Portell, Craig A

PURPOSE In patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), brentuximab vedotin (BV) as monotherapy or combined with either lenalidomide (Len) or rituximab (R) has demonstrated efficacy with acceptable safety. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of BV + Len + R versus placebo + Len + R in patients with R/R DLBCL. METHODS ECHELON-3 is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase 3 trial comparing BV + Len + R with placebo + Len + R in patients with R/R DLBCL. Patients received BV or placebo once every 3 weeks, Len once daily, and R once every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), and secondary end points included investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). A prespecified interim analysis was performed after 134 OS events, with two-sided P = .0232 as the efficacy boundary. RESULTS Patients (N = 230) were randomly assigned to receive BV + Len + R (n = 112) or placebo + Len + R (n = 118). Two patients in the placebo arm did not receive treatment. With a median follow-up of 16.4 months, the median OS was 13.8 months with BV + Len + R versus 8.5 months with placebo + Len + R (hazard ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.89]; two-sided P = .009). The median PFS was 4.2 months with BV + Len + R versus 2.6 months with placebo + Len + R (hazard ratio, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.73]; two-sided P < .001). The ORR was 64% ([95% CI, 55 to 73]; two-sided P < .001) with BV + Len + R and 42% (95% CI, 33 to 51) with placebo + Len + R; complete response rates were 40% and 19%, respectively. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) occurred in 97% of patients in both arms. In both arms, the most common treatment-emergent AEs were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, and anemia. CONCLUSION BV + Len + R demonstrated a statistically significant survival benefit with a manageable safety profile in heavily pretreated patients with R/R DLBCL.

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 &lt;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.

Introduction Patients (pts) with progressive disease after ≥2 prior lines of systemic therapy are unlikely to derive additional benefit from current salvage immunochemotherapies, and survival declines significantly with each subsequent treatment. Pts with refractory disease following second-line therapy have worse outcomes, with reported overall response rates (ORRs) of 1% to 14% and overall survival (OS) of 5 months (Blood. 2017;130[16]:1800-1808). While chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has become a preferred strategy in the second- and third-line settings, pts with R/R disease following CAR-T experience dismal survival, with progression-free survival (PFS) and OS as low as 3 and 5 months, respectively, and no agreed standard of care post CAR-T (Blood. 2022;140[24]:2527-2529). The randomized, global, phase 3 ECHELON-3 study (NCT04404283) was conducted in pts with R/R DLBCL after ≥2 prior therapies who were ineligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant and/or CAR-T. Here, we present subgroup analyses in pts with 2 prior lines of therapy, refractory disease, or prior CAR-T. Methods In these subgroup analyses of ECHELON-3, eligible pts had 2 prior lines of systemic therapy, disease refractory to the last prior therapy, or prior exposure to CAR-T. Pts could qualify for ≥1 subgroup and were analyzed separately. Refractory disease was defined as stable or progressive disease as best overall response to last line of treatment or relapse ≤6 months from the end of treatment. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive brentuximab vedotin (BV; 1.2 mg/kg) or placebo every 3 weeks (q3w), in combination with rituximab (R; 375 mg/m2) q3w and lenalidomide (Len; 20 mg) once daily. Efficacy was assessed by investigators per Lugano 2014 classification. The primary endpoint was OS, with key secondary endpoints of PFS and ORR. P values are descriptive. Results In total, 230 pts were enrolled in ECHELON-3 from April 2021 to November 2023, with a median follow-up of 16.4 months (range, 0.1-31.5 months). Overall, 94 pts with 2 prior lines of systemic therapy were enrolled and randomized to BV+Len+R (n=48) or placebo+Len+R (n=46). Median OS was 16.3 months (95% CI, 12.6 months-not estimable) with BV+Len+R vs 8.5 months (95% CI, 4.1-15.8 months) with placebo+Len+R (hazard ratio [HR], 0.557; 95% CI, 0.317-0.977; P=.0388). Median PFS was 7.1 months (95% CI, 3.6-12.6 months) with BV+Len+R vs 2.7 months (95% CI, 1.4-4.0 months) with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.462; 95% CI, 0.279-0.764; P=.0020). ORR was 68.8% (95% CI, 53.7%-81.3%) with BV+Len+R vs 43.5% with placebo+Len+R (95% CI, 28.9%-58.9%; P=.0216); complete response (CR) rate was 52.1% vs 13.0%, respectively. Additional data for pts by lines of therapy received will be presented. In total, 194 pts with disease refractory to the most recent systemic therapy were enrolled and randomized to BV+Len+R (n=98) and placebo+Len+R (n=96). Median OS was 11.7 months (95% CI, 8.8-16.3 months) with BV+Len+R vs 5.5 months (95% CI, 3.7-8.5 months) with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.566; 95% CI, 0.396-0.808; P=.0015). Median PFS was 4.1 months (95% CI, 2.8-5.4 months) with BV+Len+R vs 1.5 months (95% CI, 1.4-2.6 months) with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.508; 95% CI, 0.363-0.712; P&lt;.0001). ORR was 59.2% (95% CI, 48.8%-69.0%) with BV+Len+R vs 29.2% (95% CI, 20.3%-39.3%) with placebo+Len+R (P&lt;.0001); CR rate was 34.7% vs 11.5%, respectively. Overall, 67 pts who received prior CAR-T were enrolled and randomized to BV+Len+R (n=32) and placebo+Len+R (n=35). Median OS was 15.6 months with BV+Len+R vs 4.4 months with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.2-0.75). Median PFS was 3.0 months with BV+Len+R vs 1.4 months with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.76). ORR was 65.6% (95% CI, 46.8%-81.4%) with BV+Len+R vs 25.7% (95% CI, 12.5%-43.3%) with placebo+Len+R (P=.0014); CR rate was 37.5% vs 11.4%, respectively. Conclusions BV+Len+R demonstrated a clinically meaningful improvement in all key efficacy outcomes, including CR and OS, in pts with 2 prior lines of therapy, disease refractory to prior treatment, or prior CAR-T. This treatment benefit was generally consistent with that observed in the overall ECHELON-3 study population. Therefore, BV+Len+R has the potential to address an unmet need for effective and tolerable therapy in heavily pretreated pts, as described above.

Introduction Relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is very aggressive, with a historically low complete response (CR) rate (Blood. 2017; 130[16]:1800-1808). Recent research has focused on achieving complete and durable responses in this population, which translate to improvements in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results from the randomized, global, phase 3 ECHELON-3 study (NCT04404283) demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in OS, PFS, and objective response rate with brentuximab vedotin (BV) combined with lenalidomide (Len) and rituximab (R; BV+Len+R) vs placebo+Len+R in patients (pts) with R/R DLBCL after ≥2 prior systemic therapies. Here, we present subgroup analyses in pts with a best overall response (BOR) of CR (n=67). Methods Pts in the study were randomized (1:1) to receive BV (1.2 mg/kg) or placebo every 3 weeks, in combination with R (375 mg/m2) and Len (20 mg) once daily. In these subgroup analyses, eligible pts had a BOR of CR and some ended study treatment and received any subsequent anticancer therapy. BOR was assessed by investigators according to the Lugano 2014 classification. Duration of response was defined as the time from the start of the first documented CR to the first documented tumor progression per Lugano 2014 or death. Pts who initiated a subsequent nonpalliative anticancer therapy were censored at the most recent prior response assessment. Subsequent nonpalliative anticancer therapies were defined as any systemic therapy received after the end of study treatment. P values are descriptive. Results Of the 112 pts in the BV+Len+R group, 45 (40.2%) had a BOR of CR. Of the 118 pts in the placebo+Len+R group, 22 (18.6%) had a BOR of CR. The median duration of CR was 18.9 months (95% CI, 11.1 months-not estimable [NE]) with BV+Len+R vs not reached (NR) with placebo+Len+R (hazard ratio [HR], 0.527; 95% CI, 0.200-1.389; P=.1891). The median time to CR was 1.58 months (range, 1.2-7.3 months) with BV+Len+R and 1.61 months (range, 0.7-4.6 months) with placebo+Len+R. With a median follow-up of 14.3 months, the median OS in pts with a BOR of CR was 31.5 months (95% CI, 20.3 months-NE) in the BV+Len+R group vs NR in the placebo+Len+R group (HR, 1.044; 95% CI, 0.331-3.298; P=.9407). Median PFS in pts with a BOR of CR was 21.5 months (95% CI, 12.6 months-NE) in the BV+Len+R group vs NR (95% CI, 5.4 months-NE) in the placebo+Len+R group (HR, 0.6333; 95% CI, 0.256-1.567; P=.3198). Results of NR in the placebo+Len+R group are likely attributable to limited follow-up and small sample size. Additional data on baseline characteristics of pts who had CR will be presented. Of the 45 pts with CR in the BV+Len+R group, 42 (93.3%) received no subsequent anticancer therapy. Of the 22 pts with CR in the placebo+Len+R group, 17 (77.3%) received no subsequent anticancer therapy. Conclusions BV doubled the CR rate in pts with R/R DLBCL compared with placebo, and outcomes in pts with CR were durable, with only 6.7% of pts treated with BV+Len+R receiving subsequent systemic anticancer therapy, compared with 22.7% of pts treated with placebo+Len+R receiving subsequent therapy. Overall, BV+Len+R demonstrated a survival benefit in the ECHELON-3 study and is a promising option to achieve complete and durable responses in third- or later-line therapy for pts with R/R DLBCL.

Background Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is an incurable form of aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Treatment choice at diagnosis is based on tolerability of cytarabine and high-dose chemotherapy. With a median age of 60-70 years, many patients are ineligible for aggressive treatment. Bendamustine and rituximab (BR) is a reasonable treatment option (E1411, Smith MR et al. ASH 2022) for this patient population and venetoclax (VEN) has shown pre-clinical evidence of synergy with chemoimmunotherapy. PrECOG 0405 was designed to evaluate the addition of VEN to BR in previously untreated patients with MCL aged over 60 years. Methods Eligible patients included those that were previously untreated and diagnosed with MCL as defined as the presence of t(11;14) by FISH or cyclin D1 expression by IHC. Patients must have been at least 60 years of age or older on D1C1 of therapy with a good performance status (ECOG 0-2). Adequate marrow and organ function was required, specifically a creatinine clearance of ≥ 40 mL/min. Treatment administration is summarized in Figure 1. Dose of bendamustine was either 90mg/m 2 D1&2; or, for subjects over the age of 75 years, 70mg/m 2 was allowed per investigator discretion. VEN was dose escalated during Cycle 1 to 200mg. At the time of C2, BR was repeated and VEN was also escalated to 400mg. With C2-6, VEN 400mg PO daily was given D1-10 only. Primary endpoint was PET-negative complete response (CR) rate at end of treatment (EOT) by Lugano Criteria. A negative bone marrow biopsy was required to confirm CR if involved at screening. Minimal residual disease (MRD) by next-generation sequencing was performed at the EOT. Maintenance rituximab was encouraged per investigator discretion. This was a single arm study with an original accrual goal of 53 subjects to detect a 15% improvement in CR rate compared to historical data. However, due to slow study accrual during COVID pandemic and preliminary efficacy data from E1411 study, the statistical parameters were updated after 25 subjects had been accrued. The revised accrual goal was 33 patients to obtain 32 eligible and treated patients, which provided 81.8% statistical power to detect a 17% difference in CR rate (from 60% [E1411 data] to 77%) using an exact binomial test with a 1-sided alpha of 11.6%. This combination regimen will be considered promising if 23 or more (out of 32) patients attain CR. Results From January 2020 to March 2022, 33 subjects enrolled and were treated on study. Subject characteristics are listed in Table 1. Seven (21%) unique subjects were treated with 70mg/m 2 of bendamustine during induction cycles. Laboratory tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) was seen in 2/33 during C1 only; clinical TLS was not seen. Treatment was generally well tolerated with treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) of Grade ≥3 and occurring in &gt;10% of subjects being neutropenia (n=5, 15%), thrombocytopenia (n=5, 15%) and lymphopenia (n=9, 27%). Other common non-hematologic TRAE of all grades were nausea/vomiting (n=26, 79%), diarrhea (n=10, 30%), and fatigue (n=17, 52%). There were 4 (12%) instances of COVID-19/COVID-19 pneumonia considered treatment related. Dose adjustments and delays for any drug occurred in 36% and 67% of subjects respectively. 22/33 (66.7%) subjects completed 6 cycles of BR-VEN. Maintenance rituximab was administered in 19/33 (57.6%) of subjects. Overall response rate was 97% (32/33) and PET-negative bone marrow biopsy confirmed CR Rate at EOT was 85% (28/33), achieving the primary endpoint (≥23 CRs). MRD at EOT is under analysis. With a median survival follow up of 21.5 months (mo), Median PFS and OS were not reached; estimated 2-year PFS and OS was 69.7% and 81.1% respectively. During follow up, there have been 6 deaths, 4 from COVID-19 (all in remission), one from influenza A (in remission), and one from disease progression (non-responding pt). There have been 2 other progression events who are alive. Conclusions BR-VEN was generally well-tolerated in this older patient population though GI toxicities were common. With a PET-negative CR rate of 85%, the combination is promising but longer follow-up is needed. There was a competing risk of death related to upper respiratory viruses identified, mostly COVID-19, as has been seen in other BR-based protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic. MRD analysis and survival data will be updated.

Background: Bendamustine and rituximab (BR) is a standard-of-care first-line (1L) therapy for older or unfit patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). The SHINE trial compared BR with rituximab maintenance plus ibrutinib vs placebo in patients ≥65 years old and showed that the ibrutinib arm had significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS; median 80.6 vs 52.9 months) but similar overall survival (OS; 57% vs 55% at 7 years) compared to the placebo arm. Whether sequential treatment with BR in 1L and a Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) in second-line (2L) can result in a similar cumulative PFS compared to 1L BR plus BTKi combination therapy is unknown. To provide insight to this question, we modeled observational data to evaluate MCL outcomes after 1L BR and 2L BTKi therapy in the BTKi era. Methods: Patients with MCL who received 1L BR with or without rituximab maintenance in 2014-2020 at one of the 27 participating centers were included. Exclusion criteria included participation in the SHINE or ECHO trials, any additional 1L therapy other than BR (with or without rituximab maintenance), and stem cell transplant consolidation after 1L BR. Baseline characteristics, treatment, and follow-up data were abstracted by chart review. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as time from index line treatment start to the first event (progression, relapse, retreatment, or death). OS was defined as time from index line treatment start to death. Using an intention-to-treat (ITT) framework, EFS2 was defined as time from 1L BR start to progression, relapse, or retreatment following 2L BTKi treatment or death. Patients who received a non-BTKi treatment at 2L were censored for EFS2 at 2L treatment start; living patients without an event following 1L BR or 2L BTKi were censored for EFS2 at last follow-up. Results: A total of 618 patients with MCL who received 1L BR in 2014-2020 were included. The median age was 71 (IQR 65-76) years, and 447 (72%) were male. 59 (11%) patients had an ECOG PS ≥2, 566 (93%) had stage III-IV disease, and simplified MIPI was low in 105 (21%), intermediate in 200 (39%), and high in 202 (40%) patients. The median follow-up following 1L BR start was 57.4 (95% CI 53.8-63.2) months. Response data were available in 580 patients, and the best ORR was 92% (79% complete response [CR] and 13% partial response [PR]). 258 (42%) patients received rituximab maintenance. As of last follow-up, 255 patients were alive and in remission after 1L BR, 92 patients died without 2L therapy, and 271 patients received a 2L therapy. The median EFS was 34.1 (95% CI 31.0-40.0) months. The median OS was 97.8 (95% CI 81.2-NA) months, the 5-year OS rate was 58.6% (95% CI 54.4-63.2), and the 7-year OS rate was 56.7% (95% CI 52.4-61.5) (Fig 1). Among the 271 patients who started a 2L treatment, 203 (75%) received a BTKi at 2L - 101 (50%) ibrutinib, 76 (37%) acalabrutinib, and 26 (13%) zanubrutinib. The median follow-up following 2L BTKi start was 38.5 (95% CI 31.3-45.1) months. Response data were available in 171 patients, and the best ORR was 64% (36% CR, 28% PR). The median EFS was 10.7 (95% CI 7.7-14.0) months, and the median OS was 24.8 (95% CI 17.3-33.1) months with 2L BTKi therapy (Fig 2). By ITT analysis, the median EFS2 following 1L BR and 2L BTKi was 72.1 (95% CI 56.7-97.8) months (Fig 1). A subset analysis of patients aged ≥65 years (n=471; 198 [42%] received rituximab maintenance) showed similar results. The median EFS with 1L BR was 32.7 (95% CI 29.1-36.3) months. The median OS was 81.5 (95% CI 65.0-NA) months, and the 7-year OS rate was 53.3% (95% CI 48.3-58.7). 208 patients received a 2L therapy, 163 (79%) with a BTKi. The median EFS was 11.5 (95% CI 7.6-15.8) months, and the median OS was 21.0 (95% CI 14.0-29.6) months with 2L BTKi therapy. By ITT analysis, the median EFS2 following 1L BR and 2L BTKi was 58.0 (95% CI 50.2-77.0) months. Conclusion: In this multicenter retrospective study, initiation of 1L BR (with or without rituximab maintenance) resulted in a 7-year OS of 57%. Median EFS2 for sequential 1L BR and 2L BTKi was 72.1 months. In context, the SHINE study reported a median PFS of 80.6 months in the BR (with rituximab maintenance) plus ibrutinib arm and a 7-year OS of 57% in the ibrutinib arm and 55% in the placebo arm, where 39% of patients received a BTKi in 2L. Within the constraints of observational data, our results provide support for sequential use of BR in 1L and BTKi in 2L for patients with MCL.

AbstractPlasmablastic lymphoma (PBL) is a rare entity, commonly associated with immunosuppressed states such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection or solid organ transplant. The clinical course is characterized by high relapse rates and a poor prognosis, leading some clinicians to recommend aggressive frontline therapy. However, a specific review of limited stage (LS) PBL patients is not available to evaluate outcomes and justify treatment recommendations. We performed a retrospective review of LS PBL cases to provide insight into this rare disease. Our cohort consisted of 80 stage I or II PBL patients from 13 US academic centers. With a median follow up of 34 months (1–196), the 3‐year progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of the entire cohort were 72% (95% CI 62, 83) and 79% (95% CI 70, 89), respectively. The 3‐year PFS and OS of patients treated with frontline chemotherapy alone was 65% (95% CI 50, 84) and 71% (95% CI 56, 89), respectively, compared to 85% (95% CI 72, 100) and 96% (95% CI 89, 100), respectively, in patients treated with combined frontline chemotherapy with radiation consolidation. Our data demonstrate favorable outcomes in LS PBL with no improvements in outcome from aggressive frontline treatment including Hyper‐CVAD or auto‐SCT consolidation. Multivariate regression analysis (MRA) demonstrated improved PFS for patients receiving EPOCH based frontline therapy versus CHOP (HR: 0.23; p = 0.029). Frontline chemotherapy followed by radiation consolidation versus chemotherapy alone appeared to be associated with improved relapse and survival outcomes but did not show statistical significance in MRA.

Abstract Introduction: Plamotamab (XmAb13676) is a humanized bispecific antibody that binds both CD20 and CD3 to recruit cytotoxic T cells to kill CD20 expressing malignant cells. Interim results of an ongoing first-in-human (FIH), dose-escalation study (XmAb13676-01; NCT02924402) in subjects with relapsed/refractory (R/R) non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) are reported. Methods: The study is an FIH, multi-center, open-label, phase 1, dose-escalation study in subjects with R/R NHL with a standard 3 + 3 design. The primary objectives are to determine safety, tolerability, and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or recommended dose of plamotamab. Secondary objectives include preliminary anti-tumor activity and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of plamotamab. This study has 3 Parts: Part A, escalating dose cohorts that establish an initial priming dose as part of repeated weekly infusions at a fixed, weight-based dose in a 28-day cycle; Part B, with a dosing schedule consisting of a priming dose on Cycle 1 Day 1, established in Part A, followed by step-up dosing (SUD) on subsequent weeks; and Part C is an SUD regimen with flat and less frequent dosing. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) prophylaxis with dexamethasone, antihistamine, and acetaminophen was mandated prior to each administration of plamotamab. Treatment was continued for 2 cycles or longer if there was evidence of therapeutic benefit. Results: At data cut-off (01Jul2021), 80 subjects with NHL have been treated. Subjects had a median age of 62 years (range 32-89), a median of 4 prior therapies (range 1-10), and had been diagnosed a median of 28 months (range 6-353) prior to treatment in the study. The most common treatment-related adverse event was CRS. Overall, 50 subjects (62.5%) experienced CRS, with 4 (5.0%) experiencing Grade ≥ 3 CRS. No related neurotoxicity &gt;Grade 2 has been observed. Treatment responses for NHL were assessed by the Lugano criteria or International Working Group criteria for Waldenström Macroglobulinemia. There have been 23 objective responses (43.4% overall response rate [ORR]) and 13 (38.2%) at doses of ≥ 80 µg/kg or flat dosing in all evaluable subjects with NHL and diffuse large cell B-cell lymphoma, respectively. In the efficacy-evaluable, follicular lymphoma population, at doses of 80-360 µg/kg or flat dosing, objective responses were observed in 8/10 (80%) subjects. After implementation of flat dosing, as opposed to weight-based dosing, a 50% ORR (4/8 evaluable subjects) has been observed in NHL subjects in that cohort. An MTD has not been reached, and dose escalation is ongoing. Overall, 4 out of 16 (25%) evaluable subjects with prior CAR-T therapy responded to plamotamab. Conclusions: Plamotamab demonstrated evidence of clinical activity in heavily pretreated subjects with R/R NHL. CRS was generally manageable with premedication. The study is ongoing with further optimization of dose and schedule. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Patel: Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Lilly: Consultancy. Michot: GSK: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Innate Pharma: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; H3 biomedecine: Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gamamabs: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Exelixis: Research Funding; Eos: Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Debiopharm: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo,: Research Funding; Clovis: Research Funding; Chugai: Research Funding; Boeringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Blueprint: Research Funding; Beigene: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Argen-x: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Aduro: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; ASTEX: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Chanan-Khan: Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals, NonoDev, Starton: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Ascentage: Research Funding; Cellectar: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties: Tabi; Ascentage, Starton, Cellectar, NonoDev, Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BeiGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Honoraria; BieGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Consultancy. Ghesquieres: Janssen: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Science: Consultancy, Honoraria. Byrd: Vincerx Pharmaceuticals: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis, Trillium, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics, Syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria; Newave: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cartron: Roche, Celgene-BMS: Consultancy; Danofi, Gilead, Novartis, Jansen, Roche, Celgene-BMS, Abbvie, Takeda: Honoraria. Portell: Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; SeaGen: Research Funding; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; Aptitude Health: Honoraria; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Kite: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; BeiGene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Morphosys: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; VelosBio: Research Funding. Solh: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Partner Therapeutics: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; ADCT Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Wierda: Loxo Oncology, Inc.: Research Funding; GSK/Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Miragen: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; KITE Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma Inc.: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Genzyme Corporation: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding. Johnson: Xencor: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months, Ended employment in the past 24 months. Garcha: Xencor: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Promedim: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Ribrag: AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Research Funding; MSD Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Argen-X: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PharmaMar: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Liebowitz: Xencor: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months. Phillips: Incyte: Consultancy, Other: received travel expenses from Incyte, Research Funding; ADCT, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardinal Health, Incyte, Karyopharm, Morphosys, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Chemoimmunotherapy is considered standard initial therapy for follicular lymphoma (FL) with high tumor burden (HTB). Obinutuzumab and Bendamustine (OB) with maintenance Obinutuzumab (mO) is considered a standard therapy for the frontline treatment of HTB FL (GALLIUM, Marcus et al, NEJM 2017). Venetoclax (VEN), an oral BCL2 inhibitor, is an attractive target in FL given the high BCL2 expression; though single agent activity has been disappointing (Davids et al. JCO 2017). BCL2 inhibition is thought to be synergistic with chemotherapy. Thus, the PrE0403 study evaluated the OB-VEN combination in frontline HTB FL. Here we present end of induction (EOI) outcomes. Methods: The primary objective of this Phase II study was to estimate the complete remission (CR) rate at EOI. Potential participants must have had a histologically confirmed diagnosis of FL grade 1, 2, or 3a with HTB defined by GELF or high risk defined by FLIPI-1 criteria. They must have had adequate performance status and organ function. Notably, creatinine clearance must have been ≥50 mL/min. Participants must have not had prior treatment for FL. Eligible participants were treated with Bendamustine IV 90 mg/m2 Day (D) 1 & 2, Obinutuzumab IV 100 mg D1, 900 mg D2, 1000 mg D8 and D15 of Cycle (C) 1 then D1 of each cycle, and VEN 800 mg orally daily D1-10 every 28 days for 6 total cycles. Due to a high rate of laboratory tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) during C1 in the first 21 patients, VEN was removed from C1 and given in C2-6 only. Participants with a CR at EOI were treated with mO IV 1000 mg D1 every 8 weeks for 2 years. Those with a partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) were treated with mO as well as VEN 800 mg orally daily for 2 years. Pneumocystis jiroveci Pneumonia (PJP) and antiviral prophylaxis was required as was G-CSF support. Response was assessed via Lugano Criteria at EOI including PET/CT and bone marrow assessment. Adverse Events (AEs) were evaluated using CTCAE v5.0. To be considered promising, OB-VEN should improve the null hypothesis CR rate of 50% (OB) to 65%. With an 85% power and a one sided 15% type I error, 56 participants would be needed with an estimated 51 eligible. Support for the study was from Genentech, Member of the Roche Group. Results A total of 56 participants were enrolled and treated between 12/2017 and 11/2020; baseline characteristics are listed in Table 1. TLS was closely monitored in C1 and 8/21 participants developed TLS when VEN was administered in C1; 0/35 when it was not. However, monitoring for TLS in C1 became less stringent when VEN was not administered. Treatment related Grade ≥3 toxicities occurred in 47/56 participants (83.9%) with serious adverse events in 31 of 56 (55.5%). Atypical infections were seen; there was one treatment related death on study due to cytomegalovirus (CMV) encephalitis as well as PJP pneumonia which occurred after induction C6. Enrollment was temporarily suspended and CMV monitoring was implemented with no further occurrences. Another participant receiving mO later developed BK virus nephropathy following mO C6 and now requires ongoing hemodialysis. Another was diagnosed with Respiratory Syncytial Virus pneumonia 30 days after C6 and later PJP pneumonia after C2 of mO. Common (incidence &gt;10%) AEs during induction are listed in Table 2. 45 of 56 (80.4%) participants were able to receive all 6 cycles of OB-VEN. CR was seen in 41 of 56 participants (73.2%, 2 sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 59.7-84.2%) at the EOI. 30 participants (53.5%) went onto maintenance. With a median follow up of 20.9 months, estimated 2 year Overall Survival (OS) and Progression-Free Survival (PFS) (90% CI) is 94.4% (82.4-98.3%) and 85.8% (68.8-93.9%) respectively. Conclusions This Phase II study of OB-VEN in untreated HTB FL showed high CR rate and met its primary endpoint with early signs of prolonged PFS. Laboratory TLS was identified but it was unclear if attributed solely to VEN, as baseline laboratory TLS rate for OB is unknown. The rate of Grade ≥3 AE of 83.9% (compared to 69% for OB in GALLIUM, Hiddeman JCO 2018) and the observation of opportunistic infections including CMV encephalitis, PJP pneumonia and BK nephropathy, suggests the combination is highly immunosuppressive. Therefore, while the study met its primary outcome, the combination of OB-VEN at 800 mg for 10 days, plus mO, does not have an acceptable risk/benefit profile. Participants will continue to be followed for efficacy and safety during the maintenance phase. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Portell: Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; SeaGen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Xencor: Research Funding; Aptitude Health: Honoraria; BeiGene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Morphosys: Honoraria; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; Genentech: Research Funding; VelosBio: Research Funding. Nowakowski: MorphoSys: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kymera Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy; Nanostrings: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Zai Labolatory: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Bantham Pharmaceutical: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Selvita: Consultancy; Ryvu Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kyte Pharma: Consultancy. Cohen: Janssen, Adicet, Astra Zeneca, Genentech, Aptitude Health, Cellectar, Kite/Gilead, Loxo, BeiGene, Adaptive: Consultancy; Genentech, BMS/Celgene, LAM, BioINvent, LOXO, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, M2Gen, Takeda: Research Funding. Kahl: AbbVie, Acerta, ADCT, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech: Research Funding; AbbVie, Adaptive, ADCT, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Incyte, Janssen, Karyopharm, Kite, MEI, Pharmacyclics, Roche, TG Therapeutics, and Teva: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: Venetoclax is not approved for follicular lymphoma or in combination with bendamustine and obinutuzumab