Chiappella, Annalisa

LBA7000 Background: ~40% of DLBCL pts are not cured with first-line (1L) R-CHOP, underscoring a significant unmet need for more effective 1L regimens. Tafa (anti-CD19 mAb) + Len-R-CHOP in the phase 1b First-MIND study demonstrated safety and efficacy in pts with newly diagnosed disease. frontMIND, a phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, compared Tafa-Len-R-CHOP vs R-CHOP in pts with high-risk aggressive BCLs. Methods: Pts aged 18–80 y with newly diagnosed, high-intermediate/high-risk DLBCL or HGBL (IPI 3–5, aaIPI 2–3 if ≤60 y) and ECOG PS 0–2 were randomized 1:1 to Tafa-Len-R-CHOP or R-CHOP. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS; secondary endpoints included: EFS, OS, CR, ORR, safety. Results: At primary analysis (data cutoff Oct 20, 2025), 899 pts were randomized to Tafa-Len-R-CHOP (n=448) or R-CHOP (n=451); baseline characteristics were similar between arms. With a median follow-up of 35.2 mo, Tafa-Len-R-CHOP achieved a statistically significant improvement in PFS vs R-CHOP (HR 0.75 [95% CI: 0.59, 0.96]; P =0.019) in the overall population; in pts with centrally confirmed lymphoma subtypes (n=773), PFS HR was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.52, 0.88) and 24-mo PFS was 72.7% vs 62.2%. PFS benefit was observed with Tafa-Len-R-CHOP in both molecular COO subtypes, ABC and GCB (data will be presented). Tafa-Len-R-CHOP significantly improved EFS vs R-CHOP; CR and ORR were similar between arms and HR for OS was 0.85 (final OS planned at 5y) (Table). Any-grade TEAEs were similar in treatment arms (98.6% vs 97.1%); more grade ≥3 TEAEs occurred with Tafa-Len-R-CHOP vs R-CHOP (86.7% vs 76.1%). Discontinuations due to TEAEs occurred in 25.7% vs 17.9% and deaths due to TEAEs in 5.9% vs 3.8% of pts for Tafa-Len-R-CHOP vs R-CHOP. Overall, there were fewer deaths with Tafa-Len-R-CHOP vs R-CHOP (18.5% vs 21.7%). Conclusions: The primary endpoint of frontMIND was met; Tafa-Len-R-CHOP resulted in a significant 25% reduction in risk of disease progression or death compared with R-CHOP, with an 8.2% difference in 24-month PFS rate in the overall population and 10.5% difference in pts with centrally confirmed lymphoma subtypes. TEAEs were manageable and consistent with the expected safety profile. Tafa-Len-R-CHOP represents a potential new 1L standard of care for pts with both COO subtypes of high-risk DLBCL or HGBL. Clinical trial information: NCT04824092 . Efficacy outcomes by treatment arm.* Variable Tafa-Len-R-CHOP(n=448) R-CHOP(n=451) HR or OR(95% CI) P value PFS, # events (%) † 121 (27.0) 155 (34.4) 0.75 (0.59, 0.96) 0.019 PFS rate at 24 mo, % 71.1 62.9 − − PFS rate at 36 mo, % 67.3 60.7 − − EFS, # events (%) 154 (34.4) 191 (42.4) 0.79 (0.64, 0.97) 0.026 OS, # events (%) 82 (18.3) 95 (21.1) 0.85 (0.63, 1.14) 0.270 CR at EOT, n (%) 292 (65.2) 294 (65.2) 0.998 (0.76, 1.31) 0.987 ‡ ORR at EOT, n (%) 360 (80.4) 343 (76.1) 1.290 (0.94, 1.78) 0.120 ‡ *Investigator-assessed. † Progressive disease or death from any cause. ‡ Nominal P value.

TPS7590 Background: Up to 40% of patients relapse or are refractory (R/R) to R-CHOP, the current standard of care for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), indicating an unmet need, particularly in patients with high-intermediate and high-risk disease (IPI 3–5). POLARIX (NCT03274492) evaluated a modified regimen substituting polatuzumab vedotin for vincristine (pola-R-CHP), demonstrating modest improvement in PFS with no OS benefit between treatment arms. The addition of lenalidomide (LEN) to R-CHOP improved both PFS and OS in the ECOG-ACRIN E1412 trial but not in the Phase III ROBUST study, in which a lower dose of LEN was used, despite a positive trend toward 2-year PFS in a subgroup analysis. The chemo-free immunotherapy tafasitamab + LEN has received accelerated approval in the United States (2020), and conditional marketing authorization in Europe and Canada (2021) in adult patients with R/R DLBCL ineligible for ASCT based on L-MIND (NCT02399085). The primary analysis of First-MIND (NCT04134936), a Phase Ib randomized safety study of R-CHOP + tafasitamab ± LEN in patients with previously untreated and newly diagnosed DLBCL, demonstrated that adding tafasitamab + LEN does not impair dosing and scheduling of R-CHOP, with toxicities similar to those expected with R-CHOP alone (ASH 2021; #3556). frontMIND (NCT04824092) will investigate the efficacy and safety of R-CHOP + tafasitamab + LEN vs R-CHOP alone in previously untreated patients with high-intermediate and high-risk DLBCL. Methods: frontMIND is a Phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Approximately 880 patients are planned to be randomized at ̃350 centers in North and South America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific. Eligible patients aged 18‒80 years with previously untreated local biopsy-proven, CD20+ DLBCL with IPI score 3–5 (age-adjusted IPI 2–3 if ≤60 years), and ECOG PS 0–2 will be enrolled. Patients with transformed lymphoma (except double or triple hit lymphoma) are excluded. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive six 21-day (D) cycles of either R-CHOP + tafasitamab (12 mg/kg intravenously, D 1, 8, and 15) + LEN (25 mg orally, D1–10) or R-CHOP + tafasitamab and LEN placebos. Patients will be followed for up to 5 years after the end of treatment. The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed PFS. Secondary endpoints include investigator-assessed event-free survival, OS, safety, and tafasitamab serum concentration (trough and Cmax levels). Sensitivity and specificity of minimal residual disease for early detection of disease progression is an exploratory endpoint; further MRD parameters may also be investigated. The study is funded by MorphoSys AG and conducted with the scientific support of members of the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi and the German Lymphoma Alliance. Clinical trial information: NCT04824092.

PURPOSE Patients with the activated B-cell-like (ABC) subtype of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) historically showed inferior survival with standard rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP). Phase II studies demonstrated that adding the immunomodulatory agent lenalidomide to R-CHOP improved outcomes in ABC-type DLBCL. The goal of the global, phase III ROBUST study was to compare lenalidomide plus R-CHOP (R2-CHOP) with placebo/R-CHOP in previously untreated, ABC-type DLBCL. METHODS Histology and cell-of-origin type were prospectively analyzed by central pathology prior to random assignment and study treatment. Patients with ABC-DLBCL received lenalidomide oral 15 mg/d, days 1-14/21 plus standard R-CHOP21 versus placebo/R-CHOP21 for six cycles. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) per independent central radiology review. RESULTS A total of 570 patients with ABC-DLBCL (n = 285 per arm) were stratified by International Prognostic Index score, age, and bulky disease, and randomly assigned to R2-CHOP or placebo/R-CHOP. Baseline demographics were similar between arms. Most patients completed six cycles of treatment: 74% R2-CHOP and 84% placebo/R-CHOP. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events for R2-CHOP versus placebo/R-CHOP were neutropenia (60% v 48%), anemia (22% v 14%), thrombocytopenia (17% v 11%), and leukopenia (14% v 15%). The primary end point of PFS was not met, with a hazard ratio of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.14) and P = .29; median PFS has not been reached for either arm. PFS trends favoring R2-CHOP over placebo/R-CHOP were seen in patients with higher-risk disease. CONCLUSION ROBUST is the first DLBCL phase III study to integrate biomarker-driven identification of eligible ABC patients. Although the ROBUST trial did not meet the primary end point of PFS in all patients, the safety profile of R2-CHOP was consistent with individual treatments with no new safety signals.

Introduction: The phase 3 international, randomized, double-blind ROBUST clinical trial (NCT02285062) compared progression-free survival between patients with previously untreated ABC-type DLBCL treated with placebo plus rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (placebo-R-CHOP) versus lenalidomide + R-CHOP (R2-CHOP) for 6 21-day cycles. HRQoL, as measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lymphoma (FACT-Lym) and the EuroQoL 5-dimension 3-level (EQ-5D-3L) patient-reported questionnaires, was evaluated as a secondary endpoint for the 2 treatment arms. Methods: For each treatment group, FACT-Lym and EQ-5D-3L scores were measured at baseline (BL), mid-, end-of-treatment (EOT), and post-treatment, in 12-week intervals from Week 34 onward. Patients were evaluated if they had completed BL and ≥ 1 post-BL calculable FACT-Lym subscale measurements. Non-inferiority (NI) of R2-CHOP versus placebo-R-CHOP was measured for 4 key FACT-Lym subscales: Physical Well-Being (PWB), Additional Concerns (AC), Functional Well-Being (FWB), and Trial Outcome Index (TOI). NI was assessed at EOT (typically 3-4 weeks after completing Cycle 6) and at post-treatment follow-up at Week 34 by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The NI margins were prespecified as 1 less than the higher published minimal important difference (MID) for each subscale. Since a range of MIDs have been published, a more conservative value was also used as a sensitivity analysis. Time to improvement (TTI), using published responder definitions, was also assessed for the FACT-Lym subscales. EQ-5D-3L scores were summarized descriptively. Results: Demographic and baseline disease characteristics were balanced across the 2 treatment arms (N = 285 per arm). The percentage of patients who completed the FACT-Lym out of the expected population remained > 85% at all time points with > 50 patients still on the study in each treatment arm up to Week 142. Completion rates and reasons for missing assessments were balanced across the 2 treatment arms. FACT-Lym subscale scores were generally higher after EOT, similar for both treatment groups, and mean changes from BL were close to or above MID (where defined), except for the Social/Family Well-Being subscale. Mean differences in FACT-Lym TOI between treatment arms are shown in Table 1. As positive treatment differences favor R2-CHOP and -10 was the predefined NI margin, NI was demonstrated for the FACT-Lym TOI subscale at both EOT and Week 34 assessments. Superiority of R2-CHOP was demonstrated at EOT as the confidence interval (CI) lies completely above 0 (P < 0.04); however, this difference was not clinically meaningful. Furthermore, NI was also demonstrated when using the sensitivity analysis margin of -4.5. ANCOVA models were also fitted for the other key subscales of PWB, AC and FWB (Table 2). NI was demonstrated for all NI margins at both time points for the PWB and AC subscales. The FACT-Lym FWB subscale demonstrated NI for both margins at EOT and Week 34 for the primary NI margin of -2 based on the MID minus 1, but did not demonstrate NI when an NI margin of -1, based on an alternative published MID, was used. The TTI curves and associated summary statistics were similar for the 2 treatment arms, with a median TTI for the FACT-Lym TOI of 21 weeks (95% CI 15-22) for patients treated with R2-CHOP and 18 weeks (95% CI 15-22) for patients treated with placebo-R-CHOP. Mean EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (VAS) and Utility Index (UK weights) change from baseline scores were higher in both treatment arms and the mean changes were above, or close to, the published MID (7 for VAS, 0.1 for Utility Index) at EOT assessments. Prespecified sensitivity and subgroup analyses supported the conclusions from the primary HRQoL analyses. Conclusions: The predefined NI levels were met for the 4 key FACT-Lym subscales. Similar results were observed across the other HRQoL assessments, sensitivity, and subgroup analyses. Adding lenalidomide to the R-CHOP regimen did not adversely affect the HRQoL of patients with DLBCL as measured by FACT-Lym and EQ-5D-3L. These data serve as a benchmark for future clinical trials combining next-generation immunomodulatory drugs with standard R-CHOP to improve clinical efficacy while maintaining HRQoL in patients with DLBCL. HRQoL analyses should become an integral part of future clinical trials of novel combination regimens in DLBCL. Disclosures Chiappella: Roche: Speakers Bureau; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Servier: Other: advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Other: advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other: advisory board, Speakers Bureau. Cocks:Adelphi Values: Employment; Amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Endomag Ltd.: Consultancy. Greenwood:Adelphi Values: Employment. Williams:Adelphi Values: Employment. Scott:Celgene: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; NanoString: Patents & Royalties: Named inventor on a patent licensed to NanoSting [Institution], Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Yamamoto:SymBio: Research Funding; Ono: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sumitomo Dainippon: Honoraria; Chugai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Solasia Pharma: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kyowa Kirin: Honoraria; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Meiji Seika Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; HUYA/IQVIA Services Japan: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Jurczak:Bayer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Loxo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celtrion: Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Özcan:Sanofi: Other: Travel support; Abdi Ibrahim: Other: Travel support; BMS: Other: Travel support; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Archigen: Research Funding; Roche: Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding, Travel support; AbbVie: Other: Travel support, Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Jazz: Other: Travel support; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Travel support. Belada:Roche: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Margunato-Debay:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Czuczman:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhai:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Braverman:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Vitolo:Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Nowakowski:Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NanoString: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding.

Background: Standard first-line treatment for patients diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the R-CHOP regimen. Despite numerous efforts to improve on this regimen, in all comers and specifically in those with activated B-cell (ABC)-type DLBCL, results from large randomized studies have failed to show a significant clinical advantage above this standard. Recently, 2 large clinical trials in previously untreated DLBCL evaluated the combination of lenalidomide/R-CHOP (R2-CHOP) vs standard R-CHOP and demonstrated discordant results. We analyzed data from these trials to identify differences that may have impacted the disparate trial outcomes while identifying patient characteristics associated with benefit from the addition of lenalidomide across the trials. Methods: The 2 trials included in this evaluation are ROBUST, an international, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase III study of R2-CHOP vs placebo/R-CHOP, and the Intergroup ECOG-ACRIN 1412 (E1412) trial, a US-only, randomized, open-label, phase II study of R2-CHOP vs R-CHOP. Additional key study design differences included dosing, and subtype timing and inclusion (both studies used gene expression profiling [GEP] by NanoString). R-CHOP dosing differed only for prednisone, which was a flat 100 mg dose, d1-5 in ROBUST and 100 mg/m2, d1-5 in E1412. The lenalidomide dose and schedule varied between studies: 15 mg/d, d1-14/21 for ROBUST (210 mg/cycle) and 25 mg/d, d1-10/21 (250 mg/cycle) for E1412. ROBUST enrolled only patients prospectively identified with the ABC subtype, whereas E1412 enrolled all otherwise eligible patients and retrospectively evaluated for ABC-type with prespecified ABC-type accrual and power parameters. Both studies enrolled patients with IPI status ≥ 2, ECOG PS 0-2, and Ann Arbor stage II-IV (E1412 stage II with mass > 10 cm). The primary endpoint in both was progression-free survival (PFS; central review for ROBUST and investigator-assessed for E1412). Secondary endpoints included event-free survival (EFS; key for ROBUST), overall and complete response rates, overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: ROBUST enrolled 570 ABC patients and E1412 enrolled 280 GCB, ABC, and unclassified DLBCL patients. Patient profiles in both studies (ROBUST [ABC]/E1412 [all COO]) were similar in terms of median ages (65 y/66 y), male sex (58%/61%), and ECOG PS 1-2 (55%/63%). Patients in E1412 were more high risk: IPI 2 (42% ROBUST/34% E1412), IPI ≥ 3 (58%/66%), and Ann Arbor stage III/IV disease (87%/97%). Importantly, there was a notable difference in the time from patient diagnosis to treatment: median 31 days for ROBUST and 21 days (22% > 31 d) for E1412. Only 6% of patients in ROBUST were treated within 2 weeks of diagnosis vs 30% in E1412. At a median follow-up of ~2.5 y for both studies, E1412 met its primary endpoint of improvement in PFS with 34% reduction in the risk of PD/death (2-y PFS: 76% vs 70%) for all patients, but did not reach statistical significance in ABC-DLBCL patients for 2-y PFS (71% vs 61%) or 2-y OS (88% vs 76%). ROBUST showed no significant improvement in the primary PFS endpoint (2-y PFS: 67% vs 64%) or 2-y OS (79% vs 80%) in ABC patients. Subgroup analyses of PFS comparing R2-CHOP vs R-CHOP control within each study suggested that certain baseline factors favor the R2-CHOP arm, including: female sex, high IPI score (≥ 3), non-bulky disease (< 7 cm), and high Ann Arbor stage IV disease. Conclusion: While the ROBUST study design integrated state-of-the-art, real-time GEP to prospectively identify ABC-DLBCL patients with rapid lab turnaround time, cases of logistical delays in tissue submission for central analysis and staging procedures may have resulted in accrual of patients with lower-risk DLBCL and prolonged time from diagnosis to treatment. In contrast, E1412 retrospectively stratified patients by COO through GEP and was able to accrue higher-risk patients irrespective of COO within a shorter time from diagnosis to treatment, which among other differences (eg, smaller population size, study phase), could contribute to the improvement over R-CHOP control. Our comparative findings have significant implications for the design of future biomarker-driven trials and provide momentum for studies of novel combinations with R-CHOP in DLBCL. Further investigation into other factors, including dose intensity and their correlation with outcomes, will be presented. Disclosures Nowakowski: Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Curis: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Chiappella:Servier: Other: advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other: advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Other: advisory board, Speakers Bureau. Hong:Dana Farber Cancer Institute: Employment; Merck: Consultancy. Scott:Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; NanoString: Patents & Royalties: Named inventor on a patent licensed to NanoSting [Institution], Research Funding. Amengual:Appia Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Epizyme: Speakers Bureau. Leonard:BeiGene: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bayer Corporation: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Friedberg:Bayer: Honoraria, Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee; Acerta: Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee. Kostakoglu:F. Hoffman-La Roche: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Jurczak:Morphosys: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celtrion: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Loxo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Yamamoto:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Meiji Seika Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; ARIAD: Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Ono: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; SymBio: Research Funding; HUYA/IQVIA Services Japan: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Chugai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sumitomo Dainippon: Honoraria; Incyte: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Kyowa Kirin: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Solasia Pharma: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Czuczman:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Russo:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hudak:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership; Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhang:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wade:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kahl:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Vitolo:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Speakers Bureau; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. OffLabel Disclosure: Yes, these trials discuss off-label clinical trial investigation of lenalidomide plus R-CHOP in patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

Abstract Introduction: Lenalidomide (Len) in association with standard Rituximab-CHOP (R2CHOP21) has been shown to be safe and effective in newly diagnosed Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphomas (DLBCL) [Nowakowski et al. JCO 2014, Vitolo et al. Lancet Oncol 2014]. The addition of lenalidomide appears to benefit primarily patients with non-Germinal Center B-cell (non-GCB) phenotype as determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC). These early results led to currently ongoing randomized trial in ABC subtype of DLBCL, however efficacy of R2CHOP in ABC DLBCL as defined by Gene Expression Prophyling (GEP) has not been reported. In the present combined analysis of two independent phase 2 studies, we report the long-term follow-up (FU) outcome in DLBCL patients treated with R2CHOP, comparing GCB and ABC according to Nanostring Platform. Methods: We included all newly diagnosed histologically-confirmed de-novo DLBCL patients enrolled in two R2CHOP21 phase 2 trials, conducted by Mayo Clinic (MC) and Italian Lymphoma Foundation (FIL). Inclusion criteria in the two trials were similar, main differences included: all age and all International Prognostic Index (IPI) vs age between 60 and 80 years old and IPI >1, in MC vs FIL study, respectively. All pts received R-CHOP21 plus Len at 25 mg/day for 10 days/cycle and 15 mg/day for 14 days/cycle in MC and FIL trial, respectively. Cell of origin (COO) was determined by IHC, according to Hans algorithm, and retrospectively, in patients with available pathological material, by Nanostring, performed according to Scott algorithm and Masque-Soler signature in MC and FIL study, respectively. We analyzed the long-term FU outcome in terms of progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), comparing between GCB and ABC phenotypes according to GEP. Results: A total of 112 DLBCL pts (63 MC, 49 FIL) were included. Main characteristics were: median age 69 years (y) (range 22-87), male 65 (58%) pts, advanced stage III-IV in 94 (84%), B symptoms in 38 (34%), International Prognostic Index (IPI) intermediate-high/high in 71 (63%). At a median follow-up of 5.1 years (y), 5y-PFS was 63.5%, 5y-TTP 70.1% and 5y-OS 75.4%. A total of 32 relapses were observed, with only 2 cases of Central Nervous System (CNS) relapse. Late relapse occurring beyond 3 years was observed in 4 cases (3 cases with GCB phenotype and one case with missing COO data). In a subgroup analysis by IPI 0-2 vs 3-5 were: 5y-PFS, 5y-TTP and 5y-OS were: 69.0% vs 59.0% (p=0.100), 73.2% vs 67.4% (p=0.285) and 82.3% vs 70.2% (p=0.059), respectively. Regarding for COO defined by IHC, GCB phenotype vs non-GCB were 45 (40%) vs 41 (37%) patients respectively; 26 (23%) patients were not evaluable. 5y-PFS, 5y-TTP and 5y-OS were: 52.8% vs 64.5% (p=0.198), 61.6% vs 69.6% (p=0.444) and 68.6% vs 74.1% (p=0.238) in GCB vs non-GCB, defined by IHC, respectively. Regarding Nanostring analysis, GCB vs ABC vs Unclassified (Uncl) were 31 (46%) vs 22 (32%) vs 15 (22%) respectively; 44 pts were not evaluable. 5y-PFS, 5y-TTP and 5y-OS were: 62.3% vs 70.8% vs 64.2% (p=0.645), 68.1% vs 79.8% vs 64.2% (p=0.662) and 76.0% vs 74.8% vs 79.0% (p=0.658) in GCB vs ABC vs Uncl, defined by Nanostring, respectively (Table1, Fig1). Conclusions: The association of Len with R-CHOP21 appears to overcome the negative prognostic impact of ABC phenotype determined by GEP, with high PFS, TTP and OS rate, maintained at a long-term FU analysis. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Chiappella: Teva: Other: lecture fees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: lecture fees; Nanostring: Other: lecture fees; Roche: Other: lecture fees; Amgen: Other: lecture fees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: lecture fees. Gaidano:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Honoraria. Witzig:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Vitolo:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Background Central nervous system (CNS) relapse of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a devastating event occurring in approximately 5% of patients treated with standard R-CHOP (Thanarajasingam et al, ASH 2015, abs 1456). Isolated CNS relapse is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. New treatment regimens with agents that cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB) are needed. The combination of lenalidomide with R-CHOP (R2CHOP) has shown promising results in activated B-cell (ABC) type DLBCL in phase 2 studies and is currently being evaluated in randomized trials. Lenalidomide crosses the BBB and has been demonstrated to have single-agent activity in relapsed CNS lymphoma. Accordingly, the addition of lenalidomide to R-CHOP may decrease the risk of CNS relapse. Here we characterize the combined incidence of isolated CNS relapse in a population of DLBCL patients who received R2CHOP for induction therapy in two independent phase 2 studies. Methods We analyzed the incidence of isolated CNS relapse in patients with histologically-confirmed DLBCL enrolled in two R2CHOP phase 2 trials - one conducted by Mayo Clinic (MC) and the other by Italian Lymphoma Foundation (FIL) - in the context of clinical variables that included age, gender, disease stage, cell of origin, and administration of CNS prophylaxis. We assessed CNS-International Prognostic Index (CNS-IPI) factors (age, stage, lactate dehydrogenase level, ECOG performance status, extranodal sites, adrenal/kidney involvement) and classified patients into groups of low, intermediate, and high risk of CNS relapse. The risk of CNS relapse in R2CHOP-treated patients was then estimated and compared against published rates in RCHOP-treated patients based on CNS-IPI score. Results One hundred thirty-six patients with DLBCL from both cohorts (87 MC patients, 49 FIL patients) were included in this analysis. Mean age was 65 and median follow-up in 104 patients still alive was 48.2 months (range: 2.1-88.5). 61.8% of patients were male; 86.0% had stage III disease or higher; 44.1% had ECOG performance status of 0; cell of origin phenotype by immunohistochemistry according to Hans algorithm was germinal center B-cell (GCB), non-GCB (ABC), and not available in 43.4%, 36.8%, and 19.8%, respectively; 14.7% received intrathecal (IT) methotrexate for CNS prophylaxis per local practice. No patients received intravenous methotrexate. 10.3%, 71.3%, and 18.4% of patients were classified into low, intermediate, and high-risk CNS-IPI groups, respectively. Only one of 136 patients developed isolated CNS relapse, corresponding to an estimated incidence of CNS relapse of 0.007 (0.7%). Conclusions Despite a large proportion of patients with intermediate and high risk of CNS relapse treated in both phase 2 studies, induction therapy with R2CHOP in patients with DLBCL is associated with a lower-than-expected rate of isolated CNS relapse. The latter is unlikely to be explained by use of IT chemotherapy, which is considered to be marginally effective in this setting and was implemented only in a small proportion of patients. This suggests that addition of CNS-penetrating small molecules, such as lenalidomide, to R-CHOP may decrease the risk of CNS relapse. Disclosures Chiappella: Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau. Nowakowski:Morphosys: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cavallo:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Gaidano:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Spina:Mundipharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Speaker Fee; Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Speaker Fee. Vitolo:Takeda: Other: Honoraria for lectures; Gilead: Other: Honoraria for lectures; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Honoraria for lectures; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Honoraria for lectures.