or PR) were to proceed to BEAM + ASCT. Pts in Arm B were to undergo lymphodepletion with fludarabine/cyclophosphamide followed by liso-cel at a target dose of 100 × 10 6 CAR + T cells. Bridging therapy with an Arm A CT regimen was allowed. Crossover to receive liso-cel was allowed in Arm A for pts not achieving CR or PR after 3 cycles of CT or not in CR after ASCT, or demonstrating PD at any time. Primary endpoint is event-free survival (EFS) based on independent review committee per Lugano 2014 criteria, defined as time from randomization to death from any cause, PD, failure to achieve CR or PR by 9 weeks after randomization, or start of new antineoplastic therapy, whichever occurred first. Key secondary endpoints included in the testing strategy are CR rate, PFS, and OS. P value significance threshold for endpoints to reject the null hypothesis was ≤ 0.012. Results: A total of 184 pts were randomized, with 92 pts in each arm. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between both arms (Table). Of 91 treated pts in Arm A (1 pt withdrew consent), 43 received BEAM + ASCT, of which 28 achieved CR with CT. Fifty pts crossed over to receive liso-cel. In Arm B, 90 pts received liso-cel infusion; 58 pts (63%) received bridging therapy. Two Arm B pts were not infused (1 each due to manufacturing failure and rapid progression). Median EFS and PFS were significantly longer, and CR rate was significantly improved for Arm B vs Arm A. For Arms A and B, respectively, median EFS was 2.3 vs 10.1 mo (HR, 0.349; P &lt; 0.0001), median PFS was 5.7 vs 14.8 mo (HR, 0.406; P = 0.0001), and CR rate was 39% vs 66% (P &lt; 0.0001). OS data were immature at the time of this analysis with a median follow-up of 6.2 mo (range, 0.9-20.0), but a numerical trend favored Arm B (HR, 0.509; 95% CI, 0.258-1.004; P = 0.0257). Cellular kinetics in Arm B showed a median t max of 10 d (range, 6‒22). No new liso-cel safety signals were detected in the 2L setting. In Arm B, any-grade CRS was reported in 49% of pts, with grade 1 in 37% and grade 2 in 11%. Only 1 pt had grade 3 CRS (onset at Day 9, which resolved in 2 days). Any-grade NEs were reported in 12% of pts and were also primarily low grade (grade 3, 4%). No grade 4 or 5 CRS or NEs were reported. In Arm B, 24% of pts received tocilizumab, 17% received corticosteroids, and none received vasopressors. The most common TEAEs in both arms were cytopenias. Prolonged cytopenias in Arm B (ie, grade ≥ 3 at 35 d after infusion) were reported in 43% of pts; the majority recovered within 2 mo after infusion. Conclusions: In the TRANSFORM study, liso-cel demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in the primary endpoint, EFS, as well as in key secondary efficacy endpoints (CR rate and PFS) compared with SOC as 2L therapy in pts with LBCL primary refractory to or relapsed ≤ 12 mo after 1L therapy. Safety results in the 2L setting were consistent with the liso-cel safety profile in 3L or later LBCL, and no new safety concerns were identified. Liso-cel improved outcomes vs SOC and exhibited a favorable safety profile, providing support for liso-cel as a potential new SOC for 2L treatment in pts with R/R LBCL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kamdar: SeaGen: Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene: Other; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; KaryoPharm: Consultancy; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy; Genetech: Other; Genentech: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Arnason: Juno/BMS: Honoraria. Glass: BMS: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Riemser: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Helios Klinik Berlin-Buch: Current Employment. Bachanova: KaryoPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Research Funding; FATE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ibrahimi: Karyopharm Theraputics: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months. Mielke: Immunicum: Other: Data safety monitoring board; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Miltenyi: Other: Data safety monitoring board; DNA Prime SA: Speakers Bureau; Gilead/KITE: Other: Travel support, Expert panel ; Celgene/BMS: Speakers Bureau. Mutsaers: BMS: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Hernandez-Ilizaliturri: Kite: Other: Advisory Boards; Amgen: Other: Advisory Boards; Pharmacyclics: Other: Advisory Boards; BMS: Other: Advisory Boards; Celgene: Other: Advisory Boards; Incyte: Other: Advisory Boards; AbbVie: Other: Advisory Boards; Gilead: Other: Advisory Boards; Epyzime: Other: Advisory Boards. Izutsu: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Huya Biosciences: Research Funding; Genmab: Honoraria, Research Funding; Fuji Film Toyama Chemical: Honoraria; Eisai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Allergan Japan: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Ono Pharmaceutical: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Solasia: Research Funding; Symbio: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Yakult: Research Funding. Morschhauser: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Chugai: Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy; AstraZenenca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genmab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lunning: Karyopharm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb Co.: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Acrotech: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy. Maloney: Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Rights to royalties from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center for patents licensed to Juno Therapeutics/Bristol Myers Squibb; A2 Biotherapeutics: Honoraria, Other: Stock options; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Rights to royalties from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center for patents licensed to Juno Therapeutics/Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene: Other: Research funding was paid to my institution, Research Funding; Umoja: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Legend Biotech: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; MorphoSys: Honoraria; Juno therapeutics: Other: Research funding was paid to my institution, Research Funding; Navan Technologies: Honoraria, Other: Stock options; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Research funding was paid to my institution, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Honoraria, Other: Rights to royalties from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center for patents licensed to Juno Therapeutics/Bristol Myers Squibb. Crotta: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Montheard: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Previtali: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Stepan: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ogasawara: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Mack: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Abramson: Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seagen Inc.: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: Liso-cel is a CAR T cell therapy approved for use in the third line for R/R LBCL. This trial reports data from the pivotal trial in the second line.

Key Points Five-year follow-up of S1106 demonstrates similar efficacy, MRD negativity, and 5-year survival with RH or RB, but RH was more toxic than RB. RB showed excellent efficacy and survival and less toxicity compared with a cytarabine-based regimen in transplant-eligible MCL patients.