Fanale, Michelle A.

Abstract Introduction Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a heterogenous disease with varied expressions of CD30. Brentuximab vedotin (BV) is a CD30-directed antibody-drug conjugate approved for treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL in combination with lenalidomide (Len) and rituximab (R). In the phase 3 ECHELON-3 study (NCT04404283), BV + Len + R showed significant overall survival (OS) benefit compared with placebo + Len + R in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL. Subgroup analysis from this study showed that BV + Len + R provided clinical benefit regardless of CD30 expression level. We hypothesized that even sub-threshold levels of CD30 expression, below the detection limits of immunohistochemistry (IHC), may be sufficient to elicit the antitumor activity of BV. Here, we further investigated whether trace amounts of CD30 staining are required for patients to benefit from BV + Len + R. Methods In the ECHELON-3 study, patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL were randomized 1:1 to receive BV + Len + R or placebo + Len + R. The primary endpoint was OS, with progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR), per Lugano 2014, as key secondary endpoints. CD30 expression was assessed by IHC by central and/or local testing. CD30 positivity was scored as the percentage of CD30 positive cells out of neoplastic cells or out of total lymphocytes, when neoplastic cells could not be distinguished. In this updated analysis, patients with CD30 <1% staining by central laboratory IHC were further grouped into CD30 <1% with trace staining and CD30 <1% with no staining. Results Overall, 60 patients in the BV + Len + R group had CD30 <1% expression; of these, 34 had CD30 <1% with trace staining and 26 had CD30 <1% with no staining. In the placebo + Len + R group, 63 patients had CD30 <1% expression; of these, 36 had CD30 <1% with trace staining and 27 had CD30 <1% with no staining. In the overall CD30 <1% groups, numerically greater OS and PFS benefits were observed with BV + Len + R vs placebo + Len + R (HR for OS, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.36-0.89 and HR for PFS, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.34-0.82). In patients with CD30 <1% with trace staining, BV + Len + R showed a numerically higher OS compared with placebo + Len + R, with HR of 0.48 (95% CI, 0.26-0.90); median OS was 15.6 vs 5.2 months. In patients with CD30 <1% with no staining, there was a trend toward higher OS with BV + Len + R vs placebo + Len + R, with HR of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.34-1.28); median OS was 14.8 vs 11.8 months. Similarly, in patients with CD30 <1% with trace staining, BV + Len + R showed a trend toward longer PFS compared with placebo + Len + R, with HR of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.33-1.11); median PFS was 2.8 vs 1.5 months. In patients with CD30 <1% with no staining, a numerically longer PFS benefit was observed with BV + Len + R vs placebo + Len + R, with HR of 0.41 (95% CI, 0.21-0.79); median PFS was 4.2 vs 2.7 months. In the overall groups, ORR was 60.0% with BV + Len + R and 34.9% with placebo + Len + R. Higher ORR was observed with BV + Len + R compared with placebo + Len + R in both CD30 <1% with trace staining (55.9% vs 25.0%) and CD30 <1% with no staining (65.4% vs 48.1%) groups. Conclusions Results from this updated analysis indicate that visible CD30 detection by IHC is not required for response to BV + Len + R in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL. Treatment with BV + Len + R showed efficacy benefit compared with placebo + Len + R regardless of CD30 expression level, including in patients with no visible CD30 IHC staining. These results are consistent with those from the overall ECHELON-3 study population, in which significant improvement in OS was demonstrated with BV + Len + R compared with placebo + Len + R.

PURPOSE In patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), brentuximab vedotin (BV) as monotherapy or combined with either lenalidomide (Len) or rituximab (R) has demonstrated efficacy with acceptable safety. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of BV + Len + R versus placebo + Len + R in patients with R/R DLBCL. METHODS ECHELON-3 is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase 3 trial comparing BV + Len + R with placebo + Len + R in patients with R/R DLBCL. Patients received BV or placebo once every 3 weeks, Len once daily, and R once every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), and secondary end points included investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). A prespecified interim analysis was performed after 134 OS events, with two-sided P = .0232 as the efficacy boundary. RESULTS Patients (N = 230) were randomly assigned to receive BV + Len + R (n = 112) or placebo + Len + R (n = 118). Two patients in the placebo arm did not receive treatment. With a median follow-up of 16.4 months, the median OS was 13.8 months with BV + Len + R versus 8.5 months with placebo + Len + R (hazard ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.89]; two-sided P = .009). The median PFS was 4.2 months with BV + Len + R versus 2.6 months with placebo + Len + R (hazard ratio, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.73]; two-sided P < .001). The ORR was 64% ([95% CI, 55 to 73]; two-sided P < .001) with BV + Len + R and 42% (95% CI, 33 to 51) with placebo + Len + R; complete response rates were 40% and 19%, respectively. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) occurred in 97% of patients in both arms. In both arms, the most common treatment-emergent AEs were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, and anemia. CONCLUSION BV + Len + R demonstrated a statistically significant survival benefit with a manageable safety profile in heavily pretreated patients with R/R DLBCL.

Introduction Age correlates with survival in patients (pts) with DLBCL, which has a median age at diagnosis of 67 y. Recent therapeutic advances, including bispecifics and cell therapy, have promising efficacy, but safety and accessibility continue to be limited for older pts. The randomized, global, phase 3 ECHELON-3 study (NCT04404283) demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR) with brentuximab vedotin (BV) + lenalidomide (Len) + rituximab (R; BV+Len+R) vs placebo+Len+R in pts with R/R DLBCL after ≥ 2 prior systemic therapies who were ineligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant and/or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. Here, we present safety and efficacy in pts aged ≥65 y. Methods In ECHELON-3, pts were randomized 1:1 to receive BV (1.2 mg/kg) or placebo every 3 weeks (q3w), in combination with R (375 mg/m2) q3w and Len (20 mg) once daily. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was required in all cycles. Efficacy was assessed by investigators per Lugano 2014 classification. The primary endpoint was OS, with key secondary endpoints of PFS and ORR. Other secondary endpoints included detailed safety and tolerability. This subgroup analysis comprises pts aged ≥65 y. P values are descriptive. Results A total of 155 pts aged ≥65 y were enrolled from April 2021 to November 2023 and randomized to BV+Len+R (n=79) or placebo+Len+R (n=76). The median age was 75 y (range, 65-89 y); 54% of pts were male, 59% were White, and 19% were Asian. Twenty-three percent and 54% had Ann Arbor stage III and IV disease, respectively, and 64% had high-intermediate or high International Prognostic Index scores (3-5) at enrollment. The most common DLBCL subtype was DLBCL not otherwise specified (58%). Twenty-nine percent of pts had transformed DLBCL. Approximately half (49%) of pts had primary refractory disease, and 81% had disease refractory to their most recent prior line of therapy. Seventy percent of pts had &lt;1% CD30 expression via IHC; 48% of cases had germinal center B-cell origin. Prior CAR-T was reported in 21.9% of pts. At a median follow-up of 16.8 mo (95% CI, 14.3-19.5 mo), median OS was 15.9 mo (95% CI, 11.7 mo-not estimable [NE]) with BV+Len+R vs 8.5 mo (95% CI, 5.5-11.5 mo) with placebo+Len+R (hazard ratio [HR], 0.540; 95% CI, 0.351-0.830; P=.0043). Median PFS was 5.7 mo (95% CI, 4.1-12.7 mo) with BV+Len+R vs 2.8 mo (95% CI, 1.9-4.1 mo) with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.478; 95% CI, 0.318-0.718; P=.0003). ORR was 70.9% (95% CI, 59.6%-80.6%) with BV+Len+R vs 46.1% (95% CI, 34.5%-57.9%) with placebo+Len+R (P=.0020); complete response (CR) rate was 45.6% vs 19.7%, respectively. Median time to CR was 1.61 mo with both BV+Len+R and placebo+Len+R (range, 1.2-7.3 vs 0.7-4.6 mo, respectively). Median duration of CR was 18.9 mo (95% CI, 12.4 mo-NE) with BV+Len+R vs 5.4 mo (95% CI, 2.8 mo-NE) with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.416; 95% CI, 0.139-1.250). In total, 154 pts were evaluable for safety analysis (75 pts in placebo+Len+R group). The median number of cycles was 5 (range, 1-34) vs 3 (range, 1-31) in the BV+Len+R and placebo+Len+R groups, respectively. The percentage of pts with any treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was similar between groups (97% with BV+Len+R and 99% with placebo+Len+R); grade ≥3 TEAEs occurred in 89% of pts in the BV+Len+R group and 76% in the placebo+Len+R group. Serious TEAEs and TEAEs leading to death were reported more frequently in the BV+Len+R group (62% and 13%, respectively) than the placebo+Len+R group (47% and 8%, respectively). More pts discontinued study treatment due to TEAEs in the BV+Len+R group than the placebo+Len+R group (20% vs 8%). In total, 39% of pts on BV+Len+R had a peripheral neuropathy event vs 27% of pts on placebo+Len+R; however, the majority of cases were grade 1 (22% and 17%, respectively). Additional information on older pts will be presented. Conclusions BV+Len+R demonstrated a clinically meaningful improvement in all key efficacy outcomes in pts aged ≥65 y, which is consistent with the overall ECHELON-3 population (median age 74 y; 70.5% of pts aged ≥65 y in BV+Len+R group). Differences in some safety endpoints are likely attributable to longer duration of treatment in the BV+Len+R group. No clinically meaningful safety trends in pts aged ≥65 y were identified. These results suggest that BV+Len+R may be an effective treatment option in older pts with R/R DLBCL.

Introduction Patients (pts) with progressive disease after ≥2 prior lines of systemic therapy are unlikely to derive additional benefit from current salvage immunochemotherapies, and survival declines significantly with each subsequent treatment. Pts with refractory disease following second-line therapy have worse outcomes, with reported overall response rates (ORRs) of 1% to 14% and overall survival (OS) of 5 months (Blood. 2017;130[16]:1800-1808). While chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has become a preferred strategy in the second- and third-line settings, pts with R/R disease following CAR-T experience dismal survival, with progression-free survival (PFS) and OS as low as 3 and 5 months, respectively, and no agreed standard of care post CAR-T (Blood. 2022;140[24]:2527-2529). The randomized, global, phase 3 ECHELON-3 study (NCT04404283) was conducted in pts with R/R DLBCL after ≥2 prior therapies who were ineligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant and/or CAR-T. Here, we present subgroup analyses in pts with 2 prior lines of therapy, refractory disease, or prior CAR-T. Methods In these subgroup analyses of ECHELON-3, eligible pts had 2 prior lines of systemic therapy, disease refractory to the last prior therapy, or prior exposure to CAR-T. Pts could qualify for ≥1 subgroup and were analyzed separately. Refractory disease was defined as stable or progressive disease as best overall response to last line of treatment or relapse ≤6 months from the end of treatment. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive brentuximab vedotin (BV; 1.2 mg/kg) or placebo every 3 weeks (q3w), in combination with rituximab (R; 375 mg/m2) q3w and lenalidomide (Len; 20 mg) once daily. Efficacy was assessed by investigators per Lugano 2014 classification. The primary endpoint was OS, with key secondary endpoints of PFS and ORR. P values are descriptive. Results In total, 230 pts were enrolled in ECHELON-3 from April 2021 to November 2023, with a median follow-up of 16.4 months (range, 0.1-31.5 months). Overall, 94 pts with 2 prior lines of systemic therapy were enrolled and randomized to BV+Len+R (n=48) or placebo+Len+R (n=46). Median OS was 16.3 months (95% CI, 12.6 months-not estimable) with BV+Len+R vs 8.5 months (95% CI, 4.1-15.8 months) with placebo+Len+R (hazard ratio [HR], 0.557; 95% CI, 0.317-0.977; P=.0388). Median PFS was 7.1 months (95% CI, 3.6-12.6 months) with BV+Len+R vs 2.7 months (95% CI, 1.4-4.0 months) with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.462; 95% CI, 0.279-0.764; P=.0020). ORR was 68.8% (95% CI, 53.7%-81.3%) with BV+Len+R vs 43.5% with placebo+Len+R (95% CI, 28.9%-58.9%; P=.0216); complete response (CR) rate was 52.1% vs 13.0%, respectively. Additional data for pts by lines of therapy received will be presented. In total, 194 pts with disease refractory to the most recent systemic therapy were enrolled and randomized to BV+Len+R (n=98) and placebo+Len+R (n=96). Median OS was 11.7 months (95% CI, 8.8-16.3 months) with BV+Len+R vs 5.5 months (95% CI, 3.7-8.5 months) with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.566; 95% CI, 0.396-0.808; P=.0015). Median PFS was 4.1 months (95% CI, 2.8-5.4 months) with BV+Len+R vs 1.5 months (95% CI, 1.4-2.6 months) with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.508; 95% CI, 0.363-0.712; P&lt;.0001). ORR was 59.2% (95% CI, 48.8%-69.0%) with BV+Len+R vs 29.2% (95% CI, 20.3%-39.3%) with placebo+Len+R (P&lt;.0001); CR rate was 34.7% vs 11.5%, respectively. Overall, 67 pts who received prior CAR-T were enrolled and randomized to BV+Len+R (n=32) and placebo+Len+R (n=35). Median OS was 15.6 months with BV+Len+R vs 4.4 months with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.2-0.75). Median PFS was 3.0 months with BV+Len+R vs 1.4 months with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.76). ORR was 65.6% (95% CI, 46.8%-81.4%) with BV+Len+R vs 25.7% (95% CI, 12.5%-43.3%) with placebo+Len+R (P=.0014); CR rate was 37.5% vs 11.4%, respectively. Conclusions BV+Len+R demonstrated a clinically meaningful improvement in all key efficacy outcomes, including CR and OS, in pts with 2 prior lines of therapy, disease refractory to prior treatment, or prior CAR-T. This treatment benefit was generally consistent with that observed in the overall ECHELON-3 study population. Therefore, BV+Len+R has the potential to address an unmet need for effective and tolerable therapy in heavily pretreated pts, as described above.

Introduction Relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is very aggressive, with a historically low complete response (CR) rate (Blood. 2017; 130[16]:1800-1808). Recent research has focused on achieving complete and durable responses in this population, which translate to improvements in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results from the randomized, global, phase 3 ECHELON-3 study (NCT04404283) demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in OS, PFS, and objective response rate with brentuximab vedotin (BV) combined with lenalidomide (Len) and rituximab (R; BV+Len+R) vs placebo+Len+R in patients (pts) with R/R DLBCL after ≥2 prior systemic therapies. Here, we present subgroup analyses in pts with a best overall response (BOR) of CR (n=67). Methods Pts in the study were randomized (1:1) to receive BV (1.2 mg/kg) or placebo every 3 weeks, in combination with R (375 mg/m2) and Len (20 mg) once daily. In these subgroup analyses, eligible pts had a BOR of CR and some ended study treatment and received any subsequent anticancer therapy. BOR was assessed by investigators according to the Lugano 2014 classification. Duration of response was defined as the time from the start of the first documented CR to the first documented tumor progression per Lugano 2014 or death. Pts who initiated a subsequent nonpalliative anticancer therapy were censored at the most recent prior response assessment. Subsequent nonpalliative anticancer therapies were defined as any systemic therapy received after the end of study treatment. P values are descriptive. Results Of the 112 pts in the BV+Len+R group, 45 (40.2%) had a BOR of CR. Of the 118 pts in the placebo+Len+R group, 22 (18.6%) had a BOR of CR. The median duration of CR was 18.9 months (95% CI, 11.1 months-not estimable [NE]) with BV+Len+R vs not reached (NR) with placebo+Len+R (hazard ratio [HR], 0.527; 95% CI, 0.200-1.389; P=.1891). The median time to CR was 1.58 months (range, 1.2-7.3 months) with BV+Len+R and 1.61 months (range, 0.7-4.6 months) with placebo+Len+R. With a median follow-up of 14.3 months, the median OS in pts with a BOR of CR was 31.5 months (95% CI, 20.3 months-NE) in the BV+Len+R group vs NR in the placebo+Len+R group (HR, 1.044; 95% CI, 0.331-3.298; P=.9407). Median PFS in pts with a BOR of CR was 21.5 months (95% CI, 12.6 months-NE) in the BV+Len+R group vs NR (95% CI, 5.4 months-NE) in the placebo+Len+R group (HR, 0.6333; 95% CI, 0.256-1.567; P=.3198). Results of NR in the placebo+Len+R group are likely attributable to limited follow-up and small sample size. Additional data on baseline characteristics of pts who had CR will be presented. Of the 45 pts with CR in the BV+Len+R group, 42 (93.3%) received no subsequent anticancer therapy. Of the 22 pts with CR in the placebo+Len+R group, 17 (77.3%) received no subsequent anticancer therapy. Conclusions BV doubled the CR rate in pts with R/R DLBCL compared with placebo, and outcomes in pts with CR were durable, with only 6.7% of pts treated with BV+Len+R receiving subsequent systemic anticancer therapy, compared with 22.7% of pts treated with placebo+Len+R receiving subsequent therapy. Overall, BV+Len+R demonstrated a survival benefit in the ECHELON-3 study and is a promising option to achieve complete and durable responses in third- or later-line therapy for pts with R/R DLBCL.

LBA7005 Background: Despite recent advances, there remains a need for novel therapies for pts with R/R DLBCL. BV, an anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate, has shown efficacy and safety when combined with lenalidomide (len) and with rituximab (R) in heavily pretreated populations (Bartlett 2022; Ward 2022). The double-blind, global phase 3 ECHELON-3 study (NCT04404283) compared BV with R+len (R2) vs R2 in pts with R/R DLBCL who are ineligible for HSCT or CAR T-cell therapy. Here, we present results from the interim analysis (IA) for overall survival (OS). Methods: Pts with R/R DLBCL received BV+R2 or placebo+R2 (randomized 1:1). Pts received BV (1.2 mg/kg) or placebo q3w, R (375 mg/m2) q3w, and len (20 mg) qd. The primary endpoint was OS in the intent-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and complete response (CR) rate. The preplanned IA was performed at 134 OS events with a prespecified efficacy boundary of 2-sided P=0.0232. Results: 230 pts were randomized: 112 to BV+R2 and 118 to R2; all but 2 pts (both in R2 arm) received ≥1 dose of study drug. Median age was 71 yrs (range, 21-89), 56.5% were male, and 10.9% had an ECOG of 2. Median prior lines of therapy was 3 (range, 2-8); 29% had prior CAR T-cell therapy and 68% were CD30- (<1% CD30 tumor expression). At median follow-up of 16.4 months (mos) (range, 0.1-31.5) (cut-off: January 22, 2024), median OS was 13.8 mos (95% CI: 10.3-18.8) with BV+R2 vs 8.5 mos (95% CI: 5.4-11.7) with R2 (HR 0.629; 95% CI: 0.445-0.891; P=0.0085); OS benefit was consistent across key subgroups. Median PFS was 4.2 mos (95% CI: 2.9-7.1) with BV+R2 vs 2.6 mos (95% CI: 1.4-3.1) with R2 (HR 0.527; 95% CI: 0.380-0.729; P<0.0001). ORR was 64.3% (95% CI: 54.7-73.1) with BV+R2 vs 41.5% with R2 (95% CI: 32.5-51.0; P=0.0006); CR rate was 40.2% vs 18.6%, respectively. In CD30+ vs CD30- subgroups, ORR/CR was 72.2%/38.9% vs 60.5%/40.8% with BV+R2, respectively, and 50.0%/26.3% vs 37.5%/15.0% with R2, respectively. Efficacy analysis including cell of origin will be presented. The safety profile of BV+R2 was tolerable vs R2: Grade (Gr) ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were 88% vs 77%, serious TEAEs were 60% vs 50%, and Gr 5 TEAEs were 12% vs 8%, respectively. Most common TEAEs were neutropenia (46% vs 32%), anemia (29% vs 27%), and diarrhea (31% vs 23%). Rates of peripheral neuropathy for BV+R2 vs R2 were 31% vs 24% (all Gr) and 6% vs 2% (Gr 3). Median treatment duration was 3.6 mos with BV+R2 vs 2.0 mos with R2. Conclusions: Treatment with BV+R2 triplet, compared to R2, demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in all key efficacy outcomes including OS in high-risk subgroups, with manageable safety. This triplet regimen represents a novel treatment option for pts with heavily pretreated R/R DLBCL. Clinical trial information: NCT04404283 .

Abstract Introduction: The phase 2 CheckMate 205 study (NCT02181738) of nivolumab (nivo) has demonstrated high objective response rates, durable efficacy, and acceptable safety profiles in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL) after failure of autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT) regardless of prior brentuximab vedotin (BV) treatment (Younes A et al. Lancet Oncol 2016; Fanale M et al. ICML 2017 [Oral 125]). Recently proposed new response criteria aim to account for atypical patterns of response with checkpoint inhibitors which may not be fully captured by conventional response criteria (Cheson BD et al. Blood 2016; Younes A et al, Ann Oncol 2017). Studies in solid tumors have shown that pts may continue to derive clinical benefits from nivo beyond disease progression as defined by conventional criteria (George S et al, JAMA Oncol 2016; Long GV et al, JAMA Oncol 2017). Here we report outcomes among pts with R/R cHL treated beyond progression (TBP) in CheckMate 205. Methods: This single-arm, multicenter study enrolled pts (age ≥18 y) with R/R cHL after failure of auto-HCT into 3 independent cohorts (A: BV naïve, B: BV after auto-HCT, C: BV before and/or after auto-HCT). Nivo 3 mg/kg IV every 2 wk was given until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Response was assessed by 2007 International Working Group criteria. Best overall response (BOR) was assessed per investigator. A protocol amendment in July 2014 allowed pts to be TBP (investigator-assessed) if they met prespecified criteria, including deriving clinical benefit, stable performance status, and non-rapid progression. Pts TBP were required to discontinue in the event of further progression (≥10% increase in tumor burden). Tumor burden after initial progression was assessed in a prespecified analysis. Exploratory analyses assessed overall survival (OS) and time to next therapy (TTNT) in pts TBP. Results: In total, 70/243 (29%) pts were TBP: 19 in Cohort A, 23 in B, and 28 in C. Demographics were similar to the overall study population: 57% had stage IV disease at study entry, median (range) age was 37 (18-72) y, and median number of prior therapies was 3 (2-5). BOR prior to progression was complete remission (CR) in 5 (7%) pts, partial remission (PR) in 31 (44%), stable disease (SD) in 20 (29%), and progressive disease in 13 (19%) (BOR was non-evaluable in 1 pt). Among pts TBP, the initial cause of progression was a ≥50% increase in total tumor burden in 13 (19%) pts, non-target lesion progression in 17 (24%), and new lesions in 47 (67%) (pts could have multiple findings as reasons for progression). The median time to initial progression in pts TBP was 6 mo; 11 mo in pts with initial BOR of CR and 7 mo in pts with initial PR or SD. At December 2016 database lock, median (range) doses of nivo beyond progression were 8 (1-43), and median duration of treatment beyond progression was 5 (0-19) mo. Overall, 21 (30%) pts TBP remained on treatment; the most common reason for discontinuation was further disease progression (80%). The majority of pts TBP demonstrated stable reductions in tumor burden with continued treatment. Median (95% CI) TTNT from first study dose of nivo was 17 (14, not estimable) mo (Figure). Median OS from date of initial progression was not reached in pts TBP and OS was 84% (95% CI 70, 92) at 1 y. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 46% of pts (13% grade [G] 3-4) after progression, vs 64% (9% G3-4) prior to progression. Serious TRAEs after progression were aspartate aminotransferase increase (n=1) and hypercalcemia (n=1), both G3-4. Ten deaths occurred in pts TBP; 7 were due to disease progression and none were considered related to study drug. Conclusions: In total, 29% of pts from CheckMate 205 Cohort A/B/C were TBP. New lesions were the most common reason for initial progression in pts TBP. Stable reductions in tumor burden were seen with continued treatment in pts TBP, and median TTNT and OS remained high. Proposed updates to response criteria may help to better assess the long-term efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors. These data suggest that pts considered to show stable performance status, non-rapid progression, and clinical benefits despite progression according to conventional response criteria may derive long-term benefits from continued nivo treatment. Study funding: BMS. Writing support: Simon Wigfield, Caudex, funded by BMS. Disclosures Cohen: Bioinvent: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takada: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Abbvie: 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; Janssen: 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; LAM Therapeutics, Inc: Research Funding. Engert: Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ansell: Merck: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding. Younes: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Third-party medical writing assistance, under the direction of Anas Younes, was provided by Scott Malkin of Gardiner-Caldwell Communications, and was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.; Bayer: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Curis: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda Millenium: Honoraria; Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Trneny: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Savage: Roche: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy. Ramchandren: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Collins: ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding; Celleron: Consultancy; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Fanale: AMGEN: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CELGENE: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TAKEDA: Honoraria, Research Funding; ONYX: Research Funding; SEATTLE GENETICS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MOLECULAR TEMPLATES: Research Funding; MERCK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GENENTECH: Research Funding; ADC THERAPEUTICS: Research Funding. Armand: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: research funding (institutional); Merck: Consultancy, Other: research funding (institutional); Infinity: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: research funding (institutional); Affimed: Other: research funding (institutional); Otsuka: Other: research funding (institutional); Sequenta: Other: research funding (institutional); Sigma Tau: Other: research funding (institutional); Roche: Other: research funding (institutional); Tensha: Other: research funding (institutional). Zinzani: Bayer: 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; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm Therapeutics: 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; Merck: 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; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. De Boer: Bristol-Myers Squibb: 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, Other: Non-restricted grant for research in head and neck cancer; Eisai: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Other: member of Independent Data Monitoring Committee. Shipp: Cell Signaling: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Merck: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Gilead: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; AstraZeneca: Honoraria. Santoro: Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Timmerman: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; ImmuneGene: Research Funding. Sacchi: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Sy: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Kuruvilla: BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy; Hoffman LaRoche: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Nivolumab (nivo), an immune checkpoint inhibitor targeting the programmed death-1 (PD-1) receptor, augments T-cell activation and restores antitumor T-cell function. In the phase 2 CheckMate 205 study (NCT02181738), nivo demonstrated frequent (65-73%) and durable objective responses across 3 cohorts of patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (R/R) cHL after failure of autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (Fanale M et al. ICML 2017 [oral 125]). While most pts with cHL are cured with first-line therapy, those with advanced-stage disease are more likely to relapse or progress. More aggressive regimens (eg, BEACOPPesc., Borchmann P et al. Lancet Oncol 2017) are associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) but are hampered by excessive toxicities and have limited applicability in elderly pts.PD-1 ligand gene amplification has been linked to poorer outcomes in cHL pts treated with standard induction regimens (Roemer MG et al. J Clin Oncol 2016) but is associated with improved responses to nivo in R/R cHL (Younes A et al. Lancet Oncol 2016), suggesting that PD-1 blockade may benefit pts in the frontline setting. We therefore assessed the safety and efficacy of nivo as a single-agent lead-in treatment followed by nivo in combination with chemotherapy, excluding bleomycin due to potential overlapping pulmonary toxicity, for pts with previously untreated advanced-stage cHL. Methods: Cohort D of CheckMate 205 enrolled untreated pts (aged ≥18 y) with advanced-stage newly diagnosed cHL (stage III, IV, or II with B symptoms and extranodal or bulky disease) and ECOG score 0-1. Pts received 4 biweekly doses of nivo monotherapy (240 mg IV flat dose) followed by nivo plus chemotherapy (nivo 240 mg IV, doxorubicin, vinblastine, dacarbazine [N-AVD]) for 6 cycles (12 doses). The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability: proportion of pts with ≥1 grade (G) 3-5 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) ≤30 d after last dose. Additional endpoints included rates of discontinuation and of independent radiologic review committee-assessed complete remission (CR). Results: At database lock (June 2017), 51 pts had been treated, with a median (range) follow-up of 8 (1-11) mo. Median (range) age was 37 (18-87) y; 29 (57%) pts had stage IV disease, and 41 (80%) had B symptoms. At baseline, 7 (14%) pts had bulky disease and 17 (33%) had extranodal involvement. International prognostic score was ≥3 in 25 (49%) pts. At analysis, 49 (96%) pts had completed nivo monotherapy treatment, receiving all 4 doses; 1 pt discontinued due to disease progression and 1 due to study drug toxicity (G1-2 hyperthyroidism), subsequently receiving AVD only. TRAEs for both treatment phases are shown in the Table. During nivo monotherapy, 2 pts had 1 dose delay each due to an AE; 2 (4%) pts had serious AEs (SAEs; 1 G1-2 hyperthyroidism; 1 G1-2 polyneuropathy); an immune-mediated AE (IMAE), G1-2 hyperthyroidism, was reported in 2 (4%) pts. Fifty pts started combination therapy; at database lock, 35 (70%) had completed therapy, with 34 (69%) receiving 12 N-AVD doses. With N-AVD, 10 (20%) pts had SAEs, 6 G3-4; the most common G3-4 SAE was febrile neutropenia in 2 (4%) pts; IMAEs occurring in &gt;1 pt were hypothyroidism in 8 (16%) pts and increased ALT in 2 (4%). AEs leading to discontinuation of N-AVD occurred in 2 pts: G1-2 hepatic abnormality, and G3-4 febrile neutropenia (FN) and Klebsiella bacteremia. The pt who developed FN and Klebsiella bacteremia died 38 d after the first dose of his fifth cycle of N-AVD due to study drug toxicity of acute respiratory insufficiency. Important primary, secondary, and exploratory endpoints (including CR and objective response rates at end of monotherapy, after 2 combocycles and end of therapy, and PFS) will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: Nivo monotherapy followed by N-AVD combination therapy was well-tolerated in pts with newly diagnosed, untreated, advanced-stage cHL. Nearly all pts completed nivo monotherapy treatment and started combination therapy with N-AVD. The safety profile was consistent with historical experience of nivo and AVD separately, with no new safety signals. Nivo followed by N-AVD may provide a tolerable alternative treatment option to standard-of-care multi-agent chemotherapy for pts with newly diagnosed advanced-stage cHL. Study support: BMS. Writing support: Matthew Thomas, PhD, Caudex, funded by BMS. Disclosures Ramchandren: Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Fanale: CELGENE: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; ADC THERAPEUTICS: Research Funding; GENENTECH: Research Funding; MERCK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MOLECULAR TEMPLATES: Research Funding; AMGEN: 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, Research Funding; TAKEDA: Honoraria, Research Funding; ONYX: Research Funding. Rueda: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Armand: Roche: Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy; Infinity: Consultancy; Sigma Tau: Research Funding; Tensha: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck & Co., Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sequenta/Adaptive: Research Funding. Trněný: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria. Feldman: Pharmacyclics: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Ansell: Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding. Jaeger: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Cohen: Bioinvent: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; LAM Therapeutics, Inc: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takada: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Infinity: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Savage: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Honoraria. Willenbacher: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sacchi: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Sumbul: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment.

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