Flinn, Ian W.

7514 Background: Relapse is expected in treated indolent lymphoma patients, and an unmet need exists to prolong remission with effective therapies. Lenalidomide + rituximab (R2) may improve the efficacy of next treatment by their unique mechanisms. Methods: The AUGMENT phase III study evaluated patients with R/R FL gr 1-3a (82%) and MZL (18%) after ≥ 1 prior systemic therapy (not rituximab refractory). Randomization was 1:1 to R2 (lenalidomide PO 20 mg/d, d1-21/28 X12 cycles [c] + rituximab [R] IV 375 mg/m2/wk, c1, d1, 8, 15, 22 and c2-5, d1) and R/placebo (same dosing schedule). The primary endpoint was PFS by 2007 IWG; secondary/exploratory analyses were time to next antilymphoma/chemotherapy treatment (TTNLT/TTNCT) and response to next treatment. Per regulatory guidance, PFS2 was defined as time from randomization to first PD or death from any cause after next antilymphoma treatment, or initiation of a third antilymphoma treatment. Results: Median PFS was superior for R2 over R/placebo (39.4 vs 14.1 mo; HR = 0.46; P < 0.0001). As of 22June2018, median TTNLT, TTNCT, and PFS2 were not reached for R2, and were significantly longer than R/placebo (HR = 0.54, 0.50, and 0.52, respectively). For 49/178 (28%) R2 and 80/180 (44%) R/placebo patients receiving next antilymphoma therapy, response was generally higher with R2 (57% ORR; 31% CR) than R/placebo (36% ORR; 16% CR; Table). Conclusions: These analyses suggest that R2 (vs R/placebo) prolonged time to subsequent treatment and is associated with longer PFS2, enabling greater response to next therapy. Although patient numbers were modest, it is hypothesized that patients who received R2 were generally more sensitive to subsequent therapy than those treated with R/placebo. Clinical trial information: NCT01938001. [Table: see text]

7086 Background: The HRQOL of patients (pts) with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has not been adequately delineated across patient, disease and treatment characteristics. We evaluated HRQOL of CLL pts undergoing treatment in the United States (US) by age, gender and line of therapy. Methods: Data were collected in Connect CLL, a prospective observational US registry. Physicians provided data on demographics, clinical characteristics and line of therapy at enrollment. HRQOL was self-reported by pts at enrollment using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia, an instrument that yields a leukemia-specific total HRQOL score (FACT-Leu) and a cancer-specific total HRQOL score (FACT-G). Mean total scores were analyzed by line of therapy, age and gender. Statistical significance was ascertained by ANOVA using SAS 9.2. Multivariate analyses were conducted to assess the relative association of line of therapy, age and gender with HRQOL. Results: Among 1,252 pts enrolled from 161 geographically diverse centers (90% community, 8% academic, 2% veterans/military), pts were predominantly male (63%), white (89%) with mean age 69 yrs. Pts were categorized by line of therapy at enrollment: First 61%, Second 18%, Third 11%, Higher 9%; and by age group: <65 33%, 65-74 35%, 75+ 32%. Univariate analyses suggested that the total FACT-Leu score was significantly better in men than women (P=0.004); in pts aged 65-74 vs younger or older pts (P=0.033); and in pts initiating first-line treatment vs pts receiving subsequent treatments (P=0.0002). Similar results were found with the FACT-G score except that gender differences were not statistically significant. Multivariate analysis confirmed that line of therapy (P=0.007), gender (P<0.0001), and age group (P=0.039) were each associated with significant differences in the FACT-Leu total score. Conclusions: Results from the Connect CLL Registry indicate that HRQOL is better among pts initiating first-line therapy compared to pts initiating subsequent treatments, and that this remains true when age and gender are considered. Future analyses should determine how HRQOL may change over time relative to treatment and treatment response.

6122 Background: Clinicians and investigators commonly use ECOG PS and clinician-reported patient (pt) fatigue as surrogates for HRQOL, a multi-faceted construct that comprehensively looks at the pt perspective on disease and well-being. Because limited data exist on the relationships between PS, fatigue, and HRQOL for CLL pts, we examined the associations between these measures, and 3 validated HRQOL instruments: the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia (FACT-Leu), EQ-5D, and Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI). Methods: Data were collected in CONNECT CLL, a prospective US observational registry initiated in 2010. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics were provided by clinicians. Patient HRQOL was self-reported at enrollment using the FACT-Leu, EQ-5D, and BFI. Scores were analyzed by ECOG PS (0, 1, 2-4) and clinician-reported fatigue (yes, no). Differences in HRQOL scores were assessed by ANOVA. Results: HRQOL data were reported by 899 pts from 148 community, 10 academic, and 3 government centers. ECOG PS was available on 711 pts. Overall HRQOL, measured by mean FACT-Leu, FACT-G and EQ-5D Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), worsened with ECOG PS severity and was worse in pts with fatigue (all p<0.0001). All FACT-Leu domains except social/family were worse in pts with fatigue and those with higher ECOG PS. Mean EQ-5D pain/discomfort, mobility, self care and usual activities domain scores worsened in severity as ECOG worsened and for pts with fatigue (all p<0.011). BFI data indicated that global fatigue, fatigue severity and fatigue-related interference worsened by ECOG severity and were associated with clinician-reported fatigue (all p<0.0001). Conclusions: Initial CONNECT CLL results confirm that HRQOL worsens with worsening ECOG PS and was worse among pts with fatigue, especially in physical/functioning domains, pain/discomfort, and mobility. These results indicate that baseline ECOG PS and physician-rated fatigue are rapid assessments that predict robust measures of HRQOL. Future analyses are planned to examine how HRQOL, ECOG PS and fatigue change over time with changes in treatment and CLL disease status.

6521 Background: Genomic features including lack of IgVH mutations, del(11q), del(17p), and p53 mutations have been reported to predict clinical course and overall survival in CLL patients (pts). Bcl-2 family proteins and ZAP-70 have also been explored as predictors in CLL. Methods: We prospectively evaluated the prognostic significance of clinical features and laboratory variables on response and progression-free survival (PFS) following treatment with fludarabine (F, n=132) or fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide (FC, n=137) as part of the US Intergroup Trial E2997 for previously untreated CLL. Results: FC therapy had higher complete response (CR) (23.4% versus 4.6%), overall response (OR) (74.3% versus 59%), and median PFS (31.6 mos versus 19.2 mos) compared to F. CR and OR were not significantly different based on interphase cytogenetics, IgVH status, or p53 mutation. IgVH status or levels of ZAP-70, Bcl-2, Bax, Mcl-1, XIAP, Caspase-3, and Traf-1 proteins were not associated with clinical response or PFS. IgVH status and ZAP-70 levels were associated with time from diagnosis to treatment. Using a model including treatment arm, pts with del(17p) or (11q) had significantly shorter PFS (hazard ratios 3.54 and 2.05 respectively). In pts with a p53 mutation without del(17p) there was no enhancement of the model predicting poorer outcome, nor did IgVH status enter the model for predicting PFS. Conclusions: Combination chemotherapy is associated with a higher CR, OR, and PFS. Also, initiation of therapy for pts with Rai stages 0/1 resulted in a higher response rate. Del(17p) and del(11q) are highly predictive of shortened PFS with fludarabine-based chemotherapy. IgVH and p53 mutational status, as well as expression of ZAP-70, Bcl-2 family proteins, and CD38, did not predict response or PFS. ZAP-70 expression is associated with cytogenetic subsets predicted to have a worse overall prognosis, but did not identify pts who will do poorly with therapy. A combination of clinical staging and cytogenetics provide support for future risk-stratified treatment of CLL. Pts with a projected short response duration can be identified for future investigational strategies. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

112 Background: CD47 delivers an anti-phagocytic (“do not eat”) signal by binding SIRPα on macrophages and is overexpressed on many cancers enabling immune surveillance evasion. TTI-621 is a decoy receptor that promotes phagocytosis of tumors by blocking CD47 and engaging activating FcR on macrophages. A first-in-human, phase 1a, open label, multicenter study (NCT02663518) evaluating safety and tolerability of weekly, intravenous infusions of TTI-621 was conducted. As of October 12, 2016, 18 subjects were treated with TTI-621 with doses of 0.05-0.3 mg/kg. Multiple pharmacodynamic and hematologic assessments were performed to characterize the effects of TTI-621 and better understand the mechanism of action. Methods: Serial blood draws were analyzed for CD47 receptor occupancy (RO), complete blood counts, cytokines, T cell repertoire changes and CD47, SIRPα and FcR sequences. CD47 expression, macrophage and T cell infiltration was assessed on biopsies by IHC. Results: Peripheral CD47 levels varied considerably between subjects and were inversely correlated with RO. A maximum of 80% RO was achieved on peripheral leukocytes. Circulating monocytes, neutrophils, and lymphocytes were transiently decreased at the end of the TTI-621 infusion and generally returned to baseline levels by 24 to 72 hours. Platelet counts decreased immediately after TTI-621 infusions, typically recovering to baseline levels prior to the subsequent treatment cycle. Hemoglobin levels did not meaningfully change during treatment. Cytokines associated with macrophage activation or phagocytosis, notably MIP-1α, MIP-1β, TNF-α and IP-10 were elevated in a dose dependent manner. Conclusions: Systemic administration of TTI-621 leads to CD47 blockade and dose dependent increases in cytokines associated with phagocytosis, temporally associated with reversible thrombocytopenia, suggesting enhanced macrophage mediated clearance of circulating platelets followed by a robust marrow regenerative response. Enrollment into multiple expansion cohorts addressing a wide range of hematopoietic cancers is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT02663518.

Abstract Introduction: CLL pts who qualify for participation in clinical trials are often thought of as a highly selected population. Therefore whether safety and efficacy data from these trials can be generalized to all CLL pts treated in the community setting is unknown. Prospective, observational studies can provide significant insight into pt and disease characteristics as well as practice patterns in different clinical settings. Here we report on baseline demographics and clinical characteristics for 1495 pts who participated in the Connect CLL observational study and were followed prospectively. Methods: Connect®CLL is a non study-specific intervention treatment registry which collects data on the management and outcomes of CLL pts in clinical, academic and community practices in the US. Clinical information was prospectively collected for pts treated in community (n=1312), academic (n=155), or government (n=28) centers in the US between March 2010 – Jan 2014. Pts eligible for treatment or on treatment not more than 2 months were eligible for enrollment. Here we report on the baseline demographics and clinical characteristics of a large CLL cohort stratified by AG, LOT and type of treatment center. Results: In total,1,495 pts were accrued with a median age at enrollment of 69 (range 22–99). Pts were Caucasian (92.2%), African American (6.9%), and male (63.7%). Median duration from diagnosis until initial therapy was 3.7 years (range 0-32). Age of enrolled pts was as follows; 527 pts age <65 years (AG1; 35%); 511 age 65–75 (AG2; 34%); and 457 age ≥75 (AG3; 31%) at the time of enrollment. Eight hundred and ninety-four pts (60%) were treated with front-line therapy (LOT1); 259 pts (17%) treated with second-line therapy (LOT2); and 342 pts (23%) treated beyond second-line therapy (LOT≥3). Patient age: Pt age was associated with significant variation in several clinical variables: Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) score ≥3 (AG 1-3 35/46/52%; p<0.0001), ECOG PS = 0 (AG1-3 60, 48, 33%, p<0.0001) and mean creatinine clearance (CrCl) decreased (AG 1-3 101/74/53 mL/min; p<0.0001). Line of therapy: Differences in baseline characteristics were observed between pts enrolled at LOT1 (previously untreated) and LOT2/≥3 (relapsed). Median age of pts accrued at LOT1 was 68 vs. 70 years for pts enrolled at LOT2/≥3 (p=0.007). ECOG PS = 0 was more frequent at LOT1 (50%) vs. LOT2/≥3 (42%) (p=0.0057). CCI ≥3 at LOT1 was 41% vs 48% at LOT2/≥3 (p=0.0072). When adjusted for differences in age, logistic regression also demonstrated significant differences in performance status (PS=0; p=0.02) and CCI (p=0.03) stratified by LOT. Treating institution: Baseline characteristics also differed by type of treating institution. Median age was 63 vs 70 at academic vs non-academic (p<0.0001). Pts treated at academic sites also had lower CCI (CCI≤2; 72.9% vs 54.2%, academic vs non-academic) and higher median CrCl (86.4 vs 71.4) (p=0.0017). In this registry, only 16% of patients under age 75 had CCI <= 2, CrCl >= 70 mL/min, ECOG 0-1; 18% of patients on LOT1 and 12% of pts on LOT=2 would satisfy these criteria. They represent 36% of eligible pts from academic treating institutions and 13% from community/government centers. Only 20% of patients on LOT1 would satisfy enrollment criteria for CLL8 (FCR vs. FC; Hallek; Lancet 2010) CLL 10 (BR vs FCR; NCT00769522). which did not have enrollment restrictions for age. Conclusions:Baseline characteristics of pts with CLL vary by age, LOT, and type of treatment center. In this large prospective observational study, our data confirms that older pts typically have a worse ECOG PS, more medical comorbidities, more advanced disease when initiating therapy and a lower probability of being treated at an academic medical center. Based on inclusion criteria used for entry in either CLL10 or CLL8, fewer than 20% of pts satisfy age, renal clearance, and fitness profile to be considered suitable for aggressive chemoimmunotherapy in the front line setting. This observation supports the notion that current clinical trial data might not always be applicable to the general CLL population seen in the community and argues for designing clinical trials that are more generalizable to the broader pt population. Disclosures Sharman: Gilead: Research Funding; Calistoga: Honoraria; Phamacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding. Mato:Millennium: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau. Kay:Celgene: Research Funding. Kipps:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Lamanna:Genentech-Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Infinity: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Weiss:Celgene: Consultancy; Phamacyclics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Nabhan:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Flinn:Celgene: Research Funding. Grinblatt:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kozloff:Celgene: Consultancy. Farber:Alexion: Equity Ownership, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sullivan:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Street:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Swern:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Flowers:TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Phamacyclics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech: Unpaid consultancy Other; Millennium: Research Funding, Unpaid consultancy, Unpaid consultancy Other; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Prescription Solutions: Consultancy; Celgene: Unpaid consultancy Other.

Abstract Background: Axi-cel is a US FDA-approved, autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory large B cell lymphoma with ≥ 2 prior systemic therapies. This report focuses on high-risk patient populations as well as long-term durability of response, and B cell recovery. Methods: In ZUMA-1, eligible patients with refractory large B cell lymphoma (diffuse large B cell lymphoma, primary mediastinal B cell lymphoma, transformed follicular lymphoma) underwent leukapheresis and received low-dose conditioning followed by a target dose of 2 × 106 anti-CD19 CAR T cells/kg (Neelapu and Locke et al. NEJM. 2017; NCT02348216). Outcomes in patients with double-expressor B cell lymphoma (MYC [≥ 40%] and BCL-2 [≥ 50%] protein expression by immunohistochemistry [IHC]) or high-grade B cell lymphoma (HGBCL), defined as double- or triple-hit (MYC+ and BCL2+ and/or BCL6+ by fluorescence in situ hybridization) or not otherwise specified (MYC- and > 70% Ki67 by IHC) were examined by independent pathology review. Exploratory analyses, including normal B cell levels in peripheral blood over time and frequency of use of safety interventions of interest, were also performed. A long-term follow-up analysis will be conducted with a data cutoff of August 11, 2018 for all 108 patients, including the HGBCL subgroup. Results: As of August 11, 2017, all 108 patients had at least 1 year of follow-up, with a median follow-up of 15.4 months. The objective response rate (ORR) was 82% with a complete response (CR) rate or 58%. The CR rate was 53% (29/55) in patients with disease refractory to ≥ 2 consecutive prior lines of therapy and 72% (18/25) in patients who had relapsed within 12 months after autologous stem cell transplantation. High-risk genetics were assessed in the 47 evaluable pre-treatment tumor samples: 37 patients (79%) had HGBCL or double-expressor B cell lymphoma and had an ORR of 89% (33/37) including a CR rate of 68% (25/37). Forty-two percent of patients overall had ongoing responses with a median follow-up of 15.4 months including 49% (18/37) of patients with high-risk genetics. To investigate the relationship between B cell recovery and ongoing response, B cell levels were assessed over time. Overall, of the 87 evaluable patients, 47% had no detectable B cells at baseline, and the remainder had levels close to or below the lower level of quantification of the assay. In patients with ongoing responses at 12 months post axi-cel infusion, 19 of the 35 (54%) patients with evaluable samples had detectable B cells at 12 months. This suggests B cell recovery in some patients with ongoing response as only 6 of 40 (15%) patients with evaluable samples had detectable B cells at 3 months after axi-cel infusion. Grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic events (NE) were generally reversible and reported for 12% and 31% of patients, respectively. Tocilizumab (45%) and/or steroids (28%) were used for the management of CRS and NE. The use of vasopressors, dialysis, and intubation were minimal, used in only 17%, 3%, and 3% of patients, respectively. Thirty-four percent of patients (37/108) had either no CRS/NE (6%) or only Grade 1 CRS with (12%) or without (16%) Grade 1 NE. For these 37 patients, the median onset of CRS and NE was 2 and 7 days after infusion, respectively. Patients with Grade 0 - 1 CRS/NE had similar efficacy (ORR, 86%; CR, 65%) but lower peak/AUC CAR T cell levels vs the overall population. Updated safety and efficacy results will be presented with a minimum follow-up of 2 years and a median follow-up of 27.1 months. Conclusion: High rates of durable response were observed in patients with HGBCL and double-expressor B cell lymphoma, with approximately half of these patients (18/37) maintaining CR at ≥ 1 year. Efficacy in these high-risk populations was comparable to the overall patient population in ZUMA-1. At 12 months, B-cell recovery was observed in over half the patients with ongoing remission. About one-third of patients had only Grades 0 - 1 CRS/NE yet showed comparable efficacy with the overall patient population. High-grade CRS/NE were largely managed with tocilizumab and steroids with very low use of intensive or invasive interventions. Updated outcomes with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up will be presented. Disclosures Neelapu: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Unum Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Miklos:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics - Abbot: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite - Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hill:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Deol:Novartis: Consultancy; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Reagan:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Flinn:Agios: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Calithera: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. McSweeney:Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Munoz:Alexion: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Siddiqi:Juno Therapeutics: Other: Steering committee. Herrera:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Merck, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; KiTE Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding. Xue:Kite, a Gilead Company: Employment. Jiang:Kite, a Gilead Company: Employment. Bot:KITE: Employment. Rossi:KITE: Employment. Kim:Kite, a Gilead Company: Employment. Go:KITE: Employment. Locke:Cellular BioMedicine Group Inc.: Consultancy; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Scientific Advisor; Kite Pharma: Other: Scientific Advisor.

Abstract Background: The pivotal phase 3 ECHELON-1 study demonstrated superior efficacy of brentuximab vedotin plus doxorubicin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (A+AVD) versus doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (ABVD) in patients with previously untreated advanced stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) with a 2-year modified progression-free survival (mPFS) of 82.1% in the A+AVD group versus 77.2% in the ABVD group (Hazard Ratio=0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60, 0.98; p=0.04). PN is a known toxicity associated with anti-mitotic agents, including vinblastine and the MMAE component of brentuximab vedotin. In the ECHELON-1 study, the incidence of any-grade PN events was 67% (442 of 662 patients) and 43% (286 of 659 patients) in the A+AVD and ABVD arms, respectively; the incidence of grade ≥3 PN was 11% and 2%, respectively. At the time of the initial analysis, 67% of A+AVD-treated patients had either resolution (43%) or improvement (24%) of PN events. A total of the 92% of ongoing PN events were grade 1 (64%) or grade 2 (29%). Here, we report rates of PN resolution and improvement in patients participating in the ECHELON-1 study after long-term follow-up. Methods: Patients with Stage III or IV cHL were randomized 1:1 to receive up to six cycles of A+AVD (n=664) or ABVD (n=670). Pre-existing PN was an exclusion factor at study entry. Peripheral neuropathy was determined on the basis of a standardized MedDRA query; patients who developed PN were monitored throughout the study and those with ongoing PN at end of treatment were followed for resolution or improvement during the post-treatment follow-up period; follow-up visits were scheduled for every 12 weeks ±1 week until 36 months, then every 6 months until study closure. PN resolution was defined as completely resolved and improvement was defined as improved by ≥1 grade from worst grade as of the latest assessment. Results: At the time of the primary analysis, 51% (226/442) and 61% (174/286) of patients in the A+AVD and ABVD arms, respectively, had resolution or improvement of PN events at EOT. Upon continued follow-up (~10 additional months) for approximately 30 months (range 0-78.5) after end of treatment, 76% (335/442) of patients with PN in the A+AVD arm had either complete resolution (59%, 260/442) or improvement (17%, 75/442) of their PN events compared with 82% (234/286) with either resolution (72%) or improvement (10%) in the ABVD arm. In the A+AVD arm, 90% of ongoing PN cases (n=182) were grade 1/2; grade 1=58% (n=106), grade 2=32% (n=58). Residual grade 3 PN was reported in 9% (n=17) of patients (1 patient with grade 4 PN died before resolution). In the ABVD arm, residual PN (n=81) was grade 1 (65%; n=53), grade 2 (30%; n=24), and grade 3 (5%; n=4). For the subset of patients with PN that had not resolved by end of treatment, the median time to resolution of all PN events from AE start date was 28 weeks for A+AVD and 14 weeks for ABVD, the median time to improvement of PN was 39 weeks for A+AVD and 18.5 weeks for ABVD. Conclusions: After approximately 2.5 years of continued follow-up, PN continues to resolve and improve for patients who were treated with A+AVD or ABVD in the ECHELON-1 study. In both study arms, the majority of ongoing PN cases are grade 1 or grade 2. Further follow-up is ongoing. Disclosures Radford: Celgene: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Equity Ownership; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Equity Ownership. Connors:Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche Canada: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bayer Healthcare: Research Funding; NanoString Technologies: Patents & Royalties: Named Inventor on a patent licensed to NanoString Technologies, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; F Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding. Younes:Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; J&J: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Gallamini:Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Ansell:Affimed: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Gopal:Aptevo: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Brim: Consultancy; Spectrum: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Teva: Research Funding; Asana: Consultancy. Flinn:Trillium: Research Funding; Calithera: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding. Pettengell:CTI: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Dlugosz-Danecka:Servier: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Engley:Seattle Genetics: Employment. Fenton:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Liu:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Purevjal:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Miao:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Gautam:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Kuruvilla:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Canada: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL), including follicular lymphoma (FL) and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), is typically responsive to initial chemoimmunotherapy, but relapse is expected. Single-agent rituximab is FDA approved and frequently administered for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) low-grade or follicular CD20-positive B-cell NHL. Lenalidomide is an immunomodulatory agent with preclinical and clinical antilymphoma activity alone and in combination with rituximab. We compared the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide plus rituximab (R2) to rituximab (plus placebo) in patients with R/R iNHL. Methods: AUGMENT (NCT01938001) is a multicenter, double-blind, randomized phase III study of R2 vs rituximab/placebo (control) in patients with FL grade 1-3a or MZL who were previously treated with ≥ 1 prior systemic therapy with documented relapsed or refractory disease but not refractory to rituximab (refractory was defined as < partial response to rituximab or rituximab-chemotherapy OR disease progression < 6 months after last rituximab dose). Patients were stratified by prior rituximab treatment (yes vs no), time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2 vs > 2 years), and histology (FL vs MZL), and then randomized 1:1 to R2 or control for up to 1 year. R2 patients received oral lenalidomide 20 mg/day (d), d1-21/28 for 12 cycles plus rituximab IV 375 mg/m2 weekly in cycle 1 and d1 of cycles 2-5. Control patients received rituximab and placebo on the same schedule. Dose modifications were pre-specified in the protocol to manage toxicities. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per 2007 IWG criteria without PET as assessed by Independent Review Committee (IRC; central review). Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), duration of response (DOR), time-to-next antilymphoma treatment (TTNLT), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: A total of 358 patients were randomized (n = 178 R2; n = 180 control), median age was 63 years (range, 26 - 88), 34% FLIPI score ≥ 3, and histologies of 82% FL/18% MZL. Median number of prior systemic treatments was 1 (range, 1 - 12); 84% received prior rituximab and 51% had prior antilymphoma therapy within 2 years of enrollment. At median follow-up of 28.3 months, the study met its primary endpoint of PFS with HR = 0.46 (95% CI, 0.34 - 0.62; P < 0.0001) (Figure 1). Median PFS was 39.4 months for R2 vs 14.1 months for control. IRC-assessed ORR for R2 was 78% vs 53% for control (P < 0.0001). CR was 34% for R2 vs 18% for control (P = 0.001). Median DOR was 36.6 and 21.7 months for R2 and control arms, respectively. TTNLT was improved for R2 vs control with HR = 0.54 (95% CI, 0.38 - 0.78; P = 0.0007). OS data were not mature with 16 deaths reported in the R2 arm vs 26 deaths in control (HR = 0.61 [95% CI, 0.33 - 1.13]). Selected all-grade treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of interest more common in the R2 vs control arm (≥ 10% difference) were infections (63% vs 49%), cutaneous reactions (32% vs 12%), constipation (26% vs 14%), thrombocytopenia (15% vs 4%), and tumor flare reaction (11% vs 1%). Grade 3/4 TEAEs were reported in 69% R2 and 32% control patients. More frequent grade 3/4 TEAEs in the R2 vs control arm were primarily attributable to increased neutropenia (50% vs 13%) and leukopenia (7% vs 2%). Grade 5 TEAEs were reported in 2 patients in each arm. TEAEs leading to discontinuation of lenalidomide occurred in 9% of patients vs 5% for rituximab + placebo. Neutropenia was the only TEAE leading to discontinuation of lenalidomide in > 1 patient (n = 5). Seventy-one percent of R2 patients completed all 12 cycles of planned treatment vs 61% of control. Disease progression was the leading reason for discontinuation of lenalidomide/placebo (n = 21 R2, n = 54 control). Conclusions: R2 demonstrated superior efficacy over rituximab monotherapy (plus placebo) as measured by the primary endpoint of progression-free survival as well as secondary endpoints of ORR, CR, DOR, and TTNLT in patients with R/R FL grade 1-3a and MZL. At this early analysis, fewer deaths have been observed in the R2 arm. Despite additional hematologic toxicity, greater efficacy of the R2 regimen (and fewer early progressions) allowed more patients to complete the planned therapy and delayed the need for subsequent treatment. R2 represents an important new treatment option in patients with previously treated FL/MZL, with meaningful advantages over single-agent rituximab. Disclosures Leonard: Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy; Biotest: Consultancy; United Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Trněný:F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Sandoz: Honoraria. Izutsu:Otsuka: Honoraria; Bristol- Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Nihon Medi-Physics: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Mundhi: Honoraria; HUYA Bioscience International: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Honoraria; Eisai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Zenyaku: Research Funding; Celltrion: Research Funding; MSD: Honoraria; Ono: Honoraria, Research Funding; Symbio: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Solasia: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Meiji Seika: Honoraria; Shionogi: Honoraria; Asahi Kasei: Honoraria. Fowler:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Zhu:Beijing Cancer Hospital (Peking University Cancer Hospital): Employment. Scheliga:INCA - Instituto Nacional Do Cancer, Brazil: Employment. Pinto:Servier: Consultancy; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Scheinberg:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau. Flinn:Trillium: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Calithera: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Moreira:Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto FG, EPE, Porto, Portugal: Employment. Liu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kalambakas:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fustier:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gribben:Cancer Research UK: Research Funding; Unum: Equity Ownership; Novartis: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Wellcome Trust: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria; NIH: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Medical Research Council: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria.

Abstract Introduction:The prognosis is poor for patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) who experience early relapse within 2 years of initial diagnosis and for those who are double refractory to both rituximab and chemotherapy (Casulo et al. J Clin Oncol 2015). Avadomide, a cereblon-modulating agent that promotes degradation of the hematopoietic transcription factors Aiolos and Ikaros, is being examined in this setting. Avadomide demonstrated promising clinical activity in combination with obinutuzumab or rituximab in relapsed or refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and FL (Michot et al. Blood 2017; Ribrag et al. Blood 2017). Herein, we report FL subgroup analyses for the avadomide plus rituximab combination (Arm D) of the CC-122 DLBCL-001 study in both lenalidomide-naïve and treated patients. Methods: CC-122-DLBCL-001 (NCT02031419) is aphase Ib dose escalation/expansion study of avadomide, CC-223, and CC-292 given orally as doublets, and as triplets in combination with rituximab, as well as avadomide plus rituximab doublets, in patients with R/R DLBCL or FL after ≥1 prior line of therapy. In the dose expansion phase of the study, patients received avadomide once daily (QD) for 5 days/week (5/7 d), with a fixed dose of intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m2/cycle (28-day cycle). The study endpoints were safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, preliminary efficacy (overall response rate [ORR] and complete response [CR]), and blood pharmacodynamic markers of avadomide. Results: As of May 1, 2018, 37 patients with FL were enrolled in the Arm D expansion group, including 29 in cohort 1 (no prior lenalidomide) and 8 in cohort 2 (≥2 cycles of prior lenalidomide). Baseline patient characteristics were similar between the two cohorts. In the total FL population, the median age was 61 years (range, 41-81 years), 54% were male, and 46% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1. The median number of prior systemic anticancer regimens was 3 (range, 1-8). At disease diagnosis, three patients (8%) had bulky disease (≥7 cm in single dimension) and 7 (19%) had high Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index scores. Twenty-three patients (62%) were refractory to rituximab and 11 (30%) were double-refractory to rituximab and an alkylating agent. As of the data cutoff, 27 patients (71%) were ongoing and no evaluable patients had experienced a dose-limiting toxicity. The most common (≥10%) any-grade adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (46%) and anemia (24%). Grade 3/4 AEs occurring in >1 patient were neutropenia (32%); fatigue, dizziness, and anemia (8% each); febrile neutropenia and diarrhea (5% each). Six patients (16%) experienced serious AEs related to study drugs. One patient died during the study (sepsis considered possibly related to study treatment). Avadomide dose reduction occurred in 7 (19%) patients. Among all FL patients, the ORR was 65% with 8 patients (22%) achieving a CR. Response rates appeared to be independent of prior lenalidomide treatment, with an ORR of 62% (CR=14%) in cohort 1 and an ORR of 75% (CR=50%) in cohort 2. The median follow up for progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.3 months and 49% of patients had <6 months of PFS follow up. In the total FL population, 6-month and 12-month PFS rates were 83 (95% CI, 64-93) and 66 (37-84), respectively. Conclusions: Avadomide combined with rituximab was well tolerated. AEs were generally consistent with the known safety profile of avadomide and toxicities associated with rituximab. Moreover, this combination showed promising efficacy in patients with R/R FL independent of prior treatment with lenalidomide. These findings support the role of avadomide plus an anti-CD20 antibody as a novel chemotherapy-free treatment for this difficult to treat patient population. Disclosures Nastoupil: TG Therappeutics: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ribrag:Amgen: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Other: travel; epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria; Infinity: Consultancy, Honoraria; NanoString Technologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; pharmamar: Other: travel; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; argenX: Research Funding. Chavez:Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Humanigen: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Witzig:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Andorsky:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Corradini:Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Lecturer; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board & Lecturer; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board & Lecturer; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board & Lecturer; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board & Lecturer; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board & Lecturer; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board & Lecturer; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board & Lecturer; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board & Lecturer; Sandoz: Other: Advisory Board. Flinn:ArQule: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Calithera: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding. Sangha:Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Lilly: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Lundbeck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche/Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BI: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Uttamsingh:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hagner:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gandhi:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hege:Mersana: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SITC: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties: multiple; Arcus Biosicences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pourdehnad:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kuruvilla:Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation: Research Funding; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Canada: Research Funding.