Citations

Abstract Introduction: Aggressive chemo-immunotherapy followed by peripheral blood stem cell autografting (ASCT) in CALGB (Alliance) 59909 achieved a median progression-free survival (PFS) in MCL of 5 years (Damon et al JCO, 2009), but late recurrences occurred. Using the CALGB 59909 treatment backbone, we evaluated tolerability and efficacy of adding post-transplant bortezomib consolidation (BC) or maintenance (BM)in a randomized phase II trial. Interim results of CALGB (Alliance) 50403 were previously presented (ASH 2015) demonstrating 5 yr PFS 70% and 69% for the BM and BC arms respectively. We now report final 8 year follow up results from this trial and compare outcomes to CALGB 59909, which differed from CALGB 50403 only by the absence of post-transplant bortezomib. Methods: The primary endpoint was PFS measured from randomization for each treatment arm. Induction therapy was with 2-3 cycles of augmented R-CHOP (2000 mg/m2 cyclophosphamide) and methotrexate (300 mg/m2) followed by high-dose cytarabine/etoposide/rituximab(R)/filgrastim (EAR) stem cell mobilization and cyclophosphamide/carmustine/etoposide (CBV) ASCT. After 2 doses of post-transplant R, patients were randomized to BC (1.3 mg/ m2 IV days 1, 4, 8, 11 of a 3-week cycle for 4 cycles) or BM (1.6 mg/m2 IV weekly x4 every 8 weeks for 18 months) beginning at approximately day 90. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was analyzed using patient-specific PCR probes for the bcl-1 / IgH junction or the IgH CDR3 region. Results: 151 patients were enrolled from 10/2006 - 6/2010 at 14 sites; 147 who received treatment are included in this analysis. Median age was 59 years (29-69); stage II (2.7%), III (11.6%), IV (85.0%); MIPI low (52.4%), intermediate (30.6%), high (17.0%); blastoid histology (12.9%); bone marrow involvement (81.0%); Ki67 was evaluated in 86 and was >30% in 17.4% of patients. 118 (80%) underwent ASCT and 102 (68%) were randomized. Most withdrawals (45) were for progression (10) or adverse events (AEs) (19) including 4 treatment-related deaths. Fifty-two patients were randomized to BM and 50 to BC. Following randomization, 34 (65%) completed BM and 33 (66%) completed BC. Withdrawal for AEs occurred in 14 (28%) of BC and 7 (13%) of BM patients (p = 0.09), most for cytopenias or peripheral neuropathy. With a median follow-up 7.8 years from randomization (8.3 from registration), the median PFS from randomization for the BM arm was not reached and was 8.9 years (95% CI 7.2 to not reached) for the BC arm. Both arms had median PFS significantly greater than the null hypothesis setting median PFS to 4 years (p < 0.001; 1-sided test of exponential parameter)The 8-year PFS estimates in the BM and BC arms were 77% (95% CI 66-90%) and 58% (95% CI 44-76%), respectively. Among all 147 patients treated on CALGB 50403, 8-year PFS from time of registration was 43.6% (35.6-53.3%). PFS from registration was not significantly extended in CALGB 50403 compared with CALGB 59909 (log rank p=0.24), but using a landmark analysis from time of transplant, PFS was significantly extended in CALGB 50403 (log rank p=0.005)(fig 1). Baseline patient characteristics in the two studies were not significantly different. In CALGB 50403, 8-year PFS from registration by MIPI was 52.0% (95% CI 41.1-66.0%) in MIPI low risk, 37.5% (95% CI 25.3-55.4%) in intermediate risk, and 28.2% (95% CI 13.7-57.9%) in high-risk. Bone marrow MRD results were collected for 42 patients post-induction therapy; 8-year PFS estimates were 80.2% (95% CI 62.2-100%) (n=17) and 43.2% (95% CI 27.3-68.2%) (n=25) for MRD-negative and MRD-positive patients, respectively (p=0.009). Conclusions: Induction chemotherapy followed by ASCT and either BC or BM was efficacious and tolerable, although BC was associated with more withdrawals for toxicity. PFS was not significantly different between BC and BM. The comparison between studies 50403 and 59909 with long-term follow up continues to suggest a PFS benefit from the addition of BC or BM among patients undergoing transplant. This did not translate into a PFS benefit from time of study enrollment possibly due to the higher pre-transplant dropout rate in 50403. MRD-negativity following induction chemo-immunotherapy is highly associated with improved PFS and the role of ASCT in post-induction MRD-negative patients is currently under investigation in a randomized clinical trial. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00310037 Disclosures Kaplan: Bayer Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Maurer:Celgene: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Stock:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Bartlett:Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE: 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; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Blum:Acerta: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy. LaCasce:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Humanigen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Research to Practice: Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Data safety and monitoring board. Leonard:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Biotest: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; United Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Cheson:AbbVie, Roche/Genentech, Pharmacyclics, Acerta, TG Therapeutics: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: The phase 3 ECHELON-1 study assessed frontline brentuximab vedotin administered with doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) vs doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) in patients (pts) with advanced cHL (NCT01712490). The primary endpoint of ECHELON-1, modified PFS (mPFS) per independent review facility (IRF), is defined as (1) progressive disease, (2) death, or (3) subsequent anticancer therapy (chemotherapy [chemo] and/or radiotherapy [RT]) following detection of a non-complete response (non-CR = Deauville score 3-5) at end of frontline therapy. A+AVD was superior to ABVD (hazard ratio [HR]=0.77; p=0.035) with 2-year mPFS rates of 82.1% and 77.2%; as previously reported. In pts with newly diagnosed cHL, the aim of frontline therapy is curative. Pts who do not achieve a satisfactory response to frontline therapy may initiate subsequent anticancer therapy prior to response criteria-defined progression. The measurement of traditional PFS becomes confounded, as pts may effectively be rescued from criteria-defined progression by subsequent treatment, resulting in an overestimation of PFS with frontline therapy (Connors et al. Haematologica 2016;101[s5]:22-3[P007]). To further evaluate modified and traditional PFS in the ECHELON-1 study, two sensitivity analyses were conducted. Methods: 1334 pts with Stage III (36%) or IV (64%) cHL were randomized 1:1 to receive A+AVD (n=664) or ABVD (n=670) on days 1 and 15, for up to six 28-day cycles. In addition to mPFS per IRF, mPFS per investigator (INV) was collected. A sensitivity analysis (mPFS-chemo) was performed in which RT following a non-CR at the completion of frontline therapy was not counted as an event: in this case, mPFS-chemo was defined as (1) progression, (2) death, or (3) receipt of additional anticancer chemo excluding RT for pts who are not in CR after completion of frontline therapy. A second sensitivity analysis of traditional PFS (PFS-traditional), defined as (1) progression or (2) death, was also performed. All analyses were performed per INV as, per protocol, IRF follow up of pts was not conducted after the initiation of subsequent therapy. Results: At 2 years, the rates of mPFS per INV (95% CI) for A+AVD vs ABVD were 81.0% (77.6-83.9%) vs 74.4% (70.7-77.7%), respectively; HR=0.72 (95% CI: 0.573, 0.914; p=0.006). Concordance between IRF and INV mPFS assessments was high among all pts in both arms, at 91%. A total of 123 mPFS events per INV were observed among pts treated with A+AVD, including 73 pts with PD, 15 deaths, and 35 who received additional anticancer therapy following evidence of non-CR at the end of frontline therapy, vs 164 per INV mPFS events among pts treated with ABVD, of which 103 were PD, 22 were deaths, and 39 were additional anticancer therapy following evidence of non-CR at the end of frontline therapy. Of the 35 (A+AVD) and 39 (ABVD) additional anticancer therapy events, chemo/RT following evidence of non-CR at the end of frontline therapy accounted for 11/24 and 17/22 of these events, respectively. For mPFS-chemo, a larger benefit in favor of A+AVD vs ABVD, with a HR=0.687 (95% CI: 0.534, 0.885; p=0.003), was observed. The 2-year mPFS-chemo (95% CI) was estimated as 84.0% (80.9-86.7%) for pts treated with A+AVD vs 77.3% (73.7-80.4%) for pts treated with ABVD. A total of 103 events were observed among pts in the A+AVD arm, including 78 pts with PD, 15 deaths, and 10 who received additional chemo following evidence of a non-CR at the end of frontline therapy, vs 145 events among pts treated with ABVD, of which 106 were PD, 22 were deaths, and 17 were additional chemo following evidence of non-CR at the end of frontline therapy. For PFS-traditional, an advantage in favor of A+AVD vs ABVD was also observed: HR=0.70 (95% CI: 0.54-0.91; p=0.006). The 2-year PFS estimate (95% CI) was 84.2% (81.1-86.9%) for A+AVD vs 78.0% (74.4-81.1%) for ABVD. In total, there were 101 PFS events in the A+AVD arm, including 86 pts with PD and 15 deaths; vs 140 PFS events in the ABVD arm, including 118 pts with PD and 22 deaths. Conclusions: Consistent with the primary outcome of ECHELON-1, a benefit in favor of A+AVD vs ABVD was observed independent of the inclusion of additional anticancer RT or chemo as survival events, in addition to progression or death. A traditional PFS assessment including only progression or death events demonstrated that A+AVD resulted in a 30% reduction in the risk of progression or death compared to ABVD. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Connors: Lilly: Research Funding; Bayer Healthcare: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; NanoString Technologies: Patents & Royalties: Named Inventor on a patent licensed to NanoString Technologies, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche Canada: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; F Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Younes:J&J: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Curis: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria. Gallamini:Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Ansell:Pfizer: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Kim:J&J: Research Funding; Kyowa-Kirin: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Celltrion: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Eisai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Advani:Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cell Medica: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Forty Seven Inc.: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Merck: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Celgene: Research Funding; Autolus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Millenium: Research Funding; Agensys: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board. Bartlett:KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; ImaginAB: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Straus:Onco Tracker: Consultancy; Roch China: Speakers Bureau; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Employment; JUNO: Consultancy; Medical Crossfire: Speakers Bureau; DAVA Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy; InPractice Elselvier: Consultancy; Millenium (Takeda): Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Sureda:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hutchings:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dlugosz-Danecka:Servier: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Engley:Seattle Genetics: Employment. Fenton:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Liu:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Miao:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Jolin:Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Employment. Gautam:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Radford:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Equity Ownership; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Equity Ownership; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction This phase 1/2 study evaluated the safety and antitumor activity of brentuximab vedotin (BV) administered in combination with nivolumab (Nivo) in adult patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL) who have failed frontline therapy (NCT02572167). Results from Parts 1 & 2 have been previously reported, wherein safety, efficacy, and biomarkers consistent with immune activation were observed in pts with R/R cHL (Herrera et al., Blood 2018). In Part 3, patients were treated with BV + Nivo on Day 1 of each cycle. In contrast, pts in Parts 1 & 2 received BV on C1D1 and Nivo on C1D8 with concurrent admin on subsequent cycles. Herein we present safety, efficacy, and biomarker results for Part 3 and updated progression free survival (PFS) from Parts 1 & 2. Methods Pts in Parts 1 & 2 received up to four 21-day cycles of staggered dosing (day 1 BV 1.8 mg/kg, day 8 Nivo 3 mg/kg in Cycle 1) and concurrent thereafter, with steroid and antihistamine premedication. Pts in Part 3 received up to four 21-day cycles of concurrent BV + Nivo on Day 1 with antihistamine premedication. Following Cycle 4 response assessment (Lugano Classification Revised Staging System with the incorporation of the Lymphoma Response to Immunomodulatory Therapy Criteria [LYRIC, 2016]) responding pts were eligible to undergo autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Results 30 pts were treated in Part 3 and all were evaluable for efficacy. Pt characteristics included the following: median age 31.5 yrs (range; 20 - 66), 63% female, 93% prior ABVD, 37% primary refractory HL, 30% relapsed within 1year of frontline therapy, 30% with extranodal disease and 17% with bulky disease at enrollment. 28 pts completed all 4 cycles. 1 pt discontinued treatment (tx) due to an adverse event (AE; Grade 3 [G3] elevated Gamma-Glutamyltransferase) and 1 pt due to progressive disease (PD). The latter pt eventually died due to PD. All pts are off tx and have been observed through the safety reporting period. 37% of pts experienced a G3 or higher tx emergent AE prior to ASCT. 30% of the pts experienced infusion related reactions (IRRs), which occurred most frequently during Cycle 2. Potential G3 or higher immune-related AEs (IRAEs), excluding IRRs, occurred in 2 pts, one of whom required steroids for G4 pneumonitis, which subsequently resolved. Among the 30 efficacy evaluable pts, the complete response (CR) rate was 80% (24/30), with an objective response rate (ORR) of 93%. 47% of pts (14) had a Deauville ≤2, and 17% (5) had Deauville 3. 5 pts with CR had a Deauville >3 and met LYRIC criteria for IR-2. 4/5 pts had a negative follow-up biopsy that confirmed CR and in 1 pt the PET finding was considered to be a false positive as contrast enhanced CT did not reveal any abnormality. All 5 pts proceeded directly to ASCT and remain in CR at follow-up. Among all treated patients, 25 went directly to ASCT after completing BV + Nivo tx with a median 6.8 x 106 CD34+ cells/kg (range 1-20) collected. Median times to neutrophil and platelet engraftment were 12 and 14 days, respectively. 4 pts required additional salvage therapy subsequent to study tx. Patients were followed for a median of 6 months from ASCT (N=25, range 0.8-8.8) and 10 months from first dose (N=30, range 1.8-12.7). The estimated 9-month PFS rate in all-treated pts was 88%. This is comparable to all-treated pts in Parts 1 & 2, whose estimated 9 and 15 month PFS were 86% and 82%, respectively (Fig 2). Biomarker testing was performed on peripheral blood samples, included immunophenotyping, serum cytokine analysis, and TCRβ sequencing. Concurrent dosing of BV+ Nivo resulted in increased levels of both activated and dividing CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, as well as increased regulatory T-cells and circulating plasmablasts. Cytokines and chemokines associated with innate and adaptive immune activation, including Type I and Type II interferons, IL-18, and IP-10, were significantly upregulated following BV + Nivo, while TARC levels were significantly diminished following therapy. TCRβ sequencing revealed clonal expansion in the periphery following BV + Nivo. Conclusion A concurrent dosing schedule of BV + Nivo was well tolerated with a high CR rate of 80%. Biomarkers evaluated in Part 3 indicate immune activation in the periphery following BV + Nivo. Cumulatively, the results in Part 3, along with the durable remissions noted in Parts 1 & 2, support BV + Nivo combination as an encouraging first salvage therapy prior to ASCT in pts with R/R cHL. Disclosures Advani: Forty Seven: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Agensys: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Autolus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura: Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Regeneron: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Cell Medica: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding. Moskowitz:Bristol Myers-Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Bartlett:Seattle Genetics: 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; KITE: 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. Vose:Celgene: Research Funding; Legend Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.: Research Funding; Incyte Corp.: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria; Epizyme: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Research Funding. Ramchandren:Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Feldman:Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Research Funding; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; KITE: Speakers Bureau. LaCasce:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Data safety and monitoring board; Research to Practice: Speakers Bureau; Humanigen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Christian:Acerta: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Immunomedics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ansell:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Moskowitz:Celgene: Consultancy; Merck & Co: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Fenton:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ogden:Seattle Genetics, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Taft:Seattle Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zak:Seattle Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sacchi:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment, Equity Ownership. Galderisi:Seattle Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Herrera:Immune Design: Research Funding; Merck, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; KiTE Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding.

