Zinzani, Pier Luigi

8569 Introduction: Relapsed or refractory MCL patients demonstrated a promising overall response rate (ORR) of 53% with a median duration of response (DR) of 13.7 months to single-agent lenalidomide when analyzed as a subset in a recent a phase II study (NHL-002). A supporting international phase II trial (NHL-003) of single-agent lenalidomide was initiated for patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive NHL. In this report, we analyze the current results from the MCL patients enrolled in this trial. Methods: Patients with relapsed or refractory MCL and measurable disease 2 cm after at least 1 prior treatment regimen were eligible. Patients received 25 mg of lenalidomide orally once daily on days 1–21 of every 28-day cycle. Patients continued therapy until disease progression or toxicity. The 1999 IWLRC methodology was used to assess response and progression. Results: Fifty-four MCL patients were enrolled and were evaluable for response assessment. Median age was 69 years (33–82) and 40 patients (74%) were male. Median time from diagnosis was 3.2 years (0.4–10.4), patients had received a median of 3 prior treatments (1–8), 17 of the patients (32%) had received prior bortezomib therapy (MCL-bortezomib), and 14 (26%) had received a prior stem cell transplant (MCL-stem cell). Response rates are shown in the Table. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (43%), thrombocytopenia (22%) and anemia (11%). Conclusions: This is the second study to demonstrate that lenalidomide oral monotherapy is effective in the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory MCL, with manageable side effects. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

e19504 Background: Patients with diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who are not cured with R-CHOP or high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell rescue have a dismal prognosis. A recent phase II trial (NHL-002) of lenalidomide in patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) demonstrated a 19% overall response rate (ORR) with a 7-month median duration of response (DR) in the subset of patients with DLBCL. A supporting international phase II trial (NHL-003) of single-agent lenalidomide was initiated for patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive NHL that had received at least one prior treatment and had measurable disease. Herein, we report the data from the DLBCL patients enrolled in this trial. Methods: Patients received 25 mg oral lenalidomide once daily on days 1–21 of every 28-day cycle and continued therapy until disease progression or toxicity. The 1999 IWLRC methodology was used to assess response and progression. Results: One hundred-three DLBCL patients were enrolled and were evaluable for response assessment. The median age was 66 years (21–87) and 70 patients (68%) were male. Median time from diagnosis was 2 years (0.4–18.6), patients had received a median of 3 prior treatment regimens (1–10) and 46 of the patients (45%) had received a prior stem cell transplant (DLBCL-stem cell). Response rates are shown in the Table . Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurring in more than 5% of patients were neutropenia (34%), thrombocytopenia (18%), asthenia (9%), anemia (8%), leucopenia (7%), back pain (6%) and dyspnea (6%). Conclusions: This international study demonstrates that lenalidomide is active in heavily pre-treated patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL and has manageable side effects. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

8049 Background: Our group has demonstrated that combinations of epigenetic modifiers produce potent synergy in pre-clinical models of PTCL and induce the expression of cancer testis antigen, suggesting a role in the addition of the immune-checkpoint inhibitor, pembrolizumab. Methods: This is a phase 1b study of pembrolizumab combined with pralatrexate alone (Arm A), with pralatrexate + decitabine (Arm B), or decitabine alone (Arm C) in patients with relapsed and refractory PTCL and CTCL. A standard 3+3 dose-escalation is applied in the triplet Arm (Arm B) while in the doublet Arms (A and C) de-escalation is applied in case of toxicity. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies are ongoing. Results: We treated a total of 12 patients with 4 patients in each Arm. All patients that received at least one dose of drug were evaluable for toxicity. There was a dose limiting toxicity (DLT) in each arm including prolonged grade 3 thrombocytopenia (Arm A), febrile neutropenia (Arm B), grade 3 hyponatremia, and rash (Arm C). There were no treatment-related deaths. Six patients out of 12 were evaluable for response at the time of this analysis. One patient achieved a complete remission, 2 had partial remission, 1 had stable disease, and 2 experienced progression of disease. Interestingly, all of the responses were seen in the triple combination of pralatrexate, decitabine, and pembrolizumab. Table summarizes the patient characteristics, toxicities, and response rates. Conclusions: These preliminary clinical data suggest that the integration of pembrolizumab on an epigenetic backbone is safe and demonstrates encouraging responses in patient with PTCL and CTCL. Clinical trial information: 03240211 . [Table: see text]

8020 Background: Patients with R/R DLBCL ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) have a poor prognosis. In these patients, tafasitamab (anti-CD19 antibody) plus lenalidomide (LEN) has shown encouraging results in the open-label, single-arm, phase II L-MIND study (n = 81; NCT02399085). To evaluate the contribution of tafasitamab to the activity of this doublet, we conducted a global, real-world study of patients treated with LEN monotherapy (RE-MIND; NCT04150328). Here we present the primary analysis of a 1:1 patient-level matched comparison between the L-MIND and RE-MIND cohorts. Methods: Patients treated with LEN monotherapy for R/R DLBCL were enrolled in the observational, retrospective RE-MIND cohort. As in L-MIND, patients had 1–3 prior systemic therapies, including ≥1 CD20-targeting regimen; were aged ≥18 years; and were not eligible for ASCT. A 1:1 estimated propensity score (ePS) matching methodology ensured balancing of nine pre-specified baseline covariates. The primary analysis set, Matched Analysis Set 25 (MAS25), included patients who received a LEN starting dose of 25 mg/day. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed best objective response rate (ORR). Key secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and complete response (CR) rate. Results: 490 patients were enrolled in RE-MIND across 58 centers in the US and Europe, of which 140 fulfilled the ePS matching criteria. The MAS25 included 76 patients each from the two cohorts. Baseline characteristics between cohorts were comparable. The primary endpoint was met with a significantly better ORR of 67.1% (95% CI: 55.4–77.5) for the L-MIND cohort versus 34.2% (95% CI: 23.7–46.0) for the RE-MIND cohort (odds ratio 3.89; 95% CI: 1.90–8.14; p < 0.0001). The CR rate was 39.5% (95% CI: 28.4–51.4) in the L-MIND cohort and 13.2% (95% CI: 6.5–22.9) in the RE-MIND cohort. A significant difference in OS favored the L-MIND cohort (HR = 0.499; 95% CI: 0.317–0.785). ORR and CR outcomes in the RE-MIND cohort were similar to the published literature for LEN monotherapy in R/R DLBCL. Conclusions: Significantly better ORR, CR and OS indicate potential synergistic effects of the tafasitamab + LEN combination in ASCT-ineligible R/R DLBCL. ePS-based 1:1 matching allows robust estimation of the treatment effect of tafasitamab when added to LEN. RE-MIND demonstrates the utility of real-world data in interpreting non-randomized trials. Clinical trial information: NCT04150328 .

Abstract Introduction: Diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common of the non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL). Patients with DLBCL who are not cured by treatment with R-CHOP chemotherapy or high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell rescue have a poor prognosis. These patients reflect a clear unmet need in the treatment of DLBCL. A previous sub-analysis of a phase II trial (NHL-002) of lenalidomide in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL, demonstrated a 19% overall response rate (ORR) with a 7-month median duration of response (DR). A confirmatory international phase II trial (NHL-003) of single-agent lenalidomide was initiated for patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive NHL that had received at least one prior treatment and had measurable disease. Herein, we report the data from the DLBCL patients enrolled in this trial. Methods: Patients received 25 mg oral lenalidomide once daily on days 1–21 of every 28-day cycle and continued therapy until disease progression or toxicity. The 1999 IWLRC methodology was used to assess response and progression. Results: This report focuses on the 73 DLBCL patients that were enrolled and evaluable for response assessment. The median age was 67 (21–87) years and 49 (67%) patients were male. Median time from diagnosis to lenalidomide treatment was 2 (0–18.6) years, and patients had received a median of 3 (1–6) prior treatment regimens. The ORR to lenalidomide was 29% (21/73), with 4% complete response (3/73) and 25% partial response (18/73). Eleven patients (15%) had stable disease. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (32%), thrombocytopenia (15%), asthenia (8%) and anemia (7%). Conclusion: These results of this international study confirm that lenalidomide is active in heavily pre-treated patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL with manageable side effects.

