David, Kevin A.

Abstract The phase 1/2 Intergroup study E4412 investigated checkpoint blockade with nivolumab (Nivo) and ipilimumab (Ipi) combined with the CD30 targeting antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin (BV) in relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma. A total of 147 patients aged ≥12 years were randomized between BV/Nivo and BV/Ipi/Nivo; 132 patients were included in the primary efficacy analysis. The complete response (CR) rate, was 64.7% (52.2, 75.9) for BV/Nivo and 70.3% (57.6, 81.1) for BV/Ipi/Nivo (1-sided P = .29). The median survival follow-up was 38.0 months (interquartile range, 32.6-48.1). Progression-free survival (PFS) did not significantly differ between the 2 arms (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78, confidence interval [CI], 0.39-1.57; 1-sided P = .24). Treatment-related grade 3+ toxicities in the adult cohort, excluding rash, were similar between both arms (38.5% BV/Nivo and 39.3% BV/Ipi/Nivo); there was a higher frequency of grade 3 rash with BV/Ipi/Nivo (24.6%) compared with BV/Nivo (9.2%). We compared PFS by stem cell transplantation (SCT) status in a planned before hoc comparison; 58 patients received SCT, and 36-month PFS (from SCT) was >90% for both arms. Sixty-six patients were progression free after the first scan and did not undergo SCT. The 36-month PFS was 73.0% (54.5, 85.0) for BV/Ipi/Nivo compared with 45.8% (26.3, 63.4) for BV/Nivo (HR, 0.45; CI, 0.19-1.08; 1-sided P = .03). The study did not meet its primary end point of superior CR rate for the triplet, but it supports the use of checkpoint antibody-drug conjugate induction prior to auto SCT, and there is an intriguing signal of disease control for patients wishing to defer or avoid SCT with the triplet of BV/Ipi/Nivo. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01896999.

Abstract Background: Undetectable minimal residual disease (uMRD) at the end of first-line (1L) treatment (tx) with 12-cycles (C) of venetoclax (ven) + obinutuzumab (obin) is associated with prolonged survival for patients (pts) with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL, Al Sawaf et al. Blood 2024). We hypothesized that MRD may be used to guide ven tx duration for CLL pts treated with 1L ven + obin. Methods In this ongoing phase II, multicenter investigator-initiated study, pts receive ven + obin for 1L tx of CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma (NCT04447768). Eligible pts have a CIRS score of ≤ 6 and require 1L tx per iwCLL 2018 criteria. Pts receive 6 x 28-day C of obin and initiate ven on C1D22. Ven duration is dependent on peripheral blood (PB) MRD status measured by ClonoSeq next generation sequencing. At C7, pts undergo MRD testing. Pts uMRD6 (<10-6 sensitivity) at both C7 and C9 dc ven after 9C and enter treatment free observation (TFO). Pts with detectable MRD6 (dMRD6) at C7 undergo repeat testing at C12; if uMRD5 (<10-5) pts dc ven after 12C. Pts dMRD5 at C12 continue ven for an additional 12C (24C total) prior to TFO. The primary study endpoint is 36-month PFS; the unpromising rate is set at 82% and will be tested by a nonparametric survival estimate (Kaplan-Meier) along with Greenwood's formula. RNA sequencing (RNAseq) was performed pre-tx on patient bone marrow (or PB if inaspirable) samples. Unsupervised clustering using machine learning (ML) based on consensus nonnegative matrix factorization was applied to the most variable genes to identify patient clusters. Clusters were then biologically characterized by gene signature scoring using xCell algorithm and assessed for association with uMRD6 at C7 using a Fisher exact test. Results Baseline characteristics of the 100 pts who initiated tx include: median age 58 (range 34-81); 71% male, 90% White, 3% Black and 2% Asian, 5% unknown; 49% IGHV unmutated, 16% TP53 mutation, 8% del17p (previously reported, Roeker et al. ASH 2024). 3 pts stopped tx prior to C7. 51 pts were uMRD6 at C7 and C9 and completed 9C ven. 46 pts were dMRD6 at C7; 6 pts stopped tx outside of meeting protocol requirements and are included in intention-to-treat (IIT) analyses. 32 pts were uMRD5 at C12 and dc ven after 12C. 8 pts were dMRD5 at C12: 5 continued ven per protocol (3 completed 24C ven, 2 ongoing tx as of 15 May 2025 data cut-off), 2 stopped ven outside of protocol requirements (included in ITT analyses), and 1 pt withdrew consent. At a median follow-up of 35 months, the 36-month PFS rate is 90% (95% CI: 84%, 97%). 36-month OS is 94% (95% CI: 89%, 99%). Landmark PFS analyses from EOT were performed for pts who dc ven after 9C due to uMRD6 (24-month PFS 92%, 95% CI: 85, 100%, n=51) and pts who dc ven after 12C due to uMRD5 (24-month PFS 96%, 95% CI: 89%, 100%, n=32). For pts dc ven after 9C due to uMRD6 (n=51), PB MRD at 12C after EOT was: 59% uMRD6, 12% uMRD5, 4% uMRD4, 8% dMRD4 and 18% unknown. For pts dc ven after 12C due to uMRD5 status (n=32), PB MRD at 12C following EOT was: 9% uMRD6, 31% uMRD5, 9% uMRD4, 25% dMRD4 and 25% unknown. Of the 5 pts with PD, 3 pts have had Richter Transformation to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (all uMRD6 at C7 / 9). Two pts with PD have not met iwCLL tx criteria and remain in TFO. Five pts have died (suicide, West Nile encephalitis, COVID-19, complications of glioblastoma and RT DLBCL). Five C12 dMRD5 pts who continued ven have reached C18, with only 1 of 5 converting to uMRD5 in PB. However, all 5 maintained uMRD4 (<10-4). Of 3 pts that completed 24C ven (2 ongoing tx), 1 pt had deepening of response to uMRD5 at C24, and 2 pts had rising MRD on ven (dMRD4 at C24). To investigate patient heterogeneity at baseline and its relationship to uMRD, we clustered patient RNAseq samples into two clusters using artificial intelligence/ML based unsupervised clustering. The clusters associated with uMRD6 at C7 (Fisher exact test p=0.038), and patients in the cluster with significantly higher immunosuppressive cells such as T-regulatory cells and M2 macrophages were less likely to be uMRD6 at C7. Conclusions At a median follow-up of 35 months, the estimated 36-month PFS rate is 90%. RNAseq transcriptomic analyses identified that patients with enriched immunosuppressive cells were less likely to be uMRD6 at C7. Additional follow-up is required to confirm the durability of this MRD-guided ven + obin tx strategy.

