Hong, Fangxin

BACKGROUND ELRA is a humanized, BCMA/CD3 bispecific antibody. In the phase 2 registrational MagnetisMM-3 (MM-3) trial, SC ELRA given as 2 step-up priming doses (12 mg on day 1 and 32 mg on day 4 of cycle 1) followed by 76 mg QW in patients (pts) with RRMM naive to BCMA-directed therapy resulted in an ORR of 61.0%. With a median follow-up of 28.4 mos, the median DOR, PFS, and OS were not reached (NR; 2-year rate, 66.9%), 17.2, and 24.6 mos, respectively. Overall, 56.3% of pts had CRS (grade 2, 14.3%; no grade ≥3). Most events occurred after doses 1 (44.5%), 2 (20.2%), and 3 (5.9%); 0.8% (1 pt) had CRS with doses ≥4. Recurrent CRS occurred in 15.1% of pts. The phase 1/2 MagnetisMM-9 (MM-9; NCT05014412) study is examining an alternative priming regimen and longer dosing intervals of ELRA. Here, we present updated MM-9 results. METHODS In MM-9, pts with RRMM and disease refractory to ≥1 IMiD drug, ≥1 PI, and ≥1 anti-CD38 antibody were given SC ELRA as step-up priming doses of 4 and 20 mg on Day 1 and Day 4 of Cycle 1, respectively. After the priming doses, ELRA 76 mg was given QW for the next 6 cycles (Part 1) or for 1 cycle followed by 116 (dose level 1 [DL1]) or 152 (dose level 2 [DL2]) mg Q2W for the next 5 cycles (Part 2A). After 6 cycles, the dosing frequency was decreased from QW to Q2W (Part 1) or from Q2W to Q4W (Part 2) in pts who achieved ≥PR lasting ≥2 months. The recommended phase 2 dose from Part 2A (152 mg, DL2) was evaluated in Part 2B (dose expansion). The primary endpoint for both parts is grade ≥2 CRS rate per ASTCT criteria during Cycle 1. Secondary endpoints include evaluation of efficacy and adverse events. Data cutoff: February 13, 2024. RESULTS Overall, 85 pts (median age, 64.0 y) were treated with ELRA. The majority (72.9%) of pts had R-ISS stage I/II disease (23.5% with R-ISS stage III); 31.8% had high-risk cytogenetics. Median number of prior lines of therapy was 5.0 (range, 1-12). The median treatment duration was 8.6, 2.9, 1.4, and 3.3 mos, in Part 1, Part 2A DL1, Part 2A DL2, and Part 2B, respectively. Median follow-up for pts overall (n=85), in Part 1 (n=33), Part 2A DL1 (n=12), Part 2A DL2 (n=11), and Part 2B (n=29) was 10.4, 23.3, 16.5, 15.2, and 9.3 mos, respectively. Overall, the ORR was 58.8%. For pts in Part 1, Part 2A DL1, Part 2A DL2, or Part 2B, ORR was 66.7%, 58.3%, 36.4%, and 58.6%, respectively; median DOR was NR (9-mo rate: 86.4%), 10.8 mos (9-mo rate: 80.0%), NR (9-mo rate: 100.0%), and NR (9-mo rate: 84.8%); median PFS was 17.1 (9-mo rate: 62.8%), 11.6 (9-mo rate: 50.9%), 1.6 mos (9-mo rate: 40.0%), and NR (9-mo rate: 57.1%); median OS was NR (9-mo rate: 75.8%), 17.4 mos (9-mo rate: 66.7%), NR (9-mo rate: 60.0%), and NR (9-mo rate: 72.4%), respectively. For pts in Part 1, Part 2A DL1, Part 2A DL2, and Part 2B, grade ≥2 CRS rates during Cycle 1 were 15.2%, 16.7%, 27.3%, and 6.9%, respectively. For pts in Part 1, Part 2A DL1, Part 2A DL2, and Part 2B, CRS rates were 30.3%, 33.3%, 36.4%, and 24.1% after dose 1, 27.3%, 25.0%, 36.4%, and 24.1% after dose 2, 15.2%, 33.3%, 27.3%, and 20.7% after dose 3, 6.1%, 8.3%, 0%, and 3.4% after dose 4, and 6.1%, 16.7%, 9.1%, and 0% after doses ≥5. Recurrent CRS occurred in 18.2%, 33.3%, 18.2%, and 17.2% of pts in Part 1, Part 2A DL1, Part 2A DL2, and Part 2B. The most common (>60%) TEAEs (any grade/grade ≥3) were hematologic TEAEs (Part 1, 75.8%/75.8%; Part 2A DL1, 83.3%/83.3%; Part 2A DL2, 81.8%/81.8%; Part 2B, 79.3%/69.0%), infections (Part 1, 78.8%/48.5%; Part 2A DL1, 83.3%/66.7%; Part 2A DL2, 72.7%/63.6%; Part 2B, 62.1%/37.9%), and CRS (Part 1, 60.6%/0%; Part 2A DL1, 83.3%/0%; Part 2A DL2, 90.9%/9.1%; Part 2B, 48.3%/0%). Grade 5 TEAEs not including PD were infection (n=4), fall (n=1), subdural hematoma (n=1), and food poisoning (n=1). CONCLUSIONS The 4/20 mg step-up priming regimen and alternative dosing schedules in MM-9 resulted in similar efficacy vs the step-up regimen used in the registrational MM-3 study (12/32 mg). Responses were durable with encouraging PFS and OS with the alternative step up and longer dosing schedule. While the overall safety signals with the alternative step up regimen are similar to those seen with MM-3, the CRS profile differed with more CRS events after each subsequent dose and a higher prevalence of recurrent CRS. Thus, the optimal ELRA step-up regimen remains 12/32 mg from the original regimen in the MM-3 study. In addition, these early results suggest that reducing the dose frequency of ELRA may not compromise efficacy.

7522 Background: Elranatamab (ELRA) is a humanized BCMA-CD3 bispecific antibody. In the phase 2 registrational MagnetisMM-3 (MM-3) trial, SC ELRA was given as 2 step-up priming doses (12 mg on C1D1 and 32 mg on C1D4) followed by 76 mg QW in patients (pts) with RRMM. Overall, 56.3% of pts had CRS (grade 2, 14.3%; no grade ≥3). Most events occurred after doses 1 (44.5%), 2 (20.2%), and 3 (5.9%); 0.8% (1 pt) had CRS with doses 4+. Recurrent CRS (>1 event) occurred in 15.1% of pts (Lesokhin Nat Med 2023). Methods: MagnetisMM-9 (MM-9; NCT05014412) is a phase 1/2, open-label, nonrandomized study of ELRA examining an alternative 2-dose step-up priming regimen (4 and 20 mg on C1D1 and C1D4, respectively). Eligible pts had RRMM and were refractory to ≥1 IMiD, ≥1 PI, and ≥1 anti-CD38 antibody. After the priming doses, ELRA 76 mg was given QW for 6 cycles (Part 1) or for 1 cycle followed by 116 or 152 mg Q2W for 5 cycles (Part 2A). The RP2D from Part 2A (152 mg) was evaluated in Part 2B (dose expansion). The rate of grade ≥2 CRS per ASTCT criteria during C1 is the primary endpoint for both parts. Secondary endpoints include evaluation of AEs and PK. Here, we report the overall safety and CRS profile associated with the 4/20 mg priming regimen. Results: For 85 treated pts, median age was 64.0 y; 49.4% were male; 23.5% had EMD; 31.8% had high-risk cytogenetics. Pts had a median of 5.0 (range, 1-12) prior LOTs; 85.9% had triple-class refractory disease. After a median follow-up of 7.4 mo, the most common (>50%) AEs were CRS (63.5%; grade ≥2, 15.3%) and neutropenia (54.1%; all grade ≥2). ICANS occurred in 4.7% of pts (all grade ≤2). The grade ≥2 CRS rate in C1 was 14.1% (90% CI, 8.4-21.9). CRS rates after the first 3 doses are in the the table. For doses 4+, any grade (grade ≥2) CRS was observed in 10.6% (3.5%) of pts overall, 12.1% (3.0%) of pts continuing to receive 76 mg (n=33), 25.0% (0%) of pts receiving 116 mg (n=12), and 5.0% (5.0%) of pts receiving 152 mg (RP2D; n=40). Overall, recurrent CRS was observed in 20.0% of pts. The geometric means (CV%) of free ELRA concentrations 24 h (Cmax-24h) after step-up doses 1 and 2 were 85.64 (48%) and 242.8 (55%). Conclusions: The 4/20 mg step-up priming regimen and alternative dosing schedules resulted in similar safety and incidence of overall and grade ≥2 CRS events vs the regimen used in MM-3 (12/32 mg), with no new safety signals identified. However, the CRS profile in this study differed, with more CRS after doses 2, 3, and 4+ and a higher prevalence of recurrent CRS. The Cmax-24h of free ELRA (CV%) after the priming doses were lower than those in MM-3 (107.4 [47%] and 405.1 [72%], respectively). Thus, the priming regimen used in MM-3 remains the optimal regimen for mitigating CRS. Future analyses of ongoing studies will be used to confirm these results. Clinical trial information: NCT05014412 . [Table: see text]

PURPOSE Bone marrow biopsies (BMB) are performed before/after therapy to confirm complete response (CR) in patients with lymphoma on clinical trials. We sought to establish whether BMB add value in assessing response or predict progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) outcomes in follicular lymphoma (FL) subjects in a large, multicenter, multitrial cohort. METHODS Data were pooled from seven trials of 580 subjects with previously untreated FL through Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance) and SWOG Cancer Research Network (SWOG) completing enrollment from 2008 to 2016. RESULTS Only 5/580 (0.9%) had positive baseline BMB, CR on imaging, and subsequent positive BMB ( P < .0001). Therefore, BMB were irrelevant to response in 99% of subjects. A sensitivity analysis of 385 FL subjects treated on an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study was included. In the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group cohort, 5/385 (1.3%) had BMB that affected response assessment. Since some subjects do not undergo confirmatory BMB, we performed a landmark survival analysis from first radiologic CR with data from 580 subjects from Alliance and SWOG. Of subjects with CR on imaging (n = 187), PFS and OS were not significantly different among those with negative BMB to confirm CR (n = 47) versus those without repeat BMB (n = 140; PFS: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.10, 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.94, log-rank P = .686; OS: hazard ratio, 0.59, 95% CI, 0.23 to 1.53, log-rank P = .276). CONCLUSION We conclude that BMB add little value to response assessment in subjects with FL treated on clinical trials and we recommend eliminating BMB from clinical trial requirements. BMB should also be removed from diagnostic guidelines for FL except in scenarios in which it may change management including confirmation of limited stage and assessment of cytopenias. This would reduce cost, patient discomfort, resource utilization, and potentially remove a barrier to trial enrollment.

Abstract BACKGROUND: E4402 was a randomized phase III study comparing two different rituximab dosing strategies for patients with previously untreated, low tumor burden follicular lymphoma (FL). The primary endpoint was time to treatment failure. The initial publication (Kahl, JCO 2014) demonstrated that a retreatment strategy utilized less drug and produced comparable time to treatment failure compared to a maintenance strategy. Here we provide long term follow up results, focusing on response duration, time to first cytotoxic therapy, overall survival, and risk of histologic transformation. METHODS: Eligible patients had untreated, low tumor burden (GELF criteria) FL. Patients received R 375 mg/m 2 weekly x 4 and responders were randomized to maintenance rituximab (MR) (single dose R q 3 months) or retreatment rituximab (RR) (R weekly x 4 doses at disease progression). Each strategy was continued until treatment failure. The primary endpoint, time to treatment failure, was defined as progression within 6 months of last R, no response to R retreatment, initiation of alternative therapy, or inability to complete protocol therapy. Secondary endpoints included time to first cytotoxic therapy, quality of life and safety. The ECOG Data Monitoring Committee recommended release of study results at a planned interim analysis in September 2011 and patients and providers were notified of results. Time to treatment failure data collection halted with release of the results but limited data collection on time to first cytotoxic therapy, response duration, and risk of histologic transformation continued. INITITIAL RESULTS: From 11/03 to 9/08, 384 patients with FL were enrolled. Complete or partial response was achieved in 289 patients (71%), who were then randomized to MR (n=146) or RR (n=143). Demographic features were similar in the two arms: median age 59 years; ECOG PS 0-1 in all patients, and FLIPI low-risk (14.9 vs. 16.4%), intermediate-risk (46.3 vs. 42.9%) and high-risk (38.8 vs. 40.7%) for MR vs. RR, respectively. At initial publication, with a median follow-up of 3.8 years, the time to treatment failure was 3.9 years for MR vs. 3.6 years for RR (p=NS). LONG TERM FOLLOW UP RESULTS: Immunoglobulin levels and risks for serious infections/late complications in MR patients will be updated at the annual meeting. For the endpoint of time to first cytotoxic therapy, the median follow up is 8.7 years. At 7 years, 83% of MR and 63% of RR remained free from first cytotoxic therapy (HR 2.37; 95% CI 1.50 - 3.76) [Figure 1]. For the endpoint of response duration, the median follow up is 12.1 years. At 10 years, 66% of the MR patients remained in their 1 st remission compared to 30% of the RR patients who remained in their 1 st remission [Figure 2]. The median response duration for RR patients receiving a single 4-week course of rituximab was 3.25 years. There was no difference in the overall survival at 10 years, 84% for MR vs. 83% for RR. There was a trend towards a lower risk of histologic transformation for patients receiving MR (n = 4) compared to RR (n = 11) (p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: With long term follow up, the RESORT data indicates that in previously untreated, low tumor burden, follicular lymphoma, MR was superior to RR for delaying time to first cytotoxic therapy and for response duration, with a trend towards reducing the risk of histologic transformation. MR did not improve the overall survival. The original publication concluded that the time to treatment failure is similar between the two dosing strategies. Due to study design, time to treatment failure could not be analyzed in this long term follow up analysis. Compared to the historical benchmark of 3 years median time to first cytotoxic therapy when watch and wait is utilized, single agent rituximab, administered by either dosing strategy, was highly effective at delaying the time to first cytotoxic therapy. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kahl: AbbVie, Adaptive, ADCT, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Incyte, Janssen, Karyopharm, Kite, MEI, Pharmacyclics, Roche, TG Therapeutics, and Teva: Consultancy; AbbVie, Acerta, ADCT, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech: Research Funding. Habermann: Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Schuster: Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; Genetech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Juno Theraputics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Pharmaclcyclics: Research Funding; Tessa Theraputics: Consultancy; TG Theraputics: Research Funding. Fenske: TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Servier Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Kite (Gilead): Speakers Bureau; KaryoPharm: Consultancy; CSL Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Biogen: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy.

12102 Background: Allostatic load (AL) conceptualizes the effects of chronic psychosocial adversity on physiologic dysregulation. To date, studies have shown an association between elevated AL and higher disease-specific and overall mortality among cancer patients; however, none have focused on multiple myeloma (MM) patients. We aim to understand the relationship between baseline AL, symptom burden, and mortality among patients enrolled in the E1A11 therapeutic trial in MM. Methods: ECOG-ACRIN E1A11 was a phase III RCT comparing induction with Bortezomib (Arm A) versus Carfilzomib (Arm B) in conjunction with Lenalidomide +Dexamethasone. AL included 7 biomarkers: BMI, alkaline phosphatase, creatinine, C-reactive protein, white blood cell count, albumin and creatinine clearance. AL7 was a composite summary score with a point was assigned for each biomarker value in the highest quartile, except for albumin and creatinine clearance, where a point was assigned for values in the lowest quartile. Endpoints included symptom burden at baseline and ̃1 month, non-completion of induction therapy, and overall survival (OS). Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Multiple Myeloma (FACT-MM) items assessed patient-reported symptom burden, including fatigue (item HI7), pain (GP4), and bother by side effects of treatment (GP5) on a 5-point Likert scale. Multivariable logistic regressions assessed the effect of AL7 (ranging 0-7) on high-pain, -fatigue, and -bother (QOL score > = 3 vs < 3), and non-completion of induction therapy. The effect of AL7 on OS was assessed using multivariable Cox regression. Regression covariates included study arm, age, sex, race, ECOG performance status, and the target symptom burden score at baseline. Results: The study cohort included 1087 patients. Mean baseline AL7 was 1.8 (±1.4). In adjusted analysis, a unit increase in AL7 was associated with a greater odds of high pain (OR 1.15, 95%CI [1.04-1.27]) and high fatigue (OR 1.19, 95%CI [1.07-1.32]) at baseline, which did not persist at ̃1 month (pain OR 0.96, 95%CI [0.84-1.10]; fatigue OR 1.03, 95%CI [0.91-1.16]). There was no association between AL7 and high side effect bother at baseline (OR 1.06, 95% CI [0.83-1.35]) or at ̃1 month (OR 1.06, 95%CI [0.90-1.24]). There was no association between AL7 and induction non-completion (OR 1.07, 95%CI [0.96-1.18]). Notably, each unit increase in AL7 was associated with higher mortality (HR 1.26, 95%CI [1.14-1.39]). Conclusions: Despite its association with fatigue and pain at baseline, AL7 was not associated with these symptoms at ̃1 month nor induction non-completion. However, elevated baseline AL7 was associated with poorer OS. AL composite score at baseline, which we interpret as a measure of physiological dysregulation associated with adverse social factors, may have implications on clinical outcomes within clinical trials despite presumed equal treatment access.

PURPOSE Lenalidomide combined with rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) (R2CHOP) in untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) has shown promising activity, particularly in the activated B-cell–like (ABC) subtype. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG)-ACRIN trial E1412 was a randomized phase II study comparing R2CHOP versus R-CHOP in untreated DLBCL. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL, stage II bulky-IV disease, International Prognostic Index (IPI) ≥ 2, and ECOG performance status ≤ 2 were eligible and randomly assigned 1:1 to R2CHOP versus R-CHOP for six cycles. Tumors were analyzed using the NanoString Lymph2Cx for cell of origin. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) in all patients with the co-primary end point of PFS in ABC-DLBCL. Secondary end points included overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS Three hundred forty-nine patients were enrolled; 280 patients (145 R2CHOP and 135 R-CHOP) were evaluable: 94 were ABC-DLBCL, 122 germinal center B-cell–like-DLBCL, 18 unclassifiable, and 46 unknowns. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between arms, and the median age was 66 (range, 24-92); 70% of patients had stage IV disease; 34%, 43%, and 24% had IPI 2, 3, and 4 or 5, respectively. Myelosuppression was more common in the R2CHOP arm. The ORR and CR rate were 92% and 68% in R-CHOP and 97% ( P = .06) and 73% ( P = .43) in the R2CHOP arm, respectively. The median follow-up was 3.0 years; R2CHOP was associated with a 34% reduction in risk of progression or death versus R-CHOP (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.01) and 3-year PFS of 73% versus 61%, one-sided P = .03, and an improvement in OS (83% and 75% at 3 years; HR, 0.67; one-sided P = .05). The PFS HR for R2CHOP was 0.67 for ABC-DLBCL, one-sided P = .1. CONCLUSION In this signal-seeking study, the addition of lenalidomide to R-CHOP (R2CHOP) improved outcomes in newly diagnosed DLBCL including patients with ABC-DLBCL.

Introduction: FL is the most common indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the Western world. FL may cause disease-related symptoms, and patients with high-risk disease usually require systemic therapy. BR is commonly used as first-line therapy for high-risk FL, and the addition of bortezomib to a BR backbone has been studied (Evens A et al. Clin Can Res 2020). Little is known about how these therapeutic options impact patients' health-related quality of life (HRQL). To fill this gap, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were administered to patients enrolled on E2408 to quantify symptom burden and effects of BR versus BVR induction on HRQL. Methods: Patients (n=258) randomized to receive 6 cycles of BR or BVR induction completed PROs assessing neurotoxicity (FACT/GOG-Ntx) at the beginning of each treatment cycle. Additional PROs measuring fatigue (FACT-F), lymphoma-specific concerns (FACT-Lym) and HRQL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General; FACT-G) were completed at baseline, mid-treatment (MT; cycle 3/4) and end of induction (EOI; cycle 6). Paired t-test was used to assess PRO score changes from baseline to MT and EOI within BR or BVR group. Two-sample t-test was used to compare change scores between groups at MT and EOI, respectively. Univariate analyses with a linear model identified patient baseline characteristics and clinical factors (age, sex, stage, performance status, # extra nodal sites, FLIPI, GELF, bone marrow involvement, elevated LDH, palpable splenomegaly, B-symptoms, CRIS) associated with PRO change scores from baseline to EOI, adjusting for treatment group. A multivariate model was built with backward variable selection approach for each of the PROs. Results: As shown in Figure 1, compared with baseline, patients randomized to BVR reported significantly worse FACT/GOG-Ntx scores at cycle 4, which continued to end of induction (FACT/GOG-Ntx change scores -2.91 to -3.73; p &lt; 0.001). Neurotoxicity remained stable for patients treated with BR (Ntx change scores -0.02 to -0.55). FACT-Fatigue scores indicated worse fatigue at MT compared to baseline for patients receiving BVR (-2.7, p&lt;0.05), yet they remained stable for BR. FACT-Lym scores were significantly higher at MT (BR: 2.69, p&lt;0.001; BVR: 2.71, p=0.007) and end of induction (BR: 3.32, p&lt;0.001; BVR: 3.55, p&lt;0.001) compared to baseline, signifying a reduction in lymphoma-related symptoms in both arms. FACT-G scores were comparable between treatment arms at each time-point and did not change significantly from baseline to end of induction. Univariate analyses among all patients identified older age and the absence of palpable splenomegaly at baseline as associated with worse FACT-Lym, FACT-Fatigue, and FACT-G change scores, signifying less improvement in lymphoma-related symptoms, fatigue and HRQL from baseline to end of induction (p&lt;0.01). The presence of B-symptoms at baseline was associated with a greater reduction in lymphoma-related symptoms and fatigue from baseline to end of induction (p&lt;0.01). Higher ECOG performance status was only associated with higher FACT-Fatigue change score, suggesting more improvement in fatigue for those with worse performance status at baseline. A multivariate model generated similar results. Conclusions: Despite worse treatment-related symptoms throughout induction, the addition of bortezomib was associated with comparable overall HRQL to those treated with BR. Both treatments were associated with a reduction in lymphoma-related symptoms from baseline to end of induction, likely contributing to stable HRQL throughout treatment despite treatment-related symptoms. Findings also suggest that a subgroup of patients, particularly those who are older, may experience fewer improvements in lymphoma-related symptoms. This underscores the potential need for closer monitoring and clinical management of these patients. Collectively, results are likely to be encouraging for patients experiencing lymphoma-related symptoms, for whom the symptom burden associated with treatment may be worth the trade-off given the potential for improved disease-related symptom control. Disclosures Evens: Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Research To Practice: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mylteni: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Advani:Celgene, Forty Seven, Inc., Genentech/Roche, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Kura, Merck, Millenium, Pharmacyclics, Regeneron, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Cell Medica, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, KitePharma, Kyowa, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Consultancy. Ansell:Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding. Winter:Norvartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; Ariad/Takeda: Consultancy; CVS/Caremark: Consultancy; Delta Fly Pharma: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Epizyme: Other: DSMB; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: advisory board; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: advisory board. Cella:FACIT.org: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: President; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pled Pharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Clovis: Research Funding; Alexion: Research Funding; Apellis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Kiniksa: Consultancy; IDDI: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; ASAHI KASEI PHARMA CORP.: Consultancy; Oncoquest: Consultancy; Mei Pharma: Consultancy; Ipsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Evidera: Consultancy; DSI: Consultancy, Research Funding; BlueNote: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; PROMIS Health Org: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other. Kahl:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BeiGene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche Laboratories Inc: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding. Wagner:Celgene Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Connect Multiple Myeloma Registry: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Purpose: We sought to improve upon frontline bendamustine/rituximab (BR) induction therapy followed by rituximab maintenance in untreated high-risk follicular lymphoma (FL). Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized to BR induction followed by 2-year rituximab maintenance (BR-R), BR with bortezomib and rituximab maintenance (BVR-R), or BR followed by lenalidomide (1 year) with rituximab maintenance (BR-LR). Dual primary objectives were complete remission (CR) rate and 1-year disease-free survival (DFS); 289 patients enrolled (NCT01216683). Results: For induction, 92%, 87%, and 86% of patients randomized to BR-R, BVR-R, or BR-LR received six cycles, respectively. CR rate with BR versus BVR induction was 62% versus 75%, respectively (P = 0.04). One-year DFS rates with BR-R versus BR-LR were 85% versus 67%, respectively (P = 0.0009). This was due to an imbalance in CR rates post-BR induction and discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs). The most common grade 3–4 AEs for BVR versus BR were neutropenia and sensory neuropathy (12% vs &lt;1%); 83% of the latter occurred with intravenous bortezomib. The most common grade 3–4 AEs related to LR versus rituximab maintenance were neutropenia 66% versus 21%, respectively (P &lt; 0.0001), and febrile neutropenia 10% versus 2%, respectively (P = 0.05). The overall treatment-related mortality was 1.4%. With 5-year median follow-up, 3-year PFS rates for BR-R, BVR-R, and BR-LR were 77%, 82%, and 76%, respectively (P = 0.36) with OS rates of 87%, 90%, and 84%, respectively (P = 0.79). For prognostication, CR rate and POD-24 were associated with survival. Conclusions: Altogether, neither bortezomib added to BR induction nor lenalidomide added to rituximab maintenance immediately post-BR induction is recommended in untreated FL.

PURPOSE NCI-MATCH is a nationwide, histology-agnostic, signal-finding, molecular profile–driven trial for patients with refractory cancers, lymphomas, or myelomas. Patients with tumors harboring actionable aberration(s) in fibroblast growth factor receptor ( FGFR) 1-3 were treated with AZD4547, an oral FGFR1-3 inhibitor. METHODS Patients’ tumors were screened by next-generation sequencing for predefined FGFR amplification, activating mutations, or fusions. Patients were treated with AZD4547, 80 mg orally twice daily until progression of disease or drug intolerance. A response rate of 16% was considered promising. RESULTS Between July 2016 and June 2017, 70 patients were assigned and 48 received protocol therapy and are eligible for analysis. Patients’ tumors harbored FGFR1 or FGFR2 amplification (n = 20), FGFR2 or FGFR3 single-nucleotide variants (n = 19), or FGFR1 or FGFR3 fusions (n = 9). The most common primary tumors were breast (33.3%), urothelial (12.5%), and cervical cancer (10.4%).Grade 3 adverse events were consistent with those described in previous clinical trials. Confirmed partial responses were seen in 8% (90% CI, 3% to 18%) and were observed only in patients whose tumors harbored FGFR1-3 point mutations or fusions. Stable disease was observed in 37.5% (90% CI, 25.8% to 50.4%). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.4 months, and the 6-month PFS rate was 15% (90% CI, 8% to 31%). For patients with tumors harboring FGFR fusions, the response rate was 22% (90% CI, 4.1% to 55%), and 6-month PFS rate was 56% (90% CI, 31% to 100%). CONCLUSION Preliminary signals of activity appeared to be limited to cancers harboring FGFR activating mutations and fusions, although AZD4547 did not meet the primary end point. Different FGFR somatic alterations may confer different levels of signaling potency and/or oncogene dependence.

e19136 Background: Patient reported side effect bother is needed to understand tolerability of cancer drugs. We examined whether increase in side effect bother from baseline to cycle 7 as measured by a single item (GP5) from the FACT-G, “I am bothered by side effects of treatment”, was associated with early treatment discontinuation (ETD) in a multiple myeloma (MM) trial. Methods: Data were drawn from the induction phase of ECOG ACRIN E1A06, a two arm, phase 3 trial conducted in patients with untreated MM. The induction phase occurred over twelve, 28-day cycles. GP5 was assessed at registration and cycle 7. ETD was defined as completion of less than 12 cycles of treatment. We tested whether increase in side effect bother on the GP5 from baseline to cycle 7 was associated with months to ETD in two ways. At each timepoint, GP5 was rated with these response options: “Not at all”, “A little bit”, “Somewhat”, “Quite a bit”, “Very Much”. First, we stratified Kaplan Meier curves by patients with versus without substantially increased side effect burden from registration to cycle 7 on the GP5, defined as an increase of > 2 response categories; Cox regression was used to calculate a hazard ratio. Second, we fit a joint model of the GP5 change trajectory on months to ETD that substituted the estimated slope of a longitudinal logistic regression model into the hazard function of a Cox model. In this model, GP5 was dichotomized as 0 = “Not at all/”A little bit”; 1 = “Somewhat”/ “Quite a bit”/ “Very Much”. Results: 159 patients were followed during induction for a median of 11 months (range: 0.2-16.0). 10 patients (6%) reported a substantial increase on GP5 from registration to cycle 7. After 16 months, these patients had a significantly higher hazard of ETD as estimated by Kaplan Meier methods: 40% experienced ETD vs. 24% of patients without substantial GP5 increase [hazard ratio (HR): 3.08 (95% CI: 1.18-8.02)]. In the joint model, the effect of GP5 on hazard of ETD was larger [HR: 9.56 (95% CI: 2.41-37.82)]. Conclusions: This study found initial evidence that increase in side effect bother as measured by the GP5 predicts ETD and may therefore reflect treatment intolerability in cancer drug trials. The effects found in this study will be tested for replication in additional ECOG-ACRIN trials with diverse designs, treatments, and cancer types. Clinical trial information: NCT00602641 .