Mei, Matthew

Abstract Use of brentuximab vedotin (BV) and PD-1 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) before autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) could impact the benefit of post-ASCT BV maintenance in relapsed/refractory (R/R) classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). We identified 1091 patients with R/R cHL who underwent ASCT between 2010-2022. In total, 244 (22%) received a PD-1 mAb and 443 (41%) received BV before ASCT, while 305 (28%) received BV maintenance. We performed 1:1 propensity score matching to assess the efficacy of BV maintenance in different patient subgroups. Among 608 matched patients, the 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were 73% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70-78) and 95% (95%CI, 93-97), respectively. BV maintenance was associated with improved PFS for patients with no exposure to novel agents, especially those with 2+ modified AETHERA risk factors (0-1 factors: hazard ratio (HR), 0.51; 95%CI, 0.24-1.09; P =.083; 2+ factors: HR, 0.40; 95%CI, 0.25-0.65; P< .001). In contrast, BV maintenance was not associated with a significant PFS benefit for any patient subgroup who received novel agents before ASCT (BV-treated, 0-1: HR, 1.43; 95%CI, 0.53-3.81; P =.48; 2+: HR, 0.79; 95%CI, 0.34-1.82; P =.58; PD-1-treated, 0-1 [P>.99], 2+: HR, 0.25; 95%CI, 0.03-2.14; P =.21). In particular, we observed excellent outcomes for patients undergoing ASCT in a complete response after one line of PD-1-based salvage treatment with no significant benefit for BV maintenance observed (2-year PFS 100% vs 95%; P>.99). The benefit of BV maintenance appears to be attenuated for patients receiving novel agents with salvage therapy. Omission of BV maintenance should be considered for patients anticipated to have excellent outcomes.

Abstract Combination therapy incorporating programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockade results in unprecedented response rates in both frontline and relapsed/refractory (R/R) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). Previous retrospective studies have suggested benefit for PD-1 blockade before autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) but included few patients receiving PD-1 blockade with cytotoxic chemotherapy. To explore the impact of anti–PD-1 based salvage on outcomes for patients with R/R cHL, we retrospectively reviewed 1280 patients with R/R cHL who underwent ASCT from 2010 to 2022 at 6 transplant centers, none of whom received PD-1 blockade as part of frontline therapy. Overall, 25% received a PD-1 inhibitor at any point before ASCT (10% in conjunction with chemotherapy), 28% received salvage brentuximab vedotin (BV) without PD-1 blockade, and the rest received salvage chemotherapy alone. Patients who received PD-1 inhibitors at any point before ASCT had a significantly higher 2-year progression-free survival than those who received BV without PD-1 inhibitors or patients receiving chemotherapy alone (88.2%, 70.2%, and 67.4%, respectively; P< .0001). When restricted to patients in complete response before ASCT, the benefit of PD-1 blockade remained significant. PD-1 blockade before ASCT is independently associated with superior post-ASCT outcomes and patients proceeding to ASCT should be treated with PD-1–based salvage.

Abstract Purpose: Polatuzumab vedotin (polatuzumab) was approved for up-front treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in combination with chemoimmunotherapy (Pola-R-CHP) based on the POLARIX trial. However, when stratified by cell of origin (COO), polatuzumab seems to have greater efficacy in activated B-cell than germinal center B-cell (GCB) subtype disease. Most studies of polatuzumab used RNA expression to assess COO, whereas in routine clinical practice, the immunohistochemistry-based Hans algorithm is used. Experimental Design: To assess the impact of COO by immunohistochemistry on polatuzumab efficacy, we conducted a multicenter real-world study of adults with large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) receiving polatuzumab from 2015 to 2024, split by receipt of polatuzumab in first-line versus relapsed/refractory settings. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) to polatuzumab-based treatment in GCB versus non-GCB relapsed/refractory LBCL. Results: Of 740 patients, 305 received polatuzumab in the first-line setting and 435 in the relapsed/refractory setting. In the relapsed/refractory cohort, the ORR in non-GCB versus GCB LBCL was 59.7% versus 36.3% [OR, 2.6; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.77–3.84; P < 0.0001], with a complete response rate of 35.7% versus 17.7% (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.66–4.02; P < 0.0001). Progression-free survival was longer for patients with non-GCB versus GCB COO (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.5–0.83; P = 0.0006). In the first-line cohort, ORR, complete response rate, and progression-free survival were similar in non-GCB versus GCB LBCL, as hypothesized based on outcomes in the Pola-R-CHP arm of POLARIX, suggesting that the addition of polatuzumab overcomes the adverse risk of non-GCB COO in patients receiving R-CHOP. Conclusions: Based on these data, COO classification by the Hans algorithm is a strong predictor of polatuzumab efficacy in LBCL, informing real-world treatment decisions.

Background: Polatuzumab vedotin (Pola) is an antibody drug conjugate targeting CD79b that incorporates the microtubule disrupting monomethyl auristatin E payload. Pola was approved in 2023 for the upfront treatment of diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in combination with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (polaRCHP) based on the POLARIX trial. However, the activity of pola appears to vary based on DLBCL cell of origin (COO) subtype, with greater efficacy in activated B cell (ABC) DLBCL compared to germinal center B cell (GCB) DLBCL (Russler-Germain Blood 2023). When outcomes in POLARIX are stratified by COO, polaRCHP demonstrated progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) benefits over RCHOP in patients with ABC but not GCB subtype DLBCL (PFS HR 0.34 ABC vs 1.03 GCB, OS HR 0.27 ABC vs 1.64 GCB; Morschhauser ASH 2023 and FDA data). Most prospective studies of pola used gene expression to assess COO, which is not readily clinically available. This study aims to examine if COO subtype by Hans algorithm (based on CD10, BCL6, and MUM1 expression by immunohistochemistry) is predictive of pola responses and outcomes in patients with large B cell lymphoma (LBCL). Methods: We conducted a retrospective, multicenter observational study of adults with LBCL who received pola (monotherapy or in combination) from 2015-2024 with Hans algorithm COO data and response assessment available. Patients were stratified by receipt of pola in the frontline vs relapsed/refractory (R/R) setting. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) to pola-based treatment in GCB vs non-GCB subtypes. Secondary endpoints included complete response rate (CRR), PFS, and OS. For time to event endpoints, patients responding to pola who received CAR T or stem cell transplantation prior to progression were censored at time of cellular therapy. Demographics were summarized by descriptive statistics. Comparative and survival analyses used Chi squared/Fischer exact tests and Kaplan Meier analysis. Data cutoff was July 1, 2024. Results: 718 patients were included. Median follow-up was 15 months (interquartile range [IQR] 8-32). Median age at LBCL diagnosis was 66 years (IQR 56-74); 62% were men; 69 (10%) had double hit lymphoma (DHL); 129 (18%) had underlying low grade lymphoma. Pola was used in the frontline setting in 293 (41%) patients, of whom 139 (47%) had GCB vs 154 (53%) non-GCB COO. Of the 426 patients receiving pola for R/R LBCL (including one patient receiving pola retreatment), 224 (53%) had GCB vs 202 (47%) non-GCB COO. Among patients receiving pola-based regimens in the R/R setting (GCB vs non-GCB: pola monotherapy = 7% vs 4%, pola + R = 26% vs 26%, pola + BR = 55% vs 61%, pola + other = 12% vs 9%; p = 0.44), the ORR in GCB vs non-GCB LBCL was 36% vs 61% (p < 0.001), while CRR in GCB vs non-GCB was 17% vs 36% (p < 0.001). COO remained a significant component of logistic multivariate regression models of ORR (p < 0.001) and CRR (p < 0.001) when incorporating IPI at original LBCL diagnosis, histology, DHL status, and refractory status to frontline therapy. Despite this, no significant PFS or OS differences by COO were seen, potentially due to approximately 1/4 patients being censored due to receiving subsequent cellular therapy (e.g. CAR T) prior to progression. In patients receiving frontline pola-based regimens (of which 275 [94%] included an anthracycline), ORR and CRR were similar in GCB vs non-GCB (ORR 89% vs 88% p > 0.5; CRR 76% vs 77% p > 0.5). While PFS and OS were similar between COO groups in the frontline cohort, follow-up and cohort size were limited. Conclusion: Based on this real-world evidence, COO classification by Hans algorithm is a strong predictor of the activity of pola-containing therapy in R/R LBCL, with significantly higher ORR and CRR in patients with non-GCB compared to GCB COO LBCL. This aligns with the cumulative existing evidence. ORR and CRR to pola-containing therapy in the frontline setting did not differ significantly by COO subtype, but longer follow-up of larger cohorts is needed to clarify the predictive role of COO by Hans algorithm in this setting, especially considering the PFS advantage with polaRCHP in POLARIX was not associated with significant differences in ORR or CRR. Overall, clinicians should consider factoring COO subtype into treatment decisions regarding pola-containing regimens, and studies of pola-based therapies should stratify patients and report outcomes by COO subtype.

Introduction There is no prospective data to guide the utilization of peri-transplant radiation (PTRT) in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). In retrospective analyses, PTRT has been associated with local disease control, however evidence supporting improved progression free survival (PFS) is less well defined (Milgrom SA et al Cancer. 2017; 123(8):1363-1371). Furthermore, the added benefit of PTRT in the era of recent advancement in salvage strategies, including brentuximab vedotin (BV) and checkpoint inhibitors (CPI), is unclear. In a multicenter, retrospective analysis, we evaluated the impact of PTRT on PFS for patients with R/R cHL. Methods We identified consecutive pts ≥7 years old at time of diagnosis with R/R cHL treated with autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) at 5 US academic institutions between 2010-2021. PTRT was defined as radiation administered within 3 months of ASCT. The primary objective was to compare the post-ASCT PFS, defined as the time from ASCT to subsequent relapse or death from any cause, between the two groups. Univariable and Multivariable Cox regression was performed to evaluate the impact of various relevant clinical factors on post-ASCT PFS. Results A total of 958 eligible pts were identified ( Table 1). The median age at cHL diagnosis was 31 (range, 7-72). At the time of first relapse/primary refractory disease, 406 (54%) pts had early-stage disease, 167 (24%) pts had bulky disease (≥5.0 cm), 308 (36%) pts had extra-nodal disease, 182 (22%) pts had B-symptoms (B-sx), and 338 (45%) had primary refractory disease. A total of 302 (32%) pts received >1 line of salvage before ASCT. Salvage treatment at any time point before ASCT included chemotherapy only for 457 (48%) patients, BV(+/- chemotherapy) for 308 (32%) patients, and CPI (+/- BV or +/- chemotherapy) for 193 (20%) patients. In total, 239 (24.9%) pts received PTRT, 139 (58.1%) before ASCT and 100 (41.8%) after ASCT. Among pts with available dosing information (23.3%), the median radiation dose administered was 28 Gy. The most common doses administered were 30 Gy in 77 (31.7%) pts, 36 Gy in 62 (27.8%) pts, and 18 Gy in 43 (19.2%) pts. Radiated sites included mediastinum in 172 (80.7%) pts, neck/cervical lymph nodes in 68 (31.9%) pts, and supra/infra clavicular region and axilla, each in 31 (14.6%) pts. Compared to the 719 pts that did not receive PTRT, patients treated with PTRT were more likely to have early stage disease (73% vs 47%, p<0.001), bulky disease (30% vs 22%, p = 0.048), primary refractory disease (56% vs 40%, p <0.001), >1 line of salvage treatment prior to ASCT (40% vs 29%, p<0.001), and <CR prior to ASCT (36% vs 27%, p = 0.007) (Table 1). Patients treated with PTRT were less likely to have RT at initial diagnosis (5.9% vs 22%, p<0.001), extra-nodal disease (19% vs 42%, p<0.001), B-sx (17% vs 25%, p=0.035), salvage treatment that included CPI (11% vs 23%, p<0.001), and BV maintenance (20 vs 31%, p<0.001). After a median follow up from ASCT of 4.5 years (range, 2.4-7.2), 2-year PFS was 76% (73%, 79%) and 5-year PFS was 70% (67%, 73%). In univariable analysis, receipt of PTRT showed non-significant reduced hazard for PFS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.59-1.05, p = 0.093) (Figure 1). In a multivariable model, PTRT showed significant association with PFS (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36-0.88, p=0.009) when adjusting for other clinically relevant factors at relapse such as stage, B-sx, bulk, primary refractory disease, BV(+/- chemotherapy) or CPI (+/- BV or +/- chemotherapy) in salvage, PET response prior to ASCT, and BV maintenance after ASCT. To determine if specific subgroups benefited from PTRT, we tested for interaction effects between PTRT and clinically relevant factors. Only bulk (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16-0.85, p=0.013) and B-sx (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.20-1.02, p=0.041) showed significant interaction with PTRT.Among pts with bulky disease, 5-year PFS was significantly improved with receipt of PTRT (81% vs 62%, p=0.013). Conclusion In this large multi-center analysis of pts with R/R cHL undergoing ASCT, there was no significant difference in PFS regardless of receipt of PTRT. However, after adjusting for known clinically relevant factors, receipt of PTRT was significantly associated with PFS and was particularly beneficial for patients with bulky disease or B-sx at relapse. We found decreased utilization of PTRT in pts receiving CPI-based salvage; therefore the role for PTRT for pts receiving CPI-based salvage is unclear.

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

Background: For patients with relapsed and refractory (R/R) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), the standard of care remains salvage therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) for responding patients. Historical data suggest 40% of patients may relapse after ASCT, and these patients have generally a poor median overall survival (OS) of less than 2 years (Moskowitz et al., Br J Haematol. 2009;146(2):158-62). However, since these reports, the treatment landscape of R/R HL has dramatically improved, most notably with the introduction of two novel therapies, brentuximab vedotin (BV) and anti-PD1 agents. To refine our understanding of clinical outcomes in this context, we characterized patients who relapsed after ASCT in the modern era. Methods: We used a multicenter retrospective patient database at 5 transplant centers in the United States to identify patients with HL aged ≥ 12 years at diagnosis who had received ASCT on or after 1/1/2010. The primary objective was to determine the median OS for patients who relapsed after ASCT (post-ASCT-relapse OS), defining survival as the time from relapse after ASCT to subsequent death from any cause. Univariable Cox regression was performed to evaluate the impact of various factors on post-ASCT OS. Outcomes by era were evaluated using three different eras based on approval dates of novel agents: (1) pre-BV approval (pre-7/31/2011), (2) post-BV approval (8/1/2011-4/30/2016), (3) post-anti-PD1 approval (5/1/16-present). Results: A total of 215 patients were identified. The median age at ASCT was 34. Before ASCT, 128 patients (62%) had no exposure to novel agents, 76 patients (35%) had received BV and no anti-PD-1 therapy, and 11 patients (5.1%) had received anti-PD-1 therapy with or without BV. Conditioning was mostly with BEAM (59%) or CBV (32%). The median time to relapse after ASCT was 6 months (range: 1-109 months). Nearly half all relapses (47%) occurred within 6 months of ASCT. Only 14% of relapses occurred after 1 year. Among 126 patients with available treatment information, the median number of post-ASCT lines of therapy was 2 (IQR: 1, 4). Therapy for post-ASCT relapse included BV and no anti-PD-1 therapy in 41 patients (29%), anti-PD-1 therapy with or without BV for 70 patients (50%), and no novel agents for only 15 patients (11%). The median followup time from the date of ASCT among survivors was 5.0 (IQR: 2.8, 7.8) years. The median post-ASCT-relapse OS was not reached ( Figure 1). The 2- and 5-year post-ASCT-relapse OS were 75% (95% CI: 70%-81%) and 59% (95% CI: 53%-67%), respectively. On univariable Cox regression for post-ASCT-relapse OS ( Table 1), time to relapse greater than 6 (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.35-0.85) or 12 months (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29-0.96) were significantly associated with improved post-ASCT-relapse OS. Increasing age at relapse was associated with worse OS (HR 1.05, 95% CI 1.04-1.07). Receipt of a novel agent (compared to chemotherapy alone) as the first salvage regimen for post-ASCT relapse was associated with improved post-ASCT OS (BV: HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20-0.96; anti-PD-1: HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.18-1.08). Outcomes improved over time as regulatory approvals for novel agents occurred (post-BV-approval: HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.39-1.24; post-anti-PD-1 approval: HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23-0.91). Conclusion: We show prolonged overall survival post-ASCT relapse compared to historical data likely due to the introduction of BV and anti-PD1 agents. This report represents one of the largest datasets of post-ASCT relapse in cHL, and this data should serve as an updated benchmark for future evaluations.

Background: Maintenance therapy with brentuximab vedotin (BV) after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) improved progression-free survival (PFS) among high-risk patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) in the phase III AETHERA trial. However, cHL treatment has changed significantly since that trial with frequent incorporation of BV and PD-1 inhibitors into earlier lines of therapy. The efficacy of BV maintenance may be different among pts who receive novel agents before ASCT. Methods: Pts with a diagnosis of R/R cHL who underwent ASCT between 2010 and 2022 were identified at 5 US transplant centers. Pts receiving no systemic post-ASCT maintenance or BV maintenance were included, while pts receiving investigational maintenance treatments were excluded. Medical records were reviewed to identify clinical variables. Results: 921 pts were identified. Median age was 32 yrs (IQR 24-44). 641 pts (70%) had primary refractory disease or relapsed within 12 months of frontline therapy, 326 (35%) had extranodal disease at relapse, and 173 (19%) had B symptoms at relapse. Pts received a median of 2 (1-9) lines of therapy before ASCT, including 295 (32%) who received ≥3 lines. 425 (46%) pts received BV before ASCT (including 24 pts as part of frontline treatment). 70 pts (8%) were BV-refractory (defined as failure to achieve an objective response to any BV-based treatment). 169 (18%) received a PD-1 agent with salvage treatment. 638 pts (69%) had a complete response on pre-ASCT positron emission tomography (PET). BEAM (71%) or CBV (21%) conditioning were used for most pts and 236 pts (26%) received peri-ASCT radiation. 224 pts (24%) received post-ASCT BV maintenance (including 37% of pts undergoing ASCT from 2015-2022). Compared to pts receiving no maintenance, pts receiving BV maintenance were more likely to have primary refractory/early relapsed disease (79% vs 67%, p<0.001), have received only 1 salvage regimen (79% vs 65%, p=0.001), and received BEAM conditioning (83% vs 67%, p<0.001). BV maintenance pts were less likely to receive peri-ASCT radiation (20% vs 28%, p=0.022). The median number of BV maintenance cycles was 10 (1-18) and the most common reason for discontinuation was neuropathy. Median post-ASCT follow-up was 4.9 yrs. 5-yr PFS and OS after ASCT were 70% (95% CI 67-74%) and 85% (83-88%), respectively. Because BV-refractory pts were much less likely to receive BV maintenance (p=0.0044) and had inferior PFS (HR 2.2, p<0.001) (and therefore would serve as a confounder), we excluded BV-refractory pts from additional analyses. Use of BV maintenance was associated with improved PFS (5-yr 81% vs 67%, HR 0.47 [0.33-0.69], p<0.001) and OS (5-yr 92% vs 83%, HR 0.38 [0.20-0.73], p=0.004). The benefit of BV maintenance depended upon pre-ASCT therapy. BV maintenance was associated with a significant improvement in PFS for pts who received no novel agents before ASCT (HR 0.41 [0.25-0.65], p<0.001), but not for BV-treated (HR 0.69 [0.38-1.25], p=0.22) or PD-1-treated pts (HR 0.63 [0.13-3.03], p=0.56) ( Figure). Among pts with 0-1 modified AETHERA risk factors, BV maintenance was not associated with a significant PFS benefit in any treatment subgroup (no novel agents, HR 0.50, p=0.087; BV-treated, HR 1.28, p=0.67; PD-1-treated, HR 2.97, p=0.44). For pts with 2+ modified AETHERA risk factors, BV maintenance significantly improved PFS in the no novel agent group (HR 0.35, p<0.001) but not in the BV-treated (HR 0.55, p=0.099) or PD-1 treated groups (HR 0.24, p=0.19). In multivariable analyses that included key variables (age, year of ASCT, conditioning regimen, peri-ASCT radiation, early relapse/primary refractory disease, B symptoms, extranodal sites, pre-ASCT PET, lines of therapy), BV maintenance was associated with a significant PFS benefit among pts who received no novel agents before ASCT (HR 0.27 [0.12-0.65], p<0.001), but not for pts treated with BV (HR 0.56 [0.28-1.10], p=0.091) or PD-1 blockade (HR 1.10 [0.22-5.56], p=0.91) before ASCT. Conclusions: In this large cohort, BV maintenance was associated with the clearest benefit among pts who received only chemotherapy before ASCT. We were unable to identify a significant improvement in PFS for pts receiving novel agents before ASCT (which could be due to insufficient power to detect a small benefit in this population), suggesting that if these pts benefit from BV maintenance, its impact is likely more limited.

Introduction: Single arm studies incorporating PD-1 blockade and/or brentuximab vedotin (BV) to salvage regimen have produced encouraging results in transplant-eligible relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL) and are increasingly used in practice. As prospective randomized studies comparing PD1 based salvage to other salvage regimens are lacking, we conducted a retrospective study comparing post-transplant outcomes of R/R cHL patients who received PD1-based regimen and other novel and conventional regimen. Methods: Consecutive adult patients with R/R cHL who received salvage therapy and underwent autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) between 2010 and 2021 at 5 United States academic institutions were included. Demographics and clinical variables were recorded at relapse by electronic health records review. Study Objectives were post-ASCT progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: 981 pts of R/R cHL were identified. At relapse, median age was 31 (IQR: 21-43) years, 504 (52%) were male, 323 (49%) had advanced stage, 353 (41%) had extranodal disease (END), 185 (22%) had B symptoms, 345 (45%) were refractory to frontline therapy and 317 (32%) relapsed within a year of frontline therapy.308 (31%) received >1 line of salvage before ASCT. Patients were divided into 3 groups based on salvage therapy received: 1) 195 (20%) patients received a PD-1 agent with or without BV at any point before ASCT (PD-1 group), 2) 312 (32%) patients received BV at any point before ASCT without PD-1 (BV group), and 3) 474 (48%) patients received no novel agent before ASCT (chemo group). PFS was significantly higher in PD1 group (2-yr PFS 93.1 (CI 95: 89.4-96.9)%); compared to BV (2 yr PFS 73.9 (CI 95: 69.1-79.1)% , p <0.0001) or chemo groups (2 yr PFS 71.6 (CI 95: 67.6-75.9)% , p<0.0001). PFS was not different between the BV and chemo groups (p=0.88) (Figure 1). OS was not significantly different between PD-1 group (2 yr OS 96.2 % (CI 95: 93.2-99.2), p=0.06), BV group (2 yr OS 94.3% (CI 95: 91.7-97.0), p=0.2) and chemo group (2 yr OS 91.8% (CI 95: 89.3-94.4)). Amongst pts who were transplanted in complete metabolic response (CMR), we assessed post-ASCT PFS and OS based on salvage therapy received immediately before ASCT. Pts who received PD-1 as last salvage therapy had improved PFS compared to chemo (HR: 0.15 (CI 95: 0.07-0.3), p= <0.0001) and BV (HR: 0.2 (CI 95: 0.08-0.5), p= <0.001). Pts receiving PD-1 immediately before ASCT also had higher OS compared to those receiving chemo (HR: 0.2 (CI 95: 0.05-0.8), p= 0.02) but not BV (HR: 0.8 (CI 95: 0.4-1.3), p=0.1). There was no difference between BV and chemo group in regards to PFS and OS. In multivariable analysis that included time to relapse, B symptoms, END, pre-ASCT response, number of salvage therapy lines before ASCT, year of transplant and BV consolidation, PD-1 salvage therapy had significantly higher PFS compared to chemotherapy (HR: 0.3 (CI 95: 0.2-0.5), p= <0.001). BV group had significantly lower PFS (HR: 3.34 (CI 95: 1.8-6.0), group=0.002) compared to PD1 group. PFS was not different between BV and chemo group (p= 0.7). OS was similar between all 3 groups. Similar PFS and OS were seen among patients receiving PD-1 + BV (n=83) and PD-1 with or without chemo (n =112) (p=0.96 for PFS; p= 0.72 for OS); as well as for patients receiving PD-1 as part of their first salvage therapy (n=151) or later salvage treatments (n=44) (p=0.45 for PFS, p= 0.3 for OS). Patients who received PD1 based regimen as last salvage therapy pre-ASCT had significantly better PFS (HR: 6.8 (CI 95: 2.4-19.2), p= <0.0001) and OS (HR: 10.6 (CI 95: 2.5-44.8), p= 0.0001) compared to patients who received PD1 prior to their last line of salvage therapy per-ASCT. Conclusion: Receipt of PD-1 based salvage therapy at any point before ASCT is associated with significantly improved PFS compared to either BV or chemotherapy-based salvage treatments. In the subgroup of patients transplanted in CMR, PD1 based last salvage regimen were associated with higher PFS compared to chemotherapy and BV and higher OS compared to chemotherapy. PD1 based last salvage therapy pre-ASCT was associated with better survival compared to PD1 prior to last salvage therapy. Results of this study strongly support the use of PD-1 based salvage therapy for patients with R/R cHL. S.D., R.M., H.S contributed equally. R.S., M.M. contributed equally.

Abstract Background CD47 is an innate immune checkpoint that binds signal regulatory protein alpha (SIRPα) and delivers a "don't eat me" signal to suppress macrophage phagocytosis. Overexpression of CD47 can allow tumor cells to escape immune surveillance. TTI-621 (SIRPαFc) is a fusion protein consisting of the CD47 binding domain of human SIRPα linked to the Fc region of human IgG1, designed to enhance phagocytosis and antitumor activity by blocking the CD47-SIRPα interaction between malignant cells and macrophages, and engaging Fcγ receptors. Here we report updates from the dose optimization part of the first-in-human study of TTI-621 (NCT02663518), testing dose levels between 0.5-2.0 mg/kg in patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL). Methods This study has been conducted in 4 parts. Part 1 tested increasing weekly intravenous doses of TTI-621 based on 3+3 escalation. The maximum tolerated dose was initially determined to be 0.2 mg/kg based on dose limiting toxicity (DLT) of thrombocytopenia [defined as Grade (Gr) 4 of any duration]. Expanded testing followed in patients with hematologic malignancies. In Part 2, most patients received 0.2 mg/kg; however, based on investigator discretion, a subset of patients received escalating doses up to 0.5 mg/kg. In Part 3, patients with T-cell lymphomas received stepwise dose escalations from 0.2 to 0.5 mg/kg over the first 5−8 weeks. Part 4 (dose optimization) of this study, is currently ongoing with weekly TTI-621 treatment escalating in a standard 3+3 manner through 5 planned dose levels including 0.5, 0.7, 1, 1.4, and 2 mg/kg. Dose optimization is being assessed in patients with CTCL. The DLT criteria was modified to require Gr 4 thrombocytopenia lasting >72 hours. Safety monitoring includes weekly clinical laboratories and assessments of adverse events (AEs) per CTCAE v 4.03. Blood samples are obtained for pharmacokinetics and disease assessments are performed per Olsen's criteria. Results In Parts 1−3 (n=214), the most common related AEs were infusion-related reaction (IRR, 43%; 3% Gr ≥3), thrombocytopenia (30%; 22% Gr ≥3), chills (22%; 0% Gr ≥3), and fatigue (16%; 1% Gr ≥3). Objective responses to single agent TTI-621 were achieved in 14/71 (20%) NHL pts including CTCL (n=42, 1 CR, 7 PRs), PTCL (n=22, 2 CRs, 2 PRs) and DLBCL (n=7, 1 CR, 1 PR). In Part 4 as of April 12, 2021, 24 patients (17M/7F, median age 65 years) have enrolled into the 5 dose cohorts including 9 patients in the 2.0 mg/kg dose level. CTCL subtypes enrolled include mycosis fungoides (MF, n=18) and Sézary syndrome (SS, n=6). Disease stage was advanced (≥IIB) in 16 (67%) patients and a median of 3 (range 1−12) prior systemic therapies were received. Related AEs occurred in 19 (79%; 33% Gr ≥3) patients including infusion-related reaction (IRR, 50%; 13% Gr ≥3), thrombocytopenia (33%; 25% Gr ≥3), and neutropenia and headache, (13%, 0% Gr ≥3, each). Thrombocytopenia generally occurred on dosing days, and typically recovered within 2-4 days. A total of 15 IRRs have occurred in 12 (50%) patients at all doses levels. Most IRRs occurred during initial infusions only and typically resolved within the day of occurrence. The occurrence of Gr 3 IRRs prompted the addition of corticosteroids to the pre-medication regimen which largely prevent their occurrence. Aside from IRRs and thrombocytopenia which was manageable, AEs were predominantly Gr ≤2. Pharmacokinetic results reveal continued dose-dependent increases in exposure. Objective responses have been observed in 4 of 20 (20%) evaluable patients to date, including 3 partial responses in 14 patients with MF and 1 complete response in 6 patients with SS. Treatment is ongoing in the patient who achieved CR (10+ months) and in 2 of 3 patients who achieved PR (3 and 4 months). A third patient who achieved PR elected to discontinue study treatment at 5 months to pursue allogeneic stem and progenitor cell transplantation. Conclusions Preliminary results from dose optimization testing indicate that weekly infusions of TTI-621 up to 2 mg/kg are generally well tolerated. In Part 4, an overall response rate of 20% has been observed thus far in patients with CTCL. Testing of TTI-621 in alternative dosing schedules is in progress. With demonstrated good tolerability and robust single agent antitumor activity in heavily pre-treated patients, additional testing of TTI-621 beyond relapsed/refractory lymphoma has started. Disclosures Horwitz: Affimed: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics, Affimed, Aileron, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Forty Seven, Inc., Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Millennium /Takeda, Seattle Genetics, Trillium Therapeutics, and Verastem/SecuraBio.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acrotech Biopharma, Affimed, ADC Therapeutics, Astex, Merck, Portola Pharma, C4 Therapeutics, Celgene, Janssen, Kura Oncology, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Myeloid Therapeutics, ONO Pharmaceuticals, Seattle Genetics, Shoreline Biosciences, Inc, Takeda, Trillium Th: Consultancy; Aileron: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Crispr Therapeutics: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Forty Seven, Inc.: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; ONO Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Secura Bio: Consultancy; Shoreline Biosciences, Inc.: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Trillium Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tubulis: Consultancy; Verastem/Securabio: Research Funding. Foran: pfizer: Honoraria; novartis: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria; bms: Honoraria; revolution medicine: Honoraria; taiho: Honoraria; syros: Honoraria; sanofi aventis: Honoraria; certara: Honoraria; gamida: Honoraria; OncLive: Honoraria; abbvie: Research Funding; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; takeda: Research Funding; trillium: Research Funding; aptose: Research Funding; actinium: Research Funding; kura: Research Funding; h3bioscience: Research Funding; aprea: Research Funding; sellas: Research Funding; stemline: Research Funding. Lue: Epizyme: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kymera Therapeutics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Kura Oncology: Consultancy. Sawas: Affimed: Research Funding; Roche: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Flat Iron Health: Current Employment; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Acrotech: Honoraria; Daiichi-Sankyo: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Feldman: Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease: Honoraria, Other: Study investigator. Sokol: Kyowa-Kirin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dren Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mei: Janssen: Honoraria; EUSA: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Epizyme: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Beigene: Research Funding. Flinn: AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: All Consultancy and Research Funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Great Point Partners: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Iksuda Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Nurix Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Seagen: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Yingli Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Acerta Pharma: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Agios: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; ArQule: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Calithera Biosciences: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Curis: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Forma Therapeutics: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Forty Seven: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; IGM Biosciences: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Incyte: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Loxo: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Merck: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Rhizen Pharmaceuticals: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Teva: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Trillium Therapeutics: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Triphase Research & Development Corp.: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Century Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Hutchison MediPharma: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Vincerx Pharma: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Sarah Cannon Research Institute: Current Employment; Servier Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Yingli Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Seagen: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Servier Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Villa: Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; NanoString Technologies: Honoraria. Percival: Pfizer: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; Cardiff Oncology: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; Nohla Therapeutics: Research Funding; Oscotec: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding. Savage: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Beigene: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Diefenbach: Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; MEI: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; IMab: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health: Current Employment; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding. Kim: Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Innate: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Corvus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Galderma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Elorac: Research Funding; Portola: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Soligenix: Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; CRISPR: Research Funding; Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Secura Bio: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease: Other: Study investigator; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, 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; Horizon: Research Funding. Lin: Trillium Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Catalano: Trillium Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Petrova: Trillium Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Uger: Trillium Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Molloy: Trillium Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Large: Trillium Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Bruns: Trillium Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding.