Beaven, Anne

Abstract Introduction: cBTKi have made a substantial impact in pts w/ MCL, but pts who develop PD while on treatment w/ cBTKi have historically had poor responses to subsequent lines of therapy (LOT). Brexucel, lisocel, and the non-covalent BTKi pirto have been approved in this population. While two RW studies have substantiated the benefit of brexucel, similar data for pirto are lacking. Accordingly, we aimed to evaluate the outcomes of pts treated w/ pirto in the RW setting. Methods: We performed a multi-center retrospective cohort study of adult pts w/ a diagnosis of MCL who experienced PD after any approved cBTKi and subsequently received pirto. Pts who received pirto w/ bridging intent and those who switched to pirto due to intolerance of cBTKi were excluded. The 95% exact binomial confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for overall response rate (ORR) and complete response rate (CRR). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were defined as the time from pirto start to PD or death, whichever occurred first, and the time from pirto start to death, respectively, and calculated w/ the Kaplan-Meier method. The log-rank test was used to compare survival curves. A multivariate (MV) Cox proportional hazard model was built to calculate adjusted hazard ratio (aHR). Analyses were performed w/ SAS, version 9.4. Results: Data on 111 pts w/ MCL treated across 21 institutions were collected. Median (mdn) age was 72 (range 33 – 93) years. Twenty-seven pts (24%) were female, 3 (3%) were Asian, 5 (5%) Black, 9 (8%) Hispanic, 86 (77%) White. Among the 53 (48%) pts w/ available MIPI-c at diagnosis, 28 (53%) pts were high-risk. Ki67 at diagnosis was available in 84 (76%) pts: of those, 58 (69%) had a Ki67 ≥30%, and 41 (49%) ≥50%. TP53 mutational status was available in 70 (63%) pts: 33 (47%) had documented TP53 mutation and 10/52 (19%) pts had a disease w/ complex karyotype. Pts had a mdn of 3 (range 1 – 9) prior LOT (n=106). Ninety-one pts (86%) received chemo-immunotherapy (CIT), 16 (15%) autologous stem cell transplant, 19 (18%) venetoclax (ven), 29 (27%) chimeric antigen receptor T-cell, 4 (4%) allogeneic stem cell transplant. For cBTKi, 39 (35%) pts received ibrutinib, 56 (50%) pts acalabrutinib, 33 (30%) pts zanubrutinib, and 17 (15%) pts received more than one cBTKi. The mdn time from the last dose of cBTKi to pirto start was 55 (range 0 – 2587) days, w/ 51 (46%) pts who switched from a cBTKi directly to pirto. Thirty (27%) pts had no response (stable disease or PD as best response) to cBTKi, and 40 (36%) pts had no response to the last LOT. Two (2%) pts received pirto in combination w/ CIT, 8 (7%) w/ an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (mAb), 11 (10%) w/ ven ± a mAb, while 86 (77%) pts as single agent. In 104 (94%) pts, pirto was given at full dose, 10 (9%) pts had a subsequent dose reduction. A total of 35 serious (grade ≥3) adverse events (AE) were documented in 27 (24%) pts: 4 (4%) pts had a serious bleeding AE, 5 (5%) pts a serious cardiac AE, 10 (9%) a serious GI AE, and 16 (14%) a serious infectious AE. Ninety-eight (88%) pts were evaluable for response. The ORR was 40% (95% CI 30% – 50%) w/ a CRR of 29% (95% CI 20%– 39%). At the last follow-up, 29 (26%) pts remained on pirto w/ a mdn treatment duration of 15.1 months (range 0.4 – 26). Fifty-eight (52%) pts died, 35 (78%) because of PD. At a mdn follow-up of 15.8 (range 0.4 – 26) months among survivors, the mdn PFS was 4.7 months (95% CI 3.3 – 8.2) and the mdn OS was 13 months (95% CI 9.2 – not available). Using the log-rank test, age (quartile groups), number of LOT (1-2 vs. 3-4 vs. 5+), time from cBTKi to pirto (quartile groups), Ki67≥30%, and high MIPI-C did not result in a statistically significant difference in PFS (p>0.05). Presence of TP53 mutation was associated w/ a non-statistically significant adverse trend in PFS (p=0.0585). No response to cBTKi and Ki67≥50% were associated w/ a statistically significant inferior PFS in log-rank test (p=<0.05), which persisted in a MV Cox regression model (aHR 2.4, 95% CI 1.4-4.2, and aHR 2.6, 95% CI 1.6-4.4, respectively). Conclusions: This is the first RW report on pirto in MCL pts. In this high-risk population, ORR to pirto was comparable to the BRUIN trial, while PFS was significantly worse, especially in pts w/ no response to cBTKi and w/ a high Ki67. However, prolonged remissions were seen in a subset of pts, suggesting that a better characterization of this population w/ durable benefit from pirto is needed.

Abstract Introduction: T-PLL is a rare, aggressive leukemia with poor prognosis and limited therapies. Previous studies on T-PLL patients receiving an allogeneic stem cell transplant (alloSCT) are limited by small numbers with limited data on disease and transplant characteristics. Further, recent data from our large national cohort of patients demonstrated significant survival difference between TCL1A+ and TCL1A- T-PLL, and CD8+ T-PLL vs CD8- T-PLL. In this large multi-center series, utilizing comprehensive disease subtype and alloSCT clinical data, we evaluated prognostic and survival therapeutic outcomes in T-PLL patients that had an alloSCT with a particular focus on T-PLL disease subtypes. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 572 diagnosed with T-PLL at 21 academic cancer centers throughout the USA between 2000-2023, of which we performed a further evaluation on the169 that proceeded with alloSCT. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazard models. Results: Among n=169 alloSCT recipients with T-PLL, the median follow-up time was 20.9 months post-alloSCT (range: 0.2-182.9), the median age at transplant was 59 years (range: 35-77) and 52% were male. In evaluated patients (n=109), TCL1A was positive by cytogenetics or FISH in 69%. As our recent analysis demonstrated significant differences in survival among specific subtypes of T-PLL, we evaluated outcomes in patients with CD4+CD8- T-PLL (n=90, 53%), CD4-CD8+ (n=17, 10%) T-PLL, and CD4+CD8+ T-PLL (n=52, 31%). 53% (87/164) had known nodal involvement at diagnosis identified by PET or CT scan and 45% (43/96) of known patients had minimal residual disease (MRD) at the time of transplant [defined as <5% T-PLL in marrow by flow, or +cytogenetics (e.g. TCL1A)] prior to alloSCT. At the time of alloSCT, 136 (80%) patients were in CR and 23 (14%) patients were in PR. Forty-nine (30%) had a myeloablative (MAC)conditioning regimen and 114 (70%) had a reduced intensity chemotherapy (RIC) conditioning regimen. Eighty (49%) patients had TBI as part of their regimen. The most common regimens were fludarabine (flu)/melphalan based regimens (n=44; 26.0%), flu/cyclophosphamide (cy) based regimens (n=33; 19.5%), flu/busulfan based regimens (n=22; 13.0%), flu/total body irradiation (TBI) (n=8; 4.7%), and cy/TBI (n=4; 2.4%). Across the whole cohort, the median OS and PFS post-alloSCT was 32.6 months (95% CI: 21.0-41.9) and 20.8 months (95% CI: 14.4-30.5) months while the 1-year cumulative incidences (CI) of NRM and relapse were 17% and 20%, respectively. The incidences of grade II-IV acute GVHD and cGVHD were 19% and 23%. There was no difference between patients with myeloablative conditioning (MAC) (n=49, 29%) when compared to patients that received reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) (n=114, 67%) in OS (33.1 vs 29.2; p=0.68) and PFS (20.2 vs 20.8; p=0.97). Patients that were MRD+ (n=31) had worse OS (22.2 vs 48.6; p=0.1) and PFS (14.1 vs 32.5; p=0.04) and higher rates of relapse (1-year relapse 20% vs 8%; p=0.08) than patients that were MRD- (n=50). PFS was improved in those who received alloSCT though only trended towards significance due to low numbers (HR 0.76, p=0.09). In subtype analysis, TCL1A+ T-PLL had significantly worse outcomes compared to TCL1A negative T-PLL. TCL1A+ disease had significantly worse OS (21.6 vs 63.1; p=0.01) and PFS (12.4 vs 50.7; p=0.01) compared to TCL1A-. Additionally, in TCL1A+ disease CI of NRM (24% vs 3%; p=0.02) and relapse (25% vs 12%; p=0.86) was higher vs TCL1A- PLL. CD4+CD8-, CD4-CD8+, and CD4+CD8+ disease had no difference in survival via either OS (28.0 vs 34.4 vs 21.0; p=0.17) or PFS (29.4 vs 23.5 vs 13.6; p=0.09) as well as no difference 1-year CI of NRM ( 11.6 vs 23.5 vs 26.2; p=0.35) and relapse (18.5 vs 23.5 vs 20.0; p=0.67).Conclusions: AlloSCT significantly improved outcomes for patients with T-PLL compared to those who did not proceed to alloSCT and remains he only curative therapy for those with T-PLL. OS, PFS, and CI relapse were significantly worse for patients with TCL1A+ subtype of T-PLL, or those with MRD positivity or PR prior to alloSCT. Novel strategies to decrease relapse such as post-alloSCT maintenance therapy to improve outcomes are urgently needed in these patients.

