Ribrag, Vincent

Abstract Introduction: Liso-cel is an autologous, CD19-directed, 4-1BB CAR T cell product. TRANSFORM (NCT03575351) is a global, randomized, open-label, phase 3 study of liso-cel versus SOC as second-line therapy in adults with R/R LBCL. In the TRANSFORM study, liso-cel showed superior, more durable efficacy versus SOC, with a potential long-term survival benefit and a favorable safety profile, highlighting the curative potential of liso-cel for second-line R/R LBCL. Upon completion of TRANSFORM, patients who received liso-cel could enroll into a separate, long-term follow-up (LTFU) study (NCT03435796). Here, we report results after approximately 4 years of follow-up in patients from TRANSFORM who consented to the LTFU study. Methods The TRANSFORM study compared liso-cel versus SOC (chemotherapy [R-DHAP, R-ICE, or R-GDP] followed by high-dose chemotherapy [HDCT] + ASCT) in adults aged ≤ 75 years with LBCL primary refractory to or relapsed within 12 months of first-line therapy and eligible for ASCT. Patients in the liso-cel arm underwent lymphodepletion followed by liso-cel (100 × 106 CAR+ T cells). Crossover to receive liso-cel was allowed for patients in the SOC arm. The LTFU study enrolled patients who received liso-cel and discontinued early or completed TRANSFORM; liso-cel was not administered during the LTFU study and subsequent therapies were administered at investigator discretion. Selected AEs considered related to liso-cel (malignancies, neurologic, hematologic, or rheumatologic/autoimmune disorders) and OS would be assessed at each visit (month 3 and then every 6 months from years 1 to 5, and then annually) for up to 15 years from liso-cel infusion until study withdrawal or death, whichever occurred first. OS for the combined study was defined as the time from randomization to death due to any cause. PFS for the combined TRANSFORM and LTFU studies incorporated data from TRANSFORM, assessed by an independent review committee, and from LTFU, assessed by investigators, and was defined as the time from randomization to disease progression or death from any cause. For LTFU only, OS and PFS were measured from LTFU consent to event or censoring. In cases where the patient was censored at last assessment date (without receiving new therapy) in TRANSFORM and enrolled in LTFU, LTFU data were used. For patients from the liso-cel arm of TRANSFORM who did not enroll in the LTFU study, the data from TRANSFORM were considered (ie, either an event or censored) at their last adequate assessment date or before starting new therapy. Results are reported descriptively. Results In total, 184 patients were randomized in TRANSFORM (92 per arm); key demographics and baseline characteristics were previously reported (Abramson, et al. Blood 2023). The LTFU study enrolled 67 patients who received liso-cel (liso-cel arm, n = 43; crossover from SOC arm, n = 24). The median follow-up (range) for the liso-cel arm was 16.9 months (1.3–29.7) in the LTFU study and 40.1 months (2.2–61.9) combining the TRANSFORM and LTFU studies. The median follow-ups for OS and PFS for the liso-cel arm in the LTFU study were 17.1 (16.1–21.9) and 16.9 months (16.0–21.8), respectively. In patients from the LTFU study in the liso-cel arm (n = 43), median PFS and OS were both not reached (NR) with 95% CIs of NR–NR. The 24-month rates (95% CI) of PFS and OS were 94.7% (87.4–100.0) and 95.1% (88.4–100.0), respectively. In the 92 patients randomized to the liso-cel arm, using combined data from the TRANSFORM and LTFU studies, median (95% CI) PFS was NR (12.6–NR); 48-month PFS rate was 52.2% (41.5–62.8). Median (95% CI) OS was NR (NR–NR); 48-month OS rate was 61.5% (51.2–71.7). Safety results from the LTFU study in the liso-cel arm showed no new signals compared with previous reports from TRANSFORM. AEs of any grade occurred in 2 patients (hypogammaglobulinemia and dyspnea; n = 1 each), with no second primary malignancies or serious infections. AEs of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 1 patient (dyspnea). No AEs led to death.Conclusions: After a median follow-up of approximately 4 years combining data from the TRANSFORM and LTFU studies, liso-cel continued to demonstrate long-term clinical benefit with high PFS and OS rates in patients with second-line R/R LBCL. The safety profile of liso-cel continued to be manageable with no new safety signals observed during LTFU. These results further support liso-cel as an effective second-line treatment with curative potential for R/R LBCL.

Introduction Age correlates with survival in patients (pts) with DLBCL, which has a median age at diagnosis of 67 y. Recent therapeutic advances, including bispecifics and cell therapy, have promising efficacy, but safety and accessibility continue to be limited for older pts. The randomized, global, phase 3 ECHELON-3 study (NCT04404283) demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR) with brentuximab vedotin (BV) + lenalidomide (Len) + rituximab (R; BV+Len+R) vs placebo+Len+R in pts with R/R DLBCL after ≥ 2 prior systemic therapies who were ineligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant and/or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. Here, we present safety and efficacy in pts aged ≥65 y. Methods In ECHELON-3, pts were randomized 1:1 to receive BV (1.2 mg/kg) or placebo every 3 weeks (q3w), in combination with R (375 mg/m2) q3w and Len (20 mg) once daily. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was required in all cycles. Efficacy was assessed by investigators per Lugano 2014 classification. The primary endpoint was OS, with key secondary endpoints of PFS and ORR. Other secondary endpoints included detailed safety and tolerability. This subgroup analysis comprises pts aged ≥65 y. P values are descriptive. Results A total of 155 pts aged ≥65 y were enrolled from April 2021 to November 2023 and randomized to BV+Len+R (n=79) or placebo+Len+R (n=76). The median age was 75 y (range, 65-89 y); 54% of pts were male, 59% were White, and 19% were Asian. Twenty-three percent and 54% had Ann Arbor stage III and IV disease, respectively, and 64% had high-intermediate or high International Prognostic Index scores (3-5) at enrollment. The most common DLBCL subtype was DLBCL not otherwise specified (58%). Twenty-nine percent of pts had transformed DLBCL. Approximately half (49%) of pts had primary refractory disease, and 81% had disease refractory to their most recent prior line of therapy. Seventy percent of pts had <1% CD30 expression via IHC; 48% of cases had germinal center B-cell origin. Prior CAR-T was reported in 21.9% of pts. At a median follow-up of 16.8 mo (95% CI, 14.3-19.5 mo), median OS was 15.9 mo (95% CI, 11.7 mo-not estimable [NE]) with BV+Len+R vs 8.5 mo (95% CI, 5.5-11.5 mo) with placebo+Len+R (hazard ratio [HR], 0.540; 95% CI, 0.351-0.830; P=.0043). Median PFS was 5.7 mo (95% CI, 4.1-12.7 mo) with BV+Len+R vs 2.8 mo (95% CI, 1.9-4.1 mo) with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.478; 95% CI, 0.318-0.718; P=.0003). ORR was 70.9% (95% CI, 59.6%-80.6%) with BV+Len+R vs 46.1% (95% CI, 34.5%-57.9%) with placebo+Len+R (P=.0020); complete response (CR) rate was 45.6% vs 19.7%, respectively. Median time to CR was 1.61 mo with both BV+Len+R and placebo+Len+R (range, 1.2-7.3 vs 0.7-4.6 mo, respectively). Median duration of CR was 18.9 mo (95% CI, 12.4 mo-NE) with BV+Len+R vs 5.4 mo (95% CI, 2.8 mo-NE) with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.416; 95% CI, 0.139-1.250). In total, 154 pts were evaluable for safety analysis (75 pts in placebo+Len+R group). The median number of cycles was 5 (range, 1-34) vs 3 (range, 1-31) in the BV+Len+R and placebo+Len+R groups, respectively. The percentage of pts with any treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was similar between groups (97% with BV+Len+R and 99% with placebo+Len+R); grade ≥3 TEAEs occurred in 89% of pts in the BV+Len+R group and 76% in the placebo+Len+R group. Serious TEAEs and TEAEs leading to death were reported more frequently in the BV+Len+R group (62% and 13%, respectively) than the placebo+Len+R group (47% and 8%, respectively). More pts discontinued study treatment due to TEAEs in the BV+Len+R group than the placebo+Len+R group (20% vs 8%). In total, 39% of pts on BV+Len+R had a peripheral neuropathy event vs 27% of pts on placebo+Len+R; however, the majority of cases were grade 1 (22% and 17%, respectively). Additional information on older pts will be presented. Conclusions BV+Len+R demonstrated a clinically meaningful improvement in all key efficacy outcomes in pts aged ≥65 y, which is consistent with the overall ECHELON-3 population (median age 74 y; 70.5% of pts aged ≥65 y in BV+Len+R group). Differences in some safety endpoints are likely attributable to longer duration of treatment in the BV+Len+R group. No clinically meaningful safety trends in pts aged ≥65 y were identified. These results suggest that BV+Len+R may be an effective treatment option in older pts with R/R DLBCL.

Abstract The ACE-536-MF-001 trial enrolled patients with myelofibrosis (n = 95) into 4 cohorts: patients in cohorts 1 and 3A were non–transfusion dependent (NTD) and had anemia; patients in cohorts 2 and 3B were transfusion dependent (TD); and patients in cohort 3A/3B had stable ruxolitinib treatment before and during the study. All patients received luspatercept (1.0-1.75 mg/kg, 21-day cycles). Treatment was extended if clinical benefit was observed at day 169. The primary end point was anemia response rate (NTD, ≥1.5 g/dL hemoglobin increase from baseline; TD, transfusion-independence) over any 12-week period during the primary treatment period (weeks 1-24). Overall, 14% of patients in cohorts 1 and 3A, 10% in cohort 2, and 26% in cohort 3B met the primary end point. In cohorts 1 and 3A (NTD), 27% and 50% of patients, respectively, had mean hemoglobin increase of ≥1.5 g/dL from baseline. Among TD patients, ∼50% had ≥50% reduction in transfusion burden. Reduction in total symptom score was observed in all cohorts, with the greatest response rate seen in cohort 3A. Overall, 94% of patients had ≥1 adverse event (AE); 47% had ≥1 treatment-related AE (TRAE; 11% grade ≥3), most frequently hypertension (18%), managed with medical intervention. One patient had a serious TRAE leading to luspatercept discontinuation. Nine patients died on treatment (unrelated to study drug). In most patients, ruxolitinib dose and spleen size remained stable. In patients with myelofibrosis, luspatercept improved anemia and transfusion burden across cohorts; the safety profile was consistent with previous studies. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT03194542.

7526 Background: The TRANSFORM primary analysis (PA; NCT03575351) confirmed the superior efficacy of liso-cel vs SOC as 2L therapy in patients (pts) with primary refr or early rel LBCL (Abramson et al. Blood 2022). Response to first-line (1L) therapy (refr vs rel), which was a study randomization stratification factor, may influence future treatment response. Here, we present results for refr and rel LBCL subgroups from the TRANSFORM PA. Methods: TRANSFORM is a randomized phase 3 study of liso-cel vs SOC (salvage chemotherapy [CT] followed by high-dose CT [HDCT]/autologous SCT [ASCT]) in adults ≤ 75 y with LBCL primary refr to or rel ≤ 12 mo after 1L therapy and eligible for HDCT/ASCT. The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS); key secondary endpoints were CR rate, PFS, and OS. In this predefined subgroup analysis, refr was SD, PD, PR, or CR with rel < 3 mo after 1L therapy; rel was CR with rel ≥ 3 mo and ≤ 12 mo after 1L therapy. Results: 92 pts were randomized to each arm. Most pts in the liso-cel and SOC arms had refr disease (73% and 76%, respectively; rel disease, 27% and 24%). Baseline characteristics in the refr and rel subgroups, respectively, were generally balanced: median LDH (U/L; liso-cel, 228.5 and 225; SOC, 259 and 259); median SPD (cm2; liso-cel, 11 and 12; SOC, 15.5 and 18); high-grade B-cell lymphoma (liso-cel, 27% and 16%; SOC, 27% and 9%); diffuse LBCL not otherwise specified (liso-cel, 58% and 56%; SOC, 49% and 73%). Consistent with the overall study population, EFS, CR rate, and PFS favored liso-cel vs SOC in both subgroups (Table). Safety was also consistent. Grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurological events (NE) were low in refr (1% and 4%) and rel (0 and 4%) subgroups, respectively, with no grade 4/5 CRS or NEs. Conclusions: In TRANSFORM, liso-cel showed benefits in EFS, PFS, and CR rate vs SOC irrespective of prior response to 1L therapy. As refr LBCL is historically difficult to treat, outcomes for liso-cel in this subgroup are encouraging. Clinical trial information: NCT03575351 . [Table: see text]

7016 Background: Many patients (pts) with myelofibrosis (MF) experience anemia resulting from disease or JAK inhibitor therapy. The open-label, phase 2 ACE-536-MF-001 study (NCT03194542) evaluated the safety and efficacy of luspatercept (LUSPA) for the treatment of MF-related anemia. Methods: Eligible pts comprised 4 cohorts based on transfusion dependence (TD, defined as receiving 4–12 red blood cell [RBC] units/84 days [d] immediately up to cycle 1 d 1) and stable ruxolitinib (RUX) treatment; cohort 1: no TD, no RUX; cohort 2: TD, no RUX; cohort 3A: no TD, RUX; cohort 3B: TD, RUX. Pts received subcutaneous LUSPA 1.0 mg/kg (1.33 mg/kg for pts in cohort 3B expansion) with titration up to 1.75 mg/kg in 21-d cycles. Disease response was assessed at d 169 and treatment extended for pts showing clinical benefit; pts were followed for ≥ 3 years (y) post last dose. The primary endpoint was anemia response (defined as 84 consecutive d: ≥ 1.5 g/dL hemoglobin [Hgb] from baseline without transfusion [cohorts 1 and 3A] or RBC transfusion-free [cohorts 2 and 3B]); secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), transfusion frequency, change in Hgb level, and symptom response. Results: Of 95 pts in the ITT group, the most common reason for treatment discontinuation was lack of clinical benefit at d 169 (n = 28). Median (range) age was 71.0 (50–89) y. Most (54.7%) pts had primary MF, intermediate-risk 2 disease (75.8%), and > 2 y since initial diagnosis (74.7%). Median prior RUX therapy was 18.1 months (cohorts 3A/3B) and 84.7% of pts had baseline transfusion burden 6–12 units/84 d (cohorts 2/3B). Mean treatment duration was 42.8 weeks. Cohort 3B had the highest anemia response rate with 26.3% (95% CI, 13.4–43.1) of pts transfusion independent during the primary treatment period and 31.6% (95% CI, 17.5–48.7) transfusion independent during the entire treatment period; median (range) DOR was 448 d (85–1582). In cohort 3B: 19 (50.0%) pts had reduced transfusion burden by ≥ 50% during the primary treatment period; 8 (21.1%) pts achieved mean Hgb increase ≥ 1.5 g/dL from baseline throughout the entire treatment period and 6 (15.8%) achieved a mean ≥ 50% reduction in symptom score from baseline. Overall, 47.4% of pts had ≥ 1 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE), most frequently hypertension (17.9%, 5.3% grade ≥ 3); 3.2% of pts had a serious TRAE. One TRAE led to LUSPA discontinuation. Two (2.1%) pts had transformation to acute myeloid leukemia. Nine pts died on treatment from: post-procedural hemorrhage, pneumonia, intracranial hemorrhage, septic shock, ischemic stroke, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, renal failure, pneumonitis, and myelofibrosis (n = 1 each); no deaths were considered related to the study drug. Conclusions: In pts with MF, the safety profile of LUSPA was consistent with previous studies and efficacy results showed promising improvements in anemia and transfusion burden in all cohorts. Clinical trial information: NCT03194542 .

Abstract Background: T-cell immunoreceptor with immunoglobulin and immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibitory motif domain (TIGIT) is an inhibitory immune checkpoint receptor expressed on subsets of T-cells and natural killer (NK) cells. TIGIT inhibits T and NK cell function by binding to CD155 and CD112. SEA-TGT is an investigational human, nonfucosylated monoclonal antibody directed against TIGIT, blocking TIGIT's interaction with CD155 and CD112. SGNTGT-001 (NCT04254107) is a phase 1, open-label, multicenter study of SEA-TGT in patients (pts) with advanced malignancies (solid tumors and lymphomas). In this abstract, we present data from the dose-escalation phase (Part A). Methods: Pts received SEA-TGT ranging from 0.01 to 6.0 mg/kg of body weight intravenously every 3 weeks (Q3W). The primary objectives were to evaluate the safety and tolerability of SEA-TGT and identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or the recommended dose and schedule of SEA-TGT. The optimal biological dose was defined using the Clinical Utility Index. Secondary objectives included the evaluation of antitumor activity, pharmacokinetics (PK) and immunogenicity. Antitumor activity was based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 or the Lugano classification criteria with Lymphoma Response to Immunomodulatory Therapy Criteria. Results: From June 12, 2020, to October 5, 2022, 41 pts were enrolled (2, 4, 5, 11, 12, and 7 pts in the 0.01, 0.1, 0.3, 1, 3, and 6 mg/kg cohorts, respectively). Among the 39 pts who were treated 23 pts had solid tumors and 16 had lymphomas. The median number of prior therapies across all cohorts was 5. Treatment emergent adverse events of any grade were reported in 100% of pts, and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of any grade were reported in 69.2%. TRAEs seen in ≥10% of the pts were infusion-related reaction (38.5%), chills (25.6%), pyrexia (17.9%), fatigue (12.8%), maculopapular rash (12.8%), and rash (10.3%). Seven pts (17.9%) reported TRAEs grade ≥3, and rash (5.1%) was the most frequently reported. No grade 4 or 5 TRAEs were reported. One dose-limiting toxicity, pruritic rash, was observed in 1 pt in the 6 mg/kg cohort, and MTD was not exceeded. Based on the PK and pharmacodynamic data, 1 mg/kg Q3W was selected as the optimal biological dose for the expansion cohorts. One partial response was observed in a pt with gastric cancer, and 2 partial metabolic responses were seen in a pt with Hodgkin’s lymphoma and a pt with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Conclusions: Overall, clinical data for SEA-TGT from the SGNTGT-001 trial suggest a manageable and tolerable safety profile. Preliminary antitumor activity warrants further clinical evaluation of SEA-TGT. SGNTGT-001 is ongoing and evaluating monotherapy and combination therapies. Citation Format: Elena Garralda Cabanas, Elisa Fontana, Honey Kumar Oberoi, Nataliya V. Uboha, Ecaterina E. Dumbrava, Emiliano Calvo, Giuseppe Curigliano, Diwakar Davar, Bridget K. Keenan, Vincent K. Lam, Sudhir Manda, Amitkuma Mehta, Anna Minchom, Alison Moskowitz, Ravi Paluri, Vincent Ribrag, Donald Richards, Lillian Siu, Paul Swiecicki, Trisha Wise-Draper, Jasmine Zain, Andres Forero-Torres, Ping Xu, Stephen Ansell. Phase 1 dose-escalation study of SGN-TGT monotherapy in patients with advanced malignancies [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 2 (Clinical Trials and Late-Breaking Research); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(8_Suppl):Abstract nr CT265.

AbstractThe multicenter, phase Ib CC‐122‐DLBCL‐001 dose‐expansion study (NCT02031419) explored the cereblon E3 ligase modulator (CELMoD) agent avadomide (CC‐122) plus rituximab in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or follicular lymphoma (FL). Patients received avadomide 3 mg/day 5 days on/2 days off plus rituximab 375 mg/m2 on day 8 of cycle 1, day 1 of cycles 2 through 6, and day 1 of every third subsequent cycle for 2 years. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability; preliminary efficacy was a secondary endpoint. A total of 68 patients were enrolled (DLBCL [n = 27], FL [n = 41; 31 lenalidomide‐naïve, 10 lenalidomide‐treated]). Median age was 62 years (range, 33–84 years), and patients had received a median of 3 (range, 1–8) prior regimens. Among patients with DLBCL, 66.7% had primary refractory disease (partial response or less to initial therapy). Among patients with FL, 65.9% were rituximab‐refractory at study entry and 10.0% were lenalidomide‐refractory. The most common any‐grade avadomide‐related adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (63.2%), infections/infestations (23.5%), fatigue (22.1%), and diarrhea (19.1%). The most common grade 3/4 avadomide‐related AEs were neutropenia (55.9%) infections/infestations (8.8%), and febrile neutropenia (7.4%). In patients with DLBCL, overall response rate (ORR) was 40.7% and median duration of response (mDOR) was 8.0 months. In patients with FL, ORR was 80.5% and mDOR was 27.6 months; response rates were similar in lenalidomide‐naïve and ‐treated patients. Avadomide plus rituximab was well tolerated, and preliminary antitumor activity was observed in patients with R/R DLBCL and FL, including subgroups with typically poor outcomes. These results support further investigation of novel CELMoD agents in combination with rituximab in R/R DLBCL and FL.