Ramchandren, Radhakrishnan

Abstract Introduction Patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) typically respond to initial therapy and almost inevitably relapse with frequent chemoresistance over time and poor outcome. Multiple phase II studies have established the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide, an immunomodulatory agent with tumoricidal and antiproliferative properties, in relapsed/refractory MCL. The prospective phase II multicenter MCL-001 “EMERGE” study led to FDA approval of lenalidomide for patients with relapsed/refractory MCL after 2 prior treatments, that included bortezomib. The activity of lenalidomide was seen regardless of MIPI, number of prior therapies, prior high dose therapy, bulky disease or high tumor burden. One of the most established prognostic factors in MCL is the proliferation index Ki67 (MIB1), now confirmed both in standard and dose-intensive high-dose therapy strategies. We present here longer follow-up of efficacy and safety from the MCL-001 study in patients relapsed/refractory to bortezomib and the potential relationship between Ki-67 and efficacy outcomes. Methods Patients with heavily pretreated MCL, that included prior bortezomib, received lenalidomide 25 mg/day PO, days 1-21 in 28-day cycles until disease progression or intolerability. Primary study endpoints were overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR); secondary endpoints included complete response (CR), time to response (TTR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Response rates and time-to-event data were analyzed by independent central reviewers per modified IWG criteria and Kaplan-Meier estimates respectively (data cut-off March 20, 2013). Ki-67 was examined as an exploratory endpoint by immunohistochemistry for 81/134 patients (60%) either performed on biopsy samples for 24 patients, or based on the Ki-67 scores reported in local pathology reports for 57 patients. Results Median age for the enrolled intent-to-treat patient population (N=134) was 67 years (range, 43-83; 63% ≥65 years). The median number of previous therapies was 4 (range, 2-10; 78% received ≥3), 93% stage III/IV, and 72% were <6 months from last prior treatment. At a median follow-up of 13.2 months, the ORR was 28% (CR/CRu 8%), with a median DOR of 16.6 months (95% CI, 9.2-26.7; median not reached in patients with CR/CRu) by central review. Median TTR was 2.3 months (95% CI, 1.7-13.1), with a median time to CR/CRu of 4.1 months (95% CI, 1.9-13.2). Median PFS was 4.0 months (95% CI, 3.6-6.9), and median OS was 20.9 months (95% CI, 13.7-24.4). The average dose intensity of lenalidomide was 20 mg/day, for a median duration of 94.5 days (range, 1-1,256). Dose reductions or interruptions due to adverse events (AEs) occurred in 40% and 58% of patients, respectively. Neutropenia (44%), thrombocytopenia (28%), and anemia (11%) were the most common treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs. Ki-67 results were available in 81/134 patients, and efficacy data were categorized using 30% and 50% cut-off thresholds for Ki-67 expression (Table 1). Although patient numbers were limited, the ORR was similar in both lower and higher Ki-67 group, but those with lower Ki-67 levels demonstrated better CR rates, DOR and survival outcomes compared with patients with elevated Ki-67. Conclusions Single-agent lenalidomide in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory MCL post-bortezomib showed durable long-term efficacy with a consistent safety profile. Consistent with what is reported in the literature, high Ki-67 is associated with poor outcome in our cohort with shorter OS. Though based on retrospective evaluation and subsets of patients, the ORR to lenalidomide was similar in both low and high Ki-67 groups, suggesting lenalidomide can be active in patients expressing high levels of Ki67. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings. Disclosures: Goy: Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: This is a phase 2 clinical study of safety and efficacy for lenalidomide in patients with MCL. Williams:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Drach:Celgene: Honoraria. Ramchandren:Celgene: Research Funding. Zhang:Celgene: Employment. Cicero:Celgene: Employment. Fu:Celgene: Employment. Heise:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Witzig:Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction This phase 1/2 study evaluated the safety and antitumor activity of brentuximab vedotin (BV) administered in combination with nivolumab (Nivo) in adult patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL) who have failed frontline therapy (NCT02572167). Results from Parts 1 & 2 have been previously reported, wherein safety, efficacy, and biomarkers consistent with immune activation were observed in pts with R/R cHL (Herrera et al., Blood 2018). In Part 3, patients were treated with BV + Nivo on Day 1 of each cycle. In contrast, pts in Parts 1 & 2 received BV on C1D1 and Nivo on C1D8 with concurrent admin on subsequent cycles. Herein we present safety, efficacy, and biomarker results for Part 3 and updated progression free survival (PFS) from Parts 1 & 2. Methods Pts in Parts 1 & 2 received up to four 21-day cycles of staggered dosing (day 1 BV 1.8 mg/kg, day 8 Nivo 3 mg/kg in Cycle 1) and concurrent thereafter, with steroid and antihistamine premedication. Pts in Part 3 received up to four 21-day cycles of concurrent BV + Nivo on Day 1 with antihistamine premedication. Following Cycle 4 response assessment (Lugano Classification Revised Staging System with the incorporation of the Lymphoma Response to Immunomodulatory Therapy Criteria [LYRIC, 2016]) responding pts were eligible to undergo autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Results 30 pts were treated in Part 3 and all were evaluable for efficacy. Pt characteristics included the following: median age 31.5 yrs (range; 20 - 66), 63% female, 93% prior ABVD, 37% primary refractory HL, 30% relapsed within 1year of frontline therapy, 30% with extranodal disease and 17% with bulky disease at enrollment. 28 pts completed all 4 cycles. 1 pt discontinued treatment (tx) due to an adverse event (AE; Grade 3 [G3] elevated Gamma-Glutamyltransferase) and 1 pt due to progressive disease (PD). The latter pt eventually died due to PD. All pts are off tx and have been observed through the safety reporting period. 37% of pts experienced a G3 or higher tx emergent AE prior to ASCT. 30% of the pts experienced infusion related reactions (IRRs), which occurred most frequently during Cycle 2. Potential G3 or higher immune-related AEs (IRAEs), excluding IRRs, occurred in 2 pts, one of whom required steroids for G4 pneumonitis, which subsequently resolved. Among the 30 efficacy evaluable pts, the complete response (CR) rate was 80% (24/30), with an objective response rate (ORR) of 93%. 47% of pts (14) had a Deauville ≤2, and 17% (5) had Deauville 3. 5 pts with CR had a Deauville >3 and met LYRIC criteria for IR-2. 4/5 pts had a negative follow-up biopsy that confirmed CR and in 1 pt the PET finding was considered to be a false positive as contrast enhanced CT did not reveal any abnormality. All 5 pts proceeded directly to ASCT and remain in CR at follow-up. Among all treated patients, 25 went directly to ASCT after completing BV + Nivo tx with a median 6.8 x 106 CD34+ cells/kg (range 1-20) collected. Median times to neutrophil and platelet engraftment were 12 and 14 days, respectively. 4 pts required additional salvage therapy subsequent to study tx. Patients were followed for a median of 6 months from ASCT (N=25, range 0.8-8.8) and 10 months from first dose (N=30, range 1.8-12.7). The estimated 9-month PFS rate in all-treated pts was 88%. This is comparable to all-treated pts in Parts 1 & 2, whose estimated 9 and 15 month PFS were 86% and 82%, respectively (Fig 2). Biomarker testing was performed on peripheral blood samples, included immunophenotyping, serum cytokine analysis, and TCRβ sequencing. Concurrent dosing of BV+ Nivo resulted in increased levels of both activated and dividing CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, as well as increased regulatory T-cells and circulating plasmablasts. Cytokines and chemokines associated with innate and adaptive immune activation, including Type I and Type II interferons, IL-18, and IP-10, were significantly upregulated following BV + Nivo, while TARC levels were significantly diminished following therapy. TCRβ sequencing revealed clonal expansion in the periphery following BV + Nivo. Conclusion A concurrent dosing schedule of BV + Nivo was well tolerated with a high CR rate of 80%. Biomarkers evaluated in Part 3 indicate immune activation in the periphery following BV + Nivo. Cumulatively, the results in Part 3, along with the durable remissions noted in Parts 1 & 2, support BV + Nivo combination as an encouraging first salvage therapy prior to ASCT in pts with R/R cHL. Disclosures Advani: Forty Seven: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Agensys: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Autolus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura: Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Regeneron: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Cell Medica: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding. Moskowitz:Bristol Myers-Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Bartlett:Seattle Genetics: 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; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vose:Celgene: Research Funding; Legend Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.: Research Funding; Incyte Corp.: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria; Epizyme: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Research Funding. Ramchandren:Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Feldman:Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Research Funding; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; KITE: Speakers Bureau. LaCasce:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Data safety and monitoring board; Research to Practice: Speakers Bureau; Humanigen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Christian:Acerta: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Immunomedics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ansell:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Moskowitz:Celgene: Consultancy; Merck & Co: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Fenton:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ogden:Seattle Genetics, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Taft:Seattle Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zak:Seattle Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sacchi:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment, Equity Ownership. Galderisi:Seattle Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Herrera:Immune Design: Research Funding; Merck, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; KiTE Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: The phase 2 CheckMate 205 study (NCT02181738) of nivolumab (nivo) has demonstrated high objective response rates (ORRs), durable efficacy, prolonged overall survival (OS), and an acceptable safety profile in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL) after failure of autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT) irrespective of prior brentuximab vedotin (BV) treatment (Armand et al, J Clin Oncol 2018). Atypical response patterns have been observed with checkpoint inhibitors, and clinical benefits may be experienced by pts who are treated beyond progression (TBP) as defined by conventional criteria (Cheson et al, Blood 2016; Younes et al, Ann Oncol 2017). Stable reductions in tumor burden without symptoms of active disease were seen in pts TBP in CheckMate 205, suggesting that pts might continue to derive clinical benefits from nivo beyond disease progression. As TBP was an option for some pts in CheckMate 205, we report here updated outcomes of those pts. Methods: This single-arm, multicenter study enrolled pts (age ≥18 y) with R/R cHL after failure of auto-HCT into 3 cohorts (A: BV naïve; B: BV after auto-HCT; C: BV before and/or after auto-HCT). Nivo was administered at 3 mg/kg IV every 2 wk until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (or after 1 year in complete response [CR] for cohort C). Response was assessed by 2007 International Working Group (IWG) criteria. A protocol amendment allowed pts with stable performance status and perceived clinical benefit to be TBP per investigator assessment. Tumor burden after initial progression was assessed; exploratory analyses included OS and time to next therapy (TTNT). Pts TBP were further categorized as PD-1 resistant (failure to achieve CR/partial response [PR] during initial treatment with nivo or CR/PR with subsequent progressive disease [PD] ≤90 d of response) and non-resistant pts (CR/PR followed by PD >90 d from response). Results: At data cutoff, 130 pts had PD, among whom 80 (62%) were TBP, and 50 (38%) were not (non-TBP). Demographics of pts TBP and non-TBP were similar to the overall study population, although more pts TBP had ECOG performance status of 0 at baseline (59% vs 36%) and stage IV disease at diagnosis (30% vs 22%), but fewer had B symptoms at baseline (23% vs 30%). In pts TBP vs non-TBP, the cause of initial progression was new lesions in 50 (63%) vs 23 (46%), increased total tumor burden in 17 (21%) vs 11 (22%), and non-target lesion progression in 19 (24%) vs 4 (8%) (pts could have multiple reasons for progression). ORR prior to progression was similar between TBP (54%) and non-TBP (64%) pts. At data cutoff, the median (range) doses of nivo given beyond progression was 11 (1-64) and median TBP duration was 5 (95% CI: 3, 7) mo. Nine (11%) pts TBP remained on treatment compared with 2 (4%) non-TBP. The most common reason for discontinuation was further disease progression in 55 (69%) and 28 (56%) pts TBP and non-TBP, respectively. The majority of pts TBP (37/67 evaluable pts) had stable or reduced target lesion tumor burden and most had sustained further reduction compared with the burden presented at the time of disease progression (Figure). There was no discernible difference in the response to TBP between PD-1 resistant vs non-resistant pts. Median OS for pts TBP was not reached; 1- and 2-yr OS (95% CI) was 94% (85, 97) and 87% (77, 93), respectively. Median TTNT was 20 (95% CI: 14, 24) mo for all pts TBP. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 50% of pts after progression vs 68% prior to progression. The most common TRAEs reported after progression were fatigue (8%) and increased lipase (6%). Treatment-related serious AEs after progression were reported in 2 (3%) pts: aspartate aminotransferase increase (n=1) and hypercalcemia (n=1). No deaths occurred in pts TBP. Conclusions: Among pts treated beyond investigator-assessed progression, most commonly due to development of new lesions, continued reductions in tumor burden were observed in a majority with further nivo treatment irrespective of prior PD-1 resistance status. Nivo continued to be well tolerated during TBP with no new safety signals. Pts who have stable performance status despite progression according to conventional criteria may derive continued clinical benefit from TBP. Future work will focus on identifying subsets of pts TBP who may benefit the most from continued nivo treatment. Study support: BMS. Disclosures Cohen: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kuruvilla:Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Canada: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria. Ansell:Celldex: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Younes:Abbvie: Honoraria; J&J: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Curis: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; Genentech: Research Funding. Trněný: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; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; 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; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board. Ramchandren:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Collins:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celleron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Zinzani:Astra Zeneca: Speakers Bureau; PFIZER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Pharmaceuticals: 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, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; PFIZER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SERVIER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Pharmaceuticals: 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. De Boer:EISA: 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, Research Funding. Shipp:Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Bayer: Research Funding. Sacchi:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sy:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Armand:Otsuka: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Tensha: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 2717 Background: Dysregulation of the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)/Akt/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signal transduction pathway, which is central to cellular growth, proliferation, metabolism, survival, and angiogenesis, is implicated in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) pathogenesis. In a previous phase II study of patients with relapsed/refractory lymphomas, the oral mTOR inhibitor everolimus showed promising clinical activity and acceptable toxicity in a subgroup of 19 heavily pretreated patients with HL (Johnston et al. Am J Hematol 2010;85:320–4). The purpose of this study was to confirm the safety and efficacy of everolimus 10 mg/day in patients with relapsed/refractory classical HL. Methods: In this multicenter, US, phase II study, patients aged ≥18 years with classical HL whose disease progressed after high-dose chemotherapy with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (AHSCT) and/or a gemcitabine-, vinorelbine-, or vinblastine-containing regimen were treated with oral everolimus 10 mg/day until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Radiological response was assessed every 12 weeks using integrated positron emission tomography/computed tomography with contrast or computed tomography with contrast. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR) evaluated using modified response criteria for malignant lymphoma (Cheson et al. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:579–86). Secondary endpoints included median progression-free survival (PFS). Adverse events (AEs) were assessed throughout the study and for ≥4 weeks after the last everolimus dose. Results: The results from 37 patients in the safety population with evaluable data are reported in this abstract. Among these 37 patients, 35% were male, and the median age was 32 years. The median times from initial diagnosis to the first and most recent recurrence/relapse were 9 and 38 months, respectively. Of the 37 patients, 54% were pretreated with AHSCT and 95% were pretreated with a gemcitabine-, vinorelbine-, or vinblastine-containing regimen. The percentage of patients who experienced disease progression during prior therapies or discontinued their previous treatment due to disease progression was 73%. The median number of prior medication regimens was 4.5. Twenty-two patients discontinued treatment, including 11 due to disease progression and 8 due to AEs. The ORR was 35%, and an additional 27% of patients had stable disease (Table). The median PFS was 7.2 months (Figure). The most common hematologic AEs were thrombocytopenia (38%) and anemia (22%), and the most common nonhematologic AEs were fatigue (43%), cough (27%), headache (22%), dyspnea (22%), and rash (22%). Grade 3 or 4 drug-related AEs were noted in 12 (32%) patients and most commonly included thrombocytopenia (16%), neutropenia (8%), and anemia (8%). Serious AEs were experienced by 19% of patients; no serious AE occurred in more than 1 patient. Conclusion: Everolimus was associated with a favorable ORR and median PFS duration in highly pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory classical HL, confirming results of a previous study. The AE profile was consistent with that previously observed for everolimus; most AEs were grade 1 or 2 and manageable. These results suggest that further study evaluating everolimus in HL is warranted. Disclosures: Pinter-Brown: Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Spectrum: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Allos: Consultancy. Rogerio:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Employment. Warsi:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Employment. Graham:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Employment. Ramchandren:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 2740 Background: Historically, treatment options for the approximately 30% of patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) who have primary refractory disease or relapse after experiencing initial response have been limited to high-dose chemotherapy with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (AHSCT). Development of novel therapeutic options is needed to improve outcomes in patients whose disease is refractory to or relapses after initial chemotherapy or subsequent high-dose chemotherapy with AHSCT. The oral mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus showed promising efficacy and acceptable toxicity in 19 patients with heavily pretreated HL enrolled in a phase 2 study of everolimus monotherapy for relapsed, rare lymphomas (Johnston et al. Am J Hematol 2010;85:320-4). To confirm the efficacy and safety of everolimus monotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory classical HL, we conducted a multicenter, open-label, 2-step, phase 2 study. Methods: Adults with classical HL that progressed after high-dose chemotherapy with AHSCT or a gemcitabine-, vinorelbine-, or vinblastine-containing regimen received everolimus 10 mg/day until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Response was assessed every 12 weeks via computed tomography with contrast or integrated positron emission tomography/computed tomography with contrast. The primary study endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR) evaluated according to the modified response criteria for malignant lymphoma (Cheson et al. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:579-86). Secondary endpoints included the disease control rate (DCR), duration of overall response, duration of disease control, progression-free survival (PFS), and safety. Results: A total of 57 patients were enrolled in this study; 57.9% were women, the median age was 32.0 years, 57.9% were pretreated with AHSCT, and 100% were pretreated with gemcitabine, vinorelbine, or vinblastine. Overall, 66.7% of patients experienced disease progression during previous therapies or discontinued previous treatment due to progression. At the time of analysis, 48 patients discontinued study treatment, most commonly due to disease progression (n = 25). The ORR and DCR were 42.1% and 77.2%, respectively (Table). The median time to response was 57 days. Median PFS was 9.0 months. Adverse events experienced by >25% of patients were fatigue (56.1%), thrombocytopenia (47.4%), cough (38.6%), rash (38.6%), pyrexia (31.6%), anemia (29.8%), dyspnea (28.1%), back pain (26.3%), and diarrhea (26.3%). Grade 3/4 adverse events were observed in 33 patients (57.9%); the most common were thrombocytopenia (21.1%) and anemia (12.3%). Stomatitis was experienced by 14 patients (24.6%) and was of grade 3 severity in 2 patients (3.5%). Pneumonitis was observed in 6 patients (10.5%) and was of grade 1 severity in 2 patients (3.5%) and grade 2 severity in 4 patients (7.0%). Conclusions: In this phase 2 study, everolimus monotherapy demonstrated favorable efficacy and a short time to response in patients with heavily pretreated, relapsed/refractory classical HL. The overall safety profile was consistent with that previously observed for everolimus in patients with HL and other cancers. The results of this study confirm previous results and support the further evaluation of everolimus in patients with classical HL. Disclosures: Johnston: Novartis: Consultancy. Off Label Use: Everolimus is an mTOR inhibitor indicated in the US for the treatment of postmenopausal women with advanced hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer in combination with letrozole after failure of letrozole or anastrozole; adults with progressive pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors that are unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic; adults with advanced renal cell carcinoma after failure of treatment with sunitinib or sorafenib; adults with renal angiomyolipoma and tuberous sclerosis complex not requiring immediate surgery; and adults and children aged 3 years or greater with subependymal giant cell astrocytoma associated with tuberous sclerosis complex who require therapeutic intervention but are not candidates for curative surgical resection. Pinter-Brown:Millennium: Consultancy. Rogerio:Novartis: Employment; Novartis: Equity Ownership. Warsi:Novartis: Employment; Novartis: Equity Ownership. Chau:Novartis: Employment. Ramchandren:Seattle Genetics: Honoraria.

Abstract Abstract 3701 Background: Salvage chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in the management of relapsed or refractory Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) results in prolonged disease-free survival in only around 50% of patients (pts). Median survival following relapse from ASCT is estimated at 2.4 years, with poor outcomes in those experiencing relapse or progressive disease within one year from ASCT (Horning 2008 et al). Recently, a pivotal multicenter Phase 2 trial investigated the efficacy of brentuximab vedotin (BV) in pts with recurrent HL following ASCT. The study demonstrated an overall response rate of 75% and median duration of response of 6.7 months. Furthermore, 34% of patients achieved a complete response (CR), with a median progression free survival of 29 months (mos). Whether treatment with BV renders an OS benefit in pts with relapsed or refractory disease after ASCT remains to be determined. Objective: 1) To compare OS in pts with relapsed HL after receiving ASCT in a cohort of 102 HL pts treated with BV, with 756 pts from 6 international centers before the introduction of BV. 2) To evaluate predictors of durable CR in pts treated with BV. Methods: Kaplan-Meier method was used to depict time-to-event outcomes, including OS. The Chi-square test was used to evaluate the association between two categorical variables and log-rank test to compare time-to-event endpoints among pt groups. Based on the univariate proportional hazard model, we examined whether certain variables (sex, stage at diagnosis, number of prior treatments, and time to CR) were predictors of CR duration in pts receiving BV. Results: In the non-randomized comparison between those with relapsed-refractory HL following ASCT who received BV and those who did not, pts were well matched by age, with a relatively higher percentage of females treated on the pivotal study. Dates of progression from ASCT ranged from 1996–2009 in the BV group and 1981–2003 in the international cohort. Median follow-up after ASCT for the censored observations of pts who received BV and those in the international cohort was 49.4 and 58.8 mos. The difference in median OS was statistically significant (p<0.0001) between those receiving BV and those not exposed to the drug (91.49 vs. 27.99 mos). Improvement in OS was irrespective of time to relapse from ASCT, despite previous studies noting a higher risk of recurrence in pts relapsing within 12 mos of ASCT (Sureda 2005 et al). Neither age nor sex was found to impact OS. In the subgroup analysis of pts achieving a CR with BV, univariate analysis of duration of CR and PFS uncovered no significant factors, while only stage of disease at initial diagnosis had a significant effect on OS (P=0.0004). Disease status characterized as relapsed vs. refractory had borderline significance with a positive impact on OS (P=0.0581). No significant associations were noted between the variables and duration of response post BV stratified into periods of less or greater than 12 mos. However, among those pts who experienced a duration of CR greater than 12 mos, 81.8% (n=18) had an initial CR after receiving ≤ 4 doses of BV, compared with 58.3% entering CR after receiving > 4 doses. Conclusions: While the impact of BV on OS can only be determined through a randomized clinical trial, our analysis indicated that treatment with BV in pts with relapsed/refractory HL following ASCT is associated with prolonged OS when compared with historical control patients. Those who achieve a rapid CR with BV may also have a longer duration of response. A randomized clinical trial is ongoing to evaluate prospectively the efficacy of BV following ASCT. Disclosures: Chen: Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Gopal:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ansell:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Savage:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ramchandren:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Speakers Bureau. Forero-Torres:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Moskowitz:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau. Connors:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. de Vos:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau. Engert:Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Millennium: Honoraria, Research Funding. Illidge:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Morschhauser:Takeda: Honoraria. Younes:Seattle Genetics: Honoraria.

Abstract Abstract 905 Introduction: Though dose-intensive strategies using chemoimmunotherapy have significantly improved mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) outcomes with prolonged progression-free survival (PFS), most patients still relapse over time. In the relapsed setting, MCL patients often develop chemoresistance and have a poor overall prognosis. The immunomodulatory agent lenalidomide has demonstrated tumoricidal and antiproliferative effects in MCL and clinical activity and safety in multiple phase II studies in aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The objective of the MCL-001 “EMERGE” study was to examine the safety and efficacy of single-agent lenalidomide in subjects with MCL who relapsed or were refractory to bortezomib. Methods: This phase II, multicenter, single-arm, open-label study examined single-agent lenalidomide administered at 25 mg/d PO on days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or voluntary withdrawal. The subjects were required to have had prior treatment with rituximab, cyclophosphamide and anthracycline (or mitoxantrone), and to have relapsed or progressed (<12 months) after or were refractory to bortezomib. The primary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR); secondary endpoints included complete response (CR), PFS, time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS) and safety. Efficacy data were measured by investigators and an independent central review committee according to modified International Working Group criteria and analyzed by SAS. Results: 134 subjects with relapsed or refractory MCL who were heavily pretreated (no limitation in number of prior therapies) were enrolled. The median age was 67 y (range, 43–83), two-thirds of them being 65 y or older and 93% with advanced stage disease (stage III-IV). The median number of prior therapies was 4 (range, 2– 10) with 78% of subjects having received ≥ 3 prior lines of treatment. The ORR to single-agent lenalidomide was 28% (CR/CRu 8%; Table 1) by independent central review, with a median DOR of 16.6 mo (95% CI, 7.7–26.7; Figure 1). The ORR was 32% (CR/CRu 16%) by investigator assessment, with a median DOR of 18.5 mo. Median time to response (central review) was 2.2 mo (3.7 mo to achieve CR). The median PFS was 4.0 mo (95% CI, 3.6–5.6); median OS was 19.0 mo (95% CI, 12.5–23.9). Subjects received an average dose of 20 mg/d of lenalidomide. Lenalidomide was dose reduced in 38% of subjects; treatment discontinuation due to an adverse event (AE; primarily myelosuppression) was reported in 19% of subjects. The most common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (43%), thrombocytopenia (28%), anemia (11%), pneumonia (8%) and fatigue (7%). Other AEs (any grade) included tumor flare reaction (13 subjects, 10%), deep vein thrombosis (5 subjects, 4%), pulmonary embolism (3 subjects, 2%) and invasive second primary malignancies (3 subjects, 2%). Conclusions: The EMERGE study demonstrated rapid and durable efficacy of lenalidomide in MCL subjects who relapsed or progressed after or were refractory to bortezomib. These results in heavily pretreated MCL subjects (median of 4 prior treatments), and with an expected toxicity profile support single-agent lenalidomide in subjects with relapsed or refractory MCL after bortezomib. Disclosures: Goy: Pfizer: Advisory board member, Advisory board member Other; Seattle Genetics: Advisory board member Other; J&J: Advisory board member, Advisory board member Other; Pharmacyclics: Advisory board member, Advisory board member Other; Millenium: Advisory board member, Advisory board member Other, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Advisory board member Other. Off Label Use: This is a phase 2 clinical study of safety and efficacy for lenalidomide in patients with MCL. Sinha:Celgene: Research Funding. Williams:Celgene: Clincial Trial Research Support, Advisory Boards, Data Safety Committee Member, Consultant Other, Consultancy. Drach:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Research Funding. Ramchandren:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau. Herbrecht:Pfizer: Advisory board member Other. Zhang:Celgene: Employment. Cicero:Celgene: Employment. Fu:Celgene: Employment. Witzig:Celgene : Research Funding.

Background:Up to 30% of newly diagnosed patients (pts) with advanced‐stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) are not cured by multi‐agent chemotherapy. High expression of the programmed death‐1 (PD‐1) ligands in these pts, associated with frequent genetic alterations at chromosome 9p24.1 in Hodgkin Reed‐Sternberg cells, supports the investigation of front‐line PD‐1 blockade in cHL (Roemer MG et al. J Clin Oncol 2016). Promising activity and acceptable safety was previously reported in newly diagnosed pts with advanced‐stage cHL treated with nivolumab, an anti–PD‐1 immune checkpoint inhibitor monoclonal antibody, followed by nivolumab plus doxorubicin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (N‐AVD) at a 9‐month follow‐up of Cohort D of the CheckMate 205 study (NCT02181738; Ramchandren R et al. EHA 2018).Aims:To further characterize the efficacy, including post hoc Deauville assessment, and safety of nivolumab followed by N‐AVD in pts with newly diagnosed advanced‐stage cHL with 2‐year extended follow‐up of CheckMate 205 Cohort D.Methods:Pts ≥ 18 years of age with newly diagnosed advanced‐stage cHL (stage IIB with unfavorable risk factors, III, or IV) received 4 doses of nivolumab monotherapy (240 mg IV every 2 weeks) followed by N‐AVD combination therapy for 6 cycles (12 doses). Primary endpoint was safety; secondary endpoints included complete remission (CR) rate per independent review committee (IRC) at end of study therapy (EOT) using 2007 International Working Group criteria. Complete metabolic response (CMR) was defined as a Deauville score of ≤ 3 (PET negative). Overall survival (OS) and modified progression‐free survival (PFS) were exploratory endpoints; PFS was assessed in a post hoc analysis.Results:Fifty‐one pts were treated (median age 37 years); minimum follow‐up was 24.4 months at data cutoff. Other baseline characteristics have been previously described (Ramchandren R et al. EHA 2018). Monotherapy was completed by 49/51 (96%) pts, combination therapy by 45/50 (90%); 48 pts entered follow‐up. After 2 combination cycles, CR rate was 51% per IRC (71% CMR) and 71% per investigator; at EOT, CR rate was 69% (75% CMR) per IRC and 80% per investigator. At 21 months, modified PFS rate per investigator was 80% (95% CI, 66–89) and PFS rate per investigator was 83% (95% CI, 69–91; Figure). Overall, 30 (59%) pts experienced grade 3–4 TRAEs, most commonly neutropenia in 21 (41%). The most common grade 3–4 immune‐mediated AE was hepatitis (2 pts, 4%). No grade 5 TRAEs occurred ≤ 30 days from last dose; 2 deaths were reported during the extended follow‐up: 1 pt (age 68 years) died 38 days after last dose due to study drug toxicity; another (age 85 years) died 451 days after last dose due to disease progression.Summary/Conclusion:With extended follow‐up, nivolumab followed by N‐AVD demonstrated a 21‐month PFS rate of 83% per investigator, a high metabolic response rate with 75% CMR at EOT per IRC, with no new safety signals. Incorporation of Deauville assessment improved the concordance of CR between IRC‐ and investigator‐assessed responses. Nivolumab followed by N‐AVD provides a promising alternative treatment option in newly diagnosed advanced‐stage cHL.image

PURPOSE Nivolumab, an anti–programmed death-1 monoclonal antibody, has demonstrated frequent and durable responses in relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). We report results from Cohort D of the CheckMate 205 trial, which assessed nivolumab monotherapy followed by nivolumab plus doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (N-AVD) for newly diagnosed cHL. METHODS Patients 18 years of age or older with untreated, advanced-stage (defined as III to IV and IIB with unfavorable risk factors) cHL were eligible for Cohort D of this multicenter, noncomparative, phase II trial. Patients received nivolumab monotherapy for four doses, followed by 12 doses of N-AVD; all doses were every 2 weeks, and nivolumab was administered at 240 mg intravenously. The primary end point was safety. Efficacy end points included objective response rate and modified progression-free survival, defined as time to disease progression/relapse, death, or next therapy. Chromosome 9p24.1 alterations and programmed death-ligand 1 expression were assessed in Hodgkin Reed-Sternberg cells in evaluable patients. RESULTS A total of 51 patients were enrolled and treated. At diagnosis, 49% of patients had an International Prognostic Score of 3 or greater. Overall, 59% experienced a grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse event. Treatment-related febrile neutropenia was reported in 10% of patients. Endocrine immune-mediated adverse events were all grade 1 to 2 and did not require high-dose corticosteroids; all nonendocrine immune-mediated adverse events resolved (most commonly, rash; 5.9%). At the end of therapy, the objective response rate (95% CI) per independent radiology review committee was 84% (71% to 93%), with 67% (52% to 79%), achieving complete remission (five patients [10%] were nonevaluable and counted as nonresponders). With a minimum follow-up of 9.4 months, 9-month modified progression-free survival was 92%. Patients with higher-level Hodgkin Reed-Sternberg programmed death-ligand 1 expression had more favorable responses to N-AVD ( P = .041). CONCLUSION Nivolumab followed by N-AVD was associated with promising efficacy and safety profiles for newly diagnosed, advanced-stage cHL.