Citations

7503 Background: Optimal initial therapy for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) remains uncertain. The randomized phase 2 NCTN trial E1411 tested if progression-free survival (PFS) is prolonged by addition of bortezomib (V) (1.6 mg/m2 SC/IV days 1, 8) to bendamustine-rituximab (BVR vs BR) induction and/or by addition of lenalidomide (L) to rituximab (LR vs R) consolidation. Here we report efficacy and toxicity of induction BVR vs BR. Methods: 373 pts, accrued 2012–16, stratified by MIPI and age (≥60) received 1 of 4 arms: A) BR induction x 6 followed by R x 2 yrs, B) BVR followed by R, C) BR followed by LR or D) BVR followed by LR. Eligible pts had untreated MCL, ≥ age 18 (amended from ≥60 when S1106 for < 65 closed), ECOG PS 0-2 and adequate hematologic and organ function. Pts without progressive disease during induction proceeded to consolidation. Primary induction objective was whether adding bortezomib (BVR) (Arms B + D) to BR (Arms A + C) improves PFS, irrespective of consolidation R vs LR. Design of 360 eligible treated pts would provide 93.8% power to detect 10% improvement in 2-yr PFS from 70% hypothesized for BR, corresponding to 37.4% reduction in hazard using stratified log-rank test at 1-sided 10% alpha. Efficacy population was 179 (BVR) and 180 (BR), induction treatment completed in 144 vs 153, progressive disease during induction 6 vs 7 and registration to consolidation 140 vs 145. Results: Baseline demographics did not differ between the groups, with median age 67 (range 42-90) and 13% < 60 yr, 73% men, ECOG PS 0-1 97%, MIPI Low/Med/Hi 37/29/34%. Estimated PFS at 2 yrs 79.6% BVR (95% CI 73.8-85.9) vs 74.5% BR (95% CI 68.2-81.4) (1-sided stratified log-rank p = 0.268). With median PFS follow-up 51 mos, median PFS estimated at 64.1 and 64.0 mos. Overall response rate (ORR) for BVR was 88.9% (CR 65.5%) vs 89.5% (CR 60.5%) BR (z-test 1 sided p = 0.577 for ORR). Treatment related deaths during induction were 2 in BVR (cardiac arrest, hepatitis) and 1 in BR (tumor lysis). Grade ≥ 3 toxicities were 88.1% (163/185) BVR vs 77.5% (145/187) BR. For BVR vs BR grade ≥ 3 neutropenia occurred in 52 vs 39 pts, though febrile neutropenia (7 vs 6), anemia (7 vs 8) and thrombocytopenia (18 vs 16) did not differ. Peripheral neuropathy (PN) grade 2 was 8 sensory for BVR vs 2 sensory/1 motor for BR, while grade 3 PN was 6 sensory/1 motor for BVR vs 0 with BR. The only non-hematologic grade ≥ 3 toxicity in > 5% of pts was rash (9 vs 12 pts). Conclusions: Bortezomib did not significantly improve the primary endpoint of PFS when added to BR as initial MCL therapy. ORR and CR rates at end of induction were also similar. Follow-up continues to assess the entire treatment regimen, including consolidation R vs LR, but the PFS > 5 yrs, high ORR and MRD negativity rate (Smith et al ASH 2019) in this BR-based trial support BR as a platform for MCL induction therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT01415752.

Introduction: Novel approaches to treating patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) have improved outcomes but some pts do not respond or, despite initial response, develop progressive disease and have limited treatment options. Camidanlumab tesirine (ADCT-301; Cami) is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of a human IgG1 anti-CD25 monoclonal antibody stochastically conjugated to a potent pyrrolobenzodiazepine (PBD) dimer warhead, which triggers cell death via formation of highly cytotoxic interstrand cross-links. Data from a Phase (Ph) 1 dose-escalation, dose-expansion trial demonstrated an overall response rate (ORR) in pts with cHL of 86.5% (48.6% complete response [CR] rate) at the 45 μg/kg dose. Cami had a generally acceptable safety profile at Ph 1 but there were 5/77 cases (6.5%) of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS)/polyradiculopathy (Preferred Terms: 4 GBS and 1 radiculopathy) (Collins et al, ICML June 18-22, 2019, Lugano, Switzerland, Abstract 055). Here, we present preliminary efficacy and safety results of a Ph 2 trial of single-agent Cami in pts with R/R cHL (NCT04052997). Methods: A single-arm, multi-center, open-label, Ph 2 trial is currently enrolling pts ≥16 yrs (US) and ≥18 yrs (outside US) with R/R cHL following ≥3 prior treatment lines (or ≥2 lines in pts ineligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation). Eligible pts had prior treatment with brentuximab vedotin and PD-1 blockade, measurable disease per 2014 Lugano Classification, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2. The primary objective is to evaluate efficacy of single-agent Cami by ORR as determined by central review. Secondary objectives include further characterization of additional efficacy endpoints and safety. Pts receive 30-min IV infusions of Cami on Day 1 of each 3-week cycle at a dose of 45 μg/kg for 2 cycles, followed by 30 μg/kg for subsequent cycles for up to 1 yr or until discontinuation due to disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other reasons. Pts deriving clinical benefit at 1 yr may be able to continue treatment on a case-by-case basis. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were defined as AEs occurring/worsening from time of first dose to either 30 days post last dose or to start of new anticancer therapy/procedure, whichever occurs first. This analysis was conducted after meeting a protocol-specified criterion for pausing enrollment (≥2 cases of GBS or other relevant severe neurologic toxicity). Results: As of June 15, 2020, 47 pts with R/R cHL were enrolled and are included in this analysis. Median age was 36 (range 23-74) yrs and pts had received a median of 7 (range 3-20) lines of prior therapy, including transplant (Table 1). Pts received a median of 5 (range 2-10; mean 4.9 [SD 1.86]) cycles of Cami. ORR was 80.9% (38/47 pts), with 18 (38.3%) and 20 (42.6%) pts attaining CR and partial response, respectively; 6 pts (12.8%) had stable disease (Figure 1). TEAEs were experienced by all 47 pts; the most common (≥20% of pts) were fatigue (22, 46.8%); nausea, pyrexia, and maculopapular rash (18, 38.3% each); anemia and headache (12, 25.5% each); pruritus (11, 23.4%); arthralgia, constipation, diarrhea, hypophosphatemia, and rash (10, 21.3% each). TEAEs thought to be PBD-associated included skin reactions and nail disorders (36, 76.6%), liver function test abnormalities (14, 29.8%), and edema or effusion (7, 14.9%). There were 3 (6.4%) pts with GBS/polyradiculopathy (Preferred Terms: grade 4 subacute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, grade 2 radiculopathy, and grade 2 peripheral motor and sensory neuropathy updated to GBS after data cut-off date). In total, 27 (57.4%) pts had grade ≥3 TEAEs; the most common (≥5% of pts) were hypophosphatemia (6, 12.8%) and gamma-glutamyltransferase increased (3, 6.4%). Overall, 3 (6.4%) pts had TEAEs leading to dose reduction/delay and 6 (12.8%) pts had TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation. Conclusions: Current data show that therapy with Cami has encouraging anti-tumor activity in heavily pretreated pts with R/R cHL. Safety was consistent with that reported at Ph 1, with no new safety concerns identified and similar incidence of GBS/polyradiculopathy. Following a positive risk-benefit assessment, the enrollment pause was lifted, and pts continue to be enrolled. Updated efficacy and safety results will be presented at the meeting. Funding: Study funded by ADC Therapeutics SA. Disclosures Herrera: Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding. Carlo-Stella:Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Janssen Oncology, AstraZeneca: Honoraria; ADC Therapeutics and Rhizen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim and Sanofi: Consultancy; Servier, Novartis, Genenta Science srl, ADC Therapeutics, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Karyopharm, Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Collins:Taekda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celleron: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses , Speakers Bureau. Maddocks:Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; ADC Therapeutics, AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bartlett:Autolus: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Merck: 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; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; BTG: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Affimed Therapeutics: Research Funding. Savage:BeiGene: Other: Steering Committee; Roche (institutional): Research Funding; Merck, BMS, Seattle Genetics, Gilead, AstraZeneca, AbbVie: Honoraria; Merck, BMS, Seattle Genetics, Gilead, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Servier: Consultancy. Caimi:ADCT, Kite Therapeutics, Genentech, Amgen, Verastem, TG Therapeutics, Bayer: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech, ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Hess:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS, AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Zinzani:ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kirin Kyowa: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics, Inc.: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Eusapharma: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Cruz:ADC Therapeutics SA: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Wang:ADC Therapeutics America, inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Feingold:ADC Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Wuerthner:ADC Therapeutics SA: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ansell:Takeda: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding.

Abstract Background The proportion of tumors of various histologies that may respond to drugs targeted to molecular alterations is unknown. NCI-MATCH, a collaboration between ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group and the National Cancer Institute, was initiated to find efficacy signals by matching patients with refractory malignancies to treatment targeted to potential tumor molecular drivers regardless of cancer histology. Methods Trial development required assumptions about molecular target prevalence, accrual rates, treatment eligibility, and enrollment rates as well as consideration of logistical requirements. Central tumor profiling was performed with an investigational next-generation DNA–targeted sequencing assay of alterations in 143 genes, and protein expression of protein expression of phosphatase and tensin homolog, mutL homolog 1, mutS homolog 2, and RB transcriptional corepressor 1. Treatments were allocated with a validated computational platform (MATCHBOX). A preplanned interim analysis evaluated assumptions and feasibility in this novel trial. Results At interim analysis, accrual was robust, tumor biopsies were safe (&lt;1% severe events), and profiling success was 87.3%. Actionable molecular alteration frequency met expectations, but assignment and enrollment lagged due to histology exclusions and mismatch of resources to demand. To address this lag, we revised estimates of mutation frequencies, increased screening sample size, added treatments, and improved assay throughput and efficiency (93.9% completion and 14-day turnaround). Conclusions The experiences in the design and implementation of the NCI-MATCH trial suggest that profiling from fresh tumor biopsies and assigning treatment can be performed efficiently in a large national network trial. The success of such trials necessitates a broad screening approach and many treatment options easily accessible to patients.

Abstract Background Patients (pts) with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) who have relapsed/refractory disease after frontline therapy typically undergo salvage chemotherapy followed by high-dose conditioning and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Improved outcomes have been reported for pts who achieve complete remission (CR) with salvage chemotherapy prior to ASCT. Variable CR rates (19%-60%) and significant toxicities are associated with standard salvage therapy in the first relapse setting. Brentuximab vedotin and bendamustine have independent mechanisms of action and are highly active with manageable safety profiles when administered as single agents to pts with HL who relapse after ASCT (brentuximab vedotin: 34% CR [Younes, 2012]; bendamustine: 33% CR [Moskowitz, 2013]). This phase 1/2, single-arm, 2-stage, open-label study was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of brentuximab vedotin in combination with bendamustine for the treatment of pts with HL in first relapse (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01874054). Methods Pts received an outpatient IV infusion of 1.8 mg/kg brentuximab vedotin on Day 1 with 90 mg/m2 bendamustine on Days 1 and 2 of 3-week cycles for up to 6 cycles. Pts could undergo ASCT any time after Cycle (C) 2 and post-transplant resume treatment with brentuximab vedotin as monotherapy for up to16 total doses. Phase 1 was designed to determine the recommended dose of bendamustine in combination with brentuximab vedotin. During this phase, the dose of bendamustine was to be de-escalated if ≥4/10 pts experienced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), defined as any C1 toxicity requiring a dose delay of ≥14 days. During phase 2, bendamustine was administered at the recommended dose in order to assess the CR rate of the combination. Response was assessed by the investigator per Cheson 2007. Results Forty-five pts (58% female) with a median age of 35 yrs (range, 19-79) have been enrolled. Fifty-eight percent of pts had relapsed disease and 42% of pts primary refractory disease after frontline therapy. A median of 13.1 mos (range, 3- 98) had elapsed since initial diagnosis. No DLTs were observed in the safety cohort, thus the recommended dose of bendamustine in combination with brentuximab vedotin was 90 mg/m2. Pts received a median of 2 cycles (range, 1-6) of the combination. The main toxicity observed with the combination was infusion-related reactions. The most common symptoms (≥10%) were dyspnea (13%), flushing (13%), and chills (11%). The majority of reactions occurred within 24 hours of C2 infusion and were considered related to both agents. Premedication with corticosteroids and antihistamines was instituted with a protocol amendment and appeared effective. Prior to the amendment, 36% (9/25 unique pts) of treated pts had reactions that were either serious adverse events (SAEs) (n=6), Grade 3 in severity (n=8), and/or led to treatment discontinuation (n=6). Following premedication implementation, 15% (3/20 unique pts) of treated pts had such events (0 SAEs, 1 treatment discontinuation, and 2 Grade 3 toxicities). The CR rate of the combination was 82% (28/34 pts evaluable for response) and the overall objective response rate (CR and partial remission) 94% (32/34 pts). The majority of CRs (24/28 pts) were achieved after 2 cycles of combination therapy. Stem cell mobilization and collection was considered adequate in all 24 pts who underwent the procedure. The median number of CD34+ cells collected was 4.3 x106 (range, 1.7- 16.0 x106) in a median of 2 apheresis sessions (range, 1-5). To date, 20 pts have undergone ASCT, the majority after C2 (12 pts) or C3 (6 pts), and 13 pts have resumed brentuximab vedotin as monotherapy. One patient with CR developed progressive disease 3 cycles post-transplant. The median duration of remission for pts who obtained a CR has not been reached (95% CI: 8.7,– [range, 0.03+-10.4+ months]). Conclusions The outpatient regimen of brentuximab vedotin 1.8 mg/kg on Day 1 in combination with bendamustine 90 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 2 of 3-week cycles has a manageable safety profile with premedication. The very high CR rate observed on combination treatment compares favorably with historical data. The durability of responses observed to date and the success of stem cell mobilization and collection suggest that the regimen may represent a promising approach for maximizing responses prior to ASCT in pts with HL who are either relapsed or are refractory after frontline therapy. Disclosures LaCasce: Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Brentuximab vedotin is indicated in the US for treatment of patients with Hodgkin lymphoma after failure of autologous stem cell transplant or after failure of at least two prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimens in patients who are not ASCT candidates and for the treatment of patients with systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma after failure of at least one prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimen. Bociek:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Matous:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Speakers Bureau; Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Sawas:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Caimi:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Equity Ownership, Research Funding. Ansell:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Islas-Ohlmayer:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Cheung:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Agura:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Behler:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Crosswell:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Research Funding, Travel expenses Other. Vose:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding. Josephson:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Advani:Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda International Pharmaceuticals Co.: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding, Travel expenses Other.

Abstract Background Long-term outcomes from autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (R/R) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) are significantly better in patients who achieve a complete remission (CR) from salvage chemotherapy prior to ASCT. However, standard salvage therapy produces variable CR rates (19%-60%) and is associated with significant toxicity. Brentuximab vedotin and bendamustine are highly active when administered as single agents to pts with R/R HL (34% and 33% CR rates, respectively) and have manageable safety profiles. This phase 1/2, single-arm, 2-stage, open-label study was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of brentuximab vedotin in combination with bendamustine for the treatment of pts with primary refractory disease or in first relapse (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01874054). Methods Pts received an outpatient IV infusion of 1.8 mg/kg brentuximab vedotin on Day 1 with bendamustine on Days 1 and 2 of 3-week cycles for up to 6 cycles. Pts could undergo ASCT any time after Cycle 2 and post-transplant resume treatment with brentuximab vedotin as monotherapy for up to 16 total doses. Phase 1 was designed to determine the recommended dose of bendamustine, with an initial dose of 90 mg/m2 and a de-escalation scheme to be implemented if it exceeded the maximum tolerated dose. During phase 2, bendamustine was administered at the recommended dose in order to assess the CR rate of the combination. Response was assessed by the investigator per Cheson 2007. Enrollment is complete and long-term follow-up for PFS and OS continues. Results Fifty-five pts (56% female) with a median age of 36 yrs (range, 19-79) were enrolled. Fifty-one percent of pts had relapsed disease and 49% of pts had primary refractory disease after frontline therapy. A median of 13.8 mos (range, 3-98) had elapsed since initial diagnosis. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed in the safety cohort, thus the recommended dose of bendamustine in combination with brentuximab vedotin was 90 mg/m2. Pts received a median of 2 cycles (range, 1-6) of the combination and a median of 9 cycles (range, 1-14) of single-agent brentuximab vedotin. The main toxicity observed with the combination was infusion-related reactions (56% overall). The most common symptoms (≥10%) were pyrexia (26%), chills (20%), dyspnea and nausea (15% each), flushing (13%), and hypotension (11%). Premedication with corticosteroids and antihistamines was instituted with a protocol amendment and appeared effective. Before the amendment, 6 pts (24% of treated pts) discontinued treatment prematurely because of IRRs; post-amendment, IRRs led to treatment discontinuation for 2 pts (7%). The CR rate of the combination was 74% (39/53 pts evaluable for response) and the overall objective response rate (CR and partial remission) was 93% (49/53 pts). The CR rate was 64% and 84% for refractory and relapsed pts, respectively. Stem cell collection after first-line mobilization (G-CSF± plerixafor) was successful in 93% of pts (37/40). Median number of CD34+ cells collected was 4.1 x106 (Q1, Q3: 3.0, 5.4) in a median of 2 (range, 1-5) apheresis sessions. Median time to neutrophil and platelet engraftment was 11 days (range, 9-21) and 13 days (range, 9-39), respectively. Pts have been followed for a median of approximately 1 year from first dose (median = 418 days; range, 118-635) and approximately 10 mos (314 days; range, 13-553) from ASCT. To date, 12 progression events have been observed: 7 in the 40 pts who underwent transplant and 5 in the 13 pts who did not undergo transplant. The estimated 12-mos PFS is 80% for both the transplanted population (95% CI: 70%, 90%) and the overall population (95% CI: 60%, 90%). Three of the 12 progression events were deaths; 2 pts died from progression of their HL and 1 pt died from septic shock after transplant. Conclusions The outpatient regimen of brentuximab vedotin 1.8 mg/kg on Day 1 in combination with bendamustine 90 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 2 of 3-week cycles induced a very high CR rate that compares favorably with historical data. The regimen has a manageable safety profile, with the most significant side effect being IRRs that can be successfully managed by premedication. The estimated 12-mos PFS rate of 80% demonstrates response durability, making the combination a promising salvage regimen for pts with HL in the first relapse setting. Progression-Free Survival Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Off Label Use: Brentuximab vedotin is indicated in the US for treatment of patients with Hodgkin lymphoma after failure of autologous stem cell transplant or after failure of at least two prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimens in patients who are not ASCT candidates and for the treatment of patients with systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma after failure of at least one prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimen. This study evaluates brentuximab vedotin in HL patients with primary refractory disease or in first relapse. . Sawas:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Agura:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Matous:Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ansell:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding. Crosswell:KIYATEC (employment); Gilead (common stock ownership and research funding): Employment, Equity Ownership, Research Funding. Islas-Ohlmayer:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Behler:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau. Cheung:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Forero-Torres:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Vose:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding. Josephson:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Advani:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Genetech: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Bendamustine and rituximab (BR) is a commonly chosen frontline treatment for grade 1-2 (G 1-2) follicular lymphoma (FL). This regimen resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) and less toxicity compared to R-CHOP in the STiL trial [Rummel et al., 2013] and similar results were observed when comparing BR vs. R-CHOP/R-CVP in the confirmatory BRIGHT trial [Flinn et al., 2014, updated ASCO 2017]. Importantly, patients (pts) with grade 3A (G 3A) FL were excluded from these studies, yet the conclusions are often extrapolated to the treatment of G 3A pts. Notably, G 3A pts were included in the GALLIUM trial which used both bendamustine as well as CHOP backbones. Several retrospective studies of FL pts treated with frontline R-CHOP have demonstrated equivalent or improved overall survival (OS) for G 3A relative to G 1-2 FL (Koch et al., 2016, Mustafa et al., 2017, Yuan et al., 2017, Maeshima et al., 2013). Early disease progression after diagnosis and treatment with frontline R-CHOP has been identified as a strong predictor of poor OS in FL pts [Casulo et al. 2015], but has not been assessed in pts treated with frontline BR. We retrospectively evaluated outcomes of a large cohort of FL pts treated with frontline BR and stratified the results based on histologic grade and early vs. late progression. Methods: We reviewed medical records of adult (age >18) pts with FL treated with frontline BR at 18 US cancer centers. There was no central pathology review; each academic institution confirmed the diagnosis and grade of FL. Pts with unknown grade, grade 3B, or cutaneous FL were excluded. Baseline characteristics between grades were evaluated with the Chi-Square test for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney U for continuous variables. Outcomes were calculated from time of initiation of BR. Patients were grouped according to whether or not they had progression of disease within 24 months of BR initiation (POD24). OS and PFS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Results: 687 pts were included (616 G 1-2, 71 G 3A). Median age at diagnosis was 60 years (range 21-94) with 53% men. The median time from diagnosis to treatment with BR was 1 month (range 0-139). The median duration of follow up for the entire cohort was 39 months. Characteristics including age, gender, ethnicity, ECOG, stage, LDH, and FLIPI are shown in the Table, and did not significantly differ between G 1-2 and G 3A pts. Rates of complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) to BR were similar between G 1-2 and G 3A (72%/22% vs. 66%/21%, respectively, p=0.114) but progressive disease (PD) was higher in G 3A pts (11.9%) relative to G 1-2 (4.8%, p=0.025). As shown in the Figure (A and B), 3-year PFS and OS was significantly longer for G 1-2 vs. G 3A pts (75% vs. 65%, log rank p= 0.035 and 90% vs. 86%, log rank p=0.007, respectively). Seventy-six (12.3%) of the 616 G 1-2 pts and 13 (18.3%) of the 71 G 3A pts experienced POD24 (p=0.19). For pts with both G 1-2 and G 3A FL, POD24 was associated with inferior OS (3-year OS 95% vs. 57% for G 1-2 pts, log rank p<0.0001 and 3-year OS 93% vs. 37% for G 3A pts, log rank p<0.0001) compared to patients without POD24. Conclusions: G 3A FL pts have an inferior OS and are significantly more likely to have PD to frontline BR compared to G 1-2, which differs from the published experience with R-CHOP. Similar to outcomes after frontline treatment with R-CHOP, POD24 after frontline BR for FL is associated with very poor OS. Future studies are needed to address optimal frontline management of pts with G3A as well as for pts with any grade FL with POD24 after frontline BR. Disclosures Nastoupil: Novartis: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therappeutics: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno: Honoraria. Cerhan:Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Maurer:Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding. Smith:Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Lossos:Affimed: Research Funding. Portell:TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Kite: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding. Calzada:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Cohen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy. Ghosh:Spectrum: Consultancy; SGN: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics, an Abbvie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; PCYC: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Forty seven Inc: Research Funding. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck, Takeda, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Bayer: Research Funding. Caimi:Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory Board Participation; Genentech: Other: Advisory Board PArticipation, Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory Board Participation. Danilov:Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding. Martin:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Kamdar:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy. Kahl:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Hill:Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCLs) and follicular lymphoma (FL) are the most common subtypes of B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas in adults. Histologic transformation of FL to DLBCL (TFL) occurs in approximately 15% of patients and is generally associated with a poor clinical outcome. Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitors have shown promising results in the treatment of relapsed/refractory FL. CAR T-cell therapy (axicabtagene ciloleucel and tisagenlecleucel) has emerged as a novel treatment option for relapsed/refractory DLBCL and TFL. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight important updates to the NCCN Guidelines for B-Cell Lymphomas regarding the treatment of TFL and relapsed/refractory FL and DLBCL.

PURPOSE Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a B-cell lymphoma characterized by cyclin D1 expression. Autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) consolidation after induction chemotherapy is often used for eligible patients; however, the benefit remains uncertain in the rituximab era. Herein we retrospectively assessed the impact of AHCT consolidation on survival in a large cohort of transplantation-eligible patients age 65 years or younger. PATIENTS AND METHODS We retrospectively studied transplantation-eligible adults age 65 years or younger with newly diagnosed MCL treated between 2000 and 2015. The primary objective was to assess for improved progression-free survival (PFS) with AHCT consolidation and secondarily to assess for improved overall survival (OS). Cox multivariable regression analysis and propensity score–weighted (PSW) analysis were performed. RESULTS Data were collected from 25 medical centers for 1,254 patients; 1,029 met inclusion criteria. Median follow-up for the cohort was 76 months. Median PFS and OS were 62 and 139 months, respectively. On unadjusted analysis, AHCT was associated with improved PFS (75 v 44 months with v without AHCT, respectively; P < .01) and OS (147 v 115 months with v without AHCT, respectively; P < .05). On multivariable regression analysis, AHCT was associated with improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.66; P < .01) and a trend toward improved OS (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.01; P = .06). After PSW analysis, AHCT remained associated with improved PFS (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.84; P < .05) but not improved OS (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.1; P = .2). CONCLUSION In this large cohort of younger, transplantation-eligible patients with MCL, AHCT consolidation after induction was associated with significantly improved PFS but not OS after PSW analysis. Within the limitations of a retrospective analysis, our findings suggest that in younger, fit patients, AHCT consolidation may improve PFS.