Abstract Background:The role of radiation therapy (XRT) for advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is controversial. In the HD15 trial, the German Hodgkin Study Group (GHSG) administered XRT for PET-positive residual disease ≥2.5 cm at least 2 weeks after completion of chemotherapy and showed 91.5 % in-field control rate with a median follow-up of 102 months (Engert, A; personal communication). However, there is no comparison arm where patients with PET-positive residual disease ≥2.5 cm did not receive XRT. SWOG S0816 was a US intergroup trial utilizing ABVD-based therapy with response adaptation based on interim PET imaging; XRT was not allowed per protocol, and counted as an event. In this analysis, we identified patients in S0816 who would have met HD15 criteria for XRT, but did not receive XRT per design. We then modeled the potential impact of XRT on disease control. Patients and Methods:Of 336 eligible and evaluable HIV-negative patients enrolled in S0816, 49 had an end-of-treatment PET (termed "PET3," to be done 6-8 weeks after completion of chemotherapy) that was positive (i.e. Deauville 4-5) upon central review. We simulated the progression free survival (PFS) if XRT had been delivered per HD15 criteria (PET positive disease and ≥2.5 cm), evaluating by assumptions of 50, 80 and 90% control of the disease within the XRT fields. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses were performed with additional size cut-off points of 2.0 and 1.5 cm. Results:The median follow-up for the 49 PET3 positive patients was 71 months (range 9.7-92.6). For these 49 patients, the observed landmark PFS at 2 years after the date of PET3 was 30.6%. Twenty-four (49%), 33(67%), and 40 (82%) of the 49 patients had at least one site of disease that met the HD15 criteria for XRT with ≥2.5 cm, ≥2.0 cm, and ≥1.5 cm size cut-offs respectively. Sixteen, 19, and 25 patients had disease progression respectively from each group at median of 1.4-1.5 months. Twelve, 12, and 15 patients had relapses limited to the sites that would have been radiated following HD15 criteria with ≥2.5 cm, ≥2.0 cm, and ≥1.5 cm respectively. Estimated landmark PFS at 2 years for the 49 PET3 positive patients assuming 50, 80, and 90 % control of the disease within the radiated sites following HD15 guideline with ≥2.5 cm, ≥2.0 cm, and ≥1.5 cm cut-off are summarized in columns A, B, and C of the table respectively. For the entire group of 336 patients, the observed PFS at 2 years was 79%. Estimated 2-year PFS for the entire group of 336 patients assuming 50, 80, and 90 % control of the disease within the radiated sites following HD15 guideline with ≥2.5 cm, ≥2.0 cm, and ≥1.5 cm cut-off are in columns D, E, and F of the table respectively. Conclusion: Among the PET3 positive patients, consolidation XRT per HD15 criteria with cut-off points of 2.5, 2.0, and 1.5 cm could have raised the 2-year PFS by 12-28 % assuming 50-90% local control within radiated sites. However, the improvement in PFS is more moderate at 1.6-3.9 % if we consider the entire cohort of 336 patients. Although there may be some gain in PFS as the cut-off point is lowered by our ROC analysis, one needs to consider the trade-off against potentially increasing normal tissue toxicity as more sites are irradiated. Table. Table. Disclosures Brem: Pharamcyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genetech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bartlett:Merck & Co: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; ImaginAB: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Evens:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Affimed: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Tesaro: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics International DMC: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy. Rimsza:NanoString: Other: Inventor on the patent for the Lymph2Cx assay. Leonard:Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; United Therapeutics: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Biotest: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Kahl:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Smith:BMS: Consultancy; Portola: Honoraria. Friedberg:Bayer: Honoraria.

Abstract Background Diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with high-risk features carries a poor prognosis despite treatment with immunochemotherapy regimen incorporating rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (R-CHOP). Hence, dose adjusted rituximab, etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin (DA.R-EPOCH), a higher intensity regimen, is suggested as an upfront treatment of high-risk DLBCL. In our study, we analyzed the outcomes in a prospectively followed cohort of patients with de novo high-risk DLBCL who received DA.R-EPOCH, and compared them to the patients who received R-CHOP. Furthermore, we conducted a cost analysis to determine which of the two treatments produces a larger financial burden. Method Patients diagnosed with DLBCL who received chemo-immunotherapy at our center between January 2011 to December 2016 were included in the analysis. High-risk DLBCL was defined by the presence of any of the following features at diagnosis: NCCN- IPI score ≥4, tumor measuring ≥5 cm, MYC ± BCL2 or BCL6 rearrangement by FISH or MYC overexpression (>40% by immunohistochemistry [IHC]), Ki-67 index ≥80% and non-GCB immunophenotype by Hans algorithm. Responses were evaluated at middle and end of chemotherapy. Overall (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) were calculated. For the cost analysis, standardized costs were obtained from Mayo Clinic Florida cost data warehouse based upon patient encounters and treatments. Report cost-to-charge ratios were multiplied by the charges for all hospital billed services, and all resulting costs were adjusted to 2016 dollars with the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Implicit Price Deflator. Patients who did not receive their complete planned treatment at our facility were excluded from the cost analysis. Results Of 80 patients with high-risk DLBCL, 52 (65%) patients were treated with R-CHOP and 28 (35%) with DA.R-EPOCH. The median follow-up was 11.2 months (range: 0.7- 151.3 months). The planned treatment completion rate and complete remission rate at the end of treatment were similar in both groups. There was no significant difference in OS and PFS among the patients treated with DA.R-EPOCH compared to R-CHOP. The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS was 0.79 (95% CI- 0.28-2.29, P=0.67) and OS was 0.86 (95% CI- 0.26-2.78, P=0.80) (Figure 1). In Cox-regression analysis, low baseline albumin, ECOG performance status ≥2, above-normal LDH, high NCCN- IPI and low cumulative chemotherapy doses were associated with poor OS and PFS. Overall incidence of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia, neuropathy, and unplanned hospitalizations were similar between the two treatment groups. Patients treated with DA.R-EPOCH required more red cell transfusions during the treatment (P=0.004). The total mean cost associated with DA.R-EPOCH and R-CHOP regimens was $106,940 ± $39,351 and $58,509 ± 24,588, respectively (P<0.001). The cost associated with hospital services, laboratory testing and evaluation and management were higher in DA.R-EPCOH group compared to R-CHOP group (P<0.001) (Table 2). Conclusion Our study showed that there was no significant difference in PFS and OS of patients with DLBCL with high-risk features when treated with R-CHOP compared to DA.R-EPOCH. DA.R-EPOCH was associated with higher red cell transfusion requirement and treatment related expenses. A prospective randomized comparison is warranted between these two regimens specifically for patients with high-risk DLBCL. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract PURPOSE Urgency to initiate therapy has to be weighed against the time required for screening and consenting to enroll a patient onto a clinical trial. Exclusion of patients with rapidly progressive or symptomatic disease may lead to selection of patients with less aggressive disease. We recently identified that a short diagnosis to treatment interval (DTI) is associated with adverse clinical factors and inferior outcome in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (Maurer et al, JCO 2018); shorter time to treatment was also found to be associated with outcome in other aggressive lymphomas, including mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), in the National Cancer Database (Olszewski et al, BJH 2018). Here we assess the association of DTI with clinical variables and outcome in MCL from an observational cohort with validation in patients enrolled on an NCTN clinical trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS Newly diagnosed patients with MCL were prospectively enrolled in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER), now a subcohort of the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Cohort Study. Patients initially managed with observation were excluded. DTI was defined as the time in days from date of first lymphoma-containing biopsy to the initiation of therapy. Associations of DTI with clinical factors and outcome were examined using a 14 day split based on the previous MER study of DTI in DLBCL. Odds ratios (OR) and Cox model hazard ratios (HR) are reported. Outcome was assessed using event-free survival (EFS) where events were defined as progression/relapse, initiation of new anti-lymphoma therapy, or death due to any cause. A validation cohort was assembled from patients enrolled in CALGB (Alliance) clinical trial 50403. Protocol therapy was high dose chemotherapy with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) consolidation and post-ASCT rituximab followed by bortezomib as either consolidation or maintenance. DTI was defined as time from diagnosis to study registration and outcome was assessed using progression-free survival (PFS) as defined on the clinical trial. RESULTS 271 patients with MCL enrolled in the MER from 2002-2015 and initiated treatment within 100 days of diagnosis. Median age at diagnosis was 64 years (range 36-76), 211 (78%) were male, and 92% were stage III-IV; MIPI was Low (41%), Intermediate (36%) and High (23%). Induction therapy was R-CHOP based (50%), B-R based (16%), HyperCVAD based (8%), 2-CDA based (11%), and other (15%). Median EFS of the cohort was 41 months (95% CI: 34-46). Median DTI was 26 days (IQR: 14-38) and 28% enrolled within 14 days of diagnosis, exhibiting a longer DTI than DLBCL patients enrolled in the MER during the same time period. Short DTI (0-14 days) was associated with adverse clinical factors including ECOG PS 2-4 (OR=5.74, 95% CI: 2.51-13.1, p<0.0001), elevated LDH (OR=2.30 95% CI: 1.25-4.22, p=0.0072), and higher MIPI score (OR=1.48, 95% CI: 1.04-2.07, p=0.025) but was not significantly associated with age, sex, B-symptoms, or stage (all p>0.30). Short DTI was also associated with inferior EFS (HR=1.78, 95% CI: 1.27-2.49, p=0.0008) which remained significant after adjusting for MIPI score (HR=1.72, 95% CI: 1.23-2.41, p=0.0016). In the validation cohort, 144 patients enrolled on 50403 within 100 days of diagnosis from 2006-2010. Median age at diagnosis was 59 years (range 29-69), 77% were male, and 97% were stage III-IV; MIPI was Low (51%), Intermediate (31%) and High (17%). Median PFS of the cohort was 84 months (95% CI: 50-109). Median DTI was 35 days (IQR: 22-46) and 11% enrolled within 14 days of diagnosis. Short DTI (0-14 days) was associated with PS (OR=9.00, 95% CI: 1.18-69.0, p=0.034) and) higher MIPI score (OR=2.09, 95% CI: 1.08-4.04, p=0.029) but not elevated LDH (OR=1.27, 95% CI: 0.43-3.74, p=0.66). Short DTI was associated with inferior PFS (HR=2.21, 95% CI:1.19-4.09, p=0.011) which remained clinically significant after adjusting for MIPI score (HR=1.85, 95% CI: 0.98-3.47, p=0.056). CONCLUSION A short diagnosis-to-treatment interval is strongly associated with adverse clinical factors and poor outcome in newly diagnosed MCL in the MER. Clinical trials are encouraged to facilitate enrollment of patients with short DTI to avoid potential selection bias. Support: U01 CA195568, P50 CA097274, U10CA180821, U10CA180882; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00310037 (CALGB 50403) Figure. Figure. Disclosures Maurer: Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding. Kaplan:Bayer Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Cohen:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: 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; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; AbbVie: 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; Millennium: 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; BioInvent: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding. Martin:Gilead: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Kahl:Abbvie: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Bartlett:ImaginAB: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: 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, Research Funding. Cerhan:Celgene: Research Funding; Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Nanostring: Research Funding. Leonard:Karyopharm: Consultancy; Biotest: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; United Therapeutics: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction The role of body mass index (BMI) impacting clinical outcome among lymphoma patients is controversial. Two recent studies suggest that increased BMI is associated with significantly improved survival. In this study the association between BMI at study entry and failure-free survival (FFS) and overall survival (OS) was evaluated in three phase III Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-led trials, among patients with DLBCL (E4494), follicular lymphoma (FL) (E1496) and Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) (E2496). Patients and Methods 537 patients with DLBCL, 730 patients with HD and 282 patients with FL were included in the analysis. BMI was calculated as weight (kilograms) divided by the square of height (meters), using data at study entry. BMI was analyzed both as continuous and categorical variables (underweight <18.5 kg/m2, normal weight: 18.5 to < 25 kg/ m2, overweight: 25 to < 30 kg/ m2, and obese :≥ 30 kg/ m2).The underweight group was excluded due to low (< 2%) prevalence. Baseline patient and clinical characteristics, treatment received and clinical outcomes were compared across BMI categories. PFS was defined as the time from study entry to relapse, progression, or death. OS was measured from study entry to death of any cause. The log-rank test and Cox regression models was used to check the association. The association between BMI and FFS/OS was also independently assessed among patients treated with rituximab. A sensitivity analysis was performed excluding patients with significant weight loss at baseline. Results Among patients with DLBCL, HL and FL, the median age was 70, 33 and 56; 29%, 29% and 37% were obese and 38%, 27% and 37% were overweight, respectively. Age was significantly different among BMI groups in all three studies. Higher BMI groups tended to have better prognosis at study entry among DLBCL and HL patients. BMI was not associated with clinical outcome, with p-values of 0.89, 0.30 and 0.40 for FFS, and p-values of 0.64, 0.67 and 0.09 for OS, for patients with DLBCL, HL and FL, respectively (Figure 1). In multivariate analysis adjusting for other clinical factors, BMI remains an insignificant predictor for all three histologies (Table 1). When limiting to patients treated with rituximab, the association remains non-significant for both FL patients (p=0.92 for PFS, p=0.36 for OS) and DLBCL patients (Figure 2). A subset analysis of males with DLBCL treated on R-CHOP, which matched the study cohort used in a recent report (Carson et al, 2012), revealed no differences in FFS (p=0.48) or OS (p=0.58) (Figure 2). Sensitivity analysis excluding patients with weight loss at study entry resulted in similar findings. Conclusion BMI was not significantly associated with clinical outcomes among patients with DLBCL, HL or FL, in three prospective phase III clinical trials. The findings contradict some previous reports of similar investigations. Further work is required to understand the observed discrepancies. Disclosures: Horning: Genentech: Employment.

