Citations

8020 Background: MM patients (pts) often receive several lines of therapy with multiple drug combinations and, as lenalidomide (R)-containing regimens are commonly used as first-line therapy, R-free options for subsequent lines are necessary. Additionally, as pts age and become less tolerant to treatment, more convenient regimens, such as all-oral options, with less toxicity are needed. Dexamethasone (dex)-based doublets are effective and tolerable in this setting. Methods: Proteasome inhibitor (PI)-exposed and/or intolerant and R-refractory pts who had ≥2 prior therapies (N = 122) were randomized 3:2 to receive: ixazomib (ixa) 4 mg (5.5 mg from cycle 2 if tolerated) on day (d) 1, 8, 15, and dex 20 mg (≥75 years [yrs], 10 mg) on d 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, 23; or pomalidomide (pom) 4 mg on d 1–21, and dex 40 mg (≥75 yrs, 20 mg) on d 1, 8, 15, 22, in 28-d cycles until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. Pts were stratified by age ( < 65 vs ≥65 yrs), International Staging System (ISS) disease stage at study entry (I/II vs III), and prior lines of therapy (2 vs ≥3). The study was powered to test the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS). Results: In the ixa-dex (n = 73) vs pom-dex (n = 49) arms, median age was 72 vs 68 yrs (36% vs 18% ≥75 yrs), 25% vs 22% of pts had ISS stage III MM, and 52% vs 53% had received ≥3 prior therapies (per stratification). At data cutoff (5/31/2020), 19% vs 20% of pts were ongoing on treatment with ixa-dex vs pom-dex; primary reasons for discontinuation were PD (47% vs 57%) and adverse events (AEs; 23% vs 12%). With median follow-up of 15.3 vs 17.3 months (mos), median PFS (mPFS) was 7.1 vs 4.8 mos with ixa-dex vs pom-dex (hazard ratio [HR] 0.847; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.535–1.341; p = 0.477); the Table shows mPFS by prior lines, and secondary endpoints. Pts received a median of 6 cycles with both ixa-dex (range 1–25) and pom-dex (range 1–27); 64% of ixa-dex pts were able to escalate to a 5.5 mg dose of ixa. 69% vs 81% of ixa-dex vs pom-dex pts had grade (G) ≥3 AEs, 51% vs 53% had serious AEs, 39% vs 36% had an AE leading to drug discontinuation, 44% vs 32% had an AE leading to dose reduction, and 13% vs 13% died on study. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL; EORTC QLQ-C30/MY20, and EQ-5D-5L) was maintained, and similar between arms. Conclusions: Ixa-dex prolonged PFS vs pom-dex in these heavily pretreated, PI-exposed and/or intolerant, R-refractory pts, but the difference was not statistically significant. Ixa-dex was well tolerated, with lower G≥3 AE rates vs pom-dex, and comparable HRQoL. Clinical trial information: NCT03170882.

Abstract Background Vedolizumab (VDZ), an anti-a4β7 integrin antibody that selectively blocks lymphocyte trafficking to the gut, is approved for the treatment of adult patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease (CD). This post hoc analysis of data from the VISIBLE 2 trial evaluated early patient-reported outcomes assessed within the first 14 days of VDZ induction. Methods VISIBLE 2 (NCT02611817; EudraCT 2015-000481-58) was a phase 3, multicentre, placebo-controlled study, evaluating the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous VDZ for maintenance treatment in patients with moderately to severely active CD. Efficacy was assessed based on CD Activity Index (CDAI). Patients received induction treatment with intravenous (IV) VDZ 300 mg open-label at Weeks 0 and 2. For this analysis, responses to VDZ were assessed using CDAI sub-scores for patient-reported abdominal pain (AP) and stool frequency (SF) collected daily via electronic diary in the first 14 days of VDZ treatment (Day 1 to 15) in all patients receiving ≥1 VDZ dose at induction. Descriptive statistics were used. Results The analysis included 611 patients (mean [SD] age 37.6 [13.4] years; CD duration 9.0 [8.1] years); 323 (53%) were male; 228 (37%) had severe disease (CDAI &gt;330) at baseline; and 350 (57%) were anti-TNF-experienced. In the first 14 days of VDZ IV induction, the rate of patients with daily SF≤3 increased from 30% at baseline (Day 1) to 47.7% on Day 15. Increases were similar in both anti-TNF-naïve vs. anti-TNF-experienced patients and in patients with severe vs. moderate disease (Figure 1). Mean baseline SF was reduced from 6.4 to 5.0 at Day 15 in patients with severe disease and from 4.3 to 3.5 in patients with moderate disease. Overall, the proportion of patients rating AP as severe/moderate declined from baseline to Day 15 of induction (from 14.6% to 8.2% for severe AP and from 60.7% to 40.6% for moderate AP). Similar Day 1-to-15 reductions were reported in both anti-TNF-naïve (severe AP: 14.2% to 9.2%; moderate AP: 62.6% to 44.6%) and anti-TNF-experienced patients (severe AP: 14.8% to 7.4%; moderate AP: 59.3% to 37.7%), respectively. Although a minority of patients (6.3%) in the sub-group with moderate AP at baseline had worse pain at Day 15, there were early improvements in AP ratings for most patients reporting severe or moderate AP at baseline (Figure 2). Conclusion This post hoc analysis of daily patient-reported SF and AP in the VISIBLE 2 CD study indicates an early onset of response to VDZ IV induction within the first 14 days of treatment.

