Nowakowski, Grzegorz S.

PURPOSE: Feasibility assessments (FAs) are important to establish site capabilities to conduct clinical trials and their suitability for specific trials. However, current FA methods used by biotechnology and pharmaceutical (biotech-pharma) trial sponsors and contract research organizations (CROs) are costly, inefficient, unnecessarily burdensome, and resource intensive. These methods delay trial start-up, act as a barrier to site participation, and ultimately reduce timely patient access to clinical trials and novel treatments. METHODS: An ASCO Task Force was convened to assess the specific burdens and challenges with FAs and to develop recommendations to improve their efficiencies and effectiveness. Stakeholders (including trial sites, biotech-pharma sponsors, and CROs) provided insights into challenges and offered solutions through two surveys and an in-person meeting. The Task Force used the feedback to formulate consensus recommendations to improve FAs for oncology clinical trials. RESULTS: Three key recommendations were identified for application across all biotech-pharma sponsored trials: (1) implement a streamlined and uniform FA process across trials and sponsors; (2) minimize and standardize questions; and (3) leverage technology to centralize FAs, facilitate communications, and reduce redundancies. CONCLUSION: There is an urgency to improve the current FA process, which is costly, inconsistent, inefficient, labor intensive, and of uncertain effectiveness. All stakeholders stand to benefit from implementing these recommendations, which aim to minimize burdens and ensure that more trial sites and patients have timely access to oncology clinical trials. To have meaningful impact, adoption and consistent execution of these recommendations across all trials, sponsors, CROs, and sites are essential.

This report presents the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s (ASCO’s) evaluation of the adaptations in care delivery, research operations, and regulatory oversight made in response to the coronavirus pandemic and presents recommendations for moving forward as the pandemic recedes. ASCO organized its recommendations for clinical research around five goals to ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality. The specific goals are: (1) ensure that clinical research is accessible, affordable, and equitable; (2) design more pragmatic and efficient clinical trials; (3) minimize administrative and regulatory burdens on research sites; (4) recruit, retain, and support a well-trained clinical research workforce; and (5) promote appropriate oversight and review of clinical trial conduct and results. Similarly, ASCO also organized its recommendations regarding cancer care delivery around five goals: (1) promote and protect equitable access to high-quality cancer care; (2) support safe delivery of high-quality cancer care; (3) advance policies to ensure oncology providers have sufficient resources to provide high-quality patient care; (4) recognize and address threats to clinician, provider, and patient well-being; and (5) improve patient access to high-quality cancer care via telemedicine. ASCO will work at all levels to advance the recommendations made in this report.

Background: Lenalidomide combined with rituximab (R2) has shown complimentary clinical activity and is a tolerable regimen in both untreated and relapsed or refractory (R/R) patients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Patients with advanced age at diagnosis are considered to be high risk, supporting post-hoc subgroup analyses by age, with a focus on patients aged ≥ 70 years from the MAGNIFY study. Methods: MAGNIFY is a multicenter, phase IIIb trial in patients with R/R follicular lymphoma (FL) grades 1-3b, transformed FL (tFL), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), or mantle cell lymphoma (MCL; NCT01996865) exploring optimal lenalidomide duration. Lenalidomide 20 mg on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle + rituximab 375 mg/m2/week cycle 1 and then every 8 weeks starting with cycle 3 (R2) are administered for 12 cycles followed by 1:1 randomization in patients with stable disease, partial response, or complete response/complete response unconfirmed (CR/CRu) to R2 vs rituximab maintenance for 18 months. Data presented here focus on induction R2 in efficacy-evaluable FL grade 1-3a and MZL patients (FL grade 3b, tFL, and MCL not included) receiving ≥ 1 treatment with baseline/postbaseline assessments. The primary end point is progression-free survival (PFS) by 1999 International Working Group criteria. Post-hoc analyses were performed by analyzing data from patients aged ≥ 70 years at time of study entry. Results: As of November 30, 2019, 393 patients have enrolled and 152 (39%) were aged ≥ 70 years. Baseline characteristics including histology, disease status, and prior treatments of patients ≥ 70 and the overall population are shown in the table. Median PFS in the ≥ 70 subgroup was 36.0 months (95% CI, 28.3-NR). Overall response rate and CR/CRu were 75% and 38%, with a median duration of response that was not reached (95% CI, 27.1-NR). Efficacy results for the overall population are shown in the table. In patients ≥ 70 the most common (≥ 20%) any-grade treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were fatigue (44%), neutropenia (41%), diarrhea (34%), constipation (34%), and nausea (27%). Neutropenia (35%) was the only grade 3/4 TEAE occurring in > 10% of patients (febrile neutropenia occurred in 3 patients [2%]). TEAEs led to lenalidomide dose reduction in 69 patients (46%) and discontinuation in 40 patients (26%). Seventy-eight patients ≥ 70 (51%) completed all 12 cycles of induction treatment, and 72 (47%) have entered the maintenance phase. Sixty-one patients ≥ 70 (40%), compared to 35% of patients in overall population, prematurely discontinued both lenalidomide and rituximab, due to TEAEs (n = 26; 17%), progressive disease (n = 15; 10%), patient withdrawal (n = 12; 8%), death (n = 5; 3%), and other reasons (n = 3; 2%). Neutropenia was the only TEAE leading to discontinuation of lenalidomide in more than 2 patients (n = 10; 7%). Conclusions: Similar to findings in the overall population, R2 treatment in advanced-age patients with R/R FL and MZL resulted in encouraging efficacy, and with close attention to dose reduction there is a tolerable safety profile. Table Disclosures Lansigan: BMS Steering Committee for MAGNIFY Program: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spectrum Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Andorsky:AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding. Coleman:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.: Research Funding; Boston BIoMedical, Inc.: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding; ARCUS Biosciences: Research Funding; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP (Acerta Pharma BV Trials): Research Funding; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP: Research Funding; BMS (Celgene Corporation): Research Funding; Eli Lilly and Company: Research Funding; EMD Serono Research and Development Institute Inc.: Research Funding; Genetech (F. Hoffman-LaRoche Ltd): Research Funding; Hutchinson MediPharma, LTD: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Ipsen Group: Research Funding; Karyopharma Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Klus Pharma, Inc.: Research Funding; MeiPharma, Inc.: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Yacoub:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Hylapharm: Current equity holder in private company; Cara therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Ardelyx: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Dynavax: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Melear:AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Fanning:Prisma Health: Current Employment; Abbvie: Consultancy; TG Therapeautics: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi Aventis: Speakers Bureau. Kolibaba:Compass Oncology: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Atara Biotech: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Oncology: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company; AbbVie: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Verastem: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartix: Research Funding. Reynolds:IHA Hematology/Oncology Consultants: Current Employment. Nowakowski:Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; Nanostrings: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kymera: Consultancy; Denovo: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gharibo:Bayer: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ahn:BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Li:BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Rummel:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen GmbH: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis Pharma GmbH: Honoraria. Sharman:Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Background: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is frequently curable after frontline therapy, however, relapses can occur after achievement of a PET-negative complete remission (CR). Early detection of relapse may be associated with improved outcomes with second-line curative intent therapy or novel therapies. Controversy exists regarding the utility of post-therapy surveillance imaging which is associated with patient (pt) anxiety, radiation exposure, false-positive results, and cost. A retrospective study found that serial minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring during DLBCL surveillance could identify pts at risk of relapse before clinical evidence of disease (Roschewski, Lancet Oncol, 2015). In this multicenter prospective study, we assessed whether a next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based MRD assay could be used for early detection of molecular relapse in DLBCL. Methods: Eligible pts with DLBCL or high-grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBCL) who received anthracycline-containing chemotherapy were enrolled across five cancer centers. In pts who achieved a PET-negative CR, serial peripheral blood samples were obtained every 3 months (mos) and CT scans every 6 mos for 2 years (yrs) post-treatment. The clonoSEQ® next generation sequencing (NGS) MRD assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA) that leverages multiplex PCR followed by NGS to identify and track rearrangements of IgH, V-J, D-J and IgK/L loci and translocations in Bcl1/2-IgH was used. MRD positive was defined as any detectable rearrangement and MRD negative as no evidence of rearrangement. We also reported MRD positivity above the limit of detection (LOD) (observations required to have 95% reproducibility). Interim futility analysis was performed after approximately 50% of anticipated relapses occurred to assess the preliminary sensitivity of the assay. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as time from treatment start date to relapse or death. Results: 501 pts were enrolled and 401 were evaluable (pre-treatment tumor pathology available, completed frontline treatment, and achieved PET-negative CR at end-of-treatment). Baseline characteristics were median age of 62 yrs (range 19-95), male sex 58%, advanced stage 61%, and poor-risk by R-IPI 40% (Table 1). Histologies included DLBCL, NOS (86%), primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (6%), HGBCL (5%), T-cell rich B-cell lymphoma (1%), and other (1%). Pts received regimens including RCHOP x 6 cycles (36%), REPOCH x 6 cycles (20%), clinical trial (15%), combined modality therapy (RCHOP+RT) (10%), and other RCHOP variations (19%). Among the 401 evaluable pts, 44 relapses have occurred as of June 1, 2020. In 47% of pts (18/38), clinical relapse was detected using surveillance imaging alone (typically CT CAP with IV contrast) in an otherwise asymptomatic pt with a normal physical exam and laboratory evaluation. Clinical relapse was detected by clinical symptoms alone in 11% (4/28), by the evaluation of an oncologist alone in 0%, and by imaging and clinical symptoms and/or evaluation by an oncologist in 42% (16/38) (missing data in 6 pts). With a median follow-up of 2.2 yrs, the 2-yr PFS was 88.1% (84.8, 91.4) (Figure 1). Advanced age, advanced stage, and poor-risk R-IPI were associated with inferior PFS. Of the 44 relapses, 43 pts were included in the interim analysis and tumor-specific clonotypes were identified in 39 pts (91%). In 56% (22/39), the MRD assay was positive at or before clinical relapse. In 38% (15/39), the MRD assay was positive above the limit of detection at or prior to clinical relapse, with only 10 relapses detected more than 3 mos prior to relapse, reflecting the poor clinical sensitivity of the assay. The NGS-MRD assay was more sensitive in the acellular (plasma cell-free DNA) than in the cellular (circulating leukocytes) compartment. Results: Overall outcomes are excellent for DLBCL and HGBCL pts who achieve PET-negative complete remission. In interim analysis, surveillance MRD assessment using the clonoSEQ® assay fails to consistently identify pts at risk of recurrence before clinical evidence of relapse in DLBCL. In a prospective analysis, a substantial proportion (47%) of clinical relapses are detected by imaging in asymptomatic pts, supporting the value of CT surveillance imaging in DLBCL, particularly for pts with advanced stage or high-risk disease. Additional analyses are forthcoming for MRD assessment in all pts, including those in remission. Disclosures Kumar: Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies,: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board. Westin:Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Curis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy, Research Funding; 47: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Nowakowski:Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Nanostrings: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Denovo: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other. Lossos:Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other; NCI: Research Funding; Stanford University: Patents & Royalties; Janssen Biotech: Honoraria; Janssen Scientific: Consultancy, Other. Batlevi:Life Sci, GLG, Juno/Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Kite: Consultancy; Janssen, Novartis, Epizyme, Xynomics, Bayer, Autolus, Roche/Genentech: Research Funding. Drullinsky:Roche: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Gerecitano:Janssen: Current Employment. Hamlin:Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Portola: Research Funding; Molecular Templates: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; J&J Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceutics: Consultancy. Horwitz:ASTEX: Consultancy; Affirmed: Consultancy; Vividion Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Miragen: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Corvus: Consultancy; Trillium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakka Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity/Verastem: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aileron: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Jacob:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Joffe:AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. von Keudell:Bayer: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Lahoud:MorphoSys: Other: Advisory Board. Matasar:Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Rocket Medical: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Immunovaccine Technologies: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Mullins:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Current Employment, Other: shareholder. Noy:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; NIH: Research Funding; Rafael Pharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy. Straus:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ASH: Other: Conference in December 2019 on HL to other physicians during ASH; Elsevier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: CME writer; OncLive: Speakers Bureau; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; NY Lymphoma Rounds: Consultancy; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Imedex, Inc.: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Younes:Takeda: Consultancy; HCM: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Current Employment; Novartis: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; BioPath: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy. Zelenetz:MEI Pharma: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Sandoz: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background: Observation or "wait and watch" (W/W) strategy remains a viable option in the rituximab era for asymptomatic, stage II-IV, low-tumor burden patients with FL grade 1-2, 3A. Studies to date both in pre and post rituximab era have not shown an overall survival benefit from immediate treatment in such low-risk patients.To improve our understanding and to better counsel FL patients on W/W strategy, we sought to estimate the incidence of treatment initiation at landmark time points in our prospectively observed cohort from the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE). We further evaluate the association between the presence of GELF criteria (MER treatment criteria) at diagnosis and initiation of treatment patterns, transformation rates and cause of death in FL patients managed by W/W. Methods: FL patients on W/W strategy were identified from MER of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE. From 2002-2015, consecutive patients with newly diagnosed FL were offered enrollment. Patients were managed per treating physician and followed prospectively. Baseline clinical and pathological data were abstracted using a standard protocol. Cumulative incidence estimates of treatment initiation for follicular lymphoma were calculated using transformation to large cell lymphoma (as the first event) and death due to any cause as competing risks. Transformation was defined based on biopsy-proven disease. Patients were retrospectively considered to meet treatment criteria at diagnosis if they had the presence of any GELF criteria components per available abstracted data in the MER database. Not all GELF criteria were prospectively assessed and captured for all patients, and thus the MER treatment criteria utilized here will be conservative for formal GELF assessment. Results: A total of 401 FL patients were identified in MER on W/W strategy. Baseline characteristics for W/W patients showed a favorable profile such as normal LDH (89%), low and intermediate FLIPI score in 48% and 35% respectively, no B symptoms (97%), low tumor burden (<4 nodal groups) in 72%, and GELF positive vs. negative in 36% and 64% respectively. At a median follow up of 8 years (IQR 5.9-12), 64% initiated treatment for FL only. Cumulative incidence estimates of treatment initiation at sequential time points were calculated from the initiation of observation (Table1&2). At diagnosis, the likelihood of treatment initiation was 15%, 26%, and 42% in the next 1, 2, and 5 years. The incidence of treatment initiation decreased over time as patients remained treatment-free after diagnosis (Figure 1A [blue curve]). Patients that met MER treatment criteria had increased rates of therapy initiation (33.2% vs. 21.9%) in the next two years and untreated transformation to large cell lymphoma [red curve] (8.7% vs. 4.5%) during the next 5 years (Figure 1B). Despite this, the rate of lymphoma related death at 10 years was similar between groups (met treatment criteria = 6.2% vs. 7.1%) (Figure 1C, [green curve]). Discussion: The longer duration of W/W strategy suggests a decreasing need for treatment over time. We provide time point estimates, which would be helpful for counseling patients. Of note, long-term continuous oncologic assessment and follow-up is necessary since approximately 66% of patients in this mature cohort initiated treatment by 8 years median follow up. MER treatment criteria at diagnosis identified patients with higher rates of transformation and therapy initiation in the first two years but did not identify those with worse lymphoma specific survival. Identification of biological differences in patients with early vs. late or no progression is a critical next step in understanding outcomes in W/W patients. Disclosures Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding. Cerhan:BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding. Wang:Incyte: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Witzig:MorphSys: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Maurer:Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene / BMS: Research Funding. Nowakowski:NanoString: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Curis: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background L-MIND (NCT02399085) is an ongoing, open-label, single-arm, Phase II study of tafasitamab + lenalidomide (LEN) in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant. Progression-free survival (PFS) estimates the treatment effect of the study drug only, while overall survival (OS) also includes effects of potential subsequent cancer treatments or palliative care. Given that not all OS and PFS events have occurred after a long follow-up duration, traditional survival analyses may underestimate survival benefit for tafasitamab + LEN by assuming the same mortality rate for the whole population. We used mixture cure models to estimate the proportion of long-term survivors (LTS) and survival benefit associated with tafasitamab + LEN treatment. Methods In the L-MIND study (data cut-off: Nov 30, 2019), 80/81 enrolled patients with R/R DLBCL received tafasitamab + LEN, with a median and maximum follow-up duration of 31.8 months (95% CI: 27.2-35.9) and 43.5 months, respectively. The Kaplan-Meier (KM) plots of PFS and OS were observed to plateau after 30 months, with the majority of events reported up to that time-point and very few events beyond this time-point. Patients without a PFS event or patients who did not decease after the observed plateau exhibit a high survival benefit from tafasitamab + LEN treatment and are considered LTS. Thus, the patient population can be considered to consist of two sub-populations - LTS and non-LTS. A "mixture cure model" was fitted on the PFS and OS data to estimate the proportion of LTS and associated mean survival for the two sub-populations (Lambert PC, et al. 2007). To incorporate background mortality (Bansal, et al. 2019), age- and sex-specific US mortality rates (US CDC 2017) were factored in for the entire study population (enrolled in Europe and US). The weighted average of the mean survival for the two sub-populations provided an estimate of the mean survival for the whole population. For comparative purposes, standard parametric models without considering an LTS proportion were fitted on PFS and OS data additionally. Sensitivity analyses were performed considering different survival distributions (exponential distribution, Weibull distribution and log-logistic distribution). Results By using a mixture cure model fitted to PFS and OS data separately, the estimated proportion of LTS for the tafasitamab + LEN combination was 42% (95% CI: 30-55) and 47% (95% CI: 29-66), respectively. The predicted mean survival when mixture cure model was fitted on PFS data was 16.7 years for LTS patients vs 0.5 years for non-LTS patients, yielding 7.3 years for the overall population. Under this mixture cure model, the survival rates of patients with tafasitamab + LEN treatment were 40.2% and 36.0% at 2 and 5 years. Similar results were obtained when the mixture cure model was fitted on OS data. Using a standard parametric model (Weibull distribution), the predicted mean survival in the overall population was 2.8 years fitting PFS data (Figure 1) and 4.5 years fitting OS data (Figure 2). Conclusions PFS and OS KM curves for the L-MIND study reaching a long plateau and not following a Weibull distribution suggest the presence of an LTS subgroup. Standard parametric models may lead to a biased estimation of the OS benefit in such situations. The mixture cure model suggests that the treatment of R/R DLBCL patients with tafasitamab + LEN is associated with a high LTS proportion. The survival rates of patients with tafasitamab + LEN treatment were 40.2% and 36.0% at 2 and 5 years. Disclosures Salles: Takeda:Honoraria;BMS/Celgene:Honoraria, Other: consultancy or advisory role;Debiopharm:Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: consultancy or advisory role;Genmab:Honoraria, Other;Karyopharm:Honoraria;Kite, a Gilead Company:Honoraria, Other: consultancy or advisory role ;Epizyme:Honoraria, Other: consultancy or advisory role;Janssen:Honoraria, Other: consultancy or advisory role;Abbvie:Other: consultancy or advisory role;Roche:Honoraria, Other: consultancy or advisory role;Novartis:Honoraria, Other: consultancy or advisory role;MorphoSys:Honoraria, Other: consultancy or advisory role;Autolos:Other: consultancy or advisory role.Goswami:MorphoSys AG:Ended employment in the past 24 months.Bagnardi:MorphoSys AG:Consultancy.Dey:MorphoSys AG:Current Employment.Winderlich:MorphoSys AG:Current Employment.Ambarkhane:MorphoSys AG:Current Employment.Huang:MorphoSys AG:Current Employment.Nowakowski:Curis:Consultancy;Kymera:Consultancy;Kite:Consultancy;Ryvu:Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Celgene/BMS:Consultancy, Research Funding;Seattle Genetics:Consultancy;MorphoSys:Consultancy, Research Funding;NanoString:Research Funding.

Background Majority of patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who relapse after HSCT, or who are not candidates for HSCT have poor outcomes and are in need of novel therapies. Preclinical data provides a strong rationale for combining brentuximab vedotin, lenalidomide, and rituximab in the treatment of R/R DLBCL. In a phase 1 trial, 37 subjects with R/R DLBCL were treated with brentuximab vedotin in combination with lenalidomide. The objective response rate (ORR) (proportion of subjects with complete response [CR] or partial response [PR]) for all subjects was 56.7% (21 of 37 subjects). For the CD30-positive population, the ORR was 73.3% (11 of 15 subjects), whereas the ORR for the CD30 <1% population was 45.6% (10/22). The median follow-up time was 14.3 months (range: 1 to 56.7 months). The median duration of remission for subjects with CR or PR was 13.2 months (range: 3.2 to 55.2 months). For subjects with CR, PR, or stable disease (SD) >6 months, the median duration of remission was 11.70 months (range: 3.2 to 55.2 months). The progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) results appear similar in both the CD30-positive and CD30 <1% groups. The PFS in the combined population is 10.2 months and the median OS is 14.2 months (manuscript in preparation). Study Design and Methods This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, active-comparator, multicenter phase 3 study designed to evaluate the efficacy of brentuximab vedotin in combination with lenalidomide and rituximab versus placebo in combination with lenalidomide and rituximab for the treatment of subjects with R/R DLBCL (NCT04404283). Key eligibility criteria include the following: subjects aged 18 and older with R/R DLBCL with an eligible subtype; subjects must have ≥2 prior lines of therapy and must be ineligible for, or have declined, stem cell transplant, and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy; subjects must have an ECOG performance status score of 0 to 2; subjects must have a fluorodeoxyglucose-avid disease by PET and bidimensional measurable disease of at least 1.5 cm by CT, as assessed by the site radiologist. Subjects (n=400) will be randomized 1:1 to receive either brentuximab vedotin or placebo in combination with lenalidomide and rituximab and will be stratified by CD30 expression (positive [≥1%] versus <1%), prior allogeneic or autologous stem cell transplant therapy (received or not), prior CAR-T therapy (received or not), and cell of origin (germinal-center B-cell-like (GCB) or non-GCB). Cell of origin (GCB or non-GCB) will be histologically determined by local pathology assessment. Disease response will be assessed by a blinded independent central review (BICR) and the investigator according to the Lugano Classification Revised Staging System. Radiographic disease evaluations, including contrast-enhanced CT scans and PET/CT, will be assessed at baseline, then every 6 weeks from randomization for 12 months, then every 12 weeks (±3 days). PET/CTs will be discontinued if negative. For the primary efficacy analyses of PFS per BICR in the intent-to-treat population and in CD30-positive subjects, the stratified log-rank test will be used to compare PFS between the 2 treatment groups. The hazard ratio will be estimated using a stratified Cox regression model. PFS will also be summarized using the Kaplan-Meier method. Similar methods will be used for the secondary efficacy endpoint of OS, and other time-to-event efficacy endpoints. The trial will have sites open in the US and multiple countries in Europe and Asia, with enrollment planning to begin in the second half of 2020. Disclosures Bartlett: Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; BTG: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Affimed Therapeutics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Autolus: Research Funding. Yasenchak:Takeda: Honoraria; BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Sims:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Travel expenses. Nowakowski:Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Denovo: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Nanostrings: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Background: Plasmablastic lymphoma (PBL) is a rare subtype of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma with a well-known association with HIV infection. The outcomes of PBL patients are typically described with high relapse rates and poor prognosis. (Loghavi S, J Hematol Oncol. 2015; Morscio J, Am J of Pathol. 2014; Castillo JJ, Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2011; Castillo JJ, Am J Hematol. 2008) There has been a paucity of data suggesting that limited stage disease (Ann Arbor stage I-II) may have a more favorable prognosis. However, due to the rarity of this disease there have been no large-scale reviews to confirm this. Thus, many patients with limited stage disease are subject to the aggressive therapy recommendations based on the poor outcomes of PBL patients as a whole. (Loghavi S, J Hematol Oncol. 2015; NCCN Guidelines, version 2.2020; Al-Malki MM, BBMT. 2014) We attempted to determine the treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with limited stage PBL. Methods: We conducted a multi-center (13 US academic centers) retrospective study of patients with limited stage (Ann Arbor stage I-II) Plasmablastic lymphoma. Determination of limited stage and diagnosis of PBL was determined by the investigators at each individual center. Patients diagnosed between 1/1/1990 and 6/1/2018 were included. Baseline demographic, clinical, laboratory, pathology, and outcomes data were extracted by retrospective chart review. Kaplan Meier was utilized for time to event analysis. Results: Baseline characteristics are included in table 1. A total of 80 patients were identified with limited stage disease. With a median follow up of 34 months the 3-yr Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was 71.9% and 78.7% respectively (Figure 1A and 1B). Patients that received frontline chemotherapy with (n=29) and without RT (n=36) had a 3-yr PFS and OS of 84.6% and 96.2% as compared to 64.5% and 70.8%, respectively (Figure 2A and 2B; Figure 3A and 3B). The Hazard ratio (HR) for PFS and OS for chemo (reference) vs chemo-RT was 0.47 (95% CI 0.18-1.3; P=0.131) and 0.18 (95% CI 0.04-0.84; p=0.029) respectively. The HR for PFS and OS for CHOP (n=14, reference) vs EPOCH (n=33) based regimens was 0.37 (95% CI 0.11-1.2; p=0.106) and 0.36 (95% CI 0.079-1.6; p=0.182) respectively. Patients with stage I/IE disease (n=56) had a 3-yr PFS and OS of 73.1% and 81.2% respectively. Patients with stage II/IIE disease (n=24) had a 3-yr PFS and OS of 69.3% and 73.4% respectively. Patients that received aggressive treatment (n=17) with Hyper-CVAD based regimens and/or Auto-SCT as consolidation had a 3-yr PFS and OS of 63.6% and 72.7% respectively. Patients with concomitant HIV (n=16) had a 3-yr PFS and OS of 80.8% and 77.4% respectively. Seven patients received RT alone and 6 patients had surgical resection alone as frontline therapy; 1 patient received no therapy; 1 patient received HAART therapy only and remains in CR without any other treatment for PBL 29 months after diagnosis. There were 8 deaths (10%) related to PBL, 3 deaths (4%) related to treatment of PBL (2 during frontline chemo and 1 upon relapse with salvage chemo), and 9 deaths (11%) related to other causes. The 3-yr lymphoma free survival (LFS) of the entire cohort, pts receiving chemo alone, and pts receiving chemo-RT (without including treatment related mortality (TRM) as an event) was 89.1%, 85.2%, and 100% respectively. The 3-yr LFS survival of the entire cohort, pts receiving chemo alone, and pts receiving chemo-RT (including TRM as an event) was 85.1%, 80.0%, and 96.2% respectively. Discussion: Here we report the largest review to our knowledge of limited stage PBL. Outcomes appear to be excellent with 3-yr PFS and OS of 71.9% and 78.7% respectively and a 3-yr LFS of 89.1% (85.1% when attributing TRM as an event). There was no obvious benefit to receiving aggressive therapy with H-CVAD based regimens and/or Auto-SCT. Although this is a small, uncontrolled sample size the HR for OS was improved in patients receiving frontline chemo-RT vs chemo alone 0.18 (95% CI 0.04-0.84; p=0.029). However, this did not take into account TRM with or progression while receiving frontline chemotherapy. Patients who were HIV+ had similar PFS and OS outcomes compared to the entire cohort. This retrospective study clearly demonstrates the favorable outcomes in this patient population, especially in those able to receive definitive therapy for their disease. Disclosures Hess: ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS, AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Patel:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Research Funding; Nektar: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Nowakowski:Nanostrings: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; Kymera: Consultancy; Denovo: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding. Chavez:Bayer: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Hill:Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Maddocks:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics, AstraZeneca: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Wagner-Johnston:ADC Therapeutics, Regeneron, CALIB-R, Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kahl:AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche Laboratories Inc: Consultancy. Alderuccio:ADC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forma Therapeutics: Other: Family member; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Other: Family member; Oncinfo: Honoraria; Inovio Pharmaceuticals: Other: Family member; Foundation Medicine: Other: Family member; Puma Biotechnology: Other: Family member; OncLive: Honoraria. Lossos:Janssen Biotech: Honoraria; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen Scientific: Consultancy, Other; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other; Stanford University: Patents & Royalties; NCI: Research Funding. Portell:Bayer: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding. Landsburg:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Triphase: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Curis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau. Castillo:TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kymera: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Introduction: Transformation of low grade follicular lymphoma (FL) to diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) carries a poor prognosis. In retrospective studies, 5-year survival of transformed DLBCL treated with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (R-CHOP) without autologous stem cell transplant is 40-60%, underscoring need to improve frontline treatment of transformed DLBCL beyond R-CHOP. The overall response rate (ORR) to lenalidomide used as a single agent for relapsed transformed non Hodgkin lymphoma was 45% with 21% complete response (CR) rate and a median duration of response of 12 months (Witzig et al, Ann Onc 2011). These data provided the rationale to include patients with transformed DLBCL (with historical and concurrent FL) in MC078E, a phase II clinical trial testing lenalidomide plus R-CHOP (R2CHOP) for patients with new and untreated de novo and transformed DLBCL (NCT00670358). Here we present analysis of the subset of transformed DLBCL patients. Methods: Adult patients with transformed DLBCL and either historical or concurrent FL, stage >=2, measurable disease by Positron Emission Tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and adequate organ function were included. Patients with Central Nervous System (CNS) involvement, significant comorbidities, active non-lymphomatous malignancy, life-threatening thromboembolism (TE) and contraindication to aspirin prophylaxis were excluded. Study participants received up to 6 cycles of rituximab (375 mg/m2), cyclophosphamide (750 mg/m2), doxorubicin (50 mg/m2), and vincristine (1.4 mg /m2) on day 1, prednisone (100 mg) on day 1-5, pegfilgrastim on day 2, and Lenalidomide 25 mg day 1-10 of 21 day cycle. Tumor lysis prophylaxis was per local practice; patients also received TE prophylaxis with aspirin. Primary outcome was event free survival (EFS) at 12 months, where an event was defined as death, progression or subsequent anti-lymphoma therapy. Secondary outcomes included ORR, CR, progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Response was evaluated by PET/CT after cycle 2 and cycle 6 with revised response criteria (Cheson et al, 2007). Adverse events were recorded according to CTCAE version 3.0. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate time to event endpoints. Results: Thirty-nine patients were accrued from August 5, 2013 to July 28, 2020 and 33 were eligible by central pathology review. Median age was 64 (range 24-80) years and 18 (54%) were >60 years old. Eighteen (54%) were male, and 32 (97%) had ECOG performance status <2. Twenty-three (70%) had historical FL and 10 (30%) had concurrent FL. Twenty-six (79%) had advanced stage (III-IV). Median number of extra nodal sites were 1 (0-4). Thirteen (39%) had high international prognostic index (IPI) (4-5). Thirty-two (97%) completed at least 2 cycles (30 completed all 6 cycles) and were evaluable for response. ORR was 97% (32/33), 29 (88%) had CR and 3 had PR. EFS at 12 months was 87.9% (95% CI: 71.8, 96.6). Two-year PFS and OS were 84.5% (95% CI: 72.8%-98%) and 96.9% (95% CI: 91-100%) (Figure 1). Twenty nine completed study protocol, 4 discontinued protocol early for disease progression (1), adverse event (AE) (1), refusal (1) and noncompliance (1). Thirty (91%) had hematologic AE of grade 3 or above, 27 (82%) had neutropenia, 16 (48%) had thrombocytopenia, and 7 (21%) had anemia. Sixteen (48%) had grade 3 or above non-hematologic AE. Eight (24%) had febrile neutropenia. There were 3 deaths on this study, 1 due to progressive DLBCL, 1 due to AML and 1 due to malignant melanoma. Conclusion: R2CHOP appears effective in transformed DLBCL with high response rates, event free, progression free and overall survival seen in current study. This study supports the inclusion of anthracycline naive patients with transformed DLBCL in future randomized studies of lenalidomide or other novel immunomodulatory (IMiD) analogues. Disclosures Wang: Novartis: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Ansell:Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding. Witzig:Spectrum: Consultancy; Immune Design: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; MorphSys: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Nowakowski:Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; NanoString: Research Funding.