Abstract Introduction: Mantle-cell lymphoma (MCL) is an aggressive B-cell lymphoma that if not cured with aggressive chemoimmunotherapy and stem cell transplant is usually fatal. The intravenous proteasome inhibitor bortezomib produces an overall response rate (ORR) of 33% in patients with relapsed MCL (J Clin Oncol2006;24(30):4867–74). Unfortunately, most patients eventually relapse and new agents are needed for this disease. Two recently conducted phase II trials (NHL-002 and NHL-003) tested single-agent lenalidomide for patients with relapsed MCL. Fifty-four patients with MCL were enrolled into the two studies; 26% (14/54) had received prior bortezomib and they are the subject of this report. Methods: Patients with relapsed or refractory MCL and measurable disease 2 cm after at least one prior treatment regimen including prior bortezomib were eligible. Patients received 25 mg of lenalidomide orally once daily on days 1–21 of every 28-day cycle. Therapy was continued as tolerated or until disease progression. The 1999 IWLRC methodology was used to assess response and progression. Results: The 14 patients in this study were heavily pretreated with a median of 4 (2–6) prior treatments (including bortezomib) and 50% were bortezomib-refractory. Median age was 66 (45–84) years and 6 (43%) patients were female. Median time from diagnosis to lenalidomide treatment was 3.3 (0.7–7.6) years. The ORR with lenalidomide was 57% (8/14), including 21% (3/14) complete response (CR)/unconfirmed CR and 36% (5/14) partial responses. One (7%) patient had stable disease. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (50%), thrombocytopenia (43%), anemia (21%), fatigue (21%), and leukopenia (21%). Neutropenic fever occurred in 7% of patients. Conclusion: These results demonstrate that lenalidomide oral monotherapy is very effective with manageable side effects in patients with relapsed or refractory MCL who had received prior treatment with bortezomib.

Abstract Introduction: Mantle-cell lymphoma (MCL) is a type of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) that typically responds to initial chemo-immunotherapy, but with a relatively short duration of response (DR) and progression-free survival (PFS) when treated with conventional chemotherapy agents. Although the overall survival (OS) of MCL has improved, most patients are not cured and new agents are needed. A sub-analysis of a recent phase II trial (NHL-002) investigating the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide in patients with relapsed or refractory MCL, demonstrated a promising overall response rate (ORR) of 53% with a median DR of 11.9 months. A confirmatory international phase II trial (NHL-003) of single-agent lenalidomide was initiated for patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive NHL that had received at least one prior treatment and had measurable disease. In this report, we analyze the current results from the MCL patients enrolled in this trial. Methods: Patients with relapsed or refractory MCL and measurable disease ≥2 cm after at least 1 prior treatment regimen were eligible. Patients received 25 mg of lenalidomide orally once daily on days 1–21 of every 28-day cycle. Patients continued therapy until disease progression or toxicity. The 1999 IWLRC methodology was used to assess response and progression. Results: This report focuses on the 39 MCL patients that were enrolled and evaluable for response assessment. Median age was 66 (33–82) years and 29 (74%) patients were male. Median time from diagnosis to lenalidomide treatment was 3.4 (0.4–9) years. Patients had received a median of 3 (1–8) prior treatments, and 23% (9/39) of patients had received prior bortezomib treatment. The ORR with lenalidomide was 41% (16/39), including 13% (5/39) complete response (CR)/unconfirmed CR, and 28% (11/39) partial responses. Ten (26%) patients had stable disease. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (51%) and thrombocytopenia (25%), anemia (13%), fatigue (10%) and febrile neutropenia (10%). Conclusion: These results confirm that lenalidomide oral monotherapy is effective in the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory MCL, with manageable side effects.

8533 Background: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is an aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) with poor prognosis. The immunomodulatory agent lenalidomide shows consistent activity with tolerable safety in multiple phase II studies of relapsed/refractory aggressive NHL (NHL-002 and NHL-003) and MCL post-bortezomib (MCL-001). This pooled analysis further examined the efficacy and safety of single-agent lenalidomide in patients with relapsed/refractory MCL. Methods: Single-agent lenalidomide was given 25 mg/d PO on days 1-21 of 28-day cycles as tolerated for 52 weeks (NHL-002) or until disease progression (NHL-003 and MCL-001). All MCL patients received ≥1 prior treatment, including bortezomib in MCL-001. Efficacy data were examined by independent central review for MCL-001 and NHL-003 and by investigators for NHL-002. Results: 206 patients with relapsed/refractory MCL were studied. The median age was 67 y (range 33-84; 63% ≥65 y), 91% stage III/IV disease and 51% had received ≥4 prior regimens (76% prior bortezomib). Overall response rate (ORR) with lenalidomide was 32% (10% CR/CRu), with a median time to response of 2.1 months and median duration of response (DOR) of 16.6 months (not yet reached in patients with CR/CRu; Table). Kaplan-Meier estimates for median PFS and OS were 5.4 and 23.9 months, respectively. Mean daily dose of lenalidomide was 21 mg. Grade 3/4 AEs included neutropenia (44%), thrombocytopenia (29%), anemia (11%), and fatigue (7%). Other any-grade AEs included tumor flare reaction (7%), venous thromboembolic events (7%), and invasive second primary malignancies (3%). Conclusions: Lenalidomide produced rapid and durable responses in patients with relapsed/refractory MCL, and exhibited a predictable safety profile among 3 phase II studies of lenalidomide in heavily pretreated patients, including prior treatment with bortezomib. Clinical trial information: MCL-001: NCT00737529; NHL-002: NCT00179660; NHL-003: NCT00413036. [Table: see text]

Introduction: Anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are highly active in relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), but most patients (pts) will still relapse. Given this, allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) remains an important option for pts after PD-1 blockade, as it offers the possibility of cure. Prior reports have suggested that alloHSCT after PD-1 mAbs may be associated with severe immune-related complications including acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), veno-occlusive disease (VOD) and cytokine release/febrile non-infectious syndrome (CRS). Prior studies of alloHSCT after PD-1 blockade in cHL have been limited by the small number of pts and short follow-up, preventing an accurate assessment of long-term outcomes and complications, risk factors for early toxicity, and the impact of transplant strategies such as choice of GVHD prophylaxis. We therefore assembled a large retrospective international cohort of cHL pts who underwent alloHSCT after PD-(L)1 blockade to better answer these questions, including an assessment of the impact of post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) on efficacy and toxicity. Methods: Medical records and databases were reviewed at 26 European and United States transplant centers to identify pts with cHL who underwent an alloHSCT any time after receiving a PD-1 or PD-L1 mAb. Response assessment was performed by local investigators according to Lugano 2014 criteria. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), cumulative incidence (CumInc) of relapse (CIR), non-relapse mortality (NRM), acute (a) and chronic (c) GVHD were estimated, as was the association between baseline variables and these outcomes. Results: Between 2014 and 2019, 150 pts were identified who underwent alloHSCT after a median of 10 (range, 1-74) doses of nivolumab (n=118), pembrolizumab (n=31), or avelumab (n=1). The median age was 31 (range 17-68) and pts had received a median of 4 (range, 2-11) lines of therapy prior to PD-(L)1 blockade. 138 pts (92%) had failed BV and 111 (74%) autologous HSCT. The best overall response to PD-(L)1 mAbs was CR for 62 pts (41%), PR for 55 (37%), SD for 17 (11%), PD for 15 (10%) and unknown for 1 (1%). Median time from last dose of PD-(L)1 mAb to alloHSCT was 80 days (range, 17-756) with 70 pts (47%) receiving intervening systemic therapy. At alloHSCT, 90 pts were in CR (60%), 45 in PR (30%), 5 in SD (3%), and 10 in PD (7%). Donors were haploidentical (n=71, 47%), matched sibling (n=29, 19%), matched unrelated (n=39, 26%), mismatched unrelated (n=7, 5%), cord blood (n=2, 1%), or unknown (n=2, 1%). Stem cell source was bone marrow (n=38, 25%), peripheral blood (n=110, 73%), or cord blood (n=2, 1%). GVHD prophylaxis included PTCy in 88 pts (59%) (69/71 (97%) with haploidentical donors; 19/79 (24%) with other donors). With a median post-alloHSCT follow-up for survivors of 23.8 months (range, 1-67), the 2y OS and PFS were 79% (95CI 71-86%) and 65% (95CI 55-73%), respectively, while the 2y CumIncs of relapse and NRM were 21% (95CI 13-29%) and 14%, (95CI, 8-22%), respectively (Fig. 1A-B). 27 pts have died, 3 due to disease and 24 to NRM, including aGVHD (n=7) and VOD (n=2). Veno-occlusive disease (VOD) occurred in 5 pts (day 100 CumInc 4%) and 29 pts (19%) developed CRS (grade 1 n=16; grade 2 n=7; grade 3 n=4; grade 4 n=2). The 6-month CumIncs of grade 2-4, grade 3-4 and grade 4 aGVHD were 39%, 16% and 8%, respectively. Hyperacute GVHD (onset ≤ 14 days after alloHSCT) occurred in 4% of pts and was fatal in 2 pts. The 2y CumInc of cGVHD was 45%. Neither receipt of &gt; 10 doses (median) of anti-PD-(L)1 mAb nor undergoing alloHSCT ≤80 days (median) after last dose of PD-(L)1 mAb were associated with PFS or OS. However, pts with a shorter time to transplant (≤80 days) appeared to have a higher risk of severe (grade 3-4) aGVHD (6m CumInc 24% vs 9%, p=0.006). Recipients of PTCy in this cohort had lower 2y CumIncs of cGVHD (34% vs 58%, p=0.01) and relapse (12% vs 31%, p=0.02), superior 2y PFS (76% vs 54%, p=0.015), and similar rates of severe aGVHD (15% vs 18%, p=0.5), 2y NRM (12% vs 16%, p=0.5), and 2y OS (82% vs 78%, p=0.6). Conclusions: With extended follow-up of a large international cohort, our results argue that alloSCT performed after PD-(L)1 mAbs is a feasible strategy associated with an excellent PFS and a very low CIR for this disease. The use of PT-Cy appears to be associated with improved outcomes and may at present represent the optimal transplant strategy in this pt population. Figure Disclosures Corradini: kite: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; KiowaKirin: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Ho:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Omeros Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jaglowski:Kite: Consultancy, Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy, Other: advisory board; Unum Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding. Herrera:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Blaise:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre medicaments: Honoraria; Molmed: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hamadani:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Ansell:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding. Nieto:Astra-Zeneca: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy; Affimed: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Feldman:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Portola Pharma: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; Viracta: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. McGuirk:ArticulateScience LLC: Other: Assistance with manuscript preparation; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Pluristem Ltd: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding. Mohty:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding. Stamatoulas Bastard:Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy. Houot:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Merck Sharp Dohme: Honoraria. Manson:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Orvain:Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Travel & accommodations; Pfizer: Other: Travel & accommodations. Bouabdallah:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Frigault:Novartis: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria; Nkarta: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy; Foundation Medicine: Consultancy; Xenetic: Consultancy. Chen:Takeda: Consultancy; Kiadis: Consultancy; Magenta: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Lynch:T.G. Therapeutics: Research Funding; Rhizen Pharmaceuticals S.A: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Johnson Graffe Keay Moniz & Wick LLP: Consultancy. Smith:AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb (spouse): Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Ignyta (spouse): Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Ayala (spouse): Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Byrne:Karyopharm: Research Funding. Cohen:Hutchison: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding. Svoboda:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Santoro:Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Speakers Bureau; Arqule: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Abb-Vie: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy; Lilly: Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Speakers Bureau; Eisai: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Armand:Sigma Tau: Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Tensha: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Infinity: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding. Zinzani:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy; Eusapharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Carlo-Stella:Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations; Genenta Science srl: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Travel, accommodations, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rhizen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Janssen Oncology: Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Other: Travel, accommodations; Takeda: Other: Travel, accommodations.

Background: The combination of lenalidomide+rituximab (R2) recently showed superior efficacy vs R-placebo in patients (pts) with R/R iNHL (Leonard et al. J Clin Oncol 2019). Based on these AUGMENT study results, R2 was approved by the US FDA for treatment of adult pts with previously treated follicular lymphoma (FL) or marginal zone lymphoma (MZL). Advanced age at diagnosis is a risk factor in pts with iNHL. We performed post-hoc subgroup analyses by age from AUGMENT and data here focus on pts age ≥ 70 y. Methods: AUGMENT (NCT01938001) is a multicenter, double-blind, randomized phase III study of R2 vs R-placebo in pts with FL grade 1-3a or MZL previously treated with ≥ 1 systemic therapy with R/R disease but not refractory to rituximab. Pts were randomized 1:1 to R2 or R-placebo. R2 was oral lenalidomide 20 mg/d, d1-21/28 for 12c plus rituximab IV 375 mg/m2 weekly in c1 and d1 of c2-5. R-placebo was rituximab+placebo on the same schedule. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per 2007 IWG response criteria (without PET) as assessed by IRC (central review). Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), time to next anti-lymphoma treatment (TTNLT) and safety. Post-hoc analyses were performed by dividing pts into age &lt; 70 y and ≥ 70 y subgroups, the latter group considered unfit for chemotherapy. Results: Of 358 pts randomized (R2, n = 178; R-placebo, n = 180), 267 pts were age &lt; 70 y (R2, n = 131; R-placebo, n = 136), and 91 pts were age ≥ 70 y (R2, n = 47; R-placebo, n = 44). Baseline characteristics including histology, disease status, and prior treatments are shown in the table and were similar across treatment arms in pts ≥ 70 y. At a median follow-up of 28.3 mo, the study met its primary endpoint of PFS, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.46 (95% CI, 0.34-0.62; P &lt; 0.0001) in the overall population. R2 had superior PFS vs R-placebo in both &lt; 70 and ≥ 70 y subgroups, with HR of 0.41 (95% CI, 0.29-0.59) and HR of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.37-1.18), respectively. In pts ≥ 70 y, median PFS with R2 vs R-placebo was 24.9 vs 14.3 mo; ORR/CR was 81%/26% vs 59%/16%; and TTNLT was not reached in either arm. Efficacy results for all pts and those &lt; 70 y are reported in the table; notably in pts receiving R2, mPFS was longer in pts &lt; 70 y vs ≥ 70 y (39.4 mo [95% CI, 22.9-NE] vs 24.9 mo [95% CI, 16.4-NE]). In pts ≥ 70 y, any-grade adverse events (AEs) with a ≥ 10 % difference between R2 vs R-placebo included neutropenia (63% vs 11%), constipation (33% vs 16%), cough (33% vs 16%), leukopenia (26% vs 2%), anemia (24% vs 9%), pyrexia (24% vs 9%), pruritus/pruritus generalized (24% vs 2%), muscle spasms (22% vs 11%), rash/rash maculopapular (22% vs 5%), headache (20% vs 9%), thrombocytopenia (17% vs 2%), dyspepsia (13% vs 2%), influenza (13% vs 2%), back pain (7% vs 18%), and nasopharyngitis (4% vs 16%). Also, tumor flare was reported in 9% vs 0% of pts, respectively. In pts ≥ 70 y, 75% of R2 pts vs 36% of R-placebo pts had ≥ 1 grade 3/4 AE, mainly due to neutropenia (50% vs 7%). All other grade 3/4 AEs occurred in &lt; 10% of pts ≥ 70 y in both treatment arms. One grade 5 AE occurred in pts ≥ 70 y (R-placebo arm). In the R2 arm, the median number of treatment cycles was 12 for both the &lt; 70 y vs ≥ 70 y subgroups; however, fewer older pts completed 12 cycles of lenalidomide (76% vs 57%), and more started lenalidomide at the lower dose of 10 mg (6% vs 35%) because of low creatinine clearance, respectively. In the R2 &lt; 70 y and ≥ 70 y subgroups, the average daily dose of lenalidomide was 17.9 mg/d (range, 5.6-20.0) and 14.4 mg/d (range 4.2-20.0), and median relative dose intensity was 95% and 86%, respectively. Conclusions: Similar to the results in the original population, R2 showed superior efficacy vs rituximab monotherapy (plus placebo) as measured by the primary end point of PFS and secondary end points of ORR and CR in pts with R/R FL grade 1-3a and MZL irrespective of age. The efficacy and safety profiles of R2 and R-placebo in pts ≥ 70 y were similar to those reported in the overall population. Older pts treated with R2 vs R-placebo had superior mPFS (24.9 vs 14.3 mo). They were more likely to start lenalidomide at a lower dose and had lower median dose intensity which may have contributed to their shorter mPFS vs younger pts receiving R2. These data show that R2 maintained efficacy improvements vs R-placebo in pts ≥ 70 y, despite higher unfit status and lower overall lenalidomide treatment/exposure. Thus, R2 is an effective and available treatment option for pts with iNHL, including those with advanced age. Disclosures Trněný: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria. Leonard:Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Bayer Corporation: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy. Nowakowski:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Curis: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding. Izutsu:Chugai, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Astra Zeneca, Eisai, Symbio, Ono, Bayer, Solasia, Zenyaku, Incyte, Novartis, Sanofi, HUYA Bioscience, MSD, Astellas Amgen, Abbvie, ARIAD, Takeda, Pfizer: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin, Eisai, Takeda, MSD, Chugai, Nihon Medi-physics, Janssen, Ono, Abbvie, Dainihon Sumitomo, Bayer, Astra Zeneca, HUYA Japan, Novartis, Bristol-Byers Squibb, Mundi, Otsuka, Daiichi Sankyo, Astellas, Asahi Kasei: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; Eisai, Symbio, Chugai, Zenyaku: Research Funding; Eisai, Chugai, Zenyaku: Honoraria. Fowler:TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Thieblemont:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Kyte: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Cellectis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Zinzani:Verastem: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Eusapharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy; Celltrion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Immune Design: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kalambakas:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Czuczman:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fustier:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wu:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gribben:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta/Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.