Cohen, Jonathon B.

Abstract Background: Bendamustine and rituximab (BR) is a commonly chosen frontline treatment for grade 1-2 (G 1-2) follicular lymphoma (FL). This regimen resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) and less toxicity compared to R-CHOP in the STiL trial [Rummel et al., 2013] and similar results were observed when comparing BR vs. R-CHOP/R-CVP in the confirmatory BRIGHT trial [Flinn et al., 2014, updated ASCO 2017]. Importantly, patients (pts) with grade 3A (G 3A) FL were excluded from these studies, yet the conclusions are often extrapolated to the treatment of G 3A pts. Notably, G 3A pts were included in the GALLIUM trial which used both bendamustine as well as CHOP backbones. Several retrospective studies of FL pts treated with frontline R-CHOP have demonstrated equivalent or improved overall survival (OS) for G 3A relative to G 1-2 FL (Koch et al., 2016, Mustafa et al., 2017, Yuan et al., 2017, Maeshima et al., 2013). Early disease progression after diagnosis and treatment with frontline R-CHOP has been identified as a strong predictor of poor OS in FL pts [Casulo et al. 2015], but has not been assessed in pts treated with frontline BR. We retrospectively evaluated outcomes of a large cohort of FL pts treated with frontline BR and stratified the results based on histologic grade and early vs. late progression. Methods: We reviewed medical records of adult (age >18) pts with FL treated with frontline BR at 18 US cancer centers. There was no central pathology review; each academic institution confirmed the diagnosis and grade of FL. Pts with unknown grade, grade 3B, or cutaneous FL were excluded. Baseline characteristics between grades were evaluated with the Chi-Square test for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney U for continuous variables. Outcomes were calculated from time of initiation of BR. Patients were grouped according to whether or not they had progression of disease within 24 months of BR initiation (POD24). OS and PFS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Results: 687 pts were included (616 G 1-2, 71 G 3A). Median age at diagnosis was 60 years (range 21-94) with 53% men. The median time from diagnosis to treatment with BR was 1 month (range 0-139). The median duration of follow up for the entire cohort was 39 months. Characteristics including age, gender, ethnicity, ECOG, stage, LDH, and FLIPI are shown in the Table, and did not significantly differ between G 1-2 and G 3A pts. Rates of complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) to BR were similar between G 1-2 and G 3A (72%/22% vs. 66%/21%, respectively, p=0.114) but progressive disease (PD) was higher in G 3A pts (11.9%) relative to G 1-2 (4.8%, p=0.025). As shown in the Figure (A and B), 3-year PFS and OS was significantly longer for G 1-2 vs. G 3A pts (75% vs. 65%, log rank p= 0.035 and 90% vs. 86%, log rank p=0.007, respectively). Seventy-six (12.3%) of the 616 G 1-2 pts and 13 (18.3%) of the 71 G 3A pts experienced POD24 (p=0.19). For pts with both G 1-2 and G 3A FL, POD24 was associated with inferior OS (3-year OS 95% vs. 57% for G 1-2 pts, log rank p<0.0001 and 3-year OS 93% vs. 37% for G 3A pts, log rank p<0.0001) compared to patients without POD24. Conclusions: G 3A FL pts have an inferior OS and are significantly more likely to have PD to frontline BR compared to G 1-2, which differs from the published experience with R-CHOP. Similar to outcomes after frontline treatment with R-CHOP, POD24 after frontline BR for FL is associated with very poor OS. Future studies are needed to address optimal frontline management of pts with G3A as well as for pts with any grade FL with POD24 after frontline BR. Disclosures Nastoupil: Novartis: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therappeutics: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno: Honoraria. Cerhan:Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Maurer:Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding. Smith:Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Lossos:Affimed: Research Funding. Portell:TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Kite: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding. Calzada:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Cohen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy. Ghosh:Spectrum: Consultancy; SGN: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics, an Abbvie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; PCYC: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Forty seven Inc: Research Funding. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck, Takeda, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Bayer: Research Funding. Caimi:Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory Board Participation; Genentech: Other: Advisory Board PArticipation, Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory Board Participation. Danilov:Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding. Martin:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Kamdar:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy. Kahl:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Hill:Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Backgroud. The treatment landscape of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) has significantly changed in last decades. Improvement in diagnosis and understanding of disease biology has been coupled with emergence of new therapeutic options, including targeted agents. While MCL outcome data comes primarily from clinical trials (CT), the impact of therapeutic advances on pattern of care (POC) and outcome in MCL in the general population is not well characterized. This study sought to characterize changes in pattern of care and outcomes of patients with MCL in a prospective observational series in the rituximab era. Methods. The study included consenting adult patients with newly diagnosed MCL that were prospectively enrolled into the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) Molecular Epidemiology Resource, from 09/01/2002 to 06/30/2015. Demographic, clinical and prognostic factors were abstracted, and all patients were actively followed for re-treatment, relapse and death. Since bendamustine-rituximab (BR) regimen starting to be used in 2010, we defined patients enrolled from 09/01/2002 to 12/31/2009 as era 1 and those enrolled 01/01/2010 to 06/30/2015 as era 2. Baseline characteristics and outcomes, evaluated in terms of event free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS) and cause of death, were analyzed and compared between the two eras identified. Results. 348 patients with newly diagnosed MCL were enrolled. Five patients had no available data for front-line treatment and were excluded. The analysis was thus conducted on 343 patients: 169 patients were diagnosed in era 1 with a median follow-up of 131.2 months vs. 174 in era 2 with a median follow-up of 58.9 months. Baseline clinical characteristics and MIPI score were similar across the two eras ( Table 1). Frontline induction treatment was significantly different in the two eras. BR use was 0 vs 49 (28.2% ), R-CHOP/CHOP like regimen in 89 (52.7%) vs 45 (25.9%), high-dose cytarabine (HiDAC)-based therapy in 1 (0.6%) vs 28 (16.1%), intensified regimens (HyperCVAD) in 16 (9.5%) vs 8 (4.5%), other regimens (including R-cladribine, R-fludarabine-mitoxantrone, rituximab monotherapy) in 35 (20.7%) vs 13 (7.5%) patients in era 1 vs era 2 respectively. Non-systemic treatment (observation, surgery or radiation only) was performed in 25 (14.8%) vs 31 (17.8%), while 9 (8%) vs 12 (7.7%) patients were enrolled in clinical trials, in era 1 vs era 2 respectively. Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) as consolidation of first line treatment or use of Rituximab maintenance was not different between Era 1 and Era 2. Among the entire cohort of 343 MCL patients, 3y-EFS and 3y-OS were 51.9% (95% IC 46.7-57.6) and 73.5 (95% CI 68.8-78.4), respectively (Figure 1). 3y-EFS was 45.9% (95% CI 39.0-54.1%) vs 58.4 (95% CI, 51.2-66.6%) in Era 1 vs Era 2 (HR 0.69 (0.51-0.92), p=0.006), 3y-OS was 70.9% (95% CI, 63.4-78.1%) vs 76.1% (95% CI, 69.7-83.1%) in Era 1 vs Era 2 (HR 0.87 (0.61-1.24), p=0.26), respectively (Figure 1). In a univariate analysis, high risk simplified MIPI was prognostic of lower EFS and OS in both the era groups. Conclusion. The BR regimen entered front line therapy of MCL resulting in decline of R-CHOP use in the MER. While rates of ASCT remain similar over the two eras, high dose cytarabine usage in induction therapy has increased. While POC in MCL continue to evolve, the introduction of bendamustine and high-dose citarabine based regimens resulted in an improvement in EFS but not OS in this observational cohort-based analysis. Findings in this study are important for design and planning of future clinical trials incorporating novel agents in induction therapy of MCL. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Cohen: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding. Witzig:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Cerhan:Celgene: Research Funding; Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Nanostring: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Checkpoint blockade therapies (CBT) have substantially improved outcomes for patients in a variety of cancers. However, they are associated with a unique spectrum of immune-related adverse events (AEs). Additionally, unlike standard chemotherapy, many patients (pts) remain on CBT for prolonged periods of time, thus immune-related symptomatic AEs may be chronic or low grade therefore important to capture long term tolerability when used as a single agent or in combination with chemotherapy. In this study, we applied the Toxicity over Time (ToxT) analytic approach (Thanarajasingam et al, Lancet Oncol 2016), which incorporates the dimension of time and includes chronic lower grade events, to the first 6 cohorts (A-F) of a Phase 1/2 ECOG-ACRIN sponsored study of the combinations of Brentuximab Vedotin (BV) and the CBT therapies ipilimumab (Ipi) and nivolumab (Nivo) in pts with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R HL). Methods: Pts with confirmed R/R HL were treated with BV 1.8mg/kg + Ipi 1or 3 mg/kg (n=23); or Nivo 3mg/kg + BV: 1.2 or 1.8 mg/kg (n=19). BV was administered every 21 days for 16 cycles; Ipi every 21 days x 4 and then every 3 months for one year and Nivo every 21 days for up to 2 years. Seven symptomatic (subjective) AEs were selected: fatigue, peripheral sensory neuropathy (PSN), nausea/vomiting (NV), rash/skin (RS), diarrhea, ocular-all types, and hair loss. Treatment-related AEs of any grade were investigated by conventional maximum grade toxicity analysis (ToxC) and ToxT methods up to 12 cycles. Using ToxT, mean AE grades over cycles were analyzed for time trend with repeated measures models, time to grade 2 or higher AE (gr2+) was analyzed with time-to-event analysis; AE profile over the entire course of the study was summarized by area under the curve (AUC) analyses. Comparisons were performed between treatment groups: BV/Ipi(A-C arms) and BV/Nivo (D-F arms). Results: 9/23 (BV/Ipi) and 6/19 (BV/Nivo) pts completed 10 cycles. For BV/Ipi vs. BV/nivo, ToxC provides overall incidence rates (any grade): fatigue 52% vs 26% (p=0.09); PSN 61% vs 53%; NV 70% vs 53% ; RS 65% vs. 37% (p=0.07); diarrhea 57% vs. 21% (p=0.02); ocular 17% vs. 21% ; and hair loss 17% vs. 0% (p=0.06), respectively. Gr3 AE occurred in 1 pt (2.4%) each for PSN, NV, diarrhea, and 6 pts (14.3%) for RS, and were similar between BV/ipi and BV/nivo. AUC from ToxT which captures chronic lower grade AEs suggested for BV/Ipi: diarrhea (p=0.02) and NV (p=0.03) are significantly more substantial over time with a trend seen for fatigue (p=0.07), RS (p=0.07) and hair loss (p=0.07) . Additionally, ToxT captures the trajectory of AEs, demonstrated a rising incidence and worsening grade of PSN (BV-related) on BV/Ipi (c1: 9% gr1, c2: 21% gr1 5% gr2, c5: 11% gr1 and c10: 22% gr2 [p=0.005], Fig 1a). In contrast there was a slow but significant decreasing incidence of NV on both combinations; for BV/Nivo (c1:52% gr1, c5: 26% gr1 and c10: 22% gr1) and BV/Ipi (c1: 47% gr1 ,c5: 0% and c10 1% gr1) with p=0.006 (Fig 1b). RS and diarrhea appear early on treatment and are not cumulative (Fig1c and 1d). There is no significant difference in the time to gr 2+ toxicities in any of the 7 AE. Combining all 7 AEs and using the maximum grade as a pilot measure of overall AE burden , ToxC indicates no difference in any grade (100% vs 100%) but a significantly higher gr 3+ incidence (35% vs. 11%) for BV/Ipi. Additionally, ToxT further elucidates that BV/Ipi is associated with significantly higher overall AE over time (Fig 2a, p=0.02) and compared to BV/Nivo a significantly higher risk of developing gr 2+ toxicity ( 57% vs 16% gr2 + event by day 50) (HR=0.41, p=0.02, Fig 2b). Conclusions: The CBT therapies Ipi and Nivo, in combination with BV, are overall both well tolerated over time, although BV/Ipi has a higher overall AE burden. Neither regimen has significant cumulative immune toxicity. Results of this analysis should be interpreted in the context of limited number of pts in both cohorts. A larger scale examination of this analysis is planned to incorporate both phase 1 and the ongoing phase 2 components of E4412. Compared with conventional tox analysis, ToxT delineated important additional and clinically relevant depictions of AEs over time and adds a more comprehensive assessment of the tolerability of chronically administered immune therapies for lymphoma. Disclosures Hong: Merck: Consultancy. Ansell:Regeneron: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding. Cohen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Advani:Kura: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Autolus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Kyowa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Millenium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Agensys: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity: Research Funding; Forty Seven Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck, Takeda, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Bayer: Research Funding. Svoboda:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy. Karmali:AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Witzig:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dueck:Bayer: Employment; Phytogine: Employment; Pfizer: Honoraria. Kahl:Genentech: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Diefenbach:Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Denovo: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Relapsed/refractory (R/R) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) remains a significant clinical challenge. We hypothesized that using immune checkpoint blockade to activate the immune cells in the tumor microenvironment, and concurrently targeting tumor cells with the CD30 targeting antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin (BV) could overcome tumor resistance. E4412 is a Phase 1/2 ECOG-ACRIN sponsored study of the combinations of BV, nivolumab (Nivo), and ipilimumab (Ipi) in patients with R/R HL. Here we present the preliminary safety and response data on the full cohort of patients treated in Phase 1 with BV + Ipi + Nivo (Arms G-I). Methods: Patients with confirmed R/R HL were treated with Nivo 3mg/kg, Ipi 1mg/kg and BV 1.2mg/kg (Arm G) or 1.8mg/kg (Arm H) with a 3+3 design, and an expansion cohort (Arm I) of 9 patients with BV at 1.8mg/kg. BV and Nivo are given every 21 days for 16 cycles; Nivo may be continued for an additional 12 months. Ipi is given every 12 weeks except for the first 2 patients in Arm G who received Ipi every 6 weeks for the first 3 cycles. Dose limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined within the first cycle of therapy. Results: As of 6/30/18 22 patients with a median of 2 prior therapies (range 1-5) have been treated; 7 in Arm G, 6 in Arm H, and 9 in Arm I. Median age was 35, range (19-60); 11 patients were male. Nine patients had prior SCT (1 alloSCT, 8 autoSCT); 1 patient had prior BV. Safety: All 22 enrolled patients are evaluable for safety. There were 3 DLTs, one in each arm. In Arm G one patient experienced grade 4 diabetic ketoacidosis and hyperglycemia, and went off treatment after cycle 1. In Arm H, one patient had transient grade 3 AST elevation; this was of no clinical significance and did not require a delay in therapy. In Arm I a post AlloSCT patient had grade 4 Steven-Johnson syndrome with grade 3 pruritis, rash, and GVHD, and came off therapy. Common toxicities considered at least possibly related to drug, are shown in Table 1, and grade 3 or greater toxicity in Table 2. There were no grade 5 AEs or additional grade 4 AEs. Significant grade 3 AEs were: rash, colitis, gastritis, pancreatitis, and arthritis each in one patient, resulting in dose delays but not discontinuation of therapy. One patient experienced grade 2 angioedema in cycle 1 and came off therapy. No significant infusion reactions were noted. Response: Nineteen of 22 patients are evaluable for response. Three patients discontinued treatment after cycle 1 and are not evaluable for response. For the full population the overall response rate (ORR) was 82% (18/22), with a complete response (CR) rate of 68% (15/22). For patients treated with at least 3 cycles of therapy who were evaluable for response, the ORR is 95% (18/19) with a CR rate of 79% (15/19). Six patients went from treatment to SCT. With a median follow-up of 0.52 years median progression free survival (PFS) has not been reached (Figure 1), and with a median follow-up of 0.82 years overall survival (OS) has not been reached (Figure 2). Conclusion: In this study of the triplet combination of BV, Ipi and Nivo for R/R HL, therapy was generally well tolerated, although more grade 3 AEs were seen than in the doublets. In a heavily pretreated patient population, with 9 patients post SCT, the ORR of 95% and CR rate of 79% in evaluable patients is extremely promising. Data will be updated to include longer term PFS and OS by the time of the meeting. Optimization of this strategy is ongoing in E4412, now a randomized phase 2 study comparing the doublet of BV-Nivo to the triplet of BV-Ipi-Nivo. Disclosures Diefenbach: Trillium: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hong:Merck: Consultancy. Cohen:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Advani:Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Autolus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cell Medica: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Agensys: Research Funding; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Gilead/Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Kyowa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Forty Seven: Research Funding. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck, Takeda, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Bayer: Research Funding. Svoboda:Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy. Karmali:AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Kahl:Genentech: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Ansell:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Genetic alterations at 9p24.1 resulting in overexpression of programmed death-1 (PD-1) ligands are near-universal in cHL (Roemer et al, J Clin Oncol 2016); cHL may thus be uniquely sensitive to PD-1 blockade. Nivolumab (nivo), an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody, was associated with an objective response rate (ORR) of 69% in relapsed/refractory (R/R) cHL after auto-HCT and irrespective of prior brentuximab vedotin (BV) in the phase 2 CheckMate 205 study (Armand et al, J Clin Oncol 2018; NCT02181738). Whether some patient (pts) can derive very long clinical benefit, whether depth of response predicts long-term outcome, whether treatment (Tx) can be interrupted in complete remission (CR), and whether the safety profile of nivo in R/R cHL changes with prolonged Tx all remain unclear. We therefore present an updated analysis of CheckMate 205, focusing on long-term efficacy and safety. Methods: This international, single-arm, multi-cohort study enrolled pts aged ≥18 y with R/R cHL after auto-HCT. Pts were BV naïve (Cohort A), had prior BV failure after auto-HCT (Cohort B), or had received BV before and/or after auto-HCT (Cohort C). Pts received nivo 3 mg/kg every 2 wk until disease progression (PD)/unacceptable toxicity. Pts in Cohort C discontinued nivo after 1 y in CR and could resume if they relapsed within 2 y of the last dose. Primary endpoint was ORR per independent radiology review committee (IRC); additional endpoints included duration of response (DOR) per IRC, progression-free survival (PFS) per IRC, overall survival (OS), and safety. Time to next Tx (TTNT: time from first dose to next systemic Tx or death) was an exploratory post-hoc analysis. Responses were assessed using International Working Group 2007 criteria. Results: In total, 243 pts were enrolled to Cohorts A (n=63), B (n=80), and C (n=100). Baseline characteristics have been previously described (Armand et al, J Clin Oncol 2018). At data cut-off, minimum follow-up was 31 mo and 49 pts (20%) were still on Tx; the most common reason for discontinuation was PD (35%). Median duration of Tx was 14 mo. ORR per IRC was 71% (65%, 71%, 75% in Cohorts A, B, C, respectively) with a best overall response (BOR) of CR in 21% (32%, 14%, 20% in Cohorts A, B, C, respectively). Among 51 pts who achieved CR, 20 had CR as the first response and 31 improved from partial remission (PR), mostly (n=28/31) within 1 year of first PR. Median time to response was 2 mo, and to CR was 4 mo. Within the first 6, 12, and 18 mo, 68%, 71%, and 71% of pts, respectively, achieved a response. Median DOR was 18 mo overall, and was 32 and 13 mo in pts with a BOR of CR and PR, respectively. Among responders, 64%, 44%, 31%, and 21% of pts had a DOR of at least 6, 12, 18, and 24 mo, respectively. Overall, 11 pts in Cohort C discontinued with persistent investigator-assessed CR; 2 reinitiated nivo due to PD. Median (95% CI) PFS per IRC among all pts was 15 (11-19) mo (Figure A), and was 17, 12 and 15 mo in Cohorts A, B, and C, respectively. Median OS was not reached in any cohort; 24-mo OS rates were 90%, 86%, and 86% in Cohorts A, B, and C, respectively, and were similar among pts in CR, PR, or with stable disease (SD; Figure B). Median TTNT was 29, 27, and 20 mo in Cohorts A, B, and C, respectively. The most common Tx-related adverse events (AEs) of any grade (G) were fatigue (24%), diarrhea (16%), and rash (12%), each <1% G3-4. Tx-related infections were reported in 15% of pts, 2% G3-4. Tx-related infusion related reactions were reported in 34 pts (14%), <1% G3-4. The most commonly reported immune-mediated AE category was rash, which was G3-4 in 4 pts (2%). In total, 26 pts (11%) experienced an AE of any cause leading to discontinuation. There were no Tx-related deaths. Conclusions: With the longest phase 2-3 study follow-up of a checkpoint inhibitor in R/R cHL to date, nivo was associated with frequent and durable responses regardless of BV Tx history. More than 1 in 5 responders remained in response ≥2 years later. With extended follow-up, additional pts achieved CR in all cohorts. Pts with CR had longer PFS than pts with PR or SD. However, pts with both PR and SD had prolonged OS, unlike pts with PD, which may suggest that clinical benefit duration is not well predicted by conventional response criteria. Nivo continued to be well tolerated, with no new safety signals. Characteristics of long-term responders will be presented. Study support: BMS. Medical writing: A Gill, Caudex, funded by BMS Figure. Figure. Disclosures Armand: Infinity: Consultancy; Affimed: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Otsuka: Research Funding; Adaptive: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Tensha: Research Funding. Younes:Celgene: Honoraria; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; J&J: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Curis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Zinzani:PFIZER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; PFIZER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Honoraria, 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; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Speakers Bureau; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SERVIER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Collins:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celleron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding. Ramchandren:Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cohen:Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. De Boer:Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; EISA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kuruvilla:Lundbeck: Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation: Research Funding; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Canada: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Trněný:F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Sandoz: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board. Shipp:Merck: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Sacchi:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sumbul:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Ansell:Trillium: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: The phase 2 CheckMate 205 study (NCT02181738) of nivolumab (nivo) has demonstrated high objective response rates (ORRs), durable efficacy, prolonged overall survival (OS), and an acceptable safety profile in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL) after failure of autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT) irrespective of prior brentuximab vedotin (BV) treatment (Armand et al, J Clin Oncol 2018). Atypical response patterns have been observed with checkpoint inhibitors, and clinical benefits may be experienced by pts who are treated beyond progression (TBP) as defined by conventional criteria (Cheson et al, Blood 2016; Younes et al, Ann Oncol 2017). Stable reductions in tumor burden without symptoms of active disease were seen in pts TBP in CheckMate 205, suggesting that pts might continue to derive clinical benefits from nivo beyond disease progression. As TBP was an option for some pts in CheckMate 205, we report here updated outcomes of those pts. Methods: This single-arm, multicenter study enrolled pts (age ≥18 y) with R/R cHL after failure of auto-HCT into 3 cohorts (A: BV naïve; B: BV after auto-HCT; C: BV before and/or after auto-HCT). Nivo was administered at 3 mg/kg IV every 2 wk until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (or after 1 year in complete response [CR] for cohort C). Response was assessed by 2007 International Working Group (IWG) criteria. A protocol amendment allowed pts with stable performance status and perceived clinical benefit to be TBP per investigator assessment. Tumor burden after initial progression was assessed; exploratory analyses included OS and time to next therapy (TTNT). Pts TBP were further categorized as PD-1 resistant (failure to achieve CR/partial response [PR] during initial treatment with nivo or CR/PR with subsequent progressive disease [PD] ≤90 d of response) and non-resistant pts (CR/PR followed by PD >90 d from response). Results: At data cutoff, 130 pts had PD, among whom 80 (62%) were TBP, and 50 (38%) were not (non-TBP). Demographics of pts TBP and non-TBP were similar to the overall study population, although more pts TBP had ECOG performance status of 0 at baseline (59% vs 36%) and stage IV disease at diagnosis (30% vs 22%), but fewer had B symptoms at baseline (23% vs 30%). In pts TBP vs non-TBP, the cause of initial progression was new lesions in 50 (63%) vs 23 (46%), increased total tumor burden in 17 (21%) vs 11 (22%), and non-target lesion progression in 19 (24%) vs 4 (8%) (pts could have multiple reasons for progression). ORR prior to progression was similar between TBP (54%) and non-TBP (64%) pts. At data cutoff, the median (range) doses of nivo given beyond progression was 11 (1-64) and median TBP duration was 5 (95% CI: 3, 7) mo. Nine (11%) pts TBP remained on treatment compared with 2 (4%) non-TBP. The most common reason for discontinuation was further disease progression in 55 (69%) and 28 (56%) pts TBP and non-TBP, respectively. The majority of pts TBP (37/67 evaluable pts) had stable or reduced target lesion tumor burden and most had sustained further reduction compared with the burden presented at the time of disease progression (Figure). There was no discernible difference in the response to TBP between PD-1 resistant vs non-resistant pts. Median OS for pts TBP was not reached; 1- and 2-yr OS (95% CI) was 94% (85, 97) and 87% (77, 93), respectively. Median TTNT was 20 (95% CI: 14, 24) mo for all pts TBP. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 50% of pts after progression vs 68% prior to progression. The most common TRAEs reported after progression were fatigue (8%) and increased lipase (6%). Treatment-related serious AEs after progression were reported in 2 (3%) pts: aspartate aminotransferase increase (n=1) and hypercalcemia (n=1). No deaths occurred in pts TBP. Conclusions: Among pts treated beyond investigator-assessed progression, most commonly due to development of new lesions, continued reductions in tumor burden were observed in a majority with further nivo treatment irrespective of prior PD-1 resistance status. Nivo continued to be well tolerated during TBP with no new safety signals. Pts who have stable performance status despite progression according to conventional criteria may derive continued clinical benefit from TBP. Future work will focus on identifying subsets of pts TBP who may benefit the most from continued nivo treatment. Study support: BMS. Disclosures Cohen: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kuruvilla:Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Canada: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria. Ansell:Celldex: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Younes:Abbvie: Honoraria; J&J: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Curis: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; Genentech: Research Funding. Trněný:Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Sandoz: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board. Ramchandren:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Collins:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celleron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Zinzani:Astra Zeneca: Speakers Bureau; PFIZER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; PFIZER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SERVIER: Honoraria, 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; Celltrion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. De Boer:EISA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Shipp:Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Bayer: Research Funding. Sacchi:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sy:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Armand:Otsuka: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Tensha: Research Funding.

Abstract PURPOSE Urgency to initiate therapy has to be weighed against the time required for screening and consenting to enroll a patient onto a clinical trial. Exclusion of patients with rapidly progressive or symptomatic disease may lead to selection of patients with less aggressive disease. We recently identified that a short diagnosis to treatment interval (DTI) is associated with adverse clinical factors and inferior outcome in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (Maurer et al, JCO 2018); shorter time to treatment was also found to be associated with outcome in other aggressive lymphomas, including mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), in the National Cancer Database (Olszewski et al, BJH 2018). Here we assess the association of DTI with clinical variables and outcome in MCL from an observational cohort with validation in patients enrolled on an NCTN clinical trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS Newly diagnosed patients with MCL were prospectively enrolled in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER), now a subcohort of the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Cohort Study. Patients initially managed with observation were excluded. DTI was defined as the time in days from date of first lymphoma-containing biopsy to the initiation of therapy. Associations of DTI with clinical factors and outcome were examined using a 14 day split based on the previous MER study of DTI in DLBCL. Odds ratios (OR) and Cox model hazard ratios (HR) are reported. Outcome was assessed using event-free survival (EFS) where events were defined as progression/relapse, initiation of new anti-lymphoma therapy, or death due to any cause. A validation cohort was assembled from patients enrolled in CALGB (Alliance) clinical trial 50403. Protocol therapy was high dose chemotherapy with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) consolidation and post-ASCT rituximab followed by bortezomib as either consolidation or maintenance. DTI was defined as time from diagnosis to study registration and outcome was assessed using progression-free survival (PFS) as defined on the clinical trial. RESULTS 271 patients with MCL enrolled in the MER from 2002-2015 and initiated treatment within 100 days of diagnosis. Median age at diagnosis was 64 years (range 36-76), 211 (78%) were male, and 92% were stage III-IV; MIPI was Low (41%), Intermediate (36%) and High (23%). Induction therapy was R-CHOP based (50%), B-R based (16%), HyperCVAD based (8%), 2-CDA based (11%), and other (15%). Median EFS of the cohort was 41 months (95% CI: 34-46). Median DTI was 26 days (IQR: 14-38) and 28% enrolled within 14 days of diagnosis, exhibiting a longer DTI than DLBCL patients enrolled in the MER during the same time period. Short DTI (0-14 days) was associated with adverse clinical factors including ECOG PS 2-4 (OR=5.74, 95% CI: 2.51-13.1, p<0.0001), elevated LDH (OR=2.30 95% CI: 1.25-4.22, p=0.0072), and higher MIPI score (OR=1.48, 95% CI: 1.04-2.07, p=0.025) but was not significantly associated with age, sex, B-symptoms, or stage (all p>0.30). Short DTI was also associated with inferior EFS (HR=1.78, 95% CI: 1.27-2.49, p=0.0008) which remained significant after adjusting for MIPI score (HR=1.72, 95% CI: 1.23-2.41, p=0.0016). In the validation cohort, 144 patients enrolled on 50403 within 100 days of diagnosis from 2006-2010. Median age at diagnosis was 59 years (range 29-69), 77% were male, and 97% were stage III-IV; MIPI was Low (51%), Intermediate (31%) and High (17%). Median PFS of the cohort was 84 months (95% CI: 50-109). Median DTI was 35 days (IQR: 22-46) and 11% enrolled within 14 days of diagnosis. Short DTI (0-14 days) was associated with PS (OR=9.00, 95% CI: 1.18-69.0, p=0.034) and) higher MIPI score (OR=2.09, 95% CI: 1.08-4.04, p=0.029) but not elevated LDH (OR=1.27, 95% CI: 0.43-3.74, p=0.66). Short DTI was associated with inferior PFS (HR=2.21, 95% CI:1.19-4.09, p=0.011) which remained clinically significant after adjusting for MIPI score (HR=1.85, 95% CI: 0.98-3.47, p=0.056). CONCLUSION A short diagnosis-to-treatment interval is strongly associated with adverse clinical factors and poor outcome in newly diagnosed MCL in the MER. Clinical trials are encouraged to facilitate enrollment of patients with short DTI to avoid potential selection bias. Support: U01 CA195568, P50 CA097274, U10CA180821, U10CA180882; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00310037 (CALGB 50403) Figure. Figure. Disclosures Maurer: Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding. Kaplan:Bayer Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Cohen:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding. Martin:Gilead: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Kahl:Abbvie: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Bartlett:ImaginAB: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Cerhan:Celgene: Research Funding; Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Nanostring: Research Funding. Leonard:Karyopharm: Consultancy; Biotest: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; United Therapeutics: Consultancy.

Abstract Classical Hodgkin lymphomas (cHLs) include infrequent malignant Hodgkin Reed-Sternberg (HRS) cells within an extensive but ineffective inflammatory/immune cell infiltrate. HRS cells exhibit frequent copy number alterations (CNAs) of 9p24.1/CD274 (PD-L1)/PDCD1LG2(PD-L2), ranging from low-level polysomy to relative copy gain and high-level amplification, all associated with increased expression of programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) ligands on the tumor cell. PD-1 ligands engage the PD-1 receptor on T cells, inhibiting T cell activation and anti-tumor immune responses. cHL patients (pts) with the highest-level 9p24.1 alterations, PD-L1/PD-L2 amplification, have inferior progression-free survival (PFS) after standard primary chemotherapy (Roemer et al. J Clin Oncol 2016). Given the demonstrated responsiveness of cHL to PD-1 blockade, we examined the prevalence and type of 9p24.1 genetic alterations, PD-L1 expression, and association of these alterations with clinical outcome in pts receiving nivolumab (nivo; anti-PD-1) for relapsed/refractory (R/R) cHL. CheckMate205 is a multicenter, multicohort, phase 2 trial of nivo in R/R cHL. This analysis focused on 2 cohorts: pts with recurrent cHL following autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and subsequent brentuximab vedotin (BV) (cohort B), and pts with R/R cHL following ASCT and BV given pre- or post-ASCT (cohort C). Pts received nivo 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Best overall response (BOR) and PFS were assessed by an independent radiological review committee (IRRC). In pts with available tumor biopsies, 9p24.1 genetic alterations were evaluated via fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay; probes encompassed CD274 (PD-L1, red) or PDCD1LG2 (PD-L2, green)and included a centromeric control (aqua).Dual immunohistochemical staining of PD-L1/PAX5 was performed to delineate PD-L1 expression in PAX5dim+ HRS cells and PAX5- cells in the tumor microenvironment. A modified PD-L1 H-score (range 0-300) was calculated by multiplying the percentage of PAX5+ (malignant) or PAX5- (non-malignant) cells with positive staining (0-100%) and the average intensity of positive staining (1-3+; ≥50 RS cells counted). All p-values are nominal. 96 pts had evaluable baseline tumor biopsy specimens; all 96 had detectable 9p24.1 alterations: polysomy in 10/96 (10%), copy gain in 56/96 (58%), amplification in 28/96 (29%), and presumptive rearrangement (split-apart FISH signal) in 2/96 (2%) (Figure). There was a significant association between PD-L1 protein expression (H-score) and the level of 9p24.1 alterations in HRS cells (p=0.002) (Figure). We next evaluated the association between BOR and defined 9p24.1 alterations and PD-L1 H-scores. The level of 9p24.1 CNAs was significantly associated with BOR (p=0.01); no pts with progressive disease (PD) had genomic amplification and no pts with complete response (CR) had polysomy. Similarly, there was significant association between PD-L1 H-score in HRS cells and BOR (p=0.02); all pts with PD had PD-L1 H-scores in quartiles (Q) 1/2, whereas most pts with CR had PD-L1 H-scores in Q4. We also assessed the association of PFS with 9p24.1 status and PD-L1 H-scores. The level of 9p24.1 alterations was associated with PFS; pts with 9p24.1 amplification had the most favorable PFS with nivo. HRS cell PD-L1 H-score (by quartiles) was also significantly associated with PFS (p=0.048), as pts with PD-L1 H-scores in Q1/Q2 had significantly shorter PFS than those with scores in Q3/Q4 (p=0.01). In contrast, there was no association between PD-L1 expression on non-malignant cells in the tumor microenvironment and PFS (p=0.43). In conclusion, all evaluable pts in this study had genetic alterations of 9p24.1/PD-L1/PD-L2 and copy number-dependent increased expression of PD-L1 in HRS cells. Although high-level alterations of 9p24.1 and increased PD-L1 expression were previously linked with inferior response to standard primary chemotherapy, we now associate these parameters with more favorable outcomes to targeted PD-1 blockade. These analyses also highlight the importance of quantifying and delineating PD-L1 expression in HRS cells and non-malignant cells in the tumor microenvironment in cHL biopsy evaluation. While further research is needed to guide possible use in clinical practice, these data advance understanding of 9p24.1 alterations and PD-L1 expression as prognostic biomarkers in cHL. Disclosures Engert: Takeda, BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Zinzani:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celegene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Timmerman:Bristol-Myers Squibb, Kite Pharma, Valor Biopharmaceuticals, Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Genmab, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Ansell:BMS, Seattle Genetics, Merck, Celldex and Affimed: Research Funding. Armand:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Sequenta Inc: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Kuruvilla:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Roche Canada: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria. Cohen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Collins:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Trneny:Roche, Celgene, Takeda, Janssen, Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche, Celgene: Research Funding. Farsaci:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Kato:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Sumbul:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Rodig:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Perkin Elmer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shipp:Bayer: Research Funding; Merck, Gilead, Takeda: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Cell Signaling: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding.

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

Background:Up to 30% of newly diagnosed patients (pts) with advanced‐stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) are not cured by multi‐agent chemotherapy. High expression of the programmed death‐1 (PD‐1) ligands in these pts, associated with frequent genetic alterations at chromosome 9p24.1 in Hodgkin Reed‐Sternberg cells, supports the investigation of front‐line PD‐1 blockade in cHL (Roemer MG et al. J Clin Oncol 2016). Promising activity and acceptable safety was previously reported in newly diagnosed pts with advanced‐stage cHL treated with nivolumab, an anti–PD‐1 immune checkpoint inhibitor monoclonal antibody, followed by nivolumab plus doxorubicin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (N‐AVD) at a 9‐month follow‐up of Cohort D of the CheckMate 205 study (NCT02181738; Ramchandren R et al. EHA 2018).Aims:To further characterize the efficacy, including post hoc Deauville assessment, and safety of nivolumab followed by N‐AVD in pts with newly diagnosed advanced‐stage cHL with 2‐year extended follow‐up of CheckMate 205 Cohort D.Methods:Pts ≥ 18 years of age with newly diagnosed advanced‐stage cHL (stage IIB with unfavorable risk factors, III, or IV) received 4 doses of nivolumab monotherapy (240 mg IV every 2 weeks) followed by N‐AVD combination therapy for 6 cycles (12 doses). Primary endpoint was safety; secondary endpoints included complete remission (CR) rate per independent review committee (IRC) at end of study therapy (EOT) using 2007 International Working Group criteria. Complete metabolic response (CMR) was defined as a Deauville score of ≤ 3 (PET negative). Overall survival (OS) and modified progression‐free survival (PFS) were exploratory endpoints; PFS was assessed in a post hoc analysis.Results:Fifty‐one pts were treated (median age 37 years); minimum follow‐up was 24.4 months at data cutoff. Other baseline characteristics have been previously described (Ramchandren R et al. EHA 2018). Monotherapy was completed by 49/51 (96%) pts, combination therapy by 45/50 (90%); 48 pts entered follow‐up. After 2 combination cycles, CR rate was 51% per IRC (71% CMR) and 71% per investigator; at EOT, CR rate was 69% (75% CMR) per IRC and 80% per investigator. At 21 months, modified PFS rate per investigator was 80% (95% CI, 66–89) and PFS rate per investigator was 83% (95% CI, 69–91; Figure). Overall, 30 (59%) pts experienced grade 3–4 TRAEs, most commonly neutropenia in 21 (41%). The most common grade 3–4 immune‐mediated AE was hepatitis (2 pts, 4%). No grade 5 TRAEs occurred ≤ 30 days from last dose; 2 deaths were reported during the extended follow‐up: 1 pt (age 68 years) died 38 days after last dose due to study drug toxicity; another (age 85 years) died 451 days after last dose due to disease progression.Summary/Conclusion:With extended follow‐up, nivolumab followed by N‐AVD demonstrated a 21‐month PFS rate of 83% per investigator, a high metabolic response rate with 75% CMR at EOT per IRC, with no new safety signals. Incorporation of Deauville assessment improved the concordance of CR between IRC‐ and investigator‐assessed responses. Nivolumab followed by N‐AVD provides a promising alternative treatment option in newly diagnosed advanced‐stage cHL.image