Colgan, Joseph P.

Abstract Introduction: Immune suppression is a major component of lymphoma pathogenesis. Recent advances in lymphoma treatment have been immunotherapy. We present the preliminary results of our clinical trial testing 2 vaccine strategies in patients with indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). The primary objective is to determine the safety and feasibility of the vaccine approaches and secondary objectives are to describe clinical responses and identify corresponding immune changes. Methods: Autologous mature dendritic cells (mDC) were manufactured from leukapheresed cells of NHL pts. For patients with tumor lymph nodes deemed amenable to cryoablation by interventional radiologist (arm A), they received cryoablation of a node and injection of mDC into the cryoablated node followed by another 1 to 7 intratumoral mDC injections. Remaining patients had a tumor excised to generate tumor lysate ex vivo. mDC were pulsed with tumor lysate during DC maturation (arm B; DC-TL). The DC-TL vaccines were injected intradermally for 4 to 8 doses. Patients are monitored for one year after vaccines for adverse events and systemic tumor response. Correlative studies include cellular immune phenotype of peripheral blood and T cell intracellular cytokine productions. Planned accrual is 10 patients per arm (total = 20). Results: To date, 10 patients have accrued to arm A and 5 patients to arm B (Table 1). All pts tolerated vaccine treatments without major adverse events. Of the 10 evaluable patients, there were 1 CR (arm B: 1 / 4; total: 1/6) and 4 PR (arm A: 3/6; arm B: 1 / 4; total: 4/10) for an ORR of 50% for both arms (Figure 1). Time to next treatment ranged from 6.5 to 25 months (Figure 2). Correlative studies suggest that immune changes can be used as prognostic biomarkers to predict response. These include changes in vaccine induced cytokine secretion, and in the number and composition of the immune system. In addition, preliminary analysis of >40 immune phenotypes using flow cytometry and hierarchical clustering suggest there are characteristic immune system responses in patients responding to vaccine. Conclusions: Both cryoablation and intratumoral mDC vaccination are feasible and safe in NHL. Treatment responses may correlate with immune system changes. Biosystems analysis method can be used to develop novel assays as predictive biomarkers of treatment response and used to develop novel protocols that allow treating to response. Table 1. Patient Demographics Arm A (n = 10) Arm B (n = 5) Total (n = 15) Age (median, rage) 64 (55 – 80) 60 (31 – 86) 63 (31 – 86) Gender (M/F) 6/4 2/3 8/7 Histology (n, %) Follicular Marginal zone DLBCL 10 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (60%) 1 (20%) 1(20%) 13 (86.6%) 1 (6.7%) 1 (6.7%) Stage (N, %) II III IV 1 (10%) 1 (10%) 8 (80%) 2 (40%) 1 (20%) 2 (40%) 3 (20%) 2 (13.3%) 10 (66.7%) No of prior Tx (mean, range) 2.4 (0-8) 3.2 (0-7) 2.7 (0-8) FLIPI (n, %) 0-1 2 ≥ 3 1 (10%) 2 (20%) 7 (70%) 1 (20%) 2 (40%) 2 (45%) 2 (13.3%) 4 (26.7%) 9 (60%) Positive GELF criteria (n, %) 4 (40%) 1 (20%) 5 (30%) Figure 1. Waterfall plot. Figure 1. Waterfall plot. Figure 2. Time to next treatment. Figure 2. Time to next treatment. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Introduction Outcomes have improved in treating lymphoid malignancies but relapse remains an ongoing issue. The mTOR inhibitor, everolimus (RAD) and lenalidomide (LEN) have both shown clinically significant activity as single agents in patients with relapsed and refractory (R/R) Hodgkin (HL) and non-Hodgkin (NHL) lymphomas. The low toxicity and differing mechanisms of action were explored further by combining these active agents. A phase I/II clinical trial of the mTOR inhibitor everolimus (RAD) and lenalidomide (LEN) was designed to explore the tolerability, toxicity and to determine the MTD of this combination for Phase II study. The phase I data is reported here. Methods This Phase I/II trial for patients with R/R lymphoid malignancy opened at Mayo Clinic between January 2011 and May 2013 and utilized a standard cohort of 3+3 design to determine the MTD of the combination. Eligibility required age≥18, biopsy proven relapsed or refractory NHL or HL, ECOG PS 0, 1 or 2, measurable disease, Hb >9g/dl, ANC ≥1200/uL, platelet ≥ 50,000/uL, creatinine ≤1.5xULN and willingness to sign informed consent. Women of child bearing potential had pregnancy testing and all patients followed recommendations for contraception. Dose limiting toxicity was defined in cycle 1 as Gr 4 neutropenia ≥7days or platelets ≤ 25,000 ≥7days, grade 4 infection or grade ≥3 non-Heme toxicity at least possibly related to treatment per CTCAE v4.0. The starting dose (level 0) was RAD 5mg daily + LEN 10 mg/d X 21d in a 28-day cycle. Results Twenty-five patients were enrolled on the phase I portion and 23 are evaluable for analysis. The median age was 63 years (23-82) and 18 (78%) were male. Sixty-five percent had stage IV disease and 43% had 4 or more prior treatments (1- ≥5) including stem cell transplantation in 39%. Histologies included HL (n=3) and NHL (n=20)(DLBCL = 11, FL-III = 2, LPL = 3, MCL = 1, MF = 1, and other = 2). Two DLTs (rash, Gr4 neutropenia) were reported at the starting dose (level 0) and the protocol was amended for DLT definition change. At dose level -1 (RAD 5mg daily + LEN 5mg/d X 21d) a DLT (Gr4 neutropenia) was seen in only 1 of 6 patients so the study was re-opened to dose level 0 and 3 additional patients were treated without developing a DLT. At dose level +1 (RAD 5 mg daily + LEN 15mg/d X 21d) 1 Gr3 rash occurred and 2 patients experienced Gr4 neutropenia. Therefore the MTD was determined to be RAD 5mgdaily + LEN 10 mg/d X 21d. At least 1 Gr≥3 adverse event was seen in 91% of patients. The most common Gr≥3 toxicities were neutropenia (57%), leucopenia (52%), thrombocytopenia (39%), fatigue (22%), and anemia (13%). Eight of 23 patients (35%) had Gr≥3 infection. Five patients discontinued study due to adverse events. One death on study occurred due to disease progression. Three patients continue on therapy. Responses have been seen in 4 patients and 10 patients have stable disease, encouraging signs in this heavily pretreated population. Conclusions This phase I/II trial of everolimus and lenalidomide in malignant lymphoma shows the combination to be tolerable with neutropenia as the main dose limiting toxicity. The MTD of this combination is RAD 5mg daily and LEN 10 mg/d X 21 d. Encouraging responses were seen. The phase II study has opened with 2 patients accrued to date. Updated results will be presented. This trial is sponsored by Novartis and Celgene Disclosures: Reeder: Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding. Off Label Use: lenalidomide and everolimus are not approved for treatment of lymphoma. Nowakowski:Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Witzig:Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract The peripheral blood absolute lymphocyte/monocyte ratio at diagnosis (ALC/AMC-DX) predicts survival in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). However, a limitation of the ALC/AMC-DX is its inability to sequentially assess the host/tumor interaction during treatment. Therefore, we studied the ALC/AMC ratio, as a surrogate marker of host immunity (i.e., ALC) and tumor microenvironment (i.e., AMC), at each RCHOP treatment cycle as a predictor for clinical outcomes. From 2002 until 20011, 107 DLBCL patients originally diagnosed, treated with six cycles of RCHOP, and followed at Mayo Clinic qualified for the study. Using the receiver operating characteristic and internally validated using the k-fold cross validation; an ALC/AMC ratio ≥ 1.1 was identified as the cut-off value at each RCHOP treatment cycle to discriminate for the binary clinical outcome of death/survival. Univariate analysis revealed the ALC/AMC ratio ≥ 1.1 at each RCHOP treatment cycle was a predictor for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). To explore whether the patterns of ALC/AMC ratio recovery during the RCHOP treatment cycles had a prognostic value, we performed an unsupervised hierarchical clustering on the studied ALC/AMC ratio and identified four patient clusters, A-D. Eighty percent of patients in cluster C had an ALC/AMC ratio ≥ 1.1 during all the cycles, the other 20% had an ALC/AMC ratio ≥1.1 in one cycle; in cluster D patients, the ALC/AMC ratio was ≥ 1.1 between cycles 2 and 5 and none had an ALC/AMC ratio < 1.1; in cluster A patients, 73% of patients only had an ALC/AMC ratio ≥ 1.1 in one cycle and 27% in two cycles; and cluster B patients had 85% of patients with an ALC/AMC ratio < 1.1 during all the cycles. Inferior OS and PFS were progressively observed in clusters of patients with fewer cycles achieving an ALC/AMC ratio ≥ 1.1. Patients in clusters C had superior outcomes compared with patients in clusters B. Thus, we dichotomized patients into patients with an ALC/AMC ratio ≥ 1.1 during any cycle versus patients with an ALC/AMC ratio < 1.1 during all cycles. By multivariate analysis, the stratification of patients into ALC/AMC ≥ 1.1 during any cycle versus ALC/AMC < 1.1 during all cycles was an independent predictor for OS [Hazard ratio (HR) = 0.02, 95% CI (0.006-0.08), p< 0.0001], and PFS [HR = 0.06, 95% CI (0.02-0.15, p< 0.0001] when compared with the International Prognostic index The median OS for patients with an ALC/AMC ratio ≥ 1.1 during any cycle versus patients with an ALC/ACM ratio < 1.1 during all cycles was not reached versus 1.7 years with 5 years OS rates of 97% (95% CI, 90%-99%) versus 0%, p< 0.0001, respectively. The median PFS for patients with an ALC/AMC ratio ≥ 1.1 during any cycle versus patients with an ALC/AMC ratio < 1.1during all cycles was not reached versus 0.9 years with 5 years PFS rates of 83% (95% CI, 72%-90%) versus 0%, p< 0.0001, respectively. The ALC/AMC ratio during RCHOP treatment cycles is a predictor for survival and provides a platform to develop therapeutic modalities to manipulate the ALC/AMC ratio during chemotherapy to improve clinical outcomes in DLBCL. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Erdheim-Chester Disease (ECD) is a rare hematologic disease manifesting as granulomatous or fibrotic infiltration of long bones and non-skeletal tissues by non-Langerhans foamy histiocytic (CD68+, CD1a-, S100-) cells. The clinical presentation can be diverse and any organ can be affected. It is estimated that less than 500 cases have been reported in the literature. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients evaluated at Mayo Clinic from January 2001 to May 2014. A tissue biopsy review by pathologists at Mayo Clinic was necessary for inclusion in the study. In all cases, the diagnosis of ECD was confirmed using clinical criteria in conjunction with histopathologic findings. Clinical data such as patient characteristics, disease presentation, management strategies, treatment responses, and survival time were collected. RESULTS: Forty-five patients with confirmed ECD were included in our study. The median age at diagnosis was 53 years (range, 32-78), while the median age of onset of symptoms prior to diagnosis was 24 months (range, 1-180). There was a male predilection with a male to female ratio of 2.4. The duration of follow-up ranged from 1-168 months (median, 20). At the time of last follow-up, 38 patients were alive and 5 were dead, while the vital statuses of 2 patients were unknown. The median and mean survival times from the time of diagnosis were 150 and 130 months respectively. The median survival time from the time of symptom onset was not reached and mean time was 154 months (Figures 1A and 1B). Bone pain was the most common presenting symptom (27%). Other common presentations included diabetes insipidus (24%), abdominal pain (22%), B symptoms (13%), visual changes (13%), renal failure/obstruction (11%), pleural effusion (9%), other neurologic symptoms (9%), ataxia (7%), pericardial effusion (7%), edema (7%), dyspnea (7%), and hypertension (7%). The organs/sites involved were bone (80%), central nervous system (59%), kidneys (56%), lungs (38%), retroperitoneum (33%), heart (22%), sinuses (22%), bone marrow (14%), adrenal glands (13%), liver (11%), spleen (11%), and skin (16%). Only 18 (40%) patients had the diagnosis established by the first biopsy. The rest required multiple biopsies before the diagnosis was confirmed (median, 2; range, 1-5). Testing for BRAF V600Ewas performed in 12 patients and 8 (67%) tested positive for the mutation. Eight patients have not required ECD-specific treatment so far. Of the 37 patients who required treatment, the median number of treatments received was 2 (range, 1-7). The systemic treatments received and their response rates are summarized in Table 1. Four patients received radiotherapy but none responded. At the time of the last follow up, 5 patients with BRAFV600E were receiving treatment with vemurafenib or dabrafenib. However, follow-up is insufficient for proper assessment of response. CONCLUSIONS: ECD is an extremely rare diagnosis as exemplified in our retrospective analysis. The diagnosis is often challenging due to protean and diverse clinical presentation as well as frequent inconclusive initial biopsies. There is usually a long-latency period of smoldering symptoms leading to definitive diagnosis. A high level of suspicion is essential in order to make the diagnosis and BRAFmutation analysis should be considered an integral part of work up even if biopsy is non-diagnostic. Traditional oncologic systemic therapies and even novel rheumatologic anti-inflammatory agents generally have limited objective activity. BRAF inhibitors offer a novel treatment option and results of prospective studies are eagerly awaited. Abstract 1405. Table 1: Summary of Response to Various Treatment Modalities in Patients with ECD Therapeutic Agent Number of Patients Treated Response (%) Complete Response Partial Response Stable Disease No response Corticosteroids 11 0 0 9 91 Methotrexate 9 0 0 11 89 Cyclophosphamide 4 0 0 25 75 2-CDA 12 8 17 25 50 Interferon-α 8 0 29 14 57 Vinorelbine 4 0 50 0 50 Tumor necrosis-α factor Inhibitors 7 0 0 14 86 Interleukin-1 Receptor Antagonists 6 17 17 0 67 Tamoxifen 2 0 50 0 50 Radiotherapy 4 0 0 0 100 Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Off Label Use: We report among all treatments utilized at our institution for ECD including the use of steroids, immunosupressants, TNF blockers, interleukin-1 receptor antagonists, and BRAF inhibitors in patients with Erdheim Chester Disease. These treatments, though supported by other reports in the literature, have not been explicitly approved by the FDA for ECD..

SummaryHistological transformation (HT) of follicular lymphoma (FL) to an aggressive lymphoma after chemotherapy remains a key issue. The incidence of HT after radioimmunotherapy (RIT) is unknown. This single institution study analysed the risk of HT in FL after treatment with yttrium‐90 ibritumomab tiuxetan in 115 consecutive patients treated during 1987–2012. RIT was administered for progressive FL in 111 (97%) patients and as first‐line therapy in the remaining 4. 28% (n = 32) had HT, occurring at a median of 60 months from diagnosis and 20 months after RIT. 48% (12/25) of patients who received fludarabine developed HT. The estimated 10‐year risk of HT in the fludarabine and non‐fludarabine groups was 67% and 26% respectively (P = 0·015). Only prior fludarabine was significantly associated with predicting the risk of HT after RIT. 8% (9/115) of patients developed therapy‐related myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukaemia (tMDS/AML) at a median of 41·4 months (range, 5–89). The estimated 10‐year risk of tMDS/AML in non‐fludarabine treated patients (n = 90) versus fludarabine treated (n = 25) was 13% and 29%, respectively. The estimated overall risk of FL undergoing HT at 10 years without fludarabine exposure appears similar to patients reported in the literature that have not received RIT. Patients with prior purine‐analogue therapy are at significantly higher risk of HT.

64 Background: The goals of our Lymphoma Survivorship Clinic (SC) are to coordinate care, educate patients, and create a survivorship care plan (SCP). The aim of this study was to determine if patient-centered outcomes are improved after a SC visit. Methods: From 11/13-5/15, surveys were mailed to recently-treated lymphoma patients who were within 4 weeks of their last visit and in remission. Quality of life (QOL) was measured with PROMIS and distress was measured with the Impact of Events scale. Responses between those who attended SC and those who were eligible but did not attend were analyzed. Results: There were 96 surveys sent to the SC group; 59 were returned (61% response rate). Of the non-SC group, 140 surveys were sent and 84 were returned (60% response rate). Mean age was 57 years (range 23-77) in the SC group and 59 years (23-88) in the non-SC group. There were more females in the SC group (52% vs 30%) but no differences in race, marital status, education, or health literacy. Those who attended the SC were more likely to recall receiving a summary of cancer treatment and recommendations for follow-up care (90% SC vs. 75% non-SC, p = 0.03). Furthermore, SC attendees were more likely to “definitely” recall discussion on improving health or preventing illness (89% vs. 53%), getting help in making changes in habits/lifestyle (76% vs. 50%), diet (80% vs. 31%), and exercise (82% vs. 51%), all p < 0.001. There were no differences in discussions regarding smoking, follow-up testing, and symptom monitoring. The SC group was less likely to need more information regarding sexuality (6% vs 20%, p = 0.045). There were no differences in need for information regarding anxiety, fitness, familial cancer risk, fertility, complementary therapies, and social issues. The SC group was slightly more confident that they could get information or advice related to cancer (completely confident 76% vs. 61%, p = 0.07). There were no differences in QOL or distress. Conclusions: A Lymphoma SC visit increased receipt of SCP and provided more information on survivorship issues, particularly health behaviors, but did not improve QOL or distress. Further study is needed to determine if this leads to long-term health benefits.

AbstractPatients with indolent non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) have multiple treatment options yet there is no consensus as to the best initial therapy. Lenalidomide, an immunomodulatory agent, has single agent activity in relapsed lymphoma. This trial was conducted to assess feasibility, efficacy, and safety of adding lenalidomide to rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (LR‐CD) in untreated indolent NHL patients requiring therapy. This was a single institution phase II trial. Treatment consisted of IV rituximab 375 mg/m2 day 1; oral lenalidomide 20 mg days 1–21; cyclophosphamide 250 mg/m2 days 1, 8, and 15; and dexamethasone 40 mg days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of a 28‐day cycle. Treatment continued 2 cycles beyond best response for a maximum of 12 cycles without rituximab maintenance. Thirty‐three patients were treated. Median age was 68 (43–83 years). 39% had stage IV disease. Histologic subtypes included 8 follicular lymphoma (FL), 7 marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) (1 splenic, 2 extranodal, and 4 nodal), 15 Waldenström's macroglobulinemia (WM), 1 lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma, 1 small lymphocytic lymphoma, and 1 low‐grade B‐cell lymphoma with plasmacytic differentiation (unable to be classified better as MZL or LPL). Hematologic toxicity was the most common adverse event. Median time of follow‐up was 23.4 months (range 1.8–50.9). The overall response rate was 87.9%, with 30.3% complete response. The median duration of response was 38.7 months. The median progression free survival was 39.7 months, while median overall survival (OS) has not yet been reached. Lenalidomide can be safely added to a simple regimen of rituximab, oral cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone and is an effective combination as initial therapy for low‐grade B‐cell NHL.

AbstractRelapsed indolent lymphoma often becomes refractory to standard chemoimmunotherapy and requires new therapeutic strategies. Targeting the PI3K/mTOR pathway in several types of lymphoma has shown preclinical and clinical efficacy providing the rationale to test this strategy in the treatment of relapsed/refractory indolent lymphomas. We investigated in a phase II open label clinical trial the efficacy and safety of single agent everolimus, an inhibitor of mTORC1, in patients with relapsed/refractory indolent lymphomas. Eligible patients received oral everolimus 10 mg daily on a 28 day‐cycle schedule. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the overall response rate (ORR) and safety of single‐agent everolimus in this patient population. Fifty‐five patients with indolent lymphoma were accrued. The median age was 67 years (range: 33‐85) with a median of five prior therapies (range: 1‐10). The ORR was 35% (19/55; 95% CI: 24‐48%), with complete response unconfirmed in 4% (2/55), and partial response in 31% (17/55). The ORR was 61% (14/23) in the patients with FL. The median time to response was 2.3 months (range: 1.4‐14.1), median duration of response of 11.5 months (95%‐CI: 5.7‐30.4), and a median progression‐free survival of 7.2 months (95%‐CI: 5.5‐12.5). The most common toxicity was hematologic with grades 3‐4 anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia documented in 15% (8/55), 22% (12/55), and 33% (18/55), respectively. There were no cases of febrile neutropenia, and eight patients discontinued therapy because of adverse events. Everolimus monotherapy is a valid therapeutic option in the relapsed and/or refractory indolent non‐Hodgkin lymphoma patients and is well tolerated.