Offner, Fritz

Introduction Patients (pts) with progressive disease after ≥2 prior lines of systemic therapy are unlikely to derive additional benefit from current salvage immunochemotherapies, and survival declines significantly with each subsequent treatment. Pts with refractory disease following second-line therapy have worse outcomes, with reported overall response rates (ORRs) of 1% to 14% and overall survival (OS) of 5 months (Blood. 2017;130[16]:1800-1808). While chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has become a preferred strategy in the second- and third-line settings, pts with R/R disease following CAR-T experience dismal survival, with progression-free survival (PFS) and OS as low as 3 and 5 months, respectively, and no agreed standard of care post CAR-T (Blood. 2022;140[24]:2527-2529). The randomized, global, phase 3 ECHELON-3 study (NCT04404283) was conducted in pts with R/R DLBCL after ≥2 prior therapies who were ineligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant and/or CAR-T. Here, we present subgroup analyses in pts with 2 prior lines of therapy, refractory disease, or prior CAR-T. Methods In these subgroup analyses of ECHELON-3, eligible pts had 2 prior lines of systemic therapy, disease refractory to the last prior therapy, or prior exposure to CAR-T. Pts could qualify for ≥1 subgroup and were analyzed separately. Refractory disease was defined as stable or progressive disease as best overall response to last line of treatment or relapse ≤6 months from the end of treatment. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive brentuximab vedotin (BV; 1.2 mg/kg) or placebo every 3 weeks (q3w), in combination with rituximab (R; 375 mg/m2) q3w and lenalidomide (Len; 20 mg) once daily. Efficacy was assessed by investigators per Lugano 2014 classification. The primary endpoint was OS, with key secondary endpoints of PFS and ORR. P values are descriptive. Results In total, 230 pts were enrolled in ECHELON-3 from April 2021 to November 2023, with a median follow-up of 16.4 months (range, 0.1-31.5 months). Overall, 94 pts with 2 prior lines of systemic therapy were enrolled and randomized to BV+Len+R (n=48) or placebo+Len+R (n=46). Median OS was 16.3 months (95% CI, 12.6 months-not estimable) with BV+Len+R vs 8.5 months (95% CI, 4.1-15.8 months) with placebo+Len+R (hazard ratio [HR], 0.557; 95% CI, 0.317-0.977; P=.0388). Median PFS was 7.1 months (95% CI, 3.6-12.6 months) with BV+Len+R vs 2.7 months (95% CI, 1.4-4.0 months) with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.462; 95% CI, 0.279-0.764; P=.0020). ORR was 68.8% (95% CI, 53.7%-81.3%) with BV+Len+R vs 43.5% with placebo+Len+R (95% CI, 28.9%-58.9%; P=.0216); complete response (CR) rate was 52.1% vs 13.0%, respectively. Additional data for pts by lines of therapy received will be presented. In total, 194 pts with disease refractory to the most recent systemic therapy were enrolled and randomized to BV+Len+R (n=98) and placebo+Len+R (n=96). Median OS was 11.7 months (95% CI, 8.8-16.3 months) with BV+Len+R vs 5.5 months (95% CI, 3.7-8.5 months) with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.566; 95% CI, 0.396-0.808; P=.0015). Median PFS was 4.1 months (95% CI, 2.8-5.4 months) with BV+Len+R vs 1.5 months (95% CI, 1.4-2.6 months) with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.508; 95% CI, 0.363-0.712; P<.0001). ORR was 59.2% (95% CI, 48.8%-69.0%) with BV+Len+R vs 29.2% (95% CI, 20.3%-39.3%) with placebo+Len+R (P<.0001); CR rate was 34.7% vs 11.5%, respectively. Overall, 67 pts who received prior CAR-T were enrolled and randomized to BV+Len+R (n=32) and placebo+Len+R (n=35). Median OS was 15.6 months with BV+Len+R vs 4.4 months with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.2-0.75). Median PFS was 3.0 months with BV+Len+R vs 1.4 months with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.76). ORR was 65.6% (95% CI, 46.8%-81.4%) with BV+Len+R vs 25.7% (95% CI, 12.5%-43.3%) with placebo+Len+R (P=.0014); CR rate was 37.5% vs 11.4%, respectively. Conclusions BV+Len+R demonstrated a clinically meaningful improvement in all key efficacy outcomes, including CR and OS, in pts with 2 prior lines of therapy, disease refractory to prior treatment, or prior CAR-T. This treatment benefit was generally consistent with that observed in the overall ECHELON-3 study population. Therefore, BV+Len+R has the potential to address an unmet need for effective and tolerable therapy in heavily pretreated pts, as described above.

AbstractDeeper responses are associated with longer survival in multiple myeloma (MM); however, limited data exist on the impact of response kinetics on outcomes. We investigated progression‐free survival (PFS) and duration of response (DOR) by response depth and in early (best confirmed response 0–4 months; n = 424) versus late responders (best confirmed response >4 months; n = 281). Newly diagnosed patients enrolled in TOURMALINE‐MM2 receiving ixazomib‐lenalidomide‐dexamethasone (IRd) (n = 351) or placebo‐Rd (n = 354) were evaluated post hoc. Deeper responses were associated with longer PFS (complete response [CR] not reached [NR], very good partial response [VGPR] 37.2 months, partial response [PR] 16.4 months) and DOR (CR NR, VGPR 42.6 months, PR 15.4 months). Among patients with a PFS (n = 511) or DOR (n = 484) of ≥6 months who achieved ≥PR, median PFS was prolonged among late versus early responders receiving IRd (59.7 vs. 17.9 months) or placebo‐Rd (56.6 vs. 12.4 months), as was median DOR (IRd, NR vs. 20.9 months; placebo‐Rd, 58.2 vs. 11.7 months). While the treatment paradigm for newly diagnosed MM is treatment to progression, our findings suggest slowness of response to a proteasome inhibitor‐immunomodulatory drug‐steroid combination is not a negative predictor of outcome.

Abstract Introduction: Depth of response is associated with long-term outcomes in multiple myeloma (MM); however, the effect of response kinetics on outcomes in NDMM is variable and less clear. Although some studies have shown that achieving a ≥very good partial response (VGPR) at 4 months (mos) from diagnosis is associated with increased overall survival (Garderet Leukemia 2018), other reports have shown worse outcomes in pts with early vs late responses (Yan Blood Adv 2019). The double-blind, randomized TOURMALINE-MM2 (NCT01850524) trial (Facon Blood 2021) showed a clinical meaningful progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with IRd vs pbo-Rd (median 35.3 vs 21.8 mos; hazard ratio, 0.830; 95% confidence interval, 0.676-1.018; P=0.073; median follow-up, 53.3 and 55.8 mos, respectively) in NDMM pts. Safety data were consistent with the established toxicity profile of IRd. We evaluated PFS and duration of response (DOR) by depth of best confirmed response and time to best response in TOURMALINE-MM2. Methods: Pts were randomized to receive oral ixazomib 4 mg (n=351) or placebo (n=354) on days 1, 8, and 15, plus oral lenalidomide 25 mg (10 mg if creatinine clearance ≤60 mL/min) on days 1-21 and oral dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg in pts aged >75 years) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in 28-day cycles. After 18 cycles, treatment was continued without dexamethasone and reduced doses of ixazomib (3 mg) and lenalidomide (10 mg) until progressive disease (PD)/toxicity. Response assessments were performed every cycle until PD, or every 4 weeks in pts who discontinued treatment prior to PD. PFS and DOR were analyzed post-hoc in subgroups defined by depth of response and in subgroups defined by time to best confirmed response; 'early' and 'late' responses were defined by time to best confirmed response of 0-4 and >4 mos, respectively (additional analyses were performed by time to best confirmed response of 0-6 and >6 mos). Pts in either subgroup could have recorded an initial response prior to their best response. PFS and DOR were evaluated from randomization to progression and time of initial response to progression, respectively. To address potential guarantee-time bias in the PFS analysis, and to eliminate potential bias due to transient responses in DOR analysis, sensitivity analyses were conducted in pts with PFS / DOR of ≥6 mos. Results: Among the 705 pts in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, 20% (26% IRd vs 14% placebo-Rd) had a best confirmed response of complete response (CR) or stringent CR, 35% (37 vs 34%) had VGPR, 26% (19 vs 32%) had PR, 10% (9 vs 10%) had stable disease (SD), 3% (1 vs 4%) had PD. 7% (8 vs 6%) of pts were not evaluable. In a pooled analysis of both arms, achieving a deeper response was associated with longer PFS (Figure, A) and DOR (median not reached [NR], 42.8, and 15.0 mos for pts with ≥CR, VGPR, and PR, respectively). In 570 pts with ≥PR (288 IRd; 282 pbo-Rd), 152 (53%) and 136 (47%) in the IRd arm and 143 (51%) and 139 (49%) pts in the pbo-Rd arm were defined as early (0-4 mos) and late (>4 mos) responders, respectively. For early vs late responders, 46% vs 40% were aged ≥75 years, 21% vs 12% had International Staging System stage III MM, and 44% vs 33% had expanded high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. Median PFS was prolonged among late vs early responders with IRd (65.7 vs 21.2 mos) and pbo-Rd (62.6 vs 18.2 mos), as was median DOR (IRd, NR vs 22.6 mos; pbo-Rd, 64.1 vs 17.2 mos). The PFS sensitivity analysis among pts with PFS of ≥6 mos confirmed the association of late response with improved outcomes; among late vs early responders achieving ≥PR, median PFS was 65.7 vs 23.9 mos with IRd and 62.6 vs 18.4 mos with pbo-Rd (Figure, B), and among late vs early responders achieving ≥VGPR, median PFS was 65.7 vs 35.3 mos with IRd and 64.4 vs 21.7 with pbo-Rd. Conclusions: Achieving a deeper response was associated with prolonged PFS and DOR in NDMM patients in TOURMALINE-MM2. PFS benefit on the ITT analysis was driven by the higher rates of deep responses (≥VGPR) with IRd vs pbo-Rd. PFS and DOR were also longer in pts achieving a late vs early best confirmed response of ≥PR or ≥VGPR. Consistent with results from a similar analysis in relapsed/refractory MM in the TOURMALINE-MM1 trial (Garderet Leukemia 2018), our findings support the continuation of therapy with the aim of achieving a deeper response over time. Additional sensitivity analyses will be presented. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Richardson: Sanofi: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Research Funding; Protocol Intelligence: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Venner: Takeda: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria. Bahlis: GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. White: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Forus: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria. Karlin: Celgene-BMS: Honoraria, Other: member of advisory board; Sanofi: Honoraria; oncopeptide: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: member of advisory board, travel support; Abbvie: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria, Other: member of advisory board; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: travel support and advisory board ; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: member of advisory board. Rigaudeau: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Suzuki: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; ONO: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Abie: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Shibayama: Mundi Pharma: Honoraria; Otsuka: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Nippon Shinyaku: Honoraria; Fujimoto: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Essentia Pharma Japan: Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Eisai: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Avvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ono: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Zhang: Takeda: Current Employment. Kumar: Takeda: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Twumasi-Ankrah: Takeda: Current Employment. Labotka: Takeda: Current Employment. Rifkin: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Fresenius-Kabi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Coherus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; McKesson: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb (Celgene): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lonial: AMGEN: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria. Kumar: Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Carsgen: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; KITE: 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, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Moreau: Amgen: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene BMS: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: Use of the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who are ineligible for transplant.

Abstract Continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd)-based regimens are among the standards of care in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. The oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib is suitable for continuous dosing, with predictable, manageable toxicities. In the double-blind, placebo-controlled TOURMALINE-MM2 trial, transplant-ineligible NDMM patients were randomized to ixazomib 4 mg (n = 351) or placebo (n = 354) plus Rd. After 18 cycles, dexamethasone was discontinued and treatment was continued using reduced-dose ixazomib (3 mg) and lenalidomide (10 mg) until progression/toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Median PFS was 35.3 vs 21.8 months with ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.830; 95% confidence interval, 0.676-1.018; P = .073; median follow-up, 53.3 and 55.8 months). Complete (26% vs 14%; odds ratio [OR], 2.10; P < .001) and ≥ very good partial response (63% vs 48%; OR, 1.87; P < .001) rates were higher with ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd. In a prespecified high-risk cytogenetics subgroup, median PFS was 23.8 vs 18.0 months (HR, 0.690; P = .019). Overall, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mostly grade 1/2. With ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd, 88% vs 81% of patients experienced grade ≥3 TEAEs, 66% vs 62% serious TEAEs, and 35% vs 27% TEAEs resulting in regimen discontinuation; 8% vs 6% died on study. Addition of ixazomib to Rd was tolerable with no new safety signals and led to a clinically meaningful PFS benefit of 13.5 months. Ixazomib-Rd is a feasible option for certain patients who can benefit from an all-oral triplet combination. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01850524.

7514 Background: Relapse is expected in treated indolent lymphoma patients, and an unmet need exists to prolong remission with effective therapies. Lenalidomide + rituximab (R2) may improve the efficacy of next treatment by their unique mechanisms. Methods: The AUGMENT phase III study evaluated patients with R/R FL gr 1-3a (82%) and MZL (18%) after ≥ 1 prior systemic therapy (not rituximab refractory). Randomization was 1:1 to R2 (lenalidomide PO 20 mg/d, d1-21/28 X12 cycles [c] + rituximab [R] IV 375 mg/m2/wk, c1, d1, 8, 15, 22 and c2-5, d1) and R/placebo (same dosing schedule). The primary endpoint was PFS by 2007 IWG; secondary/exploratory analyses were time to next antilymphoma/chemotherapy treatment (TTNLT/TTNCT) and response to next treatment. Per regulatory guidance, PFS2 was defined as time from randomization to first PD or death from any cause after next antilymphoma treatment, or initiation of a third antilymphoma treatment. Results: Median PFS was superior for R2 over R/placebo (39.4 vs 14.1 mo; HR = 0.46; P < 0.0001). As of 22June2018, median TTNLT, TTNCT, and PFS2 were not reached for R2, and were significantly longer than R/placebo (HR = 0.54, 0.50, and 0.52, respectively). For 49/178 (28%) R2 and 80/180 (44%) R/placebo patients receiving next antilymphoma therapy, response was generally higher with R2 (57% ORR; 31% CR) than R/placebo (36% ORR; 16% CR; Table). Conclusions: These analyses suggest that R2 (vs R/placebo) prolonged time to subsequent treatment and is associated with longer PFS2, enabling greater response to next therapy. Although patient numbers were modest, it is hypothesized that patients who received R2 were generally more sensitive to subsequent therapy than those treated with R/placebo. Clinical trial information: NCT01938001. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background: Indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL), including follicular lymphoma (FL) and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), is typically responsive to initial chemoimmunotherapy, but relapse is expected. Single-agent rituximab is FDA approved and frequently administered for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) low-grade or follicular CD20-positive B-cell NHL. Lenalidomide is an immunomodulatory agent with preclinical and clinical antilymphoma activity alone and in combination with rituximab. We compared the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide plus rituximab (R2) to rituximab (plus placebo) in patients with R/R iNHL. Methods: AUGMENT (NCT01938001) is a multicenter, double-blind, randomized phase III study of R2 vs rituximab/placebo (control) in patients with FL grade 1-3a or MZL who were previously treated with ≥ 1 prior systemic therapy with documented relapsed or refractory disease but not refractory to rituximab (refractory was defined as < partial response to rituximab or rituximab-chemotherapy OR disease progression < 6 months after last rituximab dose). Patients were stratified by prior rituximab treatment (yes vs no), time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2 vs > 2 years), and histology (FL vs MZL), and then randomized 1:1 to R2 or control for up to 1 year. R2 patients received oral lenalidomide 20 mg/day (d), d1-21/28 for 12 cycles plus rituximab IV 375 mg/m2 weekly in cycle 1 and d1 of cycles 2-5. Control patients received rituximab and placebo on the same schedule. Dose modifications were pre-specified in the protocol to manage toxicities. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per 2007 IWG criteria without PET as assessed by Independent Review Committee (IRC; central review). Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), duration of response (DOR), time-to-next antilymphoma treatment (TTNLT), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: A total of 358 patients were randomized (n = 178 R2; n = 180 control), median age was 63 years (range, 26 - 88), 34% FLIPI score ≥ 3, and histologies of 82% FL/18% MZL. Median number of prior systemic treatments was 1 (range, 1 - 12); 84% received prior rituximab and 51% had prior antilymphoma therapy within 2 years of enrollment. At median follow-up of 28.3 months, the study met its primary endpoint of PFS with HR = 0.46 (95% CI, 0.34 - 0.62; P < 0.0001) (Figure 1). Median PFS was 39.4 months for R2 vs 14.1 months for control. IRC-assessed ORR for R2 was 78% vs 53% for control (P < 0.0001). CR was 34% for R2 vs 18% for control (P = 0.001). Median DOR was 36.6 and 21.7 months for R2 and control arms, respectively. TTNLT was improved for R2 vs control with HR = 0.54 (95% CI, 0.38 - 0.78; P = 0.0007). OS data were not mature with 16 deaths reported in the R2 arm vs 26 deaths in control (HR = 0.61 [95% CI, 0.33 - 1.13]). Selected all-grade treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of interest more common in the R2 vs control arm (≥ 10% difference) were infections (63% vs 49%), cutaneous reactions (32% vs 12%), constipation (26% vs 14%), thrombocytopenia (15% vs 4%), and tumor flare reaction (11% vs 1%). Grade 3/4 TEAEs were reported in 69% R2 and 32% control patients. More frequent grade 3/4 TEAEs in the R2 vs control arm were primarily attributable to increased neutropenia (50% vs 13%) and leukopenia (7% vs 2%). Grade 5 TEAEs were reported in 2 patients in each arm. TEAEs leading to discontinuation of lenalidomide occurred in 9% of patients vs 5% for rituximab + placebo. Neutropenia was the only TEAE leading to discontinuation of lenalidomide in > 1 patient (n = 5). Seventy-one percent of R2 patients completed all 12 cycles of planned treatment vs 61% of control. Disease progression was the leading reason for discontinuation of lenalidomide/placebo (n = 21 R2, n = 54 control). Conclusions: R2 demonstrated superior efficacy over rituximab monotherapy (plus placebo) as measured by the primary endpoint of progression-free survival as well as secondary endpoints of ORR, CR, DOR, and TTNLT in patients with R/R FL grade 1-3a and MZL. At this early analysis, fewer deaths have been observed in the R2 arm. Despite additional hematologic toxicity, greater efficacy of the R2 regimen (and fewer early progressions) allowed more patients to complete the planned therapy and delayed the need for subsequent treatment. R2 represents an important new treatment option in patients with previously treated FL/MZL, with meaningful advantages over single-agent rituximab. Disclosures Leonard: Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy; Biotest: Consultancy; United Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Trněný:F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Sandoz: Honoraria. Izutsu:Otsuka: Honoraria; Bristol- Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Nihon Medi-Physics: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Mundhi: Honoraria; HUYA Bioscience International: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Honoraria; Eisai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Zenyaku: Research Funding; Celltrion: Research Funding; MSD: Honoraria; Ono: Honoraria, Research Funding; Symbio: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Solasia: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Meiji Seika: Honoraria; Shionogi: Honoraria; Asahi Kasei: Honoraria. Fowler:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Zhu:Beijing Cancer Hospital (Peking University Cancer Hospital): Employment. Scheliga:INCA - Instituto Nacional Do Cancer, Brazil: Employment. Pinto:Servier: Consultancy; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Scheinberg:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau. Flinn:Trillium: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Calithera: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Moreira:Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto FG, EPE, Porto, Portugal: Employment. Liu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kalambakas:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fustier:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gribben:Cancer Research UK: Research Funding; Unum: Equity Ownership; Novartis: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Wellcome Trust: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria; NIH: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Medical Research Council: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria.

Abstract Background Despite improvements in outcome following the addition of rituximab (R) to CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) (R-CHOP), patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and International Prognostic Index (IPI) scores of 3-5 at diagnosis have a poor outcome. Enzastaurin is a potent inhibitor of PKCβ, a component of the B-cell receptor signaling complex, with preclinical activity and clinical activity in a phase II trial in patients with relapsed DLBCL, providing the rationale for this study in the primary therapy setting. Methods PRELUDE was a multi-national, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. Patients were required to have a histologic diagnosis of DLBCL, pre-treatment IPI score ≥3, and a complete response (CR) or CRu by International Working Group Criteria, or a negative FDG-PET scan after 6–8 cycles of R-CHOP. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either enzastaurin 500 mg daily or an identical placebo as maintenance therapy, for a planned treatment duration of 3 years. The primary endpoint was DFS, defined as lack of disease progression or death. Assuming a 2-year DFS rate in the control group of 70%, the primary analysis had 80% power to detect a HR of 0.67, eg, a 2-year DFS rate of 79% in the enzastaurin group. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS). Data were analyzed 3 years after the last enrolled patient initiated treatment. Results From May 2006–April 2010, 758 patients were enrolled (enzastaurin, n=504; placebo, n=254). Median age at enrollment was 64 years (range 21-89); at diagnosis, 65% of patients had stage IV disease, 48% had B symptoms, and 25% had a mass >10 cm; baseline disease and patient characteristics were well balanced between treatment arms. Fifty-seven percent had a negative PET scan following completion of R-CHOP. Median follow-up time for all patients was 48 months (range 0.03–80). At the time of analysis, 209 events had occurred. The DFS HR for enzastaurin vs. placebo was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.69, 1.22; 2-sided log-rank p=0.54). DFS at 24 and 48 months were 79% and 70% for the enzastaurin arm, and 75% and 71% for placebo, respectively. OS at 24 and 48 months was 87% and 81% for enzastaurin, and 89% and 82% for placebo; HR for enzastaurin vs. placebo was 1.04 (95% CI: 0.74, 1.47; 2-sided log-rank p=0.81). Percent of ITT population patients on therapy at 12, 24, and 36 months was 70.6%, 60.6%, and 20.1% for enzastaurin; 72.3%, 60.6%, and 22.1% for placebo. Biomarker subgroup analysis was performed and will be available at time of presentation. Treatment emergent AEs (all grades) that were possibly study drug-related and significantly different between enzastaurin and placebo included chromaturia (18.5% vs. 0.4%), QTc prolongation (10.8% vs. 3.6%), and diarrhea (10.3% vs. 2.8%). There were no significant differences in number of patients with at least 1 grade 3 or higher AE between treatment arms. No significant differences were observed in the frequency of deaths while on therapy. Conclusion Enzastaurin did not improve DFS, EFS, or OS in patients with high-risk DLBCL and CR following R-CHOP treatment. Disclosures: Crump: Roche: Honoraria; Jansen-Ortho: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria. Off Label Use: rituximab for maintenance therapy post autolgous transplant for lymphoma. Leppä:Eli Lilly: Research Funding. Ogura:Eli Lilly: Research Funding. Rifkin:Millenium, Celgene, ONYX: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mackensen:Eli Lilly: Consultancy. Offner:Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Smith:Genentech, Celgene, Spectrum, Seattle Genetics, Gilead, Amgen/Micronet: Consultancy. Tobinai:Eli Lilly: Research Funding. Hahka-Kemppinen:Eli Lilly: Employment. Thornton:Eli Lilly: Employment. Shi:Eli Lilly: Employment. Lin:Eli Lilly: Employment. Kahl:Genentech: Consultancy. Savage:Eli Lilly: Consultancy.

Background:Lenalidomide plus rituximab (R2) has established efficacy and a tolerable safety profile in patients with previously untreated and relapsed/refractory (R/R) indolent NHL. This includes patients with marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) who are generally treated in a similar manner to follicular lymphoma (FL).Aims:Primary results for the AUGMENT study in R/R FL grade 1–3a and MZL showed significantly improved progression‐free survival (PFS) for R2 over R/placebo in the overall population and in the subgroup analyses, with the exception of the MZL subgroup. Given the small sample size for MZL patients, post hoc analyses of baseline characteristics and univariate/multivariate analyses of PFS were conducted to examine possible explanations for these results.Methods:The phase III AUGMENT study randomized patients 1:1 to R2 (lenalidomide PO 20 mg/day (d), d1–21/28 X12 cycles plus rituximab IV 375 mg/m2 weekly in cycle 1 and d1 of cycles 2–5) or rituximab‐placebo (R/placebo; same dosing schedule). PFS by 2007 IWG (without PET) was the primary endpoint. Post hoc Cox regression models were used for univariate analysis of one risk factor and multivariate analyses including treatment arm and significant risk factors (P < 0.05) from the univariate analyses.Results:A total of 63/358 (18%) MZL patients were part of the overall study population, including n = 14/16 MALT, n = 9/6 splenic, and n = 8/10 nodal MZL subtypes for respective R2 and R/placebo arms. Numerical differences between treatment arms for baseline demographics and disease characteristics for MZL patients favoring the R/placebo arm were: fewer R2 patients had an ECOG score of 0 (55% R2 vs 72% R/placebo), and more R2 (vs R/placebo) patients were older (≥65 y: 68% vs 59%; ≥70 y: 42% vs 38%), were refractory to the last prior regimen (13% vs 3%), had Ann Arbor stage IV disease at enrollment (65% vs 41%), high‐risk MALT‐IPI score (50% vs 19%), elevated LDH (29% vs 19%), B symptoms (13% vs 3%), and high tumor burden per GELF criteria (65% vs 56%). The most common grade 3/4 AEs for MZL patients receiving R2 vs R/placebo, respectively, were neutropenia (47% vs 16%), pneumonia (3% vs 13%), and leukopenia (10% vs 0). A total of 5 deaths occurred in the R2 arm (most associated with progression of disease; 2 deaths occurred early at 3 and 13 days after randomization [one prior to receiving R2 and one 2 days after treatment initiation]) and 2 in the R/placebo arm. Despite worse prognostic features, best response was improved with R2 (vs R/placebo) with ORR = 65% vs 44% (P = 0.13) and CR = 29% vs 13% (P = 0.13), although neither were statistically significant. Improved response rates did not translate into a survival advantage for R2. Median PFS for MZL patients was 20.2 mo R2 vs 25.2 mo R/placebo (HR = 1.00; 95% CI, 0.47–2.13; P = 1.0). Univariate analyses showed that several baseline factors were prognostic for MZL patients (P < 0.05): Ann Arbor stage IV, elevated LDH, and unfit for chemotherapy (Table). Multivariate analyses adjusting for the imbalance in these 3 significant prognostic factors showed an adjusted PFS HR of 0.51 (95% CI, 0.20–1.28) favoring the R2 arm, similar to the PFS HR in the overall population (HR = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.34–0.63). The univariate and multivariate analyses suggested that the imbalance in baseline prognostic factors impacted PFS results for MZL patients.Summary/Conclusion:Overall, these findings suggest that the PFS results in MZL patients were negatively impacted by the imbalance in baseline prognostic factors and more aggressive disease in the R2 over the R/placebo arm.image