Johnston, Patrick B.

Abstract Background: While CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy (CAR-T) therapy does not use myeloablative chemotherapy, patients with aggressive lymphoma treated with CAR-T are immunosuppressed from lymphodepletion chemotherapy, and prolonged B cell aplasia and hypogammaglobulinemia from CAR-T. The impact of CAR-T on immunologic protection from vaccine-preventable diseases (and thus the need to revaccinate) has not been formally studied. We report the vaccine titers of patients treated with CAR-T at Mayo Clinic, Rochester. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who received CAR-T from 9/2018 to 4/2021 for treatment of aggressive lymphoma at Mayo Clinic, Rochester. Data was collected on anti-viral and anti-bacterial titers prior to CAR-T infusion and at month 3 post CAR-T. Clinical assays for vaccine titers were used for patient assessment and threshold for clinical assays was used to define antibody titer as positive or negative. Results: In our cohort of 87 CAR-T patients, 83 (94%) patients were infused with axicabtagene ciloleucel, 4 (5%) patients received brexucabtagene autoleucel and 1 (1%) received tisagenlecleucel. Prior to CAR-T therapy, positive titer rate was highest for tetanus and lowest for Streptococcus pneumoniae (Strep PNA). Similar trends were seen whether patients had autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) within 2 years of CAR-T (i.e. within immunization timeframe post ASCT) or not (Table 1). At 3 months post CAR-T, overall seropositivity rates were similar when compared to pre-CAR-T levels for the prior transplant and no prior transplant group. For patients who had received intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) supplement prophylactically (for IVIG<400 mg/dl), seropositivity rate for Strep PNA remained zero (Table 1). Among the 30 patients who received IVIG, variable rate of conversion from negative to positive titers were seen for measles (1/2, 50%), mumps (3/5, 60%), rubella (3/4, 75%), varicella-zoster (VZV, 4/4, 100%), hepatitis A (8/9, 89%) and hepatitis B (10/12, 83%). For patients who did not receive IVIG prophylaxis after CAR-T, seropositivity rate for hepatitis A and B was low. In addition, some of these patients had a loss of seropositivity for Strep PNA (2/5, 40%) and hepatitis A (1/4, 25%). Conclusion: The presence of protective vaccine titers is variable for patients receiving CAR-T therapy, regardless of recent ASCT. The loss of protective titers post CAR-T was low. The need for immunization post CAR-T may remain important regardless of transplant status prior to CAR-T. Prophylactic IVIG does not confer complete immunization protection. Optimal timing for immunization post CAR-T is probably unknown and may need to be considered earlier for patients not on prophylactic IVIG. Further study with longer follow-up is needed to inform the need for immunization and optimal timing post CAR-T. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Bennani: Kymera: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Wang: LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; InnoCare: Research Funding. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Lin: Sorrento: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vineti: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) expansion has been consistently identified as a predictor of clinical response. However, there are no clinically available test to measure CAR-T presence after infusion for the FDA approved CAR-T therapy. We hypothesize that the lymphocyte expansion which can be readily measured as absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) in blood count differential could be a clinically accessible surrogate for CAR-T expansion in patients who receive FDA approved CD19 CAR-T to treat aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). We examined the ALC levels in the first 2 weeks after CAR-T infusion and correlation with clinical outcomes in NHL patients who received CAR-T at our institution. Methods Records were reviewed for patients who received CAR-T between 6/2016 and 1/2021 at Mayo Clinic, Rochester. CAR+ T cells were identified by flow cytometry using an anti-FMC63 antibody. Receiver operator curve was generated using nominal logistic regression to predict complete response (CR) as best response. Progression-free survival and overall survival were calculated using Kaplan-Meier method and between-group differences were assessed using log-rank test. Continuous variables were compared using wilcoxon text and categorical variables were compared using chi-square test. Results Among the 87 patients who received CAR-T for NHL, majority of the pts received axicabtagene ciloleucel (86, 99%). The highest ALC level (ALC peak) in the first 15 days were identified for all patients and median ALC peak was 0.44 X10 9/L (range, 0 - 2.55x10 9/L). The median time to ALC peak was 10 ±3 days. Increasing ALC peak levels correlated with increased CAR+ T cells in blood measured by flow cytometry (n=16, R=0.63, p=0.0008). Using ROC analysis, an ALC peak level of 0.67 was identified as the cut point for best association with CR (AUC=0.68, p=0.0004). Baseline demographics were similar between the high ALC peak (N=35) and low ALC peak (N=52) groups, as shown in Table 1. There was no difference in the incidence, high grade, or duration of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) between the two groups (Table 2). Patients who received a higher cumulative dose of steroid for management of CRS and ICANS had lower ALC peak. A higher ALC peak was associated with an increased CR rate and durable CR at month 6. Similarly, a higher ALC peak was associated with increased progression-free survival (PFS, 6.4 months vs. 2.7 months, p=0.004) and overall survival (OS, 31 months vs. 12 months, p=0.04), as shown in figure 1. Conclusion Given the typical CAR-T expansion seen in the first 2 weeks post infusion, ALC peak in the first 15 days is a clinically accessible, reliable surrogate for CAR-T expansion and predicts durable CR and longer PFS, OS. This study was supported in part by the Mayo Clinic Center for Individualized Medicine, Bernard E. and Edith B. Waterman, Henry J. Predolin Foundation and other generous benefactors of Mayo Clinic. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Bennani: Verastem: Other: Advisory Board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kymera: Other: Advisory Board. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Wang: Genentech: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Lin: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Legend: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vineti: Consultancy; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Pts with previously treated R/R aggressive LBCL have compromised health-related QOL (HRQOL). Liso-cel is an autologous, CD19-directed, defined composition, 4-1BB CAR T cell product administered at equal target doses of CD8 + and CD4 + CAR + T cells. In a prespecified interim analysis of TRANSFORM (NCT03575351), a randomized, open-label, pivotal trial, liso-cel demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in the primary endpoint of event-free survival and key secondary endpoints (complete response rate and progression-free survival) in adults with R/R LBCL after failure of first-line (1L) immunochemotherapy compared with SOC, with no new safety signals. Here we present results of the pt-reported outcomes (PRO) analysis from TRANSFORM. Methods: Adults (age ≤ 75 yrs) with R/R LBCL (≤ 12 mo after 1L therapy), who were eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), were randomized to receive either SOC (3 cycles of salvage chemotherapy [CT] and BEAM + ASCT for responding pts) or liso-cel after lymphodepletion. Crossover to receive liso-cel was allowed in the SOC arm for pts who failed treatment. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire - 30 items (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Lymphoma Subscale (FACT-LymS) were administered at randomization (baseline) and on Days 29 (infusion of liso-cel or 2 cycles of salvage CT), 64 (1 mo post liso-cel or completion of CT), 126 (3 mos post liso-cel or 2 mos post ASCT), and Mo 6 and other prespecified timepoints up to Mo 36 or end of study. No PRO data were collected after crossover. The analysis was based on the PRO-evaluable population (pts with a baseline and ≥ 1 post-baseline assessment). Predefined thresholds determined clinically meaningful changes. Global health/QOL (GH/QOL), physical functioning, cognitive functioning, fatigue, pain, and FACT-LymS were the primary domains of interest based on their relevance to the study population and treatment. A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis was performed to assess the between-treatment difference in overall least squares (LS) mean change from baseline for each primary domain, using data collected up to Day 126 for visits with a sample size per arm ≥ 10. Proportions of pts with meaningful change from baseline were assessed for each primary domain up to Mo 6. All analyses were descriptive only. Results: Of 184 randomized pts, 90 (49%) and 85 (46%), respectively, were included in the PRO-evaluable population for the EORTC QLQ-C30 (SOC vs liso-cel n=43 vs 47) and FACT-LymS (n=40 vs 45, respectively). The PRO assessment completion rate from baseline up to Mo 6 was ≥ 45%, which was lower than expected primarily due to operational challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic but was comparable for both arms. In the MMRM analysis, the liso-cel arm had more favorable overall LS mean changes from baseline to Day 126 than the SOC arm in most of the EORTC QLQ-C30 domains and FACT-LymS. In particular, the between-treatment differences for cognitive functioning (−2.09 vs 2.21) and fatigue (3.75 vs −1.95) for SOC versus liso-cel, respectively, exceeded the prespecified minimal important difference threshold (Table); in those domains, the SOC arm deteriorated while the liso-cel arm improved. In individual-level analyses, the proportion of pts with meaningful improvement for fatigue and GH/QOL was higher, while deterioration was lower, in the liso-cel arm versus SOC arm from baseline up to Mo 6 (Figure). At Mo 6, a higher proportion of pts experienced worsened fatigue (71% vs 18%) and a lower proportion experienced improved fatigue (29% vs 47%) in the SOC arm compared with the liso-cel arm; for GH/QOL, a higher proportion of pts worsened (57% vs 18%) and lower proportion improved (14% vs 53%), respectively. For the other primary domains, the proportions of pts with improvement or deterioration favored liso-cel or were similar between arms. Conclusions: Compared with SOC, liso-cel showed favorable improvement in most primary PRO domains, particularly EORTC QLQ-C30 cognitive functioning and fatigue and more pts showed PRO improvements and fewer showed deterioration by Mo 6 with liso-cel. The results were achieved despite only responders remaining in the SOC arm after salvage CT. HRQOL was either improved or maintained after liso-cel treatment in pts with R/R LBCL after failure of 1L therapy. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Abramson: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Seagen Inc.: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy. Arnason: Juno/BMS: Honoraria. Glass: BMS: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Riemser: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Helios Klinik Berlin-Buch: Current Employment. Crotta: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Montheard: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Previtali: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Liu: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Braverman: BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Guo: Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; UCB: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Consultancy; Evidera: Current Employment. Shi: Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Kamdar: ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; KaryoPharm: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; SeaGen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other; Genetech: Other; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Polatuzumab vedotin (Pola), an antibody drug conjugate targeting CD79b received FDA approval in combination with bendamustine and rituximab (Pola-BR) in June 2019. With CAR-T as destination therapy, the option of Pola-BR appears appealing with its superior efficacy and lack of potential interference with CAR-T due to different target antigens. However, clinical concerns remain regarding prolonged lymphopenia associated with benda and CAR-T manufacturing if used before apheresis. We reviewed the single center experience of all patients with exposure to polatuzumab around CAR-T for R/R aggressive NHL treated at Mayo Clinic Rochester. Methods: A review of patients that received at least one dose of Pola with the intent to proceed to CAR-T between July 1, 2019 and March 31st, 2021 at Mayo Clinic, Rochester were included. Response to therapy was based on 2014 Lugano criteria. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from CAR-T infusion to death, and event-free survival (EFS) as the time from CAR-T infusion to disease progression, next treatment, or death. Survival curves were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates, and were compared between subgroups using the log-rank test. Cox regression was used for multivariate analysis (MVA). Results: A total of 22 patients were identified during the study period. Of these 18 (82%), made it to CAR-T infusion (17 axi-cel, and 1 -tisa cel). 3 patients died due to progressive disease (PD) before CAR-T and one achieved complete remission (CR). In the pre-CAR-T Pola cohort (n = 22), the median age was 65.5 years (39-73), 50% were males, 96% had advanced stage and IPI ≥ 3. Median prior lines of treatment were 4.5 (2-6), 73% had primary refractory disease and 50% had myc rearrangement. 19 (86%) patients received Pola as bridging therapy and 8 were exposed to Pola before T-cell apheresis. Bendamustine was included in the treatment for 79% (15/19) for bridging therapy and 63% (5/8) with exposure pre-apheresis. For those in the bridging group, the overall response rate (ORR) was 26% (5/19), with one patient achieving CR with Pola-BR. Disease control (defined as those in a partial response [PR] or stable disease [SD]) was seen in 47% (9/19) patients. One of the 8 patients with pre-apheresis exposure to Pola, required an additional attempt at CAR-T manufacturing after the initial failure. At a median follow up of 48 weeks, the EFS and OS in 18 patient cohort with pre-CAR-T Pola exposure were 6.7 weeks (95% CI, 4.3-not reached [NR]) and 15 weeks (95% CI, 9.7-NR), respectively. At the data cut off (7/25/2021), 78% patients had died. As traditional chemo for bridging is a particularly poor prognostic group, we compared Pola-BR bridging group (n = 15), to other traditional chemo bridge group (n = 16) in our CAR-T database. Both groups had comparable baseline characteristics as shown in Table 1 except for higher proportion of patients with B-symptoms in the Pola-BR group at time of CAR-T. There was also no difference in the inflammatory markers (CRP and ferritin) at LD or peak level after CAR-T. Table 2 shows outcomes between the 2 groups with comparable any grade CRS, neurotoxicity, pre and post CAR-T infection rates. Best response ORR to CAR-T was higher in the other chemo group vs. Pola BR (81.2% vs. 33%, p = 0.027). There was a significant difference in the 6-month OS rate (other 81.3% [95%CI, 54.5-96] vs. pola 33.3% [95%CI, 11.8- 61.6], p = 0.007) but no significant difference in the 6-month EFS rate (other 37.5% [95%CI, 15.2-64.6%] vs. pola 13.3% [95%CI, 1.7-40.5%] p = 0.12) between the 2 groups (figure 1). On univariate analysis within the chemo type bridging cohort (Pola-BR + other traditional chemo, n = 31), presence of B-symptoms (HR 4.72, p = 0.002), ECOG PS > 2 at CAR-T (HR 6.75, p = 0.0008), and type of bridge therapy (pola HR 6.57, p = 0.009) were associated with worse OS whereas a response to bridge (PR+SD, HR 0.39, 0.031) was favorable. On MVA, association was maintained for bridge type (pola, p <0.001) and response to bridge (p <0.001). Discussion: Pola based bridge was feasible in this US based cohort without significant issues with CAR-T manufacturing or increased infection rates. However, in this retrospective analysis, use of Pola-BR was associated with inferior outcomes compared to other traditional chemotherapy options. Future studies are required to elucidate whether these difference in outcomes stem from a biological basis versus bias in patient selection. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Wang: TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Bennani: Kymera: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Lin: Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Vineti: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Bridging therapy (BT) was not allowed in the ZUMA-1 pivotal trial for axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T) . Since then, several real-world studies have shown the use of bridging therapy to be associated with worse overall survival, duration of response, and complete remission rates. In addition, patients requiring BT during CAR-T manufacturing have a more aggressive and higher tumor burden of disease, also factors associated with poor outcomes. Therefore, factors that can predict outcomes in this high-risk patient cohort are required. We herein examine the impact of response to BT on CAR-T outcomes in large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). Methods: A retrospective review of patients who received axi-cel for NHL from June 2016 - July 2020 at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, was performed. BT was defined as any lymphoma-directed therapy given between leukapheresis and CAR-T infusion. Patients received BT if there were concerns for symptomatic progression of disease during CAR-T manufacturing, reducing the likelihood of eligibility to receive CAR-T. The decision and choice of BT were at the discretion of the treating physician. Response to all lymphoma-directed therapy was evaluated using the 2014 Lugano criteria. Response to BT included patients with a partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) on PET-CT before initiating lymphodepletion chemotherapy. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as the time from axi-cel infusion to progression, next treatment, or death. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from axi-cel infusion to death. Survival curves were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates and were compared between subgroups using the log-rank test. Cox regression was used for univariate and multivariate analysis (MVA). Results: A total of 73 patients underwent car T therapy during this period. Of these, 67% (49/73) received BT therapy. Table 1 shows baseline characteristics of the total BT cohort (n = 49). The median age at CAR-T infusion was 59 years (IQR 46-64); 57% were males and comprised of 47% (23/49) DLBCL followed by 31% (15/49) high-grade B-cell lymphoma types. Based on the Lugano criteria on PET-CT, 22/49 (45%) patients responded to BT. The baseline characteristics were comparable between the responders and non-responders to BT except for a higher proportion (73%) of patients receiving systemic chemotherapy as BT in the responders (Table 1). At a median follow-up of 24 months, 75% had either progressed, died, or started the next treatment (event), and 59% (29/49) had died. The median EFS was significantly longer in the responders as compared to the non-responders to BT, figure 1 (13.04 months (95%CI, 3.54-not reached [NR]) vs. 2.56 months (95%CI, 1.18-3.02), p = 0.002). The OS also trended in favor of the responders (median OS 18.4 months (95% CI, 13.44-NR) vs. 11.84 months (95% CI, 5.05-NR), p = 0.092). The responder group also had a higher 6-month CR rate of 50% than 11.1% in the non-responder group (p = 0.004). There were no differences in any grade or grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity rates in the two groups. On univariate analysis within the bridging group (n = 49), type of bridge (non-chemo) and response to bridge (PR+SD) were associated with a better EFS. In the MVA, only response to BT maintained significance for EFS (HR 0.34, p = 0.025). Conclusions: Having some control of lymphoma after BT was associated with better EFS and 6-month CR rate. Future studies need to prospectively evaluate the type and response to BT as a prognostic factor for improving outcomes in patients receiving CAR-T. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Wang: InnoCare: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Bennani: Kymera: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Lin: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Vineti: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Pts with LBCL primary refractory to or relapsed ≤ 12 mo after first-line (1L) therapy may have poor outcomes with SOC, including salvage CT and ASCT, which underscores a critical unmet need. Liso-cel is an autologous CD19-directed, defined composition, 4-1BB CAR T cell product administered at equal target doses of CD8 + and CD4 + CAR + T cells. In the TRANSCEND NHL 001 study (NCT02631044) in pts with R/R LBCL (≥ 2 prior lines of therapy), liso-cel treatment resulted in an ORR of 73% (CR rate, 53%), 2% grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and 10% grade ≥ 3 neurological events (NE) (Abramson et al. Lancet 2020). Here we present a prespecified interim analysis of TRANSFORM (NCT03575351; SOC vs liso-cel as 2L therapy in pts with R/R LBCL). Methods: TRANSFORM is a pivotal, global, randomized, multicenter, phase 3 study comparing efficacy and safety of SOC (Arm A; R-DHAP, R-ICE, or R-GDP per investigator choice followed by BEAM + ASCT) vs liso-cel (Arm B). Pts were adults (aged ≤ 75 years), eligible for ASCT, and with LBCL primary refractory to or relapsed ≤ 12 mo after 1L therapy. Key inclusion criteria were ECOG PS ≤ 1 and adequate organ function (LVEF ≥ 40%; serum CrCl > 45 mL/min); pts with secondary CNS lymphoma were allowed. Key exclusion criteria were prior gene or anti-CD19-targeted therapy, and active infection. Pts in Arm A were to receive 3 cycles of CT. Responding pts (CR or PR) were to proceed to BEAM + ASCT. Pts in Arm B were to undergo lymphodepletion with fludarabine/cyclophosphamide followed by liso-cel at a target dose of 100 × 10 6 CAR + T cells. Bridging therapy with an Arm A CT regimen was allowed. Crossover to receive liso-cel was allowed in Arm A for pts not achieving CR or PR after 3 cycles of CT or not in CR after ASCT, or demonstrating PD at any time. Primary endpoint is event-free survival (EFS) based on independent review committee per Lugano 2014 criteria, defined as time from randomization to death from any cause, PD, failure to achieve CR or PR by 9 weeks after randomization, or start of new antineoplastic therapy, whichever occurred first. Key secondary endpoints included in the testing strategy are CR rate, PFS, and OS. P value significance threshold for endpoints to reject the null hypothesis was ≤ 0.012. Results: A total of 184 pts were randomized, with 92 pts in each arm. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between both arms (Table). Of 91 treated pts in Arm A (1 pt withdrew consent), 43 received BEAM + ASCT, of which 28 achieved CR with CT. Fifty pts crossed over to receive liso-cel. In Arm B, 90 pts received liso-cel infusion; 58 pts (63%) received bridging therapy. Two Arm B pts were not infused (1 each due to manufacturing failure and rapid progression). Median EFS and PFS were significantly longer, and CR rate was significantly improved for Arm B vs Arm A. For Arms A and B, respectively, median EFS was 2.3 vs 10.1 mo (HR, 0.349; P < 0.0001), median PFS was 5.7 vs 14.8 mo (HR, 0.406; P = 0.0001), and CR rate was 39% vs 66% (P < 0.0001). OS data were immature at the time of this analysis with a median follow-up of 6.2 mo (range, 0.9-20.0), but a numerical trend favored Arm B (HR, 0.509; 95% CI, 0.258-1.004; P = 0.0257). Cellular kinetics in Arm B showed a median t max of 10 d (range, 6‒22). No new liso-cel safety signals were detected in the 2L setting. In Arm B, any-grade CRS was reported in 49% of pts, with grade 1 in 37% and grade 2 in 11%. Only 1 pt had grade 3 CRS (onset at Day 9, which resolved in 2 days). Any-grade NEs were reported in 12% of pts and were also primarily low grade (grade 3, 4%). No grade 4 or 5 CRS or NEs were reported. In Arm B, 24% of pts received tocilizumab, 17% received corticosteroids, and none received vasopressors. The most common TEAEs in both arms were cytopenias. Prolonged cytopenias in Arm B (ie, grade ≥ 3 at 35 d after infusion) were reported in 43% of pts; the majority recovered within 2 mo after infusion. Conclusions: In the TRANSFORM study, liso-cel demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in the primary endpoint, EFS, as well as in key secondary efficacy endpoints (CR rate and PFS) compared with SOC as 2L therapy in pts with LBCL primary refractory to or relapsed ≤ 12 mo after 1L therapy. Safety results in the 2L setting were consistent with the liso-cel safety profile in 3L or later LBCL, and no new safety concerns were identified. Liso-cel improved outcomes vs SOC and exhibited a favorable safety profile, providing support for liso-cel as a potential new SOC for 2L treatment in pts with R/R LBCL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kamdar: SeaGen: Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene: Other; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; KaryoPharm: Consultancy; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy; Genetech: Other; Genentech: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Arnason: Juno/BMS: Honoraria. Glass: BMS: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Riemser: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Helios Klinik Berlin-Buch: Current Employment. Bachanova: KaryoPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Research Funding; FATE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ibrahimi: Karyopharm Theraputics: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months. Mielke: Immunicum: Other: Data safety monitoring board; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Miltenyi: Other: Data safety monitoring board; DNA Prime SA: Speakers Bureau; Gilead/KITE: Other: Travel support, Expert panel ; Celgene/BMS: Speakers Bureau. Mutsaers: BMS: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Hernandez-Ilizaliturri: Kite: Other: Advisory Boards; Amgen: Other: Advisory Boards; Pharmacyclics: Other: Advisory Boards; BMS: Other: Advisory Boards; Celgene: Other: Advisory Boards; Incyte: Other: Advisory Boards; AbbVie: Other: Advisory Boards; Gilead: Other: Advisory Boards; Epyzime: Other: Advisory Boards. Izutsu: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Huya Biosciences: Research Funding; Genmab: Honoraria, Research Funding; Fuji Film Toyama Chemical: Honoraria; Eisai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Allergan Japan: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Ono Pharmaceutical: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Solasia: Research Funding; Symbio: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Yakult: Research Funding. Morschhauser: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Chugai: Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy; AstraZenenca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genmab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lunning: Karyopharm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb Co.: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Acrotech: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy. Maloney: Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Rights to royalties from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center for patents licensed to Juno Therapeutics/Bristol Myers Squibb; A2 Biotherapeutics: Honoraria, Other: Stock options; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Rights to royalties from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center for patents licensed to Juno Therapeutics/Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene: Other: Research funding was paid to my institution, Research Funding; Umoja: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Legend Biotech: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; MorphoSys: Honoraria; Juno therapeutics: Other: Research funding was paid to my institution, Research Funding; Navan Technologies: Honoraria, Other: Stock options; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Research funding was paid to my institution, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Honoraria, Other: Rights to royalties from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center for patents licensed to Juno Therapeutics/Bristol Myers Squibb. Crotta: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Montheard: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Previtali: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Stepan: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ogasawara: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Mack: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Abramson: Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seagen Inc.: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: Liso-cel is a CAR T cell therapy approved for use in the third line for R/R LBCL. This trial reports data from the pivotal trial in the second line.

Abstract Background Patients (pts) with aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) progressing after anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T (CART) cell therapy have poor prognosis and may benefit from new therapy options through clinical trials. However, in a single center report, only 12% of such pts were treated in trials (Chow et al. Am J Hematol, 2019). Identifying the reasons for this low enrollment is needed to design future studies for this population. Here, we evaluated the eligibility criteria for recent landmark trials for relapsed/refractory aggressive B-cell NHL to learn what eligibility barriers are present. Methods Pts with aggressive B-cell NHL who received FDA-approved CART cell therapy at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Arizona, Florida) since 2018 and progressed after CART cell therapy were identified. The potential eligibility for the following key trials was evaluated: a) polatuzumab + bendamustine + rituximab, b) tafasitamab + lenalidomide, c) selinexor and d) loncastuximab. The eligibility for each trial was retrospectively assessed at the time of disease progression after CART cell therapy based on hemoglobin (Hb), absolute neutrophils count (ANC), platelet count (Plt), renal and liver function tests, ECOG performance status (PS), and central nervous system (CNS) involvement. Results Seventy-five pts had disease progression to axicabtagene ciloleucel (N=73, 97%) or tisagenlecleucel (N=2, 3%) and are included in this analysis. Median time to progression after CART was 2.1 months (IQR: 1.0 - 3.1). Thirteen (17%) pts were treated in clinical trials after progression following CART cell therapy, while 46 (61%) were treated off trials, and 16 (22%) pts never received any treatment after progression. At a median follow-up of 13.6 months (IQR: 9.1 - 26.7) from CART progression, the median overall survival (mOS) from CART progression was 5.8 months (95% CI 3.5 - 10.1) and 53 (71%) pts died. Thirty-eight pts (51%) did not meet eligibility criteria for any of the 4 recent landmark trials. Hematologic impairment was the most common barrier to inclusion of these patients in clinical trials: Hb < 9 g/dL n=23 (31%) or Hb < 10 g/dL n=36 (48%), ANC < 1.0 x 10 9/L n=19 (25%) or ANC < 1.5 x 10 9/L n=32 (43%), and Plt < 75 x 10 9/L n=30 (40%) or Plt < 90 x 10 9/L n=34 (45%). Renal (n=11, 15%) or liver dysfunction (n=5, 7%), CNS involvement (n=8, 11%) and ECOG PS > 2 (n=3, 4%) were less common reasons leading to exclusion from trials. Post CART trial ineligible pts had significantly shorter time to progression (median 1.7 months, IQR: 1.0 - 2.6 vs. 3.0 months IQR: 1.9 - 3.4, p < 0.01) and inferior overall response to CART (45% vs 67%, p = 0.06) compared to pts who met trial eligibility post CART. Baseline Hb (median Hb 9.5 g/dL, IQR: 8.5 - 10.5 vs. 10.9 g/dL, IQR: 9.7 - 12.2, p < 0.01) and Plt (median Plt 106 x 10 9/L IQR: 54 - 165 vs. 201 x 10 9/L IQR: 141 - 243, p < 0.01) were also significantly lower in pts ineligible for trials post CART. There were no significant differences between pts eligible or ineligible for trials with regards to age (median 59 vs. 60 years), number of prior therapies (median 3 vs. 3), prior autologous stem cell transplant (41% vs. 37%), bridging therapy (65% vs. 63%), baseline ANC (median 4,1 vs. 3,0 x10 9/L), or high-grade (grade ≥ 2) cytokine release syndrome (19% vs. 21%) or neurotoxicity (32%, vs. 42%), respectively. Survival after CART progression was significantly shorter (mOS 2.5 months, 95% CI: 1.6 - 5.1) for the 38 pts ineligible for trials compared to pts eligible for trials (mOS 10.6 months, 95% CI: 8.9 - NA), (p < 0.01). In the 59 pts who received therapy post CART progression, the mOS of pts treated on (n = 13) or off (n = 46) trials was 13.8 months (95% CI: 9.2 - NA) vs. 6.6 months (4.9 - 10.7), respectively (p = 0.047). Conclusion Approximately half of the pts (51%) with aggressive B-cell NHL progressing after CART cell therapy would have be excluded from landmark clinical trials. The current hematologic exclusion criteria are a major barrier to enrollment in clinical trials, which would exclude many pts who have disease progression within 3 months of CART cell therapy (ie, primary refractory disease), in whom cytopenia as a toxicity from therapy is prevalent. Given the known delayed hematologic recovery after CART cell therapy and the unmet need of pts progressing to CART cell therapy, the hematologic exclusion criteria should be adjusted to increase trial participation of this population, especially of those with primary refractory disease. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Munoz: Gilead/Kite Pharma, Kyowa, Bayer, Pharmacyclics/Janssen, Seattle Genetics, Acrotech/Aurobindo, Beigene, Verastem, AstraZeneca, Celgene/BMS, Genentech/Roche.: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Abbvie, Bayer, Gilead/Kite Pharma, Pfizer, Janssen, Juno/Celgene, BMS, Kyowa, Alexion, Beigene, Fosunkite, Innovent, Seattle Genetics, Debiopharm, Karyopharm, Genmab, ADC Therapeutics, Epizyme, Beigene, Servier: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Physicians' Education Resource: Honoraria; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; OncView: Honoraria; Kyowa: Honoraria. Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. Maurer: Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bennani: Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kymera: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Wang: Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Witzig: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Nowakowski: Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lin: Vineti: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Purpose: Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) is an anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy utilized for patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) refractory to at least 2 lines of therapy. F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is used to evaluate disease extent prior to CAR-T infusion at two time points: pre-leukapheresis (pre-leuk) approximately 6 weeks prior to CAR-T infusion, and pre-lymphodepletion chemotherapy (pre-LD) approximately 1 week prior to CAR-T infusion. We hypothesized that PET/CT characteristics beyond Lugano criteria, such as metabolic tumor volume (MTV), total lesion glycolysis (TLG), SUV maximum (SUVMax), and changes in these parameters from pre-leuk to pre-LD, may predict for progressive disease (PD), death, and treatment toxicity after CAR-T infusion. Methods: Patients with NHL who received axi-cel on a prospective registry at Mayo Clinic Rochester were included. Lesions on pre-leuk and pre-LD PET/CT scans were segmented with a fixed absolute SUVMax threshold of 2.5 using a semi-automated workflow (LesionID, MIM Software Inc.) with manual modification to exclude physiologic uptake as needed. MTV, TLG, SUVMax, number of lesions, and other lesion characteristics were assessed for each PET/CT, and changes from pre-leuk to pre-LD were calculated. Lesions were categorized as either nodal, spleen, bone, parenchymal (i.e. liver, lung), or soft tissue (i.e. subcutaneous, muscle), and MTV was calculated for each category. Univariate Cox modeling was used to associate relative and directional change in metabolic and volumetric PET/CT characteristics with PD and death, after adjusting for bridging therapy. LASSO method was used for multivariable model selection. Pre-LD PET/CT characteristics were also assessed for association with presence and duration of cytokine release syndrome (CRS), grade 3+ immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), tocilizumab (toci) use, and corticosteroid use. Results: From 2018-2020, axi-cel was delivered to 69 patients. Histology included diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (57%), transformed follicular lymphoma (23%), or high-grade lymphoma (19%). Pre-leuk and pre-LD PET/CT scans were performed a median of 46 days and 7 days prior to CAR-T infusion, respectively. Forty patients (58%) received bridging therapy between scans, including 9 (13%) receiving radiotherapy. At a median follow-up of 13 months, 39 (57%) had died and 46 (67%) had PD. Sixty patients (87%) developed CRS following CAR-T infusion for a median duration of 5 days. Presence of pre-LD parenchymal disease was associated with longer duration CRS (p=0.032). Thirty-seven patients (54%) developed ICANS for a median duration of 4.5 days, including 12 (32%) with grade 3+ ICANS. Greater pre-LD total MTV was associated with higher risk of grade 3+ ICANS (p=0.042). Greater pre-LD SUVMax was associated with longer duration ICANS (p=0.032). Nineteen (28%) patients required toci. Greater pre-LD total MTV, SUVMax, TLG, and volume of the largest lesion were associated with increased use of toci (p<0.05 for all). Greater pre-LD total MTV and TLG of the largest lesion were associated with increased use of corticosteroid (p<0.05 for each). While no individual pre-leuk or pre-LD PET/CT characteristics were associated with risk of PD or death, increases from pre-leuk to pre-LD in total MTV, total TLG, parenchymal MTV, and nodal MTV were associated with increased risk of PD (Figure 1). Similarly, increases from pre-leuk to pre-LD in parenchymal MTV, nodal MTV, TLG of the largest lesion, and total number of lesions were associated with increased risk of death (p<0.05 for all). LASSO analysis identified increasing extranodal MTV (≥25% increase) and increasing TLG of the largest lesion (≥10% increase) as strong predictors of death (AUC 0.74, Table 1). Kaplan-Meier plots were generated for overall and progression-free survival using these risk factors (Figure 2). Additional patients and follow-up will be presented. Conclusions: Patients with greater pre-LD MTV had higher risk of grade 3+ ICANS and use of toci or corticosteroids. Increasing metabolic disease burden during CAR-T manufacturing is associated with increased risk of PD and death. A two variable risk score using increasing extranodal disease and increasing TLG of the largest lesion may stratify prognosis prior to CAR-T and inform treatment paradigms. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Bennani: Verastem: Other: Advisory Board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kymera: Other: Advisory Board. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Wang: Genentech: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Lin: Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Legend: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Vineti: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Up to 40% of newly diagnosed diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) will relapse after frontline rituximab, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (RCHOP), with subsequent poor prognosis. Identification of patients (pts) at high risk of relapse early in the treatment can allow for development of risk adapted therapies to improve outcomes. Positron Emission Tomography scan after 2 cycles of therapy (PET2) has been evaluated as a predictor of relapse but study treatments were heterogenous and results were conflicting. A substudy of CALGB 50303 trial did not find association of PET2 response by Deauville Score (DS) with survival in RCHOP and DA-EPOCH-R treated pts. In the UK National Cancer Research Institute Prospective Study, DS of 5 on PET2 predicted worse progression free survival but not overall survival (OS) in RCHOP-21 and RCHOP-14 treated pts. Here we report impact of PET2 response on outcomes in two large independent, prospective cohorts of newly diagnosed DLBCL treated homogenously with two RCHOP-based regimens of similar efficacy. Methods: Discovery was done in adult pts with DLBCL enrolled into a single arm phase 2 trial of lenalidomide plus standard RCHOP (R2CHOP) (MC078E, NCT00670358). The validation cohort comprised of adult pts with newly diagnosed DLBCL treated with standard RCHOP prospectively enrolled into the Mayo component of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER). Both MC078E and MER cohorts included patients who received at least 3-6 cycles of therapy and had a PET2. Pts who progressed on PET2 were excluded. End of treatment (EOT) PET was done 3-12 weeks after last cycle of therapy. The revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma (Cheson, et al 2007) was used to assess PET in MC078E. In MER, revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma (Cheson et al 2007) or Lugano classification was used, depending on era of diagnosis. Positive PET was defined as FDG uptake above background (Cheson 2007) or DS 4 or 5 (Lugano 2014). Study endpoints were event-free survival (EFS) and OS by PET2 status. Results: Out of 118 pts treated on MC078E, 102 had PET2 (MC078E). The median age at diagnosis was 64 years (range 19-87), 61 (60%) were male, 89 (87%) had advanced stage disease, 46 (45%) had international prognostic index (IPI) of 3-5. 58 (57%) were PET2 Negative (PET2-ve) and 44 (43%) were PET2 Positive (PET2+ve). At EOT PET, 83 (81%) had -ve PET and 15 (15%) had +ve PET. Out of 44 PET2+ve pts, 15 remained +ve at EOT PET. Out of 58 PET2-ve pts, 56 had EOT PET available and all were -ve. Out of 866 DLBCL pts enrolled into MER between August 2005 and June 2015, 621 were treated with RCHOP for 3-6 cycles and 272 had available PET2 (MER). The median age was 65 years (range 55-73), 152 (56%) were male, 174 (64%) had advanced stage, 103 (38%) had IPI 3-5. 186 (68%) were PET2-ve and 86 (32%) were PET2+ve. Out of 235 with EOT PET available, 182 (77%) had -ve EOT PET and 25 (11%) had +ve EOT PET. PET2+ve pts had higher odds of +ve EOT PET (OR: 17.4 (CI 95 8.3-40.0), p<0.001) and progression on EOT PET (OR: 4.3 (CI 95 1.9-10.2), p<0.001) in MER cohort. This analysis was not possible on MC078E as all PET2-ve had -ve EOT PET. In MC078E, 2-year EFS and OS were 69.5% (CI 95 61.1-79.1) and 88.1% (CI 95 82-94.7). In MER, 2-year EFS and OS were 71.6% (CI 95 67.7-76.8) and 82.3% (CI 95 79.3-85.3). Compared to PET2-ve, PET2+ve pts had significantly inferior EFS in both MC078E (HR 4.0, CI 95 2.1-7.88, p<0.0001, figure 1a) and MER (HR 2.9, CI 95 1.9-4.1, p<0.0001, figure 1c). Compared to PET2-ve , PET2+ve pts had a trend towards lower OS in MC078E (HR 2.0, CI 95 0.9-4.9, p=0.1, figure 1b) and a significantly lower OS in MER (HR 2.3, CI 95: 1.5-3.4, p<0.0001, figure 1d). In subgroup analysis of MC078E, PET2+ve pts had lower EFS and a trend towards lower OS in all subgroups except IPI 0-2 (Table 1). In MER, PET2+ve pts had lower EFS and OS in all the subgroups except stage I-II and IPI 0-2 (Table 1). Conclusions: Positive PET2 was associated with increased risk of disease progression and death in newly diagnosed DLBCL. Results of our study provide robust evidence of importance of PET2 as an early predictor DLBCL pts at high risk of progression in two independent prospective cohorts. PET2-guided risk-adapted strategies using chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy and bispecific antibodies may potentially improve outcomes, should be explored in clinical trials and results of our study serve as a benchmark for such studies. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Maurer: Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wang: Genentech: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cerhan: Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; NanoString: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Habermann: Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Witzig: Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Nowakowski: Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Our group published a double blind, randomized phase III study (Porrata et al, BBMT 2016; 22: 1017-1023) showing that the infusion of autograft absolute lymphocyte count (A-ALC) ≥ 0.5 x 10 9 cells/kg is a survival prognostic factor for lymphoma patients undergoing autologous peripheral blood hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (APBHSCT). However, a limitation of the study was the short-term follow-up duration of two years post-APBHSCT. To assess if the A-ALC still provide survival benefit we looked at the 121 lymphoma patients enrolled in the phase III from December 10, 2007 until October 12, 2010 survival outcomes with a longer follow-up duration of up to 13 years post-APBHSCT. Since the accrual for the study, 52 patients had died of recurrence lymphoma, 4 patients of therapy-related acute myelogenous leukemia, 3 patients of unknown causes, 1 patient of acute respiratory distress syndrome, 1 patient of anaplastic astrocytoma, and 1 patient of septic shock. The current median follow-up is 86 months (range: 2.1-158.1 months) for the entire cohort and 127.8 months (range: 5.9-158.1 months) for patients still alive. Patients infused with an A-ALC ≥ 0.5 x 10 9 cells/kg continue to experience superior overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.392, 95%CI 0.224-0.687, P < 0.001) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 0.413, 95%CI 0.253-0.677, P < 0.0004). The 10-year OS rates for the A-ALC ≥ 0.5 x10 9 cells/kg patients was 70% (95% confidence interval [CI], 55%-81%) and for the A-ALC < 0.5 x10 9 cells/kg patients was 36% (95% CI, 25%-49%) (Figure 1A). The 10-year PFS rates for the A-ALC ≥ 0.5 x10 9 cells/kg group was 57% (95% CI, 43%-70%) and for the A-ALC < 0.5 x10 9 cells/kg group was 28% (95% CI, 19%-40%) (Figure 1B). Autograft lymphocyte subset analysis including autograft-CD3 (A-CD3), autograft CD4 (A-CD4), autograft CD8 (A-CD8), and autograft natural killer cells (A-NK), showed that the infusion of A-NK was a predictor for OS (HR = 0.518, 95%CI 0.292-0.919, P < 0.02) and PFS (HR = 0.393, 95%CI 0.230-0.670, P < 0.0006). The 10-year OS rates for the A-NK ≥ 0.09 x10 9 cells/kg patients was 67% (95% confidence interval [CI], 50%-80%) and for the A-NK < 0.09 x10 9 cells/kg patients was 42% (95% CI, 31%-54%) (Figure 1C). The 10-year PFS rates for the A-NK ≥ 0.09 x10 9 cells/kg group was 59% (95% CI, 43%-73%) and for the A-NK < 0.09 x10 9 cells/kg group was 32% (95% CI, 23%-44%) (Figure 1D). Both the A-ALC and A-NK were independent predictor for OS [ A-ALC: HR = 0.367, 95%CI 0.195-0.690, P < 0.001) and A-NK: HR = 0.411, 95%CI 0.275-0.892, P < 0.01] and for PFS [ A-ALC: HR = 0.477, 95%CI 0.271-0.840, P < 0.01) and A-NK: HR = 0.490, 95%CI 0.266-0.903, P < 0.02]. With a longer follow-up of 13 years, this study shows that the infusion of A-ALC continues to provide better clinical outcomes to lymphoma patients undergoing APBHSCT. These study findings support our standard practice changed of not only collecting CD34 stem cell for hematologic engraftment, but also A-ALC for lymphoma patients undergoing APBHSCT to improve clinical outcomes. Further, autograft immune effector studies are warranted such as A-NK to develop a more immunocompetent targeted autologous graft verus tumor effect. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding.