Straus, David J.

Abstract Introduction For patients with Stage III/IV Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), lack of response as assessed by PET scan following cycle 2 (PET2) of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) is predictive of poor clinical outcomes. SWOG Study S0816 utilized response-adapted therapy, where patients achieving a complete remission (CR) on PET2 (Deauville Score ≤ 3) continued 4 additional cycles of ABVD and those patients unable to achieve a complete remission (CR) on PET2 (Deauville Score > 3) were switched to therapy with escalated bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (eBEACOPP) for 6 cycles. This study demonstrated a 2-year PFS of 64% in the PET2+ patients after switching to eBEACOPP, which was much higher than expected (Press 2016). Herein, we report the 5-year follow-up of survival and toxicities of the patients treated on S0816. Methods Patients with Stage III/IV HL were enrolled to S0816 from 7/1/09-12/2/12 (n=358). Eligible patients were age 18-60 years, had measurable disease, no prior lymphoma therapy, a Zubrod performance status of 0-2, and no serious medical comorbidities. Patients were treated with response-adapted therapy as above. A subset of 336 eligible and HIV-negative patients were analyzed. Of 336, 331 had central review of PET2. PFS and OS estimates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The two-sided Fisher's exact test was used to compare the rate of second cancer between patients switched to treatment eBEACOPP and those treated with continued ABVD after 2 initial cycles of ABVD. Results The median age of patients was 32 years (range, 18-60). All were Stage III/IV and 51% had an International Prognostic Score of ≥ 3. PET2 was negative in 271 patients (82%) and positive in 60 patients (18%). Of PET2+ patients, 49 (82%) switched to eBEACOPP as planned and 11 (18%) declined. Median follow-up is now 5.9 years (range, 0.2-8.3 years). Eighty-five (25%) patients have either progressed or died, for an estimated 5-year PFS of 74% (95% CI: 69%-79%; Figure 1). There were 64 (24%) events in those patients who were PET2- for a 5-year PFS of 76% (95% CI: 71-81%; Figure 2). There were 20 (33%) events in those patients who were PET2+ for a 5-year PFS of 65% (95% CI: 51-76%; Figure 2). One event occurred in a patient without central review of PET2. Nineteen patients have died for an estimated 5-year overall survival of 94% (95% CI: 91%-96%; Figure 1). Eleven (3%) patients died of HL including 6 (2%) that had PET2- and 5 (8%) that had PET2+. Other causes of death included: treatment-related toxicity [sepsis (eBEACOPP n=1), bleomycin lung injury (eBEACOPP n=1; ABVD n=1), and graft versus host disease (ABVD n=1)]; second primary cancers [(eBEACOPP n=2; cervical cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL)]; and unknown causes (ABVD n=2). Post-therapy grade 3 adverse events were uncommon but included 1 case each of heart failure, peripheral neuropathy, prolonged neutropenia, diarrhea, DVT (catheter-related) in patients who received continued ABVD and osteonecrosis of hips/shoulders in patients who received eBEACOPP. There were 13 (4%) cases of reported second cancers, including 7 (14%) in patients treated with eBEACOPP [1 each of myelodysplastic syndrome, kidney, melanoma, NHL, cervical, medullary thyroid, and basal cell carcinoma] and 6 (2%) in patients treated with ABVD (1 each of kidney, melanoma, NHL, bladder, prostate, and squamous cell carcinoma; 2-sided Fisher's exact P value = 0.001). Conclusions The long-term overall survival of the patients treated on S0816 remains high (94%) at 5 years. Despite historical data suggesting favorable clinical outcomes in patients with a negative PET2, nearly 25% of these patients experienced relapse events, demonstrating limitations of a PET-adapted approach and of standard frontline therapy with ABVD. In patients who were PET2+, PFS was favorable relative to historical series, but was associated with a high rate of secondary malignancies. Our results emphasize the importance of long-term follow-up in this disease, and the need for better biomarkers at diagnosis of HL and less toxic approaches for patients with a positive PET2. Acknowledgment In memory of Oliver W. Press, principal investigator of this trial, who died in 2017. Disclosures Straus: DAVA Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Medical Crossfire: Speakers Bureau; Millenium (Takeda): Consultancy, Research Funding; JUNO: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Onco Tracker: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Roch China: Speakers Bureau; InPractice Elselvier: Consultancy; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Employment. Rimsza:NanoString: Other: Inventor on the patent for the Lymph2Cx assay. Bartlett:ImaginAB: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Evens:Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics International DMC: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Affimed: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Tesaro: Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy. LaCasce:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Data safety and monitoring board; Research to Practice: Speakers Bureau; Humanigen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Barr:AbbVie, Gilead: Consultancy. Leonard:Gilead: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Biotest: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; United Therapeutics: Consultancy. Kahl:Genentech: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Smith:BMS: Consultancy; Portola: Honoraria. Friedberg:Bayer: Honoraria.

Abstract Background: The phase 3 ECHELON-1 study assessed frontline brentuximab vedotin administered with doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) vs doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) in patients (pts) with advanced cHL (NCT01712490). The primary endpoint of ECHELON-1, modified PFS (mPFS) per independent review facility (IRF), is defined as (1) progressive disease, (2) death, or (3) subsequent anticancer therapy (chemotherapy [chemo] and/or radiotherapy [RT]) following detection of a non-complete response (non-CR = Deauville score 3-5) at end of frontline therapy. A+AVD was superior to ABVD (hazard ratio [HR]=0.77; p=0.035) with 2-year mPFS rates of 82.1% and 77.2%; as previously reported. In pts with newly diagnosed cHL, the aim of frontline therapy is curative. Pts who do not achieve a satisfactory response to frontline therapy may initiate subsequent anticancer therapy prior to response criteria-defined progression. The measurement of traditional PFS becomes confounded, as pts may effectively be rescued from criteria-defined progression by subsequent treatment, resulting in an overestimation of PFS with frontline therapy (Connors et al. Haematologica 2016;101[s5]:22-3[P007]). To further evaluate modified and traditional PFS in the ECHELON-1 study, two sensitivity analyses were conducted. Methods: 1334 pts with Stage III (36%) or IV (64%) cHL were randomized 1:1 to receive A+AVD (n=664) or ABVD (n=670) on days 1 and 15, for up to six 28-day cycles. In addition to mPFS per IRF, mPFS per investigator (INV) was collected. A sensitivity analysis (mPFS-chemo) was performed in which RT following a non-CR at the completion of frontline therapy was not counted as an event: in this case, mPFS-chemo was defined as (1) progression, (2) death, or (3) receipt of additional anticancer chemo excluding RT for pts who are not in CR after completion of frontline therapy. A second sensitivity analysis of traditional PFS (PFS-traditional), defined as (1) progression or (2) death, was also performed. All analyses were performed per INV as, per protocol, IRF follow up of pts was not conducted after the initiation of subsequent therapy. Results: At 2 years, the rates of mPFS per INV (95% CI) for A+AVD vs ABVD were 81.0% (77.6-83.9%) vs 74.4% (70.7-77.7%), respectively; HR=0.72 (95% CI: 0.573, 0.914; p=0.006). Concordance between IRF and INV mPFS assessments was high among all pts in both arms, at 91%. A total of 123 mPFS events per INV were observed among pts treated with A+AVD, including 73 pts with PD, 15 deaths, and 35 who received additional anticancer therapy following evidence of non-CR at the end of frontline therapy, vs 164 per INV mPFS events among pts treated with ABVD, of which 103 were PD, 22 were deaths, and 39 were additional anticancer therapy following evidence of non-CR at the end of frontline therapy. Of the 35 (A+AVD) and 39 (ABVD) additional anticancer therapy events, chemo/RT following evidence of non-CR at the end of frontline therapy accounted for 11/24 and 17/22 of these events, respectively. For mPFS-chemo, a larger benefit in favor of A+AVD vs ABVD, with a HR=0.687 (95% CI: 0.534, 0.885; p=0.003), was observed. The 2-year mPFS-chemo (95% CI) was estimated as 84.0% (80.9-86.7%) for pts treated with A+AVD vs 77.3% (73.7-80.4%) for pts treated with ABVD. A total of 103 events were observed among pts in the A+AVD arm, including 78 pts with PD, 15 deaths, and 10 who received additional chemo following evidence of a non-CR at the end of frontline therapy, vs 145 events among pts treated with ABVD, of which 106 were PD, 22 were deaths, and 17 were additional chemo following evidence of non-CR at the end of frontline therapy. For PFS-traditional, an advantage in favor of A+AVD vs ABVD was also observed: HR=0.70 (95% CI: 0.54-0.91; p=0.006). The 2-year PFS estimate (95% CI) was 84.2% (81.1-86.9%) for A+AVD vs 78.0% (74.4-81.1%) for ABVD. In total, there were 101 PFS events in the A+AVD arm, including 86 pts with PD and 15 deaths; vs 140 PFS events in the ABVD arm, including 118 pts with PD and 22 deaths. Conclusions: Consistent with the primary outcome of ECHELON-1, a benefit in favor of A+AVD vs ABVD was observed independent of the inclusion of additional anticancer RT or chemo as survival events, in addition to progression or death. A traditional PFS assessment including only progression or death events demonstrated that A+AVD resulted in a 30% reduction in the risk of progression or death compared to ABVD. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Connors: Lilly: Research Funding; Bayer Healthcare: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; NanoString Technologies: Patents & Royalties: Named Inventor on a patent licensed to NanoString Technologies, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche Canada: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; F Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Younes:J&J: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Curis: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria. Gallamini:Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Ansell:Pfizer: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Kim:J&J: Research Funding; Kyowa-Kirin: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Celltrion: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Eisai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Advani:Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cell Medica: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Forty Seven Inc.: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Merck: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Celgene: Research Funding; Autolus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Millenium: Research Funding; Agensys: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board. Bartlett:KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; ImaginAB: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Straus:Onco Tracker: Consultancy; Roch China: Speakers Bureau; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Employment; JUNO: Consultancy; Medical Crossfire: Speakers Bureau; DAVA Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy; InPractice Elselvier: Consultancy; Millenium (Takeda): Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Sureda:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hutchings:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dlugosz-Danecka:Servier: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Engley:Seattle Genetics: Employment. Fenton:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Liu:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Miao:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Jolin:Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Employment. Gautam:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Radford:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Equity Ownership; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Equity Ownership; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding.

AbstractThe investigators present results on the long-term value and limitations of early interim positron emission tomography (PET) scanning in advanced Hodgkin lymphoma.

Abstract Purpose: To evaluate safety and efficacy outcomes for subjects on the ECHELON-1 study treated in North America (NA). Patients and Methods: ECHELON-1 is a global, open-label, randomized phase III study comparing doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine in combination with brentuximab vedotin (A+AVD) versus ABVD (AVD + bleomycin) as first-line therapy in subjects with stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL; NCT01712490). Subjects were randomized 1:1 to receive A+AVD or ABVD intravenously on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle for up to 6 cycles. Results: The NA subgroup consisted of 497 subjects in the A+AVD (n = 250) and ABVD (n = 247) arms. Similar to the primary analysis based on the intent-to-treat population, the primary endpoint [modified progression-free survival (PFS) per independent review] demonstrated an improvement among subjects who received A+AVD compared with ABVD (HR = 0.60; P = 0.012). For PFS, the risk of progression or death was also reduced (HR = 0.50; P = 0.002). Subsequent anticancer therapies were lower in the A+AVD arm. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs) were more common, but there were fewer study discontinuations due to AEs in the A+AVD arm as compared with ABVD. Noted differences between arms included higher rates of febrile neutropenia (20% vs. 9%) and peripheral neuropathy (80% vs. 56%), but lower rates of pulmonary toxicity (3% vs. 10%) in subjects treated with A+AVD versus ABVD. Conclusions: The efficacy benefit and manageable toxicity profile observed in the NA subgroup of ECHELON-1 support A+AVD as a frontline treatment option for patients with stage III or IV cHL.