Citations

Abstract With the development of various strategies of anti-CD19 immunotherapy for treatment of B cell malignancies, it remains to be elucidated whether CD19 targeting with a monoclonal antibody impairs subsequent CD19 targeted chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CART19) therapy. In this study, we evaluated the potential interference between the CD19 targeting monoclonal antibody tafasitamab and CART19 treatment (using a construct similar to the FDA approved therapy, FMC63-41BBζ, tisagenlecleucel) in preclinical lymphoma and leukemia models. For in vitro assays, the CD19 + cell lines JeKo-1 (mantle cell lymphoma), Nalm6 (acute lymphoblastic leukemia), and OCI-Ly7 (diffuse large B cell lymphoma) were used. When CART19 were co-cultured with CD19 + tumor cells in the presence of increasing concentrations of tafasitamab (10-400 µg/mL) or the isotype control, an impairment of CART19 functions at the highest concentration of tafasitamab was observed. However, when tafasitamab was cocultured with tumor cells overnight and removed from the culture by washing, there was no impairment of CART19 anti-tumor activity or effector functions compared to a pre-culture with isotype control. We then aimed to validate these findings in xenograft mouse models by determining whether prior tafasitamab treatment impairs subsequent CART cell function. First, a two-step JeKo-1 xenograft model was created through inoculation of 1x10 6 luciferase + JeKo-1 cells to immunocompromised NOD-SCID-γ -/- (NSG) mice via tail vein injection. One week later, tumor burden was assessed by bioluminescence imaging (BLI) and mice were randomized to receive either 1) PBS (Group 1) or 2) 10 mg/kg of tafasitamab (Group 2) (Fig. 1A). Treatment was performed until the mice reached the endpoint due to the high tumor load. When reaching the endpoint, mice were euthanized and spleen was harvested. Splenic cells were then injected to naïve NSG mice. Two weeks after the inoculation of splenic cells (PBS or tafasitamab treated), mice were imaged with BLI and randomized according to their tumor burden to receive 2x10 6 of 1) untransduced T cells (UTD) or 2) CART19 (i.v.) (Fig. 1B). Mice, treated with CART19 demonstrated potent anti-tumor effects and showed prolonged survival compared to UTD control mice. Interestingly, CART19-treated mice inoculated with Group 2 splenic cells (pretreated with tafasitamab) showed a significantly better tumor control and overall survival compared with mice engrafted Group 1 splenic cells (PBS pretreatment) (Fig. 1C). This finding led us to further investigate the effects of prior tafasitamab therapy on subsequent CART19 treatment. In this context, we studied the sequential treatment with tafasitamab and CART19 in an additional JeKo-1 xenograft model (Fig. 1D). In brief, NSG mice were inoculated with luciferase + JeKo-1 on day -14. On day -8, mice were imaged and randomized to the PBS (Group I) or tafasitamab (10 mg/kg) group. On day -1 tafasitamab treated mice were imaged again, randomized to the tafasitamab discontinuation (Group II) or continuation (Group III). Treatment with PBS was continued in Group I. All groups were administered with 1x10 6 of CART19 on day 0. Cotreatment of JeKo-1 xenografts with tafasitamab and CART19 led to impaired anti-tumor activity presumably as a result of CD19 binding competition between tafasitamab and CART19 (Group III). Mice treated with tafasitamab followed by CART19 had improved tumor control compared to mice treated with PBS followed by CART19 (Fig. 1E-F). Serial peripheral blood analysis demonstrated that mice from Group I showed the highest CART19 expansion on day 10. Strikingly, Group II exhibited weak CART19 expansion at day 10, but strongest expansion on day 23 (Fig. 1G). We therefore hypothesized that prior treatment with tafasitamab results in modulation of CART19 cell activation. To test this hypothesis, spleens of satellite mice were harvested 24 hours after CART19 administration. Flow cytometric analysis revealed that the mice from Group II showed significantly lower CD69 and HLA-DR expression on CART19 cells compared with Group I, and reduced apoptosis as measured by the Annexin assay (Fig. 1H-I). In summary, concomitant treatment of tafasitamab and CART19 led to impaired anti-tumor activity while, in contrast, sequential treatment of tafasitamab and CART19 did not inhibit CART19 anti-tumor activity but rather promoted anti-tumor effects in xenograft models. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Sakemura: Humanigen: Patents & Royalties. Augsberger: MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Schanzer: MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Patra-Kneuer: MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Heitmüller: MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Steidl: MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Endell: MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Ding: DTRM: Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Parikh: Pharmacyclics, MorphoSys, Janssen, AstraZeneca, TG Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, AbbVie, and Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Verastem Oncology, and AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kay: Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Targeted Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CytomX Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding. Nowakowski: Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cox: Humanigen: Patents & Royalties. Kenderian: Humanigen, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: DNA mismatch repair (MMR) is a major mechanism cells use to repair erroneous insertion or deletion of bases during DNA replication. MMR deficiency (MMR-d), including rare germline mutations (Lynch syndrome) and somatic inactivation, has been extensively studied in solid tumors, such as colon, endometrial, pancreatic, and ovarian cancers. The prevalence of MMR-d in solid tumors ranges from 1% - 20% of somatic defects, and patients with MMR-d tumors have a longer overall survival. It is also well-known that MMR is an integral part of activation-induced cytidine deaminase (AID)-mediated somatic hypermutation and immunoglobulin class switch processes in normal mature B lymphocytes, while mice deficient in the MMR genes are prone to develop T and B cell lymphomas. It is also known that follicular lymphoma (FL) carries a high degree of somatic hypermutation with some heterogeneity induced by AID. Our understanding of MMR status in human blood cancers, especially in FL remains very limited. One could hypothesize that MMR-d status could permit cells to acquire and sustain high-degree of mutation rates, better sensitivity to DNA damaging chemotherapy while hindering rapid cell proliferation, which could manifest to a better prognosis in patients. Herein, we conducted an exploratory analysis to understand the frequency of MMR-d status and its prognostic significance in FL. Methods: Following approval of the Institution Review Board, we assessed the expression of MMR proteins; MLH1, PMS2 and MSH6 on formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) lymph node tissue obtained from patients with FL by immunohistochemistry (IHC) using standard methods on Ventana Benchmark XT automated stainers (Ventana Medical Systems, Tucson, AZ). Dako (clone ES05), Cell Marque (clone EPR3947) and Biocare (clone BC/44) antibodies were used to stain MLH1, PMS2 and MSH6, respectively. Fifty cases of FL with existing FFPE blocks were selected randomly. The expression of MLH1, PMS2 and MSH6 proteins in the tumor cells was scored as 0, +1 or +2, (Figure 1A). Cases with absence of the IHC signal (score of 0) in any one of the three proteins were classified as MMR-d. Progression free survival at 12 months (PFS12) or 24 months (PFS24) was defined as being free from disease progression or death at 12 or 24 months, respectively. All time-to-event analyses were done from the time of diagnosis. Results: Fifty patients with FL were included in the study. The median age at diagnosis was 65 years (range 34-85) and 58% were females. At initial diagnosis, 36 (72%) patients had advanced stage (stage 3, n=8, stage 4, n=28) disease. Of the 50 patients, 26 (52%) required treatment; chemotherapy (n=14), radiation treatment alone (n=9), surgery alone (n=3). Out of the 50 patients, 23 (46%) were classified as MMR-d due to lack of expression of one of the three assessed proteins: MLH1 (n=1, 2%), PMS2 (n=11, 22%) and MSH6 (n=19, 38%). The patient who had MLH1 loss had concomitant PMS2 loss. Stage IV disease was observed in 52% of the MMR-d patients and 59% in the MMR proficient (MMR-p) patients, p=0.77. Median age at diagnosis was 62 (range: 34-84) years and 67 (range: 34-85) years in MMR-d and MMR-p patients, respectively, p=0.1. FLIPI score was similar between the MMR-d [low n=10 (43%), intermediate n=9 (39%), high n=4 (18%)] and MMR-p [low n=5 (18%), intermediate n=14 (52%), high n=8 (30%)] patients, p=0.16. Fourteen (61%) of MMR-d patients required initiation of therapy upon diagnosis compared to 12 (44%) of MMR-p patients, p=0.27. The median follow-up for the entire cohort was 17 years [95% confidence interval (CI): 11.7-29.4]. The median overall survival (OS) of MMR-d patients was 10 years (95%CI: 7.8-20.7) compared to 6 years (95%CI: 4.5-NR) in MMR-p patients, p=0.036, Figure 1B. In patients with MMR-d and MMR-p, 83% and 55% achieved PFS12, p=0.04 and 65% and 41% achieved PFS24, p=0.08, respectively. After adjusting for FLIPI score, MMR status remained associated with OS (MMR-d HR: 0.51, 95%CI: 0.2-1.02, p=0.05). Discussion and Conclusion: In this pilot study, MMR-d in the FL tumors was common (46%) and, as predicted, was associated with a favorable OS. Association of MMR-d status with PFS in general and patients with early progression (short PFS12 and PFS24) and relationship of MMR-d with types of therapy need further study in large FL datasets. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. King: Celgene/BMS: Research Funding. Maurer: Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Nowakowski: Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Witzig: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding.

Abstract Background The majority of patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) DLBCL who relapse after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) or chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, or who are not candidates for HSCT or CAR-T, have poor outcomes and need novel therapies (Crump 2017). Brentuximab vedotin (BV) was the first antibody-drug conjugate to be approved in multiple cancer types (Gauzy-Lazo 2020). The combination of a CD30-directed monoclonal antibody, a protease-cleavable linker, and the microtubule-disrupting agent monomethyl auristatin E drives the anticancer activity of BV by inducing cell cycle arrest and apoptosis (Sutherland 2006). Lenalidomide may enhance the activity of BV through immune-mediated mechanisms. In a phase 1 trial (NCT02086604) in which 37 patients with R/R DLBCL were treated with BV + lenalidomide, the objective response rate (ORR) was 56.7% (73.3% in CD30+ patients). The median duration of remission was 13.2 months in patients with a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) and 11.7 months in patients with a CR, PR, or stable disease (SD) >6 months. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 10.2 months and 14.3 months, respectively, and results were similar in the CD30+ and CD30 <1% groups (manuscript submitted). The clinical activity and manageable safety profiles of BV, lenalidomide, and rituximab as single agents provide a strong rationale for this combination in multiple relapsed and heavily pretreated patients with R/R DLBCL. Study Design and Methods ECHELON-3 (NCT04404283) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, active-comparator, multicenter phase 3 study designed to evaluate the efficacy of BV versus placebo, in combination with lenalidomide and rituximab, in patients with R/R DLBCL. Key eligibility criteria will include patients ≥18 years of age with R/R DLBCL with an eligible subtype, ≥2 prior lines of systemic therapy and ineligible for stem cell transplant or CAR-T therapy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 2, fluorodeoxyglucose-avid disease by positron emission tomography (PET), and bidimensional measurable disease of at least 1.5 cm by computed tomography (CT). Patients with a history of another malignancy within the past 2 years, any uncontrolled Grade ≥3 infection, Grade ≥2 peripheral neuropathy, or previous exposure to BV or lenalidomide will not be eligible. After completing the safety run-in period, patients (n=400) will be randomized 1:1 to receive either BV (1.2 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks [Q3W]) or placebo (intravenously Q3W) in combination with lenalidomide (20 mg orally daily) and rituximab (1400 mg subcutaneously Q3W from Cycle 2, with 375 mg/m 2 intravenously on Cycle 1 Day 1). Treatment may continue while there is clinical benefit (SD or better) without progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients will be stratified by CD30 expression (≥1% [positive] vs <1% [negative]), prior allogeneic or autologous stem cell transplant therapy (received or not), prior CAR-T therapy (received or not), and cell of origin (germinal center B-cell [GCB] or non-GCB). The dual primary endpoints are PFS per blinded independent central review (BICR) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and CD30+ populations. Key secondary endpoints are OS in the ITT and CD30+ populations, and ORR per BICR. Other secondary endpoints include CR rate, duration of objective response, and safety and tolerability of the combination. Disease response will be assessed by BICR and the investigator according to the Lugano Classification Revised Staging System for nodal non-Hodgkin and Hodgkin lymphomas (Cheson 2014). Radiographic disease evaluations, including contrast-enhanced CT and PET, will be assessed at baseline, then every 6 weeks from randomization until Week 48, then every 12 weeks thereafter. PET is not required after CR is achieved For the analyses of PFS per BICR, the stratified log-rank test will be used to compare PFS between the 2 treatment groups. Hazard ratios will be estimated using the stratified Cox regression model. PFS will also be summarized using the Kaplan-Meier method. Similar methods will be used to estimate OS and other time-to-event efficacy endpoints. The study is currently enrolling and will be open in 16 countries. Disclosures Bartlett: Merck: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Autolus: Research Funding; Seagen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Yasenchak: Seagen Inc.: Research Funding. Harwin: Sarah Cannon Research Institute: Other: Grants, Research Funding. Sims: Seagen Inc.: Current Employment. Nowakowski: Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Tafasitamab is a humanized, Fc-modified, anti-CD19 monoclonal antibody (mAb) shown to enhance antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity and phagocytosis. It is approved by the FDA under accelerated approval (July 2020) in combination with lenalidomide (LEN) for treatment of relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL) in adult patients ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation. To evaluate if newly diagnosed DLBCL patients would also benefit from this regimen, this Phase Ib study (First-MIND; NCT04134936) was designed to first assess the safety and tolerability of tafasitamab ± LEN in addition to rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (R-CHOP) in newly diagnosed DLBCL patients. Methods Eligible patients were ≥18 years old, with treatment-naïve DLBCL, international prognostic index (IPI) 2-5 and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0-2. Patients with known double- or triple-hit and transformed lymphoma were excluded. Patients were randomized 1:1 to either six 21-day [D] cycles of R-CHOP (R-CHO, D1; P, D1-5) + tafasitamab (12 mg/kg IV, D1, 8, 15) (Arm A) or R-CHOP + tafasitamab + LEN (25 mg orally, D1-10) (Arm B). Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis was mandatory. The primary safety endpoint was incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), positron emission tomography (PET)-complete response (CR) rate, and partial response (PR) rate at end of treatment (EOT). Tumor measurements by PET/CT or PET/MRI at EOT were performed according to Lugano 2014 criteria within 6±2 weeks after Day 21 of the last treatment cycle the patient started. Results From December 2019 to August 2020, 83 patients were screened in nine countries across 34 sites in Europe and the US; 66 were randomized (Arm A, n=33; Arm B, n=33). Data cut-off for this analysis: 13 March 2021. Median age was 64.5 years (range 20-86). Many patients had high-risk disease: IPI 2: 24/66 (36.4%), IPI 3: 29/66 (43.9%), IPI 4: 11/66 (16.7%), IPI 5: 2/66 (3.0%); ECOG PS ≥2: 6/66 (9.1%). Most patients had Stage III/IV disease 62/66 (93.9%); 29/66 (43.9%) had bulky disease. All patients experienced at least one TEAE. The most frequent Grade ≥3 TEAEs by system organ class were blood and lymphatic disorders (81.8% patients overall), experienced by 24 patients (72.7%) in Arm A and 30 patients (90.9%) in Arm B. Grade ≥3 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 19/33 (57.6%) and 4/33 (12.1%) (Arm A), and 28/33 (84.8%) and 12/33 (36.4%) (Arm B) patients, respectively; Grade ≥3 febrile neutropenia was experienced by 6/33 (18.2%) patients in each arm. Grade ≥3 infusion-related reactions to both rituximab and tafasitamab occurred in no patients in Arm A and one patient (3.0%) in Arm B, and 7/33 (21.2%) (Arm A) and 9/33 (27.3%) (Arm B) patients had a Grade ≥3 infection and/or infestation (Figure 1). Serious TEAEs occurred in 14/33 (42.4%) patients in Arm A and 17/33 (51.5%) patients in Arm B. Two out of 33 (6.1%) and one out of 33 (3.0%) patients discontinued study treatment due to TEAEs in Arms A and B, respectively. There were four deaths unrelated to tafasitamab and/or LEN (COVID-19 pneumonia, sepsis, and urosepsis). The average relative dose intensity of R-CHOP in each cycle was maintained in both arms. ORR at EOT was observed in 25/33 patients (75.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 57.7-88.9) in Arm A and 27/33 patients (81.8%; 95% CI: 64.5-93.0) in Arm B. Conclusion These data suggest that both regimens are tolerable and do not impair dosing and scheduling of R-CHOP. Toxicities were similar to those expected with R-CHOP with or without LEN. With tumor follow-up still ongoing, the ORR at EOT suggests that patients with treatment-naïve DLBCL may achieve clinically meaningful efficacy tafasitamab and LEN in addition to standard treatment. A Phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial will assess efficacy and safety of R-CHOP + tafasitamab + LEN vs R-CHOP in newly diagnosed patients with high intermediate and high risk DLBCL, and is currently recruiting (frontMIND study; NCT04824092). Funding: MorphoSys AG. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Belada: Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; MorphoSys AG: Consultancy, Research Funding; Debiopharm Group: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Archigen Biotech: Research Funding; Reddys: Research Funding. André: Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding; Roche: Other: Travel/accomodation/expenses, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Travel/Accommodations/Expenses; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers-Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel/Accommodations/Expenses; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Travel/accomodation/expenses; AbbVie: Other: Travel/accomodation/expenses. Pérez Persona: Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Support for attending meetings and/or travel, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Support for attending meetings and/or travel, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Other: Support for attending meetings and/or travel, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Staber: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Trneny: AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Celgene: Consultancy; 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, General Hospital in Prague: Current Employment; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Portola: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Honoraria. Brackertz: MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Shah: MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Sporchia: MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Burke: MorphoSys: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; X4 Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; SeaGen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Kura: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Nowakowski: Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: Tafasitamab is a humanized Fc-modified cytolytic CD19 targeting monoclonal antibody. In combination with lenalidomide (LEN), it received accelerated approval in July 2020 for adult patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) not otherwise specified (NOS), including arising from lowâ€'grade lymphoma, who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Following FDA approval, we are now evaluating the safety and efficacy of tafasitamab in combination with LEN as an add-on to first-line therapy with R-CHOP in newly diagnosed patients with DLBCL.

Abstract Introduction: The clinical presentation of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is heterogeneous, ranging from indolent disease that does not require immediate treatment to rapidly progressive disease that responds poorly to aggressive immunochemotherapy. Several small retrospective studies suggested that active surveillance or delayed treatment is feasible in select patients with an indolent disease course. A shorter diagnosis-to-treatment interval (DTI) is a strong predictor for inferior survival in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas such as diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL), which likely correlates with an aggressive disease biology and clinical presentation. However, the impact of DTI on survival has not been well studied in patients with MCL. In this study, we utilized the National Cancer Database to investigate the feasibility of active surveillance or delayed treatment in patients with MCL and to explore the potential impact of DTI on survival of MCL patients requiring treatment. Methods: The National Cancer Database was used to identify adult patients (≥ 18 years) with MCL diagnosed from 2004 through 2017. Patients were divided into three groups based on their time to initial treatment: early treatment [ET] (treatment started within 3 months), delayed treatment [DT] (treatment started after 3 months) and surveillance [SUR] (watch and wait without treatment). Baseline clinical characteristics were compared between the 3 groups using Chi-square test. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 25. Results: A total of 27,867 patients with newly diagnosed MCL were included in this study, 995 patients (4%) in the SUR group, 21,425 patients (77%) in the ET group, and 1,052 patients (4%) in the DT group. There were no major differences in the baseline characteristics among the three groups including demographics (age, sex, ethnicity), socioeconomic factors (annual income, insurance status, place of residence), comorbidity scores, and Ann Arbor stage. Compared to patients in the SUR and DT groups, patients in the ET group were more likely to have B symptoms (ET=27% vs DT=16% vs SUR=8%, p<0.001) and were less likely to be managed at an academic center (ET=40% vs DT=53% vs SUR= 51%, p<0.001) (Table 1). The median follow-up was 38.2 months for the entire cohort. There was a significant difference in OS among the three groups, with a median OS of 107 months (95% CI = 92.7-122.7) in the SUR group, 84.9 months (95% CI = 74.2-95.7) in the DT group, and 68.9 months (95% CI = 66.8-70.9) in the ET group (p=0.001) (Figure 1A). Among patients in the DT group, a shorter DTI was associated with a trend of inferior OS, with a median OS of 82 months (95% CI = 73.2-90.8) for those with a DTI of 3-12 months and not reached (95% CI not calculable) for those with a DTI > 12 months (p=0.095) (Figure 1B). Among the ET group, a shorter DTI was associated with shorter OS, with a median OS of 53 months (95% CI = 50.2-55.8) for patients with a DTI ≤ 15 days, 71.7 months (95% CI = 67.1-76.3) for those with a DTI of 16-30 days, and 87.1 months (95% CI= 82.8-91.4) for patients with a DTI of 31-90 days (p<0.001) (Figure 1C) Conclusion: In this retrospective analysis, patients with newly diagnosed MCL who were managed with an active surveillance strategy or delayed therapy had a better survival compared to patients who underwent early therapy. These findings validate the feasibility of delayed therapy in select patients with MCL. In patients who undergo early therapy, a shorter DTI is associated with an inferior survival outcome, mirroring findings in DLBCL and PTCL. A shorter DTI is likely associated with more aggressive disease biology and clinical presentation. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Munoz: Pharmacyclics/Abbvie, Bayer, Gilead/Kite Pharma, Pfizer, Janssen, Juno/Celgene, BMS, Kyowa, Alexion, Beigene, Fosunkite, Innovent, Seattle Genetics, Debiopharm, Karyopharm, Genmab, ADC Therapeutics, Epizyme, Beigene, Servier: Consultancy; Gilead/Kite Pharma, Kyowa, Bayer, Pharmacyclics/Janssen, Seattle Genetics, Acrotech/Aurobindo, Beigene, Verastem, AstraZeneca, Celgene/BMS, Genentech/Roche.: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Physicians' Education Resource: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; OncView: Honoraria; Kyowa: Honoraria. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Habermann: Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Nowakowski: Nanostrings: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kymera Therapeutics: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Zai Labolatory: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Bantham Pharmaceutical: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Selvita: Consultancy; Ryvu Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kyte Pharma: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy. Wang: TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Chemoimmunotherapy is considered standard initial therapy for follicular lymphoma (FL) with high tumor burden (HTB). Obinutuzumab and Bendamustine (OB) with maintenance Obinutuzumab (mO) is considered a standard therapy for the frontline treatment of HTB FL (GALLIUM, Marcus et al, NEJM 2017). Venetoclax (VEN), an oral BCL2 inhibitor, is an attractive target in FL given the high BCL2 expression; though single agent activity has been disappointing (Davids et al. JCO 2017). BCL2 inhibition is thought to be synergistic with chemotherapy. Thus, the PrE0403 study evaluated the OB-VEN combination in frontline HTB FL. Here we present end of induction (EOI) outcomes. Methods: The primary objective of this Phase II study was to estimate the complete remission (CR) rate at EOI. Potential participants must have had a histologically confirmed diagnosis of FL grade 1, 2, or 3a with HTB defined by GELF or high risk defined by FLIPI-1 criteria. They must have had adequate performance status and organ function. Notably, creatinine clearance must have been ≥50 mL/min. Participants must have not had prior treatment for FL. Eligible participants were treated with Bendamustine IV 90 mg/m2 Day (D) 1 & 2, Obinutuzumab IV 100 mg D1, 900 mg D2, 1000 mg D8 and D15 of Cycle (C) 1 then D1 of each cycle, and VEN 800 mg orally daily D1-10 every 28 days for 6 total cycles. Due to a high rate of laboratory tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) during C1 in the first 21 patients, VEN was removed from C1 and given in C2-6 only. Participants with a CR at EOI were treated with mO IV 1000 mg D1 every 8 weeks for 2 years. Those with a partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) were treated with mO as well as VEN 800 mg orally daily for 2 years. Pneumocystis jiroveci Pneumonia (PJP) and antiviral prophylaxis was required as was G-CSF support. Response was assessed via Lugano Criteria at EOI including PET/CT and bone marrow assessment. Adverse Events (AEs) were evaluated using CTCAE v5.0. To be considered promising, OB-VEN should improve the null hypothesis CR rate of 50% (OB) to 65%. With an 85% power and a one sided 15% type I error, 56 participants would be needed with an estimated 51 eligible. Support for the study was from Genentech, Member of the Roche Group. Results A total of 56 participants were enrolled and treated between 12/2017 and 11/2020; baseline characteristics are listed in Table 1. TLS was closely monitored in C1 and 8/21 participants developed TLS when VEN was administered in C1; 0/35 when it was not. However, monitoring for TLS in C1 became less stringent when VEN was not administered. Treatment related Grade ≥3 toxicities occurred in 47/56 participants (83.9%) with serious adverse events in 31 of 56 (55.5%). Atypical infections were seen; there was one treatment related death on study due to cytomegalovirus (CMV) encephalitis as well as PJP pneumonia which occurred after induction C6. Enrollment was temporarily suspended and CMV monitoring was implemented with no further occurrences. Another participant receiving mO later developed BK virus nephropathy following mO C6 and now requires ongoing hemodialysis. Another was diagnosed with Respiratory Syncytial Virus pneumonia 30 days after C6 and later PJP pneumonia after C2 of mO. Common (incidence >10%) AEs during induction are listed in Table 2. 45 of 56 (80.4%) participants were able to receive all 6 cycles of OB-VEN. CR was seen in 41 of 56 participants (73.2%, 2 sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 59.7-84.2%) at the EOI. 30 participants (53.5%) went onto maintenance. With a median follow up of 20.9 months, estimated 2 year Overall Survival (OS) and Progression-Free Survival (PFS) (90% CI) is 94.4% (82.4-98.3%) and 85.8% (68.8-93.9%) respectively. Conclusions This Phase II study of OB-VEN in untreated HTB FL showed high CR rate and met its primary endpoint with early signs of prolonged PFS. Laboratory TLS was identified but it was unclear if attributed solely to VEN, as baseline laboratory TLS rate for OB is unknown. The rate of Grade ≥3 AE of 83.9% (compared to 69% for OB in GALLIUM, Hiddeman JCO 2018) and the observation of opportunistic infections including CMV encephalitis, PJP pneumonia and BK nephropathy, suggests the combination is highly immunosuppressive. Therefore, while the study met its primary outcome, the combination of OB-VEN at 800 mg for 10 days, plus mO, does not have an acceptable risk/benefit profile. Participants will continue to be followed for efficacy and safety during the maintenance phase. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Portell: Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; SeaGen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Xencor: Research Funding; Aptitude Health: Honoraria; BeiGene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Morphosys: Honoraria; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; Genentech: Research Funding; VelosBio: Research Funding. Nowakowski: MorphoSys: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kymera Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy; Nanostrings: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Zai Labolatory: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Bantham Pharmaceutical: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Selvita: Consultancy; Ryvu Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kyte Pharma: Consultancy. Cohen: Janssen, Adicet, Astra Zeneca, Genentech, Aptitude Health, Cellectar, Kite/Gilead, Loxo, BeiGene, Adaptive: Consultancy; Genentech, BMS/Celgene, LAM, BioINvent, LOXO, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, M2Gen, Takeda: Research Funding. Kahl: AbbVie, Acerta, ADCT, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech: Research Funding; AbbVie, Adaptive, ADCT, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Incyte, Janssen, Karyopharm, Kite, MEI, Pharmacyclics, Roche, TG Therapeutics, and Teva: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: Venetoclax is not approved for follicular lymphoma or in combination with bendamustine and obinutuzumab

Abstract Background: Patients with relapsed indolent NHL (iNHL) have limited standard treatment options. Lenalidomide combined with rituximab (R 2) has shown complimentary clinical activity and is a tolerable regimen in both untreated and relapsed or refractory (R/R) patients with iNHL (RELEVANCE : N Engl J Med 2018;379:934 and AUGMENT: J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:1188). Methods: MAGNIFY is a multicenter, phase 3b trial in patients with R/R follicular lymphoma (FL) grades 1-3b, transformed FL (tFL), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), or mantle cell lymphoma (MCL; NCT01996865) exploring optimal lenalidomide duration. In the induction phase, lenalidomide 20 mg PO on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle + rituximab IV at 375 mg/m 2/week cycle 1 and then every 8 weeks starting with cycle 3 (R 2) are administered for 12 cycles. Patients with stable disease, partial response, or complete response/complete response unconfirmed (CR/CRu) were randomized 1:1 to R 2 vs rituximab maintenance for 18 months. Data presented here are the complete analysis from the induction phase in efficacy-evaluable patients with FL grades 1-3a or MZL (FL grade 3b, tFL, and MCL not included). The focus of this interim analysis was overall response rate (ORR) by 1999 IWG criteria in the induction intention-to-treat population. Results: As of March 5, 2021, 394 patients (318 [81%] FL gr1-3a; 76 [19%] MZL) were enrolled. The median follow-up was 40.6 mo (range, 0.6-79.6). Median age was 66 y (range, 35-91), 328 (83%) had stage III/IV disease, with a median of 2 prior therapies (94% prior rituximab-containing). ORR was 71% (n = 279) with 42% (n = 164) CR/CRu (Table). All patients have completed R 2 induction (n = 232, 59%) or discontinued study treatment (n = 162, 41%). 141 patients (36%) prematurely discontinued both lenalidomide and rituximab, primarily due to adverse events (AEs) (n = 54, 14%) or progressive disease (n = 42, 11%). The majority of patients who have completed induction have been randomized and entered maintenance (n = 217). Median duration of response in the induction period was not reached (95% CI, 43.9 mo-NR), and median progression-free survival in the induction safety population (n = 393) was 50.5 mo (95% CI, 39.5-NR). Efficacy results are reported in the table by histology subgroups (FL vs MZL), and rituximab-refractory, double-refractory, and early relapse statuses. Most common all-grade AEs were 47% fatigue, 43% neutropenia, 37% diarrhea, 30% nausea, and 30% constipation. Grade 3/4 AEs occurring in ≥ 5% of patients included 37% neutropenia (10 patients [3%] had febrile neutropenia), 8% leukopenia, 6% thrombocytopenia, 5% anemia, and 5% fatigue. Conclusions: These data represent complete analysis of all patients in the induction phase of MAGNIFY which continue to support that R 2 is active with a tolerable safety profile in patients with R/R FL grade 1-3a and MZL, including rituximab-refractory, double-refractory, and early relapse patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Lansigan: Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Andorsky: Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Epizyme: Research Funding. Coleman: immunomedics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Abbvie: Research Funding; Bristol Myers: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding. Yacoub: Dynavex: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Cara: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Ardelyx: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ACCELERON PHARMA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI Biopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Hylapharm: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Melear: TG Therapeutics: Speakers Bureau; Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Fanning: Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Genmab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Speakers Bureau. Kolibaba: TG Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Atara Biotechm: Consultancy; McKesson Specialty Health: Consultancy; Sunitomo Dainippon Pharma: Consultancy; Tolero Pharma: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company). Nowakowski: Incyte: Consultancy; Kymera Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy; Nanostrings: Research Funding; Curis: Consultancy; Selvita: Consultancy; Zai Labolatory: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Bantham Pharmaceutical: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Ryvu Therapeutics: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyte Pharma: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy. Gharibo: BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Ahn: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; ADC therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Li: BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding. Sharman: BeiGene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Lilly: Consultancy; Centessa: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (RR DLBCL) who cannot tolerate or who are not eligible for autologous or chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapy have limited therapeutic options and suboptimal long-term outcomes. In patients who were not eligible for HSCT, the rituximab plus gemcitabine, dexamethasone and cisplatin (R-GDP) regimen (and variations using methylprednisolone or carboplatin/oxaliplatin) have shown an overall response rates (ORR) of ~50%, a complete response (CR) rate of ~25% (Gopal, Leuk Lymphoma, 2010), and a median progression-free survival (PFS) and an overall survival (OS) of 3 and 9 months, respectively (Crump, Hematol Oncol Clin N Am. 2016; Gopal Leuk Lymphoma, 2010; Ng, Br J Cancer, 2005; Sirohi, Hematology, 2007; Barton, Eur J Haematol. 2015; Moccia Leuk Lymphoma, 2017). Selinexor is an oral small molecule selective inhibitor of exportin-1 (XPO1) mediated nuclear export (SINE) compound leading to activation of tumor suppressor proteins and reduction in oncoprotein levels. It also reduces the expression of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) damage repair proteins and therefore potentiates DNA damage-based therapies leading to an increased death of cancer cells. Selinexor has synergistic effects with gemcitabine and cisplatin, and enhanced anti-lymphoma effects with dexamethasone. In the SADAL study (n=134), single-agent oral selinexor 60 mg twice weekly induced an ORR of 29% and a CR rate of 13% in patients with RR DLBCL. The response rates were consistent across various subgroups including patients <70 vs ≥70 years old, those with de novo and transformed DLBCL, and GCB and non-GCB subtypes of DLBCL. The median duration of response (DOR) was 9.3 months, and 23 months for patients who achieved CR. OS was 9.0 months. In June 2020, selinexor monotherapy was approved in the US for the treatment of adult patients with RR DLBCL, not otherwise specified, including DLBCL arising from follicular lymphoma, after at least 2 lines of systemic therapy. Selinexor in combination with R-GDP was evaluated in a Phase 1 clinical trial (SELINDA), in which patients with DLBCL received either 40 or 60 mg selinexor once or twice weekly in combination with standard dose R-GDP. The recommended phase 2 dose for further exploration was 40 or 60 mg once weekly with an ORR of 60-80%. Therefore, combining selinexor with R-GDP is expected to improve response rates, and continuation of treatment with single-agent selinexor is expected to prolong the duration of responses, improve PFS (and potentially OS) in patients with RR DLBCL. Materials and methods: XPORT-DLBCL-030 is a Phase 2/3, multicenter study. The Phase 2 portion of the study is an open-label randomized study to identify the optimal dose of selinexor (40 or 60 mg) in combination with R-GDP in patients (n=120) with RR DLBCL. Patients ≥18 years with 1-3 prior lines of therapy and ECOG performance status ≤2 who are not intended for HSCT or CAR-T therapy are randomized 1:1:1 to one of 3 treatment arms: Arm 1: selinexor 40 mg+R-GDP (S40+R-GDP); Arm 2: selinexor 60 mg+R-GDP (S60 + R-GDP); Arm 3: R-GDP. Combination treatment will be given for up to 6 cycles (21 days/cycle). After completing the SR-GDP combination therapy (EoC), patients in Arms 1 and 2 who reach at least partial response (PR), will receive weekly single-agent selinexor 60 mg (28 days/cycle) as "continuous therapy" until disease progression (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. After PD, patients will be followed up for survival. Patients in the R-GDP arm will be followed up for PD and survival. Patients who are ineligible for HSCT due to an active disease, or those who have primary refractory DLBCL, defined as no response or relapse within 6 months after ending first-line treatment, will be allowed to enroll in the study (up to 15% and 25%, respectively of all patients enrolled). The primary endpoint of the study is ORR according to the Lugano 2014 criteria. Secondary endpoints include PFS, OS, ORR-EoC, DOR and incidence and severity of adverse events. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Pinto: Takeda: Consultancy; MSD: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb-CELGENE: Honoraria. Yimer: Texas Oncology: Current Employment; Pharmacyclics: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; GSK: Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Speakers Bureau. Manda: Morphosys: Honoraria; Genmab: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Canales: Sanofi: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; iQone: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Eusa Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Jurczak: European Medicines Agency, Sandoz-Novartis, Janssen China R&D, BeiGene, Epizyme, Acerta, AstraZeneca: Consultancy; AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Celtrion, Celgene, Debbiopharm, Epizyme, Incyte, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, Merck, Mei Pharma, Morphosys, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Sandoz, Takeda, TG Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, Affirmed, Gilead Sciences, Nordic Nanovecto: Research Funding; Jagiellonian University: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology: Current Employment; AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, Sandoz, Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sureda: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Other: Support for attending meetings and/or travel; Bluebird: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Support for attending meetings and/or travel, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Support for attending meetings and/or travel, Speakers Bureau. Ma: Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Ended employment in the past 24 months. Li: Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ingalls: Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Arriola: Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Arazy: Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Shah: Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Shacham: Karyopharm: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Patents & Royalties: (8999996, 9079865, 9714226, PCT/US12/048319, and I574957) on hydrazide containing nuclear transport modulators and uses, and pending patents PCT/US12/048319, 499/2012, PI20102724, and 2012000928) . Kauffman: Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Nowakowski: Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Introduction: Novel genetic classifications of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) highlight the molecular complexity beyond cell of origin and provide new therapeutic implications. Next generation trials may incorporate novel agents for different genetic subtypes based on the pathogenesis mechanisms. For example, with the LymphGen classification, the MCD, BN2, ST2, and EZB subtypes are predicted to be susceptive to PI3K/mTOR targeting (Wright 2020). However, PI3K inhibitors have not been tested in the frontline, although data on the mTOR inhibitor everolimus were encouraging (Alliance 1085). We launched a phase 1/1b trial (NCT04323956) to investigate the feasibility of combining a novel PI3K inhibitor parsaclisib with standard R-CHOP immunochemotherapy and to seek an efficacy signal. Methods: Adult patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL were eligible if any of the following was present: 1) non-GCB subtype per the Hans algorithm; 2) expression of either Myc (≥40%) or Bcl2 (≥50%) by immunohistochemistry; or 3) MYC rearrangement by FISH. High grade B-cell lymphoma with MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements, regardless of morphology, was also eligible. All patients received parsaclisib plus R-CHOP. Phase 1 followed a 3+3 design and the primary endpoint was maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of parsaclisib. Dose levels tested were level 1 (20 mg QD, d1-10; starting level) and level 2 (20 mg QD, d1-14). MTD was defined as the dose level below the lowest dose that induced dose limiting toxicity (DLT) in at least one-third of patients. The primary endpoint in phase 1b is complete response (CR) rate by PET. Results: From July 2020 to June 2021, 15 patients were enrolled, 9 in phase 1 and 6 in phase 1b. The median age at diagnosis was 56 years (range 20-79), and 7 (47%) were female. One patient (7%) had ECOG PS ≥2, 7 (47%) had elevated LDH, 7 (47%) had >1 extranodal site, 13 (87%) had stage III/IV, and 7 (47%) had high-intermediate or high risk International Prognostic Index. Pathology was DLBCL in 13 patients (2 with concurrent follicular lymphoma) and high grade B-cell lymphoma with MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements in 2 patients. Four (27%) had non-GCB subtype, 7 (47%) had Myc or Bcl2 single expression, 8 (53%) had Myc/Bcl2 double expression, and 5 (33%) had MYC rearrangement (2 with concurrent BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements). In phase 1, 3 patients were enrolled at dose level 1 and 6 patients were enrolled at dose level 2. No DLT was observed. Therefore, MTD was not reached, and dose level 2 was selected for phase 1b dose expansion. Six patients were enrolled in phase 1b to date. At the data cutoff date of 7/22/2021, 8 patients completed all 6 cycles of treatment, 1 competed 5 cycles, 3 completed 3 cycles, 2 completed 2 cycles, and 1 completed 1 cycle. Treatment-related adverse events (AE) are summarized in Table 1. The most common hematological AE included lymphopenia (60%), anemia (53%), neutropenia (53%), and thrombocytopenia (27%), and the most common non-hematological AE included nausea (67%), alopecia (40%), constipation (33%), fatigue (33%), dyspepsia (20%), and peripheral sensory neuropathy (20%). The most common grade 3 or 4 AE included lymphopenia (47%), neutropenia (33%), and anemia (13%). One 80-year-old female required parsaclisib dose reduction in cycle 3 and subsequent parsaclisib discontinuation as well as cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin dose reductions due to febrile neutropenia (no source of infection was identified). No other patients required dose reductions. The median follow-up was 3.7 months (range 0.8-10.7). Thirteen patients were evaluable for interim response by PET. The objective response rate was 92%, with 8 (62%) CR and 4 (31%) partial response (PR). One (8%) patient progressed before cycle 2 following a transient clinical response (shrinking palpable mass). Among those who achieved an objective response at interim, 7 patients were evaluable for end of treatment response and all 7 maintained a response, with 6 (86%) CR and 1 (14%) PR. Conclusions: Parsaclisib and R-CHOP combination therapy was generally well tolerated, with no DLT observed in phase 1 and no major safety concerns in both phase 1 and the ongoing phase 1b expansion. The preliminary efficacy signal of objective response appears encouraging in a small cohort of high risk patients. Parsaclisib plus R-CHOP can be an experimental arm for future frontline DLBCL trials investigating genetic subtype-driven novel therapies. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Wang: Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. King: Celgene/BMS: Research Funding. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Tun: Gossamer Bio, Acrotech: Consultancy; Mundipharma, Celgene, BMS, Acrotech, TG therapeutics, Curis, DTRM: Research Funding. Habermann: Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Witzig: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Nowakowski: Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: Parsaclisib is an investigational agent used in this clinical trial.

Abstract Introduction: Novel therapeutic agents such as immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and brentuximab vedotin (BV) are active in classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), including in patients that relapse after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). However, optimal management strategy is unclear for patients with relapsed or refractory (RR) cHL post-ASCT. The aim of the study is to determine the impact of novel agents relative to conventional therapy and allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT) on survival outcomes of patients with cHL who relapsed after ASCT. Methods: Patients with RR cHL who underwent ASCT between 06/1993 and 10/2017 at 3 Mayo Clinic sites were included. Clinical characteristics, treatment information, and outcome data were abstracted. For patients who relapsed after ASCT, the post-relapse progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models. Statistical analyses were done in JMP v15.2.1 and EZR v1.54. Results: A total of 332 patients with RR cHL who underwent salvage therapy and ASCT were identified. After a median post-ASCT follow-up of 8.6 years (range 6.8-9.7), 136 (41%) patients had a relapse or disease progression after ASCT. Patient characteristics of the 136 cases are summarized in the Table. The median age at post-ASCT relapse was 34 years (range 20-73), and 77 (57%) were male. 59 (43%) relapsed within 6 months and 77 (57%) relapsed after 6 months following ASCT. 59 (45%) had an extranodal site involvement at relapse. 14 (10%) had therapy with ICI or BV as salvage therapy prior to ASCT or maintenance therapy post-ASCT. The median post-relapse PFS and OS was 0.8 (95% CI 0.6-1.1) and 3.2 years (95% CI 2.2-5.5) years, respectively. Compared to patients who relapse after 6 months, patients who relapsed within 6 months of ASCT had worse post-relapse PFS (median 0.5 [0.3-0.7] vs 1.3 [0.9-1.9] years, p=0.0003) and OS (median 1.3 [0.5-2.2] vs 6.4 [3.7-10.4] years, p=0.0003). Extranodal site involvement at relapse was not associated with post-relapse PFS (median 0.7 [0.5-1.2] vs 0.9 [0.6-1.3] years, p=0.28) but was associated with worse post-relapse OS (median 2.7 [1.5-4.2] vs 6.4 [2.6-NA] years, p=0.006). Prior therapy with ICI or BV was not associated with post-relapse PFS (median 0.6 [0.3-NA] vs 0.8 [0.6-1.1] year, p=0.8) and OS (median NR [1.0-NA] vs 3.2 [2.2-5.5] years, p=0.5). After post-ASCT relapse, the median lines of subsequent therapy were 2 (range 1-12). For first post-ASCT salvage therapy, novel agents (ICI or BV), compared to other therapies, were associated with superior post-relapse PFS (median 1.7 [0.7-3.6] vs 0.7 [0.5-1.0] years, p=0.004) and OS (median 7.6 [4.7-NA] vs 3.2 [2.2-5.6], p=0.02). Allo-SCT following first post-ASCT relapse (n=9) was not associated with improvement in post-relapse PFS (median 2.2 years [0.3-NA] vs 0.8 [0.6-1.1] years, p=0.1) or OS (median NR [0.5-NA] vs 5.1 [3.2-7.3] years, p=0.7). Patients who received ICI or BV at any point post-ASCT relapse had significantly better post-relapse OS (median 7.6 [4.3-16.7] vs 2.2 [1.4-3.7] years, p=0.004) compared to those who never received any novel agent (Figure 1A). In contrast, allo-SCT at any point post-ASCT relapse (n=27) did not improve post-relapse OS (median 5.6 [2.7-NA] vs 4.7 [2.7-7.3] years, p=0.3) (Figure 1B). In multivariate Cox regression models adjusted for age and sex, exposure to ICI and/or BV was associated with superior post-relapse OS (HR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.8, p=0.007); however, allo-SCT was not associated with improvement in post-relapse OS (HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.4-1.5, p=0.5). Conclusions: Patients relapsing within 6 months of ASCT and those with extranodal involvement at relapse had inferior OS after post-ASCT relapse. Prior therapy with novel agents did not impact post-relapse survival outcomes. In the setting of post-ASCT relapse, novel therapeutic agents significantly improved survival outcomes while allo-SCT did not. Future multicenter studies are needed to explore the role of novel agents and allo-SCT in patients with RR cHL post-ASCT relapse. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Wang: Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; InnoCare: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Tun: Gossamer Bio, Acrotech: Consultancy; Mundipharma, Celgene, BMS, Acrotech, TG therapeutics, Curis, DTRM: Research Funding. Cerhan: Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding. Habermann: Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Witzig: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Nowakowski: Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding.