Armand, Philippe

The aim of the NCCN Guidelines for Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities is to provide guidance on the management of immune-related adverse events resulting from cancer immunotherapy. The NCCN Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities Panel is an interdisciplinary group of representatives from NCCN Member Institutions, consisting of medical and hematologic oncologists with expertise across a wide range of disease sites, and experts from the areas of dermatology, gastroenterology, endocrinology, neurooncology, nephrology, cardio-oncology, ophthalmology, pulmonary medicine, and oncology nursing. The content featured in this issue is an excerpt of the recommendations for managing toxicities related to CAR T-cell therapies and a review of existing evidence. For the full version of the NCCN Guidelines, including recommendations for managing toxicities related to immune checkpoint inhibitors, visitNCCN.org.

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

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

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

Background: With the incorporation of positron emission tomography (PET) imaging as part of the standard staging evaluation of follicular lymphoma (FL), it is generally recommended to obtain the diagnostic biopsy from a lesion with the highest standardized uptake value (SUV) to rule out de novo histologic transformation (HT). In some cases such an approach might be impractical, while in other cases a biopsy from a diseased area with a high SUV may still demonstrate an indolent histology. To date, there is no data to guide treatment choices in patients (pts) with FL with high SUVmax but with no documented evidence of HT. Specifically, it remains unclear whether anthracycline-containing regimens, such as R-CHOP, provide a better outcome than R-Bendamustine (BR). Furthermore, it is unknown whether rituximab (R) maintenance is beneficial in this setting. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy of R-CHOP vs BR in newly diagnosed FL pts with high SUVmax at baseline PET and to clarify the role of maintenance. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively identified 261 consecutive pts with newly diagnosed biopsy-proven FL1-3A and a SUVmax≥13 on baseline PET, who were treated with frontline R-CHOP (n=183) or BR (n=78) at 7 US cancer centers based on the physician's choice. Progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated from starting treatment until progression, relapse or death. Cut-offs of SUVmax ≥13≤18 and SUVmax>18 were used for sub-analysis (Haematologica;2020;105:1907-1913). Results: Median age was 59 years. The baseline characteristics of the two groups differed significantly for a younger age (58 vs 62 years, p=0.009), a higher rate of B-symptoms (26% vs 10%, p=0.005) and baseline SUVmax>18 (49% vs 36%, p=0.04) in the R-CHOP group. A diagnostic biopsy was obtained from the site at the highest SUV in 129 (71%) and 43 (55%) pts, respectively (p=0.01). These suggest a potential selection of R-CHOP in pts with adverse features. At the end of therapy (EoT), R-CHOP treated pts achieved higher PET-CT complete response rates (CR 82% vs 69%, p=0.02). This superiority held in pts with diagnostic biopsy at the highest SUV site (CR 83% vs 67%, p=0.03), but not in the others (CR 80% vs 71%, p=0.37). Progression occurred at EoT in 11 and 14 pts receiving R-CHOP and BR (6% vs 18%, p=0.02), with a higher rate of HT in the BR group (13% vs 4%, p=0.006). After a median follow-up of 76 months (range, 4-208 months), there was no significant difference in PFS between R-CHOP and BR treated pts (hazard ratio [HR] 1.22, p=0.34). PFS was strongly associated with FLIPI 2 (HR 2.32, p=0.01) and 3-5 (HR 2.69, p=0.003) in the univariate as well as in the multivariate analysis (FLIPI 2 HR 2.19, p=0.02; FLIPI 3-5 HR 2.51, p=0.01). There was a trend toward overall survival (OS) benefit in the R-CHOP group (Fig.1A). In the univariate analysis for OS, BR regimen (HR 2.12, p=0.03), age >60 (HR 2.54, p=0.006), FLIPI 3-5 (HR 5.13, p=0.03) and biopsy at the highest SUV site (HR 0.44, p=0.01) were prognostic, however none of those remained significant in the multivariate analysis (BR regimen HR 1.84, p=0.09; age >60 HR 1.92, p=0.08; FLIPI 3-5 HR 3.11, p=0.14; biopsy at the highest SUV site HR 0.60, p=0.13; SUVmax>18 HR 1.87, p=0.055). Among pts with EoT response after R-CHOP or BR (n=170 and n=64, respectively), one third in each group (36% vs 41%, respectively) received R-maintenance for a median of 8 administrations (range, 2-12). A significant PFS advantage (landmark analysis) was observed with R-maintenance (Fig.1B; HR 0.53, p=0.02); however, this did not translate in survival benefit (HR 0.67, p=0.49). In a multivariable model, R-maintenance (HR 0.53, p=0.02), FLIPI 2 (HR 2.47, p=0.03) and 3-5 (HR 2.79, p=0.01) remained independent prognosticators of PFS, while no parameters significantly affected OS. The 2-year HT rate (10% vs 17%) and cumulative incidence did not statistically differ between R-CHOP and BR groups (Fig.1C, p=0.159). Early progression (POD24) occurred in 43 and 22 pts who received R-CHOP and BR, respectively (24% vs 28%) and resulted in a significantly higher risk of death (HR 4.12, p=0.006). Conclusion: In newly diagnosed FL pts with SUVmax≥13 at baseline PET, R-CHOP was more effective in achieving CR and reducing the risk of early HT compared with BR, and it was associated with a trend toward survival advantage. Rituximab maintenance significantly prolonged PFS. A prospective evaluation with a larger population will be needed to confirm our findings. Disclosures Joffe: Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ruella:Abclon, BMS, NanoString: Consultancy; Abclon: Consultancy, Research Funding; UPenn/Novartis: Patents & Royalties. Svoboda:Adaptive: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Imbrium: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG: Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy; Atara: Consultancy. Witzig:Immune Design: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; MorphSys: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Smith:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; FortySeven: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support, Research Funding. Armand:Affimed: Consultancy, Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; IGM: Research Funding; Infinity: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Sigma Tau: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tensha: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Merck & Co., Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Nastoupil:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Gilead/KITE: Honoraria; Gamida Cell: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ansell:Takeda: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding. Zelenetz:Novartis: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy; Sandoz: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding. Younes:BioPath, Xynomic, Epizyme, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy; Janssen, Curis, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Syndax Pharmaceuticals, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Curis (Inst), Johnson & Johnson (Inst), Novartis (Inst): Research Funding; Janssen, AbbVie, Merck, Curis, Epizyme, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Celgene, Incyte, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda Millennium: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Current Employment; MSKCC: Ended employment in the past 24 months.

Abstract Nivolumab, an anti–programmed death-1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibody, showed promising activity in relapsed or refractory (R/R) follicular lymphoma (FL) in a phase 1 study. We conducted a phase 2 trial to further evaluate its efficacy and safety in patients with R/R FL and to explore biomarkers of response. Patients with R/R FL and at least 2 prior lines of therapy, each containing a CD20 antibody or an alkylating agent, were treated with nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) assessed by an independent radiologic review committee. Biomarker analyses included gene expression profiling and multiplex immunofluorescence studies of pretreatment tumor samples. A total of 92 patients were treated. After a minimum follow-up of 12 months, ORR was 4% (4 of 92 patients). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-3.6 months). Median duration of response was 11 months (95% CI, 8-14 months). Exploratory analyses suggested that responders had significantly higher proportion of CD3+ T cells in the tumor microenvironment than nonresponders, but no significant differences in PD-1 or programmed death-ligand 1 expression were observed. High expression of a set of tumor-associated macrophage genes was associated with reduced PFS (hazard ratio, 3.28; 95% CI, 1.76-6.11; P = .001). The safety profile was consistent with previous reports of nivolumab. In conclusion, nivolumab monotherapy was associated with very limited activity in patients with R/R FL. Better understanding of the immune biology of this disease may facilitate the development of effective checkpoint-based strategies. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02038946.

Abstract In relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R HL), immunotherapies such as the anti-programmed death-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab have demonstrated efficacy as monotherapy and are playing an increasingly prominent role in treatment. The CD30/CD16A-bispecific antibody AFM13 is an innate immune cell engager, a first-in-class, tetravalent antibody, designed to create a bridge between CD30 on HL cells and the CD16A receptor on natural killer cells and macrophages, to induce tumor cell killing. Early studies of AFM13 have demonstrated signs of efficacy as monotherapy for patients with R/R HL and the combination of AFM13 with pembrolizumab represents a rational new treatment modality. Here, we describe a phase 1b, dose-escalation study to assess the safety and preliminary efficacy of AFM13 in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with R/R HL. The primary objective was estimating the maximum tolerated dose; the secondary objectives were to assess safety, tolerability, antitumor efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics. In this heavily pretreated patient population, treatment with the combination of AFM13 and pembrolizumab was generally well tolerated, with similar safety profiles compared to the known profiles of each agent alone. The combination of AFM13 with pembrolizumab demonstrated an objective response rate of 88% at the highest treatment dose, with an 83% overall response rate for the overall population. Pharmacokinetic assessment of AFM13 in the combination setting revealed a half-life of up to 20.6 hours. This proof-of-concept study holds promise as a novel immunotherapy combination worthy of further investigation. This phase 1b study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02665650.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) provide recommendations for the management of adult patients with HL. The NCCN panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant data, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. Current management of classic HL involves initial treatment with chemotherapy alone or combined modality therapy followed by restaging with PET/CT to assess treatment response. Overall, the introduction of less toxic and more effective regimens has significantly advanced HL cure rates. This portion of the NCCN Guidelines focuses on the management of classic HL.

TPS3113 Background: Programmed death-1 (PD-1) is an immune checkpoint receptor that inhibits T-cell activation upon interaction with its ligands PD-L1 or PD-L2. Increased PD-L1 expression has been reported with various hematologic malignancies and may prevent the host immune response from exerting an antitumor effect on the malignant cells. Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 monoclonal PD-1 receptor blocking antibody, has demonstrated antitumor activity in pts with solid tumors including melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, and non-small cell lung carcinoma. We hypothesized that nivolumab could also mediate antitumor activity in pts with hematologic malignancies, a significant area of unmet medical need. We describe a phase I study to evaluate the effects of nivolumab in pts with select hematologic malignancies. Methods: This open-label, two-part study will enroll approximately 100 pts. During dose escalation, successive cohorts of pts with relapsed or refractory hematologic malignancies will be treated using a 6+3 escalation design. Pts will receive 1 or 3 mg/kg nivolumab IV every 2 weeks (wks) (the first dose will be followed by a 3-wk evaluation period), for 2 years, with the potential for an additional year of therapy for pts who progress during the follow-up period. Subsequently, 5 tumor-specific cohorts of 16 pts will be enrolled at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) for multiple myeloma, B-cell lymphoma, T-cell lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma/primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, and chronic myelogenous leukemia. Response will be assessed at wks 4, 8, 16, 24, and every 16 wks thereafter. The primary study objective is to establish dose limiting toxicities, the MTD, and the recommended phase II nivolumab dose. Secondary objectives are to characterize nivolumab pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, preliminary antitumor activity, and the potential association between PD-L1 expression on tumor cells and clinical efficacy. Exploratory objectives include investigation of the immunoregulatory effects of nivolumab in peripheral blood, bone marrow, and/or tumor. Pts are currently being enrolled at 3 mg/kg. Clinical trial information: NCT01592370.