Citations

Background Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtype with a 5-year survival of ~64%. While DLBCL is treated using immunochemotherapy (IC) with curative intent, 20%-40% of patients do not reach remission or relapse post IC. Clonal somatic mutations have been associated with aging, hematologic malignancies (predominately myeloid), and reduced OS in the general population. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association of clonal somatic mutations with event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS). Methods We studied newly diagnosed DLBCL cases treated with IC who were enrolled in the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE). Clinical and treatment data were abstracted from medical records and all patients were systematically followed for disease outcomes. Pre-treatment DNA was extracted from matched peripheral blood and paraffin-embedded tumor tissue, and whole exome sequencing was conducted at 100x coverage. From the peripheral blood, allele counts from GVCF files produced by HaplotypeCaller in GATK were extracted for 42 genes commonly associated with clonal hematopoiesis (e.g. DNMT3A, TET2, and ASXL1). Mutations were deemed clonal somatic if the population minor allele frequency was <0.5% in ExAC and had a variant allele fraction (VAF) that deviated from 0.5 using a binomial distribution test at p<0.001. Furthermore, mutations had to have a minimum alternate read count of at least 5 reads, a VAF greater than or equal to 10%, and met at least one of the following criteria: CAVA impact of "HIGH"; pathogenic/likely pathogenic per ClinVar; or reported in COSMIC at least 10 times. EFS was defined as time from diagnosis to disease progression, relapse, retreatment, or death due to any cause. The association of clonal somatic mutations with prognosis was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves, and hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from Cox regression. Associations were adjusted for age at diagnosis, sex, and the International Prognostic Index (IPI). Results The study consisted of 261 DLBCL patients treated with IC. The median age at diagnosis was 65 years (range 20-90) and 56% were male. With a median follow-up time of 5.1 years (range 0.1-15.0), there were 100 events and 80 deaths. A total of 17 (6.5%) patients had clonal somatic mutations, and16 patients were over the age of 60. A total of 8 (of 42) genes had clonal somatic mutations, with SF3B1, ASXL1, and TET2, being the most frequent (4 individuals per gene). VAFs ranged from 0.10 to 0.28 and none of the patients had multiple mutations. Additionally, the clonal somatic variants found in the peripheral blood were abscent in the tumor sample. Of the 17 patients with clonal somatic mutations, 12 had an event while 88 patients without a mutation had an event. In a univariate analysis, clonal somatic mutations were associated with inferior EFS (HR=2.55, 95% CI 1.39-4.68, p=0.002; Figure 1A). After adjusting for age, sex, and IPI, clonal somatic mutations remained associated with inferior EFS (HR=2.02, 95% CI 1.09-3.74, p=0.026). Clonal somatic mutations were also associated with inferior OS in the univariate analysis (HR=2.06, 95% CI 0.99-4.29, p=0.053), which attenuated after multivariate adjustment (HR=1.59, 95% CI: 0.76-3.34, p=0.22, Figure 1B). Although based on small numbers, mutations in SF3B1 were associated with inferior EFS (HR=3.25, 95% CI 1.16-9.12, p=0.025), but did not reach significance for OS (HR=2.56, 95% CI 0.78-8.38, p=0.120). Conclusions In this novel study of newly diagnosed DLBCL patients, clonal somatic mutations were identified in 6.5% of patients and were associated with inferior outcomes. Additional research is required at deeper sequencing to validate these findings and integration with tumor genomics is required to understand the prognosis of DLBCL patients with smaller clonal populations. Disclosures Shah: Dren Bio: Consultancy. Maurer:Celgene / BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding. Martin:Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy. Witzig:AbbVie: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphSys: Consultancy. Nowakowski:NanoString: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Novak:Celgene/BMS: Research Funding. Cerhan:NanoString: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding.

PURPOSE Exclusion of patients needing urgent treatment or requiring novel biomarkers before enrollment has impacted the ability to enroll real-world patients in frontline trials of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). The impact of baseline organ function–based eligibility criteria on this effect and clinical trial exclusion is less well-understood. METHODS Consecutive patients with newly diagnosed lymphoma were enrolled from 2002 to 2015 into the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa and Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence. The current analysis includes 1,265 patients with DLBCL receiving standard immunochemotherapy. Organ function parameters were identified from criteria for hemoglobin, absolute neutrophil count, platelet count, creatinine clearance, and bilirubin, as reported in frontline DLBCL trials. Abstracted laboratory values from MER were used to determine the percent (%) of patients excluded. Outcomes and cause-of-death analyses comparing ineligible and eligible groups in MER were conducted. An interactive online tool was developed to estimate exclusions based on organ function for future trial design. RESULTS Between 9% and 24% of MER patients with DLBCL receiving standard immunochemotherapy were excluded on the basis of baseline organ function alone. Ineligible patients based on organ function had significantly inferior event-free survival (hazard ratios, 1.67-2.16), overall survival (hazard ratios, 1.87-2.56), and event-free survival at 24 months (odds ratio, 1.71-2.16). Ineligible patients were more likely to die from lymphoma progression than increased therapy-related complications. CONCLUSION Current national and international trials exclude up to 24% of patients from participation on the basis of organ function alone. A significant difference in the outcomes, notably lymphoma-related death, suggests issues with generalization and potential exclusion of high-risk patients. These data will help future clinical trial development and meet US Food and Drug Administration and ASCO recommendations to increase trial accrual.

PURPOSE: Feasibility assessments (FAs) are important to establish site capabilities to conduct clinical trials and their suitability for specific trials. However, current FA methods used by biotechnology and pharmaceutical (biotech-pharma) trial sponsors and contract research organizations (CROs) are costly, inefficient, unnecessarily burdensome, and resource intensive. These methods delay trial start-up, act as a barrier to site participation, and ultimately reduce timely patient access to clinical trials and novel treatments. METHODS: An ASCO Task Force was convened to assess the specific burdens and challenges with FAs and to develop recommendations to improve their efficiencies and effectiveness. Stakeholders (including trial sites, biotech-pharma sponsors, and CROs) provided insights into challenges and offered solutions through two surveys and an in-person meeting. The Task Force used the feedback to formulate consensus recommendations to improve FAs for oncology clinical trials. RESULTS: Three key recommendations were identified for application across all biotech-pharma sponsored trials: (1) implement a streamlined and uniform FA process across trials and sponsors; (2) minimize and standardize questions; and (3) leverage technology to centralize FAs, facilitate communications, and reduce redundancies. CONCLUSION: There is an urgency to improve the current FA process, which is costly, inconsistent, inefficient, labor intensive, and of uncertain effectiveness. All stakeholders stand to benefit from implementing these recommendations, which aim to minimize burdens and ensure that more trial sites and patients have timely access to oncology clinical trials. To have meaningful impact, adoption and consistent execution of these recommendations across all trials, sponsors, CROs, and sites are essential.

This report presents the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s (ASCO’s) evaluation of the adaptations in care delivery, research operations, and regulatory oversight made in response to the coronavirus pandemic and presents recommendations for moving forward as the pandemic recedes. ASCO organized its recommendations for clinical research around five goals to ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality. The specific goals are: (1) ensure that clinical research is accessible, affordable, and equitable; (2) design more pragmatic and efficient clinical trials; (3) minimize administrative and regulatory burdens on research sites; (4) recruit, retain, and support a well-trained clinical research workforce; and (5) promote appropriate oversight and review of clinical trial conduct and results. Similarly, ASCO also organized its recommendations regarding cancer care delivery around five goals: (1) promote and protect equitable access to high-quality cancer care; (2) support safe delivery of high-quality cancer care; (3) advance policies to ensure oncology providers have sufficient resources to provide high-quality patient care; (4) recognize and address threats to clinician, provider, and patient well-being; and (5) improve patient access to high-quality cancer care via telemedicine. ASCO will work at all levels to advance the recommendations made in this report.

Background: Lenalidomide combined with rituximab (R2) has shown complimentary clinical activity and is a tolerable regimen in both untreated and relapsed or refractory (R/R) patients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Patients with advanced age at diagnosis are considered to be high risk, supporting post-hoc subgroup analyses by age, with a focus on patients aged ≥ 70 years from the MAGNIFY study. Methods: MAGNIFY is a multicenter, phase IIIb 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. Lenalidomide 20 mg on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle + rituximab 375 mg/m2/week cycle 1 and then every 8 weeks starting with cycle 3 (R2) are administered for 12 cycles followed by 1:1 randomization in patients with stable disease, partial response, or complete response/complete response unconfirmed (CR/CRu) to R2 vs rituximab maintenance for 18 months. Data presented here focus on induction R2 in efficacy-evaluable FL grade 1-3a and MZL patients (FL grade 3b, tFL, and MCL not included) receiving ≥ 1 treatment with baseline/postbaseline assessments. The primary end point is progression-free survival (PFS) by 1999 International Working Group criteria. Post-hoc analyses were performed by analyzing data from patients aged ≥ 70 years at time of study entry. Results: As of November 30, 2019, 393 patients have enrolled and 152 (39%) were aged ≥ 70 years. Baseline characteristics including histology, disease status, and prior treatments of patients ≥ 70 and the overall population are shown in the table. Median PFS in the ≥ 70 subgroup was 36.0 months (95% CI, 28.3-NR). Overall response rate and CR/CRu were 75% and 38%, with a median duration of response that was not reached (95% CI, 27.1-NR). Efficacy results for the overall population are shown in the table. In patients ≥ 70 the most common (≥ 20%) any-grade treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were fatigue (44%), neutropenia (41%), diarrhea (34%), constipation (34%), and nausea (27%). Neutropenia (35%) was the only grade 3/4 TEAE occurring in > 10% of patients (febrile neutropenia occurred in 3 patients [2%]). TEAEs led to lenalidomide dose reduction in 69 patients (46%) and discontinuation in 40 patients (26%). Seventy-eight patients ≥ 70 (51%) completed all 12 cycles of induction treatment, and 72 (47%) have entered the maintenance phase. Sixty-one patients ≥ 70 (40%), compared to 35% of patients in overall population, prematurely discontinued both lenalidomide and rituximab, due to TEAEs (n = 26; 17%), progressive disease (n = 15; 10%), patient withdrawal (n = 12; 8%), death (n = 5; 3%), and other reasons (n = 3; 2%). Neutropenia was the only TEAE leading to discontinuation of lenalidomide in more than 2 patients (n = 10; 7%). Conclusions: Similar to findings in the overall population, R2 treatment in advanced-age patients with R/R FL and MZL resulted in encouraging efficacy, and with close attention to dose reduction there is a tolerable safety profile. Table Disclosures Lansigan: BMS Steering Committee for MAGNIFY Program: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spectrum Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Andorsky:AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding. Coleman:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.: Research Funding; Boston BIoMedical, Inc.: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding; ARCUS Biosciences: Research Funding; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP (Acerta Pharma BV Trials): Research Funding; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP: Research Funding; BMS (Celgene Corporation): Research Funding; Eli Lilly and Company: Research Funding; EMD Serono Research and Development Institute Inc.: Research Funding; Genetech (F. Hoffman-LaRoche Ltd): Research Funding; Hutchinson MediPharma, LTD: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Ipsen Group: Research Funding; Karyopharma Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Klus Pharma, Inc.: Research Funding; MeiPharma, Inc.: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Yacoub:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Hylapharm: Current equity holder in private company; Cara therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Ardelyx: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Dynavax: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Melear:AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Fanning:Prisma Health: Current Employment; Abbvie: Consultancy; TG Therapeautics: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi Aventis: Speakers Bureau. Kolibaba:Compass Oncology: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Atara Biotech: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Oncology: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company; AbbVie: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Verastem: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartix: Research Funding. Reynolds:IHA Hematology/Oncology Consultants: Current Employment. Nowakowski:Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; Nanostrings: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kymera: Consultancy; Denovo: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gharibo:Bayer: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ahn:BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Li:BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Rummel:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen GmbH: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis Pharma GmbH: Honoraria. Sharman:Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Background: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is frequently curable after frontline therapy, however, relapses can occur after achievement of a PET-negative complete remission (CR). Early detection of relapse may be associated with improved outcomes with second-line curative intent therapy or novel therapies. Controversy exists regarding the utility of post-therapy surveillance imaging which is associated with patient (pt) anxiety, radiation exposure, false-positive results, and cost. A retrospective study found that serial minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring during DLBCL surveillance could identify pts at risk of relapse before clinical evidence of disease (Roschewski, Lancet Oncol, 2015). In this multicenter prospective study, we assessed whether a next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based MRD assay could be used for early detection of molecular relapse in DLBCL. Methods: Eligible pts with DLBCL or high-grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBCL) who received anthracycline-containing chemotherapy were enrolled across five cancer centers. In pts who achieved a PET-negative CR, serial peripheral blood samples were obtained every 3 months (mos) and CT scans every 6 mos for 2 years (yrs) post-treatment. The clonoSEQ® next generation sequencing (NGS) MRD assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA) that leverages multiplex PCR followed by NGS to identify and track rearrangements of IgH, V-J, D-J and IgK/L loci and translocations in Bcl1/2-IgH was used. MRD positive was defined as any detectable rearrangement and MRD negative as no evidence of rearrangement. We also reported MRD positivity above the limit of detection (LOD) (observations required to have 95% reproducibility). Interim futility analysis was performed after approximately 50% of anticipated relapses occurred to assess the preliminary sensitivity of the assay. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as time from treatment start date to relapse or death. Results: 501 pts were enrolled and 401 were evaluable (pre-treatment tumor pathology available, completed frontline treatment, and achieved PET-negative CR at end-of-treatment). Baseline characteristics were median age of 62 yrs (range 19-95), male sex 58%, advanced stage 61%, and poor-risk by R-IPI 40% (Table 1). Histologies included DLBCL, NOS (86%), primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (6%), HGBCL (5%), T-cell rich B-cell lymphoma (1%), and other (1%). Pts received regimens including RCHOP x 6 cycles (36%), REPOCH x 6 cycles (20%), clinical trial (15%), combined modality therapy (RCHOP+RT) (10%), and other RCHOP variations (19%). Among the 401 evaluable pts, 44 relapses have occurred as of June 1, 2020. In 47% of pts (18/38), clinical relapse was detected using surveillance imaging alone (typically CT CAP with IV contrast) in an otherwise asymptomatic pt with a normal physical exam and laboratory evaluation. Clinical relapse was detected by clinical symptoms alone in 11% (4/28), by the evaluation of an oncologist alone in 0%, and by imaging and clinical symptoms and/or evaluation by an oncologist in 42% (16/38) (missing data in 6 pts). With a median follow-up of 2.2 yrs, the 2-yr PFS was 88.1% (84.8, 91.4) (Figure 1). Advanced age, advanced stage, and poor-risk R-IPI were associated with inferior PFS. Of the 44 relapses, 43 pts were included in the interim analysis and tumor-specific clonotypes were identified in 39 pts (91%). In 56% (22/39), the MRD assay was positive at or before clinical relapse. In 38% (15/39), the MRD assay was positive above the limit of detection at or prior to clinical relapse, with only 10 relapses detected more than 3 mos prior to relapse, reflecting the poor clinical sensitivity of the assay. The NGS-MRD assay was more sensitive in the acellular (plasma cell-free DNA) than in the cellular (circulating leukocytes) compartment. Results: Overall outcomes are excellent for DLBCL and HGBCL pts who achieve PET-negative complete remission. In interim analysis, surveillance MRD assessment using the clonoSEQ® assay fails to consistently identify pts at risk of recurrence before clinical evidence of relapse in DLBCL. In a prospective analysis, a substantial proportion (47%) of clinical relapses are detected by imaging in asymptomatic pts, supporting the value of CT surveillance imaging in DLBCL, particularly for pts with advanced stage or high-risk disease. Additional analyses are forthcoming for MRD assessment in all pts, including those in remission. Disclosures Kumar: Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies,: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board. Westin:Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Curis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy, Research Funding; 47: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Nowakowski:Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Nanostrings: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Denovo: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other. Lossos:Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other; NCI: Research Funding; Stanford University: Patents & Royalties; Janssen Biotech: Honoraria; Janssen Scientific: Consultancy, Other. Batlevi:Life Sci, GLG, Juno/Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Kite: Consultancy; Janssen, Novartis, Epizyme, Xynomics, Bayer, Autolus, Roche/Genentech: Research Funding. Drullinsky:Roche: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Gerecitano:Janssen: Current Employment. Hamlin:Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Portola: Research Funding; Molecular Templates: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; J&J Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceutics: Consultancy. Horwitz:ASTEX: Consultancy; Affirmed: Consultancy; Vividion Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Miragen: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Corvus: Consultancy; Trillium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakka Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity/Verastem: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aileron: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Jacob:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Joffe:AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. von Keudell:Bayer: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Lahoud:MorphoSys: Other: Advisory Board. Matasar:Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Rocket Medical: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Immunovaccine Technologies: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Mullins:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Current Employment, Other: shareholder. Noy:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; NIH: Research Funding; Rafael Pharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy. Straus:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ASH: Other: Conference in December 2019 on HL to other physicians during ASH; Elsevier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: CME writer; OncLive: Speakers Bureau; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; NY Lymphoma Rounds: Consultancy; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Imedex, Inc.: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Younes:Takeda: Consultancy; HCM: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Current Employment; Novartis: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; BioPath: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy. Zelenetz:MEI Pharma: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Sandoz: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background: Observation or "wait and watch" (W/W) strategy remains a viable option in the rituximab era for asymptomatic, stage II-IV, low-tumor burden patients with FL grade 1-2, 3A. Studies to date both in pre and post rituximab era have not shown an overall survival benefit from immediate treatment in such low-risk patients.To improve our understanding and to better counsel FL patients on W/W strategy, we sought to estimate the incidence of treatment initiation at landmark time points in our prospectively observed cohort from the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE). We further evaluate the association between the presence of GELF criteria (MER treatment criteria) at diagnosis and initiation of treatment patterns, transformation rates and cause of death in FL patients managed by W/W. Methods: FL patients on W/W strategy were identified from MER of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE. From 2002-2015, consecutive patients with newly diagnosed FL were offered enrollment. Patients were managed per treating physician and followed prospectively. Baseline clinical and pathological data were abstracted using a standard protocol. Cumulative incidence estimates of treatment initiation for follicular lymphoma were calculated using transformation to large cell lymphoma (as the first event) and death due to any cause as competing risks. Transformation was defined based on biopsy-proven disease. Patients were retrospectively considered to meet treatment criteria at diagnosis if they had the presence of any GELF criteria components per available abstracted data in the MER database. Not all GELF criteria were prospectively assessed and captured for all patients, and thus the MER treatment criteria utilized here will be conservative for formal GELF assessment. Results: A total of 401 FL patients were identified in MER on W/W strategy. Baseline characteristics for W/W patients showed a favorable profile such as normal LDH (89%), low and intermediate FLIPI score in 48% and 35% respectively, no B symptoms (97%), low tumor burden (<4 nodal groups) in 72%, and GELF positive vs. negative in 36% and 64% respectively. At a median follow up of 8 years (IQR 5.9-12), 64% initiated treatment for FL only. Cumulative incidence estimates of treatment initiation at sequential time points were calculated from the initiation of observation (Table1&2). At diagnosis, the likelihood of treatment initiation was 15%, 26%, and 42% in the next 1, 2, and 5 years. The incidence of treatment initiation decreased over time as patients remained treatment-free after diagnosis (Figure 1A [blue curve]). Patients that met MER treatment criteria had increased rates of therapy initiation (33.2% vs. 21.9%) in the next two years and untreated transformation to large cell lymphoma [red curve] (8.7% vs. 4.5%) during the next 5 years (Figure 1B). Despite this, the rate of lymphoma related death at 10 years was similar between groups (met treatment criteria = 6.2% vs. 7.1%) (Figure 1C, [green curve]). Discussion: The longer duration of W/W strategy suggests a decreasing need for treatment over time. We provide time point estimates, which would be helpful for counseling patients. Of note, long-term continuous oncologic assessment and follow-up is necessary since approximately 66% of patients in this mature cohort initiated treatment by 8 years median follow up. MER treatment criteria at diagnosis identified patients with higher rates of transformation and therapy initiation in the first two years but did not identify those with worse lymphoma specific survival. Identification of biological differences in patients with early vs. late or no progression is a critical next step in understanding outcomes in W/W patients. Disclosures Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding. Cerhan:BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding. Wang:Incyte: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Witzig:MorphSys: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Maurer:Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene / BMS: Research Funding. Nowakowski:NanoString: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Curis: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background L-MIND (NCT02399085) is an ongoing, open-label, single-arm, Phase II study of tafasitamab + lenalidomide (LEN) in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant. Progression-free survival (PFS) estimates the treatment effect of the study drug only, while overall survival (OS) also includes effects of potential subsequent cancer treatments or palliative care. Given that not all OS and PFS events have occurred after a long follow-up duration, traditional survival analyses may underestimate survival benefit for tafasitamab + LEN by assuming the same mortality rate for the whole population. We used mixture cure models to estimate the proportion of long-term survivors (LTS) and survival benefit associated with tafasitamab + LEN treatment. Methods In the L-MIND study (data cut-off: Nov 30, 2019), 80/81 enrolled patients with R/R DLBCL received tafasitamab + LEN, with a median and maximum follow-up duration of 31.8 months (95% CI: 27.2-35.9) and 43.5 months, respectively. The Kaplan-Meier (KM) plots of PFS and OS were observed to plateau after 30 months, with the majority of events reported up to that time-point and very few events beyond this time-point. Patients without a PFS event or patients who did not decease after the observed plateau exhibit a high survival benefit from tafasitamab + LEN treatment and are considered LTS. Thus, the patient population can be considered to consist of two sub-populations - LTS and non-LTS. A "mixture cure model" was fitted on the PFS and OS data to estimate the proportion of LTS and associated mean survival for the two sub-populations (Lambert PC, et al. 2007). To incorporate background mortality (Bansal, et al. 2019), age- and sex-specific US mortality rates (US CDC 2017) were factored in for the entire study population (enrolled in Europe and US). The weighted average of the mean survival for the two sub-populations provided an estimate of the mean survival for the whole population. For comparative purposes, standard parametric models without considering an LTS proportion were fitted on PFS and OS data additionally. Sensitivity analyses were performed considering different survival distributions (exponential distribution, Weibull distribution and log-logistic distribution). Results By using a mixture cure model fitted to PFS and OS data separately, the estimated proportion of LTS for the tafasitamab + LEN combination was 42% (95% CI: 30-55) and 47% (95% CI: 29-66), respectively. The predicted mean survival when mixture cure model was fitted on PFS data was 16.7 years for LTS patients vs 0.5 years for non-LTS patients, yielding 7.3 years for the overall population. Under this mixture cure model, the survival rates of patients with tafasitamab + LEN treatment were 40.2% and 36.0% at 2 and 5 years. Similar results were obtained when the mixture cure model was fitted on OS data. Using a standard parametric model (Weibull distribution), the predicted mean survival in the overall population was 2.8 years fitting PFS data (Figure 1) and 4.5 years fitting OS data (Figure 2). Conclusions PFS and OS KM curves for the L-MIND study reaching a long plateau and not following a Weibull distribution suggest the presence of an LTS subgroup. Standard parametric models may lead to a biased estimation of the OS benefit in such situations. The mixture cure model suggests that the treatment of R/R DLBCL patients with tafasitamab + LEN is associated with a high LTS proportion. The survival rates of patients with tafasitamab + LEN treatment were 40.2% and 36.0% at 2 and 5 years. Disclosures Salles: Takeda:Honoraria;BMS/Celgene:Honoraria, Other: consultancy or advisory role;Debiopharm:Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: consultancy or advisory role;Genmab:Honoraria, Other;Karyopharm:Honoraria;Kite, a Gilead Company:Honoraria, Other: consultancy or advisory role ;Epizyme:Honoraria, Other: consultancy or advisory role;Janssen:Honoraria, Other: consultancy or advisory role;Abbvie:Other: consultancy or advisory role;Roche:Honoraria, Other: consultancy or advisory role;Novartis:Honoraria, Other: consultancy or advisory role;MorphoSys:Honoraria, Other: consultancy or advisory role;Autolos:Other: consultancy or advisory role.Goswami:MorphoSys AG:Ended employment in the past 24 months.Bagnardi:MorphoSys AG:Consultancy.Dey:MorphoSys AG:Current Employment.Winderlich:MorphoSys AG:Current Employment.Ambarkhane:MorphoSys AG:Current Employment.Huang:MorphoSys AG:Current Employment.Nowakowski:Curis:Consultancy;Kymera:Consultancy;Kite:Consultancy;Ryvu:Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Celgene/BMS:Consultancy, Research Funding;Seattle Genetics:Consultancy;MorphoSys:Consultancy, Research Funding;NanoString:Research Funding.

Background Majority of patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who relapse after HSCT, or who are not candidates for HSCT have poor outcomes and are in need of novel therapies. Preclinical data provides a strong rationale for combining brentuximab vedotin, lenalidomide, and rituximab in the treatment of R/R DLBCL. In a phase 1 trial, 37 subjects with R/R DLBCL were treated with brentuximab vedotin in combination with lenalidomide. The objective response rate (ORR) (proportion of subjects with complete response [CR] or partial response [PR]) for all subjects was 56.7% (21 of 37 subjects). For the CD30-positive population, the ORR was 73.3% (11 of 15 subjects), whereas the ORR for the CD30 <1% population was 45.6% (10/22). The median follow-up time was 14.3 months (range: 1 to 56.7 months). The median duration of remission for subjects with CR or PR was 13.2 months (range: 3.2 to 55.2 months). For subjects with CR, PR, or stable disease (SD) >6 months, the median duration of remission was 11.70 months (range: 3.2 to 55.2 months). The progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) results appear similar in both the CD30-positive and CD30 <1% groups. The PFS in the combined population is 10.2 months and the median OS is 14.2 months (manuscript in preparation). Study Design and Methods This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, active-comparator, multicenter phase 3 study designed to evaluate the efficacy of brentuximab vedotin in combination with lenalidomide and rituximab versus placebo in combination with lenalidomide and rituximab for the treatment of subjects with R/R DLBCL (NCT04404283). Key eligibility criteria include the following: subjects aged 18 and older with R/R DLBCL with an eligible subtype; subjects must have ≥2 prior lines of therapy and must be ineligible for, or have declined, stem cell transplant, and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy; subjects must have an ECOG performance status score of 0 to 2; subjects must have a fluorodeoxyglucose-avid disease by PET and bidimensional measurable disease of at least 1.5 cm by CT, as assessed by the site radiologist. Subjects (n=400) will be randomized 1:1 to receive either brentuximab vedotin or placebo in combination with lenalidomide and rituximab and will be stratified by CD30 expression (positive [≥1%] versus <1%), 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-like (GCB) or non-GCB). Cell of origin (GCB or non-GCB) will be histologically determined by local pathology assessment. Disease response will be assessed by a blinded independent central review (BICR) and the investigator according to the Lugano Classification Revised Staging System. Radiographic disease evaluations, including contrast-enhanced CT scans and PET/CT, will be assessed at baseline, then every 6 weeks from randomization for 12 months, then every 12 weeks (±3 days). PET/CTs will be discontinued if negative. For the primary efficacy analyses of PFS per BICR in the intent-to-treat population and in CD30-positive subjects, the stratified log-rank test will be used to compare PFS between the 2 treatment groups. The hazard ratio will be estimated using a stratified Cox regression model. PFS will also be summarized using the Kaplan-Meier method. Similar methods will be used for the secondary efficacy endpoint of OS, and other time-to-event efficacy endpoints. The trial will have sites open in the US and multiple countries in Europe and Asia, with enrollment planning to begin in the second half of 2020. Disclosures Bartlett: Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; BTG: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Affimed Therapeutics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Autolus: Research Funding. Yasenchak:Takeda: Honoraria; BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Sims:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Travel expenses. Nowakowski:Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Denovo: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Nanostrings: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding.