Crump, Michael

Abstract The SCHOLAR-1 international retrospective study highlighted poor clinical outcomes and survival among patients with refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) treated with conventional chemotherapy. Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, demonstrated durable responses in patients with refractory LBCL in the pivotal phase 1/2 ZUMA-1 study (NCT02348216). Here, we compared SCHOLAR-1 with the 2-year outcomes of ZUMA-1. Prior to comparison of clinical outcomes, propensity scoring (based on a broad set of prognostic covariates) was used to create balance between ZUMA-1 and SCHOLAR-1 patients. In the pivotal phase 2 portion of ZUMA-1, 101 patients received axi-cel and were evaluable for response and survival. In SCHOLAR-1, 434 and 424 patients were evaluable for response and survival, respectively. ZUMA-1 patients were more heavily pretreated than were SCHOLAR-1 patients. The median follow-up was 27.1 months in ZUMA-1. The objective response rate (ORR) and complete response rate were 83% and 54% in ZUMA-1 vs 34% and 12% in SCHOLAR-1, respectively. The 2-year survival rate was 54% in ZUMA-1 and 20% in SCHOLAR-1, and a 73% reduction in the risk of death was observed in ZUMA-1 vs SCHOLAR-1. These results were consistent with those of an additional standardization analysis in which strata were limited to 2 prognostic factors (refractory categorization and presence/absence of stem cell transplant after refractoriness to chemotherapy) to conserve sample size. Despite the limitations of a nonrandomized analysis, these results indicate that axi-cel produces durable responses and a substantial survival benefit vs non–CAR T-cell salvage regimens for patients with refractory LBCL.

CCTG CLC.2/Alliance A041202 demonstrated superior progression-free survival at 2 years with ibrutinib alone (87%; HR 0.39) or ibrutinib-rituximab (IR 88%; HR 0.38) compared to chemo-immunotherapy with bendamustine-rituximab (BR 74%) in treatment-naïve patients (pts) with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who were 65 or older (Woyach NEJM 2018). We hypothesized that ibrutinib-based therapies would be more costly than BR but that costs would be offset by less toxicity and improved quality of life (QOL). We completed a prospective trial-based economic analysis to study the direct medical costs and quality-adjusted benefit associated with ibrutinib-based therapies compared to BR in the Canadian (CDN) subset of patients enrolled in CLC.2/Alliance 041202. All CDN pts were invited to participate in the companion analysis. Health utilities were collected using the EuroQOL EQ-5D and calculated using CDN population valuations (Bansback PLOS One 2012). Resource utilization forms were administered to collect off-protocol health care encounters. The planned analysis was a cost-utility analysis from the perspective of a public healthcare system, examining the costs and outcomes (quality-adjusted life years or QALYs) of ibrutinib-based therapy compared to BR. Unit costs were applied to resource data based on publicly available provincial/national databases; all costs were expressed in 2019 US dollars (1 CDN = 0.75 US dollar). Total and disaggregated direct medical costs are presented descriptively. Mean survival was calculated using the restricted mean survival method from randomization to the study time-horizon of 24 months; derived utilities were used to calculate QALYs. A discount rate for costs and benefits (r=0.05) was applied. The analysis was based on estimation (with bootstrapping) of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and/or direct medical costs. A total of 55 pts were enrolled; two pts who did not receive any treatment were censored at day 1 and 3 after randomization and excluded from analysis. Of the 53 analysed, pt demographics were well balanced between treatments and were reflective of the entire population: mean age was 71.6 (SD 6.34) in pts receiving ibrutinib alone (n=17), 72.2 (SD 3.85) in pts receiving IR (n=18), and 71.7 (SD 4.1) in pts receiving BR (n=18). A total of 3 pts, one in each arm, had 17p deletion. Progression-free survival at 2 years for CDN pts was 94% (95% CI 65-99%) for ibrutinib, 100% (95% CI 100-100%) for IR, and 72% (95% CI 45-87%) for BR (Figure 1). At 24 months, 1 pt on the BR arm had crossed over to ibrutinib (as per protocol); there was no overall survival difference between the three arms. On-protocol costs (including protocol treatment, ambulatory care, and imaging) and off-protocol costs (including hospitalizations, concomitant medications, and ambulatory care) are highlighted in Figure 2. On-protocol costs were higher for pts receiving ibrutinib (mean $142,001 USD; SD 48,417) and IR ($164,931; SD 46,208) compared to BR ($38,509; SD 10,351), driven by higher drug acquisition costs associated with ibrutinib (list price $6422 for 420mg/30 days). In contrast, off-protocol costs were modestly higher for pts on BR (mean $3050; SD 3812) compared to the ibrutinib ($2460; SD 3863) or IR ($2890; SD 4206); hospitalizations were the key off-protocol cost drivers and were highest for pts on IR and BR. Overall mean costs over the 2-year time horizon were $144,461 (SD 47,910) for pts on ibrutinib, $167,820 (SD 46,830) for pts on IR, and $41,560 (SD 11,849) for pts on BR. Discounted QALYs were similar between the three treatment arms: 1.66 (0.16) for ibrutinib alone, 1.65 (0.24) for IR, and 1.66 (0.17) for BR. Given the similar quality-adjusted survival between arms at the time of this analysis, a formal ICER was not calculated. Direct medical costs are substantially higher for pts receiving continuous ibrutinib-based therapies, compared to chemo-immunotherapy of fixed duration, in frontline CLL management; the key cost driver is the cost of ibrutinib. The PFS benefit with ibrutinib-based therapy has not translated into an advantage in quality-adjusted survival to date; further follow-up may be required to demonstrate any cost or QOL benefits associated with fewer progression events for those on ibrutinib. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; U10CA180863 and #704970 CCTG. https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01886872 Figure Disclosures Owen: AbbVie, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Astrazeneca, Merck, Servier, Novartis, Teva: Honoraria. Lam:Roche: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Crump:Servier: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Sperlich:Lundbeck Canada: Honoraria. Woyach:Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Morphosys, Karyopharm, Verastem, Abbvie, Lox: Research Funding; Janssen, Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Arqule: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company, AbbVie, Janssen, AstraZeneca, ArQule: Honoraria. Prica:astra zeneca: Honoraria; seattle genetics: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Hay:Roche: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding.

Initial therapy for MCL is effective, but most patients eventually relapse. Validated intermediate biomarkers for MCL are important to provide early assessment of treatment efficacy, prognostic information and potentially guide consolidation. The US-Canadian Intergroup trial E1411 randomly assigned patients (pts) to receive induction with BR ± bortezomib (V), followed by consolidation with R ± L. As a planned correlative, MRD was assessed after cycle 3 (I3), end of induction (EOI) and after 4 cycles of consolidation (C4) by two methods: a research version of clonoSEQ® a next generation sequencing (NGS) MRD assay, (Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA) that leverages multiplex PCR followed by NGS to identify and track rearrangements of IgH, V-J, D-J and IgK/L loci as well as translocations in Bcl1/2-IgH, and flow cytometry (FC) (I3 and EOI only) at a central laboratory (Mayo Clinic). While outcomes by treatment arm remain blinded, we report here the results of the MRD assessments by each method and the associated progression free survival (PFS). In E1411, 373 pts, accrued between May 2012 - Sept. 2016, were randomly assigned (stratified by MIPI and age (</≥60)) to receive BR induction x 6 followed by R for 2 years, BVR followed by R, BR followed by LR or BVR followed by LR. Eligible pts were ≥ age 18 and had untreated MCL, ECOG PS 0-2, and adequate hematologic and organ function. Of the 373 pts, 296 (79%) consented to correlatives. Of these, 255 (86%) had baseline NGS samples, and 214 were analyzable. Excluded were 6 patients that were protocol ineligible, 20 without clinical follow-up; only 7 (2.7%) patients were ineligible due to inability to identify a dominant clone necessary to follow MRD by the NGS method. At baseline pre-treatment, NGS detected a dominant clone in bone marrow (BM) or peripheral blood (PB) in 92%, with only 17 (8%) requiring study of biopsy tissue. Of the 296, 240 had baseline FC data, 9 were protocol exclusions, leaving 231 analyzable. FC detected a non-MCL monoclonal B cell lymphocytosis clone in a small number of cases. While NGS may have higher sensitivity, as FC sensitivity is 10-4, for this analysis we used that cutoff for both NGS and FC. Cohen's Kappa statistic compares concordance between MRD pairs, and p-value is from exact McNemar's test. BR-based initial MCL therapy achieved early MRD negativity (< 10-4) in a high proportion of patients. Analyzing PB at mid-induction (I3): by NGS 89% MRD-, 9% MRD+ and 2% indeterminate, whereas by FC 87% MRD-, 12% MRD+ and 1% indeterminate. Concordance was high with 127 MRD- by both methods, 13 MRD+ by both, and 6 NGS-/FC+ (Kappa Statistic = 0.79, p-value = 0.031). By NGS, of 12 pts MRD+ at I3, 7 became MRD- at EOI, and 4 remained MRD+ (1 indeterminate). Analyzing at EOI: MRD- rates were 91% by NGS analysis of PB (147/161) and 90% in BM (96/107), vs 95% (174/183) by FC in PB. As some were indeterminate, only 7% were MRD+ by NGS in BM, 3% by NGS in PB and 5% by FC. In 88 informative samples with EOI NGS in both BM and PB, concordance was high, with 81 negative in both, 1 positive in both and 6 BM+/PB- (Kappa Statistic = 0.23, p-value = 0.031). Of 101 pts with data at all 3 timepoints, I3, EOI, and C4: 7 were MRD+ at I3, 5 of these were MRD- at EOI, but 2 of these 5 were again MRD+ at C4. Of 2 MRD+ EOI, 1 became MRD- at C4. By FC, of 17 patients MRD+ at I3, 11 (65%) became MRD- at EOI. MRD status correlated with progression-free survival (PFS). Due to the low MRD+ rate at EOI and C4, we focus here on MRD status at I3 (10-4 cutoff for both NGS and FC), using a landmark analysis of 4 months on study. Median PFS (Figure) for pts MRD- at I3 mid-induction was 58.9 months by either NGS or FC, while for those MRD+ by NGS it was 26.9 months, vs 29.9 months MRD+ by FC. Conclusions: Both NGS and FC were feasible to assess MRD status in this multi-center trial. Results of NGS and FC are concordant at the 10-4 cutoff. NGS can be more sensitive when adequate material is available, and analysis of this subgroup is ongoing. The high MRD- rate (≥ 90%) at EOI in this BR-based trial and MRD correlation with PFS supports its use as a platform for MCL trials, although consolidation may confound PFS. Early interim MRD testing at cycle 3 identifies a high-risk population who may benefit from alternative treatment strategies. Analysis by treatment arm with longer follow-up, as well as comparison with centrally reviewed PET/CTs included in this study, will help define the most informative method(s), cutoff values, and timing for assessing degree of response in MCL. Figure. Disclosures Smith: Astra-Zeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; EUSA: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Parekh:Foundation Medicine Inc.: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Karyopharm Inc.: Research Funding. Martin:Sandoz: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy. Till:Mustang Bio: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Leonard:Gilead: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bayer Corporation: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc: Consultancy; Bayer Corporation: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Consultancy. Friedberg:Bayer: Honoraria, Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee; Acerta: Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee. Kahl:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy.

Background: In the SCHOLAR-1 study, the largest published retrospective analysis of outcomes in patients with refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL), the objective response rate (ORR) was 26% and complete response (CR) rate was 7% with available salvage therapies in the pre-chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy era (Crump et al. Blood. 2017). These results served as a benchmark for assessing novel therapies. ZUMA-1 (NCT02348216) is the pivotal, multicenter, single-arm Phase 1/2 study evaluating axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), an autologous anti-CD19 CAR T cell therapy, in patients with refractory LBCL that supported the approval of axi-cel in the United States and Europe. At a median follow-up of 27.1 months, the ORR in ZUMA-1 was 83% and the CR rate was 58% (Locke et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019). Here, we describe comparative analyses of outcomes in ZUMA-1 and SCHOLAR-1 after adjusting for potential imbalances in refractory status between the 2 studies. Methods: Patients in both studies had refractory LBCL defined as stable disease of ≤ 6 months with ≥ 4 cycles of frontline or ≥ 2 cycles of later-line therapy, progressive disease as best response, or relapse ≤ 12 months post autologous stem cell transplant (SCT). To address potential imbalances between studies in refractory status which could affect response and survival outcomes, standardized analyses were performed which equally weighted the proportions of patients by refractory categorization (primary refractory, refractory to ≥ second-line therapy, or relapse after SCT) and presence of post-refractory SCT in each study. Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests and Cox models were used to compare the odds ratio for response and hazard ratio (HR) for survival between ZUMA-1 and SCHOLAR-1. P values were descriptive and were not adjusted for multiplicity. Results: Axi-cel was administered to 101 patients in the pivotal Phase 2 portion of ZUMA-1. In the SCHOLAR-1 analysis, 508 patients were evaluable for response and 497 were evaluable for survival. The median follow-up in ZUMA-1 was 2.3 years, and the median follow-up from the overall SCHOLAR-1 study ranged from 7.6 to 14.8 years across different cohorts. In general, ZUMA-1 patients were more heavily pretreated with more patients receiving ≥ 3 lines of therapy as compared with SCHOLAR-1 (69% vs 23%). ZUMA-1 also had more patients who were refractory to second- or later-line therapy compared with SCHOLAR-1 (76% vs 62%). Fewer patients in ZUMA-1, however, were classified as primary refractory vs those in SCHOLAR-1 (26% vs 45%), and a similar proportion of patients between studies relapsed within 1 year of SCT (21% vs 18%). After standardization, the ORR and CR rate in ZUMA-1 vs SCHOLAR-1 were 72% and 54% vs 22% and 7%, respectively. The odds ratios for ORR and CR rate were 7.2-fold and 11.5-fold higher, respectively in ZUMA-1 vs SCHOLAR-1 (CMH test; P < .0001 for both ORR and CR rate). The 2-year survival rate after standardization was 50% (95% CI, 40% - 59%) in ZUMA-1 and 12% (95% CI, 9% - 15%) in SCHOLAR-1, which translated to a 73% reduction in the risk of death in ZUMA-1 relative to SCHOLAR-1 (HR, 0.27; P < .0001). Conclusions: This standardized analysis of the ZUMA-1 and SCHOLAR-1 studies indicates that treatment with axi-cel in this selected population results in 11.5-fold higher odds of CR and a 73% reduction in the risk of death compared with standard salvage regimens in an unselected population. Although limited by retrospective evaluation and cross-study comparisons, these results support the previous literature indicating that axi-cel is a highly effective treatment option for patients with refractory LBCL. Disclosures Neelapu: Pfizer: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Allogene: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Poseida: Research Funding; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding. Locke:Novartis: Other: Scientific Advisor; Kite: Other: Scientific Advisor; Cellular BioMedicine Group Inc.: Consultancy. Bartlett:Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Autolus: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Reagan:Kite, A Gilead Company: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Miklos:Celgene-Juno: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy, Research Funding; AlloGene: Consultancy; Kite, A Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Becton Dickinson: Consultancy; Precision Bioscience: Consultancy. Jacobson:Pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Humanigen: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Bayer: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support. Oluwole:Pfizer: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Siddiqi:BeiGene: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Kite, A Gilead Company: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: travel support, Research Funding; PCYC: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Crump:Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Servier: Consultancy. Kuruvilla:Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding. Van Den Neste:Gilead: Other: travel support. Farooq:Celgene: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Research Funding. Navale:Kite, A Gilead Company: Employment, Equity Ownership; Gilead: Equity Ownership; Allogene: Equity Ownership; Cellectis: Equity Ownership; Bluebird Bio: Equity Ownership; Amgen: Equity Ownership; Organesis: Equity Ownership; Jounce: Equity Ownership; Editas: Equity Ownership; Intellia: Equity Ownership. DePuy:Kite, A Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: travel support. Kim:Kite, A Gilead Company: Employment.

Abstract Introduction The role of body mass index (BMI) impacting clinical outcome among lymphoma patients is controversial. Two recent studies suggest that increased BMI is associated with significantly improved survival. In this study the association between BMI at study entry and failure-free survival (FFS) and overall survival (OS) was evaluated in three phase III Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-led trials, among patients with DLBCL (E4494), follicular lymphoma (FL) (E1496) and Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) (E2496). Patients and Methods 537 patients with DLBCL, 730 patients with HD and 282 patients with FL were included in the analysis. BMI was calculated as weight (kilograms) divided by the square of height (meters), using data at study entry. BMI was analyzed both as continuous and categorical variables (underweight <18.5 kg/m2, normal weight: 18.5 to < 25 kg/ m2, overweight: 25 to < 30 kg/ m2, and obese :≥ 30 kg/ m2).The underweight group was excluded due to low (< 2%) prevalence. Baseline patient and clinical characteristics, treatment received and clinical outcomes were compared across BMI categories. PFS was defined as the time from study entry to relapse, progression, or death. OS was measured from study entry to death of any cause. The log-rank test and Cox regression models was used to check the association. The association between BMI and FFS/OS was also independently assessed among patients treated with rituximab. A sensitivity analysis was performed excluding patients with significant weight loss at baseline. Results Among patients with DLBCL, HL and FL, the median age was 70, 33 and 56; 29%, 29% and 37% were obese and 38%, 27% and 37% were overweight, respectively. Age was significantly different among BMI groups in all three studies. Higher BMI groups tended to have better prognosis at study entry among DLBCL and HL patients. BMI was not associated with clinical outcome, with p-values of 0.89, 0.30 and 0.40 for FFS, and p-values of 0.64, 0.67 and 0.09 for OS, for patients with DLBCL, HL and FL, respectively (Figure 1). In multivariate analysis adjusting for other clinical factors, BMI remains an insignificant predictor for all three histologies (Table 1). When limiting to patients treated with rituximab, the association remains non-significant for both FL patients (p=0.92 for PFS, p=0.36 for OS) and DLBCL patients (Figure 2). A subset analysis of males with DLBCL treated on R-CHOP, which matched the study cohort used in a recent report (Carson et al, 2012), revealed no differences in FFS (p=0.48) or OS (p=0.58) (Figure 2). Sensitivity analysis excluding patients with weight loss at study entry resulted in similar findings. Conclusion BMI was not significantly associated with clinical outcomes among patients with DLBCL, HL or FL, in three prospective phase III clinical trials. The findings contradict some previous reports of similar investigations. Further work is required to understand the observed discrepancies. Disclosures: Horning: Genentech: Employment.

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.

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.

Key Points SCHOLAR-1 is the first patient-level analysis of outcomes of refractory DLBCL from 2 large randomized trials and 2 academic databases. SCHOLAR-1 demonstrated poor outcomes in patients with refractory DLBCL, supporting a need for more effective therapies for these patients.

SummaryThe International Prognostic Score (IPS‐7) is the most commonly used risk stratification tool for advanced Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), however recent studies suggest the IPS‐7 is less discriminating due to improved outcomes with contemporary therapy. We evaluated the seven variables for IPS‐7 recorded at study entry for 854 patients enrolled on Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 2496 trial. Univariate and multivariate Cox models were used to assess their prognostic ability for freedom from progression (FFP) and overall survival (OS). The IPS‐7 remained prognostic however its prognostic range has narrowed. On multivariate analysis, two factors (age, stage) remained significant for FFP and three factors (age, stage, haemoglobin level) for OS. An alternative prognostic index, the IPS‐3, was constructed using age, stage and haemoglobin level, which provided four distinct risk groups [FFP (P = 0·0001) and OS (P < 0·0001)]. IPS‐3 outperformed the IPS‐7 on risk prediction for both FFP and OS by model fit and discrimination criteria. Using reclassification calibration, 18% of IPS‐7 low risk patients were re‐classified as intermediate risk and 13% of IPS‐7 intermediate risk patients as low risk. For patients with advanced HL, the IPS‐3 may provide a simpler and more accurate framework for risk assessment in the modern era. Validation of these findings in other large data sets is planned.