Orellana‐Noia, Victor M.

AbstractClinical trials of novel salvage therapies have encouraging outcomes for relapsed/refractory transplant‐eligible classic Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL) but comparison with conventional chemotherapy is lacking. Herein, we report the final analysis of a multicenter retrospective cohort of R/R cHL assessing outcomes by type of salvage therapy before autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). R/R cHL patients who underwent ASCT at 14 institutions across the United States were included. Outcomes were compared among patients receiving conventional chemotherapy, brentuximab vedotin (BV) + chemotherapy, BV alone, and a checkpoint inhibitor (CPI)‐based regimens before ASCT. Study endpoints included event‐free survival (EFS), progression‐free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). All endpoints are defined from relapse. Of 936 patients, 728 received conventional chemotherapy, 73 received BV + chemotherapy, 70 received BV alone, and 65 received CPI‐based regimens prior to ASCT. When adjusted for time to relapse, pre‐ASCT response and use of BV maintenance, patients receiving CPI‐based regimens had superior 2‐year EFS compared to conventional chemotherapy, BV + chemotherapy, and BV alone (79.7, 49.6, 62.3, and 36.9%, respectively, p < .0001). Among 649 patients transplanted after 1 line of salvage therapy, CPI‐based regimens were associated with superior 2‐year PFS compared to conventional chemotherapy (98% vs. 68.8%, hazard ratio: 0.1, 95% confidence interval: 0.03–0.5, p < .0001). OS did not differ by pre‐ASCT salvage regimen. In this large multicenter retrospective study, CPI‐based regimens improved EFS and PFS compared to other salvage regimens independent of pre‐ASCT response. These data support earlier sequencing of CPI‐based regimens in R/R cHL in the pre‐ASCT setting.

AbstractPlasmablastic lymphoma (PBL) is a rare entity, commonly associated with immunosuppressed states such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection or solid organ transplant. The clinical course is characterized by high relapse rates and a poor prognosis, leading some clinicians to recommend aggressive frontline therapy. However, a specific review of limited stage (LS) PBL patients is not available to evaluate outcomes and justify treatment recommendations. We performed a retrospective review of LS PBL cases to provide insight into this rare disease. Our cohort consisted of 80 stage I or II PBL patients from 13 US academic centers. With a median follow up of 34 months (1–196), the 3‐year progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of the entire cohort were 72% (95% CI 62, 83) and 79% (95% CI 70, 89), respectively. The 3‐year PFS and OS of patients treated with frontline chemotherapy alone was 65% (95% CI 50, 84) and 71% (95% CI 56, 89), respectively, compared to 85% (95% CI 72, 100) and 96% (95% CI 89, 100), respectively, in patients treated with combined frontline chemotherapy with radiation consolidation. Our data demonstrate favorable outcomes in LS PBL with no improvements in outcome from aggressive frontline treatment including Hyper‐CVAD or auto‐SCT consolidation. Multivariate regression analysis (MRA) demonstrated improved PFS for patients receiving EPOCH based frontline therapy versus CHOP (HR: 0.23; p = 0.029). Frontline chemotherapy followed by radiation consolidation versus chemotherapy alone appeared to be associated with improved relapse and survival outcomes but did not show statistical significance in MRA.

7515 Background: Primary refractory disease (PRD) and early relapse (ER) are predictors of poor prognosis in classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). In this multicenter retrospective study, we describe outcomes of PRD and ER in pts with relapsed/refractory (R/R) cHL treated with salvage therapy (ST) and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Methods: Of 14 sites, adult patients with R/R cHL who received ST and underwent ASCT were enrolled. PRD was defined as progression on frontline chemoimmunotherapy or within 6 months of diagnosis. ER was defined as relapse from 6 months-1 yr of diagnosis. Pts who relapsed >1 yr of diagnosis were called late relapses (LR). Study objectives were Overall response rates (ORR), CR rates, PFS, and OS. Results: Of 986 total pts, 160 had PRD, 365 had ER and 461 had LR. Significantly higher number of pts with PRD, but not ER, had bulky disease (41% vs 27%, p<0.01) and B symptoms (53% vs 38%, p<0.001) than LR. Higher proportions of pts with PRD and ER required >1 line of ST (44% vs 30% vs 23%, p<0.001) before ASCT and received BV maintenance (25% vs 24% vs 16%, p<0.05). When adjusted for B symptoms and Bulky disease, PRD and ER had significantly lower ORR (65% vs 76% vs 84%, p<0.001) and CR (37% vs 46% vs 57%, p<0.001) to first ST than LR. Pts with PRD and ER had significantly lower PFS (56.3%, 61.4%, vs 77.6%, p<.0001) and OS (93% vs 89% vs 94%, p=0.01) than LR. In pts with ER, Brentuximab/bendamustine (BBV) and brentuximab vedotin/nivolumab (BV/nivo) had a trend towards higher ORR (92% vs 92% vs 75%) but significantly higher CR (79.2% vs 76% vs 42%, p<0.01) than platinum based chemotherapy (PBC). In pts with PRD, BBV and BV/Nivo had a statistically insignificant trend towards higher ORR and CR than PBC. The table shows 2 yr PFS by type of ST in PRD, ER, LR. There was no difference in PFS by time to relapse in BV/nivo, CPI and miscellaneous agents. BV/Nivo had a significantly higher PFS than PBC in PRD (88% vs 48%, p<0.05) and ER (95% vs 57%, p<0.05). There was no difference in PFS of PBC and other ST in PRD, ER or LR. OS was not significantly associated with type of ST in either group. Conclusions: PRD and ER are associated with lower response to ST and survival after ASCT compared to late relapse. In pts with PRD and ER, BV/Nivo has high ORR and CR and leads to significantly higher PFS comparable to pts with late relapse and may be preferable ST regardless of time to relapse. [Table: see text]

Abstract Introduction: Clinical trials of novel salvage therapies (ST) have encouraging outcomes for relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL) after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT); yet studies comparing novel ST with conventional salvage chemotherapy are lacking. In a single center cohort, we demonstrated that bendamustine/brentuximab (BBV) had higher overall response rates (ORR) and complete response (CR) rates in ASCT-eligible R/R cHL (Desai et al JCO, 2021). Herein we report comparative outcomes of novel and conventional ST in R/R cHL who undergo ASCT, in a large multicenter retrospective cohort. Methods: Consecutive R/R cHL pts who underwent ASCT at 12 institutions across United States were included. Demographics and clinical variables at relapse including age, sex, B symptoms, stage, bulky disease (BD, single mass &gt; 6 cm) extra nodal disease (END), primary refractory disease (PRD) and early relapse (ER, within 1 year) were recorded by electronic health records review. Study objectives were ORR, CR to first ST, post-ASCT PFS and OS by final ST. Time to event endpoints were defined from date of ASCT. Results: From 12 participating institutions, 853 pts of R/R cHL who underwent ASCT were eligible for this study. Median age was 33 (14-72) years, 457 (54%) were male, 446 (52%) had BD, 257 (30%) had advanced stage, 271 (32%) had END, 369 (43%) had B symptoms, 142 (17%) had PRD and 307 (36%) had ER. All 853 received at least 1 ST, 245 received 2 ST, 71 received 3 ST and 26 received 4 ST. Seven groups of ST were identified: 1. Conventional platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) group including ICE, DHAP and ESHAP 2. BBV 3. Brentuximab Vedotin and nivolumab (BV/Nivo) 4. BV alone (BV) 5. gemcitabine-based chemotherapy (Gem) 6. checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) and 7. other miscellaneous agents (Misc). 