Kuruvilla, John

Background Immunotherapies targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway have been shown to induce high response rates in patients with relapsed/refractory (r/r) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). However, most responses are partial and not durable. T cell immunoglobulin and mucin domain-containing protein-3 (TIM-3) is implicated as a resistance mechanism following anti-PD-1 therapy, and increased TIM-3 expression has been observed on T cells of patients with cHL post anti-PD-1 therapy. Therefore, we hypothesized that dual targeting of PD-1 and TIM-3 may reinvigorate immune responses and lead to more durable antitumor activity. Sabestomig is a monovalent, bispecific, humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody that binds PD-1 and a unique epitope in the TIM-3 IgV domain without blocking phosphatidylserine binding, eliciting differential functionality. In preclinical mouse models, sabestomig was more effective at inhibiting growth of solid tumors than treatment targeting only PD-1, and sequential sabestomig after anti-PD-1 therapy increased antitumor responses. Here we report preliminary data from the ongoing dose escalation portion of a Phase I/II, open-label, multicenter study to assess the safety and preliminary efficacy of sabestomig in patients with r/r cHL (NCT05216835). Methods Eligible patients are aged ≥16 years with r/r cHL, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, at least one positron emission tomography-avid measurable lesion according to modified Lugano Criteria, and exposure to at least 2 prior lines of systemic therapy including a minimum of 3 cycles of an anti-PD-(L)1-based therapy. Sabestomig is intravenously infused over 1 hour following pretreatment with diphenhydramine and acetaminophen every 3 weeks, with planned doses ranging from 2 to 2000 mg across 8 cohorts (A1-A8); cohorts A1 to A4 (2, 7, 22.5 or 75 mg) follow an accelerated titration design with a single patient treated at each dose level, while cohorts A5 to A8 (225-2000 mg) follow a modified toxicity probability interval-2 algorithm. The primary endpoint of the dose escalation part of the study is safety, including dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Secondary endpoints include efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity. Data cutoffs were May 17, 2023 for safety and June 20, 2023 for efficacy. Results As of May 17, 2023, 14 patients were treated across the first 6 cohorts (A1-A6; 2-750 mg). They were predominantly male (64.3%) with Stage IV disease (85.7%) and a median age of 41.5 years (range, 25-77). Patients received a median of 6 prior lines of therapy (range, 3-13). Baseline disease characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Four patients received sabestomig 2-75 mg in cohorts A1-A4 (n=1 each), 5 patients received 225 mg in cohort A5, and 5 patients received 750 mg in cohort A6. Median duration of exposure to sabestomig was 8.9 weeks (range, 3.0-34.3) with a median of 3 cycles received (range 1-12). Sabestomig was well tolerated with no Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) (Table 2). One Grade ≥3 AE occurred, which was fatal (sepsis secondary to gastric ulcer rupture, not related to sabestomig but deemed a DLT by the safety review committee). No immune-mediated AEs were reported, and no AEs led to treatment discontinuation. At the safety data cutoff, treatment was ongoing for 6 patients (42.9%). As of June 20, 2023, 11 patients had their first disease assessment and 4/11 had an objective response based on modified Lugano Criteria: 1 patient in cohort A3 (22.5 mg, a partial response [PR]) and all 3 patients who had their first disease assessment in cohort A6 (750 mg, 2 CRs and 1 PR). Two of these 4 responders (both in cohort A6) had experienced a best overall response of progressive disease during prior anti-PD-1 therapy; the other two initially had a response (1 CR [cohort A6] and 1 PR [cohort A3]) but subsequently progressed on anti-PD-1 therapy. Sustained PD-1 receptor occupancy (≥90%) was observed in peripheral blood at doses ≥225 mg. Conclusions Sabestomig was well tolerated with a manageable safety profile. Early efficacy data at 750 mg is encouraging with objective responses in 3/3 patients who had their first disease assessment, including those who were anti-PD-1 refractory or who relapsed on treatment. Updated data will be presented from ongoing and subsequent patients treated during dose escalation with doses of up to 2000 mg.

Abstract Patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) for whom autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT) had failed experienced frequent and durable responses to nivolumab in the phase 2 CheckMate 205 trial. We present updated results (median follow-up, ∼5 years). Patients with R/R cHL who were brentuximab vedotin (BV)–naive (cohort A), received BV after auto-HCT (cohort B), or received BV before and/or after auto-HCT (cohort C) were administered with nivolumab 3 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients in cohort C with complete remission (CR) for 1 year could discontinue nivolumab and resume upon relapse. Among 243 patients (cohort A, n = 63; B, n = 80; and C, n = 100), the objective response rate (ORR) was 71.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.1-76.8); the CR rate was 21.4% (95% CI, 16.4-27.1). Median duration of response, CR, and partial remission were 18.2 (95% CI, 14.7-26.1), 30.3, and 13.5 months, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 15.1 months (95% CI, 11.3-18.5). Median overall survival (OS) was not reached; OS at 5 years was 71.4% (95% CI, 64.8-77.1). In cohort C, all 3 patients who discontinued in CR and were subsequently re-treated achieved objective response. No new or unexpected safety signals were identified. This 5-year follow-up of CheckMate 205 demonstrated favorable OS and confirmed efficacy and safety of nivolumab in R/R cHL after auto-HCT failure. Results suggest patients may discontinue treatment after persistent CR and reinitiate upon progression. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02181713.

Abstract The ELARA trial indicates tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) is an effective anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (r/r FL). As ELARA is a single-arm trial, this study compares tisa-cel outcomes from the ELARA trial with usual care from a real-world cohort. ELARA enrolled 98 patients as of 29 March 2021 (median follow-up: 15 months from enrollment). Usual care data were obtained from ReCORD-FL, a global retrospective study of patients with r/r FL, who met similar eligibility criteria to ELARA. With a data cutoff date of 31 December 2020, 187 patients with ≥2 preceding treatment lines were included in the ReCORD-FL (median follow-up: 57 months from third-line) study. An indirect treatment comparison was performed for 97 patients from the ELARA trial and 143 patients from the ReCORD-FL study with no missing data on baseline factors. The line of therapy for which outcomes were assessed was selected or matched between cohorts using propensity score modeling. After baseline factor adjustment via weighting by odds, complete response rate (CRR; 95% confidence interval) was 69.1% (59.8%-78.3%) for tisa-cel vs. 37.3% (26.4%-48.3%) for usual care; overall response rate was 85.6% (78.7%-92.5%) vs. 63.6% (52.5%-74.7%). Kaplan-Meier probability of being progression/event-free at 12 months was 70.5% (61.4%-79.7%) for tisa-cel vs. 51.9% (40.6%-63.3%) for usual care, with hazard ratio (HR)=0.60 (0.34-0.86); 12-month overall survival was 96.6% (92.9%-100%) vs. 71.7% (61.2%-82.2%), with HR=0.2 (0.02-0.38). In conclusion, tisa-cel was associated with a 1.9-fold higher complete response rate and a 1.4-fold higher rate of being progression or event free at 12 months vs usual care, as well as a death risk reduction of 80%. The findings provide additional evidence on the benefit of tisa-cel in patients with r/r FL after ≥2 treatment lines. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03568461

This study (ReCORD-FL) sought to construct a historical control cohort to augment single-arm trials in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (r/r FL). A retrospective study in 10 centers across North America and Europe was conducted. Adults with grade 1–3A FL were required to be r/r after ≥2 therapy lines including an anti-CD20 and an alkylator. After first becoming r/r, patients were required to initiate ≥1 additional therapy line, which defined the study index date. Endpoints were observed from start of each therapy line (including index line) until death, last follow-up, or December 31, 2020. Endpoints were complete response (CR) rate, overall response rate (ORR), time to next treatment or death (TNT-D), event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival (OS). One hundred eighty-seven patients were identified. Most patients’ (80.2%) index therapy occurred in third line (3L) (range, 3L–6L). Median follow-up from FL diagnosis was 9 years (range, 1–21 years). CR and ORR to the index therapy were 39.0% and 70.6%, respectively. Median (95% confidence interval) EFS from index was 14.6 (11.0-18.0) months; median OS from index was 10.6 years. Outcomes worsened across successive treatment lines and for patients who were double refractory (r/r to both an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody and an alkylator) or POD24 (progressed ≤24 months after front-line anti-CD20) at index. Findings demonstrate the unmet need of FL patients with multiply relapsed, double refractory, or POD24 disease. Based on robustness of the historical data collected and comparability with a previous study (SCHOLAR-5), ReCORD-FL presents a valuable source of control data for comparative studies in r/r FL.

AbstractThe multicenter, phase Ib CC‐122‐DLBCL‐001 dose‐expansion study (NCT02031419) explored the cereblon E3 ligase modulator (CELMoD) agent avadomide (CC‐122) plus rituximab in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or follicular lymphoma (FL). Patients received avadomide 3 mg/day 5 days on/2 days off plus rituximab 375 mg/m2 on day 8 of cycle 1, day 1 of cycles 2 through 6, and day 1 of every third subsequent cycle for 2 years. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability; preliminary efficacy was a secondary endpoint. A total of 68 patients were enrolled (DLBCL [n = 27], FL [n = 41; 31 lenalidomide‐naïve, 10 lenalidomide‐treated]). Median age was 62 years (range, 33–84 years), and patients had received a median of 3 (range, 1–8) prior regimens. Among patients with DLBCL, 66.7% had primary refractory disease (partial response or less to initial therapy). Among patients with FL, 65.9% were rituximab‐refractory at study entry and 10.0% were lenalidomide‐refractory. The most common any‐grade avadomide‐related adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (63.2%), infections/infestations (23.5%), fatigue (22.1%), and diarrhea (19.1%). The most common grade 3/4 avadomide‐related AEs were neutropenia (55.9%) infections/infestations (8.8%), and febrile neutropenia (7.4%). In patients with DLBCL, overall response rate (ORR) was 40.7% and median duration of response (mDOR) was 8.0 months. In patients with FL, ORR was 80.5% and mDOR was 27.6 months; response rates were similar in lenalidomide‐naïve and ‐treated patients. Avadomide plus rituximab was well tolerated, and preliminary antitumor activity was observed in patients with R/R DLBCL and FL, including subgroups with typically poor outcomes. These results support further investigation of novel CELMoD agents in combination with rituximab in R/R DLBCL and FL.

Abstract Background: In the ELARA (E2202) trial (NCT03568461), tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) demonstrated high response rates in patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (r/r FL), including those with high-risk disease, with an overall response rate (ORR) of 86% and complete response rate (CRR) of 66%. As ELARA did not include a comparator arm, an adjusted indirect treatment comparison (ITC) using patient-level data from a global retrospective cohort study was conducted. This study aimed to provide comparative, contextual evidence to the efficacy outcomes of tisa-cel from ELARA relative to standard of care (SOC) in routine practice. Methods: ELARA is an ongoing, single-arm, global, multicenter, phase II trial which evaluates the efficacy and safety of tisa-cel in adult patients with r/r FL. As of March 29, 2021, 98 patients were enrolled with a median follow-up of 15 months. SOC data were obtained from ReCORD-FL, a global retrospective cohort study of clinical outcomes in patients with r/r FL meeting the ELARA eligibility criteria who were treated per routine practice at 10 academic centers across North America and Europe; 7 ReCORD-FL sites are also participating in ELARA, but no patients are enrolled in both studies. In ReCORD-FL, with a data cutoff date of December 31, 2020, a total of 187 patients with ≥2 lines of previous treatment were identified for inclusion, with a median follow-up from third-line of 57 months. A complete-case comparison analysis was performed for 97 ELARA apheresed patients and 143 ReCORD-FL patients with complete data on all baseline variables and prognostic factors used for adjustment. For the comparative analysis, one line of therapy (LoT) per patient was selected using a propensity score model to identify the LoT which had the highest chance of being enrolled in ELARA conditional on baseline characteristics and prognostic factors available at the start of the LoT (i.e., the selected LoT was the one with the highest propensity score to be in ELARA). After selection of LoT, an adjusted ITC was performed to assess the effect of tisa-cel versus SOC by measuring CRR, ORR, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and time to next treatment (TTNT). A subgroup analysis of SOC patients with ≥1 eligible LoT initiated from 2014 on (coinciding with the introduction of the Lugano response criteria as well as regulatory approval of idelalisib) was performed for all endpoints. Results: Baseline characteristics for the tisa-cel and SOC cohorts are described in Table 1; after weighting, baseline variables, including number of previous lines of systemic therapy (median: 4 lines) were well balanced between the tisa-cel and SOC cohorts. Treatment regimens observed for ReCORD-FL patients at LoT selection were: anti-CD20 antibody plus alkylator (31.5% of patients), anti-CD20 antibody without alkylator (25.9%), alkylator without anti-CD20 antibody (17.5%), and regimens other than anti-CD20 antibody and alkylator (25.2%). After LoT selection and adjusting for differences in baseline variables, tisa-cel was associated with improvement over SOC in CRR (69.1% vs. 37.3%), ORR (85.6% vs. 63.6%), as well as PFS, TTNT and OS (Table 2, Figures 1-2), with a numerically higher 6-month PFS rate vs. SOC (85.3% vs. 66.5%), as well as higher 24-month OS rate (87.8% vs. 64.8%). Further, there was an estimated 80% reduction in death risk in favor of tisa-cel over SOC, a 40% reduction in risk of progression in favor of tisa-cel over SOC and a 69% reduction in risk of death or requiring a new anticancer therapy (Table 1). In the sub-analysis of SOC patients with lines of therapy initiated in or after 2014, the superiority of tisa-cel over SOC was confirmed in all the efficacy outcomes (CRR: 69.1% vs. 30.5%; ORR: 85.6% vs. 58.8%; hazard ratios substantially < 1 for OS, PFS, TTNT). Conclusion: The ITC results suggest that tisa-cel has superior efficacy over SOC in r/r FL for all evaluated endpoints. A key limitation of this study is that response assessment criteria and schedule was more heterogeneous in ReCORD-FL than in ELARA. However, the sub-analysis on SOC patients assessed with a LoT selected in 2014 or later (when more patients could have been assessed using the Lugano response criteria) showed similar favorability for tisa-cel over SOC in all the efficacy outcomes. Moreover, outcome parameters independent of response criteria, namely OS and TTNT, were also significantly better for tisa-cel vs. SOC. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Salles: Abbvie, Epizyme, Morphosys, Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Beigene, BMS/Celgene, Debiopharm, Genentech/Roche, Genmab, Incyte, Ipsen, anssen, Novartis. Kite/Gilead, Loxo, Miltneiy, Rapt, TAKEDA, Velosbio, Allogene: Consultancy. Schuster: Acerta Pharma/AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Alimera Sciences: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Juno Theraputics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Tessa Theraputics: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; TG Theraputics: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Dreyling: BeiGene: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Genmab: Consultancy; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kuruvilla: AbbVie: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Antengene: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Novartis: Honoraria; Medison Ventures: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria. Patten: ROCHE: Research Funding; GILEAD SCIENCES: Honoraria, Research Funding; ABBVIE: Honoraria; NOVARTIS: Honoraria; ASTRA ZENECA: Honoraria; JANSSEN: Honoraria. Von Tresckow: AbbVie: Other: Congress and travel support; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Other: Congress and travel support; BMS-Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Congress and travel support; Kite-Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Congress and travel support, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Congress and travel support, Research Funding; Pentixafarm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding. Smith: Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease: Other: Study investigator; Celgene, Genetech, AbbVie: Consultancy. Davis: Novartis, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Eisai, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Anjos: Novartis: Current Employment. Chu: Novartis: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Zhang: Novartis: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Lobetti Bodoni: Spouse: Harlcok Healthcare: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Spouse: Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Spouse: Celgene: Honoraria; Spouse: Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Spouse: Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Spouse: Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spouse: NHS: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Spouse: F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Gilead: Other: Travel sponsorship in June 2019; Novartis: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Thieblemont: Kyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses , Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Cellectis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Hospira: Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses . Fowler: BostonGene, Corp: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Bristol Myers Squibb, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, TG Therapeutics and Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dickinson: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Martinez-Lopez: Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Wang: 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; Genentech: Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Link: Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI: Consultancy; Novartis, Jannsen: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Novel therapies for multiply relapsed follicular lymphoma (FL) are often evaluated in single arm trials with no comparative data on patients receiving usual care. This study (ReCORD-FL) therefore sought to construct a historical control cohort to augment current and future single arm trials in relapsed/refractory (r/r) FL. The analytic aims were to document patient characteristics, treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in a r/r FL population treated with standard therapies in routine practice. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study via medical record review in 10 oncology centers across North America and Europe. Adult patients were required to meet several criteria defining multiply r/r FL (i.e., r/r after ≥2 lines of therapy, or relapsed during or within 6 months after completion of anti-CD20 antibody maintenance, or relapsed after autologous HSCT). Patients were also required to have ≥1 line of systemic therapy (i.e., first qualifying salvage therapy) after first meeting the r/r FL criteria; the date of first qualifying salvage therapy defined the study index date. At index, patients were required to have grade 1-3A FL, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and no evidence of prior histological transformation. Outcomes were observed from the index date and from the start of each therapy line until the earliest of death, last follow-up, or December 31, 2020 (data cutoff). Endpoints were complete response (CR) rate, overall response rate (ORR), time to next treatment (TTNT), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). In a subgroup analysis, endpoints were examined by double refractoriness (r/r to both an anti-CD20 mAb and an alkylator) and POD24 status at index (best response of stable/progressive disease or relapsed within 24 months of front-line anti-CD20 mAb-containing therapy). Time to event outcomes were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: A total of 187 patients were identified for inclusion (Table 1). Most patients' (80.2%) first qualifying salvage (index) therapy occurred in third line (3L) (range: 3L - 6L). Anti-CD20 mAb plus chemotherapy (including alkylating and/or non-alkylating agents) was the most common index regimen (64.2% of patients); 8% received anti-CD20 mAb monotherapy, 11.2% received alkylator-based chemotherapy alone (i.e., an alkylator-containing regimen without anti-CD20 mAb), and 16.6% received other therapies (i.e., other regimens containing neither anti-CD20 mAb nor alkylator). Median follow-up from FL diagnosis was 9 years (range: 1 - 21 years), over which a median of 5 (range: 3 - 11) lines of therapy were observed per patient. CR rate and ORR to the index treatment were 39.0% and 70.6%, respectively (Table 2). Median (95% confidence interval [CI]) TTNT and PFS from index were 14.4 (11.8 - 18.6) and 14.6 (11.0 - 18.0) months, respectively; median OS from index was 128 months (10.6 years). Compared with non-double refractory, those with double refractory disease at index had numerically lower CR (34.3% vs. 45.1%) and ORR (67.6% vs. 74.4%) and substantially shorter median (95% CI) TTNT (11.8 [9.0 - 15.2] vs. 20.9 [14.4 - 26.2] months), PFS (10.7 [7.7 - 14.5] vs. 20.1 [14.4 - 25.4] months), and OS (78.1 [45.8 - 146.7] vs. [Not Reached] months). Outcomes were similarly less favorable for patients who were POD24 at index. All outcomes steadily worsened across successive treatment lines (Table 2, Figures 1a-c). ORR, for example, decreased from 69.5% in 3L (n = 187) to 45.8% in 5L (n = 96) and 41.2% in ≥8L (n = 51), while median (95% CI) PFS decreased from 11.8 (10.1 - 16.6) months in 3L to 9.4 (6.8 - 13.1) months in 5L and 4.4 (1.7 - 5.9) months in ≥8L; median (95% CI) OS had a similar trend: 133.7 (78.1 - 232.4), 46.3 (31.7 - 76.5), and 11.4 (5.9 - 21.2) months in 3L, 5L, and ≥8L, respectively. Conclusions: Our findings further demonstrate the poor outcomes and limited survival in FL patients with multiply r/r, double refractory, or POD24 disease. In assessing response rates and PFS, it is important to consider that response assessment criteria and schedules were more heterogenous in the routine practice settings of ReCORD-FL than in clinical trials. Based on comparability of results with another similar study (SCHOLAR-5), the robustness of data collected, and continued low likelihood of randomized trials in this area, ReCORD-FL provides valuable historical control data for new r/r FL therapies in development. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Salles: Beigene, BMS/Celgene, Debiopharm, Genentech/Roche, Genmab, Incyte, Ipsen, anssen, Novartis. Kite/Gilead, Loxo, Miltneiy, Rapt, TAKEDA, Velosbio, Allogene: Consultancy; Abbvie, Epizyme, Morphosys, Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria. Schuster: Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma/AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Alimera Sciences: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Juno Theraputics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Tessa Theraputics: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; TG Theraputics: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kuruvilla: Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Antengene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; Medison Ventures: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria. Patten: GILEAD SCIENCES: Honoraria, Research Funding; ROCHE: Research Funding; ASTRA ZENECA: Honoraria; NOVARTIS: Honoraria; JANSSEN: Honoraria; ABBVIE: Honoraria. von Tresckow: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Pentixafarm: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Other: congress and travel support; BMS-Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: congress and travel support; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Other: congress and travel support; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite-Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: congress and travel support, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: congress and travel support, Research Funding. Smith: Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease: Other: Study investigator; Celgene, Genetech, AbbVie: Consultancy. Davis: Novartis, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Eisai, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Nagar: Novartis, AstraZeneca, Eisai: Research Funding. Zhang: Novartis: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Bollu: Novartis: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Jousseaume: Novartis: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ramos: Novartis: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Wang: Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; 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; InnoCare: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Link: Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI: Consultancy; Novartis, Jannsen: Research Funding.

Abstract The SCHOLAR-1 international retrospective study highlighted poor clinical outcomes and survival among patients with refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) treated with conventional chemotherapy. Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, demonstrated durable responses in patients with refractory LBCL in the pivotal phase 1/2 ZUMA-1 study (NCT02348216). Here, we compared SCHOLAR-1 with the 2-year outcomes of ZUMA-1. Prior to comparison of clinical outcomes, propensity scoring (based on a broad set of prognostic covariates) was used to create balance between ZUMA-1 and SCHOLAR-1 patients. In the pivotal phase 2 portion of ZUMA-1, 101 patients received axi-cel and were evaluable for response and survival. In SCHOLAR-1, 434 and 424 patients were evaluable for response and survival, respectively. ZUMA-1 patients were more heavily pretreated than were SCHOLAR-1 patients. The median follow-up was 27.1 months in ZUMA-1. The objective response rate (ORR) and complete response rate were 83% and 54% in ZUMA-1 vs 34% and 12% in SCHOLAR-1, respectively. The 2-year survival rate was 54% in ZUMA-1 and 20% in SCHOLAR-1, and a 73% reduction in the risk of death was observed in ZUMA-1 vs SCHOLAR-1. These results were consistent with those of an additional standardization analysis in which strata were limited to 2 prognostic factors (refractory categorization and presence/absence of stem cell transplant after refractoriness to chemotherapy) to conserve sample size. Despite the limitations of a nonrandomized analysis, these results indicate that axi-cel produces durable responses and a substantial survival benefit vs non–CAR T-cell salvage regimens for patients with refractory LBCL.

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