Introduction: T-PLL is a rare, aggressive malignancy with poor prognosis and limited therapies. Outside of prospective trials utilizing alemtuzumab, data is derived primarily from small retrospective series, and limited data on survival outcomes and therapeutic efficacy, particularly beyond frontline therapy are available. In this large multi-center series, with comprehensive clinical data, we evaluated survival and therapeutic outcomes in T-PLL patients, with a focus on identification of prognostic subgroups of T-PLL, that will inform future investigations into the biology and treatment of this disease. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated all patients diagnosed with T-PLL at 15 academic cancer centers throughout the USA between 2000-2023 using the recent TPLL-ISG staging and response criteria with overall response rate (ORR) defined as CR and PR. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods and cox proportional hazard models. Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNAseq) was performed using the standard 10X Genomics platform. Results: 377 patients, with a median follow-up time of 29 months (range: 0-196) were evaluated. The median age at diagnosis was 64 and 51% were male. In evaluated patients (n=223), TCL1A was positive by cytogenetics or FISH in 82%. 61% of patients had CD4+CD8- T-PLL, 11% of patients had CD4-CD8+ T-PLL, and 24% of patients had CD4+CD8+ T-PLL, with 4% unknown. 175 patients (46.4%) had known nodal involvement at diagnosis identified by PET or CT scan. Among treated patients (n=342, 91%), using TPLL-ISG criteria, the ORR to any frontline treatment was 67% (49% CR, 18% PR). Median OS and PFS was 19 months and 10 months in responding patients from the start of treatment initiation. For those treated with frontline alemtuzumab (n=250), the ORR was 74% (58% CR), with a median OS and PFS of 18 and 12 months. 20 patients (5%) were treated with a combination of alemtuzumab/pentostatin frontline with an ORR of 85% (70% CR), which was superior to alemtuzumab alone (ORR 74%, 58% CR). Patients that had frontline chemotherapy (excluding pentostatin, n=48) had a worse ORR of 35% (15% CR) (p<0.001), and a worse PFS of 4 months (p=0.002), when compared to those who received alemtuzumab. Among patients in 1st CR/PR (n=226), 44% (n=99) received an allograft and had an improved 3-year OS of 50% vs 17%, (HR=0.67, 95%CI 0.48-0.93), and 50% improvement in PFS (HR 0.48, 0.33-0.68) compared to those who did not receive an allograft. For patients that received second line treatment (n=176, 52%), re-treatment with alemtuzumab (n=33) produced a 46% ORR (21% CR). Other active second-line treatments included: pentostatin (n=23; 44% ORR, 17% CR), ruxolitinib-based regimens (n=4; 25% ORR, 0% CR), venetoclax-based regimens (n=13; 39% ORR, 8% CR), bendamustine (n=10; 30% ORR, 0% CR), and nelarabine (n=4; 75% ORR, 50% CR). In subgroup survival analysis, TCL1A+ patients had a worse OS and PFS when compared to TCL1A- patients (23 months vs 43 months; p=0.02), and (14 months vs 24 months; p=0.02) respectively, with HR 1.58 (1.08, 2.31) (p=0.02) for OS and HR 1.62 (1.09-2.40) (p=0.02) for PFS. Furthermore, CD4- T-PLL had worse OS (16 months vs 25 months) when compared to CD4+ patients [HR 1.57 (1.08, 2.27), p=0.02]. Single cell RNA seq in 13 patients, including 3 TCL1A- patients, with a total of 66,269 T-PLL cells, demonstrated a unique RNA signature between the CD4+/- and TCL1A+/- patients, suggesting these represent unique molecular subtypes of T-PLL. Conclusions: In this large, multi-center study of T-PLL, frontline treatment with a combination of alemtuzumab/pentostatin improved response rates and OS. Further, among patients who attained a CR, allograft improved OS & PFS vs no allograft. In relapsed T-PLL, retreatment with alemtuzumab had a high ORR, and we report significant activity of multiple novel/alternative agents with the largest reported numbers to date. Intriguingly, TCL1A+, and CD4- T- PLL had worse OS/PFS, and scRNAseq confirmed unique molecular signatures in these populations, suggesting these represent novel molecular subtypes of T-PLL with prognostic significance. These studies form the foundation for future, targeted, therapeutic studies in this rare, aggressive disease with few treatment options.

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare lymphoma with a median age at diagnosis of 60-70 years. Front line therapy has traditionally been bendamustine-rituximab (BR) in older patients and then Bruton Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) for relapsed disease. Due to their efficacy, BTKi are now being combined with chemotherapy as induction treatment. The TRIANGLE trial of R-CHOP/R-DHAP +/- ibrutinib +/- transplant showed the benefit of adding a BTKi in young patients (Dreyling M, 2022). The SHINE trial, a phase III trial of BR +/- ibrutinib in patients >65 years, showed a significant improvement in median PFS (81 months vs. 53 months) (Wang M, 2022). However, this came with an increase in toxicity with more treatment related deaths in the ibrutinib arm (11% vs. 6%) and no difference in overall survival. Therefore, a better tolerated approach is still needed in older patients. A phase II study of rituximab + indefinite ibrutinib in 50 patients >65 years demonstrated efficacy of frontline BTKi with a 96% ORR and 71% CR (Jain P, 2021). However, a disadvantage of BTKi therapy is continuous treatment until disease progression or intolerance. In this study half of patients required dose reductions and almost a third of patients stopped treatment due to drug toxicity, most frequently atrial fibrillation or bleeding. If front line intermittent BTKi therapy is as effective as continuous therapy, it could minimize cumulative toxicity. A052101 (NCT05976763), an Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology trial, is a randomized phase 3 multicenter trial of upfront zanubrutinib that asks the question “in older patients with previously untreated MCL who obtain a CR with zanubrutinib-rituximab, is it safe and equally effective to stop treatment and restart it upon disease progression rather than continuing indefinitely?” The A052101 trial is enrolling pts with previously untreated MCL who are either >70 years old or 60-69 years old but are not transplant candidates due to cardiac ejection fraction <45%, DLCO <60% of predicted, creatinine clearance <70, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of >2, or a Cumulative Illness Rating Scales score of >6. Key exclusion criteria include: history of a severe bleeding disorder or clinically significant cardiac arrhythmias. Patients will take zanubrutinib 320 mg daily and rituximab/rituximab biosimilar once monthly for 6 cycles. Patients with less than partial response after 6 cycles will go off study treatment. Patients with a complete remission will be randomized in a 1:1 manner to intermittent treatment versus continuous treatment. Randomization will be stratified by age (60-69 years vs ≥70 years) and MIPI score. Those randomized to the continuous arm will receive zanubrutinib until intolerance or disease progression. Those randomized to the intermittent arm will stop all study drugs after those initial 6 cycles and will restart zanubrutinib at first disease progression and continue it until intolerance or second disease progression. In order to make the study results generalizable to clinical practice, disease progression will be defined by clinical parameters rather than minimal residual disease testing. The primary objective of this study is to compare time from randomization to first progression or death (PFS1) in the continuous treatment arm to the time to second progression or death (PFS2) in the intermittent treatment arm. The primary evaluation will be to determine whether, for patients in a CR, active monitoring followed by retreatment with zanubrutinib therapy upon disease progression will result in non-inferior clinical outcomes compared to indefinite zanubrutinib. Serial quality of life testing and adverse event monitoring will be performed throughout the study to gain a full understanding of the impact of continuous vs intermittent zanubrutinib on patients' lives. A052101 has the potential to change management of older patients with previously untreated MCL. If our study demonstrates that the time to second progression/death when using the stop and retreat strategy is non-inferior to time to first progression/death when using continuous BTK therapy, then it might lead to a new standard of care in this patient population. This could result in decreased health care costs, decreased toxicity and improved quality of life for older patients with mantle cell lymphoma. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org

Abstract Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) can be curative for patients with relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Based on studies suggesting that anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) can sensitize patients to subsequent chemotherapy, we hypothesized that anti-PD-1 therapy before ASCT would result in acceptable outcomes among high-risk patients who progressed on or responded insufficiently to ≥1 salvage regimen, including chemorefractory patients who are traditionally considered poor ASCT candidates. We retrospectively identified 78 HL patients who underwent ASCT after receiving an anti-PD-1 mAb (alone or in combination) as third-line or later therapy across 22 centers. Chemorefractory disease was common, including 42 patients (54%) refractory to ≥2 consecutive systemic therapies immediately before anti-PD-1 treatment. Fifty-eight (74%) patients underwent ASCT after anti-PD-1 treatment, while 20 patients (26%) received additional therapy after PD-1 blockade and before ASCT. Patients received a median of 4 systemic therapies (range, 3-7) before ASCT, and 31 patients (41%) had a positive pre-ASCT positron emission tomography (PET) result. After a median post-ASCT follow-up of 19.6 months, the 18-month progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were 81% (95% CI, 69-89) and 96% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87-99), respectively. Favorable outcomes were observed for patients who were refractory to 2 consecutive therapies immediately before PD-1 blockade (18-month PFS, 78%), had a positive pre-ASCT PET (18-month PFS, 75%), or received ≥4 systemic therapies before ASCT (18-month PFS, 73%), while PD-1 nonresponders had inferior outcomes (18-month PFS, 51%). In this high-risk cohort, ASCT after anti-PD-1 therapy was associated with excellent outcomes, even among heavily pretreated, previously chemorefractory patients.

Abstract Background Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL) are a heterogeneous group of non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas (NHL) characterized by poor treatment outcomes with conventional chemotherapy, including CHOP [complete remission (CR) ∼40%]. Retrospective studies suggest that the incorporation of etoposide into chemotherapy regimens may improve outcomes compared to CHOP. In contrast, anthracyclines appear to have a limited role in PTCL, largely attributed to p-glycoprotein related resistance. Pralatrexate was the first drug approved for patients (pts) with relapsed PTCL, providing a rationale to evaluate it in the front-line setting. Herein, we evaluated the efficacy of a novel combination for the primary therapy of pts with PTCL whereby the anthracycline in CHOP backbone was replaced with etoposide (CEOP) alternating with pralatrexate (P). Methods Pts > 18 years (yrs) with PTCL stages II-IV with no prior therapy and adequate end organ function were eligible. Eligible histologies included, PTCL-NOS, AILT, ALCL (ALK positive pts only allowed if IPI >3). CEOP (Cycle A) was administered as: cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2 IV d1, etoposide 100 mg/m2 IV d1-3 (or 100 mg/m2 IV d1 and 200 mg/m2 PO days 2-3), vincristine 2 mg IV day 1 and prednisone 100 mg/day X 5 alternating with P (cycle B) 30 mg/m2 IV d 15, 22 and 29 (with vitamin B12 and folate supplementation). Growth factors were used to support both cycles of therapy. Imaging to assess response was done after cycle 2B, 4B and 6B. Pts achieving a remission were eligible for consolidative autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) after cycle 4B at physician discretion. The primary statistical aim was to improve the CR rate from 40 to 63% with CEOP-P and optional transplant. Secondary objectives included assessment of event free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicity of the regimen. A two-stage Simon design (alpha=0.10, 90% power) tested the null hypothesis that the CR rate would be </= to 40%. For the first stage of 20 evaluable pts, the trial would be terminated if 8 or fewer pts experienced a CR after course 2B of chemotherapy. For the second stage, a total of 34 pts were required with at least 17 achieving a CR at the end of therapy to consider the regimen useful. Results 34 pts were enrolled and one withdrew consent before starting therapy, leaving 33 pts enrolled between 7/2011 and 1/2013. Characteristics are shown in Table 1. 27 pts received at least 2 cycles of therapy. 6 pts received only 1 cycle due to early disease progression in 4 and adverse events in 2. Grade 3-4 toxicities attributed to therapy included, anemia (27%), thrombocytopenia (12%), febrile neutropenia (18%), mucositis (18%), sepsis (15%), increased creatinine (12%) and liver transaminases (12%). At the end of stage 1, 10 of 20 pts (50%) achieved a CR; therefore accrual proceeded to stage 2. At the time of this initial analysis, the overall response rate is 70%. To date 15 pts (45%) have achieved a CR with two additional pts pending evaluation. Overall, the 1-yr EFS is 48% (95% CI 28-64), and 1-yr OS 70% (95% CI 47-84) (Figures 1 and 2). 6 pts (18%) to date (n=3 CR, n=2 PR and 1 with stable disease) have received consolidation with ASCT and all are in CR post-transplant. Pts who proceeded to ASCT were younger than the non-transplant cohort (median age 58 versus 64 yrs) with other clinical characteristics being similar. On exploratory bivariate analyses, age <60 yrs, absence of B symptoms, low IPI score (0,1), achieving a CR, and receiving a ASCT were associated with better EFS. Attaining a CR was the only factor associated with better OS and was highest in patients with low IPI (78%) and those with ALCL histology (75%). Conclusions CEOP-P met the pre-defined stage 1 response criteria. Longer follow-up is needed to assess the impact on the final CR rate and secondary objectives of EFS and OS. Defining optimal front line therapy in PTCL continues to be a challenge and an unmet need. Disclosures: Advani: Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Pralatrexate is currently only approved for relapsed/refractory PTCL. Lechowicz:Allos Therapeutics: 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; Millennium: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Carson:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Foss:merck: Research Funding; spectrum: Research Funding; eisai: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; millenium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; seattle genetics: Research Funding. Horwitz:Celgene : Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum Pharamaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirn Pharma: Consultancy; Genzyme : Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding. Pro:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Pinter-Brown:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria. Smith:Micromet: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Allos: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy. Shustov:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria. Savage:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Vose:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 586 Background: Dacetuzumab (SGN-40), a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets CD40, mediates antitumor activity through multiple mechanisms of action, including effector cell functions (ADCC/ADCP) and direct apoptotic signal transduction. Ongoing evaluation of the molecule has led to 2 additional key findings: a gene signature that predicts sensitivity to single-agent dacetuzumab, and upregulation of the pro-apoptotic and chemosensitizing transcription factor TAp63αa when dacetuzumab is combined with rituximab (R) and gemcitabine (GEM). In prior single-agent dacetuzumab trials, several patients who were immediately treated with GEM after progressing achieved unexpected responses. These observations provided rationale for further analysis of the combination of dacetuzumab, R and GEM. Methods: A phase 1b dose-escalation study to evaluate the safety and adverse event profile of dacetuzumab, R and GEM was conducted in patients with relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Patients received dacetuzumab at cohort-specific doses of 8 or 12 mg/kg IV weekly in combination with R (375 mg/m2 IV for 1 cycle, then once/28-day cycle) and GEM (1000 mg/m2 IV weekly or biweekly) in a 3 + 3 dose-escalation scheme. A maximum number of 8 cycles was permitted. Eligible patients included those with de novo DLBCL, including transformed lymphoma and follicular grade 3, who failed potentially curative therapy. Results: Thirty-one patients with a median age of 68 years (range 29–80) were enrolled and treated in the study (3 patients in each of 3 cohorts + 22 in an expansion cohort). The median number of prior regimens was 3 (range 1–18); 10 patients (32%) had transformed histology and 4 (13%) had prior ASCT. The median number of cycles received was 3 (range 1–8), although 11 patients are still on treatment. Three patients in the first cohort required dose reduction of GEM due to transient, non-dose-limiting thrombocytopenia. The protocol was thus amended to administer GEM on a biweekly schedule. No dose-limiting toxicity was observed, and MTD was not defined. Based on pharmacokinetic modeling suggesting no significant difference in exposure between dose levels, 8 mg/kg of dacetuzumab was chosen as the dose for the expansion cohort. The combination of dacetuzumab, R and GEM was generally well tolerated. Across all cohorts, the most common adverse events (> 15%) were nausea (42%), thrombocytopenia (35%), fatigue (32%), headache (29%), anorexia (19%), dyspnea (19%), pyrexia (19%), diarrhea (16%), and neutropenia (16%), the majority of which were Grade 1 or 2. Grade 3/4 adverse events related to dacetuzumab occurred infrequently. One patient experienced Grade 3 stress cardiomyopathy that resolved; this patient had a history of congestive heart failure. One patient developed pneumonitis in the left lung and acute respiratory distress syndrome, and subsequently died due to pulmonary toxicity; this patient had received prior radiation therapy to the left chest. There was preliminary evidence of antitumor activity. Of the 28 patients with response assessments, 7 patients achieved CR, 8 PR, 7 SD, and 6 PD per investigator assessment of response, yielding an objective response rate of 54%. Of interest, 1 patient who previously failed ASCT achieved a CR and was able to undergo allogeneic transplant. To date, this patient remains in CR. Conclusion: The combination of dacetuzumab, R and biweekly GEM was generally well tolerated. Evidence of antitumor activity with this combination is encouraging as multiple responses were observed in a population with heavily pre-treated patients. Further investigation with a randomized trial is warranted to more fully characterize safety and efficacy and to determine if sensitivity to this combination correlates with the previously identified single-agent predictive gene signature. Disclosures: Forero-Torres: Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Gemcitabine has not been FDA approved for treatment of lymphoma. Dacetuzumab is an investigational agent.. Bartlett:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Nasta:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Genentech: Speakers Bureau. Northfelt:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Beaven:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Myint:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Whiting:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Drachman:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Moskowitz:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) is a heterogeneous group of non-Hodgkin lymphomas associated with poor prognosis and repeated recurrence for most subtypes. Currently, anthracycline-based therapies such as cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (CHOP) or CHOP-like therapies are recommended as the first-line treatment for PTCL, but the prognosis remains poor with most patients relapsing within 5 years. Thus, improved treatment strategies are still needed. Belinostat is a potent, pan-histone deacetylase inhibitor that was recently approved in the United States for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory PTCL (R/R PTCL). Approval was based on results from the pivotal Phase 2 BELIEF study (O'Connor et al, JCO, 2015) of belinostat in R/R PTCL, which demonstrated durable clinical benefit (objective response rate [ORR] 25.8%) and tolerability. Since belinostat (Bel) and each of the components of the CHOP regimen target different aspects of the cell cycle with different mechanisms of action, there is potential for a synergistic effect of a Bel-CHOP combination treatment regimen for patients with PTCL. Methods: Patients with PTCL received CHOP in association with 1000 mg/m2 of belinostat on various schedules, repeated every 21-days for up to 6 cycles. The cohort schema followed a traditional "3+3" dose escalation design. The objective of Part A of the study was to determine the Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) of the Bel-CHOP combination. Once the MTD was determined, at least 10 more patients were to be treated in the Expansion Phase (Part B). Belinostat was to be administered as a 1000 mg/m2 IV infusion once daily for up to 5 days, depending on the assigned cohort (Fig 1). The starting cohort was Cohort 3 (CHOP + 1000 mg/m2 of daily belinostat on Days 1-3). Patients received primary prophylaxis with growth factor (G-CSF) support. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were considered during the 1st cycle and included: non-hematological toxicity Grades 3-4, platelet count &lt; 25 X 109/L at any time or ANC &lt; 0.5 X 109/L lasting more than 7 days despite G-CSF administration. The primary endpoint of the study was the determination of the MTD of the Bel-CHOP combination. Secondary endpoints included safety, tolerability and ORR (complete response [CR] + partial response [PR]) and pharmacokinetics. Results: A total of 23 patients were enrolled in the study, 11 of which were treated in Part A. One patient in Part A was deemed inevaluable because the patient died due to disease progression before completing Cycle 1. The MTD was determined to be 1000 mg/m2 on Days 1-5 (Cohort 5); 12 more patients were then treated at this dose level (Part B). The only DLT experienced in the study was in Cohort 3 (Grade 3 Nausea and Vomiting). At the time of this abstract, 18/23 patients (78%) have completed all 6 cycles of Bel-CHOP, with 87% completing at least 4 cycles. Ten patients (43%) had at least one serious adverse event (SAE) and 18 (78%) had at least one Grade 3 or 4 adverse event (AE). The most frequent Grade 3/4 AEs were hematological in nature: neutrophil count decreased (26%), anemia (22%), neutropenia (17%) and white blood cell count decreased (17%). The ORR for the18 patients that have completed an End of Study Visit is 89% (16/18), with the vast majority achieving a CR [72% (n=13)], and 17% (n=3) a PR. Progressive disease was reported in 2 patients. Conclusions: These results demonstrate that the combination of belinostat with CHOP (Bel-CHOP) is well tolerated, with all components of CHOP and belinostat being given at their standard therapeutic doses. The rates of AEs were consistent with those typically reported with CHOP alone, and clinical activity was demonstrated with a response rate of 89% based on 18 evaluable patients. Thus, Bel-CHOP is a promising new regimen in PTCL that will be further tested in a Phase 3 randomized trial. Table. Table. Figure 1. Summary of Demographic and Baseline Characteristics AITL= angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma; ALCL =anaplastic large-cell lymphoma; ALK = anaplastic lymphoma kinase; NOS = not otherwise specified Figure 1. Summary of Demographic and Baseline Characteristics. / AITL= angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma; ALCL =anaplastic large-cell lymphoma; ALK = anaplastic lymphoma kinase; NOS = not otherwise specified Disclosures Barta: Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Bhat:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Employment. Song:Spectrum Pharmaceutical, Inc: Employment. Choi:Apectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Employment. Allen:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Employment. Foss:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals; Celgene: Seattle Genetics: Infinity; Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Summary Peripheral T‐cell lymphomas ( PTCL ) have suboptimal outcomes using conventional CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) chemotherapy. The anti‐folate pralatrexate, the first drug approved for patients with relapsed/refractory PTCL , provided a rationale to incorporate it into the front‐line setting. This phase 2 study evaluated a novel front‐line combination whereby cyclophosphamide, etoposide, vincristine and prednisone ( CEOP ) alternated with pralatrexate ( CEOP ‐P) in PTCL . Patients achieving a complete or partial remission ( CR / PR ) were eligible for consolidative stem cell transplantation ( SCT ) after 4 cycles. Thirty‐three stage II ‐ IV PTCL patients were treated: 21 PTCL ‐not otherwise specified (64%), 8 angioimmunoblastic T cell lymphoma (24%) and 4 anaplastic large cell lymphoma (12%). The majority (61%) had stage IV disease and 46% were International Prognostic Index high/intermediate or high risk. Grade 3–4 toxicities included anaemia (27%), thrombocytopenia (12%), febrile neutropenia (18%), mucositis (18%), sepsis (15%), increased creatinine (12%) and liver transaminases (12%). Seventeen patients (52%) achieved a CR . The 2‐year progression‐free survival and overall survial, were 39% (95% confidence interval 21–57) and 60% (95% confidence interval 39–76), respectively. Fifteen patients (45%) (12 CR ) received SCT and all remained in CR at a median follow‐up of 21·5 months. CEOP ‐P did not improve outcomes compared to historical data using CHOP . Defining optimal front line therapy in PTCL continues to be a challenge and an unmet need.