Trněný, Marek

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 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 Introduction Ibrutinib is a first-in-class, once-daily, oral, covalent inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) that as a single agent has significantly improved overall survival in patients (pts) with both treatment naïve and relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL). In the phase 3 HELIOS trial, the addition of ibrutinib to bendamustine + rituximab (BR) resulted in an 80% reduction in disease progression or death (HR, 0.203, 95% CI, 0.150-0.276; p < 0.0001) and confirmed for the first time, in a randomized setting, the benefit of ibrutinib-based therapy compared with standard chemoimmunotherapy in previously treated pts (Chanan-Khan, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(2):200-11). Independent Review Committee assessed progression-free survival (PFS) at 18 months was 79% (95% CI: 73%-83%) in the ibrutinib +BR (I+BR) arm and 24% (95% CI: 18%-31%) in the placebo + BR (P+BR) arm. While the activity of ibrutinib is primarily in B-cells where it inhibits BTK-dependent survival pathways, it may also have significant effects on the immune system by exerting an effect on T-cells (by inhibition of interleukin-2-inducible kinase and related shift from Th2 to Th1-based immunity, which in turn affects Treg and Th17 activity) and via normalization of immune function, thus affecting tumor response. Here, we report changes in circulating T-cell immunophenotypes in a subset of pts treated with either I+BR or P+BR in the HELIOS study. Methods HELIOS is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Pts with active CLL/SLL following ≥ 1 prior therapy were randomized 1:1 to receive BR (≤ 6 cycles) with either ibrutinib (420 mg daily; n = 289) or placebo (n = 289). Pts with del17p (> 20% of cells) were excluded. Peripheral blood was collected at the start of the study, at Cycle 1, Day 15 (C1D15) and at the end of treatment/time of progressive disease (EOT/PD). From these samples, peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) were separated and cryopreserved. PBMC were subjected to flow-cytometric analysis of T-cell subsets including CD4, CD8 and markers indicative of Treg cells (CD25+CD127low) and Th17 cells (CCR4+CCR6+). In addition, expression of T-cell checkpoints ICOS, PD-1 and OX-40 by CD4 and CD8 cells were evaluated as an indicator of cell activation or activation/exhaustion. The findings from the HELIOS study reported here are based on analysis of paired samples (C1D1 and C1D15) of 29 CLL cases from the I+BR arm and 22 cases from the P+BR arm. The Mann-Whitney U test was applied to determine the significance of the differences in each of T-cell subtype between the two arms. Results Overall, there was a net increase in the percentage of CD3+ cells with treatment in both the I+BR-treated pts and P+BR-treated pts, which was observed as early as Day 15 (+12.0% and +11.42% of total lymphocytes, respectively, at C1D15 compared with C1D1; Figure 1). The EOT/PD samples showed a continued increase in the percentage of CD3+ cells in the I+BR pts, the majority of whom (11/12) were responders, while the opposite trend was observed in the P+BR patients (8/21 responders). Focusing on the early changes in the analysis of T-cell subsets, a pronounced decrease in the percentage of Th17 CD4+ cells was noted in the I+BR pts (mean: -2.49%) but in the P+BR pts, an increase of this subset (mean: +2.66%) was observed (p = 0.011; Figure 2). When comparing other CD4+ subsets, decreases in Treg cells were seen in both pt groups, with a corresponding increase in the T-cell activation marker ICOS. Less significant changes were observed in the other T-cell markers studied, however, a trend to increased PD-1 was seen in the P+BR pts but not in the I+BR pts. The safety profile in these pts was consistent with previous reports for the study. Conclusions These results suggest that the addition of ibrutinib to BR helped restore T-cell proportions in this subset of cases and it is noteworthy that this effect was visible even within 15 days of initiation of therapy. Data from the I+BR pts showed a pronounced decrease in the percentage of Th17 CD4+ cells, which are primarily pro-tumorigenic but may sometimes have anti-tumor effects, and a concomitant decrease in the percentage of Treg cells, which may explain the overall increase in T-cell activation. These findings may also be related to the observed increase in PFS with the addition of ibrutinib to BR reported in the trial. Disclosures Damle: Janssen Research & Development: Employment. Schaffer:Janssen Research & Development: Employment. Chaturvedi:Janssen Research & Development: Employment. Phelps:Johnson & Johnson: Employment, Equity Ownership. Aquino:Janssen Research & Development: Employment. Mahler:Janssen Research & Development: Employment. Salman:Janssen Research & Development: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Howes:Janssen Research & Development: Employment. Loscertales:Janssen Research & Development: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Trneny:Gilead: 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; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Research & Development: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Balasubramanian:Janssen Research & Development: Employment.

Background:Lenalidomide plus rituximab (R2) has established efficacy and a tolerable safety profile in patients with previously untreated and relapsed/refractory (R/R) indolent NHL. This includes patients with marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) who are generally treated in a similar manner to follicular lymphoma (FL).Aims:Primary results for the AUGMENT study in R/R FL grade 1–3a and MZL showed significantly improved progression‐free survival (PFS) for R2 over R/placebo in the overall population and in the subgroup analyses, with the exception of the MZL subgroup. Given the small sample size for MZL patients, post hoc analyses of baseline characteristics and univariate/multivariate analyses of PFS were conducted to examine possible explanations for these results.Methods:The phase III AUGMENT study randomized patients 1:1 to R2 (lenalidomide PO 20 mg/day (d), d1–21/28 X12 cycles plus rituximab IV 375 mg/m2 weekly in cycle 1 and d1 of cycles 2–5) or rituximab‐placebo (R/placebo; same dosing schedule). PFS by 2007 IWG (without PET) was the primary endpoint. Post hoc Cox regression models were used for univariate analysis of one risk factor and multivariate analyses including treatment arm and significant risk factors (P < 0.05) from the univariate analyses.Results:A total of 63/358 (18%) MZL patients were part of the overall study population, including n = 14/16 MALT, n = 9/6 splenic, and n = 8/10 nodal MZL subtypes for respective R2 and R/placebo arms. Numerical differences between treatment arms for baseline demographics and disease characteristics for MZL patients favoring the R/placebo arm were: fewer R2 patients had an ECOG score of 0 (55% R2 vs 72% R/placebo), and more R2 (vs R/placebo) patients were older (≥65 y: 68% vs 59%; ≥70 y: 42% vs 38%), were refractory to the last prior regimen (13% vs 3%), had Ann Arbor stage IV disease at enrollment (65% vs 41%), high‐risk MALT‐IPI score (50% vs 19%), elevated LDH (29% vs 19%), B symptoms (13% vs 3%), and high tumor burden per GELF criteria (65% vs 56%). The most common grade 3/4 AEs for MZL patients receiving R2 vs R/placebo, respectively, were neutropenia (47% vs 16%), pneumonia (3% vs 13%), and leukopenia (10% vs 0). A total of 5 deaths occurred in the R2 arm (most associated with progression of disease; 2 deaths occurred early at 3 and 13 days after randomization [one prior to receiving R2 and one 2 days after treatment initiation]) and 2 in the R/placebo arm. Despite worse prognostic features, best response was improved with R2 (vs R/placebo) with ORR = 65% vs 44% (P = 0.13) and CR = 29% vs 13% (P = 0.13), although neither were statistically significant. Improved response rates did not translate into a survival advantage for R2. Median PFS for MZL patients was 20.2 mo R2 vs 25.2 mo R/placebo (HR = 1.00; 95% CI, 0.47–2.13; P = 1.0). Univariate analyses showed that several baseline factors were prognostic for MZL patients (P < 0.05): Ann Arbor stage IV, elevated LDH, and unfit for chemotherapy (Table). Multivariate analyses adjusting for the imbalance in these 3 significant prognostic factors showed an adjusted PFS HR of 0.51 (95% CI, 0.20–1.28) favoring the R2 arm, similar to the PFS HR in the overall population (HR = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.34–0.63). The univariate and multivariate analyses suggested that the imbalance in baseline prognostic factors impacted PFS results for MZL patients.Summary/Conclusion:Overall, these findings suggest that the PFS results in MZL patients were negatively impacted by the imbalance in baseline prognostic factors and more aggressive disease in the R2 over the R/placebo arm.image

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