Ervin‐Haynes, Annette

8052 Background: Lenalidomide (Revlimid), an immunomodulatory drug of the IMiDs class, is approved in the US for treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and myelodysplastic syndromes associated with a deletion 5q[31] cytogenetic abnormality. Lenalidomide also has activity in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. This study was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of lenalidomide in patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). Methods: Patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive NHL with measurable disease after at least 1 prior treatment regimen were eligible. Patients received 25 mg lenalidomide orally once daily on Days 1–21 every 28 days and continued therapy for 52 weeks as tolerated or until disease progression. Response and progression were evaluated using the IWLRC methodology. Results: As of enrollment cut-off, 50 patients were enrolled and 49 received drug. Forty-one patients were evaluable for response. The median age was 65 (46–84) and 18 were female. Histology was diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [DLBCL] (n=21), follicular center lymphoma grade 3 [FL] (n=3), mantle cell lymphoma [MCL] (n=14) and transformed [TSF] (n=3). Median time from diagnosis to lenalidomide was 3.2 (0.4–32) years and median number of prior treatment regimens was 3 (1–7). Fourteen patients (34%) exhibited an objective response (5 complete responses unconfirmed (CRu) and 9 partial responses (PR)), 12 had stable disease (SD) for a tumor control rate (TCR) of 63% and 15 progressive disease (PD). Responses were seen in each of the aggressive histologic subtypes studied: DLBCL (5/21), MCL (6/14), FL (2/3), and TSF (1/3). Five of 11 patients (45%) with a prior stem cell transplant responded. Progression free survival although ongoing is currently > 239 (>191 - >373) days in patients experiencing CRu and > 160 (>54 - >251) days in patients with PR. Most common Grade 4 adverse events were neutropenia (8.2%) and thrombocytopenia (8.2%) while most common Grade 3 adverse events were neutropenia (22%), leukopenia (14%) and thrombocytopenia (12%). Conclusion: Lenalidomide oral monotherapy is active with manageable side effects in relapsed/refractory aggressive NHL. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Abstract Background Melphalan, prednisone and thalidomide (MPT) is a standard therapy for NDMM recognized worldwide based on a statistically significant advantage in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) vs. MP (Facon Lancet 2007; Fayers Blood 2011; NCCN 2013). The combination of lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) increased OS with fewer adverse events (AEs) than treatment with lenalidomide and high-dose dexamethasone in NDMM pts (ECOG E4A03) (Rajkumar Lancet Oncol 2010). The FIRST trial is a multicenter, open-label, phase III trial comparing the efficacy and safety of Rd versus MPT in transplant-ineligible NDMM pts. Methods NDMM pts either ≥ 65 years of age, or not candidates for SCT were randomized to one of three arms: Rd in 28-day cycles until disease progression (Arm A), Rd in 28-day cycles for 72 weeks (18 cycles, Arm B), or MPT in 42-day cycles for 72 weeks (12 cycles, Arm C). Assessments by International Myeloma Working Group criteria were done after each cycle. Pts with renal impairment were enrolled; however, pts on dialysis were excluded. Starting doses of lenalidomide and dexamethasone were adjusted based on renal function and age, respectively. Melphalan starting dose was adjusted based on age, absolute neutrophil count, platelet count, and renal function; and thalidomide was adjusted for age. Dose adjustments were permitted for AEs. All pts were required to receive anti-thrombotic prophylaxis. Stratification factors included age, International Stage System, and country. The primary endpoint was a comparison of PFS in Arm A vs. Arm C. Secondary endpoints included OS, overall response rate (ORR), time to response, duration of response (DOR), safety, and quality of life (QOL). A preplanned additional analysis included time from randomization to second progression event or death (PFS2). The final preplanned analysis of independently adjudicated progressive disease (PD) events in Arm A vs. Arm C conducted after 960 events of death or PD, and an interim of OS in 64% of survival events (574/896 events) are presented in this abstract. Comparisons of PFS and all secondary endpoints, including OS for all three arms, will be presented at the meeting. Results A total of 1,623 pts were randomized 1:1:1 in three arms. As of today, 121 pts continue to receive lenalidomide on study (Arm A). The median age was 73 (40.0–92.0) years; 35% pts were aged ≥ 75 years; and 41% of pts had ISS stage 3 disease. After a median follow-up of 37 months, the trial met its primary endpoint (PFS), demonstrating a 28% reduction in risk of progression or death (HR=0.72; p= 0.00006). The preplanned interim analysis of OS demonstrated a 22% reduction in risk of death in favor of Arm A vs. Arm C (HR=0.78, p=0.01685); however, the pre-specified boundary (p<0.0096) was not crossed. All other secondary endpoints consistently showed improvement in favor of Arm A vs. Arm C; ORR (PR or better) 75% vs. 62% (p < 0.00001), DOR (HR=0.63; p<0.00001), and PFS2 (HR=0.78, p=0.0051). Relevant Grade 3/4 adverse events in Arm A vs. Arm C were neutropenia (28% vs. 45%), thrombocytopenia (8% vs. 11%), febrile neutropenia (1% vs. 3%), infection (29% vs. 17%), neuropathy (5% vs. 15%), and deep-vein thrombosis (5% vs. 3%). The incidence of secondary primary malignancies (SPM) was evaluated. Hematologic malignancies were 0.4% in Arm A vs. 2.2% in Arm C; the overall incidence of solid tumors was identical (2.8%). Conclusion Continuous treatment with the all oral doublet Rd significantly improved the primary endpoint of PFS compared with the standard triplet, MPT. All secondary endpoints support the clinical benefit of continuous Rd treatment. The safety profile of Rd was manageable, with reduced hematologic SPM compared to MPT. Disclosures: Facon: Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide as treatment for NDMM. Dimopoulos:Celgene, Orthobiotech: Honoraria. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Millenium, Jansenn, Pfizer: Research Funding. Catalano:Celgene, Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hulin:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Cavo:Celgene, Janssen, Millennium, Onyx, Brystol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pinto:Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Weisel:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ludwig:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Delforge:Celgene: Honoraria. Chen:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Lundbeck: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Oriol:Celgen: Consultancy. White:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Binder:Celgene: Research Funding. Anderson:Acetylon, OncoPep: Equity Ownership; Celgene, Onyx, Sanofi Aventis, Gileod: Consultancy. Moreau:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Attal:Janssen: Lectures, Lectures Other, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Lectures Other, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Knight:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Celgene: Employment. Van Oostendorp:Celgene: Employment. Jacques:Celgene: Employment. Ervin-Haynes:Celgene: Employment, Patents & Royalties. Benboubker:Celgene: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Cytogenetic abnormalities in patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM) are of prognostic importance and can be associated with poor outcomes (Bergsagel, Blood, 2011). The FIRST trial is a pivotal phase 3 study with the largest data set in transplant-ineligible pts with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM). This subanalysis evaluates the impact of cytogenetics on outcomes in transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM continuously treated with lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone until disease progression (Rd continuous). Methods: Transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment arms: Rd continuous, Rd18 (Rd for 18 cycles [72 weeks]), or melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide (MPT; for 12 cycles [72 weeks]). Cytogenetics were assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization. Pts were categorized into cytogenetic risk groups according to International Myeloma Working Group criteria. High-risk cytogenetics included del(17p), t(4;14), and t(14;16); all other pts were categorized as non-high risk. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS; primary comparators were Rd continuous vs MPT), and key secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and safety. Results: A total of 762 of 1623 pts from the intent-to-treat population had validated cytogenetic profiles, with 142 pts in the high-risk group and 620 pts in the non-high-risk group. Baseline characteristics were well balanced across cytogenetic risk groups (Table 1). The median follow-up for OS was 40.2 months for the 762 pts in this analysis (data cutoff, March 03, 2014). In the non-high-risk group, median duration of treatment was 19.4 months with Rd continuous and 16.6 months with both Rd18 and MPT. In the high-risk group, median duration of treatment was 10.0 months with Rd continuous, 8.2 months with Rd18, and 12.0 months with MPT. Rd continuous treatment resulted in a 24% reduced risk of death or progression compared with MPT and an even greater 32% reduced risk in pts without high-risk cytogenetics (Table 2). In non-high-risk pts, median PFS was 31.1 months with Rd continuous compared with 21.2 and 24.9 months with Rd18 and MPT, respectively (Figure). However, in high-risk pts, the observed numerical median PFS favoring Rd18 is mainly due to small pt numbers influenced by long runners (n = 5), and the greatly overlapping 95% CIs from all 3 arms show the difference is likely to be minimal. Rd continuous treatment resulted in a 28% reduced risk of death vs MPT overall and a 34% reduced risk in pts without high-risk cytogenetics. OS was similar across treatment arms for high-risk pts. ORRs in all cytogenetic risk groups favored Rd continuous vs MPT. In pts with high-risk cytogenetics, higher-quality responses were also observed with Rd continuous vs MPT treatment. Similar results were seen with Rd continuous compared with Rd18, although OS and ORR benefits overall and in pts without high-risk cytogenetics were not as pronounced. In all 3 treatment arms, adverse events were consistent across cytogenetic risk groups. Conclusions: Rd continuous treatment resulted in PFS and OS benefits vs MPT in pts with validated cytogenetic profiles. This was largely due to PFS and OS improvements in pts without high-risk cytogenetics. In the high-risk group, the longest PFS was observed with Rd18 treatment and OS was similar across treatment arms. Despite being on the continuous vs fixed duration treatment arm, high-risk pts on Rd continuous received a shorter duration of treatment than those on MPT, which may explain why PFS favored MPT vs Rd continuous. Higher response rates were observed with Rd continuous vs MPT, regardless of cytogenetic risk, and greater quality responses were observed in pts with high-risk cytogenetics. The safety profile of Rd continuous was manageable and consistent between cytogenetic risk groups. Results support Rd continuous as a standard treatment option for pts with NDMM who are ineligible for transplant, especially those without high-risk cytogenetics. Additional PFS and OS benefits may be achieved in pts with high-risk cytogenetics when Rd continuous is used as a backbone for combination therapy with a novel agent. Promising activity in pts with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities has been demonstrated using this approach (Lonial et al, N Engl J Med, 2015; Stewart et al, N Engl J Med, 2015). Disclosures Hulin: Celgene Corporation: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Genesis: Honoraria. Reece:Lundbeck: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding. Catalano:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria. Pinto:Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria; Spectrum: Honoraria. Ludwig:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Cavo:Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Amgen, BMS: Honoraria. Moreau:Takeda: Other: Adboard; Janssen: Other: Adboard; Novartis: Other: Adboard; Amgen: Other: Adboard; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Adboard. Qiu:Johnson & Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau. Schots:Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Marek:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Yiu:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ervin-Haynes:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Facon:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pierre Fabre: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Abstract 2699 Poster Board II-675 Introduction: High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplant (SCT) is a standard treatment option for younger patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphomas (a-NHL) who fail to respond, or relapse after initial therapy. For patients who relapse after SCT there are few effective treatment options and prognosis remains poor (Vose et al Blood. 80(8):2142–8, 1992). A second SCT was shown to achieve only marginal responses and at an increased risk of toxic death (Lenain et al Hematol J. 5(5):403–9, 2004). Therefore, new approaches are needed for treatment of patients in this poor prognostic group. Lenalidomide (Revlimid®) is an immunomodulatory agent that has shown clinical activity in treatment of several B-cell malignancies. Two phase 2 studies of lenalidomide monotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) a-NHL were conducted in the US (NHL-002; Wiernik et al JCO 26:4952–7, 2008) and internationally (CC-5013 NHL-003). In an extended follow-up of the NHL-002 study, the overall response rate (ORR) was 35%, which included 12% of patients with a complete response (CR), and a median duration of response (DR) lasting 10.4 months (Wiernik et al 2008 EHA. Abst: 764). Comparable efficacy was observed in the larger confirmatory, phase 2, NHL-003 study of lenalidomide in a similar patient population. The goal of this analysis was to learn the ORR and DR to lenalidomide in patients with a prior SCT. Methods: Patient data from both phase II studies were pooled for this report. Eligibility for both studies was similar – patients with R/R a-NHL, which included diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), transformed lymphoma (TL), and follicular lymphoma grade III (FL-III), with measurable disease (≥ 2 cm), and ≥ 1 prior treatment regimen. Patients received oral lenalidomide 25 mg once daily on days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle. Protocol defined treatment continued for up to 52 wks in NHL-002, or until disease progression in NHL-003. Primary endpoint was ORR; secondary endpoints included DR, progression-free survival (PFS), and safety. Results: 87 patients with a prior SCT (14 patients from NHL-002; 73 patients from NHL-003) were included in this analysis. Median age of patients was 61 yrs (range, 23–76), with a median of 4 prior therapies (range, 2–12). The ORR to lenalidomide was 39% (34/87), with 13% (11/87) CR/CRu and 26% (23/87) partial response (PR). Median PFS for all 87 patients was 3.8 months (95% CI, 2.6, 5.6) and the DR for 34 responders was 9.7 months (95% CI, 4.2, 16.3). Responses occurred in 15 of 52 patients (29% ORR; 10% CR/CRu) with DLBCL, 12 of 19 patients with MCL (63% ORR; 26% CR/CRu), and in 6 of 10 patients with TL (60% ORR; 10% CR/CRu). The table summarizes responses for patients who did not have a transplant, for those who had a SCT anytime prior to lenalidomide; as the last therapy prior to lenalidomide; and not as last therapy prior to lenalidomide. Most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (44%), thrombocytopenia (33%), and anemia (9%). Eighteen (20.6%) patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Patients with a prior history of SCT appeared to have a significantly higher rate of thrombocytopenia, all grades (51% v 30%; P = 0.001), and grades 3 or 4 (33% v 16%; P = 0.002). Patients with a prior SCT were also more likely to experience a dose reduction/interruption due to thrombocytopenia compared with those without a prior SCT (25% v 14%; P = 0.027). Conclusions: Based on a pooled dataset from two phase II studies, oral lenalidomide monotherapy appears to be a well tolerated and active therapy resulting in durable responses in patients with R/R a-NHL who had a prior SCT. Furthermore, the potential of achieving a response to lenalidomide appears to be independent of prior history of SCT. Disclosures: Vose: Celgene: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide for the treatment of relapsed/refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. . Czuczman:Celgene: Research Funding. Zinzani:Celgene: Research Funding. Tuscano:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pietronigro:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ervin-Haynes:Celgene: Employment. Witzig:Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Lenalidomide (Revlimid®), an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD®), was recently approved in the US for treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and myelodysplastic syndromes associated with a deletion 5q[31] cytogenetic abnormality. Lenalidomide also has demonstrated activity in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma while thalidomide, a less potent IMiD®, has activity in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma as both monotherapy and in combination with rituximab. Aim: To assess the safety and activity of lenalidomide monotherapy in subjects with relapsed/refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). Methods: Subjects with relapsed/refractory aggressive NHL following at least 1 prior treatment regimen with measurable disease are eligible. Subjects receive 25 mg lenalidomide orally once daily on Days 1–21 every 28 days and continue therapy for 52 weeks as tolerated or until disease progression. Response and progression are evaluated using the IWLRC methodology. Results: As of July 25, 2006, 32 subjects of a planned 40 have enrolled and 31 have received drug. Twenty-two subjects are currently evaluable for tumor response. The median age of the 22 response-evaluable subjects is 65 (46–83) and 13 are female. Histology is diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [DLBCL] (n=12), follicular center lymphoma grade 3 [FL] (n=3), mantle cell lymphoma [MCL] (n=5) and transformed [TSF] (n=2). Median time from diagnosis to lenalidomide monotherapy is 2.3 (0.7–7) years and median number of prior treatment regimens per subject is 2 (1–6). Seven subjects (32%) exhibited an objective response (2 complete responses unconfirmed (CRu) and 5 partial responses (PR)), 6 had stable disease (SD) for a tumor control rate (TCR) of 59% and 9 progressive disease (PD). Responses were produced in each of the aggressive histologic subtypes studied: DLBCL (3/12), FL (1/3), MCL (2/5) and TSF (1/2). Five of 11 subjects (45%) with 1–2 prior treatment regimens had an objective response, as did 2 of 3 subjects (67%) who had received a prior stem cell transplant. Median time-to-response was 2 months. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 18 of 31 (58%) subjects receiving drug. These were predominantly Grade 3 hematological events (neutropenia, thrombocytopenia) with only 4 subjects (13%) experiencing a Grade 4 adverse reaction. Conclusion: Preliminary results indicate that lenalidomide monotherapy is active with manageable side effects in relapsed/refractory aggressive NHL.

Abstract Background: Lenalidomide (Revlimid®), an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD®), was recently approved in the US for treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and myelodysplastic syndromes associated with a deletion 5q[31] cytogenetic abnormality. Lenalidomide also has demonstrated activity in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma while thalidomide, a less potent IMiD®, has activity in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) as both monotherapy and in combination with rituximab. Aim: To assess the safety and efficacy of lenalidomide monotherapy in subjects with relapsed/refractory indolent NHL. Methods: Subjects with relapsed/refractory indolent NHL following at least 1 prior treatment regimen with measurable disease are eligible. Subjects receive 25 mg lenalidomide orally once daily on Days 1–21 every 28 days and continue therapy for 52 weeks as tolerated or until disease progression. Response and progression are evaluated using the IWLRC methodology. Results: As of July 25, 2006, 23 subjects of a planned 40 have enrolled and received drug. Fifteen subjects are currently evaluable for tumor response. The median age of the 15 response-evaluable subjects is 64 (54–82) and 5 are female. Histology is small lymphocytic lymphoma [SLL] (n=8), follicular center lymphoma grades 1,2 [FL] (n=5) and nodal marginal B-cell lymphoma [NML] (n=2). Median time from diagnosis to lenalidomide monotherapy is 7.6 (3–14) years and median number of prior treatment regimens per subject is 3 (1–17). Two subjects (13%) exhibited an objective partial response (PR) at four months. Both responses, one FL and one NML, occurred in subjects with substantial tumor burden of 61.8 cm2 and 80.3 cm2, respectively. The 4-month time-to-response for these indolent NHL subjects is longer than the 2-month median time-to-response in aggressive NHL subjects (n=7) following lenalidomide monotherapy. Seven patients had stable disease (SD) for a tumor control rate (TCR) of 60% and 6 had progressive disease (PD). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 9 (39%) subjects. These were predominantly Grade 3 hematological events (neutropenia, thrombocytopenia) with only 3 subjects (13%) experiencing a Grade 4 adverse reaction (all neutropenia). Conclusion: Early results of lenalidomide monotherapy in indolent NHL show evidence of activity with a safety profile similar to that established previously in other hematological malignancies.

Abstract Abstract 2738 Background: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is an uncommon type of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) with poor prognosis that necessitates the development of new treatments. Lenalidomide is a unique immunomodulatory agent with antiproliferative and tumoricidal effects on MCL cells. NHL-003 was a phase II, open-label, multicenter trial for subjects with relapsed aggressive NHL that tested single-agent lenalidomide 25 mg PO days 1–21 every 28 days. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR); secondary endpoints included complete response (CR) rate, duration of response (DOR), survival, and safety. At the time of the initial publication (Witzig et al. Ann Oncol.2011;22:1622–1627), MCL subgroup analysis showed an ORR of 42%; the median DOR had not been reached. The purpose of this report is to provide long-term efficacy and safety results for the MCL subgroup from NHL-003. Results: Subjects with MCL (N=57) had a median age of 68 y (range, 33–82), were predominantly male (77%) with good ECOG performance status (89% PS 0–1) and advanced-stage disease (88% stage III/IV). Subjects had received a median of 3 (range, 1–13) prior systemic therapies. According to the current central review at a median follow-up of 12.4 mo, subjects achieved an ORR of 35% (CR/CRu 12%) following lenalidomide, including a median DOR of 16.3 mo (Table 1). The ORR to single-agent lenalidomide was 44% (CR/CRu 21%) by independent assessment, with a median DOR not yet reached. Median PFS was 8.8 mo by central review and 5.7 mo according to investigators. Subjects responded quickly, with a median time to first response of 1.9 mo (central and investigator). Median DOR for subjects in CR and overall survival for all subjects have not yet been reached. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (46%), thrombocytopenia (30%), fatigue (9%), and diarrhea (5%). Other AEs included one subject with grade 1 to 2 tumor flare reaction, one subject with grade 3 deep vein thrombosis, and two subjects with second primary malignancies suspected of being related to treatment (one grade 3 squamous cell carcinoma of the skin that resolved and one grade 4 AML in a heavily pretreated individual with 5 prior cancer therapies). Conclusions: This subset analysis from a phase II study further confirms the efficacy of lenalidomide in subjects with relapsed MCL. Responders have a long DOR with manageable side effects. These results support continued investigation of lenalidomide alone or in combination for the treatment of MCL. Disclosures: Zinzani: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mundipharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spectrum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: This is a phase 2 clinical study of safety and efficacy for lenalidomide in patients with MCL. Czuczman:Celgene: Consultancy, Consultant Celgene Advisory Board Other. Reeder:Celgene: Mayo Clinic receives funding from Celgene to support clinical trials Other, Research Funding. Haioun:Celgene: Celgene Advisory Board Consultant Other, Consultancy. Tilly:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Pietronigro:Celgene: Employment. Ervin-Haynes:Celgene: Employment. Li:Celgene: Employment. Witzig:Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: In the pivotal FIRST trial, at the pre-specified planned analysis for progression-free survival (PFS), treatment (Tx) with lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone until disease progression (Rd continuous) improved outcomes for transplant-ineligible patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) compared with melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT), as well as Rd for 18 cycles (Rd18; Benboubker, NEJM 2014). Rd18 was added as a third arm to investigate whether Rd continuous Tx would control progression of NDMM longer than Rd18. Here, we present the final analysis of the overall survival (OS) data from the trial. Methods: Transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM were randomized 1:1:1 to Rd continuous (with lenalidomide given on days 1-21 of 28-day cycles until disease progression), Rd18 (with lenalidomide given on days 1-21 of eighteen 28-day cycles), or MPT (twelve 42-day cycles); both Rd18 and MPT were 72 weeks in duration. The primary endpoint was PFS and the key secondary endpoint was OS; the primary comparison was Rd continuous vs MPT. Other secondary endpoints included time to second therapy (TTST) and safety. Time from randomization to second progression or death (PFS2) was an exploratory analysis. Response assessment used for PFS and PFS2 analysis was determined by investigators based on International Myeloma Working Group criteria. Results: At the time of cutoff for the final OS analysis (January 21, 2016), 52 of the 535 pts in the Rd continuous arm and none of the pts in the Rd18 (n = 541) and MPT (n = 547) arms continued to receive Tx. The median follow-up for surviving pts was 67.0 months (range, 0-86.8 months). In the pre-specified final OS analysis for the primary comparison, a statistically significant advantage in OS was shown with Rd continuous over MPT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-0.92; P = .00234; Table). OS for Rd continuous vs Rd18 was evaluated (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86-1.20). In this updated analysis, a PFS advantage continued to be seen for Rd continuous vs MPT (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.59-0.79; P < .00001) and vs Rd18 (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60-0.81). Median TTST was longer for Rd continuous vs MPT (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.54-0.73; Table). More pts in the Rd18 and MPT arms started second-line therapy (n = 377 and 381, respectively) compared with the Rd continuous arm (n = 299). Pts received a variety of Tx at progression, with bortezomib-based regimens the most common in the Rd continuous (n = 179; 59.9%), Rd18 (n = 208; 55.2%), and MPT (n = 170; 44.6%) arms. Pts who received bortezomib after Rd continuous or Rd18 had better outcomes than those who received it after MPT. PFS2 for Rd continuous was improved vs MPT (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.85). Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 86.3%, 80.2%, and 88.7% of the 532, 540, and 541 pts in the safety populations of the Rd continuous, Rd18, and MPT arms, respectively; the most common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (29.5%, 26.5%, and 44.9%) and infections (31.6%, 21.9%, and 17.2%), and no new safety signals were seen compared with earlier analyses. Study discontinuation was most commonly due to disease progression and was less common in the Rd continuous vs Rd18 and MPT arms (50.7% vs 66.9% and 61.6%, respectively). Discontinuation due to AEs was similar across the Rd continuous, Rd18, and MPT arms (12.0%, 13.1%, and 13.9%). Solid tumor second primary malignancies (SPMs) occurred in 6.0, 6.9%, and 5.9% of pts, and hematologic malignancies occurred in 0.8%, 0.4%, and 2.6% of pts in the Rd continuous, Rd18, and MPT arms, respectively. Conclusions: Rd continuous significantly prolonged PFS and OS, and improved other secondary endpoints compared with MPT in transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM. Rd continuous also showed a PFS benefit compared with Rd18, delaying the time to next Tx. PFS2 outcomes suggest that Rd does not induce resistant relapses. Few hematologic malignancies occurred in the Rd arms, and the incidence of SPMs was similar between Rd continuous and Rd18. Rd continuous remains a standard of care for transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM. Disclosures Facon: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel and expense, Speakers Bureau. Dimopoulos:Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dispenzieri:Celgene: Research Funding. Belch:Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Cavo:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria. Weisel:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ludwig:Janssen: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria. Delforge:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Cavenagh:Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Geraldes:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Oriol:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. De La Rubia:Amgen, Bristol, Celgene, Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. White:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Moreau:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Attal:janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; sanofi: Consultancy. Ervin-Haynes:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Houck:Celgene: Employment. Hulin:celgene: Honoraria; Bristol: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; takeda: Honoraria. Benboubker:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Abstract 1676 Poster Board I-702 Introduction Aggressive NHL (a-NHL) comprises a heterogeneous group of B-cell malignancies, each characterized by a unique histology and molecular markers. The most common types are diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), transformed lymphoma (TL), follicular grade III (FL-III), and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). Although initial therapy can be effective, up to 40% of patients with DLBCL either fail to respond or relapse after initial therapy (Habermann TM et al JCO 2006), and relapses are likely among patients with MCL. For such patients survival outcomes are particularly poor with few effective treatment options available. Lenalidomide (Revlimid®), an immunomodulatory agent with anti-proliferative as well as apoptotic activity was tested in a pilot study and demonstrated a 35% overall response rate (ORR) with a median duration of response (DR) of 10.4 months (Wiernik et al 2008 EHA. Abst: 764). Based on these encouraging data, we performed a large, international, confirmatory phase 2 study to assess the safety and efficacy of single-agent lenalidomide in patients with relapsed of refractory DLBCL or MCL (CC-5013-NHL-003). Methods Patients were required to have relapsed or refractory aggressive B-cell NHL after ≥1 prior therapies and have at least one measurable lesion '2 cm. Patients received oral lenalidomide 25 mg once daily on days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle, and continued therapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Results 217 patients were enrolled and received lenalidomide with 108 (50%) DLBCL, 57 (26%) MCL, 19 (9%) FL-III, and 33 (15%) TL (Table 1). The median age was 66 yrs (range, 21–87), 97 patients (45%) had intermediate (3) or high (4–5) IPI scores, and the median time from diagnosis was 2.7 yrs (range, 0.04–20.6). Patients had received a median of 3 prior therapies (range, 1–13), and rituximab was included as a part of the prior therapy in 94% (205/217) of patients. The ORR for all 217 patients was 35% (77/217), with 13% (29/217) complete response (CR)/unconfirmed CR (CRu), 22% (48/217) partial response (PR), and 21% (46/217) with stable disease (SD). Responses were observed in all histological types (Table 1). Patients with a prior stem cell transplantation had a 37% ORR (27/73). The ORR was 28% (27/95) in those patients who were refractory to their last therapy, and 33% (38/116) in patients who were rituximab refractory (defined as <6 months response or no response). Median progression-free survival (PFS) for all patients was 3.5 months (95% CI, 2.5, 4.4) and the median DR for the 77 responders was 11.6 months (95% CI, 6.2, not reached [NR]). The primary side effect of lenalidomide was reversible myelosuppression. Grades 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in 41%, thrombocytopenia in 19%, anemia in 9%, and leucopenia in 7% of patients. Adverse events caused dose reductions or interruptions in 44% (96/217) of patients and led to treatment discontinuation in 22% (48/217). Conclusion This international study supports earlier pilot-study results showing that lenalidomide has promising anti-tumor activity in aggressive B-cell NHL, with a predictable and treatable toxicity profile. These data warrant further evaluation of lenalidomide in combination with other regimens in the treatment of each histological subtype, and further exploration of lenalidomide in the maintenance setting. Disclosures Witzig: Celgene: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide in relapsed/refractory aggressive NHL. Vose:Celgene: Research Funding. Zinzani:Celgene: Research Funding. Guo:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Pietronigro:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ervin-Haynes:Celgene: Employment. Czuczman:Celgene: Research Funding.