Macdonald, David

LBA7005 Background: Despite recent advances, there remains a need for novel therapies for pts with R/R DLBCL. BV, an anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate, has shown efficacy and safety when combined with lenalidomide (len) and with rituximab (R) in heavily pretreated populations (Bartlett 2022; Ward 2022). The double-blind, global phase 3 ECHELON-3 study (NCT04404283) compared BV with R+len (R2) vs R2 in pts with R/R DLBCL who are ineligible for HSCT or CAR T-cell therapy. Here, we present results from the interim analysis (IA) for overall survival (OS). Methods: Pts with R/R DLBCL received BV+R2 or placebo+R2 (randomized 1:1). Pts received BV (1.2 mg/kg) or placebo q3w, R (375 mg/m2) q3w, and len (20 mg) qd. The primary endpoint was OS in the intent-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and complete response (CR) rate. The preplanned IA was performed at 134 OS events with a prespecified efficacy boundary of 2-sided P=0.0232. Results: 230 pts were randomized: 112 to BV+R2 and 118 to R2; all but 2 pts (both in R2 arm) received ≥1 dose of study drug. Median age was 71 yrs (range, 21-89), 56.5% were male, and 10.9% had an ECOG of 2. Median prior lines of therapy was 3 (range, 2-8); 29% had prior CAR T-cell therapy and 68% were CD30- (<1% CD30 tumor expression). At median follow-up of 16.4 months (mos) (range, 0.1-31.5) (cut-off: January 22, 2024), median OS was 13.8 mos (95% CI: 10.3-18.8) with BV+R2 vs 8.5 mos (95% CI: 5.4-11.7) with R2 (HR 0.629; 95% CI: 0.445-0.891; P=0.0085); OS benefit was consistent across key subgroups. Median PFS was 4.2 mos (95% CI: 2.9-7.1) with BV+R2 vs 2.6 mos (95% CI: 1.4-3.1) with R2 (HR 0.527; 95% CI: 0.380-0.729; P<0.0001). ORR was 64.3% (95% CI: 54.7-73.1) with BV+R2 vs 41.5% with R2 (95% CI: 32.5-51.0; P=0.0006); CR rate was 40.2% vs 18.6%, respectively. In CD30+ vs CD30- subgroups, ORR/CR was 72.2%/38.9% vs 60.5%/40.8% with BV+R2, respectively, and 50.0%/26.3% vs 37.5%/15.0% with R2, respectively. Efficacy analysis including cell of origin will be presented. The safety profile of BV+R2 was tolerable vs R2: Grade (Gr) ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were 88% vs 77%, serious TEAEs were 60% vs 50%, and Gr 5 TEAEs were 12% vs 8%, respectively. Most common TEAEs were neutropenia (46% vs 32%), anemia (29% vs 27%), and diarrhea (31% vs 23%). Rates of peripheral neuropathy for BV+R2 vs R2 were 31% vs 24% (all Gr) and 6% vs 2% (Gr 3). Median treatment duration was 3.6 mos with BV+R2 vs 2.0 mos with R2. Conclusions: Treatment with BV+R2 triplet, compared to R2, demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in all key efficacy outcomes including OS in high-risk subgroups, with manageable safety. This triplet regimen represents a novel treatment option for pts with heavily pretreated R/R DLBCL. Clinical trial information: NCT04404283 .

Abstract BACKGROUND The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria for high-grade gliomas (RANO-HGG) and low-grade gliomas (RANO-LGG) were developed to improve reliability of response assessment in glioma trials. Over time some limitations of these criteria were identified, and uncertainty emerged regarding integrating features of the modified RANO (mRANO) or the immunotherapy RANO (iRANO) criteria. MATERIAL AND METHODS Informed by data from a cohort of glioblastoma patients and other evaluations of RANO criteria that allowed evaluation of features of the different criteria, the RANO working group developed updates to the RANO criteria (RANO 2.0). RESULTS Based on the 2021 WHO classification of gliomas, we recommend a standard set of criteria for both high and low-grade gliomas, to be used for all trials regardless of the treatment modalities being evaluated. In the newly diagnosed setting, the post-radiotherapy MRI, rather than the post-surgical MRI, will be used as the baseline for future comparison. Since the incidence of pseudoprogression is high in the 12 weeks following radiotherapy, continuation of treatment and confirmation of progression during this period with a repeat MRI, or histopathologic evidence of unequivocal recurrent tumor, is required to define tumor progression. However, confirmation scans are not mandatory after this period nor for recurrent tumors. For treatments with a high likelihood of pseudoprogression, mandatory confirmation of progression with a repeat MRI is highly recommended. The primary measurement remains the maximum cross-sectional area of tumor (2-dimensional) but volumetric measurements are an option. For IDH-wildtype glioblastoma, the non-enhancing disease will no longer be evaluated. In IDH-mutated tumors with a significant non-enhancing component, clinical trials may require evaluating both the enhancing and non-enhancing tumor components for response assessment. CONCLUSION These criteria represent a work in progress that will hopefully improve the assessment of response in glioma trials. Future updates will incorporate novel developments, advanced imaging techniques, and endpoints as they become validated.

Abstract The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria for high-grade gliomas (RANO-HGG) and low-grade gliomas (RANO-LGG) were developed to improve the reliability of response assessment in glioma trials. Over time some limitations of these criteria were identified, and uncertainty emerged regarding integrating features of the modified RANO (mRANO) or the immunotherapy RANO (iRANO) criteria. Informed by data from a cohort of glioblastoma patients and other evaluations of RANO criteria that allowed evaluation of features of the different criteria, we propose updates to the RANO criteria (RANO 2.0). Based on the 2021 WHO classification of gliomas, we recommend a standard set of criteria for both high and low-grade gliomas, to be used for all trials regardless of the treatment modalities being evaluated. In the newly diagnosed setting, the post-radiotherapy MRI, rather than the post-surgical MRI, will be used as the baseline for future comparison. Since the incidence of pseudoprogression is high in the 12 weeks following radiotherapy, continuation of treatment and confirmation of progression during this period with a repeat MRI, or histopathologic evidence of unequivocal recurrent tumor, is required to define tumor progression. However, confirmation scans are not mandatory after this period nor for recurrent tumors. For treatments with a high likelihood of pseudoprogression, mandatory confirmation of progression with a repeat MRI is an option. The primary measurement remains the maximum cross-sectional area of tumor (2-dimensional) but volumetric measurements are an option. For IDH-wildtype glioblastoma, the non-enhancing disease will no longer be evaluated. In IDH-mutated tumors with a significant non-enhancing component, clinical trials may require evaluating both the enhancing and non-enhancing tumor components for response assessment.