Abstract Abstract 94 Background: Lymphoma diagnosed during pregnancy is a rare occurrence. Further, there is heterogeneity in clinical presentation and a range of lymphoma histologies resulting in a continued deficiency of lymphoma-specific data in the literature regarding prognosis, optimal therapy, maternal complications, and fetal outcome. Methods: A comprehensive retrospective analysis was completed for patients (pts) diagnosed (dx) with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) during pregnancy at 9 large U.S. academic centers over a 13-year period (1998–2011). The vast majority of cases were co-managed with high-risk maternal fetal medicine. Data on maternal disease characteristics, treatment details, obstetric complications, and fetal outcomes were analyzed. Results: 88 cases were identified with complete data available in 82. The median age of pts was 31 yrs (18–40). Lymphoma dx occurred at a median of 24 weeks (wks) gestation (5–40). 15% of pts were dx during the 1st trimester, 46% during the 2nd trimester, 35% during the 3rd trimester, while 4% (n=3) of pts had a pre-existing NHL dx (follicular lymphoma (FL)). 52% (n=43) of pts had NHL and 48% (n=39) HL. Of NHL cases, 83% (n=33) were B-cell and 17% (n=10) T-cell. B-cell histologies were DLBCL n=23 (including 2 primary CNS and 1 'double hit' NHL), FL n=5 (including 1 leukemic phase FL), Burkitt's lymphoma n=3, and mixed histology n=1; T-cell histologies were anaplastic large cell n=6, PTCL not otherwise specified n=2, and T-cell/NK NHL n=2. Pts with B-cell NHL and HL were dx at a median age of 29 yrs (range, 18–40), while T-cell NHL pts were dx at a median of 34 years (19–37). MRI without gadolinium was the most common imaging modality utilized for staging. 63% of NHL and 19% of HL pts had stage III/IV disease (25% of HL with stage IIB). Pregnancy was terminated in 6 pts (n=4 aggressive NHL and n=2 HD) to enable immediate chemotherapy (five in the 1st trimester [at 5, 8, 10, 10, and 12 wks] and 1 pt in the early 2nd trimester who required high-dose methotrexate). 48 pts (63%) initiated anti-lymphoma therapy at a median of 25 wks gestation (range, 13–37) with 79% of pts initiating therapy in the 2nd trimester (see Table 1). The median gestation at time of lymphoma dx for pts who received intra-partum treatment was 20 wks vs 34 wks for pts who had therapy deferred to post-delivery (p<0.0001). The overall response rate among pts who received therapy was 87% (74% complete remission). Notably, gestation went to full-term in 54% with delivery occurring at a median of 37 wks (31–40). Therapy was deferred until post-delivery in 28 pts (37%) and the majority of these pregnancies were also carried to term (median delivery at 38 wks). At a median follow-up of 41 months (6–157), the 3-year PFS and OS for all pts were 79% and 89% respectively. Histology-specific 3-year PFS and OS were: B-cell NHL: 73% and 82%, respectively; T-cell NHL: 50% and 90%, respectively; and HL: 90% and 95%, respectively (Figure 1). Detailed obstetrical information was available in 59 pts. There were minimal pre-term complications, the most common being induction of labor in 45%. Perinatal events included spontaneous rupture of membranes in 5% and pre-eclampsia in 8%. Further, there were no differences in these events detected among pts who received intra-partum treatment vs deferred therapy. No episodes of chorioamnionitis or endometritis were noted. There was 1 stillbirth that occurred at 19 wks gestation in a 34-year-old pt with double-hit NHL following 1 cycle of R-CHOP. The median birth weight of infants was 2427 grams (1005–5262) with no difference among pts who received intra-partum chemotherapy vs not (2637 grams vs 2212 grams, respectively; p=NS). Microcephaly was reported in 1 case following 4 intra-partum cycles of CHOP for DLBCL; there were otherwise no malformations detected. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this represents one of the largest experiences reported of lymphoma in pregnancy. Our data show that standard NHL and HL chemotherapeutic regimens (without anti-metabolites) administered during the 2nd and 3rd trimester, including as early as 13 wks gestation in select cases, is associated with minimal maternal complications or fetal detriment. In addition, pts with low risk clinical scenarios (e.g., indolent NHL and/or late gestational dx) had therapy safely deferred to post-partum. In our experience, this approach was associated with overall expected lymphoma-related survival. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Abstract 3009FN2 Objective: To determine toxicity and efficacy of adding fludarabine (FLU) to a regimen of total body irradiation (TBI), anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) and cyclophosphamide (CY), with de-escalation of the CY dose. The goal is to minimize CY-related toxicities while preserving (or improving) engraftment and survival in patients with SAA receiving an unrelated donor marrow transplant. Patients and Methods: Since May 2006, the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN), sponsored by the NHLBI and NCI, has conducted a prospective Phase I/II clinical trial of unrelated donor marrow transplantation in SAA (BMT CTN 0301). Patients with SAA are eligible if they are < 65 years, have adequate organ function, and have an available unrelated marrow donor matched 7 of 8 HLA-A, B, C, DRB1 loci. Patients with Fanconi anemia and other marrow failure syndromes are excluded. All patients receive TBI 200 cGy, ATG (either thymoglobulin: 3 mg/kg IV or ATGAM 30 mg/kg IV daily × 3, days –4 to –2), FLU (30 mg/m2 IV daily × 4, days –5 to –2). The Phase I portion of the trial sequentially tested four CY dose levels: 150 mg/kg (administered days –4 to –2); 100 mg/kg (days –3 to –2); 50 mg/kg (day –2); and, 0 mg/kg, and allowed enrollment of up to six patients at each CY dose level unless toxicity or graft failure boundaries were crossed. In the Phase II portion of the trial, patients enroll onto the optimal CY dose level, which is chosen using adaptive Bayesian criteria to rank desirability of the CY doses. All patients are followed for two years after transplantation. Early stopping guidelines are used to monitor for graft failure and early transplant-related mortality through day 100. Results: Twenty-one patients accrued to the Phase I portion of the trial. CY dose level 0 mg/kg was closed after all three enrolled patients developed secondary graft failure. All received a second allograft. One patient remains alive at 23 months after the first transplantation. The other two died from adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) at 114 days after the first transplant and idiopathic pneumonia at 200 days after the first transplant. Review of Phase I results for the other three dose levels suggested CY dose 150 mg/kg as the optimal dose level for Phase II testing. However, after an additional eight patients were treated at this dose, the level was closed to further accrual because of excess toxicity. Seven of the 14 patients receiving 150 mg/kg of CY (and 7 of the last 8 enrolled) died. Causes of death were cardiac/pulmonary/multi-organ failure (n=4), ARDS (n=2), and parainfluenza virus type 3 pneumonia (n=1). Bayesian evaluation of the two remaining dose levels indicates very similar desirability scores and accrual continues at both the CY 100 mg/kg and 50 mg/kg levels. As of July 15, 2011, a total of 61 patients have been enrolled, 17 on the two closed levels, 33 on the 100 mg/kg level and 11 on the 50 mg/kg level. Conclusions: Early analysis of this trial, made necessary by these unexpected severe adverse events, revealed two important findings among patients receiving low-dose TBI, ATG, and FLU at the doses outlined: 1) CY dose 0 mg/kg is associated with higher than expected graft failure; and, 2) CY dose 150 mg/kg is associated with excess transplant-related toxicity. Neither CY dose level should be tested further in the context of the regimen used in this trial. To date, the two intermediate CY dose levels (100 mg/kg and 50 mg/kg) have not crossed the graft failure or fatality stopping boundaries and accrual is in progress. Disclosures: Pulsipher: Genzyme: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract The Wilms tumor protein,WT1, is a potentially targetable tumor associated antigen that is overexpressed in a majority of pediatric leukemias. T cells with cytotoxic activity restricted to WT1 peptide can be expanded from the peripheral blood of normal donors using pulsed EBV transformed BLCLs as stimulators. As part of an ongoing clinical trial, a patient with multiply relapsed leukemia cutis was successfully treated with donor derived WT1 CTLs. The patient was initially diagnosed with MLL rearranged AML at 3 months of age with marrow and cutaneous involvement. By 3.5 years of age, he had undergone two stem cell transplants (SCT) from a sex-mismatched HLA matched unrelated donor. Multiple episodes of isolated cutaneous relapse starting two months after the second SCT were treated with DLI at escalating doses (3.3 x 10e8/kg) as well as local radiotherapy with continued development of new lesions. He was started on Interferon 2b alpha five months after second SCT with good response but was taken off of it for clinical intolerance and one month later again developed cutaneous lesions for which he received DLI, radiotherapy and was restarted on low dose Interferon 2b alpha with stabilization of disease. Biopsy of one of the lesions demonstrated the presence of MLL rearranged leukemic blasts that by PCR demonstrated WT1 expression. WT1 directed CTLs were generated from his SCT donor. These WT1 CTLs were restricted by HLA-DRB1 0801. The immunodominant epitopes presented by this allele were defined (281- 292 and 425-436) using overlapping pools of pentadecapeptides. The CTLs were cytotoxic at 25:1 E:T ratio against autologous BLCLs (33%) and autologous BLCLs loaded with the WT1 peptides (65%) but not against HLA mismatched BLCLs (2%) or K562 cells (0%). The line was composed of a mix of CD8 (64%) and CD4 (30%) T cells. The patient was treated on Day 0,7, 21 and 35 with 30 x 10e6/m2 of WT1 CTLs. The first cycle of therapy was associated with resolution of one of the skin lesions and he went on to receive two additional cycles of WT1 CTLs. Expansion of circulating WT1 and EBV specific precursors in the blood was detected after these infusions. One of two residual skin lesions was biopsied and demonstrated no active leukemic infiltrate and the presence of donor derived T cells. However, at no time prior to or following the WT-1 specific T-cell infusions has he developed any cutaneous or other evidence of GvHD. Based on uncertainty about the duration of WT1 CTL maintenance in vivo the patient has received multiple cycles of T cell infusions. Strikingly, each cycle of cells has resulted in an expansion of circulating WT1 and EBV specific precursors. The patient is now 5 years old and has been in continuous remission for 20 months. Prior studies have focused almost exclusively on vaccines and T-cell therapies specific for immunogenic epitopes of WT-1 presented by prevalent class I HLA alleles. This patient provides evidence underscoring the therapeutic potential of T-cells specific for immunogenic WT-1 peptides presented by HLA class II alleles. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.