Bedout, Sabine De

Abstract Background: Limited data exist to describe the clinical features and outcomes for elderly pts with FL. The FLASH group performed a prospectively planned pooled analysis of IPD from first-line RCTs and examined associations between age (<= 70 vs. > 70 years), clinical characteristics and FL outcomes. Methods: We identified 18 randomized controlled multicenter clinical trials in the FLASH database which enrolled elderly pts (> 70 yrs). From these 18 studies, 5922 previously untreated FL pts were included for this analysis. Complete response (CR) at 24 and 30 months were defined as whether the pt achieved and remains in CR at 24 months and 30 months after initiation of induction treatment. PFS24 is defined as proportion of pts progression-free and alive at 24 months post-randomization. Time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were defined as time from randomization to the date of progression (censoring for death without progression) and date of death due to any cause, respectively. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as time from randomization to the date of progression or death, due to any cause, whichever comes first. Non-lymphoma death was defined as death without prior progression. Early disease outcomes, i.e. CR24, CR30, and PFS24 were primary outcomes; secondary outcomes were TTP, OS, and PFS. For time-to-event outcomes, Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used for univariate estimation and comparison; stratified Cox proportional hazard modeling was used for multivariable analyses. Cumulative incidence methods were used to model PFS while treating disease progression as the primary event of interest and non-lymphoma death as a competing risk. For binary outcomes, multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the association between age groups and outcomes. Variable adjusted in the regression models are FLIPI score without the age component, ECOG performance status (>= 2 vs < 2), and rituximab use. Results: Among 5922 previously untreated FL pts from 18 RCTs, 63% (n = 3728) were <= 60, 28% (n = 1652) 61-70, and 9% (n = 542) > 70 yrs. Pts age > 70 (vs. <= 70) more commonly had elevated LDH (42% vs 36%, p = 0.02), hemoglobin < 12 g/dL (27% vs 19%, p < 0.0001), ECOG PS >= 2 (8.8% vs 5.0%, p = 0.0004), and elevated β2-microglobulin (68% vs 49%, p < 0.001), less often had > 4 lymph nodes involved (54% vs 65%, p < 0.001), and had similar FLIPI scores without age component (p = 0.17). There were no significant differences between groups in: Ann Arbor stage (94% vs 95% stage III/IV) or rituximab use (62% vs 58%). Median survival follow-up was 5.6 yrs. Pts > 70 yrs did not differ from pts <= 70 in rates of CR24 (27% vs 30%, p=0.32), CR30 (29% vs 31%, p=0.55) or PFS24 (63% vs. 67%, p=0.10). Median TTP was 3.8 and 4.0 years for pts > 70 and <= 70, respectively (HR=1.08, 95% CI 0.96-1.23, p=0.20). With a median OS of 14.6 years for all pts, median OS was 7.4 and 15.7 years for pts > 70 and <= 70, respectively (HR=2.35, 95% CI=2.03-2.73, p<0.001). PFS was statistically significantly different but clinically similar at median 3.1 and 3.8 years for pts > 70 and <= 70, respectively (HR=1.26, 95% CI =1.12-1.41, p<0.001). Further investigation showed the difference in PFS was due to higher incidence of non-lymphoma death in pts > 70 with no difference in disease progression (Figure). In regression models, adjusting for rituximab use, ECOG PS >= 2, and FLIPI score without the age component, age > 70 was a significant predictor of OS and PFS (due to higher incidence of non-lymphoma death), but not PFS24, CR24 or CR30 (Table). Conclusions: FL pts > 70 yrs treated on trials have similar early disease outcomes to younger patients. There is no disease-specific outcome difference between age groups. Age alone should not disqualify patients from standard treatments or RCTs. Disclosures Flowers: Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; NIH: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; ECOG: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ou:Mayo Clinic: Employment. Shi:Mayo Clinic: Employment. Hochster:Genentech: Consultancy, Other: Consultancy fees for advisory boards for GI cancer and bevacizumab with amounts within Yale University de minims guidelines. Brice:Roche: Honoraria; Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Hiddemann:Roche: Other: Grants; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Other: Grants. Marcus:Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Kimby:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jansen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Baxalta: Consultancy; Gilead: Honoraria. Herold:Gilead: Other: Personal fees from member advisory board; Celgene: Honoraria; Genentech: Other: Grants; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Grants. De Bedout:Celgene: Employment. Nielsen:Hoffmann-La Roche: Employment. Morschhauser:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Rummel:Mundipharma GmbH: Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Roche Pharma AG: Other: Personal fees, Research Funding. Vitolo:Gilead: Other: Honoraria for lectures; Takeda: Other: Honoraria for lectures; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Honoraria for lectures; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Honoraria for lectures. Salles:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria. Sargent:Celgene: Research Funding.

TPS7574 Background: The PD-1/PD-L1 pathway is an important immune checkpoint used by tumor cells to evade immune cell detection and inhibit antitumor responses. PD-1/PD-L1 expression in multiple hematologic malignancies may provide an effective target for enhancing anticancer immune response. Durvalumab (MEDI4736) is a high-affinity human IgG1 monoclonal Ab that selectively blocks PD-L1 binding to PD-1 and CD80, and has shown preliminary evidence of antitumor activity across multiple tumor types. Study objectives are to evaluate durvalumab monotherapy and combinations to determine dose and safety, as well as identify histologies and combinations that show the best complementary antitumor signals for future study. Methods: This is a phase I/II open-label, global, multicenter study of durvalumab as a monotherapy and in combination in relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphoma or CLL (MEDI4736-NHL-001; EUDRA CT 2015-003516-21; NCT02733042). Patients must have histologically-confirmed FL, MCL, splenic or nodal MZL, T-cell/histiocyte rich BCL, PMBCL, ALK+ large BCL, transformed large BCL, Richter’s transformation, DLBCL (NOS), CLL/SLL, or classical HL during the dose-finding part. Inclusion criteria are ECOG PS 0-2, and ≥1 prior antilymphoma therapy. Up to 253 patients may enroll in 4 treatment arms, which include fixed-dose durvalumab 1500 mg Q4W monotherapy or combinations with lenalidomide/rituximab, ibrutinib, or bendamustine/rituximab. The study has 3 parts: dose finding, dose confirmation, and dose expansion. The monotherapy arm does not have a dose finding or expansion part; upon progression, patients may receive combination therapy or involved-field radiation to a single nodal site (evaluating for systemic abscopal antitumor effect). Primary endpoints are safety, identification of recommended phase II dose (phase I, 3+3 design), and overall response rate (ORR; phase II); secondary endpoints include DOR, PFS, and PK/PD. ORR is measured by 2014 IWG criteria for lymphoma or modified 2008 iwCLL criteria for CLL; safety is assessed per NCI CTCAE v4.03 criteria. Recruitment is ongoing, with a target enrollment of 253 patients across 60-80 centers globally. Clinical trial information: NCT02733042.

Purpose Follicular lymphoma (FL) is an indolent cancer, with effective but rarely curative treatment options. As a standard study end point for first-line FL therapy, progression-free survival (PFS) requires extended follow-up (median PFS, > 7 years). To provide patients with earlier access to newer therapies, an earlier end point to expedite clinical trials is needed. Our objective was to formally assess the complete response rate at 30 months (CR30) after initiation of induction therapy as a potential surrogate end point for PFS in first-line FL therapy. Patients and Methods We analyzed individual patient data from 13 randomized multicenter trials of induction and maintenance regimens in first-line FL therapy published after 1990 and with sufficient data to evaluate whether CR30 could predict treatment effects on PFS. Correlation of the CR30 odds ratio with the PFS hazard ratio was evaluated by both linear regression (R2WLS) and bivariate copula (R2Copula) models. Prespecified criteria for surrogacy required either R2WLS or R2Copula ≥ 0.80, with a lower-bound 95% CI > 0.60. Results Data from eight induction and five maintenance randomized trials in 3,837 evaluable patients were analyzed. The prespecified surrogacy threshold was met, with an R2WLS of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.77 to 0.96) and an R2Copula of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.00). Multiple sensitivity and supplemental analyses supported the robustness of the findings. A minimum 11% absolute improvement in CR30 from a 50% control rate predicted a significant treatment effect on PFS (hazard ratio, 0.69). Conclusion This large, prospective, pooled analysis of randomized chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and chemoimmunotherapy trials demonstrates that CR30 is a surrogate end point for PFS in first-line FL treatment trials. Use of this end point may expedite therapeutic development with the intent of bringing novel therapies to this patient population years before PFS results are mature.