Fisher, Richard I.

Abstract Abstract 87 Background: The International Prognostic Index (IPI) remains the most powerful predictor of clinical outcome in DLBCL in the R-CHOP era, serving as a useful surrogate for the biology we are just beginning to understand. With a follow-up of more than 9 years, its uniformly staged and treated patients and its prospectively collected unstained slides for correlative studies, the clinical data set from E4494, the US Intergroup trial comparing CHOP and RCHOP in patients >60 years with DLBCL, stands as a valuable resource for investigating prognosis in DLBCL. Based on immunohistochemistry, we previously showed that rituximab modulates the prognostic significance of some biomarkers in DLBCL. With these same specimens, the quantitative nuclease protection assay (qNPA), a methodology for measuring mRNA levels in FFPET, was used to develop separate prognostic signatures for the CHOP and RCHOP arms that can be simply applied using stored unstained slides. Methods: Five micron unstained FFPET sections from 183 eligible and evaluable cases enrolled on E4494 and submitted for prospective immunohistochemical correlative studies more than ten years ago were used for this analysis. Tissue was scraped from slides and a multiplexed qNPA was performed in triplicate using a customized Array Plate assay (HTG, Inc) for 43 genes of interest. TBP served as a housekeeping gene. Association between standardized log gene expression and patient failure-free survival (FFS) and overall survival (OS) was obtained using the Cox proportional hazards model. A weighted analysis was used to eliminate the confounding effect of maintenance rituximab. Genes that showed at least marginal significance in the univariate analysis were used to perform LASSO (penalized method to select best subset) to select a final list of genes in the multivariate analysis. Using the predictive model for either CHOP or R-CHOP induction, individual risk scores were calculated based on the multivariable model, and cases were dichotomized into low and high risk groups based on the median risk score. The model was then validated using the Lenz dataset (NEJM, 2008). Results: In six cases, tissue from slides prepared >10 years ago was compared to freshly cut sections from corresponding blocks, and showed excellent concordance (corr=0.86). On-study characteristics for the 176 cases with analyzable data were representative of the greater E4494 patient population. Six gene predictors were developed for each arm of the trial: RCHOP: FN1, LMO2, AKT1, HIF1a, AKT3, BCL2; and CHOP: PDCD4, HLADRB1, COL3A1, LMO2, ROBO4, TP53. Both signatures proved powerful predictors of FFS and OS among CHOP (FFS: p=0.0031; OS: p=0.0013) and RCHOP (FFS: p=0.001; OS=p=0.0015) treated patients. When adjusted for the clinically-based IPI, the gene-risk score retained its significance (CHOP: FFS p=0.0007; OS p=0.0011; RCHOP: FFS p=0.003; OS, p=0.001) while the IPI became only marginally significant (CHOP: FFS: p=0.06, OS p=0.06; R-CHOP: FFS p=0.09, OS p=0.02), suggesting that the gene predictor accounted for much of the predictive power of the IPI. The predictive model was then validated using the Lenz dataset for OS. The predictor models for CHOP and R-CHOP-treated patients effectively dichotomized patients into prognostic subgroups (CHOP: p<0.0001; RCHOP: p=0.0014; see figure below) and this difference was maintained when the subset over age 60 was analyzed (CHOP: p=0.0008; RCHOP: p=0.017). When adjusted for the IPI, the molecular predictor developed for CHOP treated patients remained robust (OS: P=.0001; HR 2.39), while the molecular predictor for RCHOP predicted OS marginally (p=.06; HR 1.82), with shorter followup than the CHOP cohort. Conclusions: Unstained slides from FFPET stored for many years may be used to investigate gene expression in lymphoma biopsy specimens for which there is mature followup. Gene risk scores based on the expression of a limited number of genes are powerful predictors of clinical outcome. Disclosures: Pollock: HTG, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Botros:HTG, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Horning:Genentech: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Abstract Abstract 1603 Background: We have previously reported similar outcomes for patients with bulky stage I or II mediastinal HL treated with combined modality therapy either with ABVD + radiotherapy or the Stanford V regimen in the North American Intergroup trial E2496 (Advani et al, ASH 2010 abstract 416). In the current analysis, we compare the patterns of failure between the two groups. Methods: Patients with stage I/II bulky mediastinal HL (maximum mediastinal mass width > 1/3 of intrathoracic diameter) were randomized to receive chemotherapy (CT) on either Arm A (ABVD x 6–8 cycles administered q 28 days) or Arm B (12 weeks of Stanford V administered weekly). Two-3 weeks after completion of chemotherapy all patients received modified involved field radiotherapy (RT) (36 Gy) delivered to the mediastinum, hila, and supraclavicular regions. Patients on Stanford V arm also received involved field RT to any other sites ≥ 5 cm at diagnosis. Patients were assessed 3, 6 and 12 months after completing RT with computed tomography scanning and then every 6 months for 5 years. The primary end points were failure free survival (FFS) and overall survival (OS). Disease progression was defined as 'in-field', 'distant' or both relative to the radiation fields prescribed in the E2496 protocol. Distant sites of failure were further characterized as intra-thoracic, intra-abdominal or other (bone, bone marrow and axillae, if not previously irradiated). Results: Two hundred and sixty-seven patients were randomized: 136 on the ABVD arm and 131 on the Stanford V arm. Patient characteristics were well matched with no differences between two arms in overall response rates (ORR), FFS and OS. (Advani et al ASH 2010 abstract 416). At a median follow up of 5.5 years 40 patients have relapsed with no difference in ABVD (n=18, 13%) versus Stanford V (n=22, 17%) (p=0.49). Central review of RT fields available in 37/40 patients found major violations with under treatment of tumor noted in 7/37 (19%). Patterns of failure are shown in Table 1. There were no differences in patterns of relapse for the two study arms. In-field relapses occurred in <10% in both study arms. Conclusion: For patients with stage I/II bulky mediastinal HL, combined modality therapy with either ABVD +RT or the Stanford V regimen results in excellent disease control. In-field relapse was uncommon. These results set a benchmark for assessing ongoing trials omitting RT in patients with stage I/II bulky mediastinal HL. Future research efforts should focus on risk stratification to identify the small subset of patients who are likely to fail standard upfront therapy. US cooperative group efforts in this subset of patients are ongoing that use interim PET-CT imaging based risk-adapted strategies. Disclosures: Horning: Genentech: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Abstract Abstract 415 Background: The ability to cure patients (pts) with advanced Hodgkin's Lymphoma (HL) with combination chemotherapy (CC) (MOPP and variants, ABVD and variants) represented a major milestone in oncology research, and CC became a paradigm for other malignancies. Further, the rationale for combined modality therapy (CMT) (radiation (RT) and CC) in HL evolved based on the high frequency of relapse in initially involved sites. As response rates and survival improved, newer treatments such as the combined modality Stanford V regimen were developed to shorten the duration of chemotherapy, add RT to sites of disease and reduce toxicity while maintaining or improving the cure rate. Indeed, the Stanford V regimen was tested and validated in a Phase II co-operative group trial (E1492) (J Clin Oncol 2000; 18:972). In order to investigate this approach against “standard” therapy, we conducted a randomized Phase III Intergroup trial of ABVD vs. the Stanford V regimen for patients with locally extensive or advanced HL. Objectives: The trial was designed to detect a 33% reduction in the failure free survival (FFS) hazard rate with Stanford V compared with ABVD, which corresponds to a difference in five-year FFS of 64% vs. 74%. Method: Patients with locally extensive (defined as clinical Ann Arbor Stage I-IIA/B and bulky mediastinal disease (BMD) (mass > 1/3 maximum intrathoracic diameter on standing postero-anterior chest x-ray or >/−10 cm on computerized tomography) or advanced (Ann Arbor Stage III or IV) HL were randomized to receive either ABVD × 6–8 cycles (C) (51% had 6 C, 35% had 8 C, 14% had <6 C) + 36 Gy (only in pts with BMD) or Stanford V × 12 weeks (95% had 12 weeks) + 36 Gy (for sites >5cm or for macroscopic splenic disease). The log-rank test was used to compare FFS for all eligible patients stratified on extent of disease (locally extensive vs. advanced), and number of International Prognostic Factor Project (IPFP) risk factors (0–2 vs. 3–7). An extended Cox model was also used to address non-proportional hazard between the two arms. Results: 854 pts enrolled from April, 1999 to June, 2006 and 812 were eligible for analysis. 404 pts were randomized to ABVD and 408 to Stanford V. Median age was 33 yrs in both arms (range 16–83). 53% were men and 47% women; 4% had Stage I, 31% had Stage II, 39% had Stage III and 25% had Stage IV disease by Ann Arbor criteria. 35% of pts on ABVD and 35% on Stanford V had BMD. Three % of pts had nodular lymphocyte predominant HL, 77% of pts had nodular sclerosis HL, 14% had mixed cell HL. Age, stage, pathology and risk factors (0–2 vs. 3–7) were similar in both arms. In total, 65% were IPFP score 0–2 and 33% were 3–6. Response rate. There was no difference in response rates (RR) between the two arms (ABVD=72% CR+ CCR, 7.7% PR, 7.9% SD; Stanford V= 69 % CR +CCR, 7% PR and 10 % SD. 8% were not evaluable for response on ABVD and 9% on Stanford V. Toxicity was similar in both groups. The most frequent Grade 3 + 4 toxicity was neutropenia, and was similar between the 2 groups (76% Grade 3 + 4 in ABVD and 70% Grade 3+ 4 in Stanford V). Grade 5 toxicity was <1% in both groups. There was, however, more Grade 3 lymphopenia in Stanford V (78% vs. 42%, p< 0.0001) and more Grade 3 +4 sensory neuropathy in Stanford V (10%) than in ABVD (3%) (p< 0.0001). A total of 26 second primary cancers developed, 12 after ABVD and 14 after Stanford V (p=NS). FFS and OS. For 812 eligible patients, with a median follow up of 5.25 years, 5-year FFS was 73% for ABVD and 71% for Stanford V (p=0.29 by log rank) (Figure left); 5-year OS was 88% for ABVD and 87% for Stanford V (p=0.87 by log-rank, HR=0.97, 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.44) (Figure right) indicating no significant difference in either FFS or OS between the 2 arms. Conclusion: In the largest Phase III intergroup trial of HL in North America, there was no significant difference in RR, FFS, OS, and 5-year toxicity when ABVD (+ RT for BMD) is compared with Stanford V (+RT for nodal sites >5 cm and macroscopic splenic disease). There was more Grade 3 lymphopenia (p< 0.0001) and more Grade 3 + 4 sensory neuropathy (p< 0.0001) on Stanford V. Thus ABVD (plus RT for BMD) remains the standard of care because Stanford V did not meet the objective of 33% improvement in FFS. For some patients, Stanford V, when given as described with RT, remains an acceptable alternative. Disclosures: Friedberg: Genentech: Honoraria. Blum:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Horning:Genentech: Employment.

Abstract Abstract 416 Background: Standard therapy for locally extensive Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) defined as stage I/II with bulky mediastinal disease [mediastinal mass ratio (MMR) > than 1/3 of the chest diameter on standing postero-anterior chest x-ray or 10 cm on computerized tomography] is combined modality therapy (CMT). E2496 was a North American intergroup, randomized phase III study comparing ABVD versus the Stanford V regimen for patients with locally extensive and advanced stage HL. In this subgroup analysis we compare two CMT approaches, ABVD + radiotherapy (RT) and the Stanford V regimen, in patients with stage I/II bulky mediastinal HL. Methods: Patients with stage I/II HL bulky mediastinal disease were randomized to receive chemotherapy (CT) on either Arm A (ABVD × 6–8 cycles administered q 28 days) or Arm B (12 weeks of Stanford V, administered weekly). Two-3 weeks after completion of chemotherapy, modified involved field RT was delivered at 36 Gy to the mediastinum to patients on ABVD as well as Stanford V. Patients on Stanford V also received involved field RT to any other sites >5 cm at diagnosis. The primary endpoint was failure free survival (FFS) defined as the time to either progression/relapse or death. The log-rank test was used to compare FFS and OS (overall survival) for all eligible patients. Results: Of the 812 eligible patients with advanced HL enrolled on the study 267 had locally advanced bulky mediastinal disease: 136 on ABVD and 131 on Stanford V. Patient characteristics between the two randomized groups were well matched with a median age of 30 years and 86% had stage II disease. On ABVD 61% of patients received 6 cycles, 29% 8 cycles of CT and 77% required some dose modification. In Stanford V 97% completed the assigned 12 weeks of CT and 76% required some dose modification. 82% received RT per protocol in ABVD versus 88% in Stanford V. The overall response (CR+PR) was 82% in ABVD and 86% in Stanford V. At a median follow-up of 5.47 years, there are 19 failures and 6 deaths in the ABVD group and 25 failures with 9 deaths in the Stanford V group. We failed to detect statistically significant differences between ABVD +RT and Stanford V for FFS (5y 85% versus 77% p=0.13, HR=1.56 95% CI (0.87, 2.88) and OS (5y 95% versus 92% p=0.31, HR=1.69 95% CI (0.60, 4.75). No difference in hematologic toxicity was observed between the two arms. Evaluation of pulmonary function and patterns of failure are pending. Conclusions: For stage I/II patients with bulky mediastinal disease, CMT with either ABVD +RT or the Stanford V regimen results in high cure rates and is highly effective. ABVD for 6–8 cycles plus 36 Gy RT remains the US standard of care. Longer follow up is required to assess RT related late effects. Future research efforts should focus on risk stratification to identify; a) the 15–20% of patients destined to relapse after standard therapy and evaluate treatment intensification strategies and b) the 80–85% of patients who are cured with standard therapy and determine whether a subset can achieve the same excellent outcomes with a reduction or elimination of radiation. Planned US cooperative group trials will address these questions, using ABVD as the chemotherapy backbone in conjunction with interim PET imaging for risk stratification. Disclosures: Blum: Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Horning:Genentech: Employment.

Abstract Abstract 589 Background: The initial results of this intergroup trial with median follow-up of 3.5 years (yrs) were previously reported (J Clin Oncol 24:3121, 2006). We present updated results with median follow-up of 9.4 yrs from induction therapy randomization, and 9.0 yrs from maintenance randomization. Methods: 632 patients (pts), age >60 yrs, with DLBCL were randomized to CHOP+rituximab 375 mg/m2 IV, administered Day -7, -3, and two days before cycles 3/5/7 (if given) (R-CHOP), versus CHOP, for two cycles beyond best response for 6–8 cycles total. Pts were stratified by the International Prognostic Index (IPI) (<3 vs >3). 415 pts responding to R-CHOP or CHOP were then randomized to maintenance rituximab 375 mg/m2 weekly times 4, every 6 months for 2 yrs starting 4 weeks after the last chemotherapy (MR, n=207), or observation (OBS, n=208). Results are presented for the 546 (267 R-CHOP; 279 CHOP) pts for induction, and 352 (174 MR; 178 observation) evaluable, centrally reviewed, maintenance pts. Failure-free survival (FFS) was the primary endpoint. The stratified weighted Cox regression was used to remove the effect of MR in comparing induction treatment, and stratified log-rank test used to assess maintenance effect. Results: Baseline characteristics and response to induction were balanced. 9-yr FFS and OS) are 35% and 44% for R-CHOP, and 25% and 37% for CHOP. Compared with CHOP, R-CHOP significantly prolonged FFS (p=.008), but not OS (p=.11). Pts were categorized into low-risk (LR) and high-risk (HR) groups according to their IPI (<3 or 33) (LR, n=217; HR, n=327). A significant difference in the effect of induction therapy was observed for high-risk patients only for FFS (p=0.02, HR=0.61, 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.93) but not for OS. MR significantly prolonged FFS (log-rank p=0.018, HR=0.71, 95%CI, 0.54 to 0.94), but not OS (p=0.44, HR=0.89, 95%CI, 0.65 to 1.20). A significant interaction between maintenance and induction therapies was observed in that MR significantly prolonged FFS after CHOP (p=0.003, HR=0.56, 95%CI, 0.38 to 0.82), but not after R-CHOP (p=0.89, HR=0.97, 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.47). There was no OS difference with MR after CHOP (p=0.19, HR=0.76, 95% CI. 0.50 to 1.15) or R-CHOP (p=0.77, HR=1.07, 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.68). Median time to failure after maintenance randomization following CHOP+MR was 9.5 yrs vs 2.0 yrs for CHOP+OBS (p=0.003) and following R-CHOP+MR was 8.5 yrs vs 7.5 yrs for R-CHOP+OBS (p=NS). Proportionately more treatment failures occurred within 2 yrs after CHOP+OBS (73%) compared to CHOP+MR (47%), p=0.01. In contrast, the proportion of failures within 2 yrs was similar for R-CHOP+OBS (38%) and R-CHOP+MR (36%), p=NS. Conclusions: Initial R-CHOP therapy, as compared with CHOP, resulted in improved DFS and FFS for older DLBCL pts. MR after CHOP, but not after R-CHOP, significantly prolonged time to failure but did not prolong OS. However, FFS was 42% at 9 yrs among R-CHOP responders, with or without MR. Future treatment strategies should build upon these findings in this older patient population, often with significant co-morbidities. Disclosures: Morrison: merck: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; genentech: Speakers Bureau; pfizer: Speakers Bureau. Fisher:roche: Consultancy. Horning:Genentech: Employment.

Abstract Background: We recently clarified the use of consolidative autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) as first remission consolidation therapy for high grade diffuse aggressive T and B non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL)in patients with high-intermediate (HI) or High (H) age adjusted IPI disease (Stiff et al, NEJM 369:1681). After receiving CHOP or R-CHOP for 5 cycles responding patients were randomized to either 3 more induction cycles or 1 cycle followed by an ASCT using either a BCNU or TBI based preparative regimen. We found a PFS but not OS advantage for those randomized to transplant and no differential treatment effect for those with T-NHL patients as compared to B-NHL in the initial analysis of this study. In light of Phase II data suggesting a value of early ASCT for T-NHL, a lack of randomized ASCT trials for T-NHL and the inferior prognosis for T-NHL as compared to B cell disease, we further evaluated this sub group, since a post hoc analysis of the entire trial did find a survival advantage for those with H IPI disease. This then provided a unique opportunity to evaluate the role of ASCT consolidation for T-cell NHL in the setting of a prospective randomized trial. Method: Among the 370 eligible B-NHL and T-NHL patients with HI/H IPI disease treated on this trial, 40 had a T-NHL phenotype and were the subject of this analysis. Individual patient files were re-reviewed and those randomized after the first 5 cycles of CHOP were further analyzed for stage, IPI group, histology (centrally reviewed), and response to induction and consolidation and updated survival outcome. Results: Of the 40 T-NHL patients enrolled on study, 28 (70%) were randomized after induction therapy, a similar ratio to the entire trial (68%). Twelve were not randomized; 1 was ineligible for study, and of the eligible 11, 9 were HI IPI and 8 had peripheral T cell (PTCL-NOS). These 11 were not randomized due to patient choice in 2, and all of the remaining 9 pts progressed early: 2 after C1; 3 after C3, 1 after C4, and 3 after C5. For the 28 randomized, their median age was 50 and 19 were males. Of the group, 21/28 had B symptoms at diagnosis, 14 had stage IV disease, and 18 and 10 were in the HI and H IPI groups respectively. Histologies included 11 with PTCL-NOS, 7 angioimmunoblastic and 10 anaplastic large cell NHL. At randomization 13 were to continue CHOP and 15, ASCT. Of the 15 assigned to ASCT, 3 did not undergo transplant (2-refusals, 1- unable to mobilize); 7 received the BCNU-etoposide-cyclophosphamide and 5 the TBI-etoposide-cyclophosphamide preparative regimen. The 5 year estimates of PFS and OS for the randomized ASCT vs CHOP only groups (intent to treat) were 40% vs 38% (p=0.56) and 40% vs 45% (p=0.98) respectively. We found no difference in outcome based on IPI group, histology or stage of disease. Interestingly, only 1/7 patients who received BCV as the ASCT preparative regimen are long term survivors vs 4/5 receiving the TBI-based regimen. Conclusions: We did not observe a PFS/OS advantage for those with high-risk T-NHL in first remission randomized to ASCT following CHOP induction vs CHOP alone in this retrospective analysis. In addition, the 30% early drop out rate before randomization due primarily to early progression strongly suggests that more optimal induction regimens need to be developed for this disease. While the numbers are small the finding that TBI based preparative regimens might be associated with a higher PFS is of interest and deserves further study. Support: NIH/NCI grants CA180888 and CA180819; Bristol-Myers Squibb. Contributions of Dr. Raymond R Tubbs, deceased, are gratefully acknowledged. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Porcu: miRagen: Other: Investigator in a clinical trial; celgene: Other: Investigator in a clinical trial; Millenium: Other: investigator in a clinical trial; Innate Pharma: Other: Investigator in a clinical trial. Winter:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Medivation: Other: Provision of investigational agent for clinical trial; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding. Kahl:This study was coordinated by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (Robert L. Comis, MD and Mitchell D. Schnall, MD, PhD, Group Co-Chairs) and supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under the following award number: Research Funding. Smith:Juno: Consultancy; TGTX: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Other: on a DSMB for two trials ; Gilead: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Amgen: Other: Educational lecture to sales force; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Rimsza:NCI/NIH: Patents & Royalties: L.M. Rimsza is a co-inventor on a provisional patent, owned by the NCI of the NIH, using Nanostring technology for determining cell of origin in DLBCL.. Fisher:Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy. Friedberg:Bayer: Honoraria, Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board.

Abstract Background The international prognostic score (IPS) (Hasenclever et al., NEJM 1988) uses 7 factors (age> 45, male sex, hemoglobin<10.5, stage IV, leukocytosis > 15,000, and lymphopenia< 600) to predict a 5 year freedom from progression (FFP) of 42%-84% and overall survival (OS) of 56%-89% for patients with advanced HL. Constructed from a retrospective analysis of patients treated before 1992, the IPS continues to be the most commonly used risk stratification index for advanced HL. Recent studies suggest that the predictive range of the IPS has narrowed due to improved outcomes of patients treated with current therapy (Moccia et al. JCO 2012). In this report we prospectively evaluated the ability of the individual components of the IPS to predict outcome in patients enrolled on the US Intergroup trial E2496. Methods All seven IPS (IPS-7) variables were recorded for all patients at study entry. FFP was defined as the time from study entry to disease progression or relapse; deaths that occurred during remission that were not preceded by disease progression/relapse were censored. OS was defined as the time from study entry to death from any cause. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to construct survival curves. Univariate and multivariate analysis (MVA) was performed using Cox proportional-hazards models. We subsequently constructed an alternative prognostic score utilizing the factors which were significant on MVA (PS-3). Results From 1996-2006, 854 patients with advanced HL, were randomized to treatment with either ABVD or Stanford V, with no significant differences in outcome (Gordon et al, JCO 2013). While the IPS-7 remained prognostic it did not stratify the lowest risk patients (0-1 risk factor) or patients with 3-5 risk factors, as its predictive range was narrowed due to improved clinical outcomes (Fig 1a and 2a). Table 1 shows the univariate and multivariate analysis for IPS-7 and outcomes. In contrast to the original IPS-7, on MVA, only two factors, hemoglobin and stage were significant for FFP, and three factors for OS: hemoglobin, stage, and age. We then evaluated a new 3 factor score (PS-3) utilizing variables significant on the MVA. The PS-3 was significant for both FFP (p=0.0001) and OS (p<.0001) and clearly separated patients into 4 distinct risk groups with either: 0, 1, 2 or 3 risk factors. The five year FFP was 83%, 74%, 68%, and 63% and OS was 95%, 85%, 75%, and 52% for patients with 0, 1, 2, and 3 risk factors, respectively (Table 2, Fig 1b and 2b). Conclusion In E2496, for patients with advanced HL, the PS-3 may stratify patients more clearly compared to IPS-7 and provide a simpler model to assess risk. Studies comparing PS-3 with IPS-7, and are ongoing. The incorporation of novel biomarkers and biologic factors into PS-3, as well as validation with other data sets is warranted. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Abstract 3705 Improved outcomes were reported in USA studies in DLBCL (Habermann et al. J Clin Oncol 2006) in a two-staged randomized study of R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, Adriamycin, vincristine, and prednisone) versus CHOP with a second randomization assignment to maintenance rituximab (MR) or observation (OBS) (E4494) and in follicular lymphoma (FL) in patients in a trial with CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone) followed by randomization to MR versus OBS in advanced-stage indolent lymphoma (E1496) (Hochster et al. J Clin Oncol 2009). The details of the treatment regimens have been previously described. The German High Grade Lymphoma Study Group has reported differences between men and women in outcomes in DLBCL with improved outcomes in women treated with rituximab (Müller et al. Blood 2012). Methods: Survival outcomes by sex were analyzed using a stratified weighted cox regression, removing the effect of maintenance rituximab in DLBCL (E4494), and a log-rank test in patients with follicular histology (E1496). A Cox regression model was used to evaluate the differences between males and females together with weight (below or above the median). Wilcoxon test and Fisher's exact test were used to compare medians and proportions, respectively. Results: In DLBCL, there were 273 eligible males and 273 females. The median age was 69 in males and 70 in females. There were no differences in baseline patient characteristics among the male and female populations. 138 males and 129 females were treated with R-CHOP. There was no difference in treatment received, with 83% females and 75.3% males receiving 6 cycles or more of R-CHOP treatment (p=0.14). The complete remission (CR) and partial remission (PR) rates after RCHOP were higher in females (82.6%) versus males (71.5%) (P = 0.04). With a median follow-up of 9.45 years, the failure free survival (FFS) and overall survival (OS) were improved in females (P = 0.02, 0.002; HR=0.63, 0.54) compared with males in the R-CHOP group. The outcomes were not different in the CHOP group for FFS (P = 0.81) or OS (P= 0.57) between males and females. Within the R-CHOP group, the failure free survival (FFS) was significantly different between women and men (P = 0.002) and body weight (P = 0.03), but only female sex (P = 0.001) was significant and not weight (P = 0.26) for OS. Of 282 evaluable patients with advanced-stage follicular lymphoma who received initial treatment with CVP, 115 patients were randomly assigned to MR and 113 to OBS. 120 patients were male, and 108 were female. The median age was 58 years in the MR arm and 54 years in the OBS arm. At a median follow-up of 8.04 years, MR markedly improved the PFS (P=0.003) compared with OBS. There were no differences in PFS (P= 0.17) between males and females treated with MR or OS (P = 0.27). In conclusion, in induction therapy with rituximab in DLBCL there is a sex dependent effect with rituximab with males benefiting less than females. In contrast, in patients with follicular lymphoma treated with chemotherapy followed by maintenance rituximab, there were no differences. The differences in outcomes in patients of different sex with DLBCL treated with immunochemotherapy and FL treated with maintenance rituximab will require further analysis of multiple clinical and biologic variables. Disclosures: Fisher: Roche: Advisory Board Other. Cheson:Genentech: Consultancy. Kahl:Genentech, Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding. Horning:Genetech, Roche: Employment, stock (Roche) Other.

PURPOSE Alliance/CALGB 50303 (NCT00118209), an intergroup, phase III study, compared dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab (DA-EPOCH-R) with standard rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) as frontline therapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients received six cycles of DA-EPOCH-R or R-CHOP. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary clinical objectives included response rate, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Between 2005 and 2013, 524 patients were registered; 491 eligible patients were included in the final analysis. Most patients (74%) had stage III or IV disease; International Prognostic Index (IPI) risk groups included 26% IPI 0 to 1, 37% IPI 2, 25% IPI 3, and 12% IPI 4 to 5. At a median follow-up of 5 years, PFS was not statistically different between the arms (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.27; P = .65), with a 2-year PFS rate of 78.9% (95% CI, 73.8% to 84.2%) for DA-EPOCH-R and 75.5% (95% CI, 70.2% to 81.1%) for R-CHOP. OS was not different (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.59; P = .64), with a 2-year OS rate of 86.5% (95% CI, 82.3% to 91%) for DA-EPOCH-R and 85.7% (95% CI, 81.4% to 90.2%) for R-CHOP. Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were more common ( P < .001) in the DA-EPOCH-R arm than the R-CHOP arm, including infection (16.9% v 10.7%, respectively), febrile neutropenia (35.0% v 17.7%, respectively), mucositis (8.4% v 2.1%, respectively), and neuropathy (18.6% v 3.3%, respectively). Five treatment-related deaths (2.1%) occurred in each arm. CONCLUSION In the 50303 study population, the more intensive, infusional DA-EPOCH-R was more toxic and did not improve PFS or OS compared with R-CHOP. The more favorable results with R-CHOP compared with historical controls suggest a potential patient selection bias and may preclude generalizability of results to specific risk subgroups.