Harris, Elyse I.

Introduction: Adults older than 60 years constitute 20-25% of newly diagnosed classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) and have inferior outcomes compared to younger patients (pts). Salvage therapy followed by an autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) is a potentially curative option for pts with relapsed/refractory (R/R cHL). There is limited data regarding outcomes of older adults with R/R cHL who undergo ASCT in the current era where novel agents are employed in the R/R setting, in comparison with younger patients. Methods: This multicenter, international, retrospective study of 18 participating institutions included adults with R/R cHL who underwent ASCT from January 1, 2010 through December 31 2020. Retrospective chart review was performed to collect data on patient and disease characteristics at relapse, including lines and type of salvage therapy, pre-ASCT response by PET, and use of brentuximab vedotin (BV) as consolidation post-ASCT. Study objectives were to assess progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and the probability of non-relapse mortality (NRM) with relapse as a competing event. NRM was defined as death without preceding relapse. Results: Of the total 1172 adults with R/R cHL enrolled in the parent cohort, 96 (8.1%) were age 60 years or older at the time of ASCT. In this older cohort, the median age was 66 years (range: 60-72). 54 (56%) were age 60-64, 31 (32%) were of age 65-69 and 11 (11%) were of age 70-72. 59 (61%) were male, 63 (66%) had advanced stage disease, 17 (18%) had bulky disease, 37 (39%) had B symptoms and 38 (40%) had extranodal disease. All patients (pts) received ABVD or ABVD-like frontline therapy. The median time to relapse was 6 months (range: 0-174). 48 pts (50%) relapsed within a year after completion of frontline treatment and 25 (26%) had primary refractory disease. Salvage therapy prior to ASCT included platinum-based chemotherapy (65%), BV-based regimen (34%), and PD-1 inhibitor-based regimens (3%). 16 pts (16%) underwent ASCT after >1 line of salvage therapy and 75 (78%) underwent ASCT after achieving a complete metabolic response (CMR). 14 pts (14.6%) received BV consolidation. Median follow-up for entire population was 53.4 months (range: 0.3-199.0). In older adults, the 5-year PFS was 54.2% (CI95: 43.4-67.6) not statistically different compared to pts <60 years (67.7% (CI95: 64.3-71.3), p=0.2). However, 5-year OS was inferior in older adults: 71.9% (CI95: 43.4-67.6) vs. 82.6% (CI95: 43.4-67.6) in pts <60 years (p <0.0001)). In pts ≥60, 26 (27%) died including 12 (12.5%) without preceding relapse. Older adults had 3-month, 1-year and 5-year probability of NRM of 5.2% (CI95: 2.2-12.2), 7.5% (CI95: 3.6-15.3), and 10.9% (CI95: 5.8-20.8), respectively. NRM was significantly higher in older adults compared to pts <60 who had 3-month, 1-year and 5-year probability of NRM of 0.3% (CI95: 0.1-1.0), 0.9% (CI95: 0.5-1.7), and 2.5% (CI95: 1.6-3.9), respectively (p<0.0001). Older adults had 3-month, 1-year and 5-year probability of relapse of 1% (CI95: 0.2-7.3), 7.5% (CI95: 3.6-15.3), and 28.6% (CI95: 19.1-42.1), respectively, which did not differ significantly from younger pts (p=0.3) who had 3-month, 1-year and 5-year probability of relapse of 0.6% (CI95: 0.3-1.3), 5.1% (CI95: 3.8-6.6), and 29.9% (CI95: 26.6-33.5), respectively. Conclusions: Although older adults with cHL are more likely to relapse after frontline treatment, only a minority of pts (<10%) in this large multicenter cohort underwent ASCT at age ≥60. In select older adults who underwent ASCT, the risk of relapse was similar to younger pts, but NRM was significantly higher, especially in the early post-ASCT period. Detailed assessment of comorbidity scores, toxicities of salvage therapies, and prognostic factors will be presented at the conference.

Abstract In the pre–novel agent era, the median postprogression overall survival (PPS) of patients with classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) who progress after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) was 2 to 3 years. Recently, checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) and brentuximab vedotin (BV) have improved the depth and durability of response in this population. Here, we report the estimate of PPS in patients with relapsed cHL after ASCT in the era of CPI and BV. In this multicenter retrospective study of 15 participating institutions, adult patients with relapsed cHL after ASCT were included. Study objective was postprogression overall survival (PPS), defined as the time from posttransplant progression to death or last follow-up. Of 1158 patients who underwent ASCT, 367 had progressive disease. Median age was 34 years (range, 27-46) and 192 were male. Median PPS was 114.57 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 91-not achieved) or 9.5 years. In multivariate analysis, increasing age, progression within 6 months, and pre-ASCT positive positron emission tomography scan were associated with inferior PPS. When adjusted for these features, patients who received CPI, but not BV, as first treatment for post-ASCT progression had significantly higher PPS than the no CPI/no BV group (hazard ratio, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.6-7.8; P = .001). Receipt of allogeneic SCT (Allo-SCT) did not improve PPS. In the era of novel agents, progressive cHL after ASCT had long survival that compares favorably with previous reports. Patients who receive CPI as first treatment for progression had higher PPS. Receipt to Allo-SCT was not associated with PPS in this population.

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.

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.