1st ST was as follows: 553 had PBC; 69 had BBV; 48 had BV/Nivo; 65 had BV; 49 had Gem; 4 had CPI and 63 had Misc. There was no significant difference in the baseline characteristics by type of 1 st ST (data not shown). BBV had significantly higher ORR (92% vs 79%, p&lt;0.001) and CR rate (80% vs 49%, p &lt;0.001) compared to PBC. BV/Nivo had significantly higher CR rate (67% vs 49%, p &lt;0.001) and a trend towards higher ORR (86% vs 79%, p = 0.1) compared to PBC. BV had significantly lower ORR (62% vs 79%, p &lt;0.001) and CR rate (34% vs 49%, p &lt;0.001) compared to PBC. There was no difference in ORR and CR rate of PBC, Gem, CPI and Misc agents. Final ST prior to ASCT was PBC in 451, BBV in 76, BV/Nivo in 48, BV in 87, CPI in 24, Gem in 90 and Misc in 64. Table 1 lists K-M estimates of 2-year survival probabilities for different Final ST groups. Median follow up was 3 (range 0.1-13) years. BV/Nivo group had significantly higher proportion of patients with PRD and BD than PBC, no other differences in baseline characteristics were identified amongst ST groups (data not shown). BV/Nivo (HR: 0.1 (CI 95:0.02-0.4), p&lt;0.01) and CPI (HR: 0.12 (CI 95:0.03-0.5), p&lt;0.01) had significantly higher PFS than PBC. There was no significant difference in PFS between other ST groups (Figure 1a). Type of ST was not significantly associated with difference in OS (Figure 1b). 536 pts underwent ASCT in CR, 273 underwent ASCT in partial response (PR) and 31 underwent ASCT with progressive disease (PD). Pre-ASCT PR (HR 1.6 (CI 95:1.3-2.6), p&lt;0.001) and PD (HR: 4.1 (CI 95: 2.5-6.8), p&lt;0.001) predicted significantly lower PFS compared to CR (Figure 2a). OS was also significantly lower in pts with pre-ASCT PR (HR 1.7 (CI 95: 1.2-1.6), p&lt;0.001) and PD (HR 5.3 (CI 95: 2.8-10), p&lt;0.001) (Figure 2b). Higher number of pre-ASCT ST predicted lower PFS (HR 1.3 (CI 95: 1.1-1.6), p&lt;0.001) and OS (HR 1.5 (CI 95: 1.2-1.8), p&lt;0.001). In pts with pre-ASCT CR, all 36 who had pre-ASCT CR after BV/Nivo were alive and relapse free for follow up of 0.1-5 yrs. BV/Nivo was associated with significantly higher PFS (HR 0.1 (CI 95: 0.01-0.7), p &lt;0.05) but not OS compared to PBC in this subgroup. Increasing number of pre-ASCT ST predicted worse PFS (HR 1.5 (CI 95: 1.2-2.0), p&lt;0.01) and OS (HR 2.2 (CI 95: 1.4-3.4), p&lt;0.001) in this subgroup as well. Conclusions: BV/Nivo has a higher CR rate and better post-ASCT PFS compared to conventional chemotherapy and can lead to durable remissions in pts with pre-ASCT CR. BBV had a higher response rate and similar post-ASCT survival to conventional chemotherapy. BV had lower response rates compared to chemotherapy. Novel ST such as BV/Nivo and BBV may be preferable to conventional chemotherapy in R/R cHL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Spinner: Notable Labs: Honoraria. Bachanova: FATE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; KaryoPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gamida Cell: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dorritie: SITC presentation: Honoraria; Genmab: Research Funding; University of Pittsburgh/UPMC Hillman Cancer Center: Current Employment; Janssen: Research Funding; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Juno/BMS: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; OncLive/Institutional Perspectives on Cancer presentation: Honoraria. Arai: Magenta Therapeutics: Research Funding. Maurer: Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Diefenbach: Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; IMab: Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health: Current Employment; AbbVie: Research Funding; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Gilead: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; MEI: Consultancy, Research Funding. Nowakowski: Kyte Pharma: Consultancy; Ryvu Therapeutics: Consultancy; Selvita: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Bantham Pharmaceutical: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Zai Labolatory: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kymera Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy; Nanostrings: Research Funding. Advani: Astellas/Agensys: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myer Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cell Medica: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forty Seven: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genetech Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura: Research Funding; Kyowa: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis across 10 US academic medical centers to evaluate treatment patterns and outcomes in patients age ≥60 years with classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) from 2010-2018. Among 244 eligible patients, median age was 68, 63% had advanced stage (III/IV), 96% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) 0-2, and 12% had documented loss of ≥1 activity of daily living (ADL). Medical comorbidities were assessed by the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale–Geriatric (CIRS-G), where n = 44 (18%) had total scores ≥10. Using multivariable Cox models, only ADL loss predicted shorter progression-free (PFS; hazard ratio [HR] 2.13, P = .007) and overall survival (OS; HR 2.52, P = .02). Most patients (n = 203, 83%) received conventional chemotherapy regimens, including doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD; 56%), AVD (14%), and AVD with brentuximab vedotin (BV; 9%). Compared to alternative therapies, conventional regimens significantly improved PFS (HR 0.46, P = .0007) and OS (HR 0.31, P = .0003). Survival was similar following conventional chemotherapy in those ages 60-69 vs ≥70: PFS HR 0.88, P = .63; OS HR 0.73, P = .55. Early treatment discontinuation due to toxicity was more common with CIRS-G ≥10 (28% vs 12%, P = .016) or documented geriatric syndrome (28% vs 13%, P = .02). A competing risk analysis demonstrated improved disease-related survival with conventional therapy (HR 0.29, P = .02) and higher mortality from causes other than disease or treatment with high CIRS-G or geriatric syndromes. This study suggests conventional chemotherapy regimens remain a standard of care in fit older patients with cHL, and highlights the importance of geriatric assessments in defining fitness for cHL therapy going forward.

Background: Plasmablastic lymphoma (PBL) is a rare subtype of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma with a well-known association with HIV infection. The outcomes of PBL patients are typically described with high relapse rates and poor prognosis. (Loghavi S, J Hematol Oncol. 2015; Morscio J, Am J of Pathol. 2014; Castillo JJ, Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2011; Castillo JJ, Am J Hematol. 2008) There has been a paucity of data suggesting that limited stage disease (Ann Arbor stage I-II) may have a more favorable prognosis. However, due to the rarity of this disease there have been no large-scale reviews to confirm this. Thus, many patients with limited stage disease are subject to the aggressive therapy recommendations based on the poor outcomes of PBL patients as a whole. (Loghavi S, J Hematol Oncol. 2015; NCCN Guidelines, version 2.2020; Al-Malki MM, BBMT. 2014) We attempted to determine the treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with limited stage PBL. Methods: We conducted a multi-center (13 US academic centers) retrospective study of patients with limited stage (Ann Arbor stage I-II) Plasmablastic lymphoma. Determination of limited stage and diagnosis of PBL was determined by the investigators at each individual center. Patients diagnosed between 1/1/1990 and 6/1/2018 were included. Baseline demographic, clinical, laboratory, pathology, and outcomes data were extracted by retrospective chart review. Kaplan Meier was utilized for time to event analysis. Results: Baseline characteristics are included in table 1. A total of 80 patients were identified with limited stage disease. With a median follow up of 34 months the 3-yr Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was 71.9% and 78.7% respectively (Figure 1A and 1B). Patients that received frontline chemotherapy with (n=29) and without RT (n=36) had a 3-yr PFS and OS of 84.6% and 96.2% as compared to 64.5% and 70.8%, respectively (Figure 2A and 2B; Figure 3A and 3B). The Hazard ratio (HR) for PFS and OS for chemo (reference) vs chemo-RT was 0.47 (95% CI 0.18-1.3; P=0.131) and 0.18 (95% CI 0.04-0.84; p=0.029) respectively. The HR for PFS and OS for CHOP (n=14, reference) vs EPOCH (n=33) based regimens was 0.37 (95% CI 0.11-1.2; p=0.106) and 0.36 (95% CI 0.079-1.6; p=0.182) respectively. Patients with stage I/IE disease (n=56) had a 3-yr PFS and OS of 73.1% and 81.2% respectively. Patients with stage II/IIE disease (n=24) had a 3-yr PFS and OS of 69.3% and 73.4% respectively. Patients that received aggressive treatment (n=17) with Hyper-CVAD based regimens and/or Auto-SCT as consolidation had a 3-yr PFS and OS of 63.6% and 72.7% respectively. Patients with concomitant HIV (n=16) had a 3-yr PFS and OS of 80.8% and 77.4% respectively. Seven patients received RT alone and 6 patients had surgical resection alone as frontline therapy; 1 patient received no therapy; 1 patient received HAART therapy only and remains in CR without any other treatment for PBL 29 months after diagnosis. There were 8 deaths (10%) related to PBL, 3 deaths (4%) related to treatment of PBL (2 during frontline chemo and 1 upon relapse with salvage chemo), and 9 deaths (11%) related to other causes. The 3-yr lymphoma free survival (LFS) of the entire cohort, pts receiving chemo alone, and pts receiving chemo-RT (without including treatment related mortality (TRM) as an event) was 89.1%, 85.2%, and 100% respectively. The 3-yr LFS survival of the entire cohort, pts receiving chemo alone, and pts receiving chemo-RT (including TRM as an event) was 85.1%, 80.0%, and 96.2% respectively. Discussion: Here we report the largest review to our knowledge of limited stage PBL. Outcomes appear to be excellent with 3-yr PFS and OS of 71.9% and 78.7% respectively and a 3-yr LFS of 89.1% (85.1% when attributing TRM as an event). There was no obvious benefit to receiving aggressive therapy with H-CVAD based regimens and/or Auto-SCT. Although this is a small, uncontrolled sample size the HR for OS was improved in patients receiving frontline chemo-RT vs chemo alone 0.18 (95% CI 0.04-0.84; p=0.029). However, this did not take into account TRM with or progression while receiving frontline chemotherapy. Patients who were HIV+ had similar PFS and OS outcomes compared to the entire cohort. This retrospective study clearly demonstrates the favorable outcomes in this patient population, especially in those able to receive definitive therapy for their disease. Disclosures Hess: ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS, AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Patel:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Research Funding; Nektar: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Nowakowski:Nanostrings: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; Kymera: Consultancy; Denovo: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding. Chavez:Bayer: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Hill:Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Maddocks:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics, AstraZeneca: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Wagner-Johnston:ADC Therapeutics, Regeneron, CALIB-R, Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kahl:AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche Laboratories Inc: Consultancy. Alderuccio:ADC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forma Therapeutics: Other: Family member; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Other: Family member; Oncinfo: Honoraria; Inovio Pharmaceuticals: Other: Family member; Foundation Medicine: Other: Family member; Puma Biotechnology: Other: Family member; OncLive: Honoraria. Lossos:Janssen Biotech: Honoraria; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen Scientific: Consultancy, Other; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other; Stanford University: Patents & Royalties; NCI: Research Funding. Portell:Bayer: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding. Landsburg:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Triphase: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Curis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau. Castillo:TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kymera: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Introduction Approximately 20% of patients (pts) with classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) are age ≥ 60 years (yrs) at diagnosis (dx). Standard anthracycline-based therapies (ABTx) have historically shown lower efficacy and greater toxicity in this older population compared with younger pts, especially for unfit or frail pts. However, prior analyses have pre-dated the use of brentuximab vedotin (BV) and other novel targeted agents in the front-line setting and there remains no clearly defined or unified standard of care for this pt population. Studies in older lymphoma pts have also defined specific categories of pt fitness that may potentially guide therapy, although continued validation of these definitions in cHL are needed. We performed a large, multicenter retrospective study to identify current practice patterns in the US in older untreated cHL pts with specific attention to pt fitness using established definitions and to outcomes with ABTx versus non-ABTx. Methods Following IRB approval at each site, detailed pathologic and clinical data, including geriatric assessments (GAs) for the latter, were collected across 10 US academic medical centers. Eligible pts included: cHL dx on or after 1/1/2010, age ≥ 60 yrs at dx, and no preceding hematologic malignancy. Subjects with inadequate clinicopathologic and outcomes data or with dx other than cHL were excluded. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was developed to study the association of PFS and OS with various factors of interest, and survival rates were estimated by Kaplan-Meier using SPSS. Associations were considered significant for two-sided P values ≤ 0.05. Results Among 254 eligible older cHL pts with newly diagnosed disease, clinical features included: median age 67 yrs (range 60-90+), 54% male, 64% stage III/IV, 46% B symptoms, and 86.1% ECOG PS 0-1. 68.9% had nodular sclerosis, 18.9% mixed cellularity, and 12.2% other subtypes; EBV was detectable by IHC or peripheral blood in 39.3% of evaluable cases (n=98). In terms of geriatric measures, 31 pts (12.2%) had loss of at least one ADL; 40 (15.8%) had a geriatric syndrome; and 16 (6.3%) had both. Of note, only one pt underwent a comprehensive GA prior to treatment. Using established fitness definitions in lymphoma (Tucci et al, 2015), pts were classified as "Fit" (n=129; 50.8%), "Unfit" (n=8; 3.2%), or "Frail" (n=112 (44.1%); 5 (2%) were unclassifiable due to incomplete data (Table 1). Front-line regimens included ABVD (n=145; 57.1%), AVD (n=33; 13.0%), and CHOP (n=18; 7.1%). 6 pts (2.4%) received BV monotherapy; 21 (8.3%) received BV with AVD, the latter either concurrently (N=11) or sequentially (n=10). 11 pts did not receive systemic tx, of whom 9 received radiation alone; 58 pts received radiation with systemic tx. ABVD recipients received an average of 7.4 doses of bleomycin (range 1-14) and 18.4% (n=26) had pulmonary toxicity. In addition, 56.7% (n=130) of pts experienced at least one tx-related toxicity, which was similar across all fitness groups (Table 1). 15.1% (n=38) of pts stopped tx due to toxicity, which was noted more often in "frail" pts though it was relatively uncommon. 11 pts (4.3%) experienced treatment-related mortality (TRM). Compared with pts receiving non-ABTx, ABTx was associated with significantly improved PFS (HR 0.391, P=0.008) and OS (HR 0.195, P=0.0004). ECOG PS >1 was associated with inferior PFS (HR=1.96, P=0.017) and OS (HR=3.09, P=0.002). Pts defined as "frail" had no apparent difference in PFS compared with fit pts (Figure 1A;P=0.169), although decreased OS was seen (Figure 1B; P=0.01). Discussion To the best of our knowledge, these data represent one of the largest analyses of older cHL pts in the modern era. Our real-world analysis shows that in those who are able to receive them, anthracyclines provide meaningful survival benefit in this older cHL patient population and can be well-tolerated for many pts. The impact of dose intensity and backbone regimen are not yet known. In addition, current definitions of "fitness" incompletely identified pts at risk for poor outcomes or greater toxicity. Further studies are planned to better delineate fitness in this population. Disclosures Bartlett: Celgene: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Genenetech: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Grover:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Bennani:Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board. Hill:Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Advani:Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead Sciences, Inc./Kite Pharma, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Autolus: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Infinity Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Celmed: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin Pharmaceutical Developments, Inc.: Consultancy; Agensys: Research Funding; Stanford University: Employment, Equity Ownership; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cell Medica, Ltd: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: 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, Research Funding. Svoboda:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Magarelli:Tevan Oncology: Speakers Bureau. Feldman:Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Portola Pharma: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Viracta: Research Funding. Cohen:Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; Hutchison: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Evens:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Tesaro: Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Portell:AbbVie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding.