Kahl, Brad S.

Motexafin gadolinium (MGd, Xcytrin®) is a novel anti-cancer drug that selectively concentrates in cancer cells and disrupts redox dependent pathways by targeting oxidative stress related proteins such as thioredoxin reductase and metallothioneins. MGd has been shown to generate reactive oxygen species and induce apoptosis in tumor cells. We initiated a study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of MGd in two B-cell malignancies, relapsed/refractory LG and relapsed/refractory CLL or CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL). MGd was given intravenously (IV) at 6mg/kg/day for 3 days q 2 weeks for LG and 5mg/kg/day for 10 days q 3 weeks for CLL/SLL. Ten patients (pts) with LG (2 grade 1, 5 grade 2, 1 grade 3 follicular, 2 marginal zone), 2 pts with CLL/SLL and 1 pt with CLL have been enrolled. Median age was 64.5 yrs (range 44–77), median prior treatment regimens was 3.5 (range 1–6) and median time from diagnosis to treatment was 52 mo. Many LG pts had failed prior aggressive treatment regimens including: CHOP (4), ICE (1), HyperCVAD(1), auto-bone marrow transplant (1); all failed rituxamab and 6 failed Zevalin. CLL/SLL and CLL pts had failed rituxamab (3), fludarabine (2), and R-CHOP (1). MGd related adverse events included skin and urine discoloration (6 and 4 pts), diarrhea, nausea, vesiculobullous rash, peripheral neuropathy (3 pts each). MGd related ≥gr 3 adverse events included skin rash (3 pts), fatigue, neuropathy, photosensitivity (1 pt each). Importantly, no MGd-related myelosuppression was observed. In 12 evaluable pts, there have been three PRs of 2+, 5+ and 8 months duration (2 follicular, 1 CLL). Two pts had SD (follicular, SLL) one of these had resolution of lymphoma related autoimmune hemolytic anemia. Responses occurred after ≤2 cycles of therapy and were seen in patients after extensive prior treatment (mean 4.3 prior regimens, range 3–7). MGd is a non-myelosuppressive drug with single agent activity in LG and CLL/SLL.

Abstract Abstract 415 Background: The ability to cure patients (pts) with advanced Hodgkin's Lymphoma (HL) with combination chemotherapy (CC) (MOPP and variants, ABVD and variants) represented a major milestone in oncology research, and CC became a paradigm for other malignancies. Further, the rationale for combined modality therapy (CMT) (radiation (RT) and CC) in HL evolved based on the high frequency of relapse in initially involved sites. As response rates and survival improved, newer treatments such as the combined modality Stanford V regimen were developed to shorten the duration of chemotherapy, add RT to sites of disease and reduce toxicity while maintaining or improving the cure rate. Indeed, the Stanford V regimen was tested and validated in a Phase II co-operative group trial (E1492) (J Clin Oncol 2000; 18:972). In order to investigate this approach against “standard” therapy, we conducted a randomized Phase III Intergroup trial of ABVD vs. the Stanford V regimen for patients with locally extensive or advanced HL. Objectives: The trial was designed to detect a 33% reduction in the failure free survival (FFS) hazard rate with Stanford V compared with ABVD, which corresponds to a difference in five-year FFS of 64% vs. 74%. Method: Patients with locally extensive (defined as clinical Ann Arbor Stage I-IIA/B and bulky mediastinal disease (BMD) (mass > 1/3 maximum intrathoracic diameter on standing postero-anterior chest x-ray or >/−10 cm on computerized tomography) or advanced (Ann Arbor Stage III or IV) HL were randomized to receive either ABVD × 6–8 cycles (C) (51% had 6 C, 35% had 8 C, 14% had <6 C) + 36 Gy (only in pts with BMD) or Stanford V × 12 weeks (95% had 12 weeks) + 36 Gy (for sites >5cm or for macroscopic splenic disease). The log-rank test was used to compare FFS for all eligible patients stratified on extent of disease (locally extensive vs. advanced), and number of International Prognostic Factor Project (IPFP) risk factors (0–2 vs. 3–7). An extended Cox model was also used to address non-proportional hazard between the two arms. Results: 854 pts enrolled from April, 1999 to June, 2006 and 812 were eligible for analysis. 404 pts were randomized to ABVD and 408 to Stanford V. Median age was 33 yrs in both arms (range 16–83). 53% were men and 47% women; 4% had Stage I, 31% had Stage II, 39% had Stage III and 25% had Stage IV disease by Ann Arbor criteria. 35% of pts on ABVD and 35% on Stanford V had BMD. Three % of pts had nodular lymphocyte predominant HL, 77% of pts had nodular sclerosis HL, 14% had mixed cell HL. Age, stage, pathology and risk factors (0–2 vs. 3–7) were similar in both arms. In total, 65% were IPFP score 0–2 and 33% were 3–6. Response rate. There was no difference in response rates (RR) between the two arms (ABVD=72% CR+ CCR, 7.7% PR, 7.9% SD; Stanford V= 69 % CR +CCR, 7% PR and 10 % SD. 8% were not evaluable for response on ABVD and 9% on Stanford V. Toxicity was similar in both groups. The most frequent Grade 3 + 4 toxicity was neutropenia, and was similar between the 2 groups (76% Grade 3 + 4 in ABVD and 70% Grade 3+ 4 in Stanford V). Grade 5 toxicity was <1% in both groups. There was, however, more Grade 3 lymphopenia in Stanford V (78% vs. 42%, p< 0.0001) and more Grade 3 +4 sensory neuropathy in Stanford V (10%) than in ABVD (3%) (p< 0.0001). A total of 26 second primary cancers developed, 12 after ABVD and 14 after Stanford V (p=NS). FFS and OS. For 812 eligible patients, with a median follow up of 5.25 years, 5-year FFS was 73% for ABVD and 71% for Stanford V (p=0.29 by log rank) (Figure left); 5-year OS was 88% for ABVD and 87% for Stanford V (p=0.87 by log-rank, HR=0.97, 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.44) (Figure right) indicating no significant difference in either FFS or OS between the 2 arms. Conclusion: In the largest Phase III intergroup trial of HL in North America, there was no significant difference in RR, FFS, OS, and 5-year toxicity when ABVD (+ RT for BMD) is compared with Stanford V (+RT for nodal sites >5 cm and macroscopic splenic disease). There was more Grade 3 lymphopenia (p< 0.0001) and more Grade 3 + 4 sensory neuropathy (p< 0.0001) on Stanford V. Thus ABVD (plus RT for BMD) remains the standard of care because Stanford V did not meet the objective of 33% improvement in FFS. For some patients, Stanford V, when given as described with RT, remains an acceptable alternative. Disclosures: Friedberg: Genentech: Honoraria. Blum:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Horning:Genentech: Employment.

Abstract Abstract 416 Background: Standard therapy for locally extensive Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) defined as stage I/II with bulky mediastinal disease [mediastinal mass ratio (MMR) > than 1/3 of the chest diameter on standing postero-anterior chest x-ray or 10 cm on computerized tomography] is combined modality therapy (CMT). E2496 was a North American intergroup, randomized phase III study comparing ABVD versus the Stanford V regimen for patients with locally extensive and advanced stage HL. In this subgroup analysis we compare two CMT approaches, ABVD + radiotherapy (RT) and the Stanford V regimen, in patients with stage I/II bulky mediastinal HL. Methods: Patients with stage I/II HL bulky mediastinal disease were randomized to receive chemotherapy (CT) on either Arm A (ABVD × 6–8 cycles administered q 28 days) or Arm B (12 weeks of Stanford V, administered weekly). Two-3 weeks after completion of chemotherapy, modified involved field RT was delivered at 36 Gy to the mediastinum to patients on ABVD as well as Stanford V. Patients on Stanford V also received involved field RT to any other sites >5 cm at diagnosis. The primary endpoint was failure free survival (FFS) defined as the time to either progression/relapse or death. The log-rank test was used to compare FFS and OS (overall survival) for all eligible patients. Results: Of the 812 eligible patients with advanced HL enrolled on the study 267 had locally advanced bulky mediastinal disease: 136 on ABVD and 131 on Stanford V. Patient characteristics between the two randomized groups were well matched with a median age of 30 years and 86% had stage II disease. On ABVD 61% of patients received 6 cycles, 29% 8 cycles of CT and 77% required some dose modification. In Stanford V 97% completed the assigned 12 weeks of CT and 76% required some dose modification. 82% received RT per protocol in ABVD versus 88% in Stanford V. The overall response (CR+PR) was 82% in ABVD and 86% in Stanford V. At a median follow-up of 5.47 years, there are 19 failures and 6 deaths in the ABVD group and 25 failures with 9 deaths in the Stanford V group. We failed to detect statistically significant differences between ABVD +RT and Stanford V for FFS (5y 85% versus 77% p=0.13, HR=1.56 95% CI (0.87, 2.88) and OS (5y 95% versus 92% p=0.31, HR=1.69 95% CI (0.60, 4.75). No difference in hematologic toxicity was observed between the two arms. Evaluation of pulmonary function and patterns of failure are pending. Conclusions: For stage I/II patients with bulky mediastinal disease, CMT with either ABVD +RT or the Stanford V regimen results in high cure rates and is highly effective. ABVD for 6–8 cycles plus 36 Gy RT remains the US standard of care. Longer follow up is required to assess RT related late effects. Future research efforts should focus on risk stratification to identify; a) the 15–20% of patients destined to relapse after standard therapy and evaluate treatment intensification strategies and b) the 80–85% of patients who are cured with standard therapy and determine whether a subset can achieve the same excellent outcomes with a reduction or elimination of radiation. Planned US cooperative group trials will address these questions, using ABVD as the chemotherapy backbone in conjunction with interim PET imaging for risk stratification. Disclosures: Blum: Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Horning:Genentech: Employment.

Abstract Abstract 589 Background: The initial results of this intergroup trial with median follow-up of 3.5 years (yrs) were previously reported (J Clin Oncol 24:3121, 2006). We present updated results with median follow-up of 9.4 yrs from induction therapy randomization, and 9.0 yrs from maintenance randomization. Methods: 632 patients (pts), age >60 yrs, with DLBCL were randomized to CHOP+rituximab 375 mg/m2 IV, administered Day -7, -3, and two days before cycles 3/5/7 (if given) (R-CHOP), versus CHOP, for two cycles beyond best response for 6–8 cycles total. Pts were stratified by the International Prognostic Index (IPI) (<3 vs >3). 415 pts responding to R-CHOP or CHOP were then randomized to maintenance rituximab 375 mg/m2 weekly times 4, every 6 months for 2 yrs starting 4 weeks after the last chemotherapy (MR, n=207), or observation (OBS, n=208). Results are presented for the 546 (267 R-CHOP; 279 CHOP) pts for induction, and 352 (174 MR; 178 observation) evaluable, centrally reviewed, maintenance pts. Failure-free survival (FFS) was the primary endpoint. The stratified weighted Cox regression was used to remove the effect of MR in comparing induction treatment, and stratified log-rank test used to assess maintenance effect. Results: Baseline characteristics and response to induction were balanced. 9-yr FFS and OS) are 35% and 44% for R-CHOP, and 25% and 37% for CHOP. Compared with CHOP, R-CHOP significantly prolonged FFS (p=.008), but not OS (p=.11). Pts were categorized into low-risk (LR) and high-risk (HR) groups according to their IPI (<3 or 33) (LR, n=217; HR, n=327). A significant difference in the effect of induction therapy was observed for high-risk patients only for FFS (p=0.02, HR=0.61, 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.93) but not for OS. MR significantly prolonged FFS (log-rank p=0.018, HR=0.71, 95%CI, 0.54 to 0.94), but not OS (p=0.44, HR=0.89, 95%CI, 0.65 to 1.20). A significant interaction between maintenance and induction therapies was observed in that MR significantly prolonged FFS after CHOP (p=0.003, HR=0.56, 95%CI, 0.38 to 0.82), but not after R-CHOP (p=0.89, HR=0.97, 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.47). There was no OS difference with MR after CHOP (p=0.19, HR=0.76, 95% CI. 0.50 to 1.15) or R-CHOP (p=0.77, HR=1.07, 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.68). Median time to failure after maintenance randomization following CHOP+MR was 9.5 yrs vs 2.0 yrs for CHOP+OBS (p=0.003) and following R-CHOP+MR was 8.5 yrs vs 7.5 yrs for R-CHOP+OBS (p=NS). Proportionately more treatment failures occurred within 2 yrs after CHOP+OBS (73%) compared to CHOP+MR (47%), p=0.01. In contrast, the proportion of failures within 2 yrs was similar for R-CHOP+OBS (38%) and R-CHOP+MR (36%), p=NS. Conclusions: Initial R-CHOP therapy, as compared with CHOP, resulted in improved DFS and FFS for older DLBCL pts. MR after CHOP, but not after R-CHOP, significantly prolonged time to failure but did not prolong OS. However, FFS was 42% at 9 yrs among R-CHOP responders, with or without MR. Future treatment strategies should build upon these findings in this older patient population, often with significant co-morbidities. Disclosures: Morrison: merck: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; genentech: Speakers Bureau; pfizer: Speakers Bureau. Fisher:roche: Consultancy. Horning:Genentech: Employment.

Abstract Background: Follicular lymphoma (FL) is the most common indolent NHL with a heterogenous natural history of disease and a median survival of 8 to 12 y, albeit ranging between 1 to 20 y. Casulo et al. (2015) identified a high-risk FL cohort of patients with progression of disease (POD) at ≤24 months following initiation of immunochemotherapy with R-CHOP. Idelalisib (Zydelig) is a first-in-class, highly selective, oral inhibitor of PI3Kd which is indicated for relapsed FL or SLL following receipt of at least two lines of systemic chemotherapy. Retrospective subgroup analysis of the idelalisib registrational trial NCT01282424 (101-09) of a cohort with early POD following immunochemotherapy was performed to assess possible activity of idelalisib in this population. Methods: A subset of 46 patients enrolled in study 101-09 were identified as having been diagnosed with FL and having received first-line immunochemotherapy, of which 37 experienced early POD, defined as starting second-line treatment within 24 months of initial first-line treatment. For the latter group, descriptive statistics of demographic and baseline characteristics and inter-treatment intervals in months as well as Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) following initiation of immunochemotherapy and idelalisib were calculated. Population: Demographic characteristics of these 37 patients included median (range) age at initiation of idelalisib of 64 (33-84) y and 18 (48.6%) females. Histologic grade at diagnosis included 33 (89.2%) with grades 1 or 2 as well as 4 (10.8%) with grade 3A, while 21 (56.8%) patients had a FLIPI score ≥3. The mean (s.d.) number of prior therapies was 3.4±1.4, with a range of 2 to 8, while first-line therapies included 21 (56.8%) patients who received R-CHOP-based regimens, 7 (18.9%) who received BR, and 5 (13.5%) who received R-CVP. Mean (s.d.) inter-treatment intervals included 12.5±6.1 months between first- and second-line for all patients, 9.7±9.3 months between second- and third-line for all patients, 11.9±12.0 months between third- and fourth-line for 24 (64.9%) patients, and 11.8±7.6 months between fourth- and fifth-line for 15 (40.5%) patients. Median (range) time from first-line therapy to idelalisib initiation was 30.3 (8.9-94.7) months; no patient received idelalisib as second-line therapy. Results: Best responses included 5 (13.5%) patients with CR, 16 (43.2%) with PR, 2 (5.4%) with SD, and 1 (2.7%) with PD; median duration of response for those with CR or PR was 11.8 months (95% CI: 3.8 months, not evaluable). There were 7 (18.9%) deaths and 21 (56.8%) PFS events in this group. Estimated probabilities of survival (s.e.) and progression-free status at 2 y following initiation of idelalisib were 79%±7% and 29%±10%, respectively. Median PFS was 11.1 months (95% CI: 5.5, 19.3 months). Estimated probability of survival (s.e.) at 5 years following initiation of first-line treatment was 79%±8%. Median overall survival from both initiation of first-line immunochemotherapy as well as with idelalisib was not reached during the course of this study. Conclusions: Idelalisib may have significant clinical activity in high-risk and doubly-refractive FL following early relapse status post first-line immunochemotherapy. Given the small size of the studied subset population which may not be representative, further characterization in additional patients is warranted to ensure the generalizability of this finding, including consideration of further investigational protocols featuring targeted therapies employed both as single agents and in combination. Figure 1. Overall Survival From Initiation of First-line Treatment Figure 1. Overall Survival From Initiation of First-line Treatment Figure 2. Overall Survival From Initiation of Idelalisib Figure 2. Overall Survival From Initiation of Idelalisib Figure 3. Progression-Free Survival From Initiation of Idelalisib Figure 3. Progression-Free Survival From Initiation of Idelalisib Disclosures Gopal: Gilead, Spectrum, Pfizer, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Spectrum, Pfizer, BioMarin, Cephalon/Teva, Emergent/Abbott. Gilead, Janssen., Merck, Milennium, Piramal, Seattle Genetics, Giogen Idec, BMS: Research Funding; Millennium, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi-Aventis: Honoraria. Kahl:Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy; Cell Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Infinity: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy. Flowers:Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Spectrum: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celegene: Other: Unpaid consultant, Research Funding; OptumRx: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Martin:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Link:Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding. Ansell:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding. Ye:Gilead: Employment. Koh:Gilead: Employment. Abella:Gilead: Employment. Barr:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Salles:Calistoga Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Celgene Corporation; Genentech, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, L.P.; Roche: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation; Roche and Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation; Roche: Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Background: Despite advances in chemotherapy, R/R HL remains a significant clinical problem with over 1,000 primarily young lives lost annually. HL is a unique tumor in which a small number of malignant Hodgkin Reed-Sternberg (HRS) cells propagate an immunosuppressive microenvironment that augments HRS growth and survival. We hypothesized that immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy could activate the tumor immune microenvironment, while the CD30 expressing HRS cells could be targeted by brentuximab vedotin (BV), thereby overcoming tumor cell resistance and deepening clinical responses. E4412 is a phase 1 ECOG-ACRIN sponsored study of the combination of BV and the checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab (IPI) and nivolumab (NIVO) in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Here we report the data on the patients treated with BV + IPI, the first cohort of the study. Methods: Patients with biopsy proven R/R HL were treated with BV 1.8mg/kg and two escalating doses of IPI: 1 mg/kg or 3mg/kg. After safety was determined an expanded cohort was treated with BV 1.8mg/kg IV and IPI 3mg/kg IV. The schedule consisted of BV administered every 21 days for 16 cycles and IPI every 21 days x 4 doses and thereafter every 3 months for up to a year. Dose limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined for purposes of dose escalation within the first cycle of therapy. Patients are followed for toxicity up to 30 days beyond their last treatment. Results: As of 7/2015 19 of 23 planned patients have been treated with BV + IPI. We report the data on the full dose escalation population (13 patients: Dose level 1 (6), Dose level 2 (7)). The median age was 33 years (range: 20-49). Seven patients were male. Patients were heavily pretreated with a median of 4 prior therapies (2-13). Fourpatients had prior treatment with BV; 8 patients had prior SCT (7 autologous, 1 allogeneic). Safety: Overall the regimen of BV + IPI was extremely well tolerated with no DLTs noted during dose escalation. Toxicities considered at least possibly related to drug during any cycle of treatment are shown according to grade in Table 1. The most common treatment related adverse events were: diarrhea, rash, and peripheral sensory neuropathy. Other AEs of interest included: alopecia, transaminitis, and uveitis. Grade 3 and 4 treatment related adverse events (AEs) included: Dose level 1: one grade 3 infusion reaction, which led to a protocol amendment to include premedication, no further grade 3 infusion reactions were noted; Dose level 2: one each: grade 3 rash, vomiting, and peripheral sensory neuropathy, and one grade 4 thrombocytopenia in patient with pre-existing thrombocytopenia. Response: For the 12 evaluable patients, the overall response (ORR) for the combination of BV + IPI was 67% with a complete response (CR) rate of 42% (5 of 12 patients). An additional 2 patients had stable disease (SD) giving a clinical benefit rate of 83%. Three of 5 of the CRs occurred at dose level 1 (1mg dose of IPI). The median progression free survival (PFS) is 0.74 years with a median follow-up of 0.66 years. Conclusion: In this first reported study of the combination of checkpoint inhibitor and ADC, toxicity was low, primarily grades 1 and 2. In a heavily pretreated patient population, 33% of whom had had prior BV and 67% of whom were s/p ASCT, the ORR of 67% and CR rate of 42% suggests a potential deepening of response compared to monotherapy. More than half of these CRs occurred at 1mg of IPI suggesting that in combination with ADC, low doses of immune stimulation may be highly active. Optimization of this combination strategy is planned with ongoing accrual to cohorts receiving BV + NIVO, and BV + IPI + NIVO. Data will be updated to include the full BV + IPI cohort by the time of the annual meeting. Table 1. Common and Immune Toxicities Toxicity Type Dose Level 1 (n=6) Dose Level 2 (n=7) Grade Grade 1,2 3 4 5 1,2 3 4 5 (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) Fatigue 5 - - - 3 - - - Fever 1 - - - 3 - - - Pain 2 - - - 3 - - - Alopecia 2 - - - 1 - - - Pruritus 1 - - - 2 - - - Rash maculo-papular 4 - - - 2 1 - - Diarrhea 4 - - - 4 - - - Dyspepsia 2 - - - 1 - - - Nausea 6 - - - 4 - - - Vomiting 3 - - - 2 1 - - Papulopustular rash 1 - - - 1 - - - Alanine aminotransferase increased 3 - - - 3 - - - Aspartate aminotransferase increased 3 - - - 2 - - - Platelet count decreased - - - - - - 1 - Anorexia 3 - - - - - - - Headache 2 - - - 2 - - - Peripheral sensory neuropathy 5 - - - 4 1 - - Dry eye 2 - - - - - - - Uveitis 1 - - - - - - - Cough 2 - - - 1 - - - Disclosures Diefenbach: Molecular Templates: Research Funding; Immunogen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Idera: Consultancy; Jannsen Oncology: Consultancy; Gilead: Equity Ownership, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Presentation will discuss the experimental use of the checkpoint inhibitor Ipilimumab in relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma.. Cohen:Celgene: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Robertson:Eli Lilly: Equity Ownership. Fenske:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Kahl:Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy; Cell Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Infinity: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy. Ansell:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: We recently clarified the use of consolidative autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) as first remission consolidation therapy for high grade diffuse aggressive T and B non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL)in patients with high-intermediate (HI) or High (H) age adjusted IPI disease (Stiff et al, NEJM 369:1681). After receiving CHOP or R-CHOP for 5 cycles responding patients were randomized to either 3 more induction cycles or 1 cycle followed by an ASCT using either a BCNU or TBI based preparative regimen. We found a PFS but not OS advantage for those randomized to transplant and no differential treatment effect for those with T-NHL patients as compared to B-NHL in the initial analysis of this study. In light of Phase II data suggesting a value of early ASCT for T-NHL, a lack of randomized ASCT trials for T-NHL and the inferior prognosis for T-NHL as compared to B cell disease, we further evaluated this sub group, since a post hoc analysis of the entire trial did find a survival advantage for those with H IPI disease. This then provided a unique opportunity to evaluate the role of ASCT consolidation for T-cell NHL in the setting of a prospective randomized trial. Method: Among the 370 eligible B-NHL and T-NHL patients with HI/H IPI disease treated on this trial, 40 had a T-NHL phenotype and were the subject of this analysis. Individual patient files were re-reviewed and those randomized after the first 5 cycles of CHOP were further analyzed for stage, IPI group, histology (centrally reviewed), and response to induction and consolidation and updated survival outcome. Results: Of the 40 T-NHL patients enrolled on study, 28 (70%) were randomized after induction therapy, a similar ratio to the entire trial (68%). Twelve were not randomized; 1 was ineligible for study, and of the eligible 11, 9 were HI IPI and 8 had peripheral T cell (PTCL-NOS). These 11 were not randomized due to patient choice in 2, and all of the remaining 9 pts progressed early: 2 after C1; 3 after C3, 1 after C4, and 3 after C5. For the 28 randomized, their median age was 50 and 19 were males. Of the group, 21/28 had B symptoms at diagnosis, 14 had stage IV disease, and 18 and 10 were in the HI and H IPI groups respectively. Histologies included 11 with PTCL-NOS, 7 angioimmunoblastic and 10 anaplastic large cell NHL. At randomization 13 were to continue CHOP and 15, ASCT. Of the 15 assigned to ASCT, 3 did not undergo transplant (2-refusals, 1- unable to mobilize); 7 received the BCNU-etoposide-cyclophosphamide and 5 the TBI-etoposide-cyclophosphamide preparative regimen. The 5 year estimates of PFS and OS for the randomized ASCT vs CHOP only groups (intent to treat) were 40% vs 38% (p=0.56) and 40% vs 45% (p=0.98) respectively. We found no difference in outcome based on IPI group, histology or stage of disease. Interestingly, only 1/7 patients who received BCV as the ASCT preparative regimen are long term survivors vs 4/5 receiving the TBI-based regimen. Conclusions: We did not observe a PFS/OS advantage for those with high-risk T-NHL in first remission randomized to ASCT following CHOP induction vs CHOP alone in this retrospective analysis. In addition, the 30% early drop out rate before randomization due primarily to early progression strongly suggests that more optimal induction regimens need to be developed for this disease. While the numbers are small the finding that TBI based preparative regimens might be associated with a higher PFS is of interest and deserves further study. Support: NIH/NCI grants CA180888 and CA180819; Bristol-Myers Squibb. Contributions of Dr. Raymond R Tubbs, deceased, are gratefully acknowledged. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Porcu: miRagen: Other: Investigator in a clinical trial; celgene: Other: Investigator in a clinical trial; Millenium: Other: investigator in a clinical trial; Innate Pharma: Other: Investigator in a clinical trial. Winter:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Medivation: Other: Provision of investigational agent for clinical trial; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding. Kahl:This study was coordinated by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (Robert L. Comis, MD and Mitchell D. Schnall, MD, PhD, Group Co-Chairs) and supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under the following award number: Research Funding. Smith:Juno: Consultancy; TGTX: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Other: on a DSMB for two trials ; Gilead: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Amgen: Other: Educational lecture to sales force; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Rimsza:NCI/NIH: Patents & Royalties: L.M. Rimsza is a co-inventor on a provisional patent, owned by the NCI of the NIH, using Nanostring technology for determining cell of origin in DLBCL.. Fisher:Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy. Friedberg:Bayer: Honoraria, Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board.

Abstract Background The international prognostic score (IPS) (Hasenclever et al., NEJM 1988) uses 7 factors (age> 45, male sex, hemoglobin<10.5, stage IV, leukocytosis > 15,000, and lymphopenia< 600) to predict a 5 year freedom from progression (FFP) of 42%-84% and overall survival (OS) of 56%-89% for patients with advanced HL. Constructed from a retrospective analysis of patients treated before 1992, the IPS continues to be the most commonly used risk stratification index for advanced HL. Recent studies suggest that the predictive range of the IPS has narrowed due to improved outcomes of patients treated with current therapy (Moccia et al. JCO 2012). In this report we prospectively evaluated the ability of the individual components of the IPS to predict outcome in patients enrolled on the US Intergroup trial E2496. Methods All seven IPS (IPS-7) variables were recorded for all patients at study entry. FFP was defined as the time from study entry to disease progression or relapse; deaths that occurred during remission that were not preceded by disease progression/relapse were censored. OS was defined as the time from study entry to death from any cause. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to construct survival curves. Univariate and multivariate analysis (MVA) was performed using Cox proportional-hazards models. We subsequently constructed an alternative prognostic score utilizing the factors which were significant on MVA (PS-3). Results From 1996-2006, 854 patients with advanced HL, were randomized to treatment with either ABVD or Stanford V, with no significant differences in outcome (Gordon et al, JCO 2013). While the IPS-7 remained prognostic it did not stratify the lowest risk patients (0-1 risk factor) or patients with 3-5 risk factors, as its predictive range was narrowed due to improved clinical outcomes (Fig 1a and 2a). Table 1 shows the univariate and multivariate analysis for IPS-7 and outcomes. In contrast to the original IPS-7, on MVA, only two factors, hemoglobin and stage were significant for FFP, and three factors for OS: hemoglobin, stage, and age. We then evaluated a new 3 factor score (PS-3) utilizing variables significant on the MVA. The PS-3 was significant for both FFP (p=0.0001) and OS (p<.0001) and clearly separated patients into 4 distinct risk groups with either: 0, 1, 2 or 3 risk factors. The five year FFP was 83%, 74%, 68%, and 63% and OS was 95%, 85%, 75%, and 52% for patients with 0, 1, 2, and 3 risk factors, respectively (Table 2, Fig 1b and 2b). Conclusion In E2496, for patients with advanced HL, the PS-3 may stratify patients more clearly compared to IPS-7 and provide a simpler model to assess risk. Studies comparing PS-3 with IPS-7, and are ongoing. The incorporation of novel biomarkers and biologic factors into PS-3, as well as validation with other data sets is warranted. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Abstract 3705 Improved outcomes were reported in USA studies in DLBCL (Habermann et al. J Clin Oncol 2006) in a two-staged randomized study of R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, Adriamycin, vincristine, and prednisone) versus CHOP with a second randomization assignment to maintenance rituximab (MR) or observation (OBS) (E4494) and in follicular lymphoma (FL) in patients in a trial with CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone) followed by randomization to MR versus OBS in advanced-stage indolent lymphoma (E1496) (Hochster et al. J Clin Oncol 2009). The details of the treatment regimens have been previously described. The German High Grade Lymphoma Study Group has reported differences between men and women in outcomes in DLBCL with improved outcomes in women treated with rituximab (Müller et al. Blood 2012). Methods: Survival outcomes by sex were analyzed using a stratified weighted cox regression, removing the effect of maintenance rituximab in DLBCL (E4494), and a log-rank test in patients with follicular histology (E1496). A Cox regression model was used to evaluate the differences between males and females together with weight (below or above the median). Wilcoxon test and Fisher's exact test were used to compare medians and proportions, respectively. Results: In DLBCL, there were 273 eligible males and 273 females. The median age was 69 in males and 70 in females. There were no differences in baseline patient characteristics among the male and female populations. 138 males and 129 females were treated with R-CHOP. There was no difference in treatment received, with 83% females and 75.3% males receiving 6 cycles or more of R-CHOP treatment (p=0.14). The complete remission (CR) and partial remission (PR) rates after RCHOP were higher in females (82.6%) versus males (71.5%) (P = 0.04). With a median follow-up of 9.45 years, the failure free survival (FFS) and overall survival (OS) were improved in females (P = 0.02, 0.002; HR=0.63, 0.54) compared with males in the R-CHOP group. The outcomes were not different in the CHOP group for FFS (P = 0.81) or OS (P= 0.57) between males and females. Within the R-CHOP group, the failure free survival (FFS) was significantly different between women and men (P = 0.002) and body weight (P = 0.03), but only female sex (P = 0.001) was significant and not weight (P = 0.26) for OS. Of 282 evaluable patients with advanced-stage follicular lymphoma who received initial treatment with CVP, 115 patients were randomly assigned to MR and 113 to OBS. 120 patients were male, and 108 were female. The median age was 58 years in the MR arm and 54 years in the OBS arm. At a median follow-up of 8.04 years, MR markedly improved the PFS (P=0.003) compared with OBS. There were no differences in PFS (P= 0.17) between males and females treated with MR or OS (P = 0.27). In conclusion, in induction therapy with rituximab in DLBCL there is a sex dependent effect with rituximab with males benefiting less than females. In contrast, in patients with follicular lymphoma treated with chemotherapy followed by maintenance rituximab, there were no differences. The differences in outcomes in patients of different sex with DLBCL treated with immunochemotherapy and FL treated with maintenance rituximab will require further analysis of multiple clinical and biologic variables. Disclosures: Fisher: Roche: Advisory Board Other. Cheson:Genentech: Consultancy. Kahl:Genentech, Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding. Horning:Genetech, Roche: Employment, stock (Roche) Other.

Abstract Abstract 687 Background: A persistently positive PET scan after just a few cycles of therapy is predictive of a poor clinical outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Prior data suggested that about one third of patients remain PET positive after 2–4 cycles, with ≤ 20% 2 year progression-free survival (PFS) for such patients. A response-adapted strategy was studied in E3404 to test the hypothesis that an early treatment change to four cycles of R-ICE might reduce the treatment failure rate of patients whose PET scan remained positive after an initial 3 cycles of R-CHOP. Study Design: Previously untreated patients with DLBCL stage III, IV, or bulky II, with measurable disease, HIV negative, and with adequate organ reserve, were eligible. PET/CT scan was performed before treatment and again after 3 cycles of R-CHOP. A fourth cycle of R-CHOP was given while the scan was centrally reviewed and scored as either positive or negative for FDG-avid tumor by a single reviewer using criteria based on modifications of the Harmonization Criteria. Persistently PET-positive patients received 4 cycles of R-ICE, while PET-negative patients received 2 more cycles of R-CHOP, for a total of 6 cycles. PET/CT was performed again at the end of treatment. A ≥45% 2 year PFS for mid-treatment PET- positive patients was viewed as a promising result, with 88% power if 33 such patients were accrued. Total accrual of 99 patients was therefore planned. Results: Of 100 patients accrued, 78 were eligible; all but 1 ineligibility was based on central pathology review. Fifty-eight were male; median age was 62 years (20–74); 13% IPI 0–1, 31% IPI 2, 37% IPI 3, and 19% IPI 4–5. Seventy-four of 78 (95%) patients completed the first 3 cycles of R-CHOP. Of 72 patients continuing treatment, 67 (93%) completed protocol treatment: 83% of mid-treatment PET-positive and 93% of PET-negative patients. Of 74 patients undergoing mid-treatment PET scan, 12 (16%) were scored as positive, and 62 (84%) as negative. At the end of treatment, 13% were scored as positive, and 87% as negative. Two-year PFS, from the time of study entry, was 72% among all eligible patients. Two year PFS from the time of mid-treatment PET scan was 45% (90% CI, 21–67%) for patients scored as mid-treatment PET-positive, and 77% (90% CI 67–85%) for patients scored as mid-treatment PET-negative. The 80% confidence interval (corresponding to a test with a one-sided type I error of 10%) did not include the null hypothesis of 25%, implying that the results met the pre-specified threshold. Among all 78 eligible patients, 10 have died (13%); 5-year overall survival was 87% (90% CI 78–92%) Three-year overall survival was 67% (90% CI 40–84%) for mid-treatment PET-positive patients, and 93% (90% CI 85–97%) for mid-treatment PET-negative patients. Conclusions: The 2-year PFS for mid-treatment PET-positive patients met the threshold to be considered promising, but the confidence interval was wider than expected due to the small patient number. In addition, the inter-observer variability in the interpretation of mid-treatment PET scans as a binary variable in this study (studied and reported separately in Horning SJ et al. Blood 2010) implies that treatment modification based on early PET scanning should remain confined to clinical trials. Disclosures: Swinnen: Celgene: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding. Quon:Genentech: Research Funding. Advani:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Kahl:Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Cell Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Horning:Genentech: Employment; Roche: stock, stock Other.