Robertson, Michael J.

Abstract The phase 1/2 Intergroup study E4412 investigated checkpoint blockade with nivolumab (Nivo) and ipilimumab (Ipi) combined with the CD30 targeting antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin (BV) in relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma. A total of 147 patients aged ≥12 years were randomized between BV/Nivo and BV/Ipi/Nivo; 132 patients were included in the primary efficacy analysis. The complete response (CR) rate, was 64.7% (52.2, 75.9) for BV/Nivo and 70.3% (57.6, 81.1) for BV/Ipi/Nivo (1-sided P = .29). The median survival follow-up was 38.0 months (interquartile range, 32.6-48.1). Progression-free survival (PFS) did not significantly differ between the 2 arms (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78, confidence interval [CI], 0.39-1.57; 1-sided P = .24). Treatment-related grade 3+ toxicities in the adult cohort, excluding rash, were similar between both arms (38.5% BV/Nivo and 39.3% BV/Ipi/Nivo); there was a higher frequency of grade 3 rash with BV/Ipi/Nivo (24.6%) compared with BV/Nivo (9.2%). We compared PFS by stem cell transplantation (SCT) status in a planned before hoc comparison; 58 patients received SCT, and 36-month PFS (from SCT) was >90% for both arms. Sixty-six patients were progression free after the first scan and did not undergo SCT. The 36-month PFS was 73.0% (54.5, 85.0) for BV/Ipi/Nivo compared with 45.8% (26.3, 63.4) for BV/Nivo (HR, 0.45; CI, 0.19-1.08; 1-sided P = .03). The study did not meet its primary end point of superior CR rate for the triplet, but it supports the use of checkpoint antibody-drug conjugate induction prior to auto SCT, and there is an intriguing signal of disease control for patients wishing to defer or avoid SCT with the triplet of BV/Ipi/Nivo. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01896999.

Abstract Introduction With a median age of 60-70 years at diagnosis, many patients with MCL are ineligible for aggressive treatment. Bendamustine and rituximab (BR) is a standard therapy for older patients with MCL. Venetoclax (VEN) has shown pre-clinical evidence of synergy with chemotherapy. Thus, PrE0405 was designed to evaluate the addition of VEN to BR in previously untreated older patients with MCL. We have previously reported on response rate and short-term survival (Portell et al. ASH 2023). Here, we update survival and include minimal residual disease (MRD) at end of treatment (EOT). Methods Eligible patients included those that were previously untreated and diagnosed with MCL by presence of t(11;14) or cyclin D1 expression. Patients must have been ≥60 years of age at the start of therapy with a good performance status (ECOG 0-2). Adequate marrow and organ function was required, specifically a creatinine clearance ≥ 40 ml/min. Eligible subjects were treated with bendamustine 90mg/m2 D1-2 and rituximab 375mg/m2 IV D1 every 28 days for a planned 6 cycles of therapy. For patients ≥75 years, 70mg/m2 of bendamustine was allowed. VEN was given concurrently with BR. During Cycle 1, VEN was dose escalated weekly, as done in chronic lymphocytic leukemia, from 20mg to 200mg. For Cycle 2-6, VEN was administered as 400mg PO daily on days 1-10 only. Maintenance rituximab was encouraged but was per investigator discretion. Primary end point was PET-negative complete remission (CR) at EOT by Lugano Criteria and was confirmed by a negative bone marrow biopsy if involved at screening. MRD was assessed at EOT by next-generation sequencing (Clonoseq). Amended accrual goal was 33 patients with a planned 32 being eligible and treated. This provided an 81% statistical power to detect a 17% difference in CR rate (from 60% [E1411, Smith et al Blood 2024] to 77%) using an exact binomial test with a 1-sided alpha of 11.6%. Thus, BR-VEN would be considered promising if 23 or more subjects attained a CR. Results From 1/2020 to 3/2022, 33 subjects were enrolled, deemed eligible, and treated on study. Subjects were followed until 7/2024. Median age was 71 (range 61-80) and 76% (n=25) were male. All but 1 subject (97%, n=32) were White. MIPI was high in 67% (n=22), intermediate in 27% (n=9) and low in 6% (n=2). Ki67 was available in 25 (76%) subjects and was ≥30% in 14 (56%) and ≥50% in 7 (28%). Only one subject started bendamustine treatment at 70mg/m2; though 6 others had dose reductions during treatment. Thirty (90%) subjects completed all 6 cycles of therapy. Maintenance rituximab was administered in 19 (56%) of subjects and 9 completed all 12 recommended doses. Treatment was generally well