Citations

Abstract Despite its efficacy, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CART) is limited by the development of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity (NT). While CRS is related to extreme elevation of cytokines and massive T cell expansion, the exact mechanisms for NT have not yet been elucidated. Preliminary studies suggest that NT might be mediated by myeloid cells that cross the blood brain barrier. This is supported by correlative analysis from CART19 pivotal trials where CD14+ cell numbers were increased in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients that developed severe NT (Locke et al, ASH 2017). Therefore, we aimed to investigate the role of GM-CSF neutralization in preventing CRS and NT after CART cell therapy via monocyte control. First, we investigated the effect of GM-CSF blockade on CART cell effector functions. Here, we used the human GM-CSF neutralizing antibody (lenzilumab, Humanigen, Burlingame, California) that has been shown to be safe in phase II clinical trials. Lenzilumab (10 ug/kg) neutralizes GM-CSF when CART19 cells are stimulated with the CD19+ Luciferase+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) cell line NALM6, but does not impair CART cell function in vitro. We have found that malignancy associated macrophages reduce CART proliferation. GM-CSF neutralization with lenzilumab results in enhanced CART cell antigen specific proliferation in the presence of monocytes. To confirm this in vivo, NOD-SCID-g-/- mice were engrafted with high disease burdens of NALM6 and treated with low doses of CART19 or control T cells (to induce tumor relapse), in combination with lenzilumab or isotype control antibody. The combination of CART19 and lenzilumab resulted in significant anti-tumor activity and overall survival benefit compared to control T cells (Fig 1A), similar to mice treated with CART19 combined with isotype control antibody, indicating that GM-CSF neutralization does not impair CART cell activity in vivo. This anti-tumor activity was validated in an ALL patient derived xenograft model. Next, we explored the impact of GM-CSF neutralization on CART cell related toxicities in a novel patient derived xenograft model. Here, NOD-SCID-g-/- mice were engrafted with leukemic blasts (1-3x106 cells) derived from patients with high risk ALL. Mice were then treated with high doses of CART19 cells (2-5x106 intravenously). Five days after CART19 treatment, mice began to develop progressive motor weakness, hunched bodies, and weight loss that correlated with massive elevation of circulating human cytokine levels. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of the brain during this syndrome showed diffuse enhancement and edema, associated with central nervous system (CNS) infiltration of CART cells and murine activated myeloid cells. This is similar to what has been reported in CART19 clinical trials in patients with severe NT. The combination of CART19, lenzilumab (to neutralize human GM-CSF) and murine GM-CSF blocking antibody (to neutralize mouse GM-CSF) resulted in prevention of weight loss (Fig 1B), decrease in critical myeloid cytokines (Fig 1C-D), reduction of cerebral edema (Fig 1E), enhanced leukemic disease control in the brain (Fig 1F), and reduction in brain macrophages (Fig 1G). Finally, we hypothesized that disrupting GM-CSF through CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing during the process of CART cell manufacturing would result in functional CART cells with reduced secretion of GM-CSF. We designed guide RNA targeting exon 3 of the GM-CSF gene and generated GM-CSFk/o CART19 cells. Our preliminary data suggest that these CARTs produce significantly less GM-CSF upon activation but continue to exhibit similar production of other cytokines and exhibit normal effector functions in vitro (Fig 1H). Using the NALM6 high tumor burden relapse xenograft model as described above, GM-CSFk/o CART19 cells resulted in slightly enhanced disease control compared to CART19 cells (Fig 1I). Thus, modulating myeloid cell behavior through GM-CSF blockade can help control CART mediated toxicities and may reduce their immunosuppressive features to improve leukemic control. These studies illuminate a novel approach to abrogate NT and CRS through GM-CSF neutralization that also potentially enhances CART cell functions. Based on these results, we have designed a phase II clinical trial using lenzilumab as a modality to prevent CART related toxicities in patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Disclosures Ahmed: Humanigen: Employment. Sahmoud:Humanigen: Employment. Durrant:Humanigen: Employment. Russell:Vyriad: Equity Ownership. Kay: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; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: 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; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Research Funding. Kenderian:Novartis: Patents & Royalties; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Humanigen: Research Funding.

Abstract The prognosis of elderly patients (pts) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) remains poor, and novel therapeutic approaches are clearly needed. CD19 is expressed on the majority of precursor-B ALLs and represents an attractive therapeutic target. The anti-CD19 bi-specific engager antibody blinatumomab has demonstrated significant activity in both relapsed/refractory ALL and minimal residual disease (MRD) positive ALL. Therefore, we evaluated blinatumomab as a single agent in the upfront treatment of newly diagnosed elderly pts with Philadelphia chromosome (Ph) negative B-lineage ALL to determine response rates and overall survival (OS). Methods: Pts were treated at National Clinical Trial Network sites from June 2015 to September 2017. The primary objective of the study was to estimate 3-year OS. An IND was approved by the FDA and the protocol was approved by a central institutional review board. Eligibility: age > 65 years, newly diagnosed Ph negative B-lineage ALL with adequate organ function and no evidence of central nervous system (CNS) disease. Pts received blinatumomab for induction at standard dosing for 1-2 cycles until attainment of complete response (CR) or CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi) (defined below). Pts then received 3 cycles of blinatumomab post-remission therapy followed by 18 months of maintenance POMP (prednisone, vincristine, 6-mercaptopurine, methotrexate). A total of 8 doses of intrathecal methotrexate were administered as CNS prophylaxis. Cytogenetic risk was ascribed by NCCN 2018 criteria and bone marrow samples were analyzed for the presence of the Ph-like signature. MRD was assessed centrally by 8 color flow cytometry pre-treatment, on Day 35 of induction cycle 1, and on Day 35 of re-induction (if applicable). Response was assessed at the completion of 1-2 cycles of blinatumomab. CR was defined as < 5% marrow blasts with no evidence of extramedullary disease and recovery of counts [absolute neutrophil count (ANC) > 1000/uL, platelets >100,000/uL]. CRi was defined the same as CR but ANC < 1000/ uL and/ or platelets ≤ 100,000/ uL. OS was measured from day of registration on trial until the date of death. Disease-free survival (DFS) was measured from the date the pt achieved CR/ CRi until relapse or death. Toxicities were graded according to NCI CTCAE version 4.0. Results: Of 31 pts enrolled, 29 were eligible. The median age was 75 years (range 66 - 84), 22 (76%) were male, median baseline white blood count was 3.7 x 103/uL (range 0.3 - 7,100), and median bone marrow blast count percentage was 86.5% (range 30-100). Three pts received hydroxyurea or steroids prior to treatment initiation. Cytogenetic risk at diagnosis was: poor (34% of pts; n=10), standard (55% of pts; n=16), good (3% of pts; n=1) and unknown (7% of pts, n=2). Testing for the Ph-like signature is being completed. The most common Grade 3-5 non-hematologic toxicities related to treatment during induction were hyperglycemia (14%), dyspnea (10%), febrile neutropenia (10%), hypertension (10%), and lung infection (7%). One pt developed Grade 3 cytokine release syndrome and 1 developed Grade 3 neurotoxicity. No pts died during the first 28 days of treatment. The overall response rate (CR + CRi) was 66% (all CRs). Thirteen of the 19 responders have available MRD data post-treatment. Of these, 12 pts (92%) achieved MRD negativity, all at Cycle 1 Day 35. One pt required 2 cycles of blinatumomab to achieve CR. One pt proceeded to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant. The median follow-up time is 1 year and median duration on trial is 170 days (6 pts are still on maintenance therapy). OS estimated by Kaplan Meier at 6 months is 79% (95% CI 58%-90%) and at 1 year is 65% (95% CI 43%-80%). DFS estimated at 6 months is 68% (95% CI 43%-84%) and at 1 year is 56% (95% CI 31%-75%). No baseline features including CD19 expression (by percentage or mean-fluorescent intensity) or presence of a CD19 negative subpopulation were associated with response. Conclusions: Blinatumomab was well tolerated and effective in the treatment of newly diagnosed elderly patients with Ph negative B-lineage ALL. Further follow up will determine the durability of these responses. Disclosures Advani: Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy. Wieduwilt:Leadiant: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; Reata Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding. Park:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Consultancy. Stock:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Erba:Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Astellas: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Astellas: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Juno: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Background LGH447 is a novel, specific pan-Pim kinase inhibitor in development for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and other hematologic malignancies. The PIM kinase gene family encodes 3 serine/threonine protein kinases that have roles in cell cycle progression and survival. In human disease, elevated levels of Pim1 and Pim2 are associated with hematologic malignancies, with MM showing the highest level of Pim2 expression. In preclinical studies, a majority of MM cell lines proved sensitive in vitro to LGH447-mediated Pim inhibition, exhibiting a dose-dependent decrease in cell proliferation. Furthermore, LGH447 was well tolerated and demonstrated significant inhibition of tumor growth in xenograft mouse models of MM as compared with control animals, supporting the clinical development of LGH447 in MM patients. Methods Patients with relapsed/refractory MM for whom no effective treatment options exist were enrolled on this first-in-human, multicenter, open-label phase 1 dose-escalation study (CLGH447X2101). Escalating doses of single-agent LGH447 were administered orally on a continuous daily dosing schedule. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, consent withdrawal, or death. The primary objective was to estimate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of LGH447 administered as a single agent, orally, once daily. Secondary objectives included assessing the safety, tolerability, preliminary antimyeloma activity, and pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles of LGH447. Dose escalation followed a Bayesian logistic regression model based on dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurring in cycle 1. Adverse events (AEs) were graded according to National Cancer Institute-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.03. Efficacy assessments were made by investigators according to International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) uniform response criteria with modifications. Following determination of the MTD for LGH447, additional patients will be enrolled in an expansion cohort to further characterize the safety and tolerability profile of LGH447. Results At the data cutoff, 19 patients have been treated at the following doses: 70 mg (n = 5), 150 mg (n = 6), 200 mg (n = 4), 250 mg (n = 4), with enrollment ongoing in dose escalation. Median age was 66 years (range, 41-75 years). Most patients (94.7%) presented with baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1. Most patients (73.7%) had received ≥ 2 prior regimens (median 4; range, 1-11), 89.5% had received prior bortezomib, and 84.2% had received prior lenalidomide and/or thalidomide (68.4% and 47.4%, respectively). Ten patients are ongoing at doses between 150-250 mg, with a median duration of exposure of 6 weeks (range, 1-26.6 weeks), and 9 patients discontinued (disease progression [n = 6], AEs [n = 2], withdrawal of consent [n = 1]). There was 1 DLT consisting of grade 3 thrombocytopenia at the 200 mg dose level and no reported suspected unexpected serious AEs. The majority of AEs regardless of study drug relationship were grade 1/2. Most common grade 3/4 AEs were thrombocytopenia (31.6%), anemia (21.1%), and neutropenia (15.8%). No deaths have occurred on study. LGH447 displayed time-dependent PK with a 3- to 6-fold accumulation from day 1 to steady state (day 14). After a single oral dose, area under the curve and maximum concentration increased somewhat more than in proportion to the dose from 70 to 250 mg. Evidence of single-agent activity, as determined by investigators using IMWG criteria, has been seen in multiple patients, with best response to date being a very good partial response (VGPR). Conclusion In heavily treated patients with relapsed/refractory MM, LGH447 was generally well tolerated and exhibited evidence of single-agent efficacy in multiple patients, validating Pim kinase inhibition as a promising therapeutic rationale and supporting its further clinical development in patients with MM and other hematologic malignancies. Dose escalation is ongoing and updated results will be presented. Disclosures: Ocio: BMS: Consultancy; Arry-520: Consultancy; Pharmamar: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria. Thomas:Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Immunomedics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Research Funding. Günther:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lebovic:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Allos/Spectrum: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Speakers Bureau. Kumar:Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Jakubowiak:Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria. Song:Novartis: Employment. Xiang:Novartis: Employment. Hynds:Novartis: Employment. Vanasse:Novartis: Employment. Goh:Jannsen: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hospira: 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, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: The few therapies available to treat higher-risk MDS and CMML have limited impact on outcome. We previously reported initial results of S1117, which compared overall response rates (ORRs) of azacitidine (AZA) monotherapy to AZA combined with the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat (VOR), or the immunomodulator lenalidomide (LEN)( ASH 2014 LBA-5). We now report updated response data and overall survival (OS), subgroup analyses, impact of cytogenetics, and effect of treatment center volume/centers of excellence on outcome. Methods: This randomized, Phase II study (ClinTrials.gov # NCT01522976) enrolled higher-risk MDS (International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) Int-2 or High and/or bone marrow blasts ≥5%) and CMML adult patients (pts) with <20% blasts from 3/12-6/14 to receive AZA (75 mg/m2/d on d1-7 of a 28d cycle), AZA + LEN (10 mg/d on d1-21), or AZA + VOR (300 mg BID on d3-9). Pts continued treatment until treatment failure, defined as disease progression, relapse, significant or unresolved toxicity, or lack of response. Dose reductions occurred for grade ≥3 adverse events (per NCI CTCAE) or delayed count recovery. Cytogenetic risk groups were defined per IPSS-R. The primary endpoint was improvement in ORR, by intention to treat and reviewed centrally, of one of the combination arms vs. AZA per 2006 International Working Group MDS response criteria (complete response (CR) + partial response (PR) + hematologic improvement (HI)). OS was from study entry. MDS Centers of Excellence (MCE) were defined per MDS Foundation; center volume was defined as low (1-4 pts enrolled) or high (5-17 pts). Results: Of 277 pts, 92 received AZA, 93 AZA+LEN, and 92 AZA+VOR. Baseline characteristics, previously reported, were similar across arms. Pts received a median of 22 weeks of therapy and were followed for a median of 10 months (range: 0-30). Non-protocol defined dose modification and protocol discontinuation due to toxicity occurred more frequently in combination arms vs. AZA (p=.0014 and p=.018, respectively). Responses are now assessable in all pts (Table 1). ORR was statistically similar for combination arms vs. AZA, with a trend for longer response duration (p=.083) for combinations. Within HI, AZA+LEN pts had higher HI-n than AZA pts (16% vs. 5%, p=.031). ORR for CMML pts was significantly higher for LEN+AZA vs. AZA (63% vs. 29%, p=.04), with a trend for longer response duration for combinations (p=.06); no differences in ORR were seen for therapy-related MDS, IPSS subgroups, or transfusion-dependent pts. Allogeneic transplantation rates were similar. Median OS (Figure) for AZA:AZA+LEN:AZA+VOR was 15:18 (p=.38):17 (p=.17) months; p=.19 for combination arms vs. AZA. Median OS after failure was 7:9 (p=.6):9 (p=.05) months; p=.15 for combination arms after failure vs. AZA. For pts on therapy >6 months, there was a trend (p=.08) for higher ORR for AZA+LEN vs. AZA, though response duration was similar; median OS was 18:21 (p=.44 vs. AZA):21 months (p=.45 vs. AZA). Cytogenetic risk category distribution and ORR was similar across arms. OS (compared to Very Good/Good) was worse for Poor (HR 2.07, p=.022) and Very poor (HR 4.41, p<.001), without significant modification by treatment arm (Table 2). Compared to pts without identified cytogenetic abnormalities (abn), ORR across arms was better for pts with Chr 5 abn (OR 2.38, p=.004); OS was better for normal (HR .42, p<.001) and worse for Chr 5 abn (HR 3.1, p<.001), -7 (HR 2.69, p<.001), and 17p (HR 2.61, p<.001). While small numbers prevented definitive conclusions for treatment arm effect, combinations trended towards improving OS in Normal and Chr 5 abn only. The outcome of all pts and pts on discrete study arms treated at MCE (n=75) or high volume (n=138) sites were similar to non-MCE or low-volume sites for ORR, non-protocol defined dose modifications, dose adjustment in first 4 cycles, time to off-protocol (HR 1.2, p=.21 and HR .94, p=.64), and OS (HR .81, p=.3 and HR .77, p=.12). Conclusions: In higher-risk MDS pts, ORR and OS was similar for AZA monotherapy compared to combination arms, while for CMML pts, ORR was significantly higher with AZA+LEN. For cytogenetic subgroups, OS was worse for Chr 5 abn, -7, and 17p, and may be improved by combinations in normal or Chr 5 abn. MCE or treatment at a high volume site did not impact these effects or outcomes. Figure 1. Responses Figure 1. Responses Figure 2. Cytogenetics Figure 2. Cytogenetics Figure 3. Figure 3. Disclosures Sekeres: Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. List:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Odenike:Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Stone:Merck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Gore:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Buckstein:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Fang:Affymetrix: Research Funding. Attar:Agios Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Erba:Ariad: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jannsen (J&J): Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees ; Ariad: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; GlycoMimetics: Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; GlycoMimetics: Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees; Jannsen (J&J): Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees.

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) with DLBCL who receive first-line anthracycline based immunochemotherapy and remain in remission at 2 years have excellent outcomes with overall survival (OS) in one study that was comparable to the age and sex matched general population in cohorts from the US and France (Maurer et al, JCO 2014). To evaluate whether these findings are robust and generalizable, we assessed OS stratified by progression-free survival at 24 months (PFS24) using individual patient data from pts with DLBCL enrolled in 14 multi-center, international randomized clinical trials as part of the SEAL consortium. Methods: Central data alignment was performed by the SEAL statistics and data center. All enrolled patients treated with rituximab-containing anthracycline-based immunochemotherapy as part of initial induction therapy were included in this analysis using an intent-to-treat approach. PFS was defined as time from initiation of first-line therapy to progression or death. PFS24 was defined as being alive and progression-free 24 months (731 days) after initiation of therapy. Overall survival from PFS24 was defined as time from achieving PFS24 until death due to any cause. OS was compared to each patient's age-, sex-, and country- matched general population using expected survival and standardized mortality ratios (SMR). Country-level population rate tables were obtained from www.mortality.org where available. A per-study average rate table was used when country information was unavailable. OS beyond 9 years from treatment initiation was only available the time of analysis from two trials (13% of cohort) and thus follow-up from PFS24 was restricted to the first 7 years after PFS24 for this analysis. Results: Fourteen studies with 7975 patients were included in the SEAL database. 5853 (73%) received rituximab as part of induction therapy and used in this analysis. Median age was 62 years (range 18-92) with 56% >60 years, 54% were male, 57% had elevated LDH, 63% had stage III/IV disease, 13% had ECOG PS 2-4, and IPI was 0-1 in 36%, 2 in 25%, 3 in 23%, and 4-5 in 16%. At a median follow-up of 4.4 years, 1337 (23%) had disease progression, 1489 patients (25%) had died, and 5101 patients were evaluable for PFS24. 1423 (28%) of evaluable patients failed to achieve PFS24. These patients had poor outcomes after progression with median OS of 7.2 months (95% CI 6.8-8.1), 5-year OS of 19%, and SMR of 32.1 (95% CI: 30.0-34.4). Outcome was excellent (median unreached) in the 3678 patients who were progression-free at 24 months, with subsequent OS after achieving PFS24 approaching the age and sex matched general population (Figure). The observed vs. expected OS at 3, 5, and 7 years after achieving PFS24 was 93.1% vs. 94.4%, 87.6% vs. 89.5%, and 80.0% vs. 83.7%, respectively, the SMR was 1.22 (95% CI: 1.09-1.37). In subset analyses examining pts achieving PFS24, adverse prognostic characteristics at baseline (elevated LDH, advanced stage, ECOG PS 2-4, high IPI) were associated with greater decrement in OS from the general population based expected survival (Table). Conclusions: PFS24 from the start of initial therapy stratifies DLBCL pts into populations with distinct outcomes. DLBCL pts treated with rituximab containing anthracycline-based immunotherapy on large randomized clinical trials who are alive without progression at 24 months from start of initial therapy have excellent outcomes with survival that is marginally lower but clinically indistinguishable from the age-, sex-, and country-matched background population for at least 7 years after achieving PFS24. Further follow-up time will be needed to assess any long-term impact of late relapse and survivorship issues in this population. Table Table. Figure Figure. Disclosures Shi: Mayo Clinic: Employment. Cunningham:Amgen: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merrimack: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding. Seymour:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jaeger:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Haioun:Sandoz: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ghesquieres:Mundipharma: Consultancy; Roche France: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Merli:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Herbrecht:Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cell Therapeutics, Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Flament:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Flowers:Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; ECOG: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; NIH: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Ou:Mayo Clinic: Employment. Sargent:Celgene: Research Funding. Coiffier:MorphoSys: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy; Celltrion: 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, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background OSis the gold standard primary efficacy endpoint for evaluating treatment strategies for DLBCL. Because current standard of care first-line regimens with rituximab plus chemotherapy produce median OS > 8 years, an endpoint assessed earlier would accelerate the evaluation of new therapies and potentially allow patients (pts) to more rapidly benefit from study results. The SEAL group formally evaluated PFS as a surrogate endpoint for OS in first-line therapy for DLBCL. Methods Through a systematic literature search and input from lymphoma experts on the SEAL committee, we identified multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trials that evaluated active treatment and enrolled at least 100 pts with previously untreated DLBCL or aggressive non Hodgkin lymphoma by WHO/REAL classification, published after January 1, 1995. Studies which enrolled only early stage (I or II) pts and studies that could not provide individual pt data (IPD) were excluded from surrogacy analysis. Potential surrogate candidates for OS included: 1) PFS, defined as the time from initiation of induction treatment to progressive disease, relapse or death due to any cause, and 2) PFS rate at 24 months after initiation of induction treatment (PFS24). These endpoints were derived consistently for all studies based on IPD. Surrogacy was evaluated by the correlation between surrogate candidates and OS. Pt-level correlation was measured by the rank correlation coefficient (ρ) and global odds ratio for PFS and PFS24, respectively, estimated by the Copula model. Trial-level correlation was evaluated by the correlation between trial-specific treatment effects on surrogate candidates and OS with two commonly used trial-level R2s: R2WLS (Sargent et al JCO 2005) and R2Copula (Burzykowski et al J R Stat Soc C 2001 and Burzykowski et al J R Stat Soc A 2004). For the R2 measures, a value closer to 1 indicates a stronger correlation. We pre-specified that if either trial-level R2 was >=0.80 and its 95% confidence interval (CI) excluded 0.60, the candidate would meet criteria for surrogacy. Results Thirteen of 14 studies collected to date in the SEAL database met all inclusion criteria. IPD for 7507 pts (median age 63 years, 54% male, 46% ECOG performance status 0, 8% IPI 0, 50% IPI 1-2, 64% stage III/IV, median follow-up time of 52 months) were analyzed. Among 13 studies, one tested maintenance treatment only and two tested both induction and maintenance regimens. One study included four treatment arms. Thus at the trial level, 17 two-arm comparisons were formed: 14 comparisons comparing induction regimens and 3 comparing maintenance; 15 comparisons involved rituximab. Longer PFS was highly correlated with longer OS at the pt level (ρ= 0.85, 95% CI 0.84-0.86), as was PFS24 (Global odds ratio = 61.1, 95% CI 52.6-69.6). The Table shows trial-level correlations, and the Figure shows trial-level association between estimated treatment effects (log(HR) [hazard ratio]) on PFS and OS. The trial-level correlation between PFS and OS was strong and met the pre-specified surrogacy criteria, with R2WLS of 0.83 (95% CI 0.58-0.94) and R2Copula of 0.85 (95% CI 0.72-0.99). Sensitivity analyses including only comparisons including rituximab or only induction regimens showed consistent results. The overall trial-level correlation between PFS24 and OS was reduced slightly, with R2WLS of 0.77 (95% CI 0.49-0.92) and R2Copula of 0.78 (95% CI 0.59-0.96). Performance of PFS24 was improved when restricting analysis to only including induction studies (see table). Conclusion This large IPD pooled-analysis demonstrates that PFS duration met the pre-specified criteria as a robust surrogate endpoint for OS, and can be considered as a surrogate endpoint for OS for frontline DLBCL trials evaluating immunochemotherapy. The earlier endpoint of PFS24 showed promise as a potential surrogate and further validation is warranted. Figure Figure. Disclosures Shi: Mayo Clinic: Employment. Flowers:Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; NIH: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Research Funding; ECOG: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ou:Mayo Clinic: Employment. Cunningham:Merrimack: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding. Pfreundschuh:Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, 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, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Seymour:AbbVie Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, 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; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jaeger:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Haioun:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sandoz: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ghesquieres:Mundipharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche France: Research Funding. Merli:Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Herbrecht:Cell Therapeutics, Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Flament:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Coiffier:MorphoSys: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion: 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, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sargent:Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is an epidemic with tremendous public health impacts because there are currently no disease-modifying therapeutics. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for prevention of AD dementia often use clinical endpoints that take years to manifest (e.g., cognition) or surrogate endpoints that are costly or invasive (e.g., magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]). Blood biomarkers represent a clinically applicable alternative surrogate endpoint for RCTs that would be both cost-effective and minimally invasive, but little is known about their value as surrogate endpoints for treatment responses in the prevention of AD dementia. Methods: The objective of this study is to investigate blood neuropathological, neurodegenerative, and neurotrophic biomarkers as surrogate endpoints for treatment responses to 3 interventions in older adults with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI, a prodromal stage of AD): aerobic exercise; cognitive training; and combined aerobic exercise and cognitive training (ACT). We chose these three sets of biomarkers for their unique mechanistic associations with AD pathology, neurodegeneration and neurogenesis. This study is built on the ACT Trial (1R01AG055469), a single-blinded, multi-site, 2×2 factorial Phase II RCT that examines the synergistic effects of a 6-month ACT intervention on cognition and MRI biomarkers (AD-signature cortical thickness and hippocampal volume) (n=128). In this ACT Trial Blood Biomarkers Study, we will enroll 120 ACT Trial aMCI participants and measure blood biomarkers at baseline, 3, 6, 12 and 18 months. The goals are to: (1) Determine the effect of interventions on blood biomarkers over 6 months; (2) Evaluate blood biomarkers as surrogate endpoints for predicting cognitive responses to interventions over 18 months; and (3; exploratory) Examine blood biomarkers as surrogate endpoints for predicting brain MRI biomarker responses to interventions over 18 months. Discussion: This study aims to identify new blood biomarkers that can track cognitive decline or AD-related brain atrophy among aMCI patients subjected to a regimen of aerobic exercise and cognitive training. Findings from this study will drive the further use of blood biomarkers in developing effective prevention and treatment strategies for AD dementia. Trial registration number: This study is an ancillary study of the ACT Trial which was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03313895.

Abstract Background: A majority of younger pts with AML receive initial therapy with a 7+3 scheme. Escalated doses of daunorubicin (dauno) in combination with standard doses of ara-C may lead to improved outcomes (Fernandez; NEJM 2009). A phase II trial of idarubicin and high-dose ara-C (IA) in combination with the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat (IA+V) resulted in historically high response rates compared to IA or 7+3 (Garcia-Manero; JCO 2011). SWOG 1203 tested whether a high-dose ara-C induction with or without vorinostat could result in improved outcomes for younger AML pts compared to 7+3. Methods: The primary endpoints were comparison of event-free survival (EFS) of 7+3 vs IA vs IA+V and evaluating the frequency of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Secondary endpoints included toxicity, remission rate, relapse-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS) according to treatment arm, and by cytogenetic and molecular subgroups. Because of the historical trend of cured pts in S0106, EFS was modeled with an exponential cure model, and it was assumed IA or IA+vorinostat increased the proportion of pts cured from 35% to 45% and increased median EFS among those not cured from 4.7 months to 7.1 months. Main inclusion criteria included a diagnosis of previously untreated non-APL AML by WHO criteria, age 15 to 60 years, and preserved cardiac function but no severe comorbidities. Pts with known CBF rearranged or FLT3 mutant leukemias were eligible if no other alternative clinical trials existed. Treatment was as follows: Induction: 7+3 arm: dauno 90 mg/m2 IV QD x 3 on days 1-3 with ara-C CI 100 mg/m2 QD x 7 days on days 1 to 7. IA arm: ida 12 mg/m2 QD x 3 on days 1 to 3 with 24 hours CI ara-C 1.5 gm/m2 QD for 4 days on days 1 to 4. IA+vorinostat was as IA but with vorinostat 500 mg orally TID for 3 days on days 1 to 3. Consolidation: 7+3 arm: standard high-dose ara-c at 3 gm/m2 over 3 hrs q12 hours x 6 doses for 1 to 4 cycles depending on transplant availability. IA arm: idarubicin 8 mg/m2 IV QD x 2 days on days 1 to 2 with ara-C 0.75 gm/m2 CI for 3 days on days 1 to 3 for 4 cycles. The number of consolidation cycles depended on transplant indication; a secondary aim of the study was to transplant all cytogenetically-determined high risk pts (presented in a different abstract). Results: Of 754 pts randomized, 738 were eligible (261 to 7+3, 261 to IA, and 216 to IA+V). Baseline characteristics were well balanced among all three groups. Most (75%) pts were between 40 and 60 years, 51% were male, median (range) WBC and platelets were 10.8 (0.3-800) and 49 (3-3900), respectively; marrow blast percentage was 60% (0%-100%); cytogenetics were favorable in 13% of pts, intermediate in 63%, and high-risk in 22%; FLT-3 was mutated in 21% and unknown in 31%; NPM1 was mutated in 20% and was unknown in 37%. Complete remission (CR) rates were 75% for 7+3, 79% for IA, and 77% for IA+V (p=0.58). Significantly more pts received reinduction with 7+3 (24%) versus 11% with IA and 9% with IA+V (p=0.001). 48% of intermediate and unfavorable risk pts received transplant in CR1, with no significant differences among arms (p=0.44). There were no significant differences in EFS, RFS or OS among all three arms (Figure 1, all p>0.5). By cytogenetic or molecular group, there were no differences in outcome for any standard risk subset (FLT-3, NPM1, or CEBPα or cytogenetic subset), although pts with favorable cytogenetics had significantly better EFS, RFS and OS with 7+3 therapy compared to IA or IA+V (Figure 2, all p≤0.015). 30% of pts received 1 consolidation cycle, 18% 2, 16% 3, and 37% 4 cycles. Grade 5 induction toxicity rates were 4% (7+3), 8% (IA), and 9% (IA+V) by arm (p=0.07), and for toxicities related to therapy, 2%, 7%, 8%, respectively (p=0.01). Grade 4 induction toxicity rates were similar across arms (p=0.38). Conclusion: Treatment with IA is not more effective than 7+3 in younger pts with AML. Outcomes with IA or IA plus vorinostat are similar. In pts with favorable cytogenetics, outcomes were inferior with IA or IA+V when compared to 7+3, perhaps related to use of lower doses of ara-C during consolidation. Clinical Trials Registry: NCT #0180233 Support: NIH/NCI grants CA180888, CA180819, CA18020, CA180821, CA180863, CA077202; CCSRI grant #021039 Disclosures Othus: Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Radich:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Strickland:Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Baxalta: Consultancy; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Ambit: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutica: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Savoie:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Lundbeck: Consultancy. Sekeres:Millenium/Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stone:Amgen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Jansen: Consultancy; Xenetic Biosciences: Consultancy; Celator: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Abbvie: 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; Novartis: Consultancy; ONO: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Erba:Sunesis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Ariad: Consultancy; Astellas: Research Funding; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Astellas: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; Agios: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Agios: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celator: Research Funding; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Juno: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB.

Abstract Background: Limited data exist to describe the clinical features and outcomes for elderly pts with FL. The FLASH group performed a prospectively planned pooled analysis of IPD from first-line RCTs and examined associations between age (<= 70 vs. > 70 years), clinical characteristics and FL outcomes. Methods: We identified 18 randomized controlled multicenter clinical trials in the FLASH database which enrolled elderly pts (> 70 yrs). From these 18 studies, 5922 previously untreated FL pts were included for this analysis. Complete response (CR) at 24 and 30 months were defined as whether the pt achieved and remains in CR at 24 months and 30 months after initiation of induction treatment. PFS24 is defined as proportion of pts progression-free and alive at 24 months post-randomization. Time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were defined as time from randomization to the date of progression (censoring for death without progression) and date of death due to any cause, respectively. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as time from randomization to the date of progression or death, due to any cause, whichever comes first. Non-lymphoma death was defined as death without prior progression. Early disease outcomes, i.e. CR24, CR30, and PFS24 were primary outcomes; secondary outcomes were TTP, OS, and PFS. For time-to-event outcomes, Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used for univariate estimation and comparison; stratified Cox proportional hazard modeling was used for multivariable analyses. Cumulative incidence methods were used to model PFS while treating disease progression as the primary event of interest and non-lymphoma death as a competing risk. For binary outcomes, multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the association between age groups and outcomes. Variable adjusted in the regression models are FLIPI score without the age component, ECOG performance status (>= 2 vs < 2), and rituximab use. Results: Among 5922 previously untreated FL pts from 18 RCTs, 63% (n = 3728) were <= 60, 28% (n = 1652) 61-70, and 9% (n = 542) > 70 yrs. Pts age > 70 (vs. <= 70) more commonly had elevated LDH (42% vs 36%, p = 0.02), hemoglobin < 12 g/dL (27% vs 19%, p < 0.0001), ECOG PS >= 2 (8.8% vs 5.0%, p = 0.0004), and elevated β2-microglobulin (68% vs 49%, p < 0.001), less often had > 4 lymph nodes involved (54% vs 65%, p < 0.001), and had similar FLIPI scores without age component (p = 0.17). There were no significant differences between groups in: Ann Arbor stage (94% vs 95% stage III/IV) or rituximab use (62% vs 58%). Median survival follow-up was 5.6 yrs. Pts > 70 yrs did not differ from pts <= 70 in rates of CR24 (27% vs 30%, p=0.32), CR30 (29% vs 31%, p=0.55) or PFS24 (63% vs. 67%, p=0.10). Median TTP was 3.8 and 4.0 years for pts > 70 and <= 70, respectively (HR=1.08, 95% CI 0.96-1.23, p=0.20). With a median OS of 14.6 years for all pts, median OS was 7.4 and 15.7 years for pts > 70 and <= 70, respectively (HR=2.35, 95% CI=2.03-2.73, p<0.001). PFS was statistically significantly different but clinically similar at median 3.1 and 3.8 years for pts > 70 and <= 70, respectively (HR=1.26, 95% CI =1.12-1.41, p<0.001). Further investigation showed the difference in PFS was due to higher incidence of non-lymphoma death in pts > 70 with no difference in disease progression (Figure). In regression models, adjusting for rituximab use, ECOG PS >= 2, and FLIPI score without the age component, age > 70 was a significant predictor of OS and PFS (due to higher incidence of non-lymphoma death), but not PFS24, CR24 or CR30 (Table). Conclusions: FL pts > 70 yrs treated on trials have similar early disease outcomes to younger patients. There is no disease-specific outcome difference between age groups. Age alone should not disqualify patients from standard treatments or RCTs. Disclosures Flowers: Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; NIH: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; ECOG: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ou:Mayo Clinic: Employment. Shi:Mayo Clinic: Employment. Hochster:Genentech: Consultancy, Other: Consultancy fees for advisory boards for GI cancer and bevacizumab with amounts within Yale University de minims guidelines. Brice:Roche: Honoraria; Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Hiddemann:Roche: Other: Grants; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Other: Grants. Marcus:Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Kimby:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jansen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Baxalta: Consultancy; Gilead: Honoraria. Herold:Gilead: Other: Personal fees from member advisory board; Celgene: Honoraria; Genentech: Other: Grants; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Grants. De Bedout:Celgene: Employment. Nielsen:Hoffmann-La Roche: Employment. Morschhauser:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Rummel:Mundipharma GmbH: Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Roche Pharma AG: Other: Personal fees, Research Funding. Vitolo:Gilead: Other: Honoraria for lectures; Takeda: Other: Honoraria for lectures; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Honoraria for lectures; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Honoraria for lectures. Salles:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria. Sargent:Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Chimeric antigen receptor T (CART) cell therapy results in impressively high remission rates in B cell neoplasms but is limited by the development of cytokine release syndrome (CRS). CRS is characterized by the development of high-grade fevers, hypotension, fluid overload and respiratory compromise, coincides with T cell expansion and is associated with marked elevation of interleukin-6, interferon-ɣ and other inflammatory cytokines. Severe CRS is seen in 25-80% of patients treated with CD19 directed CART cell therapy and mortality has been reported. While the use of the anti-IL6 receptor antibody tocilizumab with or without steroids can usually reverse this syndrome, there is concern that the early introduction of immunosuppressive medications could impair the anti-tumor activity and therefore most investigators currently reserve tocilizumab as therapy for severe (grade 3-4) CRS. Ruxolitinib is a JAK/STAT pathway inhibitor that is FDA approved for myelofibrosis and polycythemia vera and has resulted in a significant reduction of inflammatory cytokines in clinical studies. In preclinical models, treatment with ruxolitinib ameliorates cytokine production and manifestations of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis. Therefore, there is a compelling rationale to investigate and develop ruxolitinib as a modality to prevent CRS after CART cell therapy. To our knowledge, there are no relevant models for CRS after human CART therapy, thus severely limiting the development of CRS prevention modalities that would in turn enhance the clinical feasibility of CART therapy. In this study, we established a novel acute myeloid leukemia (AML) xenograft model to study the development of CRS. Here, NSG-S (Non Obese Diabetic, SCID ɣ -/- mice that are additionally transgenic for human stem cell factor, IL-3 and GM-CSF) are engrafted with blasts from AML patients and treated with 1x106 CD123-directed CART cells (CART123), ten-fold higher than we previously used in our primary AML xenograft models. These animals develop an illness characterized by progressive weight loss, generalized weakness, emaciation, hunched bodies, withdrawal and poor motor response. This illness starts within one week of CART cell injection, correlates with T cell expansion and rapidly evolves and results in the death of the animals in 7-14 days (Figure 1A). Serum from these mice seven days after CART123 shows an extreme elevation of human IL-6, Interferon-γ, tumor necrosis factor-α, and other inflammatory cytokines (Figure 1B), resembling human CRS after CART cell therapy. NSG-S mice bearing primary AML were treated with CART123 and randomized to receive different doses of ruxolitinib (30, 60, or 90 mg/kg) or vehicle by oral gavage twice a day. Treatment started on the day of CART123 injection and continued for a week. Mice treated with ruxolitinib 60 or 90 mg/kg exhibited less severe clinical illness as manifested by attenuated weight loss when compared with mice treated with CART123 alone (Figure 2A). With the exception of ruxolitinib-only treated mice, all other groups exhibited an equivalent anti-leukemic effect (Figure 2B). We therefore established ruxolitinib 60 mg/kg for further experimental use. Most importantly, ruxolitinib treatment attenuated inflammatory cytokines (figure 2C) and led to long-term survival (figure 2D). Here we have described for the first time a clinically relevant animal model of human CRS and demonstrated that the JAK/STAT inhibitor ruxolitinib can prevent the development of severe CRS without impairing the anti-tumor effect of CART cells. These findings provide a useful platform for the future study of CRS prevention and treatment modalities. These experiments indicate that ruxolitinib could also be combined with CART cell therapy for the prevention of CRS in patients identified to be at high risk for the development of CRS. Disclosures Kenderian: Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Ruella:novartis: Patents & Royalties: Novartis, Research Funding. Lacey:Novartis: Research Funding. Melenhorst:Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. June:Novartis: Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: Immunology, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding; University of Pennsylvania: Patents & Royalties; Tmunity: Equity Ownership, Other: Founder, stockholder ; Celldex: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Immune Design: Consultancy, Equity Ownership. Gill:Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Resear\ch Funding.