Connors, Joseph M.

7053 Background: In ECHELON-1 (NCT01712490), 6-year follow-up (FU) analyses demonstrated significant improvements in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) with A+AVD (brentuximab vedotin plus doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) versus ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine), with a comparable safety profile. Here, we report data at 7-year median FU. Methods: Analyses of OS and PFS per investigator were conducted in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (data cut-off March 11, 2023). Patients (pts) were randomized 1:1 to receive ≤6 cycles of A+AVD (n=664) or ABVD (n=670) on days 1 and 15, every 28 days. PET scan after cycle 2 (PET2) evaluation was mandatory. Long-term safety outcomes in the safety population included resolution or improvement of peripheral neuropathy (PN), second malignancies, and pregnancies. Results: At median FU of 89.3 months (95% CI 87.0–90.2), 7-year OS rates were 93.5% (95% CI 91.1–95.2) with A+AVD and 88.8% (95% CI 85.8–91.1) with ABVD; OS favored A+AVD over ABVD (HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.42–0.90; p=0.011). Subgroup analyses showed consistent OS benefit for A+AVD, including in the age <40 years and Stage IV disease subgroups (Table). 7-year PFS rates with A+AVD vs ABVD were 82.3% (95% CI 79.1–85.0) vs 74.5% (95% CI 70.8–77.7; HR 0.68 [95% CI 0.53–0.86]; p=0.001). PN improved/resolved in most pts at last FU (A+AVD: 86%; ABVD: 87%). Median (range) time to complete resolution of PN (A+AVD vs ABVD) was 16 (0–373) vs 10 (0–343) weeks; median (range) time to improvement was 42 (2–182) vs 19 (15–142) weeks. PN was ongoing in 28% (4% grade ≥3) of A+AVD and 20% (1% grade ≥3) of ABVD pts. Second malignancies were reported in 5% of A+AVD and 6% of ABVD pts. Pts and their partners reported 84/92 livebirths/pregnancies with A+AVD and 59/73 with ABVD; no stillbirths were recorded. Conclusions: At 7-year median FU, pts with stage III/IV cHL who received A+AVD showed a sustained PFS and OS benefit vs ABVD, with PFS rates indicating potential curability. The safety profile in pts treated with A+AVD showed no new safety signals at 7 years. Clinical trial information: NCT01712490 . [Table: see text]

7503 Background: To date, an overall survival (OS) benefit from upfront treatment for new treatment combinations over existing approaches has rarely been shown in first-line classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). With the introduction of newer active therapies for relapsed/refractory disease, demonstration of improved OS with first-line therapy has been challenging. In ECHELON-1 (NCT01712490), 5-year follow-up analyses supported the long-term progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with first-line brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) vs doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) in patients (pts) with stage III/IV cHL, independent of interim positron emission tomography status. A+AVD had a manageable long-term safety profile, with numerically fewer second malignancies and a greater number of pregnancies reported vs ABVD (Connors et al, NEJM 2018; Straus et al, Lancet Haematol 2021). We report a prespecified OS analysis after approximately 6 years’ follow-up (cut-off, June 1, 2021). Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive up to 6 cycles of A+AVD (n = 664) or ABVD (n = 670) on day 1 and 15 every 28 days. OS was the key secondary endpoint and was an event-driven, pre-specified, alpha-controlled analysis in the intention to treat population. Results: At a median follow-up of 73 months, 39 and 64 OS events occurred in A+AVD and ABVD arms, respectively: OS significantly favored A+AVD vs ABVD (HR 0.590; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.396–0.879; p = 0.009). Estimated 6-year OS rates (95% CI) were 93.9% (91.6–95.5) vs 89.4% (86.6–91.7) with A+AVD vs ABVD, respectively. There was a consistent OS benefit for A+AVD vs ABVD across prespecified subgroups. The 6-year PFS estimate was 82.3% (79.1–85.0) vs 74.5% (70.8–77.7) with A+AVD vs ABVD, respectively (HR 0.678 [95% CI 0.532–0.863]). Overall, A+AVD had a comparable long-term safety profile to ABVD. Treatment-emergent peripheral neuropathy continued to resolve or improve in both arms, with 86% (379/443) and 87% (249/286) of cases in the A+AVD and ABVD arms either completely resolving (72% vs 79%) or improving (14% vs 8%) by last follow-up. Fewer second malignancies were reported in the A+AVD vs ABVD arm (23 vs 32). More female patients reported pregnancy (49 vs 28) or live births (42 vs 19 in females) in the A+AVD vs the ABVD arm; no stillbirths were reported. No new safety signals were identified. Conclusions: A+AVD treatment resulted in a statistically significant 41% reduction in the risk of death vs ABVD, with a manageable safety profile consistent with prior reports. These outcomes confirm A+AVD as a preferred option for pts with previously untreated stage III/IV cHL. Clinical trial information: NCT01712490.

Introduction Historically, nearly all relapses in classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) occur within the first 5 years (Radford et al, BMJ 1997). In the phase 3 ECHELON-1 study (NCT01712490), treatment with brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) significantly improved modified progression-free survival (PFS) in patients (pts) with newly-diagnosed Stage III/IV cHL compared with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) (Connors et al, NEJM 2018). 3- and 4-year follow-up (Straus et al, Blood 2020; Bartlett et al, Blood 2019) reported durable PFS benefit with A+AVD vs ABVD in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population that was consistent across most key pt subgroups, irrespective of interim positron emission tomography (PET) scan status, disease stage, and baseline disease risk factor score. We report updated efficacy and safety results for pts in the ECHELON-1 study after a median follow-up of 55.6 months. Methods In this evaluation of longer follow-up, an exploratory analysis of PFS (time from randomization to relapse, progression, or death from any cause) per investigator (INV) was conducted, with a cutoff date of May 18, 2020. Pts with previously untreated Stage III or IV cHL were randomized 1:1 to receive up to six cycles of A+AVD (n=664) or ABVD (n=670) intravenously on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. An interim PET scan after cycle 2 (PET2) was required. Resolution and improvement (defined as improvement by ≥1 grade from worst grade as of the latest assessment) of peripheral neuropathy (PN) in pts with ongoing symptoms at the end of treatment (EoT) were monitored during the extended follow-up period. The rate of secondary malignancies, and the incidence and outcomes of pregnancies among pts and their partners were also assessed. Results With extended follow-up (median 55.6 months; 95% CI 55.2-56.7) estimated 5-year PFS rates were 82.0% (95% CI 78.7-84.8) for A+AVD and 75.2% (95% CI 71.5-78.4) for ABVD. Overall, PFS per INV favored A+AVD over ABVD (HR 0.691; 95% CI 0.543-0.880; p=0.003) (Table). Exploratory subgroup analyses by PET2 status and age demonstrated PFS benefits regardless of PET2 status (Table); estimated 5-year PFS per INV with A+AVD vs ABVD in the ITT population was 84.7% vs 78.8% in PET2-negative pts (HR 0.676; 95% CI 0.512-0.892; p=0.005), and 60.6% vs 45.9% in PET2-positive pts (HR 0.703; 95% CI 0.393-1.256; p=0.230). PFS benefit with A+AVD over ABVD was also independent of the number of International Prognostic Factors Project (IPFP) risk factors (Figure). After a median follow-up of almost 5-years, 84% (370/442) and 86% (245/286) of pts with treatment-emergent PN reported complete resolution or improvement of symptoms in the A+AVD and ABVD arms, respectively. Median time to complete resolution of PN events that were ongoing at EoT was 30 weeks (range 0-262) in the A+AVD arm and 16 weeks (range 0-267) in the ABVD arm; median time to improvement was 49 weeks (range 8-270) and 12 weeks (range 2-70) , respectively. Of the 132 (30%) pts with ongoing PN in the A+AVD arm, 77 (17%), 39 (9%), 15 (3%) and 1 (&lt;1%) experienced a maximum severity of grade 1, 2, 3 or 4, respectively. In the ABVD arm, PN was ongoing in 61 pts (21%); maximum severity was grade 1, 2, 3 or 4 in 40 (14%), 17 (6%), 4 (1%) and 0 pts, respectively. A total of 124 pregnancies were reported among pts and their partners (40 female and 30 male pts in the A+AVD arm; 26 female and 28 male pts in the ABVD arm). The proportion of live births was similar between arms for female pts (26/40 in the A+AVD arm and 17/26 in the ABVD arm, 65% in each arm) and for male pts' partners (19/30 [63%] in the A+AVD arm and 20/28 [71%] in the ABVD arm). No stillbirths were recorded. Additional follow-up at an estimated median of ~5 years and secondary malignancy data will be presented. Conclusions After a median follow-up of 55.6 months, A+AVD continues to demonstrate a robust and durable treatment benefit independent of disease stage, risk factor score, and PET2 status. In addition, compared with ABVD, treatment adaptation by interim PET2 status is not required and bleomycin exposure is avoided. The sustained PFS benefit with A+AVD is coupled with a manageable safety profile with symptoms of PN improving or resolving over time and similar pregnancy rates in both treatment arms. The benefits observed with A+AVD at this important milestone suggest that A+AVD is an attractive treatment option for all pts with previously untreated Stage III or IV cHL. Disclosures Straus: Karyopharm Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imedex, Inc.: Speakers Bureau; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; NY Lymphoma Rounds: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; OncLive: Speakers Bureau; Elsevier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: CME writer; ASH: Other: Conference in December 2019 on HL to other physicians during ASH; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Connors:Seattle Genetics: Other: Sponsorship to educational presentations; Takeda: Other: Sponsorship to educational presentations. Illés:Takeda, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche;: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Novartis Pharma SAS, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals Israel, Roche;: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene, Janssen, Novartis,Roche, Takeda: Consultancy. Lech-Marańda:Roche, Novartis, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, Amgen, Gilead, AbbVie, Sanofi: Consultancy; Roche, Amgen, Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Feldman:KITE: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Morphosis: Other: Ad board; AstraZeneca: Other: Ad board; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Smolewski:Roche Poland: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria; Morphosis: Honoraria. Savage:Roche (institutional): Research Funding; Merck, BMS, Seattle Genetics, Gilead, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Servier: Consultancy; BeiGene: Other: Steering Committee; Merck, BMS, Seattle Genetics, Gilead, AstraZeneca, AbbVie: Honoraria. Bartlett:Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BTG: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Affimed Therapeutics: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Autolus: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding. Walewski:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding. Ramchandren:Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Zinzani:Eusapharma: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics, Inc.: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kirin Kyowa: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Hutchings:Celgene, Genmab, Janssen, Novartis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Takeda: Research Funding; Genmab, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Munoz:Juno/Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Fosunkite: Consultancy; Innovent: Consultancy; Acrotech/Aurobindo: Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Kyowa: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kim:JJ: Research Funding; Celltrion: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirn: Research Funding; Donga: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding. Advani:Astra Zeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Cell Medica, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, KitePharma, Kyowa, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene, Forty Seven, Inc., Genentech/Roche, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Kura, Merck, Millenium, Pharmacyclics, Regeneron, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Ansell:Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Younes:HCM: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; BioPath: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Current Employment; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Gallamini:Takeda: Other: Speaker. Liu:Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment. Little:Takeda: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Fenton:Seattle Genetics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Fanale:Seattle Genetics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Radford:GlaxoSmithKline: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Spouse; AstraZeneca: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Spouse; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; ADCT: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Approximately one‐third of patients diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma presenting with Stage IV disease do not survive past 5 years. We present updated efficacy and safety analyses in high‐risk patient subgroups, defined by Stage IV disease or International Prognostic Score (IPS) of 4–7, enrolled in the ECHELON‐1 study that compared brentuximab vedotin plus doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A + AVD) versus doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) as first‐line therapy after a median follow‐up of 37.1 months. Among patients treated with A + AVD ( n = 664) or ABVD ( n = 670), 64% had Stage IV disease and 26% had an IPS of 4–7. Patients with Stage IV disease treated with A + AVD showed consistent improvements in PFS at 3 years as assessed by investigator (hazard ratio [HR], 0.723; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.537–0.973; p = 0.032). Similar improvements were seen in the subgroup of patients with IPS of 4–7 (HR, 0.588; 95% CI, 0.386–0.894; p = 0.012). The most common adverse events (AEs) in A + AVD‐treated versus ABVD‐treated patients with Stage IV disease were peripheral neuropathy (67% vs. 40%) and neutropenia (71% vs. 55%); in patients with IPS of 4–7, the most common AEs were peripheral neuropathy (69% vs. 45%), neutropenia (66% vs. 55%), and febrile neutropenia (23% vs. 9%), respectively. Patients in high‐risk subgroups did not experience greater AE incidence or severity than patients in the total population. This updated analysis of ECHELON‐1 shows a favorable benefit‐risk balance in high‐risk patients.

Abstract To describe the demographic and tumor related characteristics and outcomes for patients with primary T-cell central nervous system lymphoma (TPCNSL). A retrospective series of patients with TPCNSL was compiled from twelve cancer centers and seven countries. This study involved 35 male and 10 female patients with a median age of 60 years (range 3–84). Twenty (44%) had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) of 0 or 1. Twenty six (58%) had involvement of a cerebral hemisphere and sixteen (36%) had lesions of deeper sites in the brain. Two patients had primary spinal cord lesions and one had meningeal disease only. Serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) was elevated in 7 of the 22 cases (32%) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) protein was elevated above normal in 19 of the 24 cases (79%) with available data. The median disease specific survival (DSS) for all patients was 25 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 11–38 months). The two and five-year DSS were 51 % (CI 35–66 %) and 17 % (CI 6–34 %) respectively. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted for the following factors: age (≤ 60 vs. &gt; 60 years), PS (0 or 1 vs. 2, 3 or 4), involvement of deep structures of the central nervous system (no vs. yes), and methotrexate (MTX) use in the primary treatment (yes vs. no). Only PS and MTX use were significantly associated with better outcome with hazard ratios (HR) of 0.2 (CI 0.1–0.4) and 0.4 (CI 0.2–0.8) respectively. This is the largest series ever assembled of TPCNSL. The presentation and outcome appear similar to that of PCNSL of B cell origin. PS 0 or 1 and administration of MTX are associated with better survival. TPCNSL does not appear to require a different therapeutic management approach than B-cell PCNSL.

TPS8612 Background: Brentuximab vedotin, a CD30-targeted antibody-drug conjugate, has conditional approval in Europe for relapsed/refractory (RR) CD30-positive HL following autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) or following ≥2 prior therapies when ASCT or multi-agent chemotherapy is not a treatment option. ABVD, a common front-line regimen for advanced HL, achieves complete response (CR) rates of 70–80%. However, 10–20% of patients (pts) are refractory to front-line treatment and up to 35% relapse after front-line multi-modality therapy. In pts with relapsed HL post-ASCT, single-agent brentuximab vedotin yields an objective response rate of 75% (CR, 33%; Chen ASH 2012). In a phase 1 study in treatment-naïve HL pts, A+AVD was associated with manageable toxicity and a CR rate of 96%; brentuximab vedotin + ABVD was contraindicated due to pulmonary toxicity (Ansell ASH 2012). We hypothesized that substituting bleomycin with brentuximab vedotin would eliminate bleomycin-associated pulmonary toxicity and improve progression-free survival (PFS) compared to a standard ABVD regimen. Methods: This ongoing, open-label, randomized, multicenter study (NCT01712490) will compare A+AVD vs ABVD in 1040 pts with stage III/IV classical HL. Primary endpoint: modified (m) PFS (death, progression, and receipt of chemotherapy or radiotherapy by pts not in CR after completing A+AVD or ABVD will count as progression event). Key secondary endpoint: overall survival. Key inclusion criteria: histologically-confirmed previously untreated stage III/IV classical HL. Pts will be stratified by region and International Prognostic Score, and will be randomized 1:1 to receive A+AVD (brentuximab vedotin 1.2 mg/kg with each dose of AVD) or ABVD administered intravenously on Days 1 and 15 of 28-day cycles, for up to 6 cycles. Disease status and survival will be evaluated regularly until study closure. Safety assessments: incidence and severity of adverse events, changes to physical and laboratory tests. Clinical trial information: NCT01712490.

Abstract The phase 3 ECHELON-1 study demonstrated that brentuximab vedotin (A) with doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (AVD; A+AVD) exhibited superior modified progression-free survival (PFS) vs doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) for frontline treatment of patients with stage III/IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). Maturing positron emission tomography (PET)-adapted trial data highlight potential limitations of PET-adapted approaches, including toxicities with dose intensification and higher-than-expected relapse rates in PET scan after cycle 2 (PET2)-negative (PET2−) patients. We present an update of the ECHELON-1 study, including an exploratory analysis of 3-year PFS per investigator. A total of 1334 patients with stage III or IV cHL were randomized 1:1 to receive 6 cycles of A+AVD (n = 664) or ABVD (n = 670). Interim PET2 was required. At median follow-up of 37 months, 3-year PFS rates were 83.1% with A+AVD and 76.0% with ABVD; 3-year PFS rates in PET2− patients aged &lt;60 years were 87.2% vs 81.0%, respectively. A beneficial trend in PET2+ patients aged &lt;60 years on A+AVD was also observed, with a 3-year PFS rate of 69.2% vs 54.7% with ABVD. The benefit of A+AVD in the intent-to-treat population appeared independent of disease stage and prognostic risk factors. Upon continued follow-up, 78% of patients with peripheral neuropathy on A+AVD had either complete resolution or improvement compared with 83% on ABVD. These data highlight that A+AVD provides a durable efficacy benefit compared with ABVD for frontline stage III/IV cHL, consistent across key subgroups regardless of patient status at PET2, without need for treatment intensification or bleomycin exposure. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01712490 (EudraCT no. 2011-005450-60).