tolerated. During BR-VEN, Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) occurring in >10% (i.e., 4 or more) of subjects were neutropenia (n=8, 24%), and thrombocytopenia (n=5, 15%). Other common TRAE of all grades were nausea/vomiting (n=19, 58%), diarrhea (n=10, 30%), and fatigue (n=19, 58%). At EOT with BR-VEN, overall response and CR rate was 97% (32 of 33) and 85% (28 of 33) respectively. The study met its primary endpoint of at least 23 subjects with a CR best response (p=0.002). EOT MRD sample (blood or marrow aspirate) was available for 28 subjects (85%). At EOT, MRD was undetectable for 100% (n=28) of evaluable subjects at a sensitivity of 10-4 and 10-5. At a sensitivity of 10-6, 64% (n=18) were undetectable, 4% (n=1) were detectable and 32% (n=9) were indeterminate. With a median follow up of 39.1 months, 3-year progression free survival (PFS) was 68.9 and 3-year overall survival (OS) was 70.0%. There were 11 total PFS events during follow up. Four subjects in remission died due to COVID-19, 1 died from influenza, one died from HSV encephalitis, and 2 others died from other causes. Two subjects died shortly after progression and 1 subject is alive following disease progression. As this study enrolled during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, a sensitivity analysis was performed censoring the COVID-19 attributable deaths – PFS and OS at 3 years was 78.7% and 80.0%. Conclusions BR-VEN was generally well tolerated as induction therapy in older patients with MCL. It achieved a high CR rate of 85% with 100% MRD undetectable rate at 10-5 sensitivity in those evaluable. However, there were competing risks for survival in this older population as, of the 11 PFS events, only 3 events were due to progression; 8 were due to death without progression.

Background Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is an incurable form of aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Treatment choice at diagnosis is based on tolerability of cytarabine and high-dose chemotherapy. With a median age of 60-70 years, many patients are ineligible for aggressive treatment. Bendamustine and rituximab (BR) is a reasonable treatment option (E1411, Smith MR et al. ASH 2022) for this patient population and venetoclax (VEN) has shown pre-clinical evidence of synergy with chemoimmunotherapy. PrECOG 0405 was designed to evaluate the addition of VEN to BR in previously untreated patients with MCL aged over 60 years. Methods Eligible patients included those that were previously untreated and diagnosed with MCL as defined as the presence of t(11;14) by FISH or cyclin D1 expression by IHC. Patients must have been at least 60 years of age or older on D1C1 of therapy with a good performance status (ECOG 0-2). Adequate marrow and organ function was required, specifically a creatinine clearance of ≥ 40 mL/min. Treatment administration is summarized in Figure 1. Dose of bendamustine was either 90mg/m 2 D1&2; or, for subjects over the age of 75 years, 70mg/m 2 was allowed per investigator discretion. VEN was dose escalated during Cycle 1 to 200mg. At the time of C2, BR was repeated and VEN was also escalated to 400mg. With C2-6, VEN 400mg PO daily was given D1-10 only. Primary endpoint was PET-negative complete response (CR) rate at end of treatment (EOT) by Lugano Criteria. A negative bone marrow biopsy was required to confirm CR if involved at screening. Minimal residual disease (MRD) by next-generation sequencing was performed at the EOT. Maintenance rituximab was encouraged per investigator discretion. This was a single arm study with an original accrual goal of 53 subjects to detect a 15% improvement in CR rate compared to historical data. However, due to slow study accrual during COVID pandemic and preliminary efficacy data from E1411 study, the statistical parameters were updated after 25 subjects had been accrued. The revised accrual goal was 33 patients to obtain 32 eligible and treated patients, which provided 81.8% statistical power to detect a 17% difference in CR rate (from 60% [E1411 data] to 77%) using an exact binomial test with a 1-sided alpha of 11.6%. This combination regimen will be considered promising if 23 or more (out of 32) patients attain CR. Results From January 2020 to March 2022, 33 subjects enrolled and were treated on study. Subject characteristics are listed in Table 1. Seven (21%) unique subjects were treated with 70mg/m 2 of bendamustine during induction cycles. Laboratory tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) was seen in 2/33 during C1 only; clinical TLS was not seen. Treatment was generally well tolerated with treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) of Grade ≥3 and occurring in >10% of subjects being neutropenia (n=5, 15%), thrombocytopenia (n=5, 15%) and lymphopenia (n=9, 27%). Other common non-hematologic TRAE of all grades were nausea/vomiting (n=26, 79%), diarrhea (n=10, 30%), and fatigue (n=17, 52%). There were 4 (12%) instances of COVID-19/COVID-19 pneumonia considered treatment related. Dose adjustments and delays for any drug occurred in 36% and 67% of subjects respectively. 22/33 (66.7%) subjects completed 6 cycles of BR-VEN. Maintenance rituximab was administered in 19/33 (57.6%) of subjects. Overall response rate was 97% (32/33) and PET-negative bone marrow biopsy confirmed CR Rate at EOT was 85% (28/33), achieving the primary endpoint (≥23 CRs). MRD at EOT is under analysis. With a median survival follow up of 21.5 months (mo), Median PFS and OS were not reached; estimated 2-year PFS and OS was 69.7% and 81.1% respectively. During follow up, there have been 6 deaths, 4 from COVID-19 (all in remission), one from influenza A (in remission), and one from disease progression (non-responding pt). There have been 2 other progression events who are alive. Conclusions BR-VEN was generally well-tolerated in this older patient population though GI toxicities were common. With a PET-negative CR rate of 85%, the combination is promising but longer follow-up is needed. There was a competing risk of death related to upper respiratory viruses identified, mostly COVID-19, as has been seen in other BR-based protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic. MRD analysis and survival data will be updated.

Abstract Background: Despite advances in chemotherapy, relapsed/refractory (R/R) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) remains a significant clinical challenge and an unmet medical need. HL has a unique biology in which a small number of malignant Hodgkin Reed-Sternberg (HRS) cells propagate an immunosuppressive microenvironment. We hypothesized that using immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy to activate the immune cells in the tumor microenvironment, and concurrently targeting HRS cells with the CD30 antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin (BV), could overcome tumor cell resistance. E4412 is a Phase 1 ECOG-ACRIN sponsored study of the combination of BV and ipilimumab (IPI) and nivolumab (Nivo) in patients with R/R HL. Here we present the preliminary safety and response data on the patients treated with BV + Nivo (Arms D and E). Methods: Patients with confirmed R/R HL were treated with Nivo 3mg/kg and BV 1.2mg/kg (Arm D: Dose Level 1) or 1.8mg/kg (Arm E: Dose Level 2) in dose escalation with a 3+3 design and an expansion cohort (Arm F) of 9 patients. BV and Nivo are given every 21 days for 16 cycles; Nivo may be continued for an additional year (total 2 years of Nivo therapy). Dose limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined for purposes of dose escalation within the first cycle of therapy. Patients are followed for toxicity up to 30 days beyond their last treatment. Results: As of 7/20/2016 10 patients (1 ineligible) have been treated with BV + Nivo. We report the data on the dose escalation population: 3 patients: Arm D, 7 patients: Arm E. Data will be updated to include the full BV + Nivo dose escalation and dose expansion cohorts (Arms D, E & F) (N = 19) by the time of the Annual Meeting. Median age was 46; (range: 25-53). Six patients were male. Patients were heavily pretreated with a median of 3 prior therapies. Six patients had prior SCT (5 autologous, 1 allogeneic); 2patients had prior treatment with BV. Safety: Ten of 10 patients are evaluable for safety. Overall safety profiles show that the regimen of BV + Nivo was extremely well tolerated. One patient out of 7 in dose level 2 experienced a DLT (pneumonitis grade 3 with grade 3 dyspnea and hypoxia, and typhilits grade 3), this patient had received a prior SCT, and made a full recovery from his toxicities. Per protocol he discontinued further therapy. No other DLTs were noted for the remaining 9 patients. Common and relevant toxicities considered at least possibly related to drug during any cycle of treatment are shown in Table 1. There were no Grade 4 treatment related adverse events (AEs). The only additional grade 3 AEs noted were one each grade 3 rash and puritis. The most common grade 1-2 treatment related adverse events were: transaminitis (9), peripheral sensory neuropathy (6), and rash (3). Other AEs of interest included: diarrhea (3), blurry vision (2), and myalgias (2). One grade 1-2 infusion reaction was noted, this patient was able to receive subsequent therapy with pre-medication. Response: Eight of 10 patients are evaluable for response. One patient is not yet evaluable. For the 8 evaluable patients the overall response rate (ORR) for the combination of BV + Nivo was 100%, with a CR rate of 62.5% (5/8), with 95% CI of 0.25-0.91. One patient was ineligible for laboratory studies that were out of range at screening, however this patient continues on therapy, and also had a response. One of 5 CRs occurred at in dose level 1 (BV 1.2 mg/kg). Both patients who had been treated with prior BV achieved CRs. The progression free survival (PFS) to date is 100% with a median follow-up of 0.3 years. Conclusion: In this first reported study of the combination of the checkpoint inhibitor Nivo and the ADC BV therapy was well tolerated with one DLT, and primarily grade 1 and 2 toxicities. In a heavily pretreated patient population, 20% of whom had had prior BV and 60% of whom were s/p ASCT, the ORR of 100% and CR rate of 62.5% suggests a deepening of response compared to either therapy alone. Optimization of this combination strategy is planned with ongoing accrual to cohorts receiving BV + Nivo, and BV + Ipi + Nivo. Data will be updated to include the full BV + Nivo cohort (N = 19) by the time of the Annual Meeting. Disclosures Diefenbach: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Molecular Templates: Research Funding; Oncomed: Research Funding; This study was coordinated by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (Robert L. Comis, MD and Mitchell D. Schnall, MD, PhD, Group Co-Chairs) and supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under the following award number: Research Funding. Hong:This study was coordinated by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (Robert L. Comis, MD and Mitchell D. Schnall, MD, PhD, Group Co-Chairs) and supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under the following award number: Research Funding. Cohen:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Advani:Stanford University: Employment; Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sutro: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Agensys: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; FortySeven: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kahl:This study was coordinated by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (Robert L. Comis, MD and Mitchell D. Schnall, MD, PhD, Group Co-Chairs) and supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under the following award number: Research Funding. Ansell:BMS, Seattle Genetics, Merck, Celldex and Affimed: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Checkpoint blockade therapies (CBT) have substantially improved outcomes for patients in a variety of cancers. However, they are associated with a unique spectrum of immune-related adverse events (AEs). Additionally, unlike standard chemotherapy, many patients (pts) remain on CBT for prolonged periods of time, thus immune-related symptomatic AEs may be chronic or low grade therefore important to capture long term tolerability when used as a single agent or in combination with chemotherapy. In this study, we applied the Toxicity over Time (ToxT) analytic approach (Thanarajasingam et al, Lancet Oncol 2016), which incorporates the dimension of time and includes chronic lower grade events, to the first 6 cohorts (A-F) of a Phase 1/2 ECOG-ACRIN sponsored study of the combinations of Brentuximab Vedotin (BV) and the CBT therapies ipilimumab (Ipi) and nivolumab (Nivo) in pts with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R HL). Methods: Pts with confirmed R/R HL were treated with BV 1.8mg/kg + Ipi 1or 3 mg/kg (n=23); or Nivo 3mg/kg + BV: 1.2 or 1.8 mg/kg (n=19). BV was administered every 21 days for 16 cycles; Ipi every 21 days x 4 and then every 3 months for one year and Nivo every 21 days for up to 2 years. Seven symptomatic (subjective) AEs were selected: fatigue, peripheral sensory neuropathy (PSN), nausea/vomiting (NV), rash/skin (RS), diarrhea, ocular-all types, and hair loss. Treatment-related AEs of any grade were investigated by conventional maximum grade toxicity analysis (ToxC) and ToxT methods up to 12 cycles. Using ToxT, mean AE grades over cycles were analyzed for time trend with repeated measures models, time to grade 2 or higher AE (gr2+) was analyzed with time-to-event analysis; AE profile over the entire course of the study was summarized by area under the curve (AUC) analyses. Comparisons were performed between treatment groups: BV/Ipi(A-C arms) and BV/Nivo (D-F arms). Results: 9/23 (BV/Ipi) and 6/19 (BV/Nivo) pts completed 10 cycles. For BV/Ipi vs. BV/nivo, ToxC provides overall incidence rates (any grade): fatigue 52% vs 26% (p=0.09); PSN 61% vs 53%; NV 70% vs 53% ; RS 65% vs. 37% (p=0.07); diarrhea 57% vs. 21% (p=0.02); ocular 17% vs. 21% ; and hair loss 17% vs. 0% (p=0.06), respectively. Gr3 AE occurred in 1 pt (2.4%) each for PSN, NV, diarrhea, and 6 pts (14.3%) for RS, and were similar between BV/ipi and BV/nivo. AUC from ToxT which captures chronic lower grade AEs suggested for BV/Ipi: diarrhea (p=0.02) and NV (p=0.03) are significantly more substantial over time with a trend seen for fatigue (p=0.07), RS (p=0.07) and hair loss (p=0.07) . Additionally, ToxT captures the trajectory of AEs, demonstrated a rising incidence and worsening grade of PSN (BV-related) on BV/Ipi (c1: 9% gr1, c2: 21% gr1 5% gr2, c5: 11% gr1 and c10: 22% gr2 [p=0.005], Fig 1a). In contrast there was a slow but significant decreasing incidence of NV on both combinations; for BV/Nivo (c1:52% gr1, c5: 26% gr1 and c10: 22% gr1) and BV/Ipi (c1: 47% gr1 ,c5: 0% and c10 1% gr1) with p=0.006 (Fig 1b). RS and diarrhea appear early on treatment and are not cumulative (Fig1c and 1d). There is no significant difference in the time to gr 2+ toxicities in any of the 7 AE. Combining all 7 AEs and using the maximum grade as a pilot measure of overall AE burden , ToxC indicates no difference in any grade (100% vs 100%) but a significantly higher gr 3+ incidence (35% vs. 11%) for BV/Ipi. Additionally, ToxT further elucidates that BV/Ipi is associated with significantly higher overall AE over time (Fig 2a, p=0.02) and compared to BV/Nivo a significantly higher risk of developing gr 2+ toxicity ( 57% vs 16% gr2 + event by day 50) (HR=0.41, p=0.02, Fig 2b). Conclusions: The CBT therapies Ipi and Nivo, in combination with BV, are overall both well tolerated over time, although BV/Ipi has a higher overall AE burden. Neither regimen has significant cumulative immune toxicity. Results of this analysis should be interpreted in the context of limited number of pts in both cohorts. A larger scale examination of this analysis is planned to incorporate both phase 1 and the ongoing phase 2 components of E4412. Compared with conventional tox analysis, ToxT delineated important additional and clinically relevant depictions of AEs over time and adds a more comprehensive assessment of the tolerability of chronically administered immune therapies for lymphoma. Disclosures Hong: Merck: Consultancy. Ansell:Regeneron: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding. Cohen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: 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; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; 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; BioInvent: Consultancy; AbbVie: 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; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: 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; Takeda: Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: 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; Takeda: Research Funding. Advani:Kura: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Autolus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Kyowa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Millenium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Agensys: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity: Research Funding; Forty Seven Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck, Takeda, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Bayer: Research Funding. Svoboda:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy. Karmali:AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Witzig:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dueck:Bayer: Employment; Phytogine: Employment; Pfizer: Honoraria. Kahl:Genentech: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Diefenbach:Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Denovo: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Relapsed/refractory (R/R) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) remains a significant clinical challenge. We hypothesized that using immune checkpoint blockade to activate the immune cells in the tumor microenvironment, and concurrently targeting tumor cells with the CD30 targeting antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin (BV) could overcome tumor resistance. E4412 is a Phase 1/2 ECOG-ACRIN sponsored study of the combinations of BV, nivolumab (Nivo), and ipilimumab (Ipi) in patients with R/R HL. Here we present the preliminary safety and response data on the full cohort of patients treated in Phase 1 with BV + Ipi + Nivo (Arms G-I). Methods: Patients with confirmed R/R HL were treated with Nivo 3mg/kg, Ipi 1mg/kg and BV 1.2mg/kg (Arm G) or 1.8mg/kg (Arm H) with a 3+3 design, and an expansion cohort (Arm I) of 9 patients with BV at 1.8mg/kg. BV and Nivo are given every 21 days for 16 cycles; Nivo may be continued for an additional 12 months. Ipi is given every 12 weeks except for the first 2 patients in Arm G who received Ipi every 6 weeks for the first 3 cycles. Dose limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined within the first cycle of therapy. Results: As of 6/30/18 22 patients with a median of 2 prior therapies (range 1-5) have been treated; 7 in Arm G, 6 in Arm H, and 9 in Arm I. Median age was 35, range (19-60); 11 patients were male. Nine patients had prior SCT (1 alloSCT, 8 autoSCT); 1 patient had prior BV. Safety: All 22 enrolled patients are evaluable for safety. There were 3 DLTs, one in each arm. In Arm G one patient experienced grade 4 diabetic ketoacidosis and hyperglycemia, and went off treatment after cycle 1. In Arm H, one patient had transient grade 3 AST elevation; this was of no clinical significance and did not require a delay in therapy. In Arm I a post AlloSCT patient had grade 4 Steven-Johnson syndrome with grade 3 pruritis, rash, and GVHD, and came off therapy. Common toxicities considered at least possibly related to drug, are shown in Table 1, and grade 3 or greater toxicity in Table 2. There were no grade 5 AEs or additional grade 4 AEs. Significant grade 3 AEs were: rash, colitis, gastritis, pancreatitis, and arthritis each in one patient, resulting in dose delays but not discontinuation of therapy. One patient experienced grade 2 angioedema in cycle 1 and came off therapy. No significant infusion reactions were noted. Response: Nineteen of 22 patients are evaluable for response. Three patients discontinued treatment after cycle 1 and are not evaluable for response. For the full population the overall response rate (ORR) was 82% (18/22), with a complete response (CR) rate of 68% (15/22). For patients treated with at least 3 cycles of therapy who were evaluable for response, the ORR is 95% (18/19) with a CR rate of 79% (15/19). Six patients went from treatment to SCT. With a median follow-up of 0.52 years median progression free survival (PFS) has not been reached (Figure 1), and with a median follow-up of 0.82 years overall survival (OS) has not been reached (Figure 2). Conclusion: In this study of the triplet combination of BV, Ipi and Nivo for R/R HL, therapy was generally well tolerated, although more grade 3 AEs were seen than in the doublets. In a heavily pretreated patient population, with 9 patients post SCT, the ORR of 95% and CR rate of 79% in evaluable patients is extremely promising. Data will be updated to include longer term PFS and OS by the time of the meeting. Optimization of this strategy is ongoing in E4412, now a randomized phase 2 study comparing the doublet of BV-Nivo to the triplet of BV-Ipi-Nivo. Disclosures Diefenbach: Trillium: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hong:Merck: Consultancy. Cohen:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Millennium: 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; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: 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; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Advani:Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Autolus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cell Medica: Consultancy, 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; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Agensys: Research Funding; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Gilead/Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Kyowa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Forty Seven: Research Funding. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck, Takeda, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Bayer: Research Funding. Svoboda:Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy. Karmali:AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Kahl:Genentech: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Ansell:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding.

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 Background: Despite advances in chemotherapy, R/R HL remains a significant clinical problem with over 1,000 primarily young lives lost annually. HL is a unique tumor in which a small number of malignant Hodgkin Reed-Sternberg (HRS) cells propagate an immunosuppressive microenvironment that augments HRS growth and survival. We hypothesized that immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy could activate the tumor immune microenvironment, while the CD30 expressing HRS cells could be targeted by brentuximab vedotin (BV), thereby overcoming tumor cell resistance and deepening clinical responses. E4412 is a phase 1 ECOG-ACRIN sponsored study of the combination of BV and the checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab (IPI) and nivolumab (NIVO) in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Here we report the data on the patients treated with BV + IPI, the first cohort of the study. Methods: Patients with biopsy proven R/R HL were treated with BV 1.8mg/kg and two escalating doses of IPI: 1 mg/kg or 3mg/kg. After safety was determined an expanded cohort was treated with BV 1.8mg/kg IV and IPI 3mg/kg IV. The schedule consisted of BV administered every 21 days for 16 cycles and IPI every 21 days x 4 doses and thereafter every 3 months for up to a year. Dose limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined for purposes of dose escalation within the first cycle of therapy. Patients are followed for toxicity up to 30 days beyond their last treatment. Results: As of 7/2015 19 of 23 planned patients have been treated with BV + IPI. We report the data on the full dose escalation population (13 patients: Dose level 1 (6), Dose level 2 (7)). The median age was 33 years (range: 20-49). Seven patients were male. Patients were heavily pretreated with a median of 4 prior therapies (2-13). Fourpatients had prior treatment with BV; 8 patients had prior SCT (7 autologous, 1 allogeneic). Safety: Overall the regimen of BV + IPI was extremely well tolerated with no DLTs noted during dose escalation. Toxicities considered at least possibly related to drug during any cycle of treatment are shown according to grade in Table 1. The most common treatment related adverse events were: diarrhea, rash, and peripheral sensory neuropathy. Other AEs of interest included: alopecia, transaminitis, and uveitis. Grade 3 and 4 treatment related adverse events (AEs) included: Dose level 1: one grade 3 infusion reaction, which led to a protocol amendment to include premedication, no further grade 3 infusion reactions were noted; Dose level 2: one each: grade 3 rash, vomiting, and peripheral sensory neuropathy, and one grade 4 thrombocytopenia in patient with pre-existing thrombocytopenia. Response: For the 12 evaluable patients, the overall response (ORR) for the combination of BV + IPI was 67% with a complete response (CR) rate of 42% (5 of 12 patients). An additional 2 patients had stable disease (SD) giving a clinical benefit rate of 83%. Three of 5 of the CRs occurred at dose level 1 (1mg dose of IPI). The median progression free survival (PFS) is 0.74 years with a median follow-up of 0.66 years. Conclusion: In this first reported study of the combination of checkpoint inhibitor and ADC, toxicity was low, primarily grades 1 and 2. In a heavily pretreated patient population, 33% of whom had had prior BV and 67% of whom were s/p ASCT, the ORR of 67% and CR rate of 42% suggests a potential deepening of response compared to monotherapy. More than half of these CRs occurred at 1mg of IPI suggesting that in combination with ADC, low doses of immune stimulation may be highly active. Optimization of this combination strategy is planned with ongoing accrual to cohorts receiving BV + NIVO, and BV + IPI + NIVO. Data will be updated to include the full BV + IPI cohort by the time of the annual meeting. Table 1. Common and Immune Toxicities Toxicity Type Dose Level 1 (n=6) Dose Level 2 (n=7) Grade Grade 1,2 3 4 5 1,2 3 4 5 (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) Fatigue 5 - - - 3 - - - Fever 1 - - - 3 - - - Pain 2 - - - 3 - - - Alopecia 2 - - - 1 - - - Pruritus 1 - - - 2 - - - Rash maculo-papular 4 - - - 2 1 - - Diarrhea 4 - - - 4 - - - Dyspepsia 2 - - - 1 - - - Nausea 6 - - - 4 - - - Vomiting 3 - - - 2 1 - - Papulopustular rash 1 - - - 1 - - - Alanine aminotransferase increased 3 - - - 3 - - - Aspartate aminotransferase increased 3 - - - 2 - - - Platelet count decreased - - - - - - 1 - Anorexia 3 - - - - - - - Headache 2 - - - 2 - - - Peripheral sensory neuropathy 5 - - - 4 1 - - Dry eye 2 - - - - - - - Uveitis 1 - - - - - - - Cough 2 - - - 1 - - - Disclosures Diefenbach: Molecular Templates: Research Funding; Immunogen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Idera: Consultancy; Jannsen Oncology: Consultancy; Gilead: Equity Ownership, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Presentation will discuss the experimental use of the checkpoint inhibitor Ipilimumab in relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma.. Cohen:Celgene: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Robertson:Eli Lilly: Equity Ownership. Fenske:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Kahl:Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy; Cell Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Infinity: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy. Ansell:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding.

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.