Background: Relapsed/refractory (R/R) Classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) remains a significant clinical challenge. We hypothesized that using immune checkpoint blockade to activate the immune cells in the tumor microenvironment, and concurrently targeting tumor cells with the CD30 targeting antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin (BV) could overcome tumor resistance. E4412 is an intergroup Phase 1/2 ECOG-ACRIN sponsored study of the combinations of BV, nivolumab (N), and ipilimumab (I) in patients with R/R cHL. Here we present the efficacy and safety data on the full adult cohort of patients treated in Phase 2 randomized between BV/N and BV/N/I. Methods: Patients with confirmed R/R cHL were randomized between the doublet of BV/N with BV 1.8mg/kg and N 3mg/kg and BV/N/I with I 1mg/kg. BV and N were administered every 3 weeks, and I every 12 weeks for up to 1 year for BV and up to 2 years for N and I. Results: One hundred twenty-six patients were enrolled and treated; 8 patients (4 from each arm) were excluded from efficacy analysis based on ineligibility. Patients were not heavily pretreated, 65% had one prior line of therapy and an additional 27% had two prior lines, and 8% had more than 2 prior lines. The median age was 34; 51% of patients were male. Sixteen patients had prior BV: 10 (BV/N arm) and 6 (BV/N/I). Response: One hundred eighteen patients are evaluable for response: 61 treated with BV/N and 57 with BV/N/I. With BV/N 37 of 61 (60.7%) of patients had a complete response (CR) compared to 38 of 57 (66.7%) with BV/N/I for a difference of 6.7% (p-value 0.31). Additionally, 17 (28%) with BV/N and 12 (21%) of patients treated with BN/N/I had a partial response (PR) for an overall response rate (ORR) of 88% in both arms. In a planned analysis of patients with prior treatment with BV the CR rate was 25% in BV/N arm (2 of 8) and 60% in BV/N/I arm (3 of 5). The median follow-up for progression free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR), and overall survival (OS) is 24.8 months and 33.7 months. The median PFS, duration of response and OS have not been reached for either arm with 24 months of follow-up ( Figure 1). In B/N 30 of 61 patients came off study to receive alternative treatments (primarily autologous stem cell transplant (SCT)) and in BV/N/I 23 of 57 patients did. Safety: Table 1 shows treatment-related Grade 3+ toxicity occurring in > 1 patient and adverse events (AE) of special interest. All 126 patients (118 eligible and 8 ineligible) are evaluable for safety. The rate of Grade 3+ treatment related toxicity is 43% (28/65) and 52% (32/61) for BV/N and BV/N/I, respectively. However, when rash is excluded the rate of treatment related toxicities is similar between the two arms 38.5% vs 39.3%. There was no grade 4 rash, and the rash was treatable in all cases with topical or oral steroids. There were no Grade 5 toxicities in either arm. Conclusion: In this randomized Phase 2 study comparing BV/N vs. BV/ N/I the difference in CR rate of 6.7% between the doublet and the triplet was not statistically significant. Additionally, the triplet had more grade 3 rash than the doublet, there was otherwise no significant difference in grade 3 or greater toxicity between the two arms. With a median follow-up of 24 months the PFS and DOR have not been reached for either arm, suggesting excellent disease control from both regimens. Differences in response for BV pre-treated patients between the two arms is intriguing especially as more patients are treated with BV in the frontline, but the sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions. Correlative studies are underway to elucidate a response vs. resistance signature, and biological understanding of differential benefit.

Abstract In the pivotal study ECHELON-1, brentuximab vedotin (BV), doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A + AVD) demonstrated superior efficacy compared with bleomycin + AVD for the treatment of advanced-stage classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). However, there are minimal available data regarding the frequency of dose reductions or omission of BV during curative therapy and the potential impact on patient outcomes. In a real-world analysis, we retrospectively reviewed the characteristics and outcomes of 179 patients with stage III or IV cHL treated with frontline A + AVD from January 2010 to April 2022. Treatment consisted of up to 1.2 mg/kg of BV and standard dose AVD IV on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle for up to 6 cycles. At the time of treatment, the median patient age was 37 years, and a high-risk International Prognostic Score was observed in 46% of patients. Overall, 91% of patients received 6 cycles of AVD; 55% of patients did not receive the intended cumulative dose of BV (CDB); 28% of patients received two-thirds or less than the planned CDB. At a median follow-up time of 27.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 24.8-29), the median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached, and the 12-month PFS was 90.3% (95% CI, 85.9-95.0). The impact of CDB on PFS was not significant (P = .15), nor was high CDB significantly associated with increased adverse events. In real-world experience, A + AVD is a highly effective treatment for patients with advanced-stage cHL, including for patients with prominent dose reductions of BV.

