Ramchandren, Radhakrishnan

7575 Background: CA-4948 is a novel oral inhibitor of interleukin-1 receptor-associated kinase 4 (IRAK4), which is essential for toll-like receptor (TLR) and interleukin-1 receptor (IL-1R) signaling in B cell proliferation. IRAK4 forms a Myddosome complex with MYD88 adaptor protein and drives overactivation of nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-κB), causing inflammation and tumor growth. CA-4948 has been reported to be well tolerated and active as monotherapy in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Preclinical studies demonstrated that tumor resistance and survival via IRAK4 activation could be delayed or reversed. CA-4948 crossed the blood-brain barrier in a murine PDX model of pCNS lymphoma, resulting in tumor response and prolonged survival. In combination with Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, CA-4948 showed in vivo synergy in B-cell NHL. Here we will present an update on the preliminary efficacy data of CA-4948+ibrutinib in R/R hematologic malignancies. Methods: This is an ongoing open-label trial (NCT03328078) of CA-4948 as monotherapy and in combination with ibrutinib. Part A1 (completed) dose escalation of CA-4948 as monotherapy; the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) is 300 mg BID with continuous oral dosing. Part A2 (dose escalation in combination with ibrutinib), and Part B (a basket design of 4 expansion cohorts of CA-4948 and ibrutinib: BTK-naïve MZL, DLBCL, or PCNSL and NHL with adaptive resistance to ibrutinib). The primary endpoints of Parts A1 and A2 include safety, tolerability, and RP2D. The primary endpoints of Part B include CR or ORR, with key secondary endpoints of DOR, DCR, PFS and OS following treatment of CA-4948 at dose levels of 200 (DL1) or 300 mg BID (DL2) with ibrutinib at full prescribed dose. Results: As of December 7th, 2021, 35 heavily pretreated NHL patients have received CA-4948 monotherapy (median age 66 years, range 50-87), of which six patients have been on CA-4948 for approximately 1 year or longer, suggesting CA-4948 has a long-term acceptable safety and tolerability profile at RP2D (dose level of 300 mg BID). In Part A2, 10 patients are treated with CA-4948+ibrutinib (median age 65 years, range 56-82). Median number of prior lines of anti-cancer therapies is 3 (range 1-8). No DLTs were observed at 200 or 300 mg dose levels to date. The preliminary efficacy data of seven evaluable patients with combination therapy showed 1 CR (MCL), 2 PR (MCL and MZL), 3 SD, and 1 PD, 3 of whom had failed prior ibrutinib. The preliminary data indicate the combination therapy may overcome ibrutinib resistance. Conclusions: CA-4948 as a monotherapy and in combination with ibrutinib is well tolerated with an acceptable long term safety profile and promising efficacy. Part A2 is transitioning to Part B basket cohorts of MZL, ABC-DLBCL, PCNSL and NHL with adaptive resistance to ibrutinib. Clinical trial information: 03328078.

7503 Background: To date, an overall survival (OS) benefit from upfront treatment for new treatment combinations over existing approaches has rarely been shown in first-line classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). With the introduction of newer active therapies for relapsed/refractory disease, demonstration of improved OS with first-line therapy has been challenging. In ECHELON-1 (NCT01712490), 5-year follow-up analyses supported the long-term progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with first-line brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) vs doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) in patients (pts) with stage III/IV cHL, independent of interim positron emission tomography status. A+AVD had a manageable long-term safety profile, with numerically fewer second malignancies and a greater number of pregnancies reported vs ABVD (Connors et al, NEJM 2018; Straus et al, Lancet Haematol 2021). We report a prespecified OS analysis after approximately 6 years’ follow-up (cut-off, June 1, 2021). Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive up to 6 cycles of A+AVD (n = 664) or ABVD (n = 670) on day 1 and 15 every 28 days. OS was the key secondary endpoint and was an event-driven, pre-specified, alpha-controlled analysis in the intention to treat population. Results: At a median follow-up of 73 months, 39 and 64 OS events occurred in A+AVD and ABVD arms, respectively: OS significantly favored A+AVD vs ABVD (HR 0.590; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.396–0.879; p = 0.009). Estimated 6-year OS rates (95% CI) were 93.9% (91.6–95.5) vs 89.4% (86.6–91.7) with A+AVD vs ABVD, respectively. There was a consistent OS benefit for A+AVD vs ABVD across prespecified subgroups. The 6-year PFS estimate was 82.3% (79.1–85.0) vs 74.5% (70.8–77.7) with A+AVD vs ABVD, respectively (HR 0.678 [95% CI 0.532–0.863]). Overall, A+AVD had a comparable long-term safety profile to ABVD. Treatment-emergent peripheral neuropathy continued to resolve or improve in both arms, with 86% (379/443) and 87% (249/286) of cases in the A+AVD and ABVD arms either completely resolving (72% vs 79%) or improving (14% vs 8%) by last follow-up. Fewer second malignancies were reported in the A+AVD vs ABVD arm (23 vs 32). More female patients reported pregnancy (49 vs 28) or live births (42 vs 19 in females) in the A+AVD vs the ABVD arm; no stillbirths were reported. No new safety signals were identified. Conclusions: A+AVD treatment resulted in a statistically significant 41% reduction in the risk of death vs ABVD, with a manageable safety profile consistent with prior reports. These outcomes confirm A+AVD as a preferred option for pts with previously untreated stage III/IV cHL. Clinical trial information: NCT01712490.

SummaryFimepinostat (CUDC‐907), a first‐in‐class oral small‐molecule inhibitor of histone deacetylase and phosphatidylinositol 3‐kinase, demonstrated efficacy in a phase 1 study of patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large and high‐grade B‐cell lymphomas (DLBCL/HGBL), particularly those with increased MYC protein expression and/orMYCgene rearrangement/copy number gain (MYC‐altered disease). Therefore, a phase 2 study of fimepinostat was conducted in this patient population with 66 eligible patients treated. The primary end‐point of overall response (OR) rate for patients with MYC‐IHC ≥40% (n = 46) was 15%. Subsequently, exploratory pooled analyses were performed including patients treated on both the phase 1 and 2 studies based upon the presence of MYC‐altered disease as well as a biomarker identified by Virtual Inference of Protein activity by Enriched Regulon analysis (VIPER). For these patients with MYC‐altered disease (n = 63), the overall response (OR) rate was 22% with seven responding patients remaining on treatment for approximately two years or longer, and VIPER yielded a three‐protein biomarker classification with positive and negative predictive values of ≥85%. Prolonged durations of response were achieved by patients with MYC‐altered R/R DLBCL/HGBL treated with single‐agent fimepinostat. Combination therapies and/or biomarker‐based patient selection strategies may lead to higher response rates in future clinical trials.

AbstractThis phase 1-2 study evaluated brentuximab vedotin (BV) combined with nivolumab (Nivo) as first salvage therapy in patients with relapsed/refractory (r/r) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). In parts 1 and 2, patients received staggered dosing of BV and Nivo in cycle 1, followed by same-day dosing in cycles 2 to 4. In part 3, both study drugs were dosed, same day, for all 4 cycles. At end of study treatment, patients could undergo autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) per investigator discretion. The objective response rate (ORR; N = 91) was 85%, with 67% achieving a complete response (CR). At a median follow-up of 34.3 months, the estimated progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 3 years was 77% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65% to 86%) and 91% (95% CI, 79% to 96%) for patients undergoing ASCT directly after study treatment. Overall survival at 3 years was 93% (95% CI, 85% to 97%). The most common adverse events (AEs) prior to ASCT were nausea (52%) and infusion-related reactions (43%), all grade 1 or 2. A total of 16 patients (18%) had immune-related AEs that required systemic corticosteroid treatment. Peripheral blood immune signatures were consistent with an activated T-cell response. Median gene expression of CD30 in tumors was higher in patients who responded compared with those who did not. Longer-term follow-up of BV and Nivo as a first salvage regimen shows durable efficacy and impressive PFS, especially in patients who proceeded directly to transplant, without additional toxicity concerns. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02572167.

Abstract Introduction: The phase 2 CheckMate 205 study (NCT02181738) of nivolumab (nivo) has demonstrated high objective response rates, durable efficacy, and acceptable safety profiles in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL) after failure of autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT) regardless of prior brentuximab vedotin (BV) treatment (Younes A et al. Lancet Oncol 2016; Fanale M et al. ICML 2017 [Oral 125]). Recently proposed new response criteria aim to account for atypical patterns of response with checkpoint inhibitors which may not be fully captured by conventional response criteria (Cheson BD et al. Blood 2016; Younes A et al, Ann Oncol 2017). Studies in solid tumors have shown that pts may continue to derive clinical benefits from nivo beyond disease progression as defined by conventional criteria (George S et al, JAMA Oncol 2016; Long GV et al, JAMA Oncol 2017). Here we report outcomes among pts with R/R cHL treated beyond progression (TBP) in CheckMate 205. Methods: This single-arm, multicenter study enrolled pts (age ≥18 y) with R/R cHL after failure of auto-HCT into 3 independent cohorts (A: BV naïve, B: BV after auto-HCT, C: BV before and/or after auto-HCT). Nivo 3 mg/kg IV every 2 wk was given until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Response was assessed by 2007 International Working Group criteria. Best overall response (BOR) was assessed per investigator. A protocol amendment in July 2014 allowed pts to be TBP (investigator-assessed) if they met prespecified criteria, including deriving clinical benefit, stable performance status, and non-rapid progression. Pts TBP were required to discontinue in the event of further progression (≥10% increase in tumor burden). Tumor burden after initial progression was assessed in a prespecified analysis. Exploratory analyses assessed overall survival (OS) and time to next therapy (TTNT) in pts TBP. Results: In total, 70/243 (29%) pts were TBP: 19 in Cohort A, 23 in B, and 28 in C. Demographics were similar to the overall study population: 57% had stage IV disease at study entry, median (range) age was 37 (18-72) y, and median number of prior therapies was 3 (2-5). BOR prior to progression was complete remission (CR) in 5 (7%) pts, partial remission (PR) in 31 (44%), stable disease (SD) in 20 (29%), and progressive disease in 13 (19%) (BOR was non-evaluable in 1 pt). Among pts TBP, the initial cause of progression was a ≥50% increase in total tumor burden in 13 (19%) pts, non-target lesion progression in 17 (24%), and new lesions in 47 (67%) (pts could have multiple findings as reasons for progression). The median time to initial progression in pts TBP was 6 mo; 11 mo in pts with initial BOR of CR and 7 mo in pts with initial PR or SD. At December 2016 database lock, median (range) doses of nivo beyond progression were 8 (1-43), and median duration of treatment beyond progression was 5 (0-19) mo. Overall, 21 (30%) pts TBP remained on treatment; the most common reason for discontinuation was further disease progression (80%). The majority of pts TBP demonstrated stable reductions in tumor burden with continued treatment. Median (95% CI) TTNT from first study dose of nivo was 17 (14, not estimable) mo (Figure). Median OS from date of initial progression was not reached in pts TBP and OS was 84% (95% CI 70, 92) at 1 y. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 46% of pts (13% grade [G] 3-4) after progression, vs 64% (9% G3-4) prior to progression. Serious TRAEs after progression were aspartate aminotransferase increase (n=1) and hypercalcemia (n=1), both G3-4. Ten deaths occurred in pts TBP; 7 were due to disease progression and none were considered related to study drug. Conclusions: In total, 29% of pts from CheckMate 205 Cohort A/B/C were TBP. New lesions were the most common reason for initial progression in pts TBP. Stable reductions in tumor burden were seen with continued treatment in pts TBP, and median TTNT and OS remained high. Proposed updates to response criteria may help to better assess the long-term efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors. These data suggest that pts considered to show stable performance status, non-rapid progression, and clinical benefits despite progression according to conventional response criteria may derive long-term benefits from continued nivo treatment. Study funding: BMS. Writing support: Simon Wigfield, Caudex, funded by BMS. Disclosures Cohen: Bioinvent: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takada: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics, Inc: Research Funding. Engert: Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ansell: Merck: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding. Younes: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Third-party medical writing assistance, under the direction of Anas Younes, was provided by Scott Malkin of Gardiner-Caldwell Communications, and was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.; Bayer: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Curis: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda Millenium: Honoraria; Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Trneny: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: 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; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Savage: Roche: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy. Ramchandren: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Collins: ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding; Celleron: Consultancy; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Fanale: AMGEN: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CELGENE: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TAKEDA: Honoraria, Research Funding; ONYX: Research Funding; SEATTLE GENETICS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MOLECULAR TEMPLATES: Research Funding; MERCK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GENENTECH: Research Funding; ADC THERAPEUTICS: Research Funding. Armand: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: research funding (institutional); Merck: Consultancy, Other: research funding (institutional); Infinity: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: research funding (institutional); Affimed: Other: research funding (institutional); Otsuka: Other: research funding (institutional); Sequenta: Other: research funding (institutional); Sigma Tau: Other: research funding (institutional); Roche: Other: research funding (institutional); Tensha: Other: research funding (institutional). Zinzani: Bayer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: 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; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: 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. De Boer: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Non-restricted grant for research in head and neck cancer; Eisai: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Other: member of Independent Data Monitoring Committee. Shipp: Cell Signaling: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Merck: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Gilead: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; AstraZeneca: Honoraria. Santoro: Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Timmerman: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; ImmuneGene: Research Funding. Sacchi: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Sy: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Kuruvilla: BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy; Hoffman LaRoche: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Nivolumab (nivo), an immune checkpoint inhibitor targeting the programmed death-1 (PD-1) receptor, augments T-cell activation and restores antitumor T-cell function. In the phase 2 CheckMate 205 study (NCT02181738), nivo demonstrated frequent (65-73%) and durable objective responses across 3 cohorts of patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (R/R) cHL after failure of autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (Fanale M et al. ICML 2017 [oral 125]). While most pts with cHL are cured with first-line therapy, those with advanced-stage disease are more likely to relapse or progress. More aggressive regimens (eg, BEACOPPesc., Borchmann P et al. Lancet Oncol 2017) are associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) but are hampered by excessive toxicities and have limited applicability in elderly pts.PD-1 ligand gene amplification has been linked to poorer outcomes in cHL pts treated with standard induction regimens (Roemer MG et al. J Clin Oncol 2016) but is associated with improved responses to nivo in R/R cHL (Younes A et al. Lancet Oncol 2016), suggesting that PD-1 blockade may benefit pts in the frontline setting. We therefore assessed the safety and efficacy of nivo as a single-agent lead-in treatment followed by nivo in combination with chemotherapy, excluding bleomycin due to potential overlapping pulmonary toxicity, for pts with previously untreated advanced-stage cHL. Methods: Cohort D of CheckMate 205 enrolled untreated pts (aged ≥18 y) with advanced-stage newly diagnosed cHL (stage III, IV, or II with B symptoms and extranodal or bulky disease) and ECOG score 0-1. Pts received 4 biweekly doses of nivo monotherapy (240 mg IV flat dose) followed by nivo plus chemotherapy (nivo 240 mg IV, doxorubicin, vinblastine, dacarbazine [N-AVD]) for 6 cycles (12 doses). The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability: proportion of pts with ≥1 grade (G) 3-5 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) ≤30 d after last dose. Additional endpoints included rates of discontinuation and of independent radiologic review committee-assessed complete remission (CR). Results: At database lock (June 2017), 51 pts had been treated, with a median (range) follow-up of 8 (1-11) mo. Median (range) age was 37 (18-87) y; 29 (57%) pts had stage IV disease, and 41 (80%) had B symptoms. At baseline, 7 (14%) pts had bulky disease and 17 (33%) had extranodal involvement. International prognostic score was ≥3 in 25 (49%) pts. At analysis, 49 (96%) pts had completed nivo monotherapy treatment, receiving all 4 doses; 1 pt discontinued due to disease progression and 1 due to study drug toxicity (G1-2 hyperthyroidism), subsequently receiving AVD only. TRAEs for both treatment phases are shown in the Table. During nivo monotherapy, 2 pts had 1 dose delay each due to an AE; 2 (4%) pts had serious AEs (SAEs; 1 G1-2 hyperthyroidism; 1 G1-2 polyneuropathy); an immune-mediated AE (IMAE), G1-2 hyperthyroidism, was reported in 2 (4%) pts. Fifty pts started combination therapy; at database lock, 35 (70%) had completed therapy, with 34 (69%) receiving 12 N-AVD doses. With N-AVD, 10 (20%) pts had SAEs, 6 G3-4; the most common G3-4 SAE was febrile neutropenia in 2 (4%) pts; IMAEs occurring in >1 pt were hypothyroidism in 8 (16%) pts and increased ALT in 2 (4%). AEs leading to discontinuation of N-AVD occurred in 2 pts: G1-2 hepatic abnormality, and G3-4 febrile neutropenia (FN) and Klebsiella bacteremia. The pt who developed FN and Klebsiella bacteremia died 38 d after the first dose of his fifth cycle of N-AVD due to study drug toxicity of acute respiratory insufficiency. Important primary, secondary, and exploratory endpoints (including CR and objective response rates at end of monotherapy, after 2 combocycles and end of therapy, and PFS) will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: Nivo monotherapy followed by N-AVD combination therapy was well-tolerated in pts with newly diagnosed, untreated, advanced-stage cHL. Nearly all pts completed nivo monotherapy treatment and started combination therapy with N-AVD. The safety profile was consistent with historical experience of nivo and AVD separately, with no new safety signals. Nivo followed by N-AVD may provide a tolerable alternative treatment option to standard-of-care multi-agent chemotherapy for pts with newly diagnosed advanced-stage cHL. Study support: BMS. Writing support: Matthew Thomas, PhD, Caudex, funded by BMS. Disclosures Ramchandren: Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Fanale: CELGENE: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; ADC THERAPEUTICS: Research Funding; GENENTECH: Research Funding; MERCK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MOLECULAR TEMPLATES: Research Funding; AMGEN: 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, Research Funding; TAKEDA: Honoraria, Research Funding; ONYX: Research Funding. Rueda: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Armand: Roche: Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy; Infinity: Consultancy; Sigma Tau: Research Funding; Tensha: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck & Co., Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sequenta/Adaptive: Research Funding. Trněný: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria. Feldman: Pharmacyclics: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Ansell: Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding. Jaeger: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Cohen: Bioinvent: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; LAM Therapeutics, Inc: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takada: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Infinity: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Savage: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Honoraria. Willenbacher: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sacchi: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Sumbul: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment.

Abstract Introduction Brentuximab vedotin (BV) is an ADC directed against CD30, a receptor expressed by malignant Reed-Sternberg (RS) cells present in the inflammatory/immune cell microenvironment of classical Hodgkin lymphomas (cHL). Through induction of immunogenic cell death, BV may prime an antitumor immune response via microtubule disruption of CD30-expressing RS cells (Gardai 2015). Tumor cells expressing PD-1 ligands use the PD-1 pathway to evade an immune response. Nivolumab (Nivo) blocks the PD-1 receptor, inhibits binding of PD-1 ligands, and restores an effective antitumor immune response. Targeted killing of CD30-expressing RS cells, concurrent with restoration of the immune response, may lead to higher complete response (CR) rates in patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory cHL (R/R HL), as well as improved durability of responses post autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Here we present updated results from the phase 1/2 study of BV + Nivo in pts with R/R HL. Methods BV + Nivo was evaluated in cHL that had relapsed or was refractory to frontline (FL) chemotherapy in adult pts (NCT02572167). Pts were excluded if they had received prior salvage therapy, BV or immuno-oncology therapy, or allogeneic SCT or ASCT. Pts were treated in 21-day cycles for up to 4 cycles. In Parts 1 and 2 of the trial, BV (1.8 mg/kg) was given on Cycle 1 Day 1 and Nivo (3 mg/kg) on Cycle 1 Day 8. For Cycles 2-4, BV and Nivo were given on Day 1. After the Cycle 4 response assessment, pts were eligible to undergo ASCT. The investigators assessed response per the Lugano Classification (Cheson 2014). Results 62 pts with R/R HL were enrolled in Parts 1 and 2; 61 pts received BV + Nivo, of whom 58 completed treatment (tx). 4 pts discontinued the study due to pt decision (2), AE (1), and investigator decision (1). Median age was 36 years, 52% were female, and 90% had received FL ABVD. 45% of pts had primary refractory disease and 31% experienced relapse within 1 year of FL therapy. Infusion-related reactions (IRRs) occurred in 41% of pts. Tx emergent AEs occurred in 98% of pts prior to ASCT (33% G3, 5% G4). Excluding IRRs, potential immune-related AEs (IrAEs) occurred in 84% of pts (10% G3, 3% G4) with 5 pts (8%) treated with systemic steroids for G4 pneumonitis, G4 pneumonitis and colitis, G2 pneumonitis, G3 diarrhea and G2 colitis, and G3 AST elevation. Among the 60 efficacy-evaluable pts, the CR rate was 62%, (48% of CR pts had Deauville ≤ 2) with an objective response rate of 85%; 5 pts (8%) had stable disease and 4 pts (7%) progressed on tx. At the time of this analysis, 39 pts had initiated ASCT with a median 5.1x106 CD34+ cells/kg (range; 3-60) collected. Median times to neutrophil and platelet engraftment were 12 and 15 days, respectively. Pts were followed for a median of 3 months from ASCT (N=39, range; 0-12) and 5.7 months from first dose (N=61, range; 1-17). BV and Nivo effects on the immune system were evaluated by peripheral blood immunophenotyping, serum cytokine/chemokine analyses, T-cell receptor sequencing, and intracellular cytokine staining. The first dose of BV resulted in elevation of pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines and concurrent reduction in serum TARC levels, with these results maintained post Nivo. We observed a reduction in Tregs and other T cell subsets after the first dose of BV with an elevation of T cell subsets post BV + Nivo. While TCR clonality in the periphery did not change over the course of the trial, T cell clonal expansion was observed post BV + Nivo, concurrent with T cell elevation measured by flow cytometry. Ex vivo peptide stimulation of PBMCs isolated from blood revealed the enhanced ability of T cell subsets to respond to MHC I and MHC II antigens following BV + Nivo compared to baseline: e.g., effector memory CD8+ T cells from some pts displayed increased intracellular IL-2, and TNFa after stimulation with MHCI and MHCII peptide pools compared to baseline, potentially indicating elevated activation status of the immune system following combination tx. Conclusion R/R HL remains an unmet clinical need despite recent medical advances. These data suggest the combination BV + Nivo is a well tolerated and an active salvage therapy with a high rate of CR (62%) that has no adverse impact on stem cell collection. The safety and activity of this novel combination support further exploration in an ongoing pivotal phase 3 trial in pts with R/R HL who have either already received or are considered ineligible for ASCT (NCT03138499). Disclosures Herrera: Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Moskowitz: Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Incyte: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Bartlett: Novartis: Research Funding; ImaginAB: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: 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; Genentech: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Vose: Merck: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Allos Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; US Biotest: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Ramchandren: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; MERCK: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Feldman: AbbVie: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. LaCasce: BMS: Consultancy; Forty Seven: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ansell: Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding. Moskowitz: Celgene: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other: Ad Board, Research Funding; Genentech BioOncology: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding. Fenton: Seattle Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ogden: Seattle Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Taft: Seattle Genetics: Employment, Research Funding. Zhang: Seattle Genetics: Employment, Research Funding. Kato: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment, Equity Ownership; Seattle Genetic: Research Funding. Campbell: Seattle Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership; CTI BioPharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Advani: Agensys: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; FortySeven: Research Funding; Nanostring: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kura: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Sutro: Consultancy.

Abstract Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) can be curative for patients with relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Based on studies suggesting that anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) can sensitize patients to subsequent chemotherapy, we hypothesized that anti-PD-1 therapy before ASCT would result in acceptable outcomes among high-risk patients who progressed on or responded insufficiently to ≥1 salvage regimen, including chemorefractory patients who are traditionally considered poor ASCT candidates. We retrospectively identified 78 HL patients who underwent ASCT after receiving an anti-PD-1 mAb (alone or in combination) as third-line or later therapy across 22 centers. Chemorefractory disease was common, including 42 patients (54%) refractory to ≥2 consecutive systemic therapies immediately before anti-PD-1 treatment. Fifty-eight (74%) patients underwent ASCT after anti-PD-1 treatment, while 20 patients (26%) received additional therapy after PD-1 blockade and before ASCT. Patients received a median of 4 systemic therapies (range, 3-7) before ASCT, and 31 patients (41%) had a positive pre-ASCT positron emission tomography (PET) result. After a median post-ASCT follow-up of 19.6 months, the 18-month progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were 81% (95% CI, 69-89) and 96% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87-99), respectively. Favorable outcomes were observed for patients who were refractory to 2 consecutive therapies immediately before PD-1 blockade (18-month PFS, 78%), had a positive pre-ASCT PET (18-month PFS, 75%), or received ≥4 systemic therapies before ASCT (18-month PFS, 73%), while PD-1 nonresponders had inferior outcomes (18-month PFS, 51%). In this high-risk cohort, ASCT after anti-PD-1 therapy was associated with excellent outcomes, even among heavily pretreated, previously chemorefractory patients.