Gascoyne, Randy D.

PURPOSE Patients with the activated B-cell-like (ABC) subtype of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) historically showed inferior survival with standard rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP). Phase II studies demonstrated that adding the immunomodulatory agent lenalidomide to R-CHOP improved outcomes in ABC-type DLBCL. The goal of the global, phase III ROBUST study was to compare lenalidomide plus R-CHOP (R2-CHOP) with placebo/R-CHOP in previously untreated, ABC-type DLBCL. METHODS Histology and cell-of-origin type were prospectively analyzed by central pathology prior to random assignment and study treatment. Patients with ABC-DLBCL received lenalidomide oral 15 mg/d, days 1-14/21 plus standard R-CHOP21 versus placebo/R-CHOP21 for six cycles. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) per independent central radiology review. RESULTS A total of 570 patients with ABC-DLBCL (n = 285 per arm) were stratified by International Prognostic Index score, age, and bulky disease, and randomly assigned to R2-CHOP or placebo/R-CHOP. Baseline demographics were similar between arms. Most patients completed six cycles of treatment: 74% R2-CHOP and 84% placebo/R-CHOP. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events for R2-CHOP versus placebo/R-CHOP were neutropenia (60% v 48%), anemia (22% v 14%), thrombocytopenia (17% v 11%), and leukopenia (14% v 15%). The primary end point of PFS was not met, with a hazard ratio of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.14) and P = .29; median PFS has not been reached for either arm. PFS trends favoring R2-CHOP over placebo/R-CHOP were seen in patients with higher-risk disease. CONCLUSION ROBUST is the first DLBCL phase III study to integrate biomarker-driven identification of eligible ABC patients. Although the ROBUST trial did not meet the primary end point of PFS in all patients, the safety profile of R2-CHOP was consistent with individual treatments with no new safety signals.

Abstract Purpose: We sought to improve upon frontline bendamustine/rituximab (BR) induction therapy followed by rituximab maintenance in untreated high-risk follicular lymphoma (FL). Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized to BR induction followed by 2-year rituximab maintenance (BR-R), BR with bortezomib and rituximab maintenance (BVR-R), or BR followed by lenalidomide (1 year) with rituximab maintenance (BR-LR). Dual primary objectives were complete remission (CR) rate and 1-year disease-free survival (DFS); 289 patients enrolled (NCT01216683). Results: For induction, 92%, 87%, and 86% of patients randomized to BR-R, BVR-R, or BR-LR received six cycles, respectively. CR rate with BR versus BVR induction was 62% versus 75%, respectively (P = 0.04). One-year DFS rates with BR-R versus BR-LR were 85% versus 67%, respectively (P = 0.0009). This was due to an imbalance in CR rates post-BR induction and discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs). The most common grade 3–4 AEs for BVR versus BR were neutropenia and sensory neuropathy (12% vs <1%); 83% of the latter occurred with intravenous bortezomib. The most common grade 3–4 AEs related to LR versus rituximab maintenance were neutropenia 66% versus 21%, respectively (P < 0.0001), and febrile neutropenia 10% versus 2%, respectively (P = 0.05). The overall treatment-related mortality was 1.4%. With 5-year median follow-up, 3-year PFS rates for BR-R, BVR-R, and BR-LR were 77%, 82%, and 76%, respectively (P = 0.36) with OS rates of 87%, 90%, and 84%, respectively (P = 0.79). For prognostication, CR rate and POD-24 were associated with survival. Conclusions: Altogether, neither bortezomib added to BR induction nor lenalidomide added to rituximab maintenance immediately post-BR induction is recommended in untreated FL.

Abstract E1496 is a phase III trial designed to evaluate the ability of 2 years (yr) of maintenance rituximab (MR) to prolong progression-free survival (PFS) after CVP (cyclophosphamide 1 G/m2 day [d] 1, vincristine 1.4 mg/m2 [max = 2 mg] d 1, prednisone 100 mg/m2 d 1–5) chemotherapy in stage III–IV follicular grade 1 and 2 and small lymphocytic lymphoma. After CVP treatment to maximum response, (6–8 cycles), stable and responding patients (pt) were randomized to MR (375 mg/m2 weekly x 4) every 6 months x 4 or observation (OBS). Stratification factors included histology, response and residual disease after CVP. With 3-yr median follow-up, survivals (from time of randomization, one-sided logrank p values) for all pt (n=304) favored MR for PFS (p = 3 x 10–8; hazard rate {HR} = 0.38 [0.28;0.54, 95% confidence intervals]) and OS (p = 0.09; HR = 0.66 [0.36–1.22]). Because the large majority of pt have FL and because rituximab efficacy is notably greater in FL, we focused in this report on the 237 FL pt. Median age was 58 yr, 65% were stage IV, 64% had marrow disease, 64% had high tumor burden and 37% had high-risk disease by the follicular lymphoma prognostic index. PFS after randomization was significantly longer for MR vs OBS (p = 3 x 10-7; HR = 0.39 [0.27;0.57]). The estimated PFS at 4 yr (~4.5 yr after start of treatment) was 56% for MR vs 33% for OBS. Differences in PFS were significant within the predefined strata and the differences were most significant in favor of MR for pt with high initial tumor burden and minimal residual disease after CVP. Overall survival was superior for MR (p = 0.03; HR = 0.51 [0.25;1.04]. Estimated OS at 4 yr (~4.5 years after start of treatment) was 88% for MR vs 72% for OBS. Of 33 deaths, 21 occurred on the OBS arm. These data demonstrate that maintenance rituximab not only significantly delays disease progression in FL compared with OBS but that a substantial proportion of patients treated with MR remain disease-free at 4 years after the completion of CVP. These are the first data to strongly suggest a survival benefit with a therapy that includes rituximab and CVP and the first to strongly suggest a survival benefit with maintenance rituximab in FL.

Abstract Background: Positive interim PET scans have been associated with inferior outcomes in DLBCL treated with chemotherapy, alone or with rituximab. In the ECOG 3404 study for bulky and advanced DLBCL, PET scans at baseline and after 3 R-CHOP are centrally reviewed by a single reader; those with positive scans cross-over to R-ICE after 4 R-CHOP, whereas those with negative scans continue on R-CHOP. The primary endpoint of E3404 is progression-free survival. To determine the reproducibility of interim PET scan interpretation, we convened an expert panel. Methods: Three external nuclear medicine physicians visually scored baseline and interim PET scans independently and blinded to other clinical information or outcome. ECOG study criteria were binary (0,1) based on residual disease in initially involved sites with uptake greater than the liver. London criteria were on a scale of 0–5, where 4–5 was positive, based on increased uptake relative to the liver. Overall scores and agreement among experts were evaluated for both criteria, with application of the kappa statistic to correct for chance. Results: Using the ECOG criteria, external reviewers were in complete agreement in 68% of 38 interim scans and completely agreed with the central review in the same 68% cases. Agreement among the experts was 71% employing the London criteria in these cases. The range of PET+ interim scans by reviewer was 16.8% to 34.2% (p=NS) by both ECOG and London criteria. The kappa statistic for overall pairwise correlation between readers was 0.445 (0.396–0.533) using ECOG and 0.502 (0.396–0.630) using London criteria – indicating moderate consistency. Areas of disagreement often, but not exclusively, related to bone disease, the shape and focality of residual uptake, splenic disease, and rare scans without CT-fusion. Conclusions: These data show that visual criteria, either ECOG or London in this series, for interim PET results are moderately reproducible among individual nuclear medicine experts. Our finding of variability among experts indicates the need for caution in interpreting interim PET results in studies and in practice. Review of all E3404 cases is planned after accrual is completed (projected 12/08). Other ongoing studies evaluating interim PET after 1–3 cycles of therapy, the application of quantitative criteria, and consensus panels may provide further valuable information.

8011 Background: Maintenance therapy is generally not used in treatment of DLBCL. However, older pts are a unique group in which to study this approach, due to poorer outcome. Methods: As part of intergroup trial E4494/C9793, 415 pts >= 60 years (yr) of age with DLBCL who responded to induction therapy with CHOP or R-CHOP were randomized to MR (rituximab, 375 mg/m2 weekly {wk} X 4 every 6 months for 2 yr) starting 4 wk after the last chemotherapy (n=207) or observation (OBS, n=208) in a prospective 2 × 2 randomized trial design (J Clin Oncol 2006;24:3121). Impact of MR on failure-free survival (FFS) was the primary objective, and impact on time to failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) were secondary objectives. All p-values are two-sided. Results: Results are presented for 352 centrally reviewed evaluable pts, with a median follow-up after maintenance randomization of 5.5 yr. All results were similar for the intent-to-treat population. Baseline characteristics and response to induction therapy are balanced among the CHOP/R-CHOP pts. At 6 yr, FFS was 46% for those pt who received MR and 36% for the OBS cohort (p=0.005, hazard rate {HR} 0.64); 6-yr OS was 62% for MR and 64% for OBS (p=0.83, HR 0.96). Outcome was also examined in the four treatment subgroups. The 6-yr FFS were: CHOP+MR 44%, CHOP+OBS 35%, R-CHOP+MR 47%, and R- CHOP+OBS 40%. No differences in 6-yr OS were observed according to maintenance randomization following CHOP (57% MR vs 55% OBS) or R-CHOP (67% MR and 72% OBS). Median TTF after maintenance randomization following CHOP+MR was 5.2 yr vs 1.6 yr for CHOP-OBS (p=0.0004), and following R-CHOP+MR was 5.6 yr vs 5.4 yr with R-CHOP-OBS (p=0.50). Proportionately more of the treatment failures occurred within 2 yr after CHOP+OBS (85%) compared to CHOP+MR (61%), p=0.01. In contrast, the proportion of failures within 2 yr was similar for R- CHOP+OBS (47%) and R-CHOP+MR (53%), p=NS. Conclusions: MR after CHOP, but not after R-CHOP, significantly prolongs TTF, but fails to prolong OS, possibly due to a delayed pattern of relapse and/or the efficacy of rituximab in the salvage setting. As 6-yr FFS declined to <50% among R-CHOP responders, with or without MR, there is a need for more effective treatment strategies in older DLBCL pts. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

8004 Background: To determine optimal induction and the role of maintenance, the E1496 study randomized patients (pts) to induction CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone) versus CF (cyclophosphamide 1 G/m2 d1, fludarabine 20 mg/m2 d1–5 every 28 d) for 2 cycles beyond best response (maximum 8). Responding and stable pts were secondarily randomized to MR (375 mg/m2 weekly × 4 every 6 months for 2 years [yr]) or observation (OBS). Methods: Due to early deaths the CF arm was closed to accrual with 115 pts randomized to CF and 119 pts to CVP (thereafter all pts were assigned to CVP prior to maintenance randomization). The results presented here compare the outcome of CF patients with the subset of E1496 pts randomized to CVP (CVPR). Results: Median follow-up on pts randomized to induction is 6.5 yr. Toxic deaths occurred in 8 (7%) CF pts during induction and 4 additional deaths (1 OBS, 3 MR) occurred among the 69 (6%) CF pts randomized to MR or OBS. Causes of death were infection (9), liver failure (2), CNS gliosis (1). CF pts received a median of 5 cycles compared to 7 cycles for CVPR. The CR rate was 51% vs 22% (p=0.00001) and the PR rate was 35% vs 55% for CF vs. CVPR, respectively. Four-yr PFS for CF vs. CVPR was 49% vs 45% (p=0.19) and OS was 66% vs. 81% (p=0.12), respectively. Of 45 CF deaths, 23 (51%) occurred without lymphoma progression compared to 5 (13%) of 38 CVPR deaths (p=0.0004). More than 90% of CF patients randomized to maintenance achieved protocol-defined minimal residual disease compared with 64% CVPR pts. Maintenance therapy had no impact on 2 yr PFS for the 67 evaluable randomized CF pts, which was 74% for MR vs. 73% for OBS (p=0.19). In contrast, 2 yr PFS was 73% for MR and 42% for OBS in randomized CVPR pts (p=0.004). Survival at 2 yr for MR vs OBS was: CF 79% vs 91% (p=0.19) compared with CVP 98% vs 93% (p=0.21). Conclusions: Induction with CF results in higher CR and miminal residual disease rates than CVP. However, gains in remission quality with CF (in the dose and schedule used here) were offset by early and late deaths in the absence of progressive lymphoma. In E1496, the benefit of MR was influenced by the induction chemotherapy. [Table: see text]

Introduction: The phase 3 international, randomized, double-blind ROBUST clinical trial (NCT02285062) compared progression-free survival between patients with previously untreated ABC-type DLBCL treated with placebo plus rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (placebo-R-CHOP) versus lenalidomide + R-CHOP (R2-CHOP) for 6 21-day cycles. HRQoL, as measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lymphoma (FACT-Lym) and the EuroQoL 5-dimension 3-level (EQ-5D-3L) patient-reported questionnaires, was evaluated as a secondary endpoint for the 2 treatment arms. Methods: For each treatment group, FACT-Lym and EQ-5D-3L scores were measured at baseline (BL), mid-, end-of-treatment (EOT), and post-treatment, in 12-week intervals from Week 34 onward. Patients were evaluated if they had completed BL and ≥ 1 post-BL calculable FACT-Lym subscale measurements. Non-inferiority (NI) of R2-CHOP versus placebo-R-CHOP was measured for 4 key FACT-Lym subscales: Physical Well-Being (PWB), Additional Concerns (AC), Functional Well-Being (FWB), and Trial Outcome Index (TOI). NI was assessed at EOT (typically 3-4 weeks after completing Cycle 6) and at post-treatment follow-up at Week 34 by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The NI margins were prespecified as 1 less than the higher published minimal important difference (MID) for each subscale. Since a range of MIDs have been published, a more conservative value was also used as a sensitivity analysis. Time to improvement (TTI), using published responder definitions, was also assessed for the FACT-Lym subscales. EQ-5D-3L scores were summarized descriptively. Results: Demographic and baseline disease characteristics were balanced across the 2 treatment arms (N = 285 per arm). The percentage of patients who completed the FACT-Lym out of the expected population remained &gt; 85% at all time points with &gt; 50 patients still on the study in each treatment arm up to Week 142. Completion rates and reasons for missing assessments were balanced across the 2 treatment arms. FACT-Lym subscale scores were generally higher after EOT, similar for both treatment groups, and mean changes from BL were close to or above MID (where defined), except for the Social/Family Well-Being subscale. Mean differences in FACT-Lym TOI between treatment arms are shown in Table 1. As positive treatment differences favor R2-CHOP and -10 was the predefined NI margin, NI was demonstrated for the FACT-Lym TOI subscale at both EOT and Week 34 assessments. Superiority of R2-CHOP was demonstrated at EOT as the confidence interval (CI) lies completely above 0 (P &lt; 0.04); however, this difference was not clinically meaningful. Furthermore, NI was also demonstrated when using the sensitivity analysis margin of -4.5. ANCOVA models were also fitted for the other key subscales of PWB, AC and FWB (Table 2). NI was demonstrated for all NI margins at both time points for the PWB and AC subscales. The FACT-Lym FWB subscale demonstrated NI for both margins at EOT and Week 34 for the primary NI margin of -2 based on the MID minus 1, but did not demonstrate NI when an NI margin of -1, based on an alternative published MID, was used. The TTI curves and associated summary statistics were similar for the 2 treatment arms, with a median TTI for the FACT-Lym TOI of 21 weeks (95% CI 15-22) for patients treated with R2-CHOP and 18 weeks (95% CI 15-22) for patients treated with placebo-R-CHOP. Mean EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (VAS) and Utility Index (UK weights) change from baseline scores were higher in both treatment arms and the mean changes were above, or close to, the published MID (7 for VAS, 0.1 for Utility Index) at EOT assessments. Prespecified sensitivity and subgroup analyses supported the conclusions from the primary HRQoL analyses. Conclusions: The predefined NI levels were met for the 4 key FACT-Lym subscales. Similar results were observed across the other HRQoL assessments, sensitivity, and subgroup analyses. Adding lenalidomide to the R-CHOP regimen did not adversely affect the HRQoL of patients with DLBCL as measured by FACT-Lym and EQ-5D-3L. These data serve as a benchmark for future clinical trials combining next-generation immunomodulatory drugs with standard R-CHOP to improve clinical efficacy while maintaining HRQoL in patients with DLBCL. HRQoL analyses should become an integral part of future clinical trials of novel combination regimens in DLBCL. Disclosures Chiappella: Roche: Speakers Bureau; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Servier: Other: advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Other: advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other: advisory board, Speakers Bureau. Cocks:Adelphi Values: Employment; Amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Endomag Ltd.: Consultancy. Greenwood:Adelphi Values: Employment. Williams:Adelphi Values: Employment. Scott:Celgene: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; NanoString: Patents & Royalties: Named inventor on a patent licensed to NanoSting [Institution], Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Yamamoto:SymBio: Research Funding; Ono: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sumitomo Dainippon: Honoraria; Chugai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Solasia Pharma: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kyowa Kirin: Honoraria; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Meiji Seika Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; HUYA/IQVIA Services Japan: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Jurczak:Bayer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Loxo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celtrion: Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Özcan:Sanofi: Other: Travel support; Abdi Ibrahim: Other: Travel support; BMS: Other: Travel support; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Archigen: Research Funding; Roche: Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding, Travel support; AbbVie: Other: Travel support, Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Jazz: Other: Travel support; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Travel support. Belada:Roche: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Margunato-Debay:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Czuczman:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhai:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Braverman:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Vitolo:Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Nowakowski:Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NanoString: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding.

Background: Standard first-line treatment for patients diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the R-CHOP regimen. Despite numerous efforts to improve on this regimen, in all comers and specifically in those with activated B-cell (ABC)-type DLBCL, results from large randomized studies have failed to show a significant clinical advantage above this standard. Recently, 2 large clinical trials in previously untreated DLBCL evaluated the combination of lenalidomide/R-CHOP (R2-CHOP) vs standard R-CHOP and demonstrated discordant results. We analyzed data from these trials to identify differences that may have impacted the disparate trial outcomes while identifying patient characteristics associated with benefit from the addition of lenalidomide across the trials. Methods: The 2 trials included in this evaluation are ROBUST, an international, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase III study of R2-CHOP vs placebo/R-CHOP, and the Intergroup ECOG-ACRIN 1412 (E1412) trial, a US-only, randomized, open-label, phase II study of R2-CHOP vs R-CHOP. Additional key study design differences included dosing, and subtype timing and inclusion (both studies used gene expression profiling [GEP] by NanoString). R-CHOP dosing differed only for prednisone, which was a flat 100 mg dose, d1-5 in ROBUST and 100 mg/m2, d1-5 in E1412. The lenalidomide dose and schedule varied between studies: 15 mg/d, d1-14/21 for ROBUST (210 mg/cycle) and 25 mg/d, d1-10/21 (250 mg/cycle) for E1412. ROBUST enrolled only patients prospectively identified with the ABC subtype, whereas E1412 enrolled all otherwise eligible patients and retrospectively evaluated for ABC-type with prespecified ABC-type accrual and power parameters. Both studies enrolled patients with IPI status ≥ 2, ECOG PS 0-2, and Ann Arbor stage II-IV (E1412 stage II with mass > 10 cm). The primary endpoint in both was progression-free survival (PFS; central review for ROBUST and investigator-assessed for E1412). Secondary endpoints included event-free survival (EFS; key for ROBUST), overall and complete response rates, overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: ROBUST enrolled 570 ABC patients and E1412 enrolled 280 GCB, ABC, and unclassified DLBCL patients. Patient profiles in both studies (ROBUST [ABC]/E1412 [all COO]) were similar in terms of median ages (65 y/66 y), male sex (58%/61%), and ECOG PS 1-2 (55%/63%). Patients in E1412 were more high risk: IPI 2 (42% ROBUST/34% E1412), IPI ≥ 3 (58%/66%), and Ann Arbor stage III/IV disease (87%/97%). Importantly, there was a notable difference in the time from patient diagnosis to treatment: median 31 days for ROBUST and 21 days (22% > 31 d) for E1412. Only 6% of patients in ROBUST were treated within 2 weeks of diagnosis vs 30% in E1412. At a median follow-up of ~2.5 y for both studies, E1412 met its primary endpoint of improvement in PFS with 34% reduction in the risk of PD/death (2-y PFS: 76% vs 70%) for all patients, but did not reach statistical significance in ABC-DLBCL patients for 2-y PFS (71% vs 61%) or 2-y OS (88% vs 76%). ROBUST showed no significant improvement in the primary PFS endpoint (2-y PFS: 67% vs 64%) or 2-y OS (79% vs 80%) in ABC patients. Subgroup analyses of PFS comparing R2-CHOP vs R-CHOP control within each study suggested that certain baseline factors favor the R2-CHOP arm, including: female sex, high IPI score (≥ 3), non-bulky disease (< 7 cm), and high Ann Arbor stage IV disease. Conclusion: While the ROBUST study design integrated state-of-the-art, real-time GEP to prospectively identify ABC-DLBCL patients with rapid lab turnaround time, cases of logistical delays in tissue submission for central analysis and staging procedures may have resulted in accrual of patients with lower-risk DLBCL and prolonged time from diagnosis to treatment. In contrast, E1412 retrospectively stratified patients by COO through GEP and was able to accrue higher-risk patients irrespective of COO within a shorter time from diagnosis to treatment, which among other differences (eg, smaller population size, study phase), could contribute to the improvement over R-CHOP control. Our comparative findings have significant implications for the design of future biomarker-driven trials and provide momentum for studies of novel combinations with R-CHOP in DLBCL. Further investigation into other factors, including dose intensity and their correlation with outcomes, will be presented. Disclosures Nowakowski: Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Curis: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Chiappella:Servier: Other: advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other: advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Other: advisory board, Speakers Bureau. Hong:Dana Farber Cancer Institute: Employment; Merck: Consultancy. Scott:Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; NanoString: Patents & Royalties: Named inventor on a patent licensed to NanoSting [Institution], Research Funding. Amengual:Appia Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Epizyme: Speakers Bureau. Leonard:BeiGene: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bayer Corporation: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Friedberg:Bayer: Honoraria, Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee; Acerta: Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee. Kostakoglu:F. Hoffman-La Roche: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Jurczak:Morphosys: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celtrion: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Loxo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Yamamoto:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Meiji Seika Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; ARIAD: Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Ono: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; SymBio: Research Funding; HUYA/IQVIA Services Japan: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Chugai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sumitomo Dainippon: Honoraria; Incyte: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Kyowa Kirin: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Solasia Pharma: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Czuczman:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Russo:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hudak:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership; Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhang:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wade:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kahl:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Vitolo:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Speakers Bureau; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. OffLabel Disclosure: Yes, these trials discuss off-label clinical trial investigation of lenalidomide plus R-CHOP in patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

Abstract Background: Bortezomib has efficacy in follicular lymphoma (FL). Though generally well tolerated, it is associated with a few known toxicities, including neurotoxicity. As a chronically administered agent, it is important to investigate the tolerability of bortezomib over time as a single agent and in combination with chemotherapy. The current method of summarizing adverse events (AEs) -focusing on the maximum grade and reporting only grade 3 or higher incidences- fails to capture toxicity that evolves over time or chronic low grade AEs that may occur at significant expense to patients' quality of life. In this study, we applied the Toxicity over Time (ToxT) analytic approach (Thanarajasingam et al, Lancet Oncol 2016), which graphically and analytically depicts AEs longitudinally, to a randomized Phase 2 ECOG-ACRIN sponsored study, E2408, to characterize chronic toxicity of bortezomib (V) when added to standard bendamustine-rituximab (BR) induction in previously untreated high risk FL. Methods: In E2408, patients (pts) were randomized to one of 3 arms at a 1:2:2 ratio: A) BR x 6 followed by maintenance rituximab (MR) x 2 years (yrs) vs B) BVR x 6 (bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 IV/SQ days 1, 4, 8, 11) then MR x 2 yrs vs C) BR x 6 then MR x 2 yrs + lenalidomide 20mg/day x 1 yr. Pts enrolled 1/2011-5/2015. This analysis focuses on the 6 cycles of induction only, with arms A and C combined. Six AEs of interests were selected, 4 symptomatic (subjective) AEs (peripheral sensory neuropathy (PSN), diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, fatigue); and 2 non-symptomatic (objective) AEs (neutropenia and thrombocytopenia). Treatment-related post baseline AEs of any grade were investigated by conventional maximum grade toxicity analysis (ToxC) and ToxT methods. The mean AE grades over cycles were analyzed by repeated measures models, time to grade 2 or higher (gr2+)AE were analyzed with time-to-event analysis; and AE profile over the entire course of the study was summarized by area under the curve (AUC) analyses. Comparisons were performed between treatment arms (BVR vs. BR). Results: All 280 randomized treated pts (187 on BR, 93 on BVR) were included in the analysis regardless of eligibility status; 87% (163/187 BR, 81/93 BVR) completed all 6 cycles. Analyzing the symptomatic AEs,ToxC indicates that the overall incidence of grade 3+ PSN was significantly higher in BVR (12%) than BR (1%) (p<.0001). Additional, ToxT captures the trajectory, demonstrating a rapid, rising incidence and worsening grade of PSN on BVR vs BR over 6 cycles in a steam plot of mean gr. by cycle (Fig 1a) and bar chart of incidence and grade per cycle (c1: 13% gr1 3% gr2, c6: 36% gr1 12% gr2 6% gr3 on BVR; c1: 3% gr1, c6: 10% gr1 1% gr2 on BR, Fig. 1b). Risk of developing gr2+ PSN was significantly higher in BVR than BR with 28% vs 0.5% by day 100 (HR=0.01, p<.0001, Fig. 1c). ToxC captures a higher incidence of grade 3+ diarrhea on BVR (7% vs. 1% , p=.01) while AUC from ToxT includes chronic lower grade diarrhea, that is substantial over time on BVR vs. BR (p<.0001), but is not cumulative. Furthermore, the risk of developing gr2+ diarrhea affecting drug tolerability is significantly higher on BVR than BR(13% vs 5% by day 100) (HR=0.3, p=.05). Febrile neutropenia appeared to be similar, and fatigue was marginally more severe under BVR (p=.06 by AUC). For objective AEs, ToxC reveals no significant difference in neutropenia or thrombocytopenia BVR vs BR (neutropenia gr 3+: 36% vs 31%, p=.4; thrombocytopenia gr3+: 10% vs. 5%, p=.12). However, ToxT illustrates that neutropenia is cumulative, worsening over repeated exposure to drug (c1: 2% gr1 5% gr2 5% gr 3+ , c6: 7% gr1 10% gr2 12% gr3+ both arms combined; p<.0001) on mean grade over time (Fig. 2a). In contrast, thrombocytopenia does not worsen with continued treatment (Fig 2b, p=.73). Conclusions: Compared with conventional toxicity analysis (ToxC), ToxT delineated important additional and clinically relevant depictions of both symptomatic and laboratory AEs over time for bortezomib added to BR in FL pts. In patients receiving BVR, close monitoring is suggested for PSN, diarrhea and neutropenia for reassessment of risks and benefits, symptom interventions and dose modification. Longitudinal toxicity analyses such as ToxT can guide AE interventions as well as patient and clinician education, and provide a more patient-centered toxicity assessment of chronically administered therapies for lymphoma. Disclosures Hong: Merck: Consultancy. Evens:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Tesaro: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics International DMC: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Advani:Kura: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Cell Medica: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Infinity: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Janssen: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: 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; Merck: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Agensys: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Autolus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board. Gascoyne:NanoString: Patents & Royalties: Named Inventor on a patent licensed to NanoString Technologies. Witzig:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dueck:Bayer: Employment; Pfizer: Honoraria; Phytogine: Employment. Kahl:Genentech: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: There remains a critical need to identify untreated HR FL patients (pts) who are at increased risk of early progression and death with conventional treatment. Data examining baseline PET has been reported to be prognostic in FL, however, there remains a paucity of data analyzing this in the context of bendamustine/rituximab (BR) induction followed by maintenance rituximab (MR). We examined the prognostic impact of baseline PET metabolic imaging from the randomized BIONIC study for pts with untreated HR FL. Methods: The BIONIC study conducted by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group enrolled untreated grade I/II or IIIa FL pts with HR disease defined as GELF high tumor burden and/or FLIPI score of 3-5. Pts were randomized to: a) standard BR induction x 6 followed by maintenance rituximab (MR) q 2 months x 2 years vs b) bortezomib + BR x 6 followed by MR q 2 months x 2 years vs c) BR x 6 followed by q 2 months MR x 2 years + lenalidomide given concurrently with the first year of MR. Survival analyses showed no significant differences in 4-year progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) for any study arm (Evens AM et al, ASH 2017). All pts were thus pooled for the purpose of analyzing baseline PET imaging and other characteristics and for correlation with clinical outcomes. Kruskal-Wallis & Wilcoxon Rank Sum test were used to assess differences in distribution of: metabolic measurements (SUVmax and SUVmean of the dominant mass (i.e., the mass/lesion with the highest SUV uptake); metabolic tumor volume (MTV); and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) by categorical variables); induction treatment response; and end-of-induction (EOI) PET response vis-à-vis Deauville scoring (1-3 = negative). Cox proportional hazards regression was used to correlate these metabolic measurements with PFS & OS and multivariable analyses were conducted. An optimal cutoff threshold (grouping into 'High' or 'Low' categories) was used for the metabolic measurements that were significantly associated with PFS & OS. Results: Metabolic data were received and measurements were analyzed centrally on 182 (71%) of 257 eligible pts. The EOI overall response rate (ORR) for all pts on study was 92% with a complete remission (CR) rate of 73%. Additionally, 12% of pts experienced early progression of disease (POD) within 2 years. SUVmax was borderline for association with PFS (P=0.06) and MTV and TLG were not associated with PFS or OS. We demonstrated a statistically significant linear relationship between continuous SUVmean score with PFS and OS, and thereafter, used the minimum p-vlaue approach to determine the optimal cutoff threshold of 7.03 to group pts into 'High' and 'Low' risk groups; with this threshold, baseline SUVmean of the dominant mass was categorized as high risk in 27% pts. The 4-year PFS rates for SUVmean low vs high groups were 80% (95% CI 72, 90%) vs 55% (40, 74%), respectively, P<0.001; and the corresponding 4-year OS rates were 93% (89, 98)% vs 80% (95% CI 69, 93%), respectively, P=0.01 (see Fig. 1). Sensitivity analyses showed no differences in baseline SUVmean by study arm, GELF or FLIPI. The only clinical characteristic that varied among patients with low vs high baseline SUVmean was Black race (0.8 vs 8.0%, respectively, Chi-square P=0.08); there were no other differences based on age, sex, stage, FLIPI, GELF status, ECOG PS, LDH, or # of extranodal sites. In addition, baseline SUVmean correlated with EOI PET (negative EOI PET with baseline SUVmean Low vs High: 81% vs 62%, respectively, P=0.03). In multivariable analyses, both baseline SUVmean and EOI PET remained significant (SUVmean: PFS HR 2.62 (95% CI 1.40-4.92), P=0.001, OS HR 2.37 (95% CI 1.01-5.56), P=0.02; EOI PET PFS HR 4.70 (95% CI 2.74-9.54), P<0.001, OS HR 2.78 (95% CI 1.18-6.56), P=0.01). Finally, baseline SUVmean was also strongly predictive of FL pts who experienced early 2-year POD (Chi-square P<0.001). Conclusions: High baseline SUVmean of the dominant mass was a strong independent prognostic factor for survival for untreated HR FL pts treated with BR-based induction with rituximab maintenance and significance was independent of FLIP or GELF criteria. Collectively, this represents a novel and simple method to identify FL pts at increased risk of early POD and poor survival with standard therapy. Continued investigation of combined PET imaging analyses and other correlative studies to enrich prognostication are warranted. Disclosures Hong: Merck: Consultancy. Advani:Bristol Myers Squibb: Other: Consultancy/Advisory role and Institutional Research Support; Kyowa: Other: Consulting/Advisory Role; Infinity: Other: Institutional Research Support; Pharmacyclics: Other: Institutional Research Support; Seattle Genetics: Other: Consultancy/Advisory role, Institutional Research Support; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Institutional Research Support; Millenium: Other: Institutional Research Support; Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Autolus: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Takeda: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Celgene: Other: Institutional Research Support; Roche/Genentech: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role, Institutional Research Support; AstraZeneca: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Cell Medica: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Gilead/Kite: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Agensys: Other: Institutional Research Support; Kura: Other: Institutional Research Support; Forty Seven, Inc: Other: Institutional Research Support; Merck: Other: Institutional Research Support; Janssen Pharmaceutical: Other: Institutional Research Support. Gascoyne:NanoString: Patents & Royalties: Named Inventor on a patent licensed to NanoString Technologies. Witzig:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kahl:Acerta: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Evens:Affimed: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Tesaro: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics International DMC: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy.