Ghosh, Nilanjan

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.

Abstract Approximately 90% of limited-stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients are projected to be cured with standard therapy, but many do not live their expected life span because of late treatment–related complications. New treatment paradigms are needed to reduce the use of radiation therapy (RT) as well as conventional chemotherapy drugs while improving upon current standard-of-care survival outcomes. In this phase 2 multicenter study, patients with non-bulky limited-stage HL received doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) followed by brentuximab vedotin (BV) consolidation. Forty-one patients were enrolled, and patient characteristics included median age of 29 years (range, 19 to 67 years), 58% were female, 45% had unfavorable disease, and 98% had stage II disease. Based on positron emission tomography (PET)–based risk stratification, patients received 2 to 6 cycles of ABVD followed by 6 cycles of BV. After ABVD followed by BV, 95% of evaluable patients (37 out of 39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 83%-99%) achieved PET-negative status. In the intent-to-treat patient population, the estimated 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 92%, and the overall survival (OS) rate was 97%, with a median follow-up of 47 months. All 37 patients who achieved negative PET status after BV consolidation effectively avoided RT and remain in remission with estimated 3-year PFS and OS rates of 100%. In conclusion, BV demonstrates encouraging clinical activity when it follows ABVD therapy in limited-stage HL. Early incorporation of BV may reduce the use of RT as well as conventional chemotherapy drugs while achieving favorable survival outcomes in risk-stratified patients with non-bulky limited-stage HL. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01578967.

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: 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.

(Text above this line is not copy/pasted in the abstract body) INTRODUCTION Allogeneic HCT using RIC regimens is the standard treatment for patients with relapsed/refractory cHL, however there is significant heterogeneity amongst the different regimens and a lack of data supporting a preferred RIC regimen. Using the CIBMTR database we evaluate the outcomes of the 3 most commonly used RIC regimens for cHL. METHODS In the CIBMTR registry, 492 adult patients underwent a first alloHCT using either a matched related or unrelated donor for cHL between 2008-2016, utilizing a RIC regimen with either fludarabine/ i.v. busulfan (6.4mg/kg) (Flu/Bu, n=102), fludarabine/melphalan 140mg/m^2 (Flu/Mel140, n=318) or fludarabine/cyclophosphamide (Flu/Cy, n=72). Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis was calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) plus methotrexate, mycophenolate mofitil (MMF) or other agents, however post transplantation cyclophosphamide (post-CY) was excluded. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included acute (a) and chronic (c) GVHD, non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse/progression and progression-free survival (PFS). 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<0.01 were considered significant. RESULTS Baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. The median patient age of the complete study cohort was only 33 years, with more than 80% receiving a prior autologous HCT. On multivariate analysis (Table 2), the 3 conditioning regimen cohorts were not statistically different in either risk of cGVHD nor risk of grade 3-4 aGVHD. No significant differences were seen in the NRM risk between the three regimens (p=0.54). Similarly, the risk of relapse (p=0.02) and PFS was comparable between regimens (p=0.14). Flu/Cy conditioning was associated with decreased risk of mortality in first 11months after alloHCT (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.10-0.73, p=0.009, but beyond 11 months post alloHCT it was associated with a significantly higher risk of mortality, (OR 2.46, 95% CI 0.1.32-4.61, p=0.005; Figure 1) [11months post alloHCT cutoff chosen on the basis of the maximum likelihood value in the Cox model]. Four year adjusted PFS and OS were similar across the three regimens at 29% for Flu/Bu, 37% for Flu/Mel140 and 25% for Flu/Cy (p=0.07) for PFS and 62% for Flu/Bu, 59% for Flu/Mel140 and 55% for Flu/Cy (p=0.64) for OS, respectively. Relapse was the most common cause of death across all the regimens, followed by organ failure and GVHD. CONCLUSIONS The most commonly used RIC regimen in alloHCT for cHL is Flu/Mel140, which was compared to Flu/Bu and Flu/Cy, the next most frequently used regimens. The choice of conditioning regimen, in these young cHL patients (median age 33 years) did not confer any benefit in terms of the risk of relapse, decrease in NRM or improvement in PFS. There was no OS benefit between, Flu/Bu and Flu/Mel 140, but Flu/Cy was associated with a significantly higher risk of mortality in patients beyond 11 months from allo-HCT. Novel approaches are still needed to decrease post-HCT relapse risk and improve overall results. Figure 1 Disclosures Ghosh: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; T G Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Forty Seven Inc: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Speakers Bureau. Kharfan-Dabaja:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Sureda:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support; Gilead: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hamadani:Merck: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Otsuka: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Bendamustine and rituximab (BR) is a commonly chosen frontline treatment for grade 1-2 (G 1-2) follicular lymphoma (FL). This regimen resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) and less toxicity compared to R-CHOP in the STiL trial [Rummel et al., 2013] and similar results were observed when comparing BR vs. R-CHOP/R-CVP in the confirmatory BRIGHT trial [Flinn et al., 2014, updated ASCO 2017]. Importantly, patients (pts) with grade 3A (G 3A) FL were excluded from these studies, yet the conclusions are often extrapolated to the treatment of G 3A pts. Notably, G 3A pts were included in the GALLIUM trial which used both bendamustine as well as CHOP backbones. Several retrospective studies of FL pts treated with frontline R-CHOP have demonstrated equivalent or improved overall survival (OS) for G 3A relative to G 1-2 FL (Koch et al., 2016, Mustafa et al., 2017, Yuan et al., 2017, Maeshima et al., 2013). Early disease progression after diagnosis and treatment with frontline R-CHOP has been identified as a strong predictor of poor OS in FL pts [Casulo et al. 2015], but has not been assessed in pts treated with frontline BR. We retrospectively evaluated outcomes of a large cohort of FL pts treated with frontline BR and stratified the results based on histologic grade and early vs. late progression. Methods: We reviewed medical records of adult (age >18) pts with FL treated with frontline BR at 18 US cancer centers. There was no central pathology review; each academic institution confirmed the diagnosis and grade of FL. Pts with unknown grade, grade 3B, or cutaneous FL were excluded. Baseline characteristics between grades were evaluated with the Chi-Square test for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney U for continuous variables. Outcomes were calculated from time of initiation of BR. Patients were grouped according to whether or not they had progression of disease within 24 months of BR initiation (POD24). OS and PFS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Results: 687 pts were included (616 G 1-2, 71 G 3A). Median age at diagnosis was 60 years (range 21-94) with 53% men. The median time from diagnosis to treatment with BR was 1 month (range 0-139). The median duration of follow up for the entire cohort was 39 months. Characteristics including age, gender, ethnicity, ECOG, stage, LDH, and FLIPI are shown in the Table, and did not significantly differ between G 1-2 and G 3A pts. Rates of complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) to BR were similar between G 1-2 and G 3A (72%/22% vs. 66%/21%, respectively, p=0.114) but progressive disease (PD) was higher in G 3A pts (11.9%) relative to G 1-2 (4.8%, p=0.025). As shown in the Figure (A and B), 3-year PFS and OS was significantly longer for G 1-2 vs. G 3A pts (75% vs. 65%, log rank p= 0.035 and 90% vs. 86%, log rank p=0.007, respectively). Seventy-six (12.3%) of the 616 G 1-2 pts and 13 (18.3%) of the 71 G 3A pts experienced POD24 (p=0.19). For pts with both G 1-2 and G 3A FL, POD24 was associated with inferior OS (3-year OS 95% vs. 57% for G 1-2 pts, log rank p<0.0001 and 3-year OS 93% vs. 37% for G 3A pts, log rank p<0.0001) compared to patients without POD24. Conclusions: G 3A FL pts have an inferior OS and are significantly more likely to have PD to frontline BR compared to G 1-2, which differs from the published experience with R-CHOP. Similar to outcomes after frontline treatment with R-CHOP, POD24 after frontline BR for FL is associated with very poor OS. Future studies are needed to address optimal frontline management of pts with G3A as well as for pts with any grade FL with POD24 after frontline BR. Disclosures Nastoupil: Novartis: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therappeutics: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno: Honoraria. Cerhan:Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Maurer:Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding. Smith:Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Lossos:Affimed: Research Funding. Portell:TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Kite: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding. Calzada:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Cohen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: 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; Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; 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; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy. Ghosh:Spectrum: Consultancy; SGN: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics, an Abbvie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; PCYC: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Forty seven Inc: Research Funding. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck, Takeda, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Bayer: Research Funding. Caimi:Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory Board Participation; Genentech: Other: Advisory Board PArticipation, Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory Board Participation. Danilov:Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding. Martin:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Kamdar:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy. Kahl:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Hill:Abbvie: Honoraria, 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; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, 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; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) remains challenging particularly in the relapsed/refractory setting, where patients often show chemoresistance. Novel molecular-based therapies have shown impressive and durable activity in that setting, although primary and acquired resistance remains problematic. A recent retrospective series of 114 patients who had failed ibrutinib (median of 4.7 month exposure) showed very short median overall survival of 2.9 months after ibrutinib cessation (Martin et al. Blood 2015). Here we report the results from the observationalMCL-004 study investigating outcomes of patients treated with lenalidomide (an IMiD® immunomodulatory agent) after failing ibrutinib; patients were either relapsed, progressed, refractory, or intolerant to ibrutinib. The objective here is to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of lenalidomide monotherapy or a lenalidomide-containing regimen in relapsed/refractory MCL after ibrutinib failure or intolerance. Methods: MCL-004 is a multicenter study in patients with MCL who relapsed/progressed after or were refractory/intolerant to ibrutinib, and were subsequently treated with lenalidomide. With patient informed consent, data were collected retrospectively from patients who, after their disease failed to respond to ibrutinib, received lenalidomide-based therapy from March 1, 2009 to June 9, 2015. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR) based on 2007 International Working Group criteria, with required patient monitoring and routine imaging. Results: Thirty patients were enrolled at 7 US sites and 1 EU site, including patients receiving lenalidomide monotherapy (n=8), lenalidomide + rituximab (n=8), and lenalidomide + other treatment (n=14). Lenalidomide + other treatment included combination with rituximab, carfilzomib, and dexamethasone (n=3); other combinations were given in ≤2 patients. Patients had a median age of 69 years (range, 50-84), and median time from last dose of ibrutinib to first dose of lenalidomide was 1.3 weeks (range, 0.1-21.7). All patients received ≥2 prior lines of therapy, and 83% received ≥3 prior therapies (median prior therapies, 3.5; range, 2-8). With prior ibrutinib, the best responses achieved were 10% complete response (CR), 43% partial response (PR), 3% stable disease, 40% relapse/progressive disease (PD), and 3% unknown. Primary reasons for ibrutinib discontinuation were 50% relapse/PD, 40% refractory, and 10% intolerance. Patients received a median of 2 cycles (range, 1-11) of lenalidomide-based treatment. Eight patients' disease responded (4 CR, 4 PR), resulting in an ORR of 27% (95% CI, 12%-46%). Five of 8 maintained their response at data cut-off (3 CR, 2 PR). ORR was similar for patients with relapse/PD vs. those refractory to ibrutinib (29% vs. 33%, respectively). Median duration of response (DOR) was 18 weeks (95% CI, 2.9-25+) for all patients. Median DOR was not reached in patients who previously relapsed/progressed with ibrutinib compared with a median of 11 weeks for those whose disease was refractory to ibrutinib. Most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were 33% fatigue; 27% nausea; and 23% each dyspnea, neutropenia, dizziness, or rash. In general, TEAEs were less common with lenalidomide monotherapy. The most frequently reported serious AEs were pneumonia, dyspnea, deep vein thrombosis, hypotension, and acute kidney injury (7% each). At data cutoff, 15 patients (50%) had died, mostly due to MCL and none due to second primary malignancy. Conclusions: Most patients received ≥3 prior lines of treatment, and median time from last dose of ibrutinib to first dose of lenalidomide was short. Lenalidomide-based treatment showed clinical activity in this difficult-to-treat patient population, including 27% ORR and 13% CR. No new safety signals for lenalidomide were identified. Overall, our results show that lenalidomide is active in a selected group of patients with relapsed/refractory MCL that previously failed ibrutinib. Disclosures Wang: BeiGene: Research Funding; Asana BioSciences: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Martin:Acerta: Consultancy; Teva: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses. Goy:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Writing support, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; infinity: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hamadani:Takeda: Research Funding. Ghosh:Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; SGN: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Reeder:Millennium: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Barnett:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Casadebaig Bravo:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schuster:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Janssen Research & Development: Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Hoffman-LaRoche: Research Funding.