Advani, Ranjana H

Abstract Background: There remains a critical need to identify untreated HR FL patients (pts) who are at increased risk of early progression and death with conventional treatment. Data examining baseline PET has been reported to be prognostic in FL, however, there remains a paucity of data analyzing this in the context of bendamustine/rituximab (BR) induction followed by maintenance rituximab (MR). We examined the prognostic impact of baseline PET metabolic imaging from the randomized BIONIC study for pts with untreated HR FL. Methods: The BIONIC study conducted by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group enrolled untreated grade I/II or IIIa FL pts with HR disease defined as GELF high tumor burden and/or FLIPI score of 3-5. Pts were randomized to: a) standard BR induction x 6 followed by maintenance rituximab (MR) q 2 months x 2 years vs b) bortezomib + BR x 6 followed by MR q 2 months x 2 years vs c) BR x 6 followed by q 2 months MR x 2 years + lenalidomide given concurrently with the first year of MR. Survival analyses showed no significant differences in 4-year progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) for any study arm (Evens AM et al, ASH 2017). All pts were thus pooled for the purpose of analyzing baseline PET imaging and other characteristics and for correlation with clinical outcomes. Kruskal-Wallis & Wilcoxon Rank Sum test were used to assess differences in distribution of: metabolic measurements (SUVmax and SUVmean of the dominant mass (i.e., the mass/lesion with the highest SUV uptake); metabolic tumor volume (MTV); and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) by categorical variables); induction treatment response; and end-of-induction (EOI) PET response vis-à-vis Deauville scoring (1-3 = negative). Cox proportional hazards regression was used to correlate these metabolic measurements with PFS & OS and multivariable analyses were conducted. An optimal cutoff threshold (grouping into 'High' or 'Low' categories) was used for the metabolic measurements that were significantly associated with PFS & OS. Results: Metabolic data were received and measurements were analyzed centrally on 182 (71%) of 257 eligible pts. The EOI overall response rate (ORR) for all pts on study was 92% with a complete remission (CR) rate of 73%. Additionally, 12% of pts experienced early progression of disease (POD) within 2 years. SUVmax was borderline for association with PFS (P=0.06) and MTV and TLG were not associated with PFS or OS. We demonstrated a statistically significant linear relationship between continuous SUVmean score with PFS and OS, and thereafter, used the minimum p-vlaue approach to determine the optimal cutoff threshold of 7.03 to group pts into 'High' and 'Low' risk groups; with this threshold, baseline SUVmean of the dominant mass was categorized as high risk in 27% pts. The 4-year PFS rates for SUVmean low vs high groups were 80% (95% CI 72, 90%) vs 55% (40, 74%), respectively, P<0.001; and the corresponding 4-year OS rates were 93% (89, 98)% vs 80% (95% CI 69, 93%), respectively, P=0.01 (see Fig. 1). Sensitivity analyses showed no differences in baseline SUVmean by study arm, GELF or FLIPI. The only clinical characteristic that varied among patients with low vs high baseline SUVmean was Black race (0.8 vs 8.0%, respectively, Chi-square P=0.08); there were no other differences based on age, sex, stage, FLIPI, GELF status, ECOG PS, LDH, or # of extranodal sites. In addition, baseline SUVmean correlated with EOI PET (negative EOI PET with baseline SUVmean Low vs High: 81% vs 62%, respectively, P=0.03). In multivariable analyses, both baseline SUVmean and EOI PET remained significant (SUVmean: PFS HR 2.62 (95% CI 1.40-4.92), P=0.001, OS HR 2.37 (95% CI 1.01-5.56), P=0.02; EOI PET PFS HR 4.70 (95% CI 2.74-9.54), P<0.001, OS HR 2.78 (95% CI 1.18-6.56), P=0.01). Finally, baseline SUVmean was also strongly predictive of FL pts who experienced early 2-year POD (Chi-square P<0.001). Conclusions: High baseline SUVmean of the dominant mass was a strong independent prognostic factor for survival for untreated HR FL pts treated with BR-based induction with rituximab maintenance and significance was independent of FLIP or GELF criteria. Collectively, this represents a novel and simple method to identify FL pts at increased risk of early POD and poor survival with standard therapy. Continued investigation of combined PET imaging analyses and other correlative studies to enrich prognostication are warranted. Disclosures Hong: Merck: Consultancy. Advani:Bristol Myers Squibb: Other: Consultancy/Advisory role and Institutional Research Support; Kyowa: Other: Consulting/Advisory Role; Infinity: Other: Institutional Research Support; Pharmacyclics: Other: Institutional Research Support; Seattle Genetics: Other: Consultancy/Advisory role, Institutional Research Support; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Institutional Research Support; Millenium: Other: Institutional Research Support; Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Autolus: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Takeda: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Celgene: Other: Institutional Research Support; Roche/Genentech: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role, Institutional Research Support; AstraZeneca: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Cell Medica: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Gilead/Kite: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Agensys: Other: Institutional Research Support; Kura: Other: Institutional Research Support; Forty Seven, Inc: Other: Institutional Research Support; Merck: Other: Institutional Research Support; Janssen Pharmaceutical: Other: Institutional Research Support. Gascoyne:NanoString: Patents & Royalties: Named Inventor on a patent licensed to NanoString Technologies. Witzig:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kahl:Acerta: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Evens:Affimed: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Tesaro: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics International DMC: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy.

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

Diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCLs) and follicular lymphoma (FL) are the most common subtypes of B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas in adults. Histologic transformation of FL to DLBCL (TFL) occurs in approximately 15% of patients and is generally associated with a poor clinical outcome. Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitors have shown promising results in the treatment of relapsed/refractory FL. CAR T-cell therapy (axicabtagene ciloleucel and tisagenlecleucel) has emerged as a novel treatment option for relapsed/refractory DLBCL and TFL. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight important updates to the NCCN Guidelines for B-Cell Lymphomas regarding the treatment of TFL and relapsed/refractory FL and DLBCL.

6511 Background: Conventional adverse event (AE) analysis (ToxC) focuses on incidence of grade (gr) 3+ toxicities, and fails to capture AE time profile. Novel metrics that reflect chronic low gr and overall AE burden are needed. We applied the Toxicity over Time (ToxT) approach to ECOG-ACRIN 2408 to depict time-dependent toxicity of lenalidomide (L) with rituximab maintenance (MR) in follicular lymphoma (FL), and we developed a novel summary metric of symptomatic AE burden, the maximum gr over time (MGOT). Methods: In E2408, high risk FL patients (pts) were randomized (1:2:2) to: A) bendamustine-rituxumab (BR) x 6 then MR x 2 years (yrs) vs B) BR-bortezomib x 6 then MR x 2 yrs vs C) BR x 6 then MR x 2 yrs + L x 1 yr (MRL). Analysis included 3 laboratory and 5 symptomatic AEs of highest incidence during maintenance on arms A and C. Treatment-related AEs of any gr were analyzed by ToxC and ToxT. Repeated measures, time-to-event (TTE) and area under the curve (AUC) analyses capture trends over time in ToxT. MGOT combines the 5 symptomatic AEs. Results: 104 randomized pts (30 MR, 74 MRL) were included. For the laboratory AEs, by ToxC, neutropenia incidence was significantly higher in MRL (84%) than MR (47%, p < .001). ToxT additionally shows neutropenia does not worsen over time (10/14/20% gr 1/2/3+ at c1, 6/21/12% gr 1/2/3+ at c12). For the symptomatic AEs, ToxC indicates 2% gr 3+ GI AEs. However, gr 1-2 GI AEs are more common on MRL (59%) than MR (26%, p < .001). ToxT AUC captures a higher burden of GI AEs over time on MRL(2.8) vs MR(1.4, p = .002). TTE depicts sooner GI AE onset in MRL (10% vs 0% gr 2+ GI by day 50, p = 0.03). Bar charts of incidence and grade by cycle illustrate this improves over time (34/7/4% gr 1/2/3+ at c1, 13/0/0% gr 1/2/3+ at c12). ToxT MGOT analyses demonstrate earlier time to gr 2+ symptomatic AE on MRL vs MR (63% vs 31% by day 50, p < .001) and suggest that overall AE burden over time is higher for patients on MRL(AUC 18.2) than MR(11.8, p < .001). Conclusions: ToxT depicts AE time profile and can guide AE interventions. Summary metrics suggest that symptomatic AEs occur earlier and their burden over time is higher on MRL. We are implementing ToxT in patient-reported AE data to better characterize pt tolerability.

Abstract Purpose: To evaluate safety and efficacy outcomes for subjects on the ECHELON-1 study treated in North America (NA). Patients and Methods: ECHELON-1 is a global, open-label, randomized phase III study comparing doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine in combination with brentuximab vedotin (A+AVD) versus ABVD (AVD + bleomycin) as first-line therapy in subjects with stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL; NCT01712490). Subjects were randomized 1:1 to receive A+AVD or ABVD intravenously on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle for up to 6 cycles. Results: The NA subgroup consisted of 497 subjects in the A+AVD (n = 250) and ABVD (n = 247) arms. Similar to the primary analysis based on the intent-to-treat population, the primary endpoint [modified progression-free survival (PFS) per independent review] demonstrated an improvement among subjects who received A+AVD compared with ABVD (HR = 0.60; P = 0.012). For PFS, the risk of progression or death was also reduced (HR = 0.50; P = 0.002). Subsequent anticancer therapies were lower in the A+AVD arm. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs) were more common, but there were fewer study discontinuations due to AEs in the A+AVD arm as compared with ABVD. Noted differences between arms included higher rates of febrile neutropenia (20% vs. 9%) and peripheral neuropathy (80% vs. 56%), but lower rates of pulmonary toxicity (3% vs. 10%) in subjects treated with A+AVD versus ABVD. Conclusions: The efficacy benefit and manageable toxicity profile observed in the NA subgroup of ECHELON-1 support A+AVD as a frontline treatment option for patients with stage III or IV cHL.

Key PointsThe outpatient BV and bendamustine regimen is highly active as first salvage therapy in relapsed/refractory HL, with manageable toxicity. The CR rate of 73.6% exceeded those reported for standard chemotherapy regimens, and post-ASCT outcomes generally appeared excellent.

Key Points BV and Nivo were well-tolerated in patients with R/R HL, with less than 10% of patients treated with systemic steroids for immune-related AEs. The complete response rate was 61% (82% objective response rate), and patients were able to undergo stem cell transplant without adverse impact.

AbstractUniformly adopted response criteria are essential for assessment of therapies incorporating conventional chemotherapy and chemoimmunotherapy regimens. Recently, immunomodulatory agents, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, have demonstrated impressive activity in a broad range of lymphoma histologies. However, these agents may be associated with clinical and imaging findings during treatment suggestive of progressive disease (PD) despite evidence of clinical benefit (eg, tumor flare or pseudo-progression). Considering this finding as PD could lead to patients being prematurely removed from a treatment from which they actually stand to benefit. This phenomenon has been well described with checkpoint blockade therapy in solid tumors and anecdotally seen in lymphoma as well. To address this issue in the context of lymphoma immunomodulatory therapy, a workshop was convened to provide provisional recommendations to modify current response criteria in patients receiving these and future agents in clinical trials. The term “indeterminate response” was introduced to identify such lesions until confirmed as flare/pseudo-progression or true PD by either biopsy or subsequent imaging.