Fenske, Timothy S.

SummaryThere have been no large studies comparing reduced‐intensity/non‐myeloablative conditioning (RIC/NMA) to myeloablative conditioning (MAC) regimens in T‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (T‐NHL) patients undergoing allogeneic transplant (allo‐HCT). A total of 803 adults with peripheral T‐cell lymphoma, anaplastic large cell lymphoma and angioimmunoblastic T‐cell lymphoma (age 18–65 years), undergoing allo‐HCT between 2008–2019 and reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research with either MAC (n = 258) or RIC/NMA regimens (n = 545) were evaluated. There were no significant differences between the two cohorts in terms of patient sex, race and performance scores. Significantly more patients in the RIC/NMA cohort had peripheral blood grafts, haematopoietic cell transplantation‐specific comorbidity index (HCT‐CI) of ≥3 and chemosensitive disease compared to the MAC cohort. On multivariate analysis, overall survival (OS) was not significantly different in the RIC/NMA cohort compared to the MAC cohort (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.79–1.29; p = 0.95). Similarly, non‐relapse mortality (NRM) (HR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.61–1.19; p = 0.34), risk of progression/relapse (HR = 1.29; 95% CI = 0.98–1.70; p = 0.07) and therapy failure (HR = 1.14; 95% CI = 0.92–1.41, p = 0.23) were not significantly different between the two cohorts. Relative to MAC, RIC/NMA was associated with a significantly lower risk of grade 3–4 acute graft‐versus‐host disease (HR = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.46–0.99, p = 0.04). Among chemorefractory patients, there was no difference in OS, therapy failure, relapse, or NRM between RIC/NMA and MAC regimens. In conclusion, we found no association between conditioning intensity and outcomes after allo‐HCT for T‐cell NHL.

Abstract BACKGROUND: E4402 was a randomized phase III study comparing two different rituximab dosing strategies for patients with previously untreated, low tumor burden follicular lymphoma (FL). The primary endpoint was time to treatment failure. The initial publication (Kahl, JCO 2014) demonstrated that a retreatment strategy utilized less drug and produced comparable time to treatment failure compared to a maintenance strategy. Here we provide long term follow up results, focusing on response duration, time to first cytotoxic therapy, overall survival, and risk of histologic transformation. METHODS: Eligible patients had untreated, low tumor burden (GELF criteria) FL. Patients received R 375 mg/m 2 weekly x 4 and responders were randomized to maintenance rituximab (MR) (single dose R q 3 months) or retreatment rituximab (RR) (R weekly x 4 doses at disease progression). Each strategy was continued until treatment failure. The primary endpoint, time to treatment failure, was defined as progression within 6 months of last R, no response to R retreatment, initiation of alternative therapy, or inability to complete protocol therapy. Secondary endpoints included time to first cytotoxic therapy, quality of life and safety. The ECOG Data Monitoring Committee recommended release of study results at a planned interim analysis in September 2011 and patients and providers were notified of results. Time to treatment failure data collection halted with release of the results but limited data collection on time to first cytotoxic therapy, response duration, and risk of histologic transformation continued. INITITIAL RESULTS: From 11/03 to 9/08, 384 patients with FL were enrolled. Complete or partial response was achieved in 289 patients (71%), who were then randomized to MR (n=146) or RR (n=143). Demographic features were similar in the two arms: median age 59 years; ECOG PS 0-1 in all patients, and FLIPI low-risk (14.9 vs. 16.4%), intermediate-risk (46.3 vs. 42.9%) and high-risk (38.8 vs. 40.7%) for MR vs. RR, respectively. At initial publication, with a median follow-up of 3.8 years, the time to treatment failure was 3.9 years for MR vs. 3.6 years for RR (p=NS). LONG TERM FOLLOW UP RESULTS: Immunoglobulin levels and risks for serious infections/late complications in MR patients will be updated at the annual meeting. For the endpoint of time to first cytotoxic therapy, the median follow up is 8.7 years. At 7 years, 83% of MR and 63% of RR remained free from first cytotoxic therapy (HR 2.37; 95% CI 1.50 - 3.76) [Figure 1]. For the endpoint of response duration, the median follow up is 12.1 years. At 10 years, 66% of the MR patients remained in their 1 st remission compared to 30% of the RR patients who remained in their 1 st remission [Figure 2]. The median response duration for RR patients receiving a single 4-week course of rituximab was 3.25 years. There was no difference in the overall survival at 10 years, 84% for MR vs. 83% for RR. There was a trend towards a lower risk of histologic transformation for patients receiving MR (n = 4) compared to RR (n = 11) (p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: With long term follow up, the RESORT data indicates that in previously untreated, low tumor burden, follicular lymphoma, MR was superior to RR for delaying time to first cytotoxic therapy and for response duration, with a trend towards reducing the risk of histologic transformation. MR did not improve the overall survival. The original publication concluded that the time to treatment failure is similar between the two dosing strategies. Due to study design, time to treatment failure could not be analyzed in this long term follow up analysis. Compared to the historical benchmark of 3 years median time to first cytotoxic therapy when watch and wait is utilized, single agent rituximab, administered by either dosing strategy, was highly effective at delaying the time to first cytotoxic therapy. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kahl: AbbVie, Adaptive, ADCT, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Incyte, Janssen, Karyopharm, Kite, MEI, Pharmacyclics, Roche, TG Therapeutics, and Teva: Consultancy; AbbVie, Acerta, ADCT, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech: Research Funding. Habermann: Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Schuster: Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; Genetech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Juno Theraputics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Pharmaclcyclics: Research Funding; Tessa Theraputics: Consultancy; TG Theraputics: Research Funding. Fenske: TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Servier Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Kite (Gilead): Speakers Bureau; KaryoPharm: Consultancy; CSL Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Biogen: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy.

Abstract Background Primary bone diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a variant of extranodal non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) that is relatively rare, accounting for 3-15% of extranodal NHL and less than 1% of all NHL. Patients often present with pain and swelling or pathologic fracture of the affected area of the skeleton, and B symptoms are often less prevalent. Many cases are limited stage at presentation. Patients are usually treated with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) or similar induction therapy. Based on older studies showing improved outcomes associated with the addition of radiation (many completed prior to the rituximab era), patients often still receive combined-modality therapy today. However, it remains unknown whether consolidative radiation therapy (RT) confers additional benefit following rituximab-based chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) induction. We sought to address this question in a multicenter retrospective study. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of outcomes in a modern cohort of patients who underwent treatment for primary bone DLBCL using chemotherapy regimens in the rituximab era either with or without consolidative RT. Data was collected from 13 academic medical centers in the U.S., with patients treated between 2005 and 2019. Patients were identified using each institution's hematologic malignancy registries. Analysis was limited to patients with primary bone DLBCL, with stage I-II disease (primary site +/- locoregional lymph nodes) that could be encompassed in a radiation field. Patients who received CIT alone or CIT followed by RT were included. Treatment selection was at the treating physician's discretion. Electronic medical records were reviewed for: demographics, chemotherapy regimens, radiation treatments, and PET scan data. Local IRB approval was obtained at sites. All data was distributed in a de-identified fashion. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), and relapse-free survival (RFS). Secondary outcomes included: response after induction CIT induction and the need for additional therapies. Chi-square test analysis was used to compare categorical variables and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for continuous and ordinal measures. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between groups via the log-rank test. Multi-variable analysis (MVA) for OS and RFS was performed using RT vs no RT, PET status post CIT (negative vs positive) and rituximab in induction (Y/N) as variables. Results A total of 127 patients were included: 91 who received CIT and radiation (RT group), and 36 who received CIT alone (no RT group). The median age of patients at diagnosis in the RT group and no RT group was 58.5 and 57.0, respectively. For CIT, the majority of patients received R-CHOP (84%). Despite focusing on 2005-2019, a small percentage of patients (5 - 14%) in each group (RT and no RT) did not receive rituximab with their induction therapy. The OS at 10 years was 74.5% in the RT group and 86.5% in the no RT group (p = 0.29). The RFS at 10 years was 70.9% in the RT group and 78.2% in the no RT group (p = 0.85). Among the 91 patients who received RT, 67 (77.0%) received a dose of 36 Gy or higher. There was no difference in OS (p = 0.63) or RFS (p = 0.90) in patients who received > 36 Gy vs < 36 Gy of radiation. On MVA for OS, RT was not associated with improved OS, although rituximab as part of induction was (p = 0.048). On MVA for RFS, neither RT nor rituximab were associated with improved RFS. For rituximab the trend was in the direction of rituximab benefit (p = 0.11). Conclusion Our results demonstrate that, in the rituximab era, patients with limited stage primary bone DLBCL have excellent outcomes overall. In this study, neither RFS or OS appeared to be improved with the addition of consolidative RT. Rituximab, however, was associated with improved OS on MVA. Outcomes do not appear to differ based on the dose of RT (> 36 Gy vs < 36 Gy). Our data suggests that RT may have less benefit for primary bone DLBCL in the rituximab era, although it is possible that a subset of patients may benefit from consolidative radiation therapy. A larger data set would likely be needed to evaluate this. We plan to present data regarding PET responses at the meeting. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Lunning: Acrotech: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb Co.: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Cashen: Secura Bio, ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Bartlett: Autolus: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seagen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Caimi: XaTek: Patents & Royalties: Royalties from patents (wife); Amgen Therapeutics.: Consultancy; ADC Theraputics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Rodgers: MJH Lifesciences: Consultancy. Barr: Morphosys: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Epperla: Verastem: Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Other: Ad Board; Genzyme: Honoraria. Hill: AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gentenech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte/Morphysis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Karmali: BMS/Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; EUSA: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Portell: Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Aptitude Health: Honoraria; Morphosys: Honoraria; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; SeaGen: Research Funding; BeiGene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Kite: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; VelosBio: Research Funding. Fenske: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Servier Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; KaryoPharm: Consultancy; CSL Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Biogen: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kite (Gilead): Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy.

AbstractIntroductionWhile most patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) receive therapy shortly after diagnosis, a subset of patients with indolent‐behaving disease can safely defer treatment. In this subgroup, we evaluated the importance of treatment intensity in patients with MCL who defer initial therapy.MethodsOut of 1134 patients with MCL from 12 academic centers, we analyzed 219 patients who initiated therapy at least 90 days after diagnosis. Patients who received induction with high‐dose cytarabine and/or autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in first remission were considered to have received intensive therapy (n = 88) while all other approaches were non‐intensive (n = 131).ResultsThere was no difference in progression‐free (PFS; P = .224) or overall survival (OS; P = .167) in deferred patients who received non‐intensive vs. intensive therapy. Additionally, univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were performed for PFS and OS. Treatment at an academic center (HR 0.43, P = .015) was associated with improved OS in both univariate and multivariate models, while intensity of treatment was not associated with improved OS in either model.ConclusionsThese results indicate that intensified initial treatment is not associated with improved survival after deferring initial therapy, although prospective studies are needed to determine which of these patients with MCL may benefit from intensive therapy.

Introduction: Interleukin-1 receptor-associated kinase 4 (IRAK4) is essential for toll-like receptor (TLR) and interleukin-1 receptor (IL-1R) signaling in immune cells including B lymphocytes. It forms the Myddosome complex with the MYD88 adaptor protein, with IRAK4 being essential for downstream signaling, maximal activation of NFkB with inflammatory and immune response and tumor promotion [Treon 2012; Rhyasen 2015]. CA-4948 is a novel small molecule, oral inhibitor of IRAK4, first-in-class and only suppressor of the TLR pathway currently tested in hematological malignancies. When combined with the BTK inhibitor ibrutinib that blocks parallel BCR signaling and NF-kB activating pathway, it has shown synergy in in-vivo B-cell NHL models, providing strong rationale for clinical evaluation [Booher 2018]. Recent preclinical studies demonstrated the role of IRAK4 activation as a driver of secondary, adaptive tumor resistance and survival mechanisms of hematological and solid tumor malignancies [Melgar 2019] that could be blocked by CA-4948 to delay or reverse resistance. Study Design and Methods: This is a multicenter, open-label trial of oral CA-4948 combined with ibrutinib in adult patients with relapsed or refractory hematologic malignancies. (NCT03328078). It has 2 parts: a dose escalation (Part A2), and expansion basket of 4 cohorts (Part B). Part A2: Is a truncated 3+3 design: CA-4948 starting is 200 mg BID with subsequent escalation to 300 mg BID. Both dose are safe and active against NHL as seen in the nearly completed monotherapy Part A1 of this trial Patients will receive CA-4948 with ibrutinib at the labeled dose for the respective NHL subtype (560 mg or 420 mg) until toxicity or progression. Primary objectives are safety/tolerance (MTD, RP2D); 2nd objectives are pharmacokinetics and preliminary efficacy; exploratory objectives include biomarker correlations (e.g., MYD88-L265P mut, IRAK4 pathway, NFκB inhibition). Part B basket has four cohorts: 1 -MZL, 2 - ABC-DLBCL, 3 - PCNSL, and 4 - NHL with adaptive ibrutinib resistance. Cohorts 1-3 must be BTK-inhibitor naïve. Cohort 4 includes ibrutinib treated NHLs after developing adaptive, secondary resistance. All will receive the combination of ibrutinib and CA-4948. Cohort 4 patients will be allowed a <3 weeks gap since prior ibrutinib therapy. Primary objectives include CR or ORR and DOR compared to (matched) historical controls (closely matched if possible). 2nd objectives include tolerance/safety, PFS, and pop-PK sampling for CA-4948. Exploratory objectives; response correlation with biomarkers including MYD88-L265P or other genetic mutations, gene expressions, cell of origin, IRAK4 signaling, and resistance. Treatment: CA-4948 at RP2D+ibrubinib at labelled doses; 21-day cycles to be repeated in the absence of toxicity or progression. Samples sizes, statistical considerations: Approx. 18 patients in Part A2. In Part B, a Simon 2-Step design will be applied to each cohort. Early stopping rule for futility after approx. 20 patients in Stage 1: full accrual with Stage 2 will add about 25 patients. Successful signal efficacy identification in a cohort may support further expansion or a subsequent controlled trial. The safety population will include all patients in the study who received any test dose. The efficacy population will have a valid baseline and post-baseline disease assessment. Safety assessments include TEAEs, safety labs, vitals, physical exams, PK, and ECGs; efficacy assessments: tumor imaging, para-protein determination, and histo/cyto-morphologic examinations. Part A2 inclusion: Histopathologically confirmed B-cell NHL as per the WHO 2016 classification. Eligible NHL subtypes: FL, MZL, MCL, DLBCL (including extranodal lymphomas of leg, testicle, or other sites, excluding mediastinal lymphoma), CLL/SLL, primary or secondary CNS lymphoma, and WM/LPL. Patients with FL, MCL, MZL, WM/LPL, or CLL/SLL should meet clinical treatment criteria. Part B inclusion: Cohorts 1-3 include patients with MZL, ABC-DLBCL, or PCNSL who are BTK-inhibitor naïve. Cohort 4 will include ibrutinib pre-treated MCL, MZL, CLL/SLL, WM/LPL, ABC-DLBCL, or PCNSL with adaptive resistance. Exclusions for both Parts A2 and B: Significant acute or chronic toxicity from prior anti-cancer therapy that has not resolved to Grade ≤ 1, as determined by NCI CTCAE v 4.03 within 7 days prior to start of study or serious co-morbidities. Disclosures Nowakowski: NanoString: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Leslie:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; KitePharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC therapeutics: 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. Joffe:AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lunning:Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acrotech: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Curis: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Aeratech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria. Patel:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Landsburg:Takeda: Research Funding; Triphase: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Curis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fenske:Medical College of Wisconsin: Current Employment. Ramchandren:Merck, Seattle Genetics, Janssen, Genentech: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Sandoz-Novartis, Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Skarbnik:Alexion: Consultancy; Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Speakers Bureau; CLL Society: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Tun:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acrotech: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding.

SummaryReduced‐intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplantation (allo‐HCT) is a curative option for select relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients; however, there are sparse data to support superiority of any particular conditioning regimen. We analyzed 492 adult patients undergoing human leucocyte antigen (HLA)‐matched sibling or unrelated donor allo‐HCT for HL between 2008 and 2016, utilizing RIC with either fludarabine/busulfan (Flu/Bu), fludarabine/melphalan (Flu/Mel140) or fludarabine/cyclophosphamide (Flu/Cy). Multivariable regression analysis was performed using a significance level of <0·01. There were no significant differences between regimens in risk for non‐relapse mortality (NRM) (P = 0·54), relapse/progression (P = 0·02) or progression‐free survival (PFS) (P = 0·14). Flu/Cy conditioning was associated with decreased risk of mortality in the first 11 months after allo‐HCT (HR = 0·28; 95% CI = 0·10–0·73; P = 0·009), but beyond 11 months post allo‐HCT it was associated with a significantly higher risk of mortality, (HR = 2·46; 95% CI = 0·1.32–4·61; P = 0·005). Four‐year adjusted overall survival (OS) was similar across regimens at 62% for Flu/Bu, 59% for Flu/Mel140 and 55% for Flu/Cy (P = 0·64), respectively. These data confirm the choice of RIC for allo‐HCT in HL does not influence risk of relapse, NRM or PFS. Although no OS benefit was seen between Flu/Bu and Flu/Mel 140; Flu/Cy was associated with a significantly higher risk of mortality beyond 11 months from allo‐HCT (possibly due to late NRM events).

Introduction: Rituximab-based high-dose therapy (HDT) is frequently prescribed to DLBCL patients (pts) undergoing auto-HCT. However data supporting the benefit of adding R to auto-HCT conditioning are not available. Herein, we report the impact of R-based conditioning on auto-HCT outcomes of DLBCL pts. Methods: Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research registry, 862 adult (≥18 years) DLBCL pts undergoing auto-HCT, between 2003-2017 were included. Analysis was limited to pts receiving BEAM (BCNU, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan)-based HDT, as R was infrequently used with non-BEAM conditioning regimens. All pts received R-containing chemoimmunotherapy in the frontline setting and had chemosensitive disease prior to HCT. Early chemoimmunotherapy failure (ECitF) was defined as not achieving a complete remission (CR) after frontline chemoimmunotherapy or relapsing within 1 year of initial diagnosis. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse, progression-free survival (PFS) and infectious complications within 100 days post-HCT. Results: The study cohort was divided into 2 groups; BEAM (n=667) and R-BEAM (n=195). The baseline characteristics of the 2 cohorts were comparable including age at auto-HCT, disease stage, Karnofsky performance score, extranodal involvement, time from diagnosis to auto-HCT, number of prior therapies, remission status, and ECitF. However, significantly more R-BEAM cohort patients received R as part of last therapy line before auto-HCT (75% vs. 86%; P=0.001). Median follow-up of survivors was 48 (range 1-171) and 64 (range 3-142) months in the BEAM and R-BEAM cohorts, respectively. On univariate analysis, the 4 year cumulative incidence of relapse (41% vs 44%), NRM (11% vs 9%), PFS (48% vs 47%; Figure 1) and OS (58% vs 61%; Figure 2) were similar in the R-BEAM and BEAM groups, respectively (Table 1). On multivariate analysis, no significant difference was seen in OS (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.81-1.31; P=0.83) or PFS (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.76-1.18; P=0.61) (Table 1) between the two cohorts. Addition of R had no impact on risk of relapse (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.65-1.07; P=0.15) or NRM (HR 1.43; 95% CI 0.909-2.26; P=0.12). Variables independently associated with lower OS included older age (HR 3.05; 95% CI 1.81-5.13; P&lt;0.001), not being in CR at auto-HCT (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.39-2.07; P&lt;0.001) and presence of ECitF (HR 1.52, 95% CI 0.54-3.26; P&lt;0.001). Older age (HR 2.26, 95% CI 1.48-3.45; P&lt;0.0002) and not being in CR at auto-HCT (HR 1.78, CI 1.47-2.14; P&lt;0.0001) were also associated with inferior PFS. There was no significant difference in the 100-day cumulative incidence of bacterial, viral or fungal infections between the two cohorts. Disease relapse was the main cause of death in both BEAM and R-BEAM cohorts (66% vs 55%). Conclusion: In this large registry analysis of DLBCL pts undergoing auto-HCT, adding R to BEAM conditioning had no impact on transplantation outcomes. Older age, absence of CR and ECitF were associated with inferior survival. Disclosures Majhail: Mallinckrodt: Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy; Nkarta: Consultancy; Anthem, Inc.: Consultancy; Atara Bio: Consultancy. Sureda:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support; Gilead: Honoraria; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kharfan-Dabaja:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Hamadani:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Otsuka: Research Funding; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Introduction: Reduced-intensity and non-myeloablative (RIC/NMA) conditioning regimens are frequently used in alloHCT for NHL, because they are associated with decreased non-relapse mortality (NRM) risk in comparison with myeloablative conditioning regimens and allow older patients and patients with comorbidities to receive alloHCT. However, the optimal RIC/NMA regimen in allo-HCT for NHL is not known. Using the CIBMTR database we compared the transplant outcomes between the commonly used RIC/NMA regimens in NHL. Methods: 1823 adult (≥18 years) NHL patients in CIBMTR registry undergoing alloHCT using matched related or unrelated donors, between 2008-2016 were included. Analysis was limited to patients receiving four commonly used RIC/NMA regimens: fludarabine/ i.v. busulfan (6.4mg/kg) (Flu/Bu), fludarabine/melphalan (140mg/m^2) (Flu/Mel 140), fludarabine/cyclophosphamide (Fly/Cy) and Flu/Cy with 2Gy Total Body Irradiation (Flu/Cy/TBI). Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis was limited to calcineurin inhibitor-based regimens. Patients who received post transplantation cyclophosphamide for GVHD prophylaxis were excluded. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included cumulative incidence of NRM, relapse, progression-free survival (PFS) and cumulative incidence of acute and chronic GVHD. Probabilities of OS and PFS were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Multivariable regression analysis was performed for GVHD, relapse/progression, NRM, PFS, and OS. Covariates with a p&lt;0.01 were considered significant. Results: The study cohort was divided into 4 groups; Flu/Bu (n=458), Flu/Cy/TBI (n=89), Flu/Mel 140 (n=885) and Flu/Cy (n=391). The baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. The 4 cohorts were comparable with respect to median patient age, gender, donor type, remission status at alloHCT, and use of prior auto HCT. There was no interaction between NHL histological subtype and type of conditioning regimen. Results of multivariate analysis are shown in Table 2. The Flu/Mel 140 regimen was associated with a higher NRM (HR 1.78, 95% CI 1.37-2.31; p&lt;0.001) when compared to Flu/Bu. Although the risk of relapse with Flu/Mel 140 was lower when compared to Flu/Bu (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66-0.94); p=0.007), this did not result in an improvement in PFS. Moreover, the Flu/Mel 140 cohort had an inferior OS (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.13-1.59; p&lt;0.001) when compared to Flu/Bu. There was no significant difference in terms of OS, PFS, relapse and NRM between Flu/Bu, Flu/Cy and Flu/Cy/TBI. There was no difference in risk of grade 3-4 acute GVHD across the four cohorts and compared to Flu/Cy/TBI, Flu/Mel 140 had a higher risk of chronic GVHD (HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.15-1.65; p&lt;0.001). Four year adjusted PFS was 38% for Flu/Bu, 51% for Flu/Cy/TBI, 39% for Flu/Mel 140 and 35% for Flu/Cy (p=0.07). Four year adjusted OS was 58% for Flu/Bu, 67% for Flu/Cy/TBI, 49% for Flu/Mel 140 and 63% for Flu/Cy (p&lt;0.001). Disease relapse was the most common cause of death across all 4 cohorts. Conclusion: This is the largest analysis comparing the impact of various RIC/NMA conditioning regimens on the outcomes of NHL patients undergoing alloHCT. We report that the choice of RIC/NMA conditioning regimen significantly impacted OS. The most commonly used conditioning regimen, Flu/Mel 140 was associated with a higher NRM and an inferior OS. The Flu/Bu, Flu/Cy, and Flu/CY/TBI conditioning regimens appear to provide comparable OS. Disclosures Ghosh: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; SGN: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Forty Seven Inc: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kharfan-Dabaja:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy. Sureda:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support; Novartis: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Hamadani:Merck: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Otsuka: Research Funding; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.