Abstract Background In VARSITY, the first head-to-head randomized controlled trial of biologics, vedolizumab (VDZ) was superior vs adalimumab (ADA) in achieving clinical remission (CR) at Week 52 in patients (pts) with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC).1 Current treatment goals in UC are based on clinical symptoms and endoscopy, with histologic improvement considered an aspirational goal.2-4 In pts with CR in VARSITY, greater treatment differences between VDZ and ADA at Week 52 were seen in endoscopic improvement and histologic response. Here, data from VARSITY were used to define disease clearance: a novel composite outcome in UC comprising clinical and endoscopic remission plus minimal histologic disease activity. Methods VARSITY was a phase 3b, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-control trial of treatment with VDZ (300mg IV Q8W) vs ADA (40mg SC Q2W) maintenance after induction. Pts were randomized in a treat through design, and no dose escalation was allowed. For these analyses, based on pts who completed the study until Week 52, disease clearance was defined as a composite outcome based on 1) CR: partial Mayo score ≤2 and no individual subscore &gt;1 (excluding sigmoidoscopy subscore); 2) endoscopic improvement: endoscopic subscore ≤1; and 3) absence of active histologic disease (minimum histological disease activity [MHDA]): Robarts Histology Index (RHI) &lt;5. Treatment failure was defined as discontinuation from treatment or completion of treatment but failure to achieve any of CR, endoscopic improvement, or MHDA. The rates of disease clearance and failures were compared between treatment groups and stratified by presence of inflammatory burden at baseline: C-reactive protein ≥5 mg/L and fecal calprotectin &gt;100 µg/g. Results More pts in the VDZ treatment group than the ADA group achieved disease clearance at Week 52 (VDZ: 112/383, 29.2%, 95% CI 24.7-34.1 vs ADA: 63/386, 16.3%, 95% CI 12.8-20.4). Compared with treatment failures (VDZ: 92/383, 24.0% vs ADA: 134/386, 34.7%, Table 1), disease clearers had lower C-reactive protein (CRP) baseline mean values (7.4mg/L and 6.4mg/L vs 13.6mg/L and 9.4mg/L for disease clearers vs treatment failures, for VDZ and ADA, respectively). Fewer pts with inflammatory burden at baseline (CRP ≥5 mg/L and fecal calprotectin &gt;100 µg/g) achieved disease clearance (Fig 1). Baseline corticosteroid use was more frequent in ADA disease clearers (42.9%) compared with VDZ disease clearers (32.1%). Conclusion Disease clearance is a novel and achievable composite outcome that is achieved by almost one third of pts in the VDZ treatment group in VARSITY. Analyses are ongoing to further characterize the trajectory leading to disease clearance as well as the role of baseline characteristics.

Abstract Lessons Learned Background Endoglin is an angiogenic receptor expressed on proliferating tumor vessels and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) stem cells that is implicated as a mechanism of resistance to vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) inhibitors. This study evaluated an antiendoglin monoclonal antibody (carotuximab, TRC105) combined with axitinib in patients with advanced or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) who had progressed following one or more prior VEGF inhibitors. Methods TRAXAR was a multicenter, international randomized 1:1 (stratified by ECOG, 0 vs. 1), phase II study of carotuximab combined with axitinib versus axitinib alone in mccRCC patients who had progressed following one or more prior VEGF inhibitors. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by independent central review (ICR) per RECIST 1.1 Results A total of 150 patients were randomized. The combination therapy resulted in shorter median PFS by RECIST 1.1 than axitinib monotherapy (6.7 vs. 11.4 months). The combination was tolerated similarly to axitinib monotherapy, and there were no treatment related deaths. Exploratory evaluation of pretreatment circulating biomarkers suggested the combination might benefit patients who have low baseline VEGF levels. Conclusion The combination of carotuximab with axitinib did not demonstrate additional efficacy over single agent axitinib in patients with mccRCC who progressed following one or more prior VEGF inhibitor treatment.

Abstract Background There is increasing evidence for the clinical benefit of long-term, continuous therapy for NDMM pts. Proteasome inhibitors (PIs) form a backbone of therapy in MM; however, long-term therapy with some PIs may be limited due to toxicity and the need for regular parenteral administration, increasing the treatment burden. Ixazomib, the first oral PI, has been studied in NDMM pts in 4 phase 1/2 studies in which approximately 1 year of induction therapy with once- or twice-weekly ixazomib plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd), melphalan-prednisone (IMP), or cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (ICd) was followed by single-agent ixazomib maintenance. Here we report an integrated analysis of pts from these studies who did not undergo autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and received ixazomib maintenance therapy. Methods Pts from 4 studies were included: 1) weekly IRd, 12x28-d cycles IRd (weekly ixazomib 1.68-3.95 mg/m² in phase 1, recommended phase 2 dose [RP2D] 4.0 mg; C16005, NCT01217957; ASCT-eligible/-ineligible pts); 2) twice-weekly IRd, 16x21-d cycles IRd (twice-weekly ixazomib 3.0-3.7 mg in phase 1, RP2D 3.0 mg; C16008, NCT01383928; ASCT-eligible/-ineligible pts); 3) IMP, 9x42-d or 13x28-d cycles IMP (weekly/twice-weekly ixazomib 3.0-5.5/3.0-3.7 mg in phase 1, RP2D of weekly ixazomib 4.0 mg; C16006, NCT01335685; ASCT-ineligible pts); 4) ICd, 13x28-d cycles ICd (weekly ixazomib 4.0 mg; C16020, NCT02046070; ASCT-ineligible pts). In all 4 studies, pts completing induction without progressive disease (PD) and, in the IRd studies, not withdrawn for ASCT, could receive single-agent ixazomib maintenance at the last tolerated dose during induction until PD or unacceptable toxicity. Results 121 pts received ixazomib maintenance (25, 18, 35, and 43 in weekly IRd, twice-weekly IRd, IMP, and ICd studies, respectively). Median age was 72 yrs (range 34-90 yrs; 83% aged ≥65 yrs), 62% had IgG myeloma, 47/34/19% had ISS disease stage I/II/III, 40/49% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1. Combined median progression-free survival (PFS) was 33.8 months from time of study entry and 21.4 months from start of maintenance (Figure). Median PFS from the start of maintenance seemed to be longer for the two IRd studies than for IMP, while median PFS for ICd had not yet been reached. 4-yr OS from time of study entry/3-yr OS from the start of maintenance was 82%. Overall response rate was 93% after induction and 94% after maintenance. Best response rate of CR+VGPR after induction was 57% (22% CR), which increased to 63% (35% CR/sCR) after maintenance; 24 pts (20%) improved their response during maintenance (4 pts with CR improved to sCR; 14 VGPR to CR/sCR; 5 partial response [PR] to VGPR/CR; 1 stable disease to PR). Combined mean dose intensity during maintenance was 89.1%. At time of analysis, median duration of maintenance therapy was 2.2 yrs for weekly IRd, 1.0 yr for twice-weekly IRd, and 0.9 yr for IMP and ICd; maximum duration was 4.8, 3.8, 3.9, and 1.6 yrs respectively. 78% of pts had discontinued maintenance, primarily due to PD (55%), and only 7% due to adverse events (AEs). 15% of pts had ixazomib dose reductions during maintenance. Grade ≥3 AEs (48% vs 74%), drug-related grade ≥3 AEs (24% vs 62%), serious AEs (SAEs; 21% vs 43%), and drug-related SAEs (5% vs 19%) were less common during maintenance than during induction. Common grade ≥3 AEs are shown in the Table. Other AEs of clinical interest were also generally similar or less common during maintenance than during induction, including cardiac arrhythmias (13% vs 21%), pneumonia (12% vs 17%), acute renal failure (7% vs 8%), hypotension (4% vs 7%), myocardial infarction (0 vs &lt;1%), and heart failure (2% vs 2%). Only 6 pts (5%) reported a new primary malignancy. There was only 1 on-study death during maintenance, which was not considered related to ixazomib; due to pulmonary edema in an 81-yr old pt with a history of cardiovascular co-morbidities. Conclusions In this integrated analysis, single-agent ixazomib maintenance therapy following an ixazomib-based induction regimen was associated with deepening of responses and good long-term outcomes in NDMM pts not undergoing ASCT. Single-agent ixazomib is feasible for long-term administration, with limited new-onset grade ≥3 AEs. These outcomes appear similar to other studies involving maintenance approaches in NDMM and support the ongoing phase 3 investigation of ixazomib maintenance therapy. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Onyx Pharmaceuticals, an Amgen subsidiary, Takeda Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory Committee: Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Onyx Pharmaceuticals, an Amgen subsidiary, Takeda Oncology; Genesis Pharma: Research Funding. Laubach: Novartis, Takeda, Celgene, Onyx: Research Funding; Novartis, Takeda, Celgene: Consultancy. Hofmeister: Thrassos: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. San Miguel: Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kumar: Celgene, Millennium/Takeda, Onyx, AbbVie, Janssen, Sanofi, Novartis, Amgen, Genentech, Merck, Oncopeptides, Roche, Skyline Diagnostics: Research Funding; Celgene, Millennium, BMS, Onyx, Janssen, Noxxon, AbbVie, Amgen, Merck, Oncopeptides, Skyline Diagnostics, Takeda: Consultancy; Skyline: Honoraria. Lu: Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Teng: Array Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership; AMAG Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership; Gilead Science: Equity Ownership; Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Liu: Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Byrne: Oncopeptides AB: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Berg: Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Labotka: Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. van de Velde: Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Richardson: Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides AB: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Purpose: This open-label, multicenter, phase IB/II study evaluated sapanisertib, a dual inhibitor of mTOR kinase complexes 1/2, plus exemestane or fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+)/HER2-negative (HER2−) advanced/metastatic breast cancer. Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had previously progressed on everolimus with exemestane/fulvestrant and received ≤3 (phase IB) or ≤1 (phase II) prior chemotherapy regimens. Patients received sapanisertib 3 to 5 mg every day (phase IB), or 4 mg every day (phase II) with exemestane 25 mg every day or fulvestrant 500 mg monthly in 28-day cycles. Phase II enrolled parallel cohorts based on prior response to everolimus. The primary objective of phase II was to evaluate antitumor activity by clinical benefit rate at 16 weeks (CBR-16). Results: Overall, 118 patients enrolled in phase IB (n = 24) and II (n = 94). Five patients in phase IB experienced dose-limiting toxicities, at sapanisertib doses of 5 mg every day (n = 4) and 4 mg every day (n = 1); sapanisertib 4 mg every day was the MTD in combination with exemestane or fulvestrant. In phase II, in everolimus-sensitive versus everolimus-resistant cohorts, CBR-16 was 45% versus 23%, and overall response rate was 8% versus 2%, respectively. The most common adverse events were nausea (52%), fatigue (47%), diarrhea (37%), and hyperglycemia (33%); rash occurred in 17% of patients. Molecular analysis suggested positive association between AKT1 mutation status and best treatment response (complete + partial response; P = 0.0262). Conclusions: Sapanisertib plus exemestane or fulvestrant was well tolerated and exhibited clinical benefit in postmenopausal women with pretreated everolimus-sensitive or everolimus-resistant breast cancer.

Abstract Continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd)-based regimens are among the standards of care in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. The oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib is suitable for continuous dosing, with predictable, manageable toxicities. In the double-blind, placebo-controlled TOURMALINE-MM2 trial, transplant-ineligible NDMM patients were randomized to ixazomib 4 mg (n = 351) or placebo (n = 354) plus Rd. After 18 cycles, dexamethasone was discontinued and treatment was continued using reduced-dose ixazomib (3 mg) and lenalidomide (10 mg) until progression/toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Median PFS was 35.3 vs 21.8 months with ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.830; 95% confidence interval, 0.676-1.018; P = .073; median follow-up, 53.3 and 55.8 months). Complete (26% vs 14%; odds ratio [OR], 2.10; P &lt; .001) and ≥ very good partial response (63% vs 48%; OR, 1.87; P &lt; .001) rates were higher with ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd. In a prespecified high-risk cytogenetics subgroup, median PFS was 23.8 vs 18.0 months (HR, 0.690; P = .019). Overall, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mostly grade 1/2. With ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd, 88% vs 81% of patients experienced grade ≥3 TEAEs, 66% vs 62% serious TEAEs, and 35% vs 27% TEAEs resulting in regimen discontinuation; 8% vs 6% died on study. Addition of ixazomib to Rd was tolerable with no new safety signals and led to a clinically meaningful PFS benefit of 13.5 months. Ixazomib-Rd is a feasible option for certain patients who can benefit from an all-oral triplet combination. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01850524.

BACKGROUND: PIs combined with an Rd backbone are the most commonly used triplet combination regimens in patients (pts) with RRMM in the US. The hallmark trials supporting the efficacy of these regimens were predominantly in pts without prior exposure to lenalidomide (R).1,2 Real-world analyses have shown that R-based regimens are increasingly used in the front-line setting.3-5 Thus, real-world treatment patterns in pts with prior R exposure and the real-world comparative effectiveness of PI-Rd triplets in this population with RRMM needs further elucidation. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of RRMM pts initiating IRd, KRd, or VRd in line of therapy (LOT) ≥2 were followed between 7/2007-9/2018 in Optum's deidentified national electronic health records database. RRMM pts were defined as those initiating LOT ≥2 between 1/2014 and 9/2018 and were categorized as having or not having prior exposure to R (R-exposed; no-prior-R) in any prior LOT. Index regimen was the first use of I-/K-/or V-Rd. LOTs were defined via an algorithm developed with MM specialists to proxy the definition of a LOT in RCTs & in accordance with NCCN MM Guidelines.6 Baseline data included: CRAB (hyperCalcemia, Renal insufficiency, Anemia, and Bone lesions); high risk cytogenetics (defined as del[17p], 1q21 gain, t[4;14], or t[14;16]); Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score; and modified frailty score using age and CCI score. Median duration of therapy (DOT) and time-to-next-treatment (TTNT) (a proxy for PFS; defined as time from index regimen start to subsequent LOT or death) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods and compared using covariate-adjusted Cox proportional hazard models (FIGURE). Observations were censored at time of loss to follow-up (f/u)/end of study period (9/30/2018). RESULTS: Of 650 pts included, 397 were R-exposed (IRd, n=112; KRd, n=115; VRd, n=170); 253 had no-prior-R (IRd, n=29; KRd, n=62; VRd, n=162). R-exposed pts, overall, were treated in later LOTs (LOT2: 55% v 78%) and had a longer median time from diagnosis to index LOT (26.7 v 13.4 months) than no-prior-R pts; this differed between treatment cohorts (TABLE). In R-exposed pts, more pts with symptomatic relapse (≥1 CRAB symptom, 87%) or high-risk cytogenetics (30%) received KRd than IRd (75% & 23%) or VRd (74% & 16%) (TABLE). More pts treated with IRd were ≥75 years old: 42% (IRd) v 36% (VRd) / 21% (KRd). In R-exposed pts, 35.3% of those receiving VRd in LOT ≥2 had prior V-IMID-based and 53.5% had IMID-based therapy (ie, IMID with no PI nor monoclonal antibody) in LOT1; &gt;98% of LOT1 IMID use was R, across groups. In R-exposed pts, 56.5% of those receiving KRd had prior V-IMID-based and 16.5% had IMID-based therapy in LOT1; in IRd pts in LOT ≥2, 29.5% and 43.8% had prior V-IMID-based and IMID-based therapy in LOT1. In unadjusted analysis, at a median f/u of 11, 11.9, and 14.8 months for I-, K-, and V-Rd, median TTNT for R-exposed pts: 12.3 months (IRd), 7.8 months (KRd), and 13.9 months (VRd) (P=0.50); HRs for TTNTLOT stratified: 0.84 (IRd v KRd), 0.96 (IRd v VRd), 1.15 (KRd v VRd), and median regimen DOTs: 8.4 months (IRd), 7.5 months (KRd), and 9.5 months (VRd) (P=0.75). In no-prior-R pts, HRs for TTNTLOT stratified were significant for IRd v KRd (HR=0.33) and KRd v VRd (HR=1.62) (P&lt;0.01, both); IRd v VRd (HR=0.53; P=0.11). In adjusted analysis, there were no significant differences for R-exposed pts by PI-Rd regimens for TTNT (FIGURE), nor for regimen DOT. For no-prior-R pts, adjusted HR for TTNT was significant for I- v K-Rd (HR=0.36; P=0.03) and for regimen DOT was significant for I- v V-Rd (HR=0.34; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world study, the majority of pts received a PI-Rd combination after prior VRd or Rd in front-line. After controlling for baseline characteristics, including prior PI-exposure, PI-Rd triplets were comparable in TTNT in R-exposed pts treated in LOTs ≥2. TTNT was significantly longer for I- v K-Rd in pts with no-prior-R, although this is limited by small sample size. Published studies indicate that individualized treatment recommendations may improve real-world outcomes, such as IRd v KRd in frail pts which was associated with significantly longer TTNT.6 Prior-R exposure, in our analysis, does not appear to influence the relative PI-triplet regimen effectiveness in LOTs ≥2. With increasing use of R in earlier LOTs, understanding real-world treatment patterns and subsequent PI-Rd effectiveness in consequent LOTs is key for optimizing RRMM pt management. Disclosures Cherepanov: Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Current Employment. Romanus:Takeda: Current Employment. Raju:Xcenda: Current Employment, Other: Xcenda received research funding from Takeda. Blazer:Xcenda: Current Employment, Other: Xcenda received research funding from Takeda. Farrelly:Xcenda: Current Employment, Other: Xcenda received research funding from Takeda. Stull:Takeda: Current Employment. Ailawadhi:Phosplatin: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding.

Introduction Historically, nearly all relapses in classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) occur within the first 5 years (Radford et al, BMJ 1997). In the phase 3 ECHELON-1 study (NCT01712490), treatment with brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) significantly improved modified progression-free survival (PFS) in patients (pts) with newly-diagnosed Stage III/IV cHL compared with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) (Connors et al, NEJM 2018). 3- and 4-year follow-up (Straus et al, Blood 2020; Bartlett et al, Blood 2019) reported durable PFS benefit with A+AVD vs ABVD in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population that was consistent across most key pt subgroups, irrespective of interim positron emission tomography (PET) scan status, disease stage, and baseline disease risk factor score. We report updated efficacy and safety results for pts in the ECHELON-1 study after a median follow-up of 55.6 months. Methods In this evaluation of longer follow-up, an exploratory analysis of PFS (time from randomization to relapse, progression, or death from any cause) per investigator (INV) was conducted, with a cutoff date of May 18, 2020. Pts with previously untreated Stage III or IV cHL were randomized 1:1 to receive up to six cycles of A+AVD (n=664) or ABVD (n=670) intravenously on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. An interim PET scan after cycle 2 (PET2) was required. Resolution and improvement (defined as improvement by ≥1 grade from worst grade as of the latest assessment) of peripheral neuropathy (PN) in pts with ongoing symptoms at the end of treatment (EoT) were monitored during the extended follow-up period. The rate of secondary malignancies, and the incidence and outcomes of pregnancies among pts and their partners were also assessed. Results With extended follow-up (median 55.6 months; 95% CI 55.2-56.7) estimated 5-year PFS rates were 82.0% (95% CI 78.7-84.8) for A+AVD and 75.2% (95% CI 71.5-78.4) for ABVD. Overall, PFS per INV favored A+AVD over ABVD (HR 0.691; 95% CI 0.543-0.880; p=0.003) (Table). Exploratory subgroup analyses by PET2 status and age demonstrated PFS benefits regardless of PET2 status (Table); estimated 5-year PFS per INV with A+AVD vs ABVD in the ITT population was 84.7% vs 78.8% in PET2-negative pts (HR 0.676; 95% CI 0.512-0.892; p=0.005), and 60.6% vs 45.9% in PET2-positive pts (HR 0.703; 95% CI 0.393-1.256; p=0.230). PFS benefit with A+AVD over ABVD was also independent of the number of International Prognostic Factors Project (IPFP) risk factors (Figure). After a median follow-up of almost 5-years, 84% (370/442) and 86% (245/286) of pts with treatment-emergent PN reported complete resolution or improvement of symptoms in the A+AVD and ABVD arms, respectively. Median time to complete resolution of PN events that were ongoing at EoT was 30 weeks (range 0-262) in the A+AVD arm and 16 weeks (range 0-267) in the ABVD arm; median time to improvement was 49 weeks (range 8-270) and 12 weeks (range 2-70) , respectively. Of the 132 (30%) pts with ongoing PN in the A+AVD arm, 77 (17%), 39 (9%), 15 (3%) and 1 (&lt;1%) experienced a maximum severity of grade 1, 2, 3 or 4, respectively. In the ABVD arm, PN was ongoing in 61 pts (21%); maximum severity was grade 1, 2, 3 or 4 in 40 (14%), 17 (6%), 4 (1%) and 0 pts, respectively. A total of 124 pregnancies were reported among pts and their partners (40 female and 30 male pts in the A+AVD arm; 26 female and 28 male pts in the ABVD arm). The proportion of live births was similar between arms for female pts (26/40 in the A+AVD arm and 17/26 in the ABVD arm, 65% in each arm) and for male pts' partners (19/30 [63%] in the A+AVD arm and 20/28 [71%] in the ABVD arm). No stillbirths were recorded. Additional follow-up at an estimated median of ~5 years and secondary malignancy data will be presented. Conclusions After a median follow-up of 55.6 months, A+AVD continues to demonstrate a robust and durable treatment benefit independent of disease stage, risk factor score, and PET2 status. In addition, compared with ABVD, treatment adaptation by interim PET2 status is not required and bleomycin exposure is avoided. The sustained PFS benefit with A+AVD is coupled with a manageable safety profile with symptoms of PN improving or resolving over time and similar pregnancy rates in both treatment arms. The benefits observed with A+AVD at this important milestone suggest that A+AVD is an attractive treatment option for all pts with previously untreated Stage III or IV cHL. Disclosures Straus: Karyopharm Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imedex, Inc.: Speakers Bureau; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; NY Lymphoma Rounds: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; OncLive: Speakers Bureau; Elsevier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: CME writer; ASH: Other: Conference in December 2019 on HL to other physicians during ASH; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Connors:Seattle Genetics: Other: Sponsorship to educational presentations; Takeda: Other: Sponsorship to educational presentations. Illés:Takeda, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche;: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Novartis Pharma SAS, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals Israel, Roche;: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene, Janssen, Novartis,Roche, Takeda: Consultancy. Lech-Marańda:Roche, Novartis, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, Amgen, Gilead, AbbVie, Sanofi: Consultancy; Roche, Amgen, Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Feldman:KITE: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Morphosis: Other: Ad board; AstraZeneca: Other: Ad board; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Smolewski:Roche Poland: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria; Morphosis: Honoraria. Savage:Roche (institutional): Research Funding; Merck, BMS, Seattle Genetics, Gilead, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Servier: Consultancy; BeiGene: Other: Steering Committee; Merck, BMS, Seattle Genetics, Gilead, AstraZeneca, AbbVie: Honoraria. Bartlett:Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BTG: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Affimed Therapeutics: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Autolus: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding. Walewski:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding. Ramchandren:Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Zinzani:Eusapharma: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics, Inc.: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kirin Kyowa: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Hutchings:Celgene, Genmab, Janssen, Novartis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Takeda: Research Funding; Genmab, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Munoz:Juno/Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Fosunkite: Consultancy; Innovent: Consultancy; Acrotech/Aurobindo: Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Kyowa: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kim:JJ: Research Funding; Celltrion: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirn: Research Funding; Donga: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding. Advani:Astra Zeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Cell Medica, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, KitePharma, Kyowa, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene, Forty Seven, Inc., Genentech/Roche, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Kura, Merck, Millenium, Pharmacyclics, Regeneron, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Ansell:Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Younes:HCM: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; BioPath: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Current Employment; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Gallamini:Takeda: Other: Speaker. Liu:Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment. Little:Takeda: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Fenton:Seattle Genetics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Fanale:Seattle Genetics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Radford:GlaxoSmithKline: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Spouse; AstraZeneca: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Spouse; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; ADCT: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.