AbstractClinical trials of novel salvage therapies have encouraging outcomes for relapsed/refractory transplant‐eligible classic Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL) but comparison with conventional chemotherapy is lacking. Herein, we report the final analysis of a multicenter retrospective cohort of R/R cHL assessing outcomes by type of salvage therapy before autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). R/R cHL patients who underwent ASCT at 14 institutions across the United States were included. Outcomes were compared among patients receiving conventional chemotherapy, brentuximab vedotin (BV) + chemotherapy, BV alone, and a checkpoint inhibitor (CPI)‐based regimens before ASCT. Study endpoints included event‐free survival (EFS), progression‐free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). All endpoints are defined from relapse. Of 936 patients, 728 received conventional chemotherapy, 73 received BV + chemotherapy, 70 received BV alone, and 65 received CPI‐based regimens prior to ASCT. When adjusted for time to relapse, pre‐ASCT response and use of BV maintenance, patients receiving CPI‐based regimens had superior 2‐year EFS compared to conventional chemotherapy, BV + chemotherapy, and BV alone (79.7, 49.6, 62.3, and 36.9%, respectively, p < .0001). Among 649 patients transplanted after 1 line of salvage therapy, CPI‐based regimens were associated with superior 2‐year PFS compared to conventional chemotherapy (98% vs. 68.8%, hazard ratio: 0.1, 95% confidence interval: 0.03–0.5, p < .0001). OS did not differ by pre‐ASCT salvage regimen. In this large multicenter retrospective study, CPI‐based regimens improved EFS and PFS compared to other salvage regimens independent of pre‐ASCT response. These data support earlier sequencing of CPI‐based regimens in R/R cHL in the pre‐ASCT setting.

7515 Background: Primary refractory disease (PRD) and early relapse (ER) are predictors of poor prognosis in classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). In this multicenter retrospective study, we describe outcomes of PRD and ER in pts with relapsed/refractory (R/R) cHL treated with salvage therapy (ST) and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Methods: Of 14 sites, adult patients with R/R cHL who received ST and underwent ASCT were enrolled. PRD was defined as progression on frontline chemoimmunotherapy or within 6 months of diagnosis. ER was defined as relapse from 6 months-1 yr of diagnosis. Pts who relapsed >1 yr of diagnosis were called late relapses (LR). Study objectives were Overall response rates (ORR), CR rates, PFS, and OS. Results: Of 986 total pts, 160 had PRD, 365 had ER and 461 had LR. Significantly higher number of pts with PRD, but not ER, had bulky disease (41% vs 27%, p<0.01) and B symptoms (53% vs 38%, p<0.001) than LR. Higher proportions of pts with PRD and ER required >1 line of ST (44% vs 30% vs 23%, p<0.001) before ASCT and received BV maintenance (25% vs 24% vs 16%, p<0.05). When adjusted for B symptoms and Bulky disease, PRD and ER had significantly lower ORR (65% vs 76% vs 84%, p<0.001) and CR (37% vs 46% vs 57%, p<0.001) to first ST than LR. Pts with PRD and ER had significantly lower PFS (56.3%, 61.4%, vs 77.6%, p<.0001) and OS (93% vs 89% vs 94%, p=0.01) than LR. In pts with ER, Brentuximab/bendamustine (BBV) and brentuximab vedotin/nivolumab (BV/nivo) had a trend towards higher ORR (92% vs 92% vs 75%) but significantly higher CR (79.2% vs 76% vs 42%, p<0.01) than platinum based chemotherapy (PBC). In pts with PRD, BBV and BV/Nivo had a statistically insignificant trend towards higher ORR and CR than PBC. The table shows 2 yr PFS by type of ST in PRD, ER, LR. There was no difference in PFS by time to relapse in BV/nivo, CPI and miscellaneous agents. BV/Nivo had a significantly higher PFS than PBC in PRD (88% vs 48%, p<0.05) and ER (95% vs 57%, p<0.05). There was no difference in PFS of PBC and other ST in PRD, ER or LR. OS was not significantly associated with type of ST in either group. Conclusions: PRD and ER are associated with lower response to ST and survival after ASCT compared to late relapse. In pts with PRD and ER, BV/Nivo has high ORR and CR and leads to significantly higher PFS comparable to pts with late relapse and may be preferable ST regardless of time to relapse. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background: Chemoimmunotherapy is considered standard initial therapy for follicular lymphoma (FL) with high tumor burden (HTB). Obinutuzumab and Bendamustine (OB) with maintenance Obinutuzumab (mO) is considered a standard therapy for the frontline treatment of HTB FL (GALLIUM, Marcus et al, NEJM 2017). Venetoclax (VEN), an oral BCL2 inhibitor, is an attractive target in FL given the high BCL2 expression; though single agent activity has been disappointing (Davids et al. JCO 2017). BCL2 inhibition is thought to be synergistic with chemotherapy. Thus, the PrE0403 study evaluated the OB-VEN combination in frontline HTB FL. Here we present end of induction (EOI) outcomes. Methods: The primary objective of this Phase II study was to estimate the complete remission (CR) rate at EOI. Potential participants must have had a histologically confirmed diagnosis of FL grade 1, 2, or 3a with HTB defined by GELF or high risk defined by FLIPI-1 criteria. They must have had adequate performance status and organ function. Notably, creatinine clearance must have been ≥50 mL/min. Participants must have not had prior treatment for FL. Eligible participants were treated with Bendamustine IV 90 mg/m2 Day (D) 1 & 2, Obinutuzumab IV 100 mg D1, 900 mg D2, 1000 mg D8 and D15 of Cycle (C) 1 then D1 of each cycle, and VEN 800 mg orally daily D1-10 every 28 days for 6 total cycles. Due to a high rate of laboratory tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) during C1 in the first 21 patients, VEN was removed from C1 and given in C2-6 only. Participants with a CR at EOI were treated with mO IV 1000 mg D1 every 8 weeks for 2 years. Those with a partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) were treated with mO as well as VEN 800 mg orally daily for 2 years. Pneumocystis jiroveci Pneumonia (PJP) and antiviral prophylaxis was required as was G-CSF support. Response was assessed via Lugano Criteria at EOI including PET/CT and bone marrow assessment. Adverse Events (AEs) were evaluated using CTCAE v5.0. To be considered promising, OB-VEN should improve the null hypothesis CR rate of 50% (OB) to 65%. With an 85% power and a one sided 15% type I error, 56 participants would be needed with an estimated 51 eligible. Support for the study was from Genentech, Member of the Roche Group. Results A total of 56 participants were enrolled and treated between 12/2017 and 11/2020; baseline characteristics are listed in Table 1. TLS was closely monitored in C1 and 8/21 participants developed TLS when VEN was administered in C1; 0/35 when it was not. However, monitoring for TLS in C1 became less stringent when VEN was not administered. Treatment related Grade ≥3 toxicities occurred in 47/56 participants (83.9%) with serious adverse events in 31 of 56 (55.5%). Atypical infections were seen; there was one treatment related death on study due to cytomegalovirus (CMV) encephalitis as well as PJP pneumonia which occurred after induction C6. Enrollment was temporarily suspended and CMV monitoring was implemented with no further occurrences. Another participant receiving mO later developed BK virus nephropathy following mO C6 and now requires ongoing hemodialysis. Another was diagnosed with Respiratory Syncytial Virus pneumonia 30 days after C6 and later PJP pneumonia after C2 of mO. Common (incidence &gt;10%) AEs during induction are listed in Table 2. 45 of 56 (80.4%) participants were able to receive all 6 cycles of OB-VEN. CR was seen in 41 of 56 participants (73.2%, 2 sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 59.7-84.2%) at the EOI. 30 participants (53.5%) went onto maintenance. With a median follow up of 20.9 months, estimated 2 year Overall Survival (OS) and Progression-Free Survival (PFS) (90% CI) is 94.4% (82.4-98.3%) and 85.8% (68.8-93.9%) respectively. Conclusions This Phase II study of OB-VEN in untreated HTB FL showed high CR rate and met its primary endpoint with early signs of prolonged PFS. Laboratory TLS was identified but it was unclear if attributed solely to VEN, as baseline laboratory TLS rate for OB is unknown. The rate of Grade ≥3 AE of 83.9% (compared to 69% for OB in GALLIUM, Hiddeman JCO 2018) and the observation of opportunistic infections including CMV encephalitis, PJP pneumonia and BK nephropathy, suggests the combination is highly immunosuppressive. Therefore, while the study met its primary outcome, the combination of OB-VEN at 800 mg for 10 days, plus mO, does not have an acceptable risk/benefit profile. Participants will continue to be followed for efficacy and safety during the maintenance phase. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Portell: Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; SeaGen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Xencor: Research Funding; Aptitude Health: Honoraria; BeiGene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Morphosys: Honoraria; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; Genentech: Research Funding; VelosBio: Research Funding. Nowakowski: MorphoSys: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kymera Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy; Nanostrings: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Zai Labolatory: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Bantham Pharmaceutical: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Selvita: Consultancy; Ryvu Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kyte Pharma: Consultancy. Cohen: Janssen, Adicet, Astra Zeneca, Genentech, Aptitude Health, Cellectar, Kite/Gilead, Loxo, BeiGene, Adaptive: Consultancy; Genentech, BMS/Celgene, LAM, BioINvent, LOXO, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, M2Gen, Takeda: Research Funding. Kahl: AbbVie, Acerta, ADCT, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech: Research Funding; AbbVie, Adaptive, ADCT, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Incyte, Janssen, Karyopharm, Kite, MEI, Pharmacyclics, Roche, TG Therapeutics, and Teva: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: Venetoclax is not approved for follicular lymphoma or in combination with bendamustine and obinutuzumab

Abstract Introduction: Clinical trials of novel salvage therapies (ST) have encouraging outcomes for relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL) after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT); yet studies comparing novel ST with conventional salvage chemotherapy are lacking. In a single center cohort, we demonstrated that bendamustine/brentuximab (BBV) had higher overall response rates (ORR) and complete response (CR) rates in ASCT-eligible R/R cHL (Desai et al JCO, 2021). Herein we report comparative outcomes of novel and conventional ST in R/R cHL who undergo ASCT, in a large multicenter retrospective cohort. Methods: Consecutive R/R cHL pts who underwent ASCT at 12 institutions across United States were included. Demographics and clinical variables at relapse including age, sex, B symptoms, stage, bulky disease (BD, single mass &gt; 6 cm) extra nodal disease (END), primary refractory disease (PRD) and early relapse (ER, within 1 year) were recorded by electronic health records review. Study objectives were ORR, CR to first ST, post-ASCT PFS and OS by final ST. Time to event endpoints were defined from date of ASCT. Results: From 12 participating institutions, 853 pts of R/R cHL who underwent ASCT were eligible for this study. Median age was 33 (14-72) years, 457 (54%) were male, 446 (52%) had BD, 257 (30%) had advanced stage, 271 (32%) had END, 369 (43%) had B symptoms, 142 (17%) had PRD and 307 (36%) had ER. All 853 received at least 1 ST, 245 received 2 ST, 71 received 3 ST and 26 received 4 ST. Seven groups of ST were identified: 1. Conventional platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) group including ICE, DHAP and ESHAP 2. BBV 3. Brentuximab Vedotin and nivolumab (BV/Nivo) 4. BV alone (BV) 5. gemcitabine-based chemotherapy (Gem) 6. checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) and 7. other miscellaneous agents (Misc). 1st ST was as follows: 553 had PBC; 69 had BBV; 48 had BV/Nivo; 65 had BV; 49 had Gem; 4 had CPI and 63 had Misc. There was no significant difference in the baseline characteristics by type of 1 st ST (data not shown). BBV had significantly higher ORR (92% vs 79%, p&lt;0.001) and CR rate (80% vs 49%, p &lt;0.001) compared to PBC. BV/Nivo had significantly higher CR rate (67% vs 49%, p &lt;0.001) and a trend towards higher ORR (86% vs 79%, p = 0.1) compared to PBC. BV had significantly lower ORR (62% vs 79%, p &lt;0.001) and CR rate (34% vs 49%, p &lt;0.001) compared to PBC. There was no difference in ORR and CR rate of PBC, Gem, CPI and Misc agents. Final ST prior to ASCT was PBC in 451, BBV in 76, BV/Nivo in 48, BV in 87, CPI in 24, Gem in 90 and Misc in 64. Table 1 lists K-M estimates of 2-year survival probabilities for different Final ST groups. Median follow up was 3 (range 0.1-13) years. BV/Nivo group had significantly higher proportion of patients with PRD and BD than PBC, no other differences in baseline characteristics were identified amongst ST groups (data not shown). BV/Nivo (HR: 0.1 (CI 95:0.02-0.4), p&lt;0.01) and CPI (HR: 0.12 (CI 95:0.03-0.5), p&lt;0.01) had significantly higher PFS than PBC. There was no significant difference in PFS between other ST groups (Figure 1a). Type of ST was not significantly associated with difference in OS (Figure 1b). 536 pts underwent ASCT in CR, 273 underwent ASCT in partial response (PR) and 31 underwent ASCT with progressive disease (PD). Pre-ASCT PR (HR 1.6 (CI 95:1.3-2.6), p&lt;0.001) and PD (HR: 4.1 (CI 95: 2.5-6.8), p&lt;0.001) predicted significantly lower PFS compared to CR (Figure 2a). OS was also significantly lower in pts with pre-ASCT PR (HR 1.7 (CI 95: 1.2-1.6), p&lt;0.001) and PD (HR 5.3 (CI 95: 2.8-10), p&lt;0.001) (Figure 2b). Higher number of pre-ASCT ST predicted lower PFS (HR 1.3 (CI 95: 1.1-1.6), p&lt;0.001) and OS (HR 1.5 (CI 95: 1.2-1.8), p&lt;0.001). In pts with pre-ASCT CR, all 36 who had pre-ASCT CR after BV/Nivo were alive and relapse free for follow up of 0.1-5 yrs. BV/Nivo was associated with significantly higher PFS (HR 0.1 (CI 95: 0.01-0.7), p &lt;0.05) but not OS compared to PBC in this subgroup. Increasing number of pre-ASCT ST predicted worse PFS (HR 1.5 (CI 95: 1.2-2.0), p&lt;0.01) and OS (HR 2.2 (CI 95: 1.4-3.4), p&lt;0.001) in this subgroup as well. Conclusions: BV/Nivo has a higher CR rate and better post-ASCT PFS compared to conventional chemotherapy and can lead to durable remissions in pts with pre-ASCT CR. BBV had a higher response rate and similar post-ASCT survival to conventional chemotherapy. BV had lower response rates compared to chemotherapy. Novel ST such as BV/Nivo and BBV may be preferable to conventional chemotherapy in R/R cHL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Spinner: Notable Labs: Honoraria. Bachanova: FATE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; KaryoPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gamida Cell: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dorritie: SITC presentation: Honoraria; Genmab: Research Funding; University of Pittsburgh/UPMC Hillman Cancer Center: Current Employment; Janssen: Research Funding; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Juno/BMS: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; OncLive/Institutional Perspectives on Cancer presentation: Honoraria. Arai: Magenta Therapeutics: Research Funding. Maurer: Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Diefenbach: Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; IMab: Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health: Current Employment; AbbVie: Research Funding; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Gilead: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; MEI: Consultancy, Research Funding. Nowakowski: Kyte Pharma: Consultancy; Ryvu Therapeutics: Consultancy; Selvita: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Bantham Pharmaceutical: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Zai Labolatory: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kymera Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy; Nanostrings: Research Funding. Advani: Astellas/Agensys: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myer Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cell Medica: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forty Seven: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genetech Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura: Research Funding